1. No category

Farm to School Report1
A review of the health, policy and economic impacts of locally sourced food in school meals
Jan. 12, 2014
The next generation of Americans may be the first to live shorter lives than their parents.
Children’s diets and rising levels of obesity are driving increases in diabetes and other
chronic diseases that can shorten life expectancy, increase health care costs and impact
quality of life.2
Across the nation, state governments, school districts and farmers are collaborating on farm
to school programs in an effort to reduce diet-related disease and improve student health.
This report assesses the economic and health impacts of farm to school programs and state
incentives that support local farmers and facilitate local food procurement and safety.
Highlights
Colorado schools have considerable purchasing power: They spend more than $76 million
on school food each year. Farm to school programs offer an opportunity for schools to
reinvest a portion of their food dollars back into Colorado communities through local food
procurement. According to the USDA, purchasing foods locally fuels additional economic
activity.
Example: In Oregon, each dollar invested in farm to school stimulated an additional $2.16 of
local economic activity.
Colorado farms produce foods for schools year-round: Colorado-grown products used in
school meals include fresh fruits and vegetables, beef, chicken and milk.
Example: Colorado schools are not limited by seasonality. The state has significant
production of 35 fruits and vegetables spanning the year. Only apricots and cherries are
limited to the summer months when schools are typically not in session.
Farm to school positively impacts student health and eating behaviors: Students eating
farm to school meals have overall healthier diets; consume more fruits and vegetables and
fewer unhealthy foods and sodas; reduce their screen time; and have a reduction in
cholesterol, saturated fat and total fat intake.
Example: The Riverside Unified School District in Riverside, California, offered a Farmer’s
Market Salad Bar for 24,000 students in 29 elementary schools. Students eating the salad bar
consumed 2 times more fruit and 1.66 times more vegetables.
States are providing financial assistance: Many states are providing incentives or
assistance to local farmers and food producers to support farm to school programs. They
1
may offer funding and cost-share programs to help farmers foot the bill for food safety
audits and farm safety equipment. These cost-share programs support farmers in meeting
school food safety requirements.
Example: Montana allocated $500,000 in 2010-11 to establish four Montana food and
agricultural development centers and support food production and processing
infrastructure.3
Economic Impact
Schools represent considerable purchasing power. Nationally, in the 2011-2012 school year,
school districts spent more than $3 billion on school food.4 In the same year, Colorado
school districts spent $76 million on school food.5
These investments in agriculture are important, not only to farmers and ranchers, but to
other local businesses that benefit from the local multiplier effect. In addition to the return
on investment of $2.16 for every dollar spent, Oregon found that its farm to school program
created and sustained jobs. For every job created by school districts purchasing local foods,
additional economic activity created another 1.67 jobs.6
“We know that when schools invest their food dollars in their local communities, all of
agriculture benefits—including local farmers, ranchers, fishermen, food processors and
manufacturers,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.” 7
Availability
Colorado-grown products used in school meals include fresh fruits and vegetables, beef,
chicken and milk. In 2011-2012, Colorado schools procured the following fruit and vegetables
from local farms: Melons (watermelon, cantaloupe, honeydew, musk), apples, peaches,
potatoes, tomatoes, lettuce/spring mix/Romaine, pears, carrots, cucumber, squash, corn,
peppers, pinto beans, broccoli, green beans, herbs, strawberries, sugar snap peas, onions
sprouts, spinach, radishes, and cabbage.8 Colorado schools also use local meats, chicken and
milk from producers like Boulder Natural Meats or Anderson Meat Company. 9
Colorado schools are not limited by seasonality. The state has significant production of 35
fruits and vegetables spanning the year. Only apricots and cherries are limited to the
summer months when schools are typically not in session.10 Most Colorado crops are
available early fall and late spring. Apples, root crops and legumes are available year round.
For those foods susceptible to winter weather, Colorado has nearly 20 million square feet of
greenhouses, cold frames, cloth houses and lath houses to extend the growing season.11
2
Health Impact
School cafeterias have been identified as effective settings to improve children’s nutrition. 12
More than one in five children in Colorado are considered food insecure and many depend on
school meals for their main meal of their day.13 In the 2013-14 school years, Colorado
schools served more than 89 million meals: 26,847,263 breakfasts; 61,023,719 lunches and
1,499,621 summer meals.14 There is growing evidence that farm to school activities support
the development of healthy eating habits in students, thereby improving their long term
health outcomes.15
Farm to School programs can significantly improve student health and eating behavior,
including:16,17,18,19,20,21,22
 Choosing healthier meal options in the cafeteria
 Improving diets
 Consuming more fruits and vegetables at school and home (+0.99 to +2 servings/day)
 Consuming fewer unhealthy foods and beverages
 Reducing screen time
 Increasing physical activity
 Trying new and healthy foods
 Reducing cholesterol, saturated and total fat
Fresh fruits and vegetables sourced from local producers offer significant nutritional benefits
because they consume less time for travel, storage and processing.23 Fruits and vegetables
grown in North America spend as long as five days in transit following harvest, longer in
southern climates. They may spend an additional one to three days on the shelf prior to
being purchased. This means that fresh fruits and vegetables may not be consumed for six
days to four weeks following harvest.
Over such time, fruits and vegetables lose nutritional value from harvest to consumption,
including:
Vitamin C:24
 Green beans - 16 days, 90 percent loss
 Spinach - 21 days, 75 percent loss
 Broccoli - 21 days, 13-48 percent loss
 Green peas - 21 days, 40 percent loss
B vitamins:25
 Thiamin:
o Spinach - 7 days, 13 percent loss; 21 days, 46 percent loss
o Green peas - 21 days, 23 percent loss
 Riboflavin:
o Spinach - 21 days, 39 percent loss
o Green peas - 21 days, 24 percent loss
3
Other factors such as the exposure to air, artificial lights, and temperature changes can also
contribute to the decrease in nutritional value.26 For example, heat treatments used to store
fruits and vegetables may lead to the destruction of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) as it is
sensitive to exposure to heat.27
Case studies
Riverside Unified School District
The Riverside Unified School District in Riverside, California, offered a Farmer’s Market
Salad Bar for 24,000 students in 29 elementary schools.
o Demographics: 53 percent Latino; 60 percent eligible for free or reduced lunch
o Participation: 21 percent to 67 percent 28
o Consumption increase: 2 times more fruit servings, 1.66 times more vegetable29
Vermont
In 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded a farm to school
evaluation in 12 Vermont schools. Students in schools with farm to school had nearly two
times the national average consumption of fruit and vegetables.30
Midwestern Head Start Preschool
The school’s farm to school program served locally-sourced meals to a low income, diverse
group of children and school staff during Friday lunches for 22 consecutive weeks. The
program featured nutrition and local food system education, farmer visits, a school garden,
cooking, and once-monthly farm tables displaying local fruits and vegetables.
A comparison of dietary intake between farm to school and conventional lunches found
students eating fresh, local food:
o Decreased consumption of calories from fat
o Increased consumption of calories from protein
o Increased consumption of whole grain servings and total dietary fiber
o Decreased sugar intake
o Increased calcium intake
Nearly all parents reported a positive impact on their children’s eating habits in school and
at home. Teachers reported that the FTS program encouraged children to try new foods. 31
Cambridge Public Schools
The farm to school program in Cambridge was part of a systemic approach to decreasing
student BMI and increasing fitness over a three year period from 2004 to 2007. In addition to
farm to school activities, schools distributed a BMI fitness card, enhanced physical
education, implemented a community awareness campaigns and reached out to families.
4
A study showed a significant increase in healthy weight children and a significant decrease in
obesity.
 A cohort of 1,858 K-5th grade children participated: 37.3 percent black, 14.0 percent
Hispanic, 37.1 percent white, 10.2 percent Asian, 1.7 percent other race; 43.3
percent were lower income.
 Proportion of healthy weight students increased from 61 percent to 63.4 percent.
 Proportion of obese students decreased from 20.2 percent to 18.0 percent.
 Mean number of fitness tests passed increased from 3.7 to 3.9.32
State Incentives
Montana
House Bill 583, 2009: This law appropriated $500,000 over two years to support the
establishment of four Montana food and agricultural development centers administered by
the Department of Agriculture. It also supports infrastructure for food production and
processing to meet the demand for a safe and stable supply. While not specific to farm-toschool programs, the drafters of this legislation recognized that lack of agriculture
infrastructure was a barrier to farmers’ ability to serve in-state markets, including schools
and university food services. http://leg.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0583.htm
Connecticut
Senate Bill 410, 2005: This law allocates $100,000 annually to encourage the sale of
Connecticut-grown food to schools, restaurants, retailers, and other institutions and
businesses in the state. Through the Farm Transition Program, the law requires the
Connecticut Department of Agriculture to match grants to municipalities that further
agricultural viability by fostering processing facilities, farmers markets, transition to valueadded agricultural production and sales, and the development of agriculturally friendly land
use regulations and protection strategies. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/act/Pa/2005PA00228-R00SB-00410-PA.htm
Rhode Island
House Bill 7133, 2014: This law provides funding for the following food systems programs:
1) $500,000 to farmers and nonprofit organizations to acquire and construct agricultural
structures that enhance the viability and profitability of Rhode Island’s food system; 2)
$3,000,000 to protect working farms in the state; and 3) $3,200,000 to develop a facility to
serve as the base of operations for shellfish management and restoration.
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext14/housetext14/h7133.htm
New York
Assembly Bill 1389A and Senate Bill 614, 2011: These laws make loans, loan guarantees,
interest subsidies and grants available to local or regional organizations for transportation
5
and distribution of New York state farm products by farmers. Distribution and transportation
assistance helps provide local food to buyers and processors such as restaurants, schools,
food retailers, farmers’ markets, colleges and institutions. The bill did not appropriate
funds. Rather, it updated New York’s Urban Development Corporation Act so that it can
provide loans to farmers and others in the food system. Because the UDC is a state entity, it
can borrow money at lower rates, and reloan that money to producers, passing on the
savings. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A01389&term=2011&Summary=
Y&Memo=Y.
State Investment
States are beginning to offer funding and cost-share programs to help farmers foot the bill
for food safety audits and farm safety equipment. Generally, a state will agree to pay a
portion of an audit to help offset the financial burden that food safety can place on farms.
Alaska
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Agriculture helps fund USDA GAP
Audits at a reduced price by providing audit stipends to specialty crop producers.33
Arizona
The Arizona Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Consultation and Training Program and
the University of Arizona’s Cooperative Extension Service offer a GHP/GAP Training and
Certification Cost-Share Program for Food Safety in Arizona. The free two-day program
focuses on certification of food safety practices. After completing the free GHP/GAP
training, a farmer can apply for cost-share funds to go through an audit and be certified.
Arkansas
The Arkansas Agriculture Department recently reimbursed 100 percent of farm food safety
audit costs for inspections up to $500 though its GHP/GAP Audit Assistance Program.
Massachusetts
The USDA GAP Cost Share Program is offered through the Massachusetts Department of
Agriculture, in collaboration with the USDA Specialty Crop Block Share Program. Any
producer, individual or business located in Massachusetts that schedules and successfully
completes their initial USDA GAP/GHP audit can apply for cost-share reimbursement of as
much as $750 per calendar year.34
New York
The Good Agricultural Practices/Good Handling Practices Certification Assistance Program
offered by the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) will
reimburse as much as $750 of the cost of having NYSDAM/USDA or a qualified private
6
auditing company conduct third party audit(s) to verify an establishment’s food safety
program.35
North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Audits offers a GAP
Certification Cost Share Assistance Program to help North Carolina growers with financial
support for a third party audit to verify effective food safety practices.36
Oregon
The Oregon Department of Agriculture will reimburse 75 percent of the certification fees to
a maximum of $250 for farmers who are not yet GAP-certified but are currently selling to, or
interested in selling to, the institutional market.37
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, in association with USDA, offers a voluntary
Good Agricultural and Handling Practices third party inspection program. Businesses or
individuals may receive as much as $400 per year to reimburse the costs of a successful
initial PDA/USDA GAP audit.38
Tennessee
The Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) Cost Sharing Program pays producers as
much as 50 percent of $15,000 of qualified food safety expenses to already-certified
producers, on the condition that the recipient completes a GAP Food Safety Workshop.
Qualified expenses include farm food safety upgrades, including food grade materials for
storage and harvesting, hand washing stations and restroom facilities. 39 This program is
funded through legislation that enacted a tax on cigarette and tobacco sales in 2005. 40
Texas
The Texas Department of Agriculture offers grants to producers who complete the GAP
training and pass an audit for GAP certification. Reimbursements of as much as $750 will be
awarded to defray the costs of completing a successful audit.41
Vermont
The University of Vermont Center for Sustainable Agriculture assists produce growers on food
safety issues and offers cost sharing of as much as $500 for successful completion of an
initial food safety audit.42 Also, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods & Market Capital
Grant Improvement Program received $100,000 from the Vermont Legislature to provide
matching grants for capital investments that support Vermont agricultural producers in
obtaining GAP certification. There is a maximum cap among all GAP Capital Improvements
7
Program grants of $10,000 per farm, and farms must contribute a minimum of 50 percent of
total project costs.43
West Virginia
The Mid-Ohio Valley Health Department, West Virginia Department of Agriculture, West
Virginia University Extension Service and Health Sciences Research Center provide training
for farmers. Participation in the training could make farmers eligible for cost-share
assistance for up to 75 percent of GHP/GAP certification audits through the West Virginia
Department of Agriculture.44
Wisconsin
The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Audit Services
received a USDA Specialty Crop Block Grant to help defray the cost of the USDA GAP/GHP
audit certification programs.45
1
This document was prepared for the Colorado Farm to School Taskforce by Taber S. Ward, J.D., Food Policy Analyst,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and edited by Susan M. Motika, J.D. Healthy Eating Active
Living (HEAL) Manager, CDPHE.
2
United States Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Health. “Obesity Threatens to Cut U.S. Life
Expectancy, New Analysis Suggests” (March 2005). http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2005/nia-16.htm
3
Arizona Dept. of Agriculture, GHP/GAP, https://agriculture.az.gov/divisions/agricultural-consultation-training/good-practices.
4
United States Department of Agriculture. “2012 Farm to School Census.” Online at:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/. December 2014.
5
Id.
6
Id.
7
USDA. (2013) “Nationwide Census on Farm to School Activities Identifies Over 38,000 Schools with 21 Million Students
Serving Over $350 Million in Local Food”, Release No. 0197.13.
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2013/10/0197.xml&contentidonly=true
8
United States Department of Agriculture. Top Colorado Grown Foods that Colorado Schools Bought in 2011-12.
2012 Farm to School Census. Online at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/census#/. Accessed January 2015.
9
The Daily Camera, “Boulder Valley moves to hormone, antibiotic free meat for school lunches” 8/2/2013. Available at
http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-schools/ci_23786925/boulder-valley-moves-hormone-antibiotic-free-meatschool. Accessed January 2015.
10
Colorado Department of Agriculture, Colorado Crop Calendar,
https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Colorado%20Crop%20Calendar-English_1.pdf. Accessed January 2015.
11
Colorado Public Policy Institute (2004). Bio-Pharming in Colorado: A Guide to Issues for Making Informed Choices.
12
Briefel, R. R., M. K. Crepinsek, et al. (2009). "School food environments and practices affect dietary behaviors of US public
school children." J Am Diet Assoc 109(2 Suppl): S91-107.
13
Center for Disease Control, 2012, “Colorado—State Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Profile.”
http://1.usa.gov/Xrw9mJ
14
Colorado Department of Education, Office of School Nutrition. “School Nutrition Program Fact Sheet” (December 2014).
15
White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President. Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity within a
Generation. 2010.
16
National Farm to School Network. (2014). “The Benefits of Farm to School” Available at
http://www.farmtoschool.org/resources-main/the-benefits-of-farm-to-school.
8
17
Berlin, L., J. Kolodinsky, et al. (2010). Farm-to-school: implications for child nutrition. Opportunities for Agriculture
Working Paper. F. S. R. Collaborative, University of Vermont Center for Rural Studies. 1:
http://www.uvm.edu/crs/reports/working_papers/WorkingPaperBerlin-web.pdf.
18
McCullum, C., Desjardins, E., Kraak, V. I., Ladipo, P., & Costello, H. (2005). Evidence‐based strategies to build community
food security. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105, 278‐283.
19
Ralston, K., J. Buzby, et al. (2003). A healthy school meal environment food assistance research brief. Food Assistance and
Nutrition Research Report, USDA: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr34/fanrr34-35/fanrr34-35.pdf.
20
Story, M., M. S. Nanney, et al. (2009). "Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to
promote healthy eating and physical activity." Milbank Q 87(1): 71-100.
21
Feenstra G, Ohmart J. Yolo County Farm to School Evaluation report. Davis, CA: A Report of UC Sustainable Agriculture
research and Education Program (Davis Joint Unified School District data); 2005.
22
Slusser WM, Cumberland WG, Browdy BL, Lange L, Neumann C. “A school salad bar increases
frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption among children living in low-income households.” Public Health Nutrition.
2007.
23
Barrett, D. “Maximizing the Nutritional Value of Fruits and Vegetables.” UC Davis (2013).
http://www.fruitandvegetable.ucdavis.edu/files/197179.pdf
24
Rickman, J., Barrett, D., Bruhn, C. “Review: Nutritional Comparison of Fresh, Frozen and Canned Fruits and Vegetables.
Part 1. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture (2007).
25
Id.
26
Marowa-Wilkerson T, Weaver L, Hovuis C, Zandstra JW, “Nutritional and Health Benefits of Fresh
Vegetables – Past, Present and Future: A Literature Review” Fresh Vegetable Growers of Ontario (2007).
27
Id.
28
National Farm to School Network; conducted by the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. FARM TO SCHOOL PROGRAM EVALUATION: Riverside Unified School District, CA (2013).
http://www.farmtoschool.org/Resources/UNC-Riverside.pdf
29
School Lunch Recall - J Am Diet Assoc. 2011;111:419-424.
30
Powers, A., L. Berlin, et al. (2011). Connecting classrooms, cafeterias & communities: promising practices of FTS education
summary of evaluation findings. http://www.vtfeed.org/sites/default/files/staff-files/sitedownloads/Farm%20to%20School%20evaluation%202011.pdf. Burlington, VT, VTFEED.
31
Gibson C., Harvey, S., Spaeth, K., Sulivan, D., Lambourne, K., Kunkel, G. “Farm to School, Farm to Home: An Evaluation of a
Farm to School Program at an Urban Core Head Start Preschool Program. Journal of Hunger & Environment Nutrition, 2014.
32
Chomitz, V. R., R. J. McGowan, et al. (2010). "Healthy Living Cambridge Kids: a community-based participatory effort to
promote healthy weight and fitness." Obesity (Silver Spring) 18 Suppl 1: S45-53.
33
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, http://dnr.alaska.gov/ag/Inspection/FV237.pdf.
UMass Extension, http://ag.umass.edu/agriculture-resources/good-agricultural-practices.
35
NY Dept. of Agriculture & Markets, http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/AD/GAP/GAP_Certification.pdf.
36
North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.ncagr.gov/markets/NCgradesvc/.
37
Food Hub press release, http://food-hub.org/news/2011/05/oda-offers-cost-share-program-and-%E2%80%9Cmock-audit%E2%80%9Dfor-good-agricultural-practices-certification-may-26-2011/.
38
Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture,
http://agriculture.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_24476_10297_0_43/http%3B/10.41.0.77/AgWebsite/ProgramDeta
il.aspx?name=GAPGHP-Program-&navid=12&parentnavid=0&palid=89&.
39
Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.tn.gov/agriculture/enhancement/prod_divers.shtml.
40
Tennessee Agricultural Enhancement Program, https://news.tn.gov/node/11840.
41
Texas Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.texasagriculture.gov/tabid/76/Article/389/texas-department-of-agriculture-announcesworkshops-to-enhance-food-safety-on-t.aspx.
42
University of Vermont Sustainable Agriculture Center,
http://www.uvm.edu/sustainableagriculture/?Page=whatwedo/producesafety/GAPswhataregaps.html.
43
Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets,
http://agriculture.vermont.gov/producer_partner_resources/funding_opportunities/vaafm_funding/gap_audit_funds.
44
West Virginia University, http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2012/04/30/regional-produce-growers-offered-safe-handling-and-agriculturalpractices-training.
34
9
45
Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection,
http://datcp.wi.gov/Business/Fruit_and_Vegetable_Inspection/index.aspx.
10