Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Farm to school programs: exploring the role of regionally-based food distributors in alternative agrifood networks

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Farm to school programs are at the vanguard of efforts to create an alternative agrifood system in the United States. Regionally-based, mid-tier food distributors may play an important role in harnessing the potential of farm to school programs to create viable market opportunities for small- and mid-size family farmers, while bringing more locally grown fresh food to school cafeterias. This paper focuses on the perspectives of food distributors. Our findings suggest that the food distributors profiled have the potential to help institutionalize farm to school programs. Notably, their relationships with farmers may be a critical element in expanding the scale and scope of local school food procurement. Their ability to catalyze local school food procurement however, is limited by the structural context in which farm to school programs operate. Specifically, the oppositional school year and agriculture production cycle, and tight food service budget constraints disembed and limit the potential of farm to school programs to decrease the “marketness” of school food procurement and to shift it from a process based largely on price to one that is more territorially embedded. As farm to school programs continue to gain support, regionally-based food distributors that have the meaningful relationships necessary to re-embed the school food service market back into the larger society may be critical to enabling advocates to achieve their goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hereafter, the agriculture and food system is referred to as “agrifood system.”

  2. The National Farm to School Network is a collaborative effort between the Center for Food and Justice and the Community Food Security Coalition that provides technical assistance and resources to farm to school programs across the country. The Network provides technical assistance, policy advocacy, media and marketing services, networking opportunities and informational resources to farm to school programs. It was launched in 2007 with the purpose of institutionalizing farm to school programs as sustainable models for “improving the economic viability of family-scale farmers and supporting child nutrition efforts” (National Farm to School Network, n.d.).

  3. The Community Alliance with Family Farmers is a nonprofit organization based in California that promotes family-scale agriculture and local food distribution (Growers Collaborative, n.d.).

  4. One serving bread/grain is equal to 1 slice of bread; 1 serving fruit/vegetable is equal to ¾ cup of fruit/vegetable, 1 serving of milk is equal to 8 ounces of fluid milk, 1 serving meat/meat alternative is equal to 2 ounces of meat, poultry or fish (USDA Food and Nutrition Service, n.d.).

  5. Gordon Food Service is the largest family-owned food distributor in North America with more than 45,000 customers throughout Canada and the United States (Gordon Food Service, n.d.).

Abbreviations

AAFNs:

Alternative agrifood networks

CAFF:

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

DoD-Fresh:

US Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

NSLP:

US National School Lunch Program

SYSCO:

Systems and Services Company

USDA:

United States Department of Agriculture

References

  • Allen, P., and J. Guthman. 2006. From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azuma, A.M., and A. Fisher. 2001. Healthy farms, healthy kids: Evaluating the barriers and opportunities for farm-to-school programs. Venice, CA: Community Food Security Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkenkamp, J. 2006. Minnesota-grown fruits and vegetables in K-12 schools: A feasibility study of the opportunities and barriers to great use of locally-grown produce. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, F. 1990. Postindustrial possibilities: A critique of economic discourse. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, F. 2001. Introduction. In The great transformation: The political, economic origins of our time, ed. K. Polanyi, xviii–xxxviii. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. n.d. California Fresh Start Pilot Program. http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/cfsp.asp#what. Accessed 16 April 2008.

  • Carstensen, P. 2008. The prospects and limits of antitrust and competitive-market strategies. In Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle, ed. T.A. Lyson, G.W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, 227–252. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • General Assembly of the State of Colorado. 2006. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Pilot Program. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2006a/sl_242.htm. Accessed 9 May 2008.

  • Goodman, D. 2004. Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro-food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (1): 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon Food Service. n.d. http://www.gfs.com. Accessed 13 Feb 2009.

  • Gregoire, M.B., and C. Strohbehn. 2002. Benefits and obstacles to purchasing food from local growers and producers. The Journal of Child Nutrition and Management 26 (1): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Growers Collaborative. n.d. http://www.growerscollaborative.org. Accessed 24 Mar 2008.

  • Guthman, J. 2004. Agrarian dreams: The paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, V., J. Dibden, and C. Cocklin. 2008. Building alternative agri-food networks: Certification, embeddedness and agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 15–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 295–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery, B., and D. Maye. 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish-English borders. Environment and Planning A 37: 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Izumi, B.T. 2008. Farm to school programs in public K-12 schools in the United States: Perspectives of farmers, food service professionals, and food distributors. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Izumi, B.T., K. Alaimo, and M.W. Hamm. In press. Farm to school programs: Perspectives of school food service professionals. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior.

  • Izumi, B.T., O. Rostant, M. Moss, and M.W. Hamm. 2006. Results from the 2004 Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. Journal of School Health 76 (5): 169–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, D. 2007. Brewing justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability, and survival. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D.S. 2007. Moving boxes closer to home: The role of SYSCO Corporation in food system localization. Missoula, MO: The University of Montana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschenmann, F., G.W. Stevenson, F. Buttel, T.A. Lyson, and M. Duffy. 2008. Why worry about agriculture of the middle? In Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle, ed. T.A. Lyson, G.W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, 3–22. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan, J. 2004. Alternative strategies in the UK agro-food system: Interrogating the alterity of farmers’ markets. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (4): 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., and N. Hassanein. 2006. From old school to reform school? Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J., J. Hendrickson, and G.W. Stevenson. 1996. Coming in to the foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values 13 (3): 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewi, J., and S. Coppess. 2007. School nutrition operations report: The state of school nutrition 2007. Alexandria, VA: School Nutrition Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., and S. Saraswat. 2008. Global 500: Our annual ranking of the world’s largest corporations. Fortune Magazine. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/snapshots/2197.html. Accessed 1 July 2007.

  • Maye, D., and B. Ilbery. 2006. Regional economies of local food production: Tracing food chain links between ‘specialist’ producers and intermediaries in the Scottish-English borders. European Urban and Regional Studies 13 (4): 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K., and R. Sonnino. 2008. The school food revolution: Public food and the challenge of sustainable development. London, UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C., and H. Buller. 2003. The local food sector: A preliminary assessment of its form and impact in Gloucestershire. British Food Journal 105 (8): 559–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, J., T. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2000. Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76 (2): 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Farm to School Network. n.d. http://www.farmtoschool.org. Accessed 17 Sept 2007.

  • North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2008. Farm to School Program. http://www.ncagr.com/fooddist/Farm-to-School.html. Accessed 29 Jan 2008.

  • O’Connor, J. R. [1973] 2002. The fiscal crisis of the state. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

  • Ohmart, J., and K. Markley. 2007. Product source integrity for farm to cafeteria projects. Farms to Cafeterias to Capitol Hill: Growing Healthy Kids, Farms, and Communities Conference, Baltimore, MD.

  • Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirog, R., T. Van Pelt, K. Enshayan, and E. Cook. 2001. Food, fuel, and freeways: An Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. [1944] 2001. The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time . Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

  • Sage, C. 2003. Social embeddedness and relations of regard: Alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • School Nutrition Association. n.d. http://www.schoolnutrition.org. Accessed 6 Jan 2009.

  • Schnieders, R. 2003. SYSCO Corporation: Distributing food throughout North America. Shareowner 17 (1): 32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnieders, R.J., and K.F. Spitler. 2007. SYSCO Corporation annual report. Houston, TX: SYSCO Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, P., L. Lytle, T. Pellegrino, M. Anderson, and J. Selk. 1995. Commentary on school meals from school food service personnel and researchers. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 61 (1): 246S.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnino, R. 2007. Embeddedness in action: Saffron and the making of the local in southern Tuscany. Agriculture and Human Values 24 (1): 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnino, R., and T. Marsden. 2006. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relations between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, G.W., and R. Pirog. 2008. Values-based supply chains: Strategies for agrifood enterprises-of-the-middle. In Food and the mid-level farm: Renewing an agriculture of the middle, ed. T.A. Lyson, G.W. Stevenson, and R. Welsh, 119–143. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Story, M., K.M. Kaphingst, and S. French. 2006. The role of schools in obesity prevention. The Future of Children 16 (1): 109–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohbehn, C., and M.B. Gregoire. 2001. Innovations in school food purchasing: Connecting to local food. The Journal of Child Nutrition and Management 25 (2): 62–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Food and Nutrition Service. 2004. Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Legislation/Historical/NSLA2008.pdf. Accessed 16 April 2008.

  • USDA Food and Nutrition Service. 2007a. Food Distribution Program: Value of donated foods from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 72 (142): 40826–40827.

  • USDA Food and Nutrition Service. 2007b. National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, national average payments/maximum reimbursement rates. Federal Register 72: 37508.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Food and Nutrition Service. 2008. National School Lunch Program Fact Sheet. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFactSheet.pdf. Accessed 13 Nov 2008.

  • USDA Food and Nutrition Service. n.d. Menu Planning in the National School Lunch Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/menu/menu.planning.NSLP.htm. Accessed 20 Mar 2009.

  • USDA Food Distribution Programs. n.d. Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/dod/DoD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2007.

  • Vallianatos, M., R. Gottlieb, and M.A. Haase. 2004. Farm-to-school: Strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D.C.H., B. Ilbery, and D. Maye. 2005. Making reconnections in agro-food geography: Alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography 29 (1): 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the C. S. Mott Group Professor of Sustainable Food Systems at Michigan State University, North Central Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. The data for this manuscript is from the dissertation of Betty T. Izumi. The authors would like to thank Gail Feenstra, Daniel Jaffee, Steve Stevenson, Harvey James, and two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable input on this manuscript and the school food service professionals, farmers, and food distributors whose time and energy made this study possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kellogg Health Scholars Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, 109 Observatory, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Betty T. Izumi

  2. Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation and Resource Studies, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, MI, 48105, USA

    D. Wynne Wright & Michael W. Hamm

Authors
  1. Betty T. Izumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Wynne Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael W. Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Betty T. Izumi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W. & Hamm, M.W. Farm to school programs: exploring the role of regionally-based food distributors in alternative agrifood networks. Agric Hum Values 27, 335–350 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9221-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9221-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation