Wednesday, 19 February 2014

The Public Plate: Examining the Health & Economic Impact of Institutional Meals





A new report The Public Plate in New York City: A Guide to Institutional Meals released by the New York City Food Policy Center at Hunter College and the CUNY School of Public Health, examines the health and economic impact of the more than 260 million meals New York City serves each year in public schools, public child care and senior citizen programs, homeless shelters, jails, public hospitals, and other settings.


The report, prepared by the Public Plate Working Group (Sara Quiett Barton, Nicholas Freudenberg, Jan Poppendieck, Ashley Rafalow, Emma Tsui and Jessica Wurwarg), analyzes the basic parameters of meal provision, identifies challenges, highlights emerging solutions and provides recommendations for how the City of New York can continue to improve the nutritional quality and economic and environmental impact of the meals served not just in these ten agencies, but for all New Yorkers. It further examines and suggests steps the city can take to leverage its institutional meals programs to promote economic development and reduce waste.

New York City spends more than a half a billion dollars annually on food service through and at its public institutions; about a quarter of a million for the food, and nearly as much on labor for food preparation. At least 10,000 people work to produce and serve these meals. (This does not include the suppliers and distributors, truck drivers, administrators, farmers and food processors, who are also involved in this vast system) This report explores this complex mix of institutional meals served by the City of New York, from meals planned, prepared and served directly by municipal agencies in public institutions (such as schools and jails) to meals offered by independent nonprofit organizations with which the City contracts (such as senior centers or child care programs).

In the last seven years, NYC has made substantial progress in improving its institutional food programs and weaving them into a system that can achieve health, economic, environmental and social justice goals. This report suggests specific ways and areas in which the new Mayoral administration can further improve institutional food. The market power the city’s institutional food provides can make healthier food more affordable food available to all New Yorkers, as well as providing opportunities for job creation and economic growth. 

The 13 major recommendations proposed in the report are:
  1. Strengthen the Mayor’s Office of Food Policy
  2. Update the NYC Food Standards and continue to assist agencies to achieve full compliance
  3. Improve the data collection, analysis and reporting required for NYC Food Standards compliance and food expenditures
  4. Expand participation in federally funded child nutrition programs in order to increase food security for NYC children, generate additional food service jobs, and stimulate the NYC economy.
  5. Advocate for improvements in federal and state food assistance programs.
  6. Conduct systematic assessment of the discrepancies between published menus and actual offerings in a variety of institutional settings, and assess the palatability and appeal of meals as served.
  7. Conduct a careful comparison of prices obtained by contractors using group purchasing organizations such as Essensa, Marketplace and GPS.
  8. Foster a culture of consumer participation in menu planning and decision making.
  9. Build the capacity of foodservice workforce, especially in more decentralized foodservice systems, to make good purchasing and production decisions that favor the health and well-being of the populations served.
  10. Increase the proportion of local food served on the public plate.
  11. Build the market for healthy, fresh, local produce by continuing and expanding efforts to integrate food with the curricula of schools, day care centers, after school programs, continuing education, and other institutional settings.
  12. Facilitate and nurture the establishment of local, mission-driven, community based catering and food processing organizations.
  13. Conduct a survey of kitchen facilities and equipment needs and work with CBOs and public agencies to secure the funds necessary for expansion of capacity.

NYC can make healthier, more affordable food available to all New Yorkers, as well as provide new opportunities for job creation and economic growth by using the procurement and market power of its public plate strategically.  By leveraging it's position it stands in a position to benefit it's most vulnerable populations on all sides of the food system. 


One specific point that this author found worthwhile, and considers low hanging fruit, is placing an emphasis on procurement of local foods for institutions.  Thirty-seven states (including NY) already have policies in place which aim to support, create, and increase opportunities for farm-to-institution sales. These types of laws can both create a preference for or mandate local purchases.  As a recent Harvard Law paper recently explained, "local preference law directs state entities to prefer local food products if the local food is. (e.g. not more than 10 percent more expensive than out-of-state food). The second type of procurement law sets up a target for the amount of food that will be purchased from local producers (e.g. a state may set a goal or require that, say, 20 percent of food products purchased by state entities be local farm or food products within a prescribed number of years)." These types of laws can (and should) also be extended to encourage regional purchases, encouraging tiered purchases based on proximity.  These laws not only have the potential increase the nutritional value of institutional meals, but also to increase local spending, and therefore funding to local and regional entrepreneurs.   Furthermore, by making this food available through it's institutions, NYC will often be aiding it's most vulnerable populations and making foods which are often out of their reach more accessible.

 The above outlined 13 recommendations provide a strong starting point and structure for the new Mayor's team to continue to support the health and wellness of New Yorker's through food at a municipal level.  Let's hope the next year brings more support from the city, and that our new Mayor sees the importance role that food can play in supporting his agenda and eliminating the metaphor of NYC as a "tale of two cities." 

 The full report, executive summary and supplement are available here 

 Additional Resources on Institutional Food:


NYC Food Policy:2013 Food Metrics Report
Increasing Local Food Procurement by Institutions_Harvard Law
NYC DOE School Food
Farm to Institution
Brooklyn Food Coalition: School Food Resources
Michigan Good Food: Institutional Food Purchasing
The Spork Report: Portland's Institutional Food Plan
Institutional Food Buying Alliance and Projects
Health and Sustainable food guidelines for institutional Food
Oklahoma Farm to School Report, Kerr Center
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, 13 January 2014

Food Science V.S. Commercial Technology - A real look at GMO's


With the increasing interest in and politicking around GMO's and their labeling, it is important to understand the diversity of issues involved in the topic, the complexity inherent in these issues as well as the important ways they overlap with other current food issues.  The below link is a Podcast from the Food Sleuth Series by Melinda Carr Hemmelgarn.  In it she talks with Claire Hope Cummings (an environmental lawyer, activist, and the author of Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the future of Seeds) about the origins of our current genetically engineered seed and plant issues, and why they are so problematic.  They tease out an especially interesting issue that is rarely talked about in the pro/ anti- GM discussions, the commercial context that drove genetic modification and the push for the universal use of these products.  The argument for and against GMO can clearly not be simplified into flat issues of commercial vs. public, environmentally detrimental vs. symbiotic with nature, or the future of how we will feed the world vs. driving world hunger.  However, the ideas presented by Cummings clearly outline the reasons we have for continuing to question the acceptance of and increase of GMO seeds in our national food chain and in the world.


One of the paramount issues highlighted is not the damage potentially done by GMO’s, but rather the process by which the keys to life are being privatized by large companies and the use of patent laws.  Seed is not a banal commodity to be traded, nor is it some meaningless consumer product. Seeds grow into the things which are the fundamental building blocks of our society and our way of life; they become the food we eat, they filter the element in air which we breathe, they become the construction material for our homes, they fuel for our transportation, they produce fiber for our clothing, not to mention countless other things.  As the creations of large corporations/ agri-business and in the service of corporate profit, GMO’s privatize that which we need to live.  Thus the increasing pervasiveness of these products increases our dependence on an oligopoly of corporations for our continued existence. 

As Cummings points out, another dangerous issue which runs parallel to the corporate ownership of GMO’s is the way that genetically engineered plants threaten the world's seed supply and the future existence of plants.   The variety of seeds produced by these companies has shrunk drastically in the last decade alone.  In this way, GMO seeds threaten the agricultural diversity of our nation (and the world)  -  97% of 75 vegetables whose seeds were once available from the USDA are now extinct. Historically, the USDA has provided free seeds to farmers who then saved seeds from one harvest to another, eventually developing strains best suited to local or regional climates.  With the ongoing practice of suing farmers who try to save seeds, this organic process of developing strong, regionally appropriate strains is disappearing, and along with it entire strains of seeds.

These large companies see seeds as just another product to patent and make money off of, they do not concern themselves with their impact on personal or environmental health.  As Monsanto’s Phil Angell has explicitly stated “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of [its products]. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.''  Buyer beware (and be informed, which we are not allowed to do.) As the group of companies involved in the seed market becomes smaller and smaller, their control over the market, and our seed supply tightens.  The below chart is an information graphic (by Philip H. Howard, Associate Professor at Michigan State University) depicts changes in ownership involving major seed companies and their subsidiaries, primarily occurring from 1996 to 2013. (The largest firms are represented as circles, with size proportional to global commercial seed market share.) It is easy to understand why we should be concerned about who owns our seeds, consolidation has increased in the international seed industry in recent decades, and the number of these companies is shrinking quickly. (Also of note is the fact that the majority of the larger seed companies were/ are also chemical producers.)


A final thought.  Although I am not personally against all forms of genetically modified crops, I have no interest in those seeds that have been modified only in the interest of withstanding various forms of herbicides and pesticides.  If the majority of GMO seeds were dedicated to the increased nutrition, improved taste, or resistance to climatic issues, then I would have a stronger belief in the necessity of these seeds.  However, the majority of genetically modified seeds are engineered to be resistant to chemical pesticides, herbicides, such as roundup and now 2, 4-D (one of the components in Agent Orange). Which in recent years has only served to increase the use of these chemicals in our fields and across the world.  In the first 15 years of their use (1996, the year of introduction, through 2011), genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds, according to an Environmental Sciences Europe report by Charles Benbrook. 

 The argument here is not that a GMO seed, in itself, presents a health or safety hazard, but that the use of such seeds creates situations which can and have resulted in health and environmental hazards - the increased use of chemicals in agriculture, the appearance of new super weeds and pests, the loss of crop diversity and the increased risk from crop disease, etc.  For these reasons, and many more, it is important that we as a global community continue to question the use and effects of GMO seeds on and in our environment.  Instead of assuming that because we can (and do)  produce something that we should, or that a technology that reduces labor it is ipso facto benificial on the whole, we should examine the picture on the whole and ask where it puts us an an worldwide community (and our food supply) in the generations to come.  I say this not as a call to halt all GMO production, but rather to suggest that we delve further into the issue and its ripple effects on us and the environment before we, and our government, continue to endorse the large-scale use of these products.

 Below are some additional resources:     

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Understanding S.N.A.P: Myth-busting the U.S Food Aid Program


This video was made by the SNAP Alumni Project

According to USDA data, in 2013 some 47,636,085 people participated in the SNAP program - somewhere between 4-5% of the population. SNAP disbursed some $76,070,295,282 in benefits, with the average person receiving about $133 per month and the average household receiving $275.

 Controversy has long been part of SNAP's history. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) have been the center of a battle about personal responsibility and the right to food, as well as budget wars from overall social welfare spending to specific Farm Bill dollars.  

The list of complaints by the general public runs the gauntlet; people who don’t actually need aid are defrauding the system, recipients are in the program for too long, families use the money to buy non-food items such as alcohol and tobacco, people buy the wrong kinds of food with their benefits (i.e. junk food), and finally the idea that people can/ are disincentives from working because they can rely on a government program to feed them.

Some quick points to address those complaints:

1) Fraud
Currently, the USDA estimates that fraud is contained at 1% - compared with 4% in the 1990s (still a very low amount) when SNAP issued paper coupons as food stamps. Since 2002, SNAP recipient have received their monthly allotments on debit cards, ending the illegal selling and trading of stamps.  The current investigative process involved in determining who gets SNAP has also evolved and further insures that only those actually in need of food aid receive assistance in buying food.  Eligibility is limited to households with a gross income of equal to or below 130% of the federal poverty line, however the majority of households receiving benifits have income well below this maximum level.   83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline (i.e. $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have a gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).  Arguably, these are people who are in need of aid.  (In fact, a meager 14% of food-stamp households have incomes above the poverty line.)

Rather than a plethora of un-qualified people collecting benefits, it is estimated that over 2/3 of people actually eligible for the program are not currently enrolled.   The general bureaucracy involved in applying, personal shame, and a lack of understanding about eligibility are often listed as reasons that eligible families are not served by this program.  Furthermore, in recent years it has become increasingly difficult for even people who are completely qualified and understand the program to get SNAP, as many states are cutting back on the workers who process these applications.

Although we have seen growth in the number of beneficiaries in recent years, this has largely been due to the fact that the program is doing what it was designed to do – aid those in poverty who are unable to meet/ afford their basic food needs.  Historically SNAP participation follows unemployment with a slight lag.  Program growth has been due to an increasing number of people who have slipped into, or further into, poverty throughout the recession.  As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. 

2) Length of Time on Benefits
While the myth of the 'Welfare' and 'Food Stamp Queen' lives strong, in reality, very few people receive food aid long-term.  At this time most recipients rely on federal SNAP funding for less than a year (with most recipients remaining in the program for between 8-10 months).

3) Use of SNAP Funds to Buy Non-food Items
There are very strict rules governing what can be purchased with snap.  Non-food items in general are prohibited, such as cigarettes, tobacco, and even items like paper towels, disposable plates, or toilet paper.  Furthermore, alcoholic beverages – liquor, wine, and beer – are all forbidden purchases as well.   Even vitamins, prepared food that can be eaten in a store and/or takeaway foods (in fact the use of SNAP on any restaurant is not allowed), and pet food are on the list of items that are not available for purchase with SNAP dollars.

4) SNAP can be Used to Buy Unhealthy Foods
There has long been an argument that SNAP funds should only be usable on healthy or nutritious foods.  However, cakes, cookies, soft drinks and other unhealthy options remain available.  Both New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Philadelphia Mayor John Nutter recently attempted to regulate the overall purchases of soft drinks. (Bloomberg attempted to regulate the size beverage that could be sold in specific establishments and Nutter attempted attach a citywide tax on soft drinks.) Both mayors share a strong belief that – given soft drinks contribution to obesity – food aid dollars shouldn't pay for soda. (Especially as studies increasingly show this and other diet-related diseases to be more prevalent among the poor.)

However, the USDA has ruled against such attempts, explaining that the issue of determining which foods should be banned would be too complex a process – largely because many healthy foods have higher sugar or fat content than other unhealthy options.  This makes it difficult to define a clear standard or category for proper amounts of fat, salt, or sugar. (e.g. a flat ban on food items with high fat content would be relatively arbitrary, as some healthy foods, such as granola bars, often have higher fat content than soft drinks.)  This idea was elucidated in a 2007 USDA paper that explained the rules in use - "No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy."

Beyond the difficulty of categorization, there remains the socio-political issue of who gets to decide what the diet of another person should be.  Many anti-hunger, anti-poverty, and food justice advocates take the view that micromanaging the poor (because they rely on taxpayer dollars) is not only offensive, its also inappropriate and wrong.  The argument is multi-faceted: 1) we (the American public) don’t ask other groups who receive money from taxpayers to relinquish their dietary choices to the public (e.g citizens on Social Security, government pensions, or those with federal contracts); 2) the assumption that the poor are incapable if making healthy dietary choices is offensive and incorrect; 3) if a population is making uninformed, or unhealthy choices, limiting those choices rather than working to educate and inform is narrow-minded and creates a missed opportunity for developing an important skill-set.

Studies have shown that given additional dollars, people are more likely to increase spending on nutritious foods, rather than snack or junk foods.  Studies have also shown that many families faced with tough budget constraints turn to unhealthy snacks and fast foods as low cost, high calorie options to feed their families when healthier foods remain out of their price range.  In response to this information, many larger cities such as New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Portland offer incentives for spending on healthy foods – each of these cities have farmers' market program where SNAP recipients are encouraged to increase their purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables by offering additional dollar amount coupons for varying incremental SNAP dollars spent. (In NYC the Greenmarket stands offers a $2 "Health Bucks" coupon for every $5 in benefit dollars spent.)  

5) SNAP Funding is Sufficient to Pay for All of a Person or Families Food Needs and/ or receipt of food stamps is keeping able-bodied people from working.
Not only do food stamps not provide all the money necessary to support or even feed an individual or household, they definitely do not keep people from looking for work, or needing to work.   

First, it’s important to understand who is receiving benefits.  The primary recipients of food stamps are children, elderly, disabled or temporarily unemployed – 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person or a disabled person, and these vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits (according to Feeding America).  Of the SNAP recipients who do not fall into the previously mentioned categories are working – USDA statistics show that over 30% of SNAP households had earnings in 2011 and 41% of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings.  
SNAP has a strict time limit for unemployed workers. Adults who are able-bodied and without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working a minimum of 20 hours per week or participating in a job training program. Additionally, the benefit formula itself provides a strong work incentive.  Within the formula there is not a dollar for dollar loss as income increased - for each additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.



Second, SNAP is a supplemental program, and has always operated as one, and there is little chance that any individual or family could survive on these benefits without other income.   In 2013 benefits amounted to an average of $1.40 per person per meal; the average recipient received $133 per month, and most families received an average of about $275.

Recent cuts to the SNAP program, due to the end of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s maximum monthly benefits boost, have resulted in significant losses for nearly all SNAP participants. In opposition to the assumption that recipients are somehow “living large” on taxpayer dollars, the cuts to these benefits will most certainly curtail each individual and households’ ability to purchase basic food.    In 2014 overall national SNAP funding will shrink by almost $5 billion. At an individual and household level this represents a serious decrease. Without the ARRA’s increase in allotted funding, SNAP benefits will average less than $1.40 per person per meal this year; the cut is the equivalent of taking away 21 meals a month for a family of four (calculated using the $1.70 to $2 per meal allotted by the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan).  These reduced benefit levels are likely to cause hardship for many SNAP participants – including some 22 million children (10 million of whom live in “deep poverty,” with family incomes below half of the poverty line) and 9 million elderly or seriously disabled persons.  While recent studies have found that SNAP funding allowed some 50,000 families to move out of very high levels of food insecurity – where one or more members are skipping meals or otherwise reducing the amount of food they eat – these cuts will undoubtedly reverse this trend.

A final thought on the effects on the broader economy, SNAP dollars not only help low-income people buy much needed groceries, it also frees up money for other expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. These flexible purchases benefit local businesses and their employees, which can serve to boost the economy as a whole.  Unlike higher-income families who are more likely to save additional income, low-income families often have unmet needs, which means that additional cash flows directly back into the economy.  In fact, many economists consider SNAP one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus.  Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity; the USDA has shown this number to be slightly higher - an increase of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion. (In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates up to $9 of economic activity.) Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.
Think about this in terms of the recent cut to SNAP or in terms of low income people who were eligible but did not apply – this loss of benefits to individuals is also a loss for their local communities, which do not benefit economically from their participation. SNAP is the one of very few public benefit program that also serves as a direct economic stimulus to the local economies where these benefits are redeemed. By generating business at local grocery stores, new SNAP benefits trigger labor and production demand, ultimately increasing household income and triggering additional spending.


For more information about SNAP:

 USDA Site, click here.
USDA: The Business Case for Increasing SNAP:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/outreach/business-case-increasing-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap-participation
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Podcast: The Food Stamp Program
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Chart Book: SNAP Helps Struggling Families Put Food on the Table
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3744
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: SNAP Is Effective and Efficient
CBO: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Food Research and Action Center: SNAP Provides a Real Stimulus
http://frac.org/initiatives/american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act/snapfood-stamps-provide-real-stimulus/
Congressional Research Services: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility
Feeding America: SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx

*The SNAP Alumni project champions successful Americans -- citizens who once received food stamps and are now leaders in the arts, government, business, sports and education. With a temporary lift from this government program that continues to help feed millions of Americans every day, these people have persevered to accomplish great things. The program also seeks to debunk myths and common misperceptions about SNAP.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, 14 September 2013

In Defense of Urban Agriculture



In recent years urban agriculture has become more popular across the western world, [1] with increasing numbers of city farms, allotments and urban gardens being used as planning tools in large cities.

There has been controversy surrounding the benefit of urban farms; suggestions that these spaces only serve an urban elite, complaints about the snobbery of foodies, and claims that these spaces are little more than gentrification and land-grabbing tools.  Alongside these complaints it has been suggested that these spaces will never be able to feed the cities where they are being established – so why bother?

At the same time there has been a parallel focus on programs that 'green the ghetto' - trying to make environmental fixes in deprived areas.  While these projects should be applauded for trying to beautify public space and for their desire to create more inhabitable neighborhoods, they often come up short as a comprehensive response to poverty.  

Many new food-growing projects are trying to take on multiple goals, with more nuanced plans to attack the various problems presented by the 'ghetto'.  We now see urban agriculture projects that try to address the economic disparities that lead to the environmental problems, as well as a multiplicity of social problems - Bad health, joblessness, poor education, and a basic lack of opportunities.  In this way these projects stop being hobbies, and become tools for creating urban resilience.

For the last 4 years I have been working on urban food issues and food justice projects across the Tri-state area.  The largest of these projects is an urban farm and food justice project in the South Ward of Newark.  I would like to use my experience with this project to introduce some information about the potential benefits that urban farms can provide, and why we should value these spaces.


SWAG Project (www.facebook.com/SWAGProject) started in 2010 when Planting Seeds of Hope, a NJ based NPO partnered with my planning consultancy Amplify to build an urban farm and educational space on the property of a local Hebrew Israelite Tabernacle. SWAG Project serves it’s surrounding neighborhood by supplying fresh organic produce, offering hands-on education in agriculture and nutrition, piloting entrepreneurial activities, and building stronger community ties among neighbors.

First, some quick background on the area surrounding the farm.  Newark is the 2nd poorest city in New Jersey, with 30% of its residents living below the poverty line[2].  Since the 1960’s, it has experienced urban decline similar to other northern industrial cities; a shrinking job market, followed by a shrinking population and white flight, deterioration of housing stock, and crime and joblessness rates well above the state and national average. Food poverty is also rampant, with high numbers of the population receiving SNAP/WIC assistance (food stamps), and a high incidence of residents dipping in and out of food insecurity.   Much of Newark can also be considered a food desert or swamp.[3]

Our specific neighborhood, Weequhaic has a high poverty rate, underfunded and understaffed local schools and lack of quality jobs and activities for young adults.  It’s residents also face unhealthy food choices and inadequate nutrition knowledge. There are few restaurants, corner stores, or groceries and most sell high calorie and/or fast foods.  Furthermore, few of them are within walking distance (less than a mile). Our neighborhood also lacks a local community center or emergency food center within a 2-mile radius. 

Enter SWAG Project.  In our 4 years in the community, with a shoe-string budget, but an excellent volunteer base, we have: built a ¼ acre farm growing a combined 3,400 lbs of food (1,500 last year alone) begun renovations on our building to act as a community center, hosted over 150 group education visits, engaged over 200 non-Newark visitors and volunteers, brought our community together for farm dinners and harvest celebrations, beautified our local neighborhood, and completed planning for a commercial greenhouse that will make us more financially self-sustaining by 2016.  In this way able to address some of the problems facing our community. The goal of the following sections is to give you a brief overview of how my farm, and really, any urban farm, can be valuable to the community.  I will talk about the benefits across 4 areas:  healthy food production and provision, Educational opportunities, community building, and community beautification. 


Healthy Food Production and Provision
For a small farm, we are very productive.  Last year was our 3rd year, and we managed to grow 1,500lbs of fruits and vegetables (that's 680 kilos) on about 800 sq ft of space.  This year our space has tripled and we are hoping to grow over 4,000 lbs of food.  That's almost 3,750 servings of fruit and vegetables.[4] While this is not enough to feed our entire neighborhood, we are able to supplement the local food supply.  We run an onsite market for the neighborhood and donate the remainder to local emergency food providers.  Last year we had over 200 visitors to our market and were also able to provide all the fresh food for our 80-person farm dinner.  We do this at a fair price, charging less than most corner stores do for the produce, and well below what boutique groceries in more affluent neighborhoods charge.

An additional benefit to our being a food producer for our local residents is that the food doesn’t need to travel far to reach the table.  This gives people with low levels of access to food a direct source in their neighborhood, saving residents travel time (often upwards of 45 minutes), and providing them access to fresh, organic foods that most of the local corner stores do not carry. We are a source of chemical free and GMO free, organically grown fruits and vegetables. There is no organic market or store in our neighborhood, nor, as previously explained, a real full-scale grocery store.  Furthermore, since our fruits and vegetables haven’t traveled for weeks to reach their destination, they maintain their full nutritional value.



Educational Opportunities and Training
In the last 4 years our farm has partnered with the two local schools and hosted over 150 hands-on education classes (engaging with over 1,500 children from the local area alone) and run ongoing youth farmer workshop for 3 consecutive years.  Our classes focus on getting the kids to understand the importance of farms, where their food comes from, and also encourages them to work and get dirty.  (Most schools in our local area no longer have gym classes or a recess.)  Over the winter we focus on cooking and nutrition workshops to get the kids excited about eating and to teach them what’s healthy and how to prepare it.

Nutrition and farm education extends to adults as well.  We realized that many of our residents had lost touch with cooking their own food, or, weren’t sure what it really meant to eat healthy, or how to translate family recipes and cultural favorites into more nutritious meals.  We spent the last few years working with one of the local chefs to set up cooking and nutrition classes for adults.  We have also run a healthy living campaign extending our activities on site to include yoga and hip-hop dance classes to get the community involved and active, and partnering with the local YMCA to talk about obesity and other local health issues.

The final part of our education piece is farmer training.  Many local adults have come by to learn how to grow their own food.  We have managed to create two paid (part-time) jobs on the farm - a farm manager and an education assistant.  In the following years we will be building a hydroponic greenhouse and offering local adults and teens the opportunity to learn business and farming skills that will allow them to move into the green economy.



Creating Cohesion and Building Community
One of the biggest challenges we have faced is breaking down barriers in a distrustful community faced with crime and disenchanted with the idea of the friendly neighbor.   When we started the farm, the residents in the surrounding neighborhood did not interact much with one another and there was a large fence that surrounded the entire property to keep residents out.  It took us a year to convince the property owners to take it down.  This effort proved to be more than symbolic, although it took us another 3 years to get the majority of the community involved. 

In the beginning, people were wary of the religious group we work with, now they trust us and have become familiar with the Hebrew Israelites who host the farm.  Now residents bring their kids in to see our vegetables grow and attend our community dinners and classes.  In spring, students from a local mosque came and planted trees with our team, and the Baptist church nearby raised funds to help build our second farm. Sharing stories about food from their countries lead our Guianese and Jamaican neighbors to bring seeds for our farmer to plant; it lead the congregation to put together a cookbook with recipes from local residents. All this in a community where people didn’t say hello to us or their neighbors 4 years ago.  Although the police still stop by to check on me as a woman (and a white one at that) in a ‘dangerous’ neighborhood, they now also stop by to get food from the market.  Food did this; Farming did this.  Working hard side-by-side to move dirt, build berms, plant seeds and maintain the farm allowed our neighbors to get to know each other on their terms.



Community Beautification
One of the nicest benefits to our direct community has been the addition of a safe, open space for people to visit.  At the farm we have been able to create a space where the local school children can visit, and a place where neighbors feel comfortable stopping by to chat with members of the project.  We have also managed to get a number of the young men who had previously been hanging around the block, smoking and drinking, to come in an volunteer, as well as keeping an eye on the property while our team members cannot be there.  The kids who we worked with the last few years at school now feel ownership in their community.  Two years ago we painted a mural with the help of a local artist, and the farm now stands as a place in the community that people are proud to talk about.  Moreover, our work on the property has encouraged the congregants to raise money to fix the deteriorating building, and other homeowners have come to us for advice on planting their own gardens and how to improve their yards.  In this way we have had an effect on the larger community, encouraging others to begin caring more for the neighborhood as well.

Our end goal is to build a community development corporation and launch a combination of green economy and food-based commercial initiatives to ensure a financially sustainable future of community development activities. By creating a local food and health oriented CDC, we will ultimately be able to continue to support the projects broader objectives; improving health, economic activity, education, and strengthening community ties.

I am not giving our organization as an example of what every community should do, nor am I purporting that our project has solved all the problems within our community.  Rather, I would suggest that community run urban farming projects can be, and grow into, institutions that take on the myriad of problems facing many impoverished inner cities.  I suggest that these spaces have value to cities in their ability to improve health, provide educational and economic opportunities, and also to beautify and bring together communities.




[1] People in the global south have long grown their own food in urban areas and continue to do so, the new media and social phenomena of the urban garden or farm is only novel or ‘new’ the western and northern hemispheres
[2] According to 2010 ACS data (U.S. Census American Community Survey)
[3] Food Deserts are areas with little to no access to food (aka restaurants, grocery stores, etc.  Food Swamps were are areas where people have high levels of access to unhealthy, calorie dense foods.
[4] The USDA recommends that youths eat 2 cups of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, and adults between 2-3 cups.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)