A tool producers and distributors can use to inform the markets and scale of production they should pursue based on their stage of development.
Thank you Ellen Kahler from Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund for explaining this concept to me on my independent project 5th day!
Through our 5th days and in my work at the Agency of Agriculture, I can’t help but think of what would happen if non-profits and philanthropic organizations didn’t exist. Our food system would be much messier than it already is.
While taking time to appreciate the role these organizations play, I also can’t help but think what could happen if the philanthropic money runs out–do we go back to a screwy food system motivated solely by profit margins?
I propose that we generate ideas as to how non-profits can be composed of two arms, one that makes a profit and the other that does good.
In the long-run, these organizations need to become financial stable once food systems, food access and Farm-to-[blank] programs lose their “sexiness”. Following something like the Shelburne Farms model, non-profits should look to diversify their business to include for-profit businesses that maybe cater to the wealthier tourists and second-home owners that come to Vermont. I personally wish that we wouldn’t have to tie tourism to agriculture, but let’s face it–tourists come to Vermont because of the agrarian landscape.
That being said, farmers never receive any tourist dollars unless a tourist visits the farm or eats in a Farm-to-Table restaurant. The service industry (hotels, retailers and restaurants) reap all the benefits Vermont’s farmers work so hard to produce (not to mention that these industries don’t recognize the business farms bring them and still demand lower food prices). So why tie the service industry to our farms, our food education programs, etc. Instead of making producer co-ops, let’s make real community supported agriculture with producer-consumer relationships that are truly mutually beneficial.
We could tie together a couple of restaurants, a couple of hotels, a few schools, maybe a bakery and a few farms. All would initially invest in the farm at the beginning of the year and have access to the food it produces. If the farm produces more than it had planned for its co-op partners and markets, the additional food could be distributed in-kind or sold to create a dividend, where the farm acts like a company with a number of investors. This way food production would have decreased up-front costs, risk management and the assurance of a few, key, guaranteed markets. Such a system would allow the profits restaurants and hotels make on tourists to be invested in the farmers that bring them their customers and sustain the system.
I wanted to take the time to address both Chuck’s and Philip’s prompts, because as with all systems, everything is related.
In working with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture I have come to recognize the role consumer education plays in aiding how the consumer understands the health benefits and costs associated with locally produced food products. Many food hubs and Farm-to-School programs seek to educate younger consumers, hoping to change habits young and in an environment where the education may carry over into the household. Such education is essential to teaching students and the public the health, environmental and social benefits of leafy greens, squash, carrots and humanely raised meats. These benefits include increased vitamin and mineral consumption, increased fiber intake, reduced antibiotic and hormone consumption, however it also includes reduced run-off waste, reduced worker endangerment, and a higher quality of living for animals. Though, more frequently overlooked are the economic benefits garnered by the local farmers who are able to sell in these newly expanded local markets.
Through consumer education, the public is able to learn why a product costs so much, be it more labor for spinach cultivated on a smaller farm without mechanical harvesting or more expensive feed for organically raised livestock. Consumers expect low prices because they have been taught by food companies, through marketing, that food should be cheap. We are only two to three generations removed from smaller scale agriculture, when food prices were higher and we spent a greater portion of our income on food. Through reeducation efforts, the consumer can again learn to appreciate the cost of good food.
Assuming the consumer accepts this price difference, the farmers cultivating these crops can begin to make more money. Small-scale farmers and farm workers, particularly migrant workers, are among the most overworked and under-paid individuals in the state. By increasing their incomes through increased farm profits we can begin to tackle the problem of food access. Raising the incomes of local producers and farm workers will allow them to purchase the healthy food they produce, at least in some degree.
Granted this idea assumes the consumer is willing to pay for a more expensive product, that farmers will choose to increase worker wages with increased income, and farm workers with increased wages will purchase healthy food, but it is important to have an idea of where we would like to shift our food system, and this is one possibility.
During Sunday’s meeting, we discussed how bringing fresh fruits and vegetables to an impoverished area, like Detroit, isn’t necessarily enough to get the area’s residents to eat these foods. Fellow blog posters have highlighted that this might be the result of access. Local and organic foods are often grown on a smaller-scale and require more labor inputs, resulting in higher costs. Logically, a number of impoverished populations don’t have the financial resources to purchase more expensive food, even if it is available in their area.
However, in working with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and the various stakeholders of the Farm-to-School and Farm-to-Institution initiatives I realized that in addition to access, education plays a motivating role in establishing the relationships that connect the farm gate to the dinner (or school) plate. The Farm-to-School initiatives across the state work to bring more healthful, local produce and foods into the cafeterias, while also educating the students on what types of vegetables exist and how they are grown, often through lesson plans and the creation of a class garden. This education component is critical to helping kids get excited about eating fruits and vegetables. This excitement will hopefully hold through the lifetime of the child and continue to motivate them to purchase healthier foods instead of more readily accessible processed foods.
In my mind, I see the intersection of access and education in farmer’s markets, food stamps and community kitchens. Increasing the number and quality of farmer’s markets ensures a community’s access to fresh, locally produced food. At farmer’s markets there is an increasing accessibility to healthful foods. Individuals with more substantial incomes can afford the higher sale prices associated with this type of food, but now those who are issued food stamps have a new way to purchase food at farmer’s markets at no additional cost to themselves. Using a government issued debit-like card, card holders can purchase wooden tokens from an ATM-like machine at markets, which can be used to purchase food from market vendors. Debit card holders can similarly use the machines to purchase wooden tokens if a conventional ATM is not available. These machines allow for increased access, but require that card holders be educated that they can use their food stamps at farmer’s markets and what health benefits this can confer. Similarly, community kitchens provide access to healthier and increasingly local foods through the donations of gleaned crops or donated produce. The community kitchen model is quickly replacing food shelter one, as community kitchens seek to educate lower-income families on how and what to eat rather than just providing them with non-perishable foods.
Like the Chinese proverb says “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. Establishing local and regional food access for all does require making the food available locally. However these efforts would go largely underutilized should those located near the new food systems go uneducated about the benefits of consuming such food and the ways in which they can procure it.