Author: Gabrielle Lee

For my final presentation, I will talk about food hubs and distinguish between the different models of food hubs in Vermont. For a brief introduction, I added the images below.

A basic infographic on how food hubs connect producers and consumers

A map from the USDA of food hubs around the country

This summer I have been exposed to the field of food hubs in Vermont in several different ways. Such experiences include partaking in the daily activities of the Mad River Food Hub in Waitsfield, assisting the start up of a new Food Hub Manager Training Program and attending a meeting of the Vermont Regional Food Centers Collaborative. I have been introduced me to many different types of stakeholders, from traditional LLC, L3C, NGO to State agencies. I believe each type of organization has its own strengths and weaknesses, but their collaboration is what contributes the most to creating a community-based food system in Vermont. They each play a specific role and serve different purposes.

Through my internship, I have become most familiar with the L3C model that the Mad River Food Hub uses. According to the MRFH, “an L3C is a for-profit, social enterprise venture that has a stated goal of performing a socially beneficial purpose rather than maximizing income. It is a hybrid structure that combines the legal and tax flexibility of a traditional Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), the social benefits of a nonprofit organization, and the branding and market positioning advantages of a social enterprise.”

This model is advantageous for a variety of reasons:

1. The business can be run like a LLC. There is no board of directors (like in a traditional non-profit) so major decisions can be made more efficiently and timely by whoever is in charge.
2. For some, being a for-profit business helps the organization be taken seriously by others. While for-profits can sometimes have a “dirty” reputation for being more economically focused than socially or environmentally focused, they can also be more respected for having a business plan and strategy for economic development.
3. L3C’s also have a clear social mission. Despite being a for-profit, L3Cs still signal that they are mission-driven and are not intended to create a huge profit.
4. The L3C model is only available in certain states. This can be a useful marketing strategy; being an L3C is another way to show that the business is unique and will get people interested in the organization.

One of the biggest challenges for L3Cs is receiving grant funding. For-profit models do not traditionally receive grants, particularly government-awarded grants. However, this challenge can actually offer an opportunity for collaboration with others. In the case of the MRFH, the business partnered with community-based organizations to apply for grants. This allowed the food hub to access the capital it needed to launch the project, but also involved the community and created new alliances. Community support of the project has become of the MRFH’s greatest strengths.

L3Cs are a new business model that I think can be very successful in the growing local food system. As a hybrid of both non-profit and for-profit models, L3Cs can address both the social and values-driven aspect of the food system, as well as economic development.

Learn more about the MRFH here: www.madriverfoodhub.com

A question that I continually struggle with is whether or not it is possible to influence or change the way people eat. If our goal is to increase the amount of local foods people eat, we are asking people to shift their diets in a certain way. Not only does eating locally change where your food comes from, but also what you eat. For me, when I eat locally, I rarely eat meat because local meat is more expensive. This isn’t a difficult transition for me because I am happy to supplant my diet with more fresh vegetables. However, for others there is less flexibility in changing the way they eat, whether it is because of taste preferences or accessibility. Then the question becomes, should we change the way people eat and is it even possible to do so?

One of my biggest passions in life is sharing food; I love to be able to share something that is really meaningful to me with others, especially when I made it myself. I feel excited and gratified when I am able to share something I really enjoy and see others enjoying it as well. While it seems so simple to me, to cook and share food with others, I often take for granted the differences between my food preferences and other people’s. Recently I tried to prepare a vegetarian meal for my friend and he essentially refused to eat it; it wasn’t in a rude way, but he simply doesn’t eat vegetables and wouldn’t have enjoyed it. I tried not to take it personally and accept that he has a different diet than I do, but I was having a hard time letting go because I wanted to be able to share food with him (plus I think the food I make is pretty good).

When it boils down to it, everyone has a different relationship with food. Food can be emotional, or food can be a means of sustenance. It is easy for me to be very emotional about food, it is something I care deeply about and have a connection with. This is a common thread in many parts of the local foods movement, I believe this movement is largely driven by people’s passion and emotions for food; but this can also be an obstacle in trying to start a larger social movement or reach a greater audience. This food movement needs passion and excitement to lead it, but at the same time, it can come off as un-relatable and even exclusive to those who don’t have as strong of a relationship with food. For example, in discussions around local or sustainable foods, I feel that the underlying implications are often that everyone should eat and like healthy, fresh foods (ie fruits and vegetables). The thought process is something along the lines of, if you know something is good for you, you should eat it, and if you know something is bad for you, you shouldn’t eat it. Seems simple enough, but I know that I often take for granted that this idea doesn’t come naturally to all. What people eat essentially comes down to each individual’s values and preferences, but I think these are also indicative of the values or lack there of in our food culture.

So, should we change the way people think about food and what they are eating? I think the answer is both yes and no. If we look at the data on diabetes and obesity and kids, then the answer is an overwhelming yes. The facts on children’s health being negatively impacted by highly processed foods is alarming, and it is clear that something in the food system should change. But at the same time, do you have to eat fruits and vegetables in order to be considered a “good” person? Definitely not. This brings me to the idea of food sovereignty, the right for people to define their own food systems and basically control what they eat. I believe strongly that everyone has the right to make their own food choices, whether it is local healthy foods, or McDonalds.

The next question is, is it even possible to change the way people think about food? This one I’m not sure about, my hope is yes, but I feel like people don’t always go about it the right way. Things that don’t work: Trying to guilt trip people by saying things like,  “Do you know how bad that is for you?” or “Did you know that five puppies were killed so you could eat that hamburger?” (Ok obviously not as ridiculous as that, but I’m sure sometimes long winded environmental reasons for eating healthy foods can seem as obscure or ridiculous as that). If you don’t care about the food you’re eating, you’re probably not going to feel guilty about eating it either. “If you just try it, you’ll like it.” I used to think that my own passion of sharing food would influence others to care about food as well; if I could share with someone else how much I love food, maybe they would love it too. And that might work for one or two people, but I think caring about something requires a more internal force than me baking a pie and trying to force feed people. Lastly, “If fresh, healthy foods were cheaper and more accessible, more people would eat them.” This is true to an extent, but I think the absence of fresh foods in most people’s diet is more of a cultural or personal reason than financial.

I tried to reflect on my own food choices and why I care about what I eat. I usually try to carefully construct my plate with a variety of colorful vegetables, I follow the tastes I like, I prefer to eat foods that are good and healthy for me, and I like to feel responsible and conscious about what I put in my body, both health wise and for the greater food system. Basically, I genuinely care about food and how I eat it. So, how do we get people to care about food, and is it necessary for people to care about food to create widespread change in the local food system?

My biggest philosophy in eating food is everything in moderation, and I think that is one of the biggest ideas that has been lost in our modern food culture. I think bringing back the concept of moderation, rather than trying to tell people what they can or cannot eat, may be a more realistic and rational way of transitioning into a healthier food system. Eating McDonalds isn’t the end of the world, as long as you’re not eating it everyday. You don’t have to love vegetables, but try to eat them sometimes. I think engraining the idea of moderation into the way people eat can have a positive effect on people’s relationships to food and the food system. People won’t start eating local kohlrabi everyday, or suddenly start caring more about what they eat, but if we try to integrate local foods into people’s diets in moderation, then it is one step forward in increasing the amount of local foods consumed.

The most common and direct way consumers can get access to local foods is either shopping at farmer’s markets or purchasing a CSA. These two options are both expensive and exclusive which can lead to problems of access.

Farmer’s markets are a great tool for increasing the amount of local food for consumers because they are both centralized and plentiful; however, because farmer’s markets are a direct market for farmers, it allows them to set higher prices for their products. Also, because farmer’s markets tend to attract a certain demographic, typically those who are willing to pay a higher price for natural, organic foods, prices tend to be higher than they would be in a standard grocery store. At the moment, it does not seem like farmer’s markets are reaching a wider audience of consumers, particularly the middle and lower income groups, because of both affordability and exclusivity from the existing consumers.

CSAs share a similar trend of a barrier to access; while they provide local food to consumers from farmers directly, they are also only reaching a limited audience. CSAs can be expensive and they require consumers to pay upfront, which can be a limiting factor for some. In addition, CSAs attract consumers who have a certain level of flexibility in the way they eat and are competent cooks because the consumers often do not have a choice in the foods they receive. For many consumers, CSAs are not the right fit because of the commitment and price.

These two models have certainly helped provide a certain amount of local foods to consumers, but also reflect problems of access. One way for local foods to be consumed by more people and for farmers to continue receiving a fair price for their products is for farmers to expand to new markets besides these direct market channels. Other markets such as institutions, restaurants, grocery stores or natural foods stores can be different options for farmers to reach more consumers and also input more local foods into the food system. For example, putting more local foods in schools can get kids excited about local foods, many schools are taking note of the importance of local foods and educating kids on where their food comes from, so schools are making an effort to purchase more local foods. Shifting these buyers to increasing local food in their markets may lead to more access to local foods for consumers.

In the past two weeks, I have been learning about food hubs and how they can act as a facilitator in this process. Often farmers do not have access to these markets, or the infrastructure to carry it out (distribution). That is where food hubs can come in to connect the links, increasing the amount of local food for both farmers to sell, and consumers to buy.