Sustainable Food Procurement

at

the Macalester EcoHouse

A Real Food Calculation of Household Food Purchasing

By Marian Michaels and Karen Weldon

18 December 2012 Professor Suzanne Savannick Hansen

Macalester College

2

Introduction

“We understand that living a daily sustainable lifestyle in the EcoHouse next year

will be a challenge, but we commit to maintaining our positive energy towards

this vision of holistic living that is ultimately larger than ourselves.”

-EcoHouse Group Application

Last semester, the night before EcoHouse applications were due, the two of us and our

two housemates envisioned how we would live with one another the following semester. Our

primary focus for sustainability projects, we decided, would be our food choices. “We will eat a

primary source, vegetarian diet...we will shop exclusively at farmers’ market and food co-

ops...we will have four communal meals a week,” we wrote. From the outset we understood that

our food choices, while deeply personal, also had social and environmental consequences. But

what consequences, exactly? What types of businesses made up the food system that we were

supporting? As college students with limited time and budget, how feasible would it be to opt-

out of the globalized, environmentally destructive, and socially oppressive system of food that

makes up most of what Americans eat? To make better sense of these queries, we decided to

analyze what we were putting in our bodies and figure out exactly how our food was part of an

alternative to the conventional food system.

To answer this question, we analyzed our food purchases. We categorized our food

according to a set of standards developed by the Real Food Challenge. Begun in 2007, the Real

Food Challenge is both an organization and a network of college students that advocates for just

and sustainable food on college campuses. The basis of the program rests on a tool known as the

“Real Food Calculator,” which breaks down food purchasing according to standards regarding

the sustainability of growing practices, the humane of animal treatment, fair labor practices, and

the community-based nature of the business. Over a two month period, we use this calculator to

analyze our food choices. We also talked with co-op managers and farmers, examined company

websites, and called businesses.

Our Food Choices and Eating Habits

Moving into the EcoHouse this past August, we realized that many factors would play

into the food choices we made. To begin with, we had different dietary needs and exercise habits.

Two of us had several food allergies that limited meals and often shaped food purchasing. One

resident is allergic to gluten, most dairy, sesame, almonds, cashews, and coconut, while another

is allergic to eggs and broccoli. Additionally, exercise patterns varied highly: our housemates run,

bike, and lift intensively several times throughout the week. The other two of us are less active—

Marian began playing hockey in October and Karen is a casual runner and lifter.

The meals we ate varied in location and format. Like we had agreed the previous spring,

we committed to eating four home-cooked, sit-down dinners together each week. For other meals,

however, each of us had different eating patterns. We typically ate breakfasts, lunches, and

snacks on our own or informally ate with one another. Additionally, the two of us ate an average

of 1-3 meals per week outside of the house, while our housemates had meal plans at the

Macalester cafeteria and ate around 4-6 meals outside of the house. We usually invited two to

five guests over for dinner each week and occasionally had special dinners or events for larger

size groups. Based on our personal food choices during non-communal meals, we soon realized

we had different understandings of food and sustenance. For the two of us, food entailed eating

3

fruit and granola or cooking meals, while much of our

housemates’ food took the form of smoothies made from whole

foods and supplements.

Our shopping habits varied some from the commitments

that we had made before moving into the house. We did buy the

majority of our foods at the neighborhood food cooperative,

Mississippi Market, as well as at various farmers’ markets. We

shopped mostly at the St. Paul Farmers’ Market in downtown St.

Paul but also did some of our shopping at the Hmongtown

Market and the Frogtown Market, both of which have less

stringent requirements regarding the types of food that can be

sold. However, in addition to shopping at these more

community-based businesses, we also shopped at Whole Foods,

because, at three-minutes away by bike, it is the most convenient

place to shop. The last place we shopped was at Sun Foods, an

international grocery that sells produce and ethnic foods for low

prices; we bought specialty items there, such as coconut milk

and fresh tofu.

With some exceptions, we made our food purchases with

a whole foods diet in mind and focused on decreasing animal

products and increasing local foods. Aside from an occasional

splurge on chocolate or breakfast cereal, we rarely bought pre-

made foods, relying instead on whole foods and supplements.

We committed to vegetarianism in the home, avoiding all

poultry, meat and seafood products due the high energy costs of

producing meat, the inhumane conditions in which typical

animals are raised, and the often hazardous conditions for

workers. Additionally, during the last couple weeks of our

project, we decided to reduce consumption of dairy products

because they constituted a more energy intensive source of

calories and conventionally were produced in unjust and

inhumane conditions. To increase availability of local foods and

save on food costs in the winter, we also purchased extra

produce from farmers’ markets. We spent a couple hours each

week processing leafy greens, tomatoes, green onions, corn, and

apples to store in the EcoHouse chest freezer.

Methods

We recorded all the food that entered the house for eight

weeks, between September 22 and November 16. Every two

weeks we totaled and divided our purchases according the

categories like “dairy,” “beverage,” and “produce” (See

“Evaluation Categories,” below). Additionally, we made notes

about the origins, certifications and claims of the food’s

producers. Throughout, we asked a standard set of questions

regarding the origin of ingredients, labor and environmental

Preserving the Fall Harvest Week 2: Sept. 29-Oct. 5

This past week, because

fresh produce season is coming to an end, the house committed to buying five extra bunches of greens for the next few weeks to freeze for the winter. We also decided to preserve corn, tomato sauce, and green onions when we got a chance. When we arrived at the farmers’ market, we found out our decisions were a bit late. That weekend was the last for buying corn, and possibly other foods as well since the first frost had come. We did our best to buy as much extra as we could, being wary to buy more than we had time to preserve during the week.

Marian and I have been slowly working our way through roasting and stewing tomatoes, husking, boiling, and chopping corn, and washing and cutting green onions to freeze. Our housemate Nick pitched in by freezing a huge bunch of mustard greens. Unfortunately he didn’t realize the importance of freezing in small batches for ease of defrosting and ended up sticking one huge Tupperware full of greens in the freezer. We still have another four bunches or so of kale left to take care of; it’s really hard to find time amongst all the other commitments we have. Right now, I’m reaping the odors of our hard work, smelling the corn cobs boiling into broth on the stove.

-Karen

4

certifications and practices, and when applicable,

treatment of animals. We used this information to

determine whether or not the food products fit into the

standards for “Real Food:” fair labor methods,

ecologically sound growing practices, humane treatment

of animals, and community-based nature of businesses.

Once we had categorized two week’s worth of food, we

inputted the data into the Real Food Calculator, which

automatically calculated the percent of purchases that

were Real (See “Evaluation Categories”).

We spent the first six weeks buying food as we

had normally would; we were not trying to consciously

change our habits as a result of our findings. For the last

two weeks we altered our purchasing choices, taking up

what we dubbed the “Real Food Challenge.” We

attempted go “100 percent Real” by purchasing only

foods that could be categorized as “Real Food” to

examine challenges of these actions.

Evaluation Categories

As described above, the Real Food Challenge

separates food into four groups that count as Real: Local

and Community-Based, Fair, Ecologically Sound, and

Humane. There are several types of certifications that a

food can have to count as Real for each of these groups.

For example, Ecologically Sound food can be Organic,

Rainforest Alliance, or Biodynamic certified; Fair food

can be certified by Ecocert, IMO, or Fair Trade USA.

Local and Community-Based food must be produced

within 150 miles of where it was purchased; the

producer must have full autonomy regarding business

decisions; and it must control less than 1 percent or the

market or industry. For a full list of qualifications and

accepted certifications, please see Appendix II. The Real

Food Challenge also notes certifications that they

consider a “lesser representation of the standard”–ones

that are less stringent. For instance, a food containing a

certified fair trade ingredient, opposed to be made of all

fair trade ingredients, would count as a lesser

representation of the Fair standard.

Starting the Chest Freezer Week 3: Oct. 6- 12

The weekend started out

well. I got a rack on my bike on Friday so on Saturday we went crazy buying produce, filling up two saddle bags and a big crate on the back of the bike. The results were impressive—I had carted over 30 pounds of vegetables!

Over the next couple days, Marian and I attacked the food preservation. Marian froze a huge bunch of whole tomatoes and together we preserved several containers worth of greens.

We also started up our chest freezer. Filling the bottom with milk cartons of water to prevent energy –ice keeps cold better than air—I realized that we’d definitely underestimated the freezer’s size. It was only half full of cartons, so we called on the EcoHouse advisor. With lots of milk drinking kids, he’d been happy to give us a trash bag full before.

-Karen

To keep waste and cost low, we froze our vegetables in yogurt containers instead of plastic bags or glass jars.

5

The Real Food Challenge also divides Real Food into

two types: Real Food A and Real Food B. Real Food A

products fit into any two of the Real Food standards, while B

products only fit in one. Differentiating levels of Real Food

helps acknowledge the positive contributions that some

farmers and businesses are performing in more than one area.

On the other hand, some foods and certifications do not and

cannot count as Real Food. This includes foods that are

“natural” but not organic, known or likely to contain

genetically modified ingredients, trans-fats, certain

preservatives or dyes, and animal products that were produced

using concentrated animal feeding operations or battery cages.

Finally, a producer (and thus all the food it makes) can be

disqualified if it has committed labor violations. These non-

Real Foods we called “Conventional.”

In addition, the Real Food Challenge separates food

into ten “categories:” Baked Goods, Meat, Poultry,

Seafood/Fish, Dairy, Eggs, Coffee/Tea, Other Beverages,

Produce, and Grocery/Staple. Within these categories foods

can be classified according to the four Real standards, which

helped in our analysis. The intent of these categories was to

make it easier to determine which types of food we tended to

buy Real and which areas we could improve upon.

While shopping at Mississippi Market, we discovered

that the store had its own set of standards for its labels. After a

little bit of probing, we discovered that the “local” signs the

store puts up on certain food items have a very different

meaning than the “Local and Community-Based” standards of

the Real Food Challenge. At Mississippi Market, local food

items are produced by a business that is based in Minnesota or

any of the five states that border it. The ingredients for the

foods could be purchased by those companies from other areas.

In addition, the store didn’t seem to have any specific criteria

for what types or sizes of businesses are allowed, like the Real

Food Challenge’s specifications of full autonomy and control

of less than 1 percent of the industry.

The various farmers’ markets we shopped at had their own standards as well. In order to

qualify for the St. Paul Farmers’ Market, a farmer must own or rent their land; they must plant,

maintain, harvest, and sell all their food products themselves; and they must pay all non-family

employees. We couldn’t find any information online regarding size of farms or distance from St.

Paul, except for anecdotal evidence that all produce must be from within 50 miles of the Twin

Cities. A different website, however, claims that this is an outdated qualification. We sent two

emails to the St. Paul Farmers’ Market but never got a reply. On the other hand, neither the

Frogtown Farmers’ Market nor the Hmongtown Market are governed by these regulations, and

some vendors there sell wholesale produce from thousands of miles away. For this reason, we

An Atypical Diet Week 5: Oct. 20-26

As I’ve been plugging values

into the Real Food Calculator, I

began to realize that it wasn’t

adequately breaking down our

data. For a household that

doesn’t purchase any meat,

having three categories dedicated

to the type of food—poultry,

meat, and seafood/fish—isn’t at

all useful. Moreover, our list of

Grocery/Staples is ridiculously

long and broad; it would be

wonderful if we could get the

calculator to divide the

Grocery/Staples category into the

categories we use on our own

excel spreadsheets which help

make sense of the data better eg.

proteins, grains, and supplements

(see Critique of the Real Food

Calculator ).

-Karen

6

asked farmers the location of their farm when we made a purchase. Through these questions, we

discovered that all of our produce did, in fact, come from within 50 miles of St. Paul.

Results

For the first two weeks of our study, we bought 52.79 percent Real Food; of that number,

44.65 percent was Real Food B, while 8.14 percent was Real Food A (Figure 1). The Real Food

A included eggs, which were Local and Ecologically Sound, and teas, which were Fair and

Ecologically Sound. Almost all produce was Real Food B, and the Grocery/Staple category was

split evenly between Real Food B and Conventional Food. When we looked deeper into the

Grocery/Staple category, we found that grains and proteins tended to be Real, while oils,

condiments, processed snack foods and supplements were Conventional.

For the second data set, we bought 70.7 percent Real Food, 51.94 percent of which was

Real Food B and 18.76 percent which was Real Food A (Figure 2). This time, the Real Food A

category increased because we bought grocery/staple items that were expensive and intended to

last awhile, such as coconut oil and sugar; we also bought Fair and Organic chocolate as a treat,

and some Real Food A produce (bananas). Our percentages of Ecologically Sound and Fair food

also increased because of these four purchases. In addition, we began to buy Real Dairy,

including Humane Certified yogurt, Ecologically Sound milk, and Local cheese.

Figure 1. Overall percent of Real Food (left) and percentages of Real Food by category (right) for data set 1: weeks 1-2. At 52.79 percent Real Food, most our Real Food came from Produce, Eggs, Coffee/Tea and grains and proteins in the Grocery/Staple category.

Figure 2. Overall percent of Real Food (left) and percentages of Real Food by category (right) for data set 2: weeks 3-4. At 70.7 percent Real, during this period we increased Real Food A purchases of through speciality items, and overall Real Food through Real Dairy.

7

For the third data set, our overall Real Food percentage remained steady, decreasing by

less than 2 percent to 68.75 percent (Figure 3). Of this, 13.85 percent was Real Food A, less than

the second data set but more than the first–our coconut oil lasted more than a week, so we didn’t

buy more. We did, however, buy bananas, chocolate and sugar, which kept the amount of Real

Food A higher than the first data set. We noticed an increase over the previous data set in Real

Food B, with a total of 55.72 percent. During these weeks we bought some Real Food B

processed foods and supplements (cereal, macaroni and cheese, energy bar) and we continued to

buy some Real Dairy. During these weeks, we went to the Hmongtown Market to shop for our

produce, and ended up buying some Conventional Produce there (lemon, galangal).

At the end of our study, we calculated the amount of Real Food we bought for the first 6

weeks. We wanted to compare our “Real Food Challenge” weeks (7 and 8) to the entirety of our

non-Real Food Challenge weeks. Overall, we spent the 51.5 percent of our budget on

Grocery/Staples, 28.8 percent on Produce, 12.3 percent on Dairy, and the remainder 7.4 percent

on drinks and eggs (Figure 4). Of that, we purchased 64.35 percent Real Food: 51.14 percent

Real Food B and 13.21 percent Real Food A. The Real Food A consisted entirely of Dairy,

Coffee/Tea, Produce (bananas only), and Grocery/Staple. During this time, over half of the Dairy

and all of the Beverages (excluding Tea/Coffee and Dairy) we bought were Conventional. The

category with the most Real Food was by far Produce: over the first 6 weeks, 96.42 percent of

our fruits and vegetables were Real Food A or Real Food B.

Figure 3. Overall percent of Real Food (left) and percentages of Real Food by category (right) for data set 3: weeks 4-5. Total Real Food stayed constant while Real Food A increased and Real Food B decreased.

Figure 4. Average distribution of purchase by category from weeks 1-6. Approximately fifty percent of our budget was spent on the Grocery/Staple category, and we spent approximately 30 percent of our budget on Produce, our second largest category

8

In the final two weeks of our study, we succeeded in raising our total Real Food to 99

Grocery/Staple items, as well as almost all of our produce. The 1 percent of Conventional food

we bought was a bunch of bananas from an unknown brand; we could not find any information

on the country of origin, the producer’s practices or any certifications, so we counted them as

Conventional food. There was a significant decrease in Real Food A, from almost 14 percent to

just 7 percent. The reason for the decrease, we discovered, was that we did not buy coconut oil,

tea, or sugar–typically Real Food A purchases for us–that week. The 14 percent we did spend on

Real Food A consisted of chocolate, eggs, bananas and some spices.

Discussion

Analysis of Results

During our study, the amount of Real food we purchased increased significantly. For

weeks 1-6 we did not make an intentional effort to do this; however, we were sometimes

conscious as a house of the Real status of our food because of our early commitment to

sustainable living. The two of us were also conscious because of this study. For weeks 7-8 we

did attempt to buy more Real food, and the results reflect this.

In addition, we discovered many smaller details and general trends we discovered from our

results. For example, we tended to buy some foods Real, while others remained Conventional

until we actively decided to change our habits during the last two weeks. The exception to this

was Dairy, a category in which we increasingly bought more Real items throughout the whole

study. These Conventional foods included oils, nuts, nut butters, and dried fruit. In short, they

Figure 5. Overall percent of Real Food (left) and percentages of Real Food by category (right) for data set 4: average Real Food purchased (weeks 1-6).

Figure 6. Overall percent of Real Food (left) and percentages of Real Food by category (right) for data set 4: the “Real Food Challenge” (weeks 7-8).

9

were foods that were the most expensive foods to buy Real. We also discovered that we could

only buy Real Food A, the higher representation of the standard, from traditional stores, rather

than from farmers’ markets (see Critique of the Real Food Calculator). There were also some

variations from week to week because some food items, such as oils, supplements and spices, we

did not buy on a weekly basis: they were intended to last longer than one week, but in our data

the higher prices can significantly skew results towards those particular food items.

Sustainability on a Budget

Our study illustrates that eating sustainably on a budget is possible. For one month, we

fed four people on a little under $600. Compared to the USDA monthly averages of food

spending for a young adult household of four, we spent about $150 less each month then their

“Thrifty” budget of $750.20, and about $600 less than the “Moderate Budget” of $1192.40.1

Looking at the Thrifty budget, we thus spent 25 percent less than the estimates, enough to feed

one more person in our house. Moreover, the amount we paid for purchasing all Real Foods

(weeks 7-8) did not substantially increase over our previous weeks of buying 50-70 percent Real

Food. We actually spent a few dollars less than our lowest two week data set, spending $268.78

opposed to the $275 we spent during weeks 5-6.

However, because we did not eat all our meals at home, our results may be slightly

skewed. The number of meals included in the USDA study was unclear, but we assume that it

includes 3 meals a day, every day. Eating meals outside of the house may have decreased our

food costs (the cost of meal plans or dining out was never included in this study); however, some

of our other behaviors may likely minimized these differences. For instance, we bought and froze

extra produce for the winter; we estimate that each week we spent $4-15 on food for freezing.

We invited 2-5 guests to meals each week as well. Because these factors, we still likely spend

less than the “Thrifty” USDA budget.

We also learned, however, that what we saved in money we paid for in time. Soaking

beans, washing and chopping vegetables, boiling broth and baking granola, and washing dishes

each take a substantial amount of time. Thus, we discovered that we couldn’t eat sustainably at a

low cost with investing our time instead.

Where Our Food Dollars Go

Throughout our study, we researched some of the brands we bought in order to better

understand what businesses we were supporting. Here we have included information on some of

the brands we bought most regularly.

We bought most of our spices from Frontier Natural Products Co-op, which offers

organic and fair trade options. The company is very transparent in regards to their certifications

and standards; we found that some companies have company-wide “ethical trade” policies which

are unregulated, uncertified, and difficult to understand. The Frontier website is easy to navigate

and contains helpful information about their products and other information, including donations

towards research, education, and training about organic cultivation methods.

1See the USDA food plans at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/FoodPlans/2012/CostofFoodOct2012.pdf

10

We bought our dairy from several different companies,

including Shroeder, Hastings Co-operative Creamery, Old Home,

365 (Whole Foods), Organic Valley, Brown Cow, and Seven

Stars Farm. Shroeder is a subsidiary of Agropur; we could not

contact a representative from Shroeder by phone or find an

informative website for the brand. Hastings Co-operative

Creamery is an independent, cooperatively owned business, but

does not count for any Real category. Old Home Yogurt is

considered local by Mississippi Market standards but not by Real

Food standards, because they cannot verify that all their milk

comes from within 150 miles of St. Paul. Organic Valley and the

Whole Foods both have Ecologically Sound options. Brown

Cow, a subsidiary of Dannon, sells yogurt that is Certified

Humane; Seven Stars Farm is certified Biodynamic, which

counts for both the Real Food Challenge standards of Humane

and Ecologically Sound. (It is, however, rather expensive for a

college budget.)

We bought our eggs from Schultz Farm, located in

Minnesota within the 150-mile radius necessary for the Real

Food Challenge. Their eggs are Certified Organic, and while

they have no humane certification, they have been given the

highest rating by the Cornucopia Institute for animal conditions

and ownership structure (independent family farm). We

appreciated Schultz’s transparency as well: the Cornucopia

Institute website has very detailed information on its organic

certification, outdoor space options, type of exits to the outdoors,

natural lighting, feed grains, and more.

We bought some of our grains from Whole Grain Milling

Company. Based in Minnesota, this company fulfills the

Mississippi Market standards for local. A phone call revealed,

however, that while most of their grains come from the Midwest

region, bad yields have required them to import some items,

including the sunflower seeds we had been buying.

Most of our rice came from Lundberg Family Farms,

which is based in California and grows most of its rice there.

Their wild rice comes from Minnesota, and their website has a

comprehensive list of food items not produced in California or

Minnesota. We appreciated this transparency. Their website also has a large amount of

information on their agricultural practices, such as the planting of cover crops for nitrogen

fixation, the exact specifications of their organic certification, and a chart showing the

differences between organic and their Eco-Farmed technique, which is less stringent than organic

but prohibits the worst practices of conventional rice farming. Lundberg Family Farms is part of

the Non-GMO project and uses some solar energy to power their operation.

One item we bought frequently during our study was peanut butter. As college students,

peanut butter is a fairly cheap, no-prep snack that we appreciated very much. Parker’s peanut

Talking to Businesses Week 5: Oct. 20-26

Doing a bit of investigative work on the Mississippi Market “local” foods, I learned an array of surprising facts and tidbits. Our peanut butter comes from Virginian or Texan peanuts, and the “local” company that produces them also makes things like cheese balls for national markets—doesn’t sound quite like a nice family business does it? I also got into quite a debate with a grouchy woman from Whole Grain Milling, about devolving information regarding the sourcing of their products and the labor standards they have. When she finally realized I wasn’t going to steal her suppliers, and bothered to look through her notes she discovered that the split peas came from Minnesota, but our sunflower seeds were from California because year there had been a poor crop in the area. Asking if they had any standards for labor, she was quite indignant. “My husband would never mistreat our workers!” she barked.

-Karen

11

butter, like Old Home Yogurt and the Whole Grain Milling Company, is local according to

Mississippi Market standards. However, like these two brands, the ingredients are not sourced

locally and the company does not have any certifications regarding labor or growing practices.

Because we spend so much money on it, we plan to consider buying it Real next semester.

Inequalities in the Food System

Our study also illustrates some of the trends of the food system at large. Simply by the

choice of shopping venues we began to see the social stratification of our food choices. Located

in a less wealthy part of St. Paul the Hmongtown Market and the Frogtown Market were the two

farmers’ markets that had less stringent qualifications regarding food sourcing, with some of the

products being resale from whole markets. However, it was also at these two markets that we

saw most people of color shopping and manning the stalls. Both markets were predominantly

Hmong, with the four of us being a few of the only non-Asians shopping at the Markets. On the

other hand, the St. Paul Market, located in downtown in the business district, had stronger

qualifications regarding the community-based nature of the business and attracted a

predominantly white population. Similarly, Mississippi Market is wealthier neighborhood with

most of its shopper being white.

Again, at the level of food products, we noticed socioeconomic issues wrapped up in our

purchasing. Only a few standards fit the qualifications for being Real Food A. These products

tended to be specialty products like tea, chocolate, and the most expensive dairy products–all

foods that are quite costly. This illustrated the limited access some people may have to Real

Food, with only those who can afford to splurge have access to these higher standard.

Critique of the Real Food Calculator

While conducting our analysis, we realized that the Real Food Calculator has several

shortfalls, beginning simply with its name. By defining Real Food as Ecologically Sound,

Humane, Fair, and Community-Based, the Real Food Calculator suggests that other food must

not be real; in other words, it is fake food. This naming can be seen as offensive to those who

don’t eat Real Food, because of this negative way it portrays conventional foods.

More specifically, the Real Food Calculator’s categories were not always effective for

analyzing our data. The calculator is based upon analyzing a traditional, meat-based American

diet heavy on animal byproducts–a diet that we did not follow. While these categories make

sense for campus cafeterias, this focus made it more difficult for us to analyze our data. For out

of the nine different categories, we never used three of them–meat, poultry, and seafood.

Additionally we rarely used several other categories–Other Beverages, Baked Goods, and

Tea/Coffee. Rather, the bulk of our purchases fell into the undifferentiated category of

Grocery/Staple. Thus, to better understand our purchases, we broke this category into five

separate categories: grains; proteins; oils, spices and condiments; processed/snack food; and

supplements (Figure 7).

12

Additionally, the Calculator’s standards occasionally worked against the ideals we were

striving for, specifically in regards to support small producers and distributors that give back to

their communities. For instance, according to the farmers we bought produce from at the farmers’

market, several didn’t use chemical pesticides or fertilizers, thus were producing their food

organically. However, these farmers didn’t have a certification–the requirement for food to be

considered ecologically sound according to the Real Food Challenge’s standards. Because

certification can be costly and require extra time for an already busy small farmer, certification

can be prohibitive for the small farmer. At the level of the school, in which farms must be of

larger size, requiring a certification makes sense, but in this case requiring a certification

ultimately fails to acknowledge the positive contribution these small farmers are making through

their farming practices.

Moreover, the Real Food Calculator does not have any mechanisms to acknowledge

distributors that are socially or environmentally responsible. We considered shopping at farmers’

markets and the cooperative Mississippi Market as socially responsible choices. By shopping at

farmers’ markets, all the money we spent went directly toward the farmers instead of getting

funneled to middlemen. As a member-owned cooperative, Mississippi Market is a

democratically run business in which employees as well as consumers have a voice in how the

business is run. Moreover, they have a strong policy of sourcing many local foods, donating to

local organizations, hosting classes and tours, and providing living wages for full time

employees. For instance, according to their 2012 annual report2 they hosted 56 classes along with

46 speakers on healthy eating and bought over 45 percent of their purchases from local

businesses and farmers[1]. Whole Foods is not a community-based business and does not source

much food, in comparison to Mississippi Market, from local farmers. Nonetheless, they do make

a point to source their food organically using their size to create their own brand of food, 365,

which is often organic, and have created a Whole Trade certification, which promotes both

ecological stewardship as well as better wages and working conditions for food producers. In

comparison, for vendors like Sun Foods, we were unable to find any information about their

practices. Having some mechanism for acknowledging the positive contributions of the latter

business would add to the effectiveness of the calculator.

2 http://msmarket.coop/files/2012-Annual-Report-ver2.pdf

Figure 7. Real Food Challenge categories and our additional categories. Because our diet was atypical, we found that the Real Food categories did not adequately break down our food purchases.

13

Recommendations for Future Research

Looking forward, we see several ways in which

future research could build upon and enhances this

project. To obtain a complete understanding of the cost of

purchasing foods sustainably, a similar study should be

performed during the winter. Crucial to the viability of

keeping budgets low has been our ability to buy fresh

produce from area farmers’ markets, an opportunity only

available during the fall and summer months. Thus

extending the study to the winter is crucial.

Increasing the number of weeks in which a

household ate completely Real food is another avenue of

improving the study. Our “Real Food Challenge” was

only two weeks long, while we spent six weeks collecting

data on our normal food practices. Increasing the number

of weeks of completely Real Food would help to alleviate

the effects of any infrequent or anomaly purchasing

choices.

Analyzing food based on a different metric would

be another way of improving our study. Since not all the

food that we ate had a monetary value, calculating the

amount of food through weight, or perhaps calorie, could

illuminate other trends and provide a more complete

study of the amount of Real Food eaten.

Lastly, the dietary restrictions, choices and

allergies of the house residents played into our

purchasing decisions. Looking at the purchasing

decisions of households that didn’t have nut, gluten, or

dairy allergies would also be useful to understanding the

costs and types of Real food products available.

Conclusion

Using the Real Food Challenge’s Real Food Calculator, we analyzed the amount of food

the EcoHouse purchased over a period of eight weeks during the fall. Specifically, we examined

how many foods could be defined as “Real” or fulfilling standards for Ecologically Sound,

Humane, Fair, and Community-based. During the first six weeks, by buying mostly whole foods

from farmer’s markets and coops, we averaged around 64 percent Real Food, with about 50

percent of our total budget going Real Food B. During our last two weeks, during our “Real

Food Challenge,” we attempted to only eat Real Foods. At 99 percent Real, we found that our

budget stayed fairly consistent with our previous data sets. Moreover, throughout our study, our

budget of 150 dollars per month was significantly below estimated by the USDA for average

food spending. While the monetary cost was low, we realized that other barriers exist to eating

sustainably. Sustainable food venues and Real Food A, the most sustainable foods, were often

not accessible to those of lower socio-economic status. Moreover, we paid for our sustainable

food choices through our time. Our vegetarian, whole foods based diet kept costs low, but we

Limitations of the Calculator Week 4: Oct. 13-19

This week we received a large amount of food as a gift from Karen’s parents, who were in town for Family Fest. So much produce! Green onions, herbs, arugula, tomatoes, chocolate, daikon, bell peppers, kohlrabi, and apples now fill our fridge. Seeing this food, the limitations of the calculator are quite apparent. Because none of this food cost anything, we can’t put it into our calculations. Karen’s parents brought their car, so she and her family did the shopping this past week. Thinking forward, Karen bought a huge box of tomatoes—it was only eight dollars she says—to preserve for the winter. Because we have so much food both from Karen’s family garden and the farmer’s market, we will also be freezing a lot this week. We have so many tomatoes we need to preserve! But, I’m glad we’ll have all this local food for the winter.

-Marian

14

spent much time cooking and preparing meals. Eating sustainability is clearly an investment, and

while a meaningful alternative, it does not cure all the problems created by the conventional

American food system.

15

16

Appendix I: How to Run the Real Food Calculator on Your House

Logistics

1. Get in touch with a Real Food Challenge representative. To get access to the instructions,

excel spreadsheets, and most up-to-date guidelines, contact the Real Food Challenge.

2. Talk to your housemates. Clear communication about what your project entails is crucial.

Without their support, it will be difficult to collect all the receipts and make changes to your diet

during the study.

3. Create a standardized set of questions to ask producers. While the Real Food Challenge

Guidelines offer basic guidance as to the types of question to ask, asking additional questions,

especially if you are shopping at farmers’ markets, can be helpful. Asking farmers’ their names,

to record how many times you buy from them will allow you to better organize your data.

Asking other information, regarding production and labor practices, can also help you learn

about what you are buying.

4. Record other variables that will affect amount spent on groceries. To get an accurate

count of the budget spent to feed your household, taking note of how many times you and your

housemates eat out, the number of guest you have over for dinner, and the amount of food you

preserve for a period outside of the study is crucial.

5. Take photos and write a journal. Especially if you do a lot of buying of exotic foods,

cooking, and food preserving, documenting your experiences can be a fun way to capture the

moment for later reflection and add to your research.

6. Get the word out. Because your data can help others in your community make sustainable

shopping choices, present your study to other students and groups.

Collaboration Tips

1. Divide the project between group members. Because you may have different work styles,

organizational systems, and skills, divide the project so each of you can work on the parts that

most interest you and avoid messing up your partner’s work.

2. Make decisions about formatting early on. Whether figuring out if you want to italicize or

bold your heading, write in first person, or abbreviate or spell out “Saint,” discussing formatting

with your partner before starting the writing process can make your work much easier during the

revision process.

3. Create an organization system for receipts, documents, spreadsheets, ect. Because both

you will have to have access this information, make sure to create a system so information

doesn’t get lost and both of you can find and access it.

4. Set aside weekly work periods. Checking in once or twice a week with each other is highly

helpful for delegating tasks, setting timelines, answering each other questions, and simply

making time to work on the project.

5. Set weekly meeting with your advisor. A weekly check-in is another push that helps you

stay on track. Moreover, your advisor can offer advice and suggestions when questions arise.