Inst Food Purchasing Report

7/30/2019 Inst Food Purchasing Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/inst-food-purchasing-report 1/40

InstItutIonalFood PurchasIng:

Michigan Good Food

Work Group Report Series Report No. 3 of 5



November 2010

This report was developed with leadership rom the C.S. Mott Group or Sustainable Food Systemsat Michigan State University, the Food Bank Council o Michigan and the Michigan Food PolicyCouncil. This report, along with the others in the series, provides the oundation or the goals andagenda priorities put orth in the Michigan Good Food Charter.

Institutional Food Purchasing Work Group

Co-Conveners:

Colleen Matts, Farm to Institution Specialist, C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems atMichigan State University

Susan Schmidt, Resident Director, AVI Fresh at Wayne State University

Val George, Graduate Student, Department of CARRS, Michigan State University

Contributors:

Will Ahee, Graduate Student, SEED Wayne, Wayne State University

Hillary Bisnett, Healthy Food in Healthcare Project Coordinator, The Ecology Center

Diana Bott, Senior Director of Multiunit and Health Care Sales, Sysco Detroit

Sandy Brewer, Farmer, Todosciuk FarmsElaine Brown, Executive Director, Michigan Food & Farming Systems

Diane Conners, Senior Policy Specialist, Michigan Land Use Institute

Grant Fletcher, Food Service Manager, Bronson Methodist Hospital

Lisa Gagliardi, Regional School Health Coordinator, Eastern Upper Peninsula IntegratedSchool District

Diane Golzynski, Healthy Schools Project, Nutrition Coordinator, Michigan Department ofCommunity Health

Dan Gorman, Food Service Director, Montague Area Public Schools

Eric Hahn, Founder, President, Locavore Food Distributors

Jeanne Hausler, Ag Tourism & Outreach Manager, Michigan Department of Agriculture

Denis Jennisch, Produce Category Manager, Sysco Grand RapidsLaura McCain, Chef & Dietician, Munson Medical Center, Sodexo

Pat McGee, Food Service Director, Fruitport Public Schools

Kristen Misiak, Food Service Director, Traverse City Area Public Schools

Marta Mittemaier, Food Stores Manager, Michigan State University

Dave Moore, Farmer, Stone Cottage Gardens

Marla Moss, Supervisor, Child & Adult Care Food Program, Michigan Department of Education

Michaelle Rehmann, Farm to School Program Director, Food System Economic Partnership

Michael Rowe, Director, Food & Nutrition Services, Bronson Methodist Hospital

Denise Worden, Food Service Administrator, Michigan Department of Corrections

Paul Yettaw, Nutrition Committee Chair, School Nutrition Association

Suggested Citation

George, V., Matts, C., and Schmidt, S. (2010). Institutional Food Purchasing: Michigan GoodFood Work Group Report No. 3 of 5. East Lansing, MI: C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable FoodSystems at Michigan State University. Available from www.michiganfood.org.

Graphic Design by: Sharon Szegedy

Cover photographs courtesy of: (clockwise from L)IStockphoto (2) and Vicki Morrone.

Work Group Report Series Youth Engagement and Opportunity

Good Food Access

Institutional Purchasing

Farm Viability and Development

Food System Infrastructure



InstItutIonal

Food PurchasIng:Michigan Good Food

Work Group Report Series Report No. 3 of 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Vision 2

Current State of Affairs 4

Michigan K-12 Schools 4

Michigan Colleges and Universities 13

Michigan’s Health Care Sector 21

Institutional Purchasing Goals 26

Indicators 28

Agenda Priorities 32

2012 Agenda 32

2015 Agenda 34

2020 Agenda 35

Conclusion 36



I Economic Research Service, U.S. Department o Agriculture. Food CPI and Expenditures. Retrieved romhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefng/CPI-FoodAndExpenditures/.2 Abatekassa, G., Conner, D.S., and Matts, C. “Fostering Farm-to-MSU Eorts: Research to Guide Closer Ties with Michigan Agriculture.”

Retrieved rom http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/uploads/fles/59/FarmToMSU%20fanl%20report-rev.pd.

All Michigan residents are touched by institutions and their ood purchasing decisions in some way:our sons and daughters participate in the lunch program at school; members o the next generation

nourish themselves in college and university dining halls; our riends and amily members are cared or at hospitals and healthcare acilities. In 2008, spending on ood away rom home in the United Stateswas 48.5 percent ($565 billion) o total ood expenditures ($1,165.3 billion).I Schools and collegesalong with eating and drinking places, recreational places, hotels and motels, retail stores and directselling, and other establishments are the major categories that the U.S. Department o AgricultureEconomic Research Service uses to determine expenditures on ood away rom home. K-12 schoolsin Michigan, or example, spend about $200 million on ood. Michigan State University (MSU) FoodStores, which supplies ood to residential dining halls on campus, spent approximately $22 million on

ood and non-ood items in scal year 2006-2007; $2.1 mil-lion, about 10 percent o that budget, was spent on produce.2 With so many meals consumed away rom home, we must ad-dress institutional ood purchasing as we develop a Good Food

Charter or Michigan.

We envision new approaches to ood purchasing in which theseMichigan institutions provide local, good ood to consumersand create new markets or products grown, raised and pro-cessed in Michigan. In turn, these new approaches can helpstimulate growth in local agriculture, encourage developmento local ood system inrastructure and increase access to goodood. Evidence that these new approaches have such benetscan be ound in the experiences o some Michigan institutionsthat have overcome challenges and started local ood pro-grams that benet the institution, the ood suppliers and the

customers. I more o these institutions could provide good oodto help Michiganders maintain diets that are consistent withthe Dietary Guidelines or Americans, health outcomes o our residents would improve. Though we tend to ocus on resh ruitand vegetable products, minimally processed resh Michiganproducts can also contribute to healthy diets and provide eco-nomic opportunities to process Michigan agricultural productsinto orms that institutions can use, given their many constraints.By purchasing a variety o local oods, institutions can providehigh quality, nutritious meals, support local armers, producersand processors, and support the Michigan economy. Shouldn’tall Michigan residents, rom prisoners to school children andcollege students to hospital visitors and sta members, haveaccess to the same high quality, local oods? Shouldn’t our institutional ood purchasing dollars stay in Michigan to thegreatest extent possible? Why not promote policies that couldhelp provide good ood at all o Michigan’s institutions?

Vision

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/CPIFoodAndExpenditures/






To expand local ood purchasing by Michigan’s institutions – specically K-12 schools, colleges anduniversities, and hospitals – we must overcome a number o constraints and barriers. Current distribu-

tion, processing, grading and sizing, packaging, and the seasonality and volume o our ood supplyall pose signicant challenges to providing local ood to institutions how, when and where they wantit. On the other hand, institutional ood service operations ace tight ood budgets, especially K-12schools and correctional acilities, which rely on ederal subsidies but must meet ederal requirementsand guidelines. Food service proessionals may be limited in their skill levels (knie skills, ood prepara-tion, etc.), and kitchens may be limited in storage and equipment to handle, prepare and serve reshand whole oods. In many cases, ood procurement procedures and menu planning strategies havebecome streamlined to a point that they are no longer fexible or based on local, seasonal ood avail-ability. In addition, new interest in stricter ood saety standards is trickling down through our dominantglobal supply chain, rom national ood distributors and large grocery store chains to our institutionsand even armers’ markets, putting a greater burden on our armers to meet buyers’ requirements.

Though the constraints and challenges that institutional ood service programs ace are oten similar and consistent between sectors, there are nuances to each type o institution based on its uniquecharacteristics and operations. Programs even vary on an individual basis, depending on the location,agricultural production and seasonal availability in the area, and the type, size, equipment and deliveryneeds o the ood service operation. Thereore, local ood purchasing programs are inherently andnecessarily local, and there are no one-size-ts-all solutions or strategies to develop or expand them.With practice changes and the implementation o new policies to address these high-level constraintsand barriers, however, we can capitalize on the opportunity that Michigan’s institutions represent,individually and collectively. With continued provision o technical assistance and education andoutreach activities to share positive, sustainable models, more stakeholders, practitioners, non-protand philanthropic organizations can apply these models at their institutions in their home communi-ties. By increasing local oodpurchases by K-12 schools,colleges and universities,hospitals and correctionalacilities, Michigan’s institu-tions can contribute to theeconomic viability o our armers, the economic devel-opment o our state, and thehealth and well-being o our residents.



Current State of Affairs

3 Trust or America’s Health. (2009) F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing America 2009. Retrieved rom http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/.4 Koivisto, D. “Agriculturally Speaking…2007 Census o Agriculture.” Michigan Department o Agriculture. December 17, 2007.Retrieved rom http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1572_48039-181993--,00.html.5 Cantrell, P., Conner, D., Erickcek, G., and Hamm, M.W. “Eat Fresh and Grow Jobs, Michigan.” September 2006. Retrieved rom http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/PublicationsPresentations/FoodProcessingDistributionandMarketing/tabid/152/Deault.aspx.6 Personal Communication. Kristen Misiak, Food Service Director, Traverse City Public Schools.7 Izumi, B.T. et al. (2006) Results o 2004 survey o Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. Journal o School Health, 76(5), 169-174.8 Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., and Hamm, M.W. (2010) Farm-to-School programs: perspectives o school ood service proessionals. Journal o Nutri-tion Education and Behavior, 42(2), 83-91.9

Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. (2009) Farm to School Programs: Exploring the Role o Regionally-based Food Distributors in Alternative Agriood Networks. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(3), 335-350.

Michigan K-12 Schools: The Current Situation

The term “arm to school” (FtS) applies to a variety o initiatives but centers around oering local oodsin K-12 school meals programs. Michigan simultaneously has 30.6 percent overweight youths (ages

10-17)3 and the second-widest variety o arm products in the country behind Caliornia.4 Farm-to-school programs can connect the dots between school caeterias and arms by providing wholesome,resh and local oods to Michigan’s schoolchildren and expanding local market opportunities or someo Michigan’s 50,000 armers, particularly ruit and vegetable growers. Economic modeling demon-strates how boosting sales o Michigan ruits and vegetables through channels such as FtS could in-crease both employment and personal income in the state.5 FtS programs, which engage and connectood service proessionals, local armers and ood distributors, are important components o vibrantlocal or regional ood systems that make healthy, local oods more accessible to schoolchildren andsupport Michigan armers and local economies.

Strengths

Strong interest, will and expertise, mixed with a little persistence, fexibility and creativity, have helped

ood service directors, armers and distributors establish and expand a great number o FtS programsin Michigan over the past six years. In 2004, the Traverse City Area Public Schools began a local oodpurchasing program, which by 2009 had expanded to a budget o $30,000 and growing.6 Also in2004, the C.S. Mott Group or Sustainable Food Systems at MSU (Mott Group) began its work in FtSby conducting a statewide survey o school ood service directors (FSDs) to determine their interest andwillingness to participate in local ood purchasing and the challenges and barriers associated with it.Results o that survey showed that FSDs had signicant interest in FtS programs: 73 percent o Michi-gan FSDs who responded (n=383) were interested in purchasing ood directly rom local armers. Thisinterest increased to 83 percent when respondents were asked to assume that local ood products wereavailable through their current vendors.7 Additional qualitative data suggests that buying ood directlyrom local armers, regionally based distributors and wholesalers can increase the variety and quality o local oods available to schools and the fexibility o product specications while keeping prices com-

petitive with those o larger ood distributors.8, 9

Organizational support and resources have expanded over the past ew years to help cultivate FtSprograms, both nationally and in Michigan. The National Farm to School Network and the GreatLakes Regional Farm to School Network provide resources, policy support on a national level and avenue or inormation sharing. The Michigan Food Policy Council Task Force C also provides a orumto gather arm-to-institution stakeholders, pursue a state policy agenda, and promote institutional(including K-12 schools) purchases o Michigan-grown and -processed oods. A statewide arm-to-school specialist, along with a arm-to-ood service program manager with the Food System EconomicPartnership (FSEP) in southeastern Michigan and a senior policy specialist at the Michigan Land UseInstitute (MLUI) in northwestern Michigan, have coordinated and acilitated FtS programs throughoutthe state and worked together to develop a network o practitioners and key stakeholders. Though we

can expand existing collaborations with entities such as the Michigan Food Policy Council, potentialpartnerships with groups such as the School Nutrition Association o Michigan, school ood purchasingconsortia, the Michigan Associations o School Boards and School Administrators, and organizations

http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2009/


http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1572_48039-181993--,00.html

http://www.mlui.org/downloads/EatFresh.pdf




http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1572_48039-181993--,00.html





ocusing on children’s health may be established i we continue to educate, inorm and disseminate modelso local purchasing or schools. Additionally, educational resources are now available, including the Michi-gan Farm to School Web site (www.miarmtoschool.msu.edu), a listserv with more than 580 subscribers, and

guides to help school ood service directors purchase local ood and armers market ood products to schools:Purchasing Michigan Products: A Step-By-Step Guide and Marketing Michigan Products: A Step-By-Step Guide, respectively.

The Mott Group also provides policy support or FtS at the state level, such as educational inormation or leg-islators considering passage o a Michigan FtS three-bill package in late 2008. Public Acts 343 and 344 in-creased the state’s small purchase threshold or school ood purchases at the school district and public schoolacademy level, and intermediate school district level, respectively. Public Act 315 called or collaboration andcooperation between the state departments o Agriculture and Education to support FtS throughout the state.

As this legislation was easing local ood procurement regulations at the state level, a ederal policy barrier, theban on geographic preerence or school ood (i.e. explicitly speciying local produce in request or bids or quotes) was lited with an amendment to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act in the 2008 Farm

Bill. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service initially indicated that, to “encourage institutions operating the ChildNutrition Programs to purchase unprocessed locally grown and locally raised agricultural products,” institu-tions were able to dene an area or geographic preerence.10 Ater observing throughout the ollowing year the way the initial denition o “unprocessed” products prevented many opportunities or local sourcing,11 theFood and Nutrition Service determined that this denition should expand to include “agricultural products thatretain their inherent character” through handling, preservation techniques and size adjustments.12 Under thisguidance, schools can not only speciy preerence or Michigan agricultural products but can receive them inreadily usable orms or school ood service, an important improvement given their many budget and opera-tional challenges. FtS stakeholders, including the National Farm to School Network and the Community FoodSecurity Coalition, are pushing or mandatory unding or FtS programs in the upcoming Child Nutrition Actreauthorization.

New Michigan nutrition standards have been revised and were approved as a State Board o Education policy

in October 2010. These standards strengthen not only current nutrition guidelines or school meals, which arebased on the Dietary Guidelines or Americans, but also provide standards or oods and beverages sold onthe school campus through concessions, bake sales, vending machines, parties, school stores, etc. The newstandards will make available ewer rened grains and less total ats, cholesterol, saturated ats, trans ats,added sugars and sodium in oods at school, and more whole grains, low-at milk products, legumes, andruits and vegetables, especially dark green and orange vegetables.13 Some changes in processed productsoten used in school meals may be required to meet these new standards, but minimally processed oods,such as fash-rozen ruits and vegetables, can make more healthy Michigan agricultural products available toschools in orms they can easily use and or a greater portion o the school year than typical seasonal avail-ability allows. School ood purchasing consortia can take advantage o the opportunity to push these standardseven urther by surveying members to determine their interests in and priorities or healthy resh and processedoods, and harnessing their collective purchasing power to get the oods they want in the orms they need rom

Michigan armers, processors and distributors.

10 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Applying Geographic Preerences in Procurements or the Child Nutrition Programs. Memo SP30-2008, July 9, 2008. Retrieved rom http://www.ns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2008/SP_30-2008.pd.11 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Applying Geographic Preerences in Procurement or Child Nutrition Programs – Updates.Memo SP 01-2010, October 9, 2009. Retrieved rom http://www.ns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2010/SP_01-2010_os.pd.12 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Geographic Preerence or the Procurement o Unprocessed Agricultural Products in the ChildNutrition Programs. Memo SP 08-2010, November 13, 2009. Retrieved rom http://www.ns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2010/SP_08_CACFP_05_SFSP_06-2010_os.pd.13 Drzal, N. Michigan Nutrition Standards: Recommendations or All Foods Available in Michigan Schools. Retrieved rom www.michigansna.org/Michi-gan%20Nutrition%20Standards.ppt.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/Policy-Memos/2010/SP_08_CACFP_05_SFSP_06-2010_os.pdf






Motivtions nd Chllenges

Over the past decade, FSDs in Michigan and across the country have demonstrated growing interestin purchasing local oods or school meals programs. The 2004 survey o Michigan FSDs revealednumerous motivations or this interest in local ood: access to resher ood, support or the local econo-my and local community, increased consumption o ruits and vegetables, higher quality ood, good

public relations, and the ability to purchase small quantities were the most requently noted.14 Morerecent in-depth interviews revealed three motivators or FSDs to purchase locally grown ood or schoolmeals programs: “students like it”, “the price is right” and “we’re helping our local armer.”15 Prelimi-nary analysis o results o a 2009 survey o Michigan FSDs also helps us understand current attitudesabout local ood purchasing, including motivators. Helping Michigan arms and businesses, support-ing the local economy, higher quality ood and accessing resher ood were reported as the greatestmotivators or FSDs to serve locally grown or processed oods in school caeterias. Assurances o oodsaety, nancial incentives or purchasing local products, and availability o more processed productswere most oten seen as ways to acilitate purchasing o local ood and/or motivation to increase theuse o local oods by FSDs in their schools or school districts. (More products available rozen andmore products available canned were not as requently noted as acilitating FtS programs.) Responsesshowed that FSDs also believed that FtS brings higher consumption o local oods by students, but

survey results were inconclusive when FSDs were asked i they saw an increase in ruit and vegetableconsumption when locally produced oods were served.16

Although Michigan FSDs clearly have strong interest in purchasing local ood products, barriers andconcerns stand in their way and make starting or expanding FtS programs dicult. From responses tothe 2004 survey, the most requently reported barriers to local ood purchasing are seasonality o localproducts, lack o local producers in the area rom whom to purchase and ood saety. 17 In the 2009survey, ood saety, adequate volume and reliable supply were the most requently reported barriers.18 In both surveys, FSDs indicated concerns about buying ood directly rom local armers: cost, reliablesupply, seasonality o Michigan ruits and vegetables, ood saety and delivery considerations toppedthe list in the 2004 survey (in that order);19 cost, quality, reliable supply, ood saety and seasonalitywere the most requently reported concerns in the 2009 survey.20 Below we will urther explore twoo these signicant concerns: cost o local ood as it relates to school ood budgets, and theseasonality o Michigan agricultural production and its relation to school ood service operationsand menu planning.

Budgets

Above all, the tight budgets o school ood service seem to pose the greatest challenge and intertwinewith or exert some infuence on every other challenge or barrier to FtS. School ood service programsthat participate in ederal child nutrition programs such as the National School Lunch Program are pri-marily unded through a three-tiered ederal reimbursement system and commodity entitlement dollars.Schoolchildren are eligible or ree and reduced-price lunches on the basis o their amilies’ incomelevel. Guidelines or the 2009-2010 school year, based on a amily o our, were:

Paid meals: >185 percent of the poverty level (above $40,793). Reduced-price meals: 130 to 185 percent of the poverty level ($28,665 to $40,793). Free meals: <130 percent of the poverty level (below $28,665).

14 Izumi, B.T. et al. (2006) Results o 2004 survey o Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. Journal o School Health, 76(5), 169-174.15 Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., and Hamm, M.W. (2010) Farm-to-School Programs: Perspectives o School Food Service Proessionals. Journal o Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(2), 83-91.16 Colasanti, K., Matts, C., Hamm, M.W., and Smalley, S.B. (Unpublished data). 2009 Survey o K-12 School Food Service Providers in Michigan.17 Izumi, B.T., et al. (2006). Results o 2004 survey o Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. Journal o School Health, 76(5), 169-17418 Colasanti, K., Matts, C., Hamm, M.W., and Smalley, S.B. (Unpublished data). 2009 Survey o K-12 School Food Service Providers in Michigan.19 Izumi, B.T., et al. (2006). Results o 2004 survey o Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. Journal o School Health, 76(5), 169-174.20 Colasanti, K., Matts, C., Hamm, M.W., and Smalley, S.B. (Unpublished data). 2009 Survey o K-12 School Food Service Providers in Michigan.

6



Schools receive ederal reimbursement or each paid, reduced-price and ree lunch served in the NationalSchool Lunch Program. School districts receive a rate o reimbursement at one o two levels; the level receivedis based on the total percentage o ree or reduced-price lunches (less than 60 percent or greater than 60percent) served two years ago. Schools are eligible to receive an additional 2 cents or each lunch served i 60 percent or more o the total lunches served districtwide in the second preceding year were ree or reduced-

price.

In addition to ederal reimbursement, school ood service programs are entitled every year to receive USDA commodity oods (nearly 180 products) at a value based on a fat rate per lunch meal served (19.5 cents or 2009-2010). These USDA oods account or about 20 percent o the ood served in school lunches.22 Nearlyhal o USDA oods are processed beore delivery to schools.23 Entitlement dollars can also be used to pur-chase resh produce through the Department o Deense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. This joint programo the departments o Agriculture and Deense makes up to 874 types and pack sizes o ruits and vegetablesavailable to schools,24 a wider variety than FSDs could purchase through the USDA commodity oods program. Additional surplus agricultural products are oered to schools as “bonus” or ree USDA oods as they becomeavailable.

Other unding sources or school ood service include:

Cash payment for meals by students who are not eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Competitive foods – all foods for sale that are not part of a reimbursable meal, sold a la carte in the

cafeteria or in school stores or vending machines. Staff meals – cash payment for meals by teachers and school staff members. Catering, if applicable. Grants, such as the USDA Food and Nutrition Service Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, if appli-

cable.

School ood service programs are oten separate rom school or district budgets and may be expected to besel-sucient. FSDs requently must maintain budgets that at least break even without any assistance rom theschool’s or district’s annual budget or general und. I a ood service program turns a prot, that revenue mustbe put toward improving the program. In addition to purchasing ood and supplies, school ood service isoten expected to pay or labor and benets, rent, utilities, trash removal, equipment and/or capital improve-ments.

School ood authorities are being asked to help curtail the childhood obesity epidemic and serve healthier are. Yet at the same time, they are acing rising ood costs, which can make purchasing healthy oods even

21 These reimbursement rates change every year. Please check www.miarmtoschool.msu.edu or updated inormation.22 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “USDA Commodity Foods: The Healthy Option.” April 2008. Retrieved rom http://www.ns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/Commodity_Foods.pd.23 National Alliance or Nutrition & Activity. “USDA Commodities in the National School Lunch Program.” Retrieved rom http://www.cspinet.org/new/pd/commodities_act_sheet.pd. 24 U.S. Department o Agriculture. Food Distribution Programs: Department o Deense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Retrieved romhttp://www.ns.usda.gov/dd/programs/dod/DoD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram.pd.

Table 1. Reimbursement Rtes for the Ntionl School Lunch Progrm

National School Lunch Program (Contiguous States) July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011 21

Less thn 60 % 60% or more Commodity entitlement

Pid $0.26 $0.28

Reduced-price $2.32 $2.34 $0.1950

Free $2.72 $2.74

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/Commodity_Foods.pdf



http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/commodities_fact_sheet.pdf



http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/dod/DoD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram.pdf










more dicult. Prices through predominant vending and distribution channels have generally increasedas well, in particular or oods such as milk, whole-grain breads, eggs, and ruits and vegetables, allo which are needed to provide the nutritious lunches that children need and the Dietary Guidelinesor Americans recommend. The costs to operate school meals programs, including labor and indirectcosts such as utilities, have also increased at a higher rate than ederal reimbursements or school

meals. According to the School Nutrition Association, about 150 school districts were orced to raiselunch prices by an average o 27 cents or the 2008-2009 school year; just 60 districts raised pricesin the spring o 2007. The School Nutrition Association also estimates that it costs about $2.90 toprepare a school meal,25 but the current ederal reimbursement or a ree meal or qualiying studentsis only $2.70. This means that school ood authorities are oten losing money on the meals they serve.Though they may nd some relie through the distribution o commodity oods, many o the commod-ity oods available to schools are processed, with added at, sugar and/or sodium. Eectively sourc-ing and distributing wholesome, resh, perishable produce to schools through the commodity oodprogram remains a challenge or the USDA.26 Even the USDA Food and Nutrition Service has recom-mended strategies such as purchasing seasonal oods and contacting “local armers about productsthey can supply at a reasonable price” to help school ood service managers deal with risingood costs.27

Despite the assumptions o some FSDs, local ood may not always cost more. Anecdotal evidencerom Michigan arm-to-school programs shows that some products, such as Michigan apples, areconsistently cheaper, especially when sourced directly rom the armer, than apples rom other parts o the country through typical distribution channels. Additionally, some other Michigan products may bereasonably priced or even prove cheaper when they are at the height o seasonal availability. Althoughsome FSDs believed that local oods were competitively priced or at least more aordable, particu-larly because o the shortened, more local supply chain and more fexible product specications, twointerviews with FSDs revealed that, even though some local products were actually more expensive,they got a higher yield rom these high quality products because there was less waste, and that madethe price per serving lower in the end.28 While the National Farm to School Network is working to se-cure mandatory unding or arm-to-school programs through the Child Nutrition Act reauthorization,increased reimbursements to school meals programs and permission or FSDs to use their commodity

dollars as cash to purchase local oods, a concept known as “cash in lieu o commodities,” would alsobe welcome changes that would allow or more fexibility in school meals programs and a greater abil-ity to purchase and experiment with local oods in school caeterias.

seasonality

The challenge o seasonality, or the mismatch between the majority o Michigan’s agricultural produc-tion and the typical school year, is interrelated with other variables that can make local ood purchas-ing dicult. Generally, school ood service lacks fexibility, and that may make it impossible or FSDsto purchase some seasonal local products when they are most readily available and at the best price(such as at the start o the school year). FSDs plan school menus well in advance, oten nearly a year inadvance, in part to take ull advantage o USDA commodity oods, including produce rom the Depart-ment o Deense Fresh program. In addition, entitlement dollars or school meals programs, which are

used to purchase commodity oods that are sourced rom around the country, not necessarily locally,are on a use-it or lose-it basis. Thereore, FSDs are sure to plan or and take advantage o commodityood products as opportunities arise.

25 School Nutrition Association. (2008) “Fact Sheet: Why Are School Lunch Prices Going Up?” Retrieved rom http://www.schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/School_Nutrition/102_ResourceCenter/RunningYourProgram/FinancialManagement/FactSheet(3).doc26 Food Research and Action Center. (2008) Commodity Foods and the Nutritional Quality o the National School Lunch Program: Historical Role,Current Operations, and Future Potential. Washington, DC: Food Research and Action Center. Retrieved rom http://www.rac.org/pd/commodi-ties08.pd.27 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. “Fact Sheet: Meeting the Challenge o Rising Food Costs or Healthier SchoolMeals.” Retrieved rom http://www.ns.usda.gov/TN/Resources/DGactsheet_challenge.pd.28 Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., and Hamm, M.W. (2010) Farm-to-School Programs: Perspectives o School Food Service Proessionals. Journal o Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(2), 83-91.

http://www.schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/School_Nutrition/102_ResourceCenter/RunningYourProgram/FinancialManagement/FactSheet(3).doc


http://www.frac.org/pdf/commodities08.pdf








Once the primary all harvest has ended, which is typically just a month or two into the school year, cold-hardyand storage crops are still readily available rom Michigan armers, but these products – such as kale, brus-sels sprouts and winter squash – are oten not used in school meals. One reason is that, as many school oodservice operations have evolved away rom cooking and toward reheating, many school kitchens do not havenecessary equipment or sta members with the skills or training necessary to handle or prepare resh produce. I

skilled labor is available, tight budgets oten cannot support the labor hours required to prepare resh produceor service in school meals. Additionally, FSDs are unlikely to experiment with new or unusual oods or ear thatthey will be rejected and not purchased by students, a risk they are unwilling and oten cannot aord to takebecause o the tight budgets under which they operate, budgets that are based on numbers o meals served.29 Together, the expansion o hoophouse technology on Michigan arms and increased menu planning fexibilityo FSDs could improve the availability and usage o seasonal, local oods in school caeterias. Changes to theederal commodity oods system could make these new practices in school ood service more likely and changesmore expansive. Again, allowing schools to use USDA entitlement dollars to purchase resh, local producewould put entitlement dollars to good use, continuing to support armers and the agricultural economy on amore local or regional rather than national level, and would likely increase FSDs’ willingness and ability topurchase more resh, local products to serve to students. The rather static school menus as we know them todaycould become more fexible, nimble and seasonal in nature in the uture.

Procurement and distriBution

To maintain ree and open competition, competitive bidding or best price and/or other criteria is required or allproducts that a school or district purchases, including ood. School ood authorities participating in the Na-tional School Lunch or other child nutrition programs must comply with Uniorm Administrative Requirements or Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (7 CFR Part 3019) when procuring ood,supplies, equipment or other services. Outlined in these requirements are procurement procedures, including in-ormal and ormal purchasing methods. Inormal bids, a simple procurement method also known as requests or quotations (RFQs) or price quotations, are used or products and services that do not cost more than the simpli-ed acquisition threshold, or small purchase threshold, which in Michigan is $100,000. This purchasing methodrequires a minimum o price or rate quotes to be obtained rom “an adequate number o qualied sources.” A more complex procurement method, known as ormal, sealed bids or requests or proposals (RFPs), is the public

solicitation o bids or procurement o products or services over the small purchase threshold. Conditions or thisprocurement method include a “complete, adequate and realistic” description o products or services requestedand two or more responsible bidders. And the procurement must lend itsel to successul bids on the basis o price. Sealed bids require public advertising o the invitation or sealed bids with sucient time given or aresponse, inclusion o specications, relevant attachments and denitions, and documentation o sound reasonsor rejected bids.

In Michigan, most local oods or school meals are procured through inormal bids or RFQs. I Michiganschools participate in the National School Lunch Program, they must join a consortium to receive USDA com-modity oods and contract or their processing. They may also participate in a consortium to procure commer-cial (non-commodity) oods i they choose. The three consortia in Michigan are the Great Lakes Consortium(GLC), School Purchasing and Resource Consortium (SPARC) and Macomb Oakland Wayne RESA (RegionalEducation Service Agency), known as MOR. (Membership to MOR is limited to specic counties in southeastern

Michigan.) Schools or districts typically contract to purchase ood rom an average o our vendors, includingregionally based specialty vendors or distributors or produce, milk and bread, and one or two prime vendorsknown as broadline distributors (e.g., Sysco, Gordon Food Service, VanEerden Food Service, etc.), which carryeverything rom apples to napkins. Schools oten purchase 80 to 95 percent o their ood rom a prime vendor to take advantage o early payment discounts and high-volume rebates. Prime vendors typically require mini-mum orders o $250 to $500 and deliver a ew times per week.

29 Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. (2009) Farm to School Programs: Exploring the Role o Regionally-based Food Distributors in Alternative AgrioodNetworks. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(3), 335-350.



Distribution o local oods remains one o the biggest challenges to developing and/or expanding FtSprograms in Michigan and across the nation. Many school districts require direct delivery o small-order volumes to multiple sites, which may be uneconomical or armers. Procurement directly romarmers or producers also takes more time and eort or FSDs to initiate and represents a signicantchange rom their typical procurement practices. Getting quality local products in the orm that schools

need and expect in an ecient, cost-eective way is a hurdle that some regional ood distributors arebeginning to address. Here in Michigan, regionally based ood distributors such as Cherry CapitalFoods, Locavore Food Distributors, MI Foods, Eat Local Eat Natural and Honey Boy Bob are workingto ll the gaps in local ood distribution to Michigan restaurants and institutions such as K-12 schools,and to help Michigan armers and processors capitalize on the growing market demand or local ood.Their proximity and relationships with local armers may give regionally based distributors an advan-tage in lling this niche market – “…they may have the inrastructure and possess the social relationsneeded to expand the scale and scope o local school ood procurement.”30 Bypassing broadline distri-bution channels can also help school customers gain access to a greater variety o seasonally avail-able products and a greater ability to speciy their needs because they have a more direct relationshipwith the vendor.31

The ability o these distributors to help streamline and institutionalize local ood procurement in

schools is hamstrung, however, by the conditions under which school ood service operates. In addi-tion to issues o seasonal availability and time and budget constraints ,32 the lack o fexibility built intothe school ood procurement system puts regionally based distributors at a disadvantage comparedto broadline distributors or FtS program acilitation. School customers oten preer vendors such asbroadline distributors, which can oer adequate supply and timely delivery o a variety o ood andnon-ood products that meet the specications that school ood service proessionals have come to relyupon. Even i a regionally based distributor can deliver the same products and services, school custom-ers may oten use price as their overriding criterion or choosing a vendor, and that may avor broad-line distributors that can provide competitive prices, nancial incentives, streamlined service and theconvenience o one-stop shopping or a wide variety o products in adequate volume.33 Furthermore,the high minimum order value per delivery set by broadline distributors, typically a school’s primaryvendor, can urther limit ood buyers’ fexibility to purchase ood rom other vendors, including local

armers, because they would then run the risk o not meeting this requirement.34

Farmers’ interest in and challenges to participating in FtS and arm-to-institution marketing have notbeen researched to a great extent thus ar, although research is under way by the Mott Group as parto a project unded by the USDA Agricultural and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to investigate arm-to-institution marketing, including pricing decisions and relationships between supply chain actors – arm-ers, distributors and buyers. Recent research by Betty T. Izumi, which included interviews with armersinvolved in arm-to-school programs, showed that, although school sales oten made up only a smallpercentage o the armers’ total sales by volume and income, schools appeared to oer a stable,steady market and helped armers diversiy their marketing portolios.35 Market diversication allowsarmers to spread out and better manage their economic risks, so institutional marketing may providelonger term value rather than short-term protability. Although armers must oer competitive, oten

nearly wholesale pricing or their products and services to be chosen by school ood service authorities,selling directly to schools without a middleman such as a distributor helps armers capture a greater share o the retail price, and schools initiating agreements or orward contracts could help growers eela sense o security in this marketing relationship.

30 Izumi, B.T., Wright, D.W., Hamm, M.W. (2009) Farm to School Programs: Exploring the Role o Regionally-based Food Distributors in Alternative Agriood Networks. Agriculture and Human Values, 27(3), 335-350.31 Ibid.32 Ibid.33 Ibid.34 Ibid.35 Izumi, B.T. (2008) Farm to School Programs in Public K-12 Schools in the United States: Perspectives o Farmers, Food Service Proessionals,and Food Distributors. Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI.



Furthermore, Izumi’s research showed that school customers were somewhat fexible to armers’ needs andsensitive to practices that would save them money – school ood service directors might pick up local producethemselves rather than requiring direct delivery by the armer, or save product packaging or pickup and reuseby the armer. A long-term value o this direct marketing opportunity, cultivating uture customers throughsales to schools and consumption by schoolchildren, was another perceived benet or armers interviewed

or this study. Providing schoolchildren with the opportunity to try the many varieties o Michigan apples, or example, may help them develop an anity or those products so that they will choose them in the uture.Despite these benets, these participating armers believed that the market potential o FtS was limited by therelatively xed conditions o the school ood environment, including seasonality, ederal procurement regula-tions and even resh commodity oods available through DoD Fresh.

Additionally, armers may have diculty meeting the particular specications to which FSDs have becomeaccustomed. Although FtS markets may provide a good opportunity or armers to sell “seconds” or productsthat are not suitable or retail sales and might otherwise go to processing, school ood service proessionalsare oten used to purchasing high quality products graded U.S. Fancy or No.1 that are usually available romtheir broadline distributors or other retail marketers. In the 2009 Michigan survey o K-12 school ood servicedirectors, FSDs reported that ood quality was one o the most important actors infuencing their selectiono ood vendors, along with dependability, price and ability to meet specications.36 Oten because o tight

school ood service budgets and limited equipment, storage space and skilled labor to handle and prepareresh, whole oods in school kitchens, school ood service proessionals may still preer to purchase resh-processed products.

The same 2009 survey showed that FSDs reported a strong interest in purchasing a wide variety o resh andwhole Michigan-grown ruits and vegetables, with more than 50 percent o FSDs responding that they wereinterested in purchasing each o the ollowing products resh and whole: carrots, celery, cucumbers, onions,peppers, tomatoes, apples, blueberries, cantaloupe, grapes, muskmelon, peaches, pears, strawberries andwatermelon. More than 30 percent o respondents were also interested in purchasing each o the ollowingresh, local products in a minimally processed (chopped, sliced, shredded, etc.) orm: broccoli, carrots, cau-lifower, celery, corn, and lettuce/salad greens; and rozen broccoli, corn, peas, blueberries and strawberries. Vegetable choppers, ruit and vegetable wedgers, industrial ood processors, knives and steamers were the

types o kitchen equipment cited most requently by survey respondents as lacking and needed to prepare andserve resh ruits and vegetables in school caeterias.37 Although some regionally based distributors are llingthis niche market or local processed products, demand is still outpacing availability rom these distributors.

Mrket Opportunity of Frm-to-School in Michign

I ood supply and inrastructure, including distribution and processing, ollow demand, Michigan K-12schools, which spend about $200 million statewide on ood, represent signicant market opportunity or Michigan armers and producers. O the 274 respondents to the 2009 survey o K-12 school ood serviceproviders, 112 FSDs – 42 percent – reported having purchased oods rom a local armer or producer in the2008-2009 school year. When these respondents were asked i they would buy products rom local armers/producers again, 91 percent reported that they would. (Only 2 percent indicated that they would not pur-chase rom local armers/producers again.) In addition to serving Michigan products in meals, more than 30

percent o respondents also reported that their school or district linked students with local arms and agri-culture by providing some orm o education about or exposure to Michigan ood and agriculture, such astaking students to visit a arm or armers’ market, in the past 3 years.38

36 Colasanti, K., Matts, C., Hamm, M.W., and Smalley, S.B. (Unpublished data). 2009 Survey o K-12 School Food Service Providers in Michigan.37 Ibid.38 Ibid.



We do not yet have reliable data on the extent o these local purchases in number, volume or price. Assuming a minimal, break-even budget (cost per meal times the number o meals or breakasts andlunches) and the average percentage o ood costs within a total ood service budget, Michigan’spublic and non-public schools and intermediate school districts spent $199,907,116, $6,069,450 and$745,120 on ood, respectively. (See Table 2.) This means that the total ood purchasing power or breakast and lunch meals (not including snacks and suppers) o K-12 schools in Michigan was morethan $206 million in 2008/09. This value may even be on the rise as more students become eligibleand participate in ree and reduced-price meals available rom schools.

I all schools spent just 5 percent o their ood expenditures on local ood by 2012, then FSDs wouldcontribute about $10 million to support local armers/vendors and the local economy. I all schoolsspent 20 percent o their ood expenditures on local ood by 2020, then these purchases would con-tribute about $41 million to the local economy. I the state could supplement school meals with anadditional 10-cent reimbursement or the purchase o resh, locally grown ruits and vegetables just or school lunch, then about $14 million would help support Michigan armers. I such a reimbursementprogram could be expanded to include school breakast meals as well, then about $18 million o localproduce would be purchased or school breakasts and lunches, greatly increasing schoolchildren’s ac-cess to resh, local ruits and vegetables.

39 These fgures are derived rom the Food Service Year End Report (SM-4012-A) submitted by each school district to the Michigan Department o Education. According to the Compilation Overview retrieved rom http://www.michigan.gov/documents/compilation_overview_2003_81818_7.pd, “some districts may not include all cost, some allocate the cost dierently, and all have unique operations; you should only make general-ized assumptions about the ood service operations; and district fgures can be used as indications o areas or concern or areas well-managed.”High or low cost percentages, which are based on the total revenue number as reported at year end, may be due to inaccurate reporting o totalrevenue; “i this number was reported or entered too high, all o the cost percentages will be too low. Conversely, i total revenue was reported or entered too low, the cost percentages will be too high.”40 Michigan Department o Education, Grants Coordination and School Support. (January 8, 2010) Public Schools Food Service Year End ReportCompilation, School Year 2008-2009. Retrieved rom www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/YER_links_238191_7.doc.41 Michigan Department o Education, Grants Coordination and School Support. (November 25, 2009) Non-Public Schools Food Service Year End Report Compilation, School Year 2008-2009. Retrieved rom www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/YER_links_238191_7.doc.42 Michigan Department o Education, Grants Coordination and School Support. (February 11, 2009) ISD Schools Food Service Year End ReportCompilation, School Year 2008-2009. Retrieved rom www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/YER_links_238191_7.doc.

12

Table 2: School Food Service Yer-end Reports, School Yer 2008-09 39

p e r c

e n t a g e

o f

t o t a l f o o d s

e r v i c e

c o s t s

Public schools 40

Non-public Intermediteschools 41 school districts 42

Total no. of lunches 137,145,564 3,473,904 346,984

Cost per lunch $2.93 $3.09 $4.68

Total no. of breakfasts 43,086,346 332,143 163,970

Cost per breakfast $1.99 $2.16 $3.08

Labor costs 42% 47.5% 46.5%

Contract services 7.8% 12.8% 32.4%

Transportation 0.2% 1.5% 0.6%

Supplies 5.5% 7.6% 4.3%Food costs 41.1% 53.1% 35.4%



Summry

FtS is clearly growing in Michigan as more FSDs are interested in and willing to purchase local ood productsrom local armers, regionally based distributors and even broadline distributors. As research has shown,FSDs are motivated to purchase local oods because “the students like it,” “the price is right” and “we’rehelping our local armer.”43 But a number o concerns and barriers make FtS programs dicult to begin or

expand. Cost, distribution, ood saety and seasonality seem to be the most prominent challenges to buildingviable FtS programs in Michigan that benet school ood service programs, schoolchildren and participatingarmers. All o these challenges can and should be addressed with practice changes and new policies on thelocal or state level to make local ood purchasing by schools easier, cheaper and more sustainable, and tocontinue to increase schoolchildren’s access to resh, local ruits and vegetables, support local armers andood systems inrastructure, and keep school ood purchasing dollars circulating in Michigan communities.Michigan schools have signicant purchasing power that translates to signicant economic opportunity or Michigan armers, distributors and all points in between that can help get local ood to K-12 schools when,where and how they want it.

Michigan Colleges and Universities: The Current Situation

As demand continues to grow or local oods in communities throughout Michigan, locally produced ood

products have begun cropping up in notable quantities in establishments where limited or even no locallyproduced goods may have been served but a decade ago. College and university dining halls are some o the latest venues where you might have encountered resh local ood making its way rom nearby arms tocaeteria tables. As the educational institutions charged with developing tomorrow’s leaders, colleges anduniversities are uniquely positioned to introduce young residents to resh local oods, expand and positivelyinfuence students’ eating habits, provide education on the origin o and work required to produce their dailymeals, and strengthen the link and understanding between our university systems and the local ruraleconomy.

Michigan’s higher education system is composed o 66 public and private colleges/universities as well as 30community colleges.44 A majority o these institutions o higher education oer dining services in some orm,be it a dining hall, caé, restaurant or catering. Students at campuses across the state are increasingly de-

manding access to more locally produced meal options at their caeterias. In response to this growing studentdemand, university dining hall ches and ood buyers have begun integrating ood products grown, raisedand/or processed in Michigan into their core menu oerings. Local products that have been successullyintegrated into college menus range rom resh ruits and vegetables to eggs, dairy products, and value-added products such as applesauce, jams and salad dressings.45

camPus sustainaBility initiatives

Some Michigan colleges and universities are already engaged in local ood purchasing. Many o theseprograms were set in motion by campuswide sustainability initiatives established by students and acultymembers. For example, the University o Michigan recently launched the Student Sustainability Initiative (SSI),a campuswide sustainability organization that is dedicated to assessing and addressing “the spectrum o en-vironmental, educational, social, and ethical issues arising rom sustainability.”46 SSI is made up o numerous

task orce subgroups, one o which is the Michigan Sustainable Foods Initiative (MSFI). The MSFI is seeking toincrease the amount o locally sourced and sustainably produced ood on campus and illustrates the role thatstudent groups can play in mobilizing local ood purchasing eorts on college campuses.47

43 Izumi, B.T., Alaimo, K., and Hamm, M.W. (2010) Farm-to-School programs: perspectives o school ood service proessionals. Journal o Nutrition Educationand Behavior, 42(2), 83-91.44 National Center or Education Statistics (NCES) “U.S. Department o Education listing o accredited institutions in Michigan.” Retrieved rom http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=MI45 Western Michigan University. “WMU Dining Service Locally Sourced Initiative.” Retrieved rom http://www.wmich.edu/dining/green/locally-sourced.html46 “The Student Sustainability Initiative: About Us: SSI University o Michigan. Retrieved rom http://www.umich.edu/~umssi/about.html47 “The Student Sustainability Initiative: Main Page.” SSI University o Michigan. Retrieved rom http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ssi/main_page

http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=MI






Another successul example o a university local ood initiative is the Sustainable Community Develop-ment Initiative (SCDI) at Grand Valley State University. The SCDI was ounded in 1999 with the acultyas a driving orce. A student chapter to the SCDI has now been added through the Student Sustain-ability Partnership, providing a orum or student leaders rom campus organizations to come together to work on SCDI projects. The central goal behind the SCDI is to “make Grand Valley as sustain-

able as possible”. Initiative organizers have chosen ood procurement and dining as one o its ocalareas.48 The SCDI has initiated “green” purchasing goals, which aim to increase purchases o locallygrown and processed ood products. The goal to source locally is motivated by a desire to simulta-neously: obtain products that are environmentally riendly, oster growth in the local economy, andimprove relationships between the university and the surrounding communities.

nationwide eorts

The initiatives instituted by the University o Michigan and Grand Valley State University are localexamples o a nationwide movement ocused on the increased purchase and use o resh andlocal ood products. Recently, a nationwide survey by the Community Food Security Coalitionwas conducted to assess why campuses were undertaking such initiatives, as well as what theyenvisioned as the perceived benets o arm-to-college programs at universities and colleges.

The survey ound that “supporting local armers, community and/or economy” was the mostcommonly cited benet, ollowed closely by “higher quality ood” and “lower environmentalimpacts”.49 For colleges and universities, the notion o reduced environmental impact is usuallybased on the belie that the shorter the distance ood has traveled, the better it is or the environ-ment. Additionally, i ood has been produced in a “sustainable manner”, it is generally assumedto be less environmentally destructive and less dependent on ossil uel. However the environmen-tal benets o local are interpreted, dening “environmentally riendly” ood practices can be challeng-ing, especially when local production and purchasing are not always congruent with environmentallyriendly practices.50 As local ood purchasing continues to grow, there will be an increasing opportunityand need or urther research and education on the actual environmental and social benets derivedrom local sourcing programs. The ambiguous nature o “local” and its impacts on the environmenthas opened up a continuing dialogue between consumers, ood service buyers and academics on

how ood is being produced, the environmental merit o various production strategies, and the envi-ronmental and social benets o local ood purchasing programs.

deining local and measuring local sourcing

Colleges and universities that have started to include local purchasing in their ood service oten dier in how they dene “locally sourced oods”. For example, Michigan State University denes“local” as within a 250-mile radius o the campus. Alternatively, Hope College denes it as anyproduct produced or grown in Michigan. Finally, other Michigan colleges and universities dene“local” on a regional basis, such as products grown or processed in the Great Lakes states. Althoughdenitions o “local” may vary, the shared advantage o them all is that local ood purchasingprograms are keeping dollars circulating within local communities in and/or around Michigan.

Statewide, colleges and universities dier not only in their denition o “local” but also in their “local sourcing strategy”. For example, Hillsdale College’s strategy broadly encourages its caeteriasto “purchase Michigan products whenever possible”.51 Other universities set concrete and measurablegoals, such as Grand Valley State University, which aims to increase local purchasing by 10 percentannually.52 Aggressive local sourcing eorts are assisted by creative ches, who are rearranging their

48 “Sustainability on Campus - Sustainable Community Development Initiative.” Grand Valley State University. Retrieved romhttp://www.gvsu.edu/sustainability/sustainablity-on-campus-144.htm49 “Program Profles.” Farm to College. Retrieved rom http://www.armtocollege.org/survey. Question asked: “What do you see as the most

signifcant benefts o arm-to-college programs?”50 Born, B., Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal o Planning Education andResearch, 26(2), 195-207.51 “Hillsdale College - Green Report Card 2010.” The College Sustainability Report Card. Retrieved rom http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2010/schools/hillsdale-college/surveys/dining-survey52 “Sustainability - Campus Dining.” Grand Valley State University. Retrieved rom http://www.gvsu.edu/campusdine/index.cm?id=A7763EAE-

D4B4-0EDD-16CF84191E7F2062

http://www.gvsu.edu/sustainability/sustainablity-on-campus-144.htm






menus to incorporate local products. For example, Che Buzz Cummings at the University o Michigan plansmenus well in advance on the basis o what products will be available locally – he makes a conscious eort tocreate meals that incorporate seasonal ruits and vegetables. Food can be delivered resh daily, then preparedrom scratch and made to order as an alternative to the prepackaged, reheated options that tend to be morecommon in institutional kitchens.53

local marketing/education

In an eort to increase the visibility o their local purchasing eorts, college and university campuses in Michi-gan have created displays and logos that indicate the local nature o their products. Items are labeled as “lo-cally sourced” or “eat local,” giving purchasers, including students with prepaid meal plans, the opportunityto make educated decisions about their ood choices.

In addition, many colleges and universities provide education about their local purchasing through brochures,workshops, seminars or campus Web sites. Web sites include inormation about sustainable practices in oodservices and campus events that eature local ood. For example, Albion College’s dining halls and campuscaés hold annual harvest dinners eaturing an all-local menu and events such as “Michigan Meal Days” thathighlight local ood products.54

camPus gardens and arms

Some campuses have also established demonstration gardens, campus arms or greenhouses where studentsnot only have the opportunity to see how ood is grown and participate in its production but can also ollowthe produce rom the eld to the dining halls where it is served. In act, a recent nationwide survey o 113colleges by the National Association o College and University Food Services ound that 35 percent o cam-puses were incorporating gardens or arms as part o a sustainability program.55

Michigan examples o such student arms are at Wayne State University, Michigan State University and theUniversity o Michigan. In 2008, Wayne State University established the Warrior Demonstration Garden,thanks to the help o campus and community partners. The garden has a number o raised beds a variety o crops. The garden provides an opportunity or students to volunteer, assisting in planting and harvesting pro-

duce that is used in the Wayne State University dining halls, sold at the campus armers’ markets and donatedto local ood assistance programs.56

The Student Organic Farm (SOF) at Michigan State University (MSU) exemplies another productive partner-ship between campus dining and a student arm. The arm serves a number o purposes – an educational toolor students in an organic arming certicate program, a site or experiential learning or student volunteersand a local source o resh produce. In 2008, MSU culinary services ormed Spartan Harvest, a joint venturewith the SOF. The objective o Spartan Harvest is to provide resh, organic produce to campus dining halls atMSU. Passive solar greenhouses are a distinctive aspect o the SOF, one that enables a year-round supply o resh, local produce. These greenhouses make the dream o having a locally sourced salad bar in January areality. Snyder/Phillips, one o the largest dining halls on the MSU campus, serves about 25 percent o the to-tal meals on campus and has been a continually satised customer o the SOF produce. The ches o Snyder/Phillips have even become active participants in the ood production, occasionally assisting the arm with the

daily planting and harvesting o the produce to be used in the dining hall.57

Yet another campus garden example is the Cultivating Community program at the University o Michigan.Student volunteers are provided with experiential learning about various growing methods, composting andpest management. Produce rom the gardens is used by students, served in a dorm caeteria or donated toa local ood assistance program.58

53 “Green & Sustainable Dining, University Housing.” Homepage, University Housing. Retrieved rom http://www.housing.umich.edu/dining/sustainable54 “Dining Services, Albion College Sustainability.” Retrieved rom http://www.albion.edu/sustainability/departmental-initiatives/dining-services55 The National Association o College and University Food Services, “Sustainability Guide”, 2010.56 “SEED Wayne Warrior Demonstration Garden.” SEED Wayne. Wayne State University. Retrieved rom http://clas.wayne.edu/unit-inner.asp?WebPageID=285457 Cavanaugh, Bonnie B. “Hooping It Up.” Food Service Director. Retrieved rom http://www.sdmag.com/going-green/hooping-it-up.html58 University o Michigan. “Matthaei Botanical Gardens and Nichols Arboretum: Cultivating Community.” Retrieved rom http://www.lsa.umich.edu/mbg/learn/cc/gardens.asp

http://clas.wayne.edu/unit-inner.asp?WebPageID=2854



http://www.lsa.umich.edu/mbg/learn/cc/gardens.asp








In addition to campus arms and gardens, weekly armers’ markets located on university and collegecampuses are also providing the opportunity or students, aculty members and campus sta membersto purchase local products and establish a connection with the ood production community. Studentarms and on-campus armers’ markets are a growing trend and serve as a means o supporting localagriculture and stimulating excitement or local ood.

ood service management

In many cases, college and university dining services are operated by an external ood service man-agement company such as Sodexo, Aramark, Bon Appétit Management Company, Saga, Inc., Cre-ative Dining Services or AVI Foodsystems, Inc. These corporate ood service operators can play anintegral role in the success o local ood purchasing programs by partnering with colleges and universi-ties to determine how best to bring more local ood into campus eating establishments. For example,as part o Aramark’s social responsibility initiative, it “oer[s] clients and customers resh whole oodsthat are raised, grown, harvested, and produced locally and in a sustainable manner whenever pos-sible.”59 This program is currently in place at Central Michigan University, where Aramark has set upprograms and policies called “Green Thread”, with the goal o increasing the level o sustainable ood(which incorporates local purchasing) by 5 percent annually.60 Meanwhile, Bon Appétit Management

Company aims to integrate sustainability into its core ood service provisions by making integration o seasonal and local produce prepared rom scratch a hallmark o its daily operations.61 Finally, CreativeDining Services is a Michigan-based company that has also demonstrated a commitment to local oodpurchasing. Creative Dining Services instituted a sustainability program called “Grow” that includesthe goal o purchasing locally grown products.62 The Grow program, which is being tried and tested atHope College, has provided the college with the opportunity to partner with 14 local ood purveyors.In addition to ood service providers, local ood distributors are also providing linkages that institutionsneed to make more local ood accessible. For example, Shelton Farms, a local produce distributor inNiles, Mich., is supplying produce to Western Michigan University as part o its local ood initiative.63

Brriers nd Chllenges

Budgetary constraintsIncreasing local ood purchasing at colleges and universities presents numerous challenges. To beginwith, the population o students served daily at colleges and universities varies greatly depending onthe size o the school. On Michigan campuses, student enrollment can range rom 1,300 to 41,000.Though not all o those students are being served ood on campus, the numbers illustrate the actthat each school operates according to substantively dierent budget parameters. As a result, aone-size-ts-all model or purchasing would not be applicable. As shown in Table 3, ood purchas-ing budgets can range rom $80,000 to $18 million. These numbers represent a variety o situations– some o these budgets cover strictly residential dining while others include campuswide total oodpurchasing or residential dining as well as convenience stores, catering, conerence centers, etc.University ood service budgets are not as scally constrained as those o K-12 schools, but universityood services ace challenges in serving ull healthy meals that are within the budget constraints o their

college students.

59 “Environmental Stewardship, Social Responsibility, ARAMARK.” Food Services ARAMARK. Retrieved romhttp://www.aramark.com/SocialRe- sponsibility/EnvironmentalStewardship/#ood60 “Dining with Central Michigan University.” Green Stakes. Central Michigan University. Retrieved romhttp://www.campusdish.com/en-US/CSMW/CMU/Sustainability/GreenStakes.htm61 Bon Appétit Management Company. Retrieved rom http://www.bamco.com/page/8/kitchen-principles.htm62 “Growing or the Good.” Creative Dining Services Employee Extranet. Retrieved rom http://www.cdsbecreative.com/grow/growingorthegood.htm63 “Locally Sourced Products.” Western Michigan University. Retrieved rom http://www.wmich.edu/dining/green/locally-sourced.html

http://www.aramark.com/SocialResponsibility/EnvironmentalStewardship/#food


http://www.campusdish.com/en-US/CSMW/CMU/Sustainability/GreenStakes.htm


http://www.cdsbecreative.com/grow/growingforthegood.htm










64 College Sustainability Report Card (www.greenreportcard.org) and the National Association o College and University Food Services (Bob Robinson, NA-CUFS, Personal communication).65 Marta Mittermaier, procurement manager or Michigan State University Food Stores, personal communication, Feb. 2010.66 Murray, S.C. (2005). A Survey o Farm-to-college Programs: History, Characteristics and Student Involvement. Thesis. University o Washington.

reliaBle sourcing

Large universities such as the University o Michigan and Michigan State University have enrollments between40,000 and 45,000 and serve up to 30,000 students per day. They thereore require a larger volume o prod-uct than most small to midscale armers are prepared to supply.65 Additionally, they preer uniorm products andthe assurance o timely deliveries. Some local armers may have the ability to meet these demands and prod-uct specications, but this type o procurement may be more complex than sourcing ood through a broadlinedistributor.

In addition, college institutions requently work through a broadline distributor that can oer products with somelevel o ood preparation prior to their arrival at the campus ood locales. Such specications can include any-thing rom specic pack sizes and amounts to some level o processing (washed, sorted, sliced, etc.). Becausescheduling deliveries, managing invoices and coordinating purchasing rom multiple vendors may be challeng-ing and more expensive (because o the additional labor required), colleges and universities may require oodvendors to work through their designated produce distributors.66 This barrier may be dicult or local producersto overcome.

Table 3. College nd University Food Purchsing Budgets in Michign. 64

Nme Type Enrollment Operted by Totl nnulfood budget

Hillsdale College Private 1,347 Saga Inc. $ 1,253,354

Kalamazoo College Private 1,381 Sodexo $ 900,000

Albion College Private 1,750 College/University $ 1,350,000 Hope College Private 3,093 Creative Dining $ 2,679,000

Services

Andrews University Private 3,419 College/University $ 1,339,500

Lawrence Technological Private 4,000 Management $ 620,000University Company

Saginaw Valley State Public 10,498 Management $ 5,840,000University Company

Lansing Community Public 19,465 Management $ 1,365,800

College Company Grand Valley State Public 24,408 Aramark $ 6,500,000

Western Michigan Public 24,576 College/University $ 3,491,062University

Wayne State University Public 31,786 AVI $ 1,250,935Foodsystems, Inc.

University of Michigan Public 41,040 College/University $ 8,500,000

Michigan State Public 41,148 College/University $18,000,000University

Kirtland Community Public n/a College/University $ 80,000College

T O T a L $ 53,169,651



67 Community Food Security Coalition. Retrieved rom http://www.armtocollege.org/.

These constraints underscore a larger underlying theme in caeteria purchasing. The current oodprocurement process is designed or eciency, not diversity. As a result, there is no easy route throughwhich small to medium-scale local armers can provide Michigan-produced products to institutions aseciently and seamlessly as larger broadline ood distributors can. Figure 1 below illustrates the patho most institutional ood purchases.

Though the above supply chain works relatively smoothly, challenges have arisen on both the armand institutional sides o the supply chain when institutions have attempted to initiate more local oodprocurement.

Figure 1. The Pthwy of Institutionl Food Purchsing

Frmer Broker Distributor aggregtor Institution Consumer

s o m e t i m e s d i r e c t t o s o m e t i m e s d i r e c t t o

*”Other” represents engaging students (5.8%), product quality (4.6%), getting administrative support (4.3%), other (3.1%), resolving insuranceneeds (2.7%), retraining kitchen staff members(1.5%) and N/A (.72%)

Figure 2. Brriers To nd Chllenges For

Frm-To-College Progrms 67

Results o a Community FoodSecurity Coalition (CFSC)survey indicate that coordinatingpurchase and delivery, ndinggrowers, and product quality aresome o the most common bar-riers that need to be addressedto achieve continued successwith arm-to-college programs. Aggregated data specically or Michigan have not been gath-

ered, but discussions with thoseengaged in arm-to-institutionpurchasing oten cite the samebarriers identied in the CFSCsurvey. Adding to the challenge,broadline distributors are notalways eager to work withlocal producers because it cantake more time and money toacilitate relationships with themthan with large-scale producers– oten not local – who already

have established relationshipsthat work well. Figure 2 includesresults rom the CFSC, iden-tiying barriers to starting andsustaining a arm-to-collegeprogram.

Other*23%

Coordintingpurchse/delivery

of products18%

Findinggrowers/locl

supply

16%

Sesonlity 13%

Product price13%Product

quntity 11%

Gettingfrmers

pprovedthrough

food servicecompny

6%



ood saety Food saety is another concern or college and university ood service directors that can present challenges andbarriers to local growers. The responsibility o serving a sae product to thousands o students a day requiresstringent ood saety policies. Such policies can range rom those required by contracted ood service manage-ment companies, campus-created ood saety standards, USDA Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certica-

tion and/or other third-party audits. Meeting these ood saety requirements can be a dicult hurdle or localproducers to overcome, especially small to medium-sized arms. In act, ood saety issues may even discouragesome growers rom engaging in arm-to-institution partnerships. The costs to armers or certication or requiredinrastructure changes to meet ood saety requirements may be so high that they outweigh the benets o sellingto colleges and universities.

student and administrative suPPort

Another barrier to success o local purchasing at colleges and universities is the support necessary rom thestudent population as well as administration. Some o the current local purchasing programs at Michigancolleges and universities were initiated by student demand, which then led to administrative endorsement. Administrative endorsement is key to program success because administrators control the ood service contractsand ultimately the power to request more local sourcing. Without administrative support, the opportunity or

growth in local sourcing is limited, and getting o the ground is unlikely. Hiring campuswide sustainabilitycoordinators or sustainable ood directors can help acilitate local ood purchasing programs, but it is notalways possible or a campus to provide this kind o support.

suPPly side constraints

I Michigan colleges and universities continue to increase their local purchasing, the question remains whether the demand could be met by the current number o armers and processors. New armer initiatives and devel-opment o local ood inrastructure – or example, distribution and ood processing – would help increase theeconomical easibility o institutional marketing or more armers who wish to start or scale up to meet thegrowing local sourcing demand.

oPPortunities

Fourteen Michigan colleges and universities were reviewed to assess their potential purchasing power (SeeTable 3). The total annual ood budgets at these institutions amounted to $53 million annually. Nine o the 14colleges listed, those surveyed or the 2010 College Sustainability Report Card, already purchase locally grownor processed products. The percent o the total annual budget spent on local products ranged rom 2 to 20percent. Whatever the reason or local purchasing – environmental reasons, new purchasing policy mandates or a desire to support local markets – these numbers indicate both that local purchasing is occurring at Michigancolleges and universities and that there is plenty o room or growth.

Table 4 is based on the total annual budget inormation rom these 14 campuses and indicates the potentialpurchasing power i local ood purchasing made up 1.5 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent and 20percent o the total annual budgets.

Table 4. Potentil Locl Food Purchsing Power

Percentage of total food budget used for local food purchases

$$ staying inlocal economy

1.5% 3% 5% 10% 20%

$797,545 $1,595,090 $2,658,483 $5,316,965 $10,633,930



A recent survey nationwide o 105 colleges and universities by the National Association o Collegeand University Food Services determined that, on average, college institutions spend 16.6 percent o their total ood and beverage purchases on local products. The denition o “local” or those surveyedvaried rom within 100 miles or less to within the state/province.68 Because this average is alreadybeing achieved at some institutions, it is exciting to imagine what could be accomplished i the

aorementioned barriers to local purchasing were addressed.What is clear is that college and university dining services present an opportunity or growers,processors and distributors to tap into a market seeking a year-round supply o products. Althoughthe number o meals served by ood service operations peaks during the school year, many campuseshave summer sessions as well as catering services that are utilized or special events during the summer months. Additionally, most campuses have multiple dining halls, which can provide menu fexibility andthe demand or a wide variety o locally produced ood products. Furthermore, colleges and universi-ties are oten equipped with the inrastructure necessary or relatively easy integration o resh, localproducts. They are more likely than some other institutions, such as K-12 schools, to have the necessaryequipment, storage and trained sta members needed to use resh products. Additionally, thoughbudget constraints are oten a limiting actor or institutional purchasing, colleges and universities havea little more fexibility and are better able to pass along a portion o the price increases to the nal

consumer than are K-12 schools.

According to another national survey by the CFSC o 304 colleges and universities, 64 percent o colleges and universities had contract managed ood service operations; the rest were sel-operated.Contract managed ood services tend to have less fexibility in purchasing than sel-operated collegesand universities because they oten negotiate prices on the basis o bulk purchases rom large compa-nies.69 Though many campuses are contract managed, there has been a trend and an opportunity or growth among some o these companies, which are putting orth an eort to make local ood moreaccessible. Bon Appétit, AVI Foodsystems and Creative Dining Services, or example, have includedsustainable ood practices in their management plans. A key component o these management plansis establishing relationships with local armers and suppliers as a means o procuring the reshest, besttasting products. This is an encouraging sign, and we hope that this trend will continue as demand or

local ood on campuses continues to grow.

Beyond ruits and vegetaBles

Colleges and universities have successully started to integrate local ruits and vegetables into their oodservices, but there is still tremendous opportunity to expand local purchasing by branching out intomore diverse local ood products, such as dairy, poultry, bee and seaood. In the all o 2010, MichiganState University began serving (when available) locally raised bee roasts, stew cuts and fank steaks, aswell as Michigan-grown eggs. In addition, the university already purchases over 90 percent o its turkeyrom a local producer. These successes at MSU provide an example o the potential local sourcing thatcan occur when campus ood service providers are willing to seek out such product oerings.

Summry

Colleges and universities in Michigan are in a unique position to utilize their immense purchasingpower to dramatically infuence and shape the ood purchasing decisions o students at campusesaround the state. A number o examples o successul sustainability initiatives and new ood purchasingpolicies are providing opportunities or consumers to experience something dierent in campus dininghalls. Students, aculty and sta members, and visitors can learn about the cornucopia o agriculturalproducts the state has to oer and see agriculture as a resilient centerpiece o Michigan communitiesas the state moves orward through these dicult economic times to a brighter uture.

68 The National Association o College and University Food Services, “Sustainability Guide”, 2010.69 “Dishing up Local Food on Wisconsin Campuses (Research Brie #55).” Center or Integrated Agricultural Systems. Jan 2010. Retrieved romhttp://www.cias.wisc.edu/arm-to-ork/dishing-up-local-ood-on-wisconsin-campuses/



70 HCWH, Going Green: A Resource Kit or Pollution Prevention in Health Care, April 6, 200671 Keshavan, M. (2008) “Health Care Centers Take Pledge, Detroit Free Press, July 8.

Michigan’s Healthcare Sector: The Current Situation

In general, hospitals and health systems are experiencing the combined eects o the widespread economiccrisis and an evolving healthcare insurance nancing system. In this context, levels o awareness and participa-tion in emerging local, regional and state ood purchasing initiatives appear to vary greatly across healthcareinstitutions. Yet despite these challenges, the healthcare industry sector appears to represent an area o great

potential growth and leadership in shaping the uture o Michigan’s ood system and improving the quality o ood it provides to the three main groups it serves: patients, visitors or the public, and sta. The ollowing sec-tions identiy several strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and barriers to advancing local ood purchasing withinMichigan’s health industry sector.

Positive Trends cross the Helthcre Industry

Three positive trends in current Michigan hospital ood purchasing have been identied. These seem to refectmarket and social orces aecting the broad ood industry.

HosPitals are increasingly going “green”

The green movement among hospitals corresponds to a major trend that has been exploding across the larger cultural, hospitality and retail landscape. As evidenced by the work o participatory coalitions such as HealthCare Without Harm (HCWH), and by the work o the Michigan Health and Hospital Association in creating theMichigan Green Health Care Committee, recognition by the healthcare industry o the connectivity betweenhealth and environment continues to grow stronger. New denitions o care are encompassing a broad visiono the role o healthcare institutions in community and society: “Hospitals and health systems have opportunitiesto help prevent ood-related health concerns by modeling good nutrition in their institutions and by infuencinghow ood is produced and distributed. Through its ood purchasing decisions, the U.S. health care industry canpromote health by providing more resh, good tasting, and nutritious ood choices or patients, sta, and thecommunity. And by supporting ood production that is local, humane, and protective o the environment andhealth, health care providers can lead the way to more sustainable agricultural practices.”70

HosPitals are emPHasizing HealtH and wellness

An emphasis on wellness and prevention is emerging as part o a new paradigm or healthcare. As a naturalextension o the environmentally based trend, this trend includes a push or alternative diets and healthy ood. Adoption o the HCWH Healthy Food in Health Care pledge by hospital decision makers oers an opportunityor Michigan healthcare institutions to infuence ood system outcomes. The pledge is an initiative begun in2005 that outlines goals or hospitals to improve the quality o their ood. Healthcare is a recognized and pow-erul sector o the Michigan economy, and this potential infuence cannot be overstated. Adopters o the pledgeto date include St. Joseph Mercy in Ann Arbor, Chelsea Community Hospital in Chelsea, Borgess Medical Cen-ter and Bronson Methodist Hospital in Kalamazoo, Metro Health Hospital in Grand Rapids, Sparrow Hospitalin Lansing, Henry Ford West Bloomeld Hospital, Servants o the Immaculate Heart o St. Mary in Monroe andNorthern Michigan Regional Hospital in Petoskey.

“We signed the pledge back in May, but we’ve been involved in providing healthy ood or many years now,”said Michael Rowe, Director o Food Service at Bronson. “It just works out that many things listed on the pledge

are things we’ve been undertaking or quite some time.”71



72 Health Care Without Harm. Retrieved rom www.noharm.org73 Michigan Health and Hospital Association. Retrieved rom www.mha.org/mha_app/public_site/mghc.jsp

The following is an excerpt from the Healthy Food in Health Care pledge:

As a responsible provider o healthcare services, we are committed to the health o our patients,our sta and the local and global community. We are aware that ood production and distribu-tion methods can have adverse impacts on public environmental health. As a result, we recognizethat or the consumers who eat it, the workers who produce it and the ecosystems that sustain us,

healthy ood must be dened not only by nutritional quality, but equally by a ood system that iseconomically viable, environmentally sustainable, and supportive o human dignity and justice. Weare committed to the goal o providing local, nutritious and sustainable ood.

Specically, we are committed to the ollowing healthy ood in healthcare measures or our institution. We pledge to:

Increase our oering o ruit and vegetables, nutritionally dense and minimally processed, unre-ned oods, and reduce unhealthy (trans and saturated) ats and sweetened oods.

Implement a stepwise program to identiy and adopt sustainable ood procurement. Begin whereewer barriers exist and immediate steps can be taken, such as the adoption o rBGH-ree milk,air trade coee, or selections o organic and/or local resh produce in the caeteria.

Work with local armers, community-based organizations and ood suppliers to increase theavailability o resh, locally produced ood.

Encourage our vendors and/or ood management companies to supply us with ood that is pro-duced in systems that, among other attributes, eliminate the use o toxic pesticides, prohibit theuse o hormones and non-therapeutic antibiotics, support armer and arm worker health andwelare, and use ecologically protective and restorative agriculture.

Communicate to our Group Purchasing Organizations our interest in oods whose source andproduction practices (i.e., protect biodiversity, antibiotic and hormone use, local, pesticide use,etc.) are identied, so that we may have inormed consent and choice about the oods we pur-chase.

Develop a program to promote and source rom producers and processors which uphold thedignity o amily, armers, workers and their communities and support sustainable and humane

agriculture systems. Educate and communicate within our system and with our patients and community about our

nutritious, socially just and ecologically sustainable healthy ood practices and procedures.

Minimize and benecially reuse ood waste and support the use o ood packaging and productsthat are ecologically protective.

Report annually on implementation o this pledge.72

Implicit in the intent o pledge adopters is a willingness to procure ood ingredients and products romoutside current sources. Creation o these new demands makes it imperative that the market is able torespond with growth in the critical areas o supply, distribution and policy.

HosPitals are imPlementing new PurcHasing Programs

Hospitals implementing new wellness-based purchasing programs are working to collectively infuencesupply chain management, sourcing and marketing/education to constituent groups. The MichiganGreen Health Care Committee has a stated mission that articulates the recognition o responsible andsystemic actions that are implicit in a holistic concept o care. They intend to “…work to establish aramework or Michigan’s healthcare sector to improve the health and well-being o the state’s ecol-ogy and its citizens.”73 An innovative program, the A-Z Environmental Purchasing Campaign, sets up aramework or participants to purchase and market Michigan ood products starting at the beginning o the alphabet. The rst purchasing initiative, starting with “A” or apples, ocused on this healthy ruit inpart because Michigan is the third largest apple producer in the United States. The “Michigan Applesin Michigan Hospitals” campaign launched at seven sites – St. John Hospital and Medical Center,



74 Michigan Green Health Care Committee. (2009) “Recap 2009.” Retrieved rom www.mha.org/mha/documents/mghc/mghc_2009recap_020310.pd 75 Interview and correspondence, Hillary Bisnett, Ecology Center, December 2009-February 201076 Michigan Health and Hospital Association. Retrieved rom www.mha.org/mha_app/public_site/mghc.jsp77 Interview and correspondence, Hillary Bisnett, Ecology Center, December 2009-February 2010.78 Interview and correspondence, Eric Hahn, Locavore Food Distributors, December 2009-February 2010.79 Correspondence, Kevin Crampton, Senior Director o Business Development and Contracting, Hospital Purchasing Service, January 26, 2010.80 Michigan Health & Hospital Association. (2010) “2010 Michigan’s Community Hospitals: A Healthy Dose o the Facts.” Retrieved rom http://www.mha.org/mha_app/public_site/newsroom/publications.jsp

NORTHSTAR Health System, Bronson Methodist Hospital, Sturgis Hospital, Detroit Medical Center, Mid-Michi-gan Medical Center, (Clare), and Beaumont Hospital, (Troy) – has resulted in positive outcomes or state applegrowers and purchasing institutions. Michigan apple shippers moved nearly 990,000 cases o resh-packedMichigan apples in September 2009 – the most movement during this month since 1999.74 The Ecology Center in Ann Arbor has collected additional data,75 which provide urther evidence o this program gaining traction in

the healthcare sector. An accompanying Michigan Apple Toolkit76

that oers guidance in purchasing, educationand marketing assistance can be replicated or subsequent product campaigns.

Business nd Opertionl Chllenges in Chnging Food Service Opertions

In the context o heightened business pressures, Michigan hospitals ace several challenges to implementinglocal ood purchasing initiatives and scaling up changes in ood service operations. First, local purchasing mustbe adopted as a business imperative. Senior business leaders lack knowledge about ood service strategies thatcan eectively involve local sourcing possibilities. Lack o buy-in rom senior leadership and key decision mak-ers or local sourcing possibilities can delay or derail participation in a local purchasing initiative. Purchasingdepartments oten make sourcing decisions with autonomy. They may view purchasing through a singular lenso existing eciencies and systems without regard to larger initiatives unless they are directed to do so by senior leaders.77 Once a commitment is made to local sourcing, current product aggregation and distribution methods

make it dicult to identiy and ensure product source or geographic origin. Over time, this can lead to disin-centives or participation in local purchasing initiatives and/or weaken the eectiveness o these initiatives. Theelimination o the Select Michigan program, which provided a means o identication and marketing or stategrowers, has urther exacerbated this issue.

Next, operational changes are required to accommodate local sourcing, both within institutions and amonglocal suppliers. For example, inadequate or inappropriate inrastructure or storage and preparation, labor budget and/or sta skills may preclude ecient use o whole, resh products at a signicant scale. For growers,a lack o understanding and inrastructure or cleaning, weighing and packing can create a competitivedisadvantage.78

Lack o metrics or tracking specic product category purchases makes quantiying the economic indicators or local agriculture dicult. Without adequate data, incentives or transition to local ood purchases cannot be

eectively promoted to stakeholders. Documentation o the existing volume o these purchases is needed todemonstrate the economic potential o incremental increases o local ood procurement.

Standards or ood saety, sae ood practices and product certication are inconsistent and unclear. This can beexpensive and disadvantageous or small arms and producers and create compliance concerns among largeorganizations. For hospitals interested in sourcing locally, as well as or those considering on-site community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs or growing ood or use in their own operations, these ambiguities canrelate to liability issues in purchasing and serving.

Helth Sector Opportunities to advnce Locl Food Inititives

Despite many challenges, several compelling opportunities exist to expand the integration o local ood purchas-ing into Michigan’s hospital and healthcare sector. These opportunities relate to ostering the state’s economic

development, health and well-being. The infuence o this sector is signicant. The state has 144 communityhospitals, which provided well over 5 million days o inpatient care in 2008, and patient meals are part o thiscare. There is not an industry standard cost per bed per meal, but based on the approximately $1.60 per mealper bed spent at Acute acilities79, even one meal per day or inpatient eeding would result in more than $8million that could be spent or Michigan agricultural products. Additionally, healthcare is Michigan’s largestprivate sector employer, providing more than 900,000 combined direct and indirectly related jobs.80

http://www.mha.org/mha_app/public_site/newsroom/publications.jsp






81 Interview and correspondence, Michael Rowe, Director o Food, Nutrition and Retail Services at Bronson Methodist Hospital.November 5, 2010.82 Interview and correspondence, Diana Bott, Sysco-Detroit, December 2009-February 201083 Cantrell, P. (2009) “Sysco’s Journey rom Supply Chain to Value Chain: Results and Lessons Learned rom the 2008 National Good Food

Network/Sysco Corporation Pilot Project to Source and Sell Good Food.” Wallace Center at Winrock International.

contriButing to micHigan’s economy

The signicant purchasing power o healthcare institutions could expand to become a more power-ul agricultural economic driver. Within a ood budget o just under $3 million, Bronson MethodistHospital hopes to purchase $600,000 o local and/or sustainable ood in 2010 and hopes to eventu-ally purchase 50 percent o their ood (approximately $1.5 million) rom local vendors.81 For hospital

groups supplied by Sysco Detroit that are doing between $4 million and $4.5 million in volume, over $520,000 or each o these groups is spent on produce purchases; smaller independent units arebuying $130,000 each on average.82 This example clearly indicates that an alignment o goals thatwill encourage and ease preerences or locally sourced products and ease current constraints willresult in signicant economic benet or the state.

Building on tHe strengtH o current micHigan local ood initiatives

The strength o Michigan’s grass-roots local ood initiatives creates particular opportunities to acceler-ate and expand the scope and uptake o local ood purchasing among healthcare institutions. Distribu-tion channels have already begun responding to market demand or locally sourced products. This rip-ens the opportunity to make the case to corporate and political leaders that local ood initiatives makesense and should be pursued. An examination o the National Good Food Network/Sysco partnership

case study illustrates this positive response. Recognizing that customers across all market segmentswere beginning to change their purchasing requisites and values, Sysco entered into a partnership withthe Wallace Center in 2008 to “research and develop ways in which the company could transition romits traditional ood supply chain model to a new values-based supply chain, or value chain, approachto sourcing, selling and distributing ood.”83

Sysco Grand Rapids has been one o the rst locations to adopt this initiative. According to DenisJennisch, the Produce Category Manager or Sysco and leading gure behind the initiative, the dem-onstration project had numerous positive outcomes that beneted various local stakeholders. Theseincluded distinguishing Michigan products that they were already buying, enabling customers to useexisting ordering systems to speciy Michigan-grown items and acilitating the purchase o local value-added products (Sysco inputs raw Michigan arm products, value-added processors buy these rom

Sysco, then sell the nished product back to Sysco).84

Results rom the project were measured in incre-mental sales rom current and new suppliers. The project contributed 10 percent to the total volumeo sales in 2008, or 5,354 incremental cases and a $92,000 increase in incremental sales. Specicsuccesses included a 45 percent growth in the volume o alala sprouts rom a Michigan supplier. Theproject also introduced local pesticide-ree hydroponic leay greens into the Sysco Grand Rapids ware-house, as well as 20 producers and 100 items rom Michigan suppliers. The operating company alsoadded six new arm suppliers and 18 products.85

Other particular initiatives active within Michigan healthcare and hospital settings can be expandedand accelerated:

Enlisting more hospitals to sign the Healthy Food in Health Care pledge. Increasing participation o hospitals on ood policy councils.

Setting new benchmarks or hospital operating systems and marketing that ocus on holistic care. Integrating wellness concepts in patient menu planning/tracking that will include local ood

sourcing. Building awareness o health and economic benets o local ood purchasing through on-site

hospital armers’ markets. Using models such as the Michigan Hospital Association apple campaign to organize purchasing

eorts with new paradigms or sourcing and marketing.



Structurl Brriers in the Food System

Barriers to local ood purchasing initiatives or hospitals and other institutions are apparent andsignicant. These cut across all sectors o the ood system.

There are supply issues within the current ood system. An abbreviated growing season, combined

with growing demand, leads to demand outpacing supply. Current programs that educate, undor otherwise create incentives or new armers to begin arming or to enable arms to expand oodproduction or their growing season with capital investment are inadequate.

In many instances, small growers and producers can be eectively shut out o the marketplace bysupply chain orces and regulations that avor larger ood businesses. These smaller businesses thathave an interest in pursuing the competitive bidding process cannot compete with the large business-es oering volume discounts and rebates. Furthermore, smaller businesses may not even know howto place a bid. Institutional purchasing contracts are sometimes generic and have to be rewritten topertain specically to ood.86

Because o the centralized nature o some acets o the supply chain, hospitals belonging to mul-tistate or national corporations can lack the autonomy to speciy local ood purchases. Lack o

governmental mandates or tax incentives or geographic purchasing may create insurmountabledisadvantages or local producers.

Currently, legislative approaches can be regressive or disadvantageous to ood-based initiatives. A recent IRS decision has disallowed community-building and community-based prevention invest-ments as measures to be counted as community-benet spending on non-prot hospital IRS 990lings. A healthy diet is the most cost-eective orm o healthcare available. Heart disease, strokes,diabetes and cancer, all o which are related to diet, cost millions o dollars a year in medical billsand lost productivity. Healthcare systems are challenged to sustain the burden o expensive treat-ments o preventable diseases. To protect Michigan’s healthcare system, especially as the populationages and chronic diseases peak, diet and nutrition need to be treated as a rst line o deense.87

Agribusiness has powerul infuence over legislators and regulatory agencies. They infuence stan-

dards on the basis o the needs o huge business concerns, and this can disadvantage smaller, lesspowerul growers and producers.

Summry

Clearly, Michigan hospitals and healthcare providers are beginning to coalesce as a growing orceto infuence change in the ood system. By recognizing and acting on shiting paradigms o care andcommunity, they have the ability to leverage health industry trends to drive agricultural economicdevelopment and the policies and practices that benet the citizenry o our state. Leading institutionsand cutting-edge initiatives that are models or purchasing by hospitals can be applied to other institutions and can inorm policymakers and other stakeholders about options that can be broadlyapplied. Continuing to shit ood purchasing dollars to local and in-state producers and acilitatinglocal purchasing processes or all stakeholders will produce win-win outcomes or our overall social

and economic health and prosperity.

Positive next steps should include conversations with Michigan health sector leaders and representa-tives o other state institutions and industry to help ormulate and support policy recommendationsand options or moving them orward.

84 Source: Interview and correspondence, Denis Jennisch, Sysco-Grand Rapids, December 2009-February 201085 Cantrell, P. (2009) “Sysco’s Journey rom Supply Chain to Value Chain: Results and Lessons Learned rom the 2008 National Good FoodNetwork/Sysco Corporation Pilot Project to Source and Sell Good Food.” Wallace Center at Winrock International. Retrieved April 15, 2010rom http://www.ngn.org/resources/research-1/innovative-models/NGFN%20Case%20Study_Syscos%20Journey%20From%20Supply%20Chain%20to%20Value%20Chain.pd.86 Interview and correspondence, Sandy Brewer, Todosciuk Farms, December 2009-February 201087

Interview and correspondence, Hillary Bisnett, Ecology Center, December 2009-February 2010

http://www.ngfn.org/resources/research-1/innovative-models/NGFN%20Case%20Study_Syscos%20Journey%20From%20Supply%20Chain%20to%20Value%20Chain.pdf






Institutional Purchasing Goals

26

Clearly, interest in local oods at Michigan’s institutions is considerable and is growing. Though nobaseline data are available on institutional ood purchasing, anecdotal evidence suggests thatsignicant market potential exists or Michigan’s armers and ood businesses to capitalize on this

interest. We propose the ollowing goals as targets or making good ood available at Michigan’sinstitutions:

Increase local ood purchases at Michigan’s institutions, including K-12 schools, colleges/universities, hospitals and correctional acilities, to 5 percent o the total ood budgets by 2012,10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.

Increase local ood distribution to institutions through all distribution channels – broadline,produce, specialty, regionally based and arm direct – to 5 percent o the total products distributedby 2012, 10 percent by 2015 and 20 percent by 2020.

Increase Michigan processors’ purchase and use o Michigan-grown and Michigan-raisedingredients to 5 percent o total processor ingredients by 2012, 10 percent by 2015 and

20 percent by 2020.

Photo by Kathryn Colasanti.



The above goals are not mandates but rather guiding principles and targets to aim to achieve.For our purposes here, “local ood” means ood that is grown, raised and/or processed inMichigan. In some Michigan communities near our borders, local ood may also mean oodrom a neighboring state and/or Canada. The rst goal o increasing local ood purchasesat Michigan’s institutions requires the next two corollary goals: increasing local ood distribu-tion to acilitate increased institutional purchases; and increasing use o Michigan ingredientsin processed products produced in Michigan to ensure that institutional buyers can supportMichigan processors and ood businesses and Michigan agriculture simultaneously with their purchasing dollars. Incremental improvements in local ood inrastructure, agricultural produc-tion and local ood availability are required to reach the ultimate goal o increasing local oodpurchasing by institutions to 20 percent by 2020.




88 U.S. Department o Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. “Grading, Certifcation and Verifcation.” Retrieved romhttp://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.etchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateD&page=FreshFVGAPGHPStateIndex

The ollowing indicators, based on publicly accessible and routinely collected inormation and data,can demonstrate progress toward the goals stated above:

overall Michigan MarketMaker (http://mi.marketmaker.uiuc.edu) is an “interactive mapping system that

locates businesses and markets o agricultural products in Michigan, providing an important linkbetween producers and consumers.” To date, only a ew hundred Michigan armers are registeredon this site, which is set up to acilitate arm-to-institution sales in particular. Additional educationis needed to get more users, both armers and buyers, to sign up on the Web site. Increases in thenumber o hits to the site, as well as the number o armers and institutional buyers registered, is anindicator o interest in arm-to-institution sales

The USDA Census o Agriculture oers additional data that may help track the progress o localood purchasing by Michigan institutions. Because demand or local ood at institutions is grow-ing quickly, it is likely that current agricultural production and supply cannot meet these demands.

Tracking the changing ratio o agricultural production o commodities such as eld corn to thato specialty crops (ruits and vegetables), livestock and dairy will help demonstrate the growingsupply o local ood products to meet demand rom institutions and other markets. In addition, anincrease in the number o arms in Michigan will help increase the supply o local ood products or local and direct markets.

As more distributors and institutional ood buyers are seeking armers with USDA Good AgriculturalPractices (GAP), Good Handling Practices (GHP) or other certications, the number o Michiganarms with GAP and/or GHP audits as tracked by the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service willshow the number o armers prepared to supply institutional markets.88

k-12 scHools

The Michigan Farm to School(www.miarmtoschool.msu.edu) andNational Farm to School (www.national-armtoschool.org) Web sites both allowpractitioners o arm-to-school programsto register programs or listing on thesesites. The Michigan Farm to SchoolWeb site hosts a program directory thatwill continue to eed into the Michiganprole page on the National Farm toSchool Web site. The number o Michi-gan arm-to-school programs on thesesites can demonstrate increases in the

number o arm-to-school programs inthe state.

Indicators

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateD&page=FreshFVGAPGHPStateIndex






colleges and universities

Similarly, the Community Food Security Coalition hosts a national arm-to-college Web site(www.armtocollege.org), which lists program proles o those or which completed surveys weresubmitted. To date, only three Michigan colleges and universities are registered on this site: KalamazooCollege, the University o Michigan and Wayne State University. Additional proles o Michigan colleges

or universities added to this site will demonstrate increased local purchasing in this sector, as well asincreased visibility o these programs.

GreenReportCard.org provides in-depth sustainability proles o U.S. colleges and universities, includ-ing the College Sustainability Report Card, which evaluates the sustainability activities on campuses andthrough endowments. This report card evaluates the 300 colleges and universities with the largest endow-ments and other schools that applied to be included. Michigan State University, the University o Michigan,Wayne State University, Kalamazoo College and Western Michigan University are all included and areannually evaluated separately in the categories o administration, climate change and energy, ood andrecycling, green building, student involvement, transportation, endowment transparency, investment priori-ties and shareholder engagement. The ood and recycling category evaluates dining services policies suchas recycling, composting and local ood purchasing. Michigan schools that increase local ood purchases

and other sustainability practices in dining services and recycling will receive higher grades in this category,which can be tracked over time.

The Association or the Advancement o Sustainability in Higher Education has recently released a Sustain-ability Tracking, Assessment and Rating System (STARS), which “is a transparent, sel-reporting rameworkor colleges and universities to gauge relative progress toward sustainability.”89 Colleges and universitiescan register to be part o the program, then report on a variety o sustainability-related issues to earn“credits”. They then receive a STARS rating, which will be valid or three years. One o the ways that creditscan be earned in the “dining services” section is by purchasing local ood. Points are determined on thebasis o the percentage o ood expenditures going toward local ood. The number o points earned byschools in the dining services category can serve as an indicator o local purchasing. Grand Valley StateUniversity, Jackson Community College and Michigan State University have already registered to be part o the program, and as other Michigan campuses join, the program will provide a publicly accessible data-

base o inormation about those schools and sustainable ood practices they are using.

The Real Food Challenge is a nationwide campaign to increase procurement o real ood on college anduniversity campuses to 20 percent by 2020. For the purposes o this campaign, “real ood” is dened asproducts that are ethically and humanely produced, environmentally sustainable and healthy; taste good;build community; and have the potential to inspire social change – and this includes local purchasing.To measure this, the Real Food Calculator has been developed. This is a survey tool that can be used atany institution, not just college and university ood services. Currently Calvin College, Central MichiganUniversity, Kalamazoo College, Michigan State University and the University o Michigan have all registeredwith the Real Food Challenge database, and this will provide measurable indicators that will make itpossible to compare institutions as well as assess how close they are to achieving the goal o 20 percent

real ood by 2020.

89 Association or the Advancement o Sustainability in Higher Education. (2010) “AASHE Launches STARS 1.0!” Retrieved rom http://www.aashe.org/blog/aashe-launches-stars-10

http://www.aashe.org/blog/aashe-launches-stars-10







90 Healthcare Without Harm, Healthy Food Pledge. Retrieved rom http://www.noharm.org/us_canada/issues/ood/pledge.php

HosPitals

By signing the Healthy Food in Health Care pledge, an initiative o Health Care Without Harm,a healthcare acility expresses its dedication to local, nutritious and sustainable ood. Only ninehealthcare acilities in Michigan have signed this pledge to date: Chelsea Community Hospital,Metro Health Hospital, Northern Michigan Regional Health System, Sparrow Health System, Bor-gess Health, Bronson Methodist Hospital, Henry Ford West Bloomeld Hospital, Immaculate Hearto Mary and St. Joseph Mercy Hospital. By tracking the number o pledges signed by Michiganhospitals over time, we can track hospitals’ growing interest in purchasing local, sustainable and

nutritious oods90. The Michigan Hospital Association (MHA) A-Z purchasing program encourages local ood pur-

chases, beginning with an apple campaign. The number o healthcare acilities that participate inthis program and the extent o their local ood purchasing through this program are indicators o Michigan hospitals’ interest in local ood.

The Green Guide or Healthcare is a sustainable design toolkit that will provide the healthcaresector with a voluntary, sel-certiying metric in which credits are earned on the basis o constructionand operations. In 2008, a ood service section was added. It includes credits or a sustainableood policy and plan as well as purchase o local, sustainably produced ood. This could be usedin Michigan as a voluntary metric to assess the amount o local ood being purchased in hospitals.



Recommended IndictorsThe indicators above are publicly available and regularly tracked. I additional data collection andtracking o other indicators were also made publicly available, it would help us understand theinterest in and extent o local ood purchasing at Michigan institutions. We recommend trackingand making data available or the ollowing indicators:

The quantity o Michigan-grown or Michigan-raised products distributed to Michiganinstitutions through ood distributors and/or processors specializing in local ood procurementwould show improvements in local ood inrastructure that acilitate more purchases byMichigan institutions.

Similarly, the number o cases o local ood that are distributed through broadliners andproduce, specialty and/or regionally based ood distribution channels would show the avail-ability and accessibility o these oods to local markets, including institutions. Distributors suchas Sysco Grand Rapids already track these numbers, and others have the ability to determinethese data internally. We ask that these companies share this inormation publicly to helpmeasure progress toward our goals.

As more institutions become interested in growing ood or themselves as well as purchasing

through various supply channels, the number o institutional gardens and arms as well as their production capacity would help gauge local ood usage in institutional ood service.

The USDA Census o Agriculture gathers inormation about agriculture every ve years, and in1997 it began collection o inormation on direct-to-consumer sales. Currently, direct marketsales are dened as agricultural products sold directly to individuals or human consumption.91 This inormation includes sales at armers’ markets, community-supported-agriculture opera-tions and pick-your-own operations.92 We recommend that institutional ood purchasing beincluded in the 2012 Census o Agriculture, either within direct-to-consumer sales or perhapsas a new category o sales.

91 Diamond, A. and Soto, R. (2009) “Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing.” United States Department o Agriculture.92 Luder, B. (2009) “Direct-to-consumer Farm Marketing Growing Rapidly.” The Packer, June 15. Retrieved rom http://thepacker.com/Direct-to-consumer-arm-marketing-growing-rapidly/Article.aspx?oid=367393&aid=342&fd=PACKER-TOP-STORIES



Agenda Priorities

32

2012 AgendaWe believe that support or the recommendations included here is general and widespread. We rec-ognize, however, that many o these policy prescriptions come with a price tag and oten need upront

nancial support. We also recognize that, in Michigan’s current scal situation, our government andstate agencies are orced to make dicult choices among numerous important policy needs. Thatbeing said, we see an investment in the health o our population and our agricultural economy ascritical to our economic and community vitality. Given the state budget constraints, in the short term weshould pursue scally innovative solutions to these policy recommendations. In the long term, investingin these recommendations will not only improve access to resh ood through more local sourcing butalso promote economic health and development within our communities.

Reserch nd Eduction Strtegies

1. c h p h b h mh mm wb .

Michigan MarketMaker is a statewide interactive mapping Web site designed to link agriculturaland ood producers with buyers online. There is widespread agreement that the Web site has notbeen used to its ull potential. This means that the need still exists or a user-riendly, comprehensivedatabase o armers interested in direct marketing and buyers seeking local ood, and a venue or them to connect. MarketMaker is designed to serve this role and is already in place, so we shouldnot reinvent the wheel and design another interactive Web site. Instead, research should be con-ducted to evaluate the usability and unctionality o this Web site and develop recommendationsto improve the Web site interace, and education and outreach to register more users. Ways toautomatically include Michigan institutions by identication codes – or example, a tax identica-tion number – should be explored, as well as best practices and strategies that ocus on connectingarmers and vendors to institutional ood buyers in an online orum.

2. P h p,h pp.

Michigan school ood service directors need additional training and education on proper meth-ods to carry out inormal bidding and procurement procedures, which can oten be used or localood purchases by schools, and how to handle and prepare those local oods in school kitchens. As part o the Farm to School Procurement Act – Public Act 315, passed in December 2008 – theMichigan Department o Education was tasked with educating “ood service directors on the smallpurchase threshold and other procurement procedures and tools to promote their use or arm-to-school initiatives.” In addition to encouraging “school ood service directors to include localarmers, processors, and suppliers when taking bids or arm products that all under the smallpurchase threshold,” MDE was also charged with implementing “ood preparation training or oodservice sta to accommodate sourcing resh and local oods,” and this is still a great need. These

education opportunities on inormal bidding and procurement procedures and preparation o resh,local produce could come through regular training at the School Nutrition Association o Michiganannual conerence, the largest gathering o school ood service directors in Michigan, and onlinethrough the agency’s Web site.

3. c p mh p .

Michigan armers need additional training in preparing and completing on-arm ood saety audits,which is quickly becoming a requirement o most retail buyers and is oten preerred by institutionalbuyers. Michigan Food and Farming Systems (MIFFS) has oered a series o GAP/GHP trainingworkshops, and Michigan State University Extension has trained educators to provide assistanceto armers to prepare or ood saety audits. Both eorts should be continued because ood saetycertication is a critical current need.



Stte-level Policy

4. c - p , ph .

As local ood purchasing programs at institutions grow, it is critical to maintain support and meet needs o these relationships as they arise. To stay current on barriers, challenges and successes, and to meet the needso institutions, armers, processors and distributors involved in these programs, we need to regularly trackthe growth and extent o local ood purchasing. To this end, a regular tracking or survey program must beimplemented to collect, manage and analyze data rom a variety o sectors (K-12 schools, colleges/universi-ties, hospitals and correctional acilities).

Implementation: We recommend that the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) support the de-velopment, implementation and annual administration o this data collection program. State agencies couldincorporate questions about local purchasing into reporting mechanisms already in use.

5. e – h, hp, – h - ph p h pp h h hh

, p mh.The buying power o institutions, particularly i harnessed collectively, represents a strong opportunity to utilizethe market to drive change in the ood system and promote the serving o healthier resh and processedoods.

Implementation: Institutional purchasing groups, particularly school purchasing consortia, could surveytheir member institutions to determine product changes (e.g., favored milk with low sugar content, wholewheat pasta products, Michigan dried beans) and also new products in high demand (e.g., processed localproducts such as fash-rozen produce and chopped or sliced ruits and vegetables) by institutional oodservice directors and buyers. Purchasing groups could then help organize their member institutions to ask or these changes rom their suppliers and, in turn, ood processors and producers. The collective buying power o multiple institutions will present a signicant incentive or distributors, armers and ood processors to

adapt practices to supply institutional customers with the oods they want in the orms they need.

6. ip -h b p - .

Institutional ood buyers are ollowing the lead o grocery store chains and distributors in asking all armersthat supply to them to have ood saety audits such as USDA Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) or GoodHandling Practices (GHP) or other third-party audits. Small and medium-sized arms tend to nd it dicult tomeet this requirement, primarily because o the costs associated with these audits. To meet the need or oodsaety assurance, we must encourage armers to get third-party ood saety certication when appropriate or as required by their buyers. As we acknowledge that local ood distribution must occur through direct salesas well as broadline, specialty, produce and regionally based distribution, we want small and medium-sizedarms to be able to ulll the requirements o all buyers to contribute to increased availability and accessibility

o local oods to institutional as well as direct, retail and wholesale markets.

GAP and GHP audits cost $92/hour, including travel time or auditors to get to arm locations, with totalcosts in 2009 ranging rom about $92 to $1,600. How long an audit takes oten depends on how preparedthe armer is or the audit, with his/her ood saety, sanitation and arm plans. This points to the need or con-tinued guidance and training opportunities as well as nancial assistance.

Implementation: The Michigan Department o Agriculture has established an advisory committee to explorea sel-audit assurance process or armers whose markets do not currently demand third-party ood saetyassurance certication. It will provide technical guidance or voluntary implementation, recommendations toarmers that will strengthen the guarantee o sae ood and guide them toward preparedness or third-partyood saety certication i the need arises as they establish new markets or their current market requirementschange.



In addition to the work o this committee, we recommend that the Michigan Department o Agriculture (MDA) implement and manage a GAP/GHP or other ood saety audit cost-share or reimbursement program or small and medium-sized specialty crop arms. Reimbursements or ood saety audits could be provided on a sliding scale, depending on the size or income o a armoperation, or a reimbursement program could operate similarly to the New York State (NYS) Good

Agricultural Practices/Good Handling Practices Certication Assistance Program managed by thestate Department o Agriculture and Markets, which provides a fat rate reimbursement to oset thecosts o ood saety audits through USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant unding.93 MDA support isclearly needed to implement this cost-share/reimbursement program, as well as unds designatedthrough the USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant Program granted to the state. Food saety certica-tion is a critical and present need or Michigan armers, so we do not expect much resistance to thisprogram to arise.

2015 Agenda

Stte-level Policy

7. P f x b h p .

Though institutional demand or local products is growing and oers stable, steady markets,institutional sales oten provide smaller prot margins to armers than other markets. Financialbarriers – time, labor, sta training, supplies, etc. – may prohibit armers rom being able to supplythe institutional market and may serve as a disincentive to entering it. To encourage participation inarm-to-institution markets and increase both the supply and inrastructure available to institutions,nancial incentives or tax breaks are needed. We also recommend the development o a grantor low-interest loan program or armers currently producing commodity oods who would like totransition their land or a portion o it to provide specialty oods (ruits and vegetables) or institution-al markets. This transition oten requires a costly change in arm inrastructure, and nancialsupport rom this tax incentive/break could help make transitioning a more easible option. To

urther develop the inrastructure to get local oods to institutions when, where and how they wantthem, we recommend providing tax incentives or development o local ood system inrastructuresuch as ood storage, processing, packing and distribution acilities. Businesses that could processlocal ood or quick-reeze resh produce, or example, would ll a current void in the local oodsystem supply chain and potentially serve as an intermediary between armers and institutions.

Implementation: Through public/private partnerships, nancial incentives could be provided tostimulate development o ood system inrastructure and encourage armers’ participation in localood purchasing by institutions.

8. dp -- p.

Farm-to-institution programs oer great market potential and the opportunity to contribute to boththe economic viability o Michigan arms and economic development in the state while providinglocal, good ood to customers. To support the growth and expansion o these programs in Michi-gan, we recommend the development o a state-administered Farm to Institution grant programsimilar to the Rozo McLaughlin Farm to School Grant Program94 coordinated by the Vermont Agency o Agriculture. Funds would be awarded to all types o institutions (K-12 schools, colleges/universities, hospitals and correctional acilities) with the goal o maximizing the use o locallygrown, raised, produced and processed oods in institutional caeterias. Three grant categories –

93 New York State Department o Agriculture and Markets. “NYS Good Agricultural Practices/Good Handling Practices Certifcation AssistanceProgram.” Retrieved rom http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Us0LUKT3UgEJ:www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/slide/Specialty-Crop.html+NY+state+Good+agricultural+practices&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us94 Farm to School Grant Program. Vermont Agency o Agriculture. Accessed February 2010 at http://www.vermontagriculture.com/education/

armtoschool/index.html.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Us0LUKT3UgEJ:www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AP/slide/SpecialtyCrop.html+NY+state+Good+agricultural+practices&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


http://www.vermontagriculture.com/education/farmtoschool/index.html








planning, implementation (which would require previous planning grant unding) and equip-ment – could be included, with applications reviewed and grants awarded on an annual basis.

Implementation: This would require the creation o a new program administered by the stateor a public-private alliance. Philanthropic organizations could also play a role in unding.Grants could be directed to institutions or planning, implementation and equipment or local

ood purchasing and use in caeterias.

2020 Agenda

Stte-level Policy

9. ip b p p 10 p h h ph b hh p.

The biggest constraint or schools to expand local purchasing is oten cost, which stems romtight school ood budgets. Additional reimbursement unds could ease school ood servicebudget constraints and increase schoolchildren’s access to and consumption o locally grown

ruits and vegetables. We recommend that an additional 10-cent reimbursement per schoollunch meal be provided through a private-public partnership to schools participating in theNational School Lunch Program. Most schools spend between 20 and 30 cents on the ruitand/or vegetable portion o a school lunch. A 10-cent match would allow schools to spenda total o 30 to 40 cents on these ood products. This would increase the value that Michiganarmers could capture with sales o their arm products to schools and improve the long-termviability o Michigan arm-to-school programs. The cost o a locally grown apple, an aordableproduct or most schools to purchase or school meals, is about 10 to 18 cents, but the rangeo local products that schools could purchase would greatly expand with this additional reim-bursement. Schools could then aord to buy high-value Michigan oods such as pears, aspara-gus, and minimally processed resh products such as chopped onions and tomatoes and, insome cases, allow kids to try new oods or the rst time. Other states – Caliornia, Washington,

Pennsylvania, Indiana, Massachusetts and Wisconsin – oer additional reimbursements rangingbetween 4 and 13 cents; an additional 10 cents should be high enough to motivate Michiganarmers, processors and distributors to become involved, and help pay or labor and equipmentneeded to use whole, unprocessed Michigan ruits and vegetables such as butternut squash inschool meals programs.

Implementation: Economic development unds could be considered to und this reimburse-ment program because the program, i ully unded, would contribute about $14 million tolocal economies across Michigan. A pilot project would allow us to examine the viability o thisreimbursement program and its benet to school districts beore it is implemented statewide.



Conclusion

36

Evidence or the opportunities or growth in local ood purchasing at Michigan institutions is clear.K-12 schools, colleges and universities, hospitals and correctional acilities have all expressed inter-est in either starting local ood purchasing programs or expanding those that are already established.

Institutions in Michigan can infuence industry trends and drive agricultural and economic developmentand the policies and practices that benet the citizens o our state. To realize and capitalize on theseopportunities, we are setting a goal to increase local ood purchases by Michigan’s institutions to 20percent o ood budgets by the year 2020.

Barriers exist that will make reaching this goal challenging, but practice changes and implementationo new policy can make this overarching goal attainable. It is our hope that the recommendations putorward here are taken up and that they help armers, producers and processors o Michigan productsreach institutional markets, provide incentives or local purchasing and loosen budget constraints atinstitutions, and increase awareness and education on all levels down to the consumer. We envision ashit in ood purchasing dollars to Michigan armers and suppliers that produces win-win outcomes thatcontribute overall social and economic health and prosperity o our state.







www.michignfood.org

Michigan Good Food

Work Group Report Series

InstItutIonal

Food PurchasIng:

Michign Food Policy CouncilConstitution Hall525 W. Allegan, 6th FloorP.O. Box 30017Lansing, MI 48909517-335-4184www.michigan.gov/mfpc

The C.S Mott Groupfor Sustinble FoodSystems t MSU312 Natural Resources BldgEast Lansing, MI48824-1222517-432-1612www.mottgroup.msu.edu

Food Bnk Council ofMichign501 North Walnut StreetLansing, MI 48933-1126517-485-1202www.fbcmich.org

the c.s. mott groupfor Sustainable Food Systems at MSU

Documents

Inst Food Purchasing Report