Regional institutional marketing supports sustainable farming by bringing wholesome, nutritious food to members of the community. Schools, in particular, can benefit greatly from this arrangement in comprehensive efforts to address childhood obesity. Nineteen previous publications examined issues around supply of and/or demand for regional food procurement by institutions across the United States, including levels of interest, perceived benefits, and barriers to this arrangement. Food service directors, farmers, and/or distributors participated in surveys, interviews, workshops/forums, case studies, and one evaluation about regional (...) food procurement. Accounts of seven farmer cooperatives or networks indicate that institutional customers are more often restaurants (n = 5), health care facilities (n = 2), colleges/universities (n = 2), and other facilities (n = 2), than public schools (n = 1) or food retailers (n = 1). The studies agree that the main benefits offered by regional food procurement are support of the local economy and increased access to fresh and nutritious food. Barriers consistently faced by food services and farmers have to do with lack of infrastructure and financial support for processing and central distribution. Though obstacles vary by district and/or geographic characteristics, results indicate that across groups there is a clear need for better support mechanisms by which farms can connect with regional markets. The practice of farm-to-institution marketing holds the potential to improve nutritional status of community members and financial stability of farmers, though institutional support is needed for systemic transition to this purchasing method. (shrink)

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have garnered the attentions and energies of people in a diverse array of social locations in the food system and are serving as a sort of touchstone for many in the alternative agrifood movement. Yet, unlike other alternative agrifood initiatives, FTS programs intersect directly with the long-established institution of the welfare state, including its vestiges of New Deal farm programs and public entitlement. This paper explores how FTS is navigating the liminal terrain of public and private initiative, (...) particularly the ways in which it interfaces with neoliberalism as both a material and discursive project. It examines the political emergence of school food programs and finds that FTS is strikingly similar to traditional school programs in objectives, but differs in approach. Yet, in their efforts to fill in the gaps created by political and economic neoliberalization, FTS advocates are in essence producing neoliberal forms and practices afresh. These include those associated with contingent labor relationships, private funding sources, and the devolution of responsibility to the local, all of which have serious consequences for social equity. The paper also discusses how FTS programs are employing the rhetoric of neoliberal governmentality, including personal responsibility and individual success, consumerism, and choice. While these may be tactical choices used to secure funding in a competitive environment, they may also contribute to the normalization of neoliberalism, further circumscribing the possibilities of what can be imagined and created to solve social problems. (shrink)

Interest in and initiation of farm-to-school (FTS) programs have increased in recent years, spurred on by converging public concerns about child obesity trends and risks associated with industrialization and distancing in the modern food system. A civic agriculture framework that more specifically considers civic engagement and problem solving offers insights about variations in the development and prospects for FTS programs. Drawing on comparative case studies of two emerging FTS initiatives in Pennsylvania—one in a rural setting and one in an urban (...) setting—this article examines the role of internal and external “champions” in launching FTS programs and fostering civic engagement. Farm-to-school community stakeholders across the two cases framed FTS in broadly similar terms of (1) redressing poor food environments; (2) improving student nutrition, health and well-being; and (3) revitalizing rural community through support of local agriculture. However, specific concerns and emphases differed across the rural and urban cases, illustrating the significance of local context for such programs. The article concludes by discussing the importance of frame bridging and frame extension as strategies for expanding the FTS movement, and also ensuring programs that correspond to the specific circumstances and possibilities of their social and geographic settings. (shrink)