Search

Food system sustainability, and ways of measuring it, are widely explored and discussed in academic literature. Measurement efforts are challenging because food systems are inherently complex and multifaceted, spanning diverse components, indus­tries, sectors, and scales. Several systems of indica­tors and metrics have been proposed to measure sustainability; however, most existing research focuses either on narrow scales (e.g., farm level or within a single supply chain), expansive scales that can gloss over complexity (e.g., national or global assessments), or limited scopes (e.g., only consider­ing environmental factors). A gap in the literature is a holistic local or regional approach to food sys­tem sustainability that integrates components across the system at a regional scale. In this reflec­tive essay, we describe our development of a framework to measure and track sustainability in such systems. We use a tiered framework that includes five sustainability dimensions and a system of indices, indicators, and metrics that allows for the measurement of important food system charac­teristics in a feasible and reproducible way. We employ a collaborative, transdisciplinary, facilitated team science process to first propose, and then refine, a sustainability assessment framework, using the U.S. state of Vermont as a case study. This paper details our process and progress, as well as reflections on challenges and recommendations for other team scientists. We further propose a plan to implement the framework, collect data, and engage with community members. The experiences and findings described here serve as a foundation for our own team’s continued work, as well as a springboard for other similar research efforts.

Background: Diapers represent a unique financial burden for those with young children. Pre-pandemic, approximately one in three U.S. households with young children reported diaper need or an insufficient supply of diapers. To support this population, policymakers, clinicians, and service providers need a better understanding of the groups most commonly affected and the ways that families cope with deprivation. Methods: An online survey was administered between February and July 2021 to a national sample of U.S. caregivers of at least one child aged 0–4 years in diapers (n = 881), investigating diaper need, diaper access, and how household expenses are balanced and prioritized vis-à-vis diapers. We use bivariate and multivariable models to assess factors associated with diaper need, and examine coping strategies, tradeoffs made to purchase diapers, and how caregivers would reallocate their money if diapers were accounted for. Findings: The prevalence of diaper need (46 %) exceeded pre-pandemic estimates. Diaper need was more prevalent among Hispanic respondents, lower income respondents, cloth diaper users, those with more than one child in diapers, caretakers with depression, and those with a negative financial change in the past year. Caretakers with diaper need were more likely to utilize a range of resources to access diapers and to use diapers for longer than desired to extend their supply. Those with diaper need also made more economic tradeoffs to afford diapers and indicated that they would reallocate resources to cover other unmet basic needs if they did not have to buy diapers. Interpretation: Our results indicate elevated levels of diaper need even after the U.S. economy had largely rebounded and raise concerns that inequities in diaper access may impact families’ abilities to meet other basic needs. Diapers may be an important target for policies and interventions aimed at improving the well-being of families with young children.

ABSTRACTThere is a large literature about consumer acceptance of GM foods dating back almost three decades, but there are fewer studies that investigate how support for specific GM attributes contribute to general support for novel plant technologies. In addition, there is little information on how support has changed over time. Using survey data from 2018 to 2023 in a U.S. State (Vermont) (n = 3101), we analyze changes in support for a variety of GM attributes over time. There are three major findings. First, there is movement toward neutrality in support for various GM attributes, but opposition continues. Second, there is variability in support for different GM attributes. People are most supportive (least opposed) to GM attributes that improve flora (plant health or drought tolerance), and most opposed (least supportive) of attributes that impact fauna (specifically fish). Third, multivariate regression reveals that assessments of individual GM attributes contribute to levels of overall support of the use of GM technologies in agricultural production.

Abstract Background The food system has a dynamic influence on disparities in food security and diet-related chronic disease. Community supported agriculture (CSA) programs, in which households receive weekly shares of produce from a local farmer during the growing season, have been examined as a possible food systems-based approach for improving diet and health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost of implementing and participating in a multi-component subsidized community supported agriculture intervention and calculate cost-effectiveness based on diet and food security impacts. Methods Using data from the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) randomized controlled trial in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington (n = 305; 2016–2018), we estimated programmatic and participant costs and calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for caregivers’ daily fruit and vegetable (FV) intake, skin carotenoids, and household food security from program and societal perspectives. Results F3HK cost $2,439 per household annually ($1,884 in implementation-related expenses and $555 in participant-incurred costs). ICERs ranged from $1,507 to $2,439 per cup increase in caregiver’s FV intake (depending on perspective, setting, and inclusion of juice); from $502 to $739 per one thousand unit increase in skin carotenoid score; and from $2,271 to $3,137 per household shifted out of food insecurity. Conclusions Given the known public health, healthcare, and economic consequences of insufficient FV intake and living in a food insecure household, the costs incurred to support these positive shifts in individual- and household-level outcomes via a F3HK-like intervention may be deemed by stakeholders as a reasonable investment. This work helps to advance a critical body of literature on the cost-effectiveness of subsidized CSAs and other economic and food system interventions for the sake of evidence-based allocation of public health resources. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02770196. Registered 5 April 2016. Retrospectively registered. https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02770196 .

Abstract Background The reintroduction of Cannabis sativa L. in the form of hemp ( 0.3% THC by dry weight). This has been further exacerbated by inconsistent hemp regulations in the US since the 2014 Farm Bill’s reintroduction. Methods A content analysis was performed to analyze the terms and definitions presented by state and tribal hemp production plans, the USDA Hemp producer license, and the 2014 state pilot plans. A total of 69 hemp production plans were analyzed. Results Results suggest significant discrepancies between hemp production plans, which have been exacerbated by extending the 2014 Farm Bill language into the 2018 Farm Bill timeframe. Conclusions Findings from this study point to areas in need of uniformity and consistency as the regulatory framework is modified and provides a starting point for change for federal policymakers. The results may also be useful to companies attempting to market products across state boundaries. Suggestions for how to mitigate these inconsistencies are provided based on the content analysis findings.

Food systems scholars and practitioners are increasingly prioritizing food system resilience (FSR) as a conceptual framework. FSR has been the guiding topic of an ongoing partnership between the University of Vermont (UVM) and the University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM), involving faculty, graduate students, and commu­nity partners from both regions to collaborate on research, education, and outreach. The first major output of the UVM-UPRM partnership is a Food Resilience Toolkit developed by faculty and gradu­ate students at both universities, available in written and video formats in both English and Spanish. This research brief provides the results of an application of one component of the toolkit, an asset mapping exercise. We analyzed the results using the community capitals framework to highlight areas of strength and areas in need of investment. We found Vermont has assets to apply to FSR, with built, human, and social capital assets most numerous, while financial and political assets are fewest. We conclude with recommendations which can be vetted in future stakeholder gatherings and a call to apply the toolkit elsewhere.

Abstract Background Adults and children in the U.S. consume inadequate quantities of fruit and vegetables (FV), in part, due to poor access among households with lower socioeconomic status. One approach to improving access to FV is community supported agriculture (CSA) in which households purchase a ‘share’ of local farm produce throughout the growing season. This study examined the effects of cost-offset (half-price) CSA plus tailored nutrition education for low-income households with children. Methods The Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) randomized controlled trial in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington (2016–2018) assigned caregiver-child dyads (n = 305) into cost-offset CSA plus education intervention or control (delayed intervention) groups. Following one growing season of CSA participation, changes in children’s diet quality, body mass index (BMI), and physical activity; caregivers’ nutrition knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and diet quality; and household food access and security were examined using multiple linear or logistic regression, with adjustment for baseline value within an intent-to-treat (ITT) framework in which missing data were multiply imputed. Results No significant net effects on children’s dietary intake, BMI, or physical activity were observed. Statistically significant net improvements were observed after one growing season for caregivers’ cooking attitudes, skills, and self-efficacy; FV intake and skin carotenoid levels; and household food security. Changes in attitudes and self-efficacy remained one-year after baseline, but improvements in caregiver diet and household food security did not. The number of weeks that participants picked up a CSA share (but not number of education sessions attended) was associated with improvements in caregiver FV intake and household food security. Conclusions Cost-offset CSA plus tailored nutrition education for low-income households improved important caregiver and household outcomes within just one season of participation; most notably, both self-reported and objectively measured caregiver FV intake and household food security improved. Households that picked up more shares also reported larger improvements. However, these changes were not maintained after the CSA season ended. These results suggest that cost-offset CSA is a viable approach to improving adult, but not child, FV intake and household food security for low-income families, but the seasonality of most CSAs may limit their potential to improve year-round dietary behavior and food security. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov . NCT02770196 . Registered 5 April 2016. Retrospectively registered.

Abstract Hemp has emerged as a novel crop and ingredient for sustainable products. If innovative hemp‐based products are to succeed in the market, the surge of interest in production must be accompanied by information generation across the supply chain. At present, there is little knowledge on consumer behavior toward hemp and hemp‐based products, and even less on how this behavior has changed since hemp's reintroduction to the production landscape of the United States in 2014. This study compares representative survey data of Vermont residents in 2019 and 2020 on their support for hemp production, and awareness and use of hemp‐based products. Although the influence of demographic variables did not significantly change over time, our findings reveal structural change, with more respondents aware of and using hemp‐based products in 2020 compared to 2019. These findings point to hemp's growing presence and acceptance in the marketplace, where consumers are more informed about or have greater access to hemp products. Despite the state's focus on cannabidiol production, Vermonters appear to be aware of and are purchasing a variety of hemp goods, such as clothing and paper.

Agritourism has become a popular pursuit for farms and ranches in the United States, aiming to diversify revenue sources and meet agricultural edu­cation and community-building goals. How­ever, there has been limited research around the challenges experienced by operators and limited access to resources that can help address these chal­lenges. This article fills that gap in knowledge by examining the challenges agritourism opera­tions currently face in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West regions of the U.S. In this study, we use a mixed-methods approach to the Five Dimen­sions of Access framework developed by Penchansky and Thomas (1981). We opera­tionalize their model in an ordinal probit regression to analyze data from a national survey of agritourism operators, analyzed by region. Results from the quantitative analysis are sub­stantiated using qualitative, open-ended comments from the same survey. The analyses show that agritourism operators encounter different challenges according to their region. We find that operators in most regions of the United States are concerned about agritourism liability. However, states in the West region experience more chal­lenges with regulations, zoning, and permitting, while operators in the South have more problems with e-connectivity. These results can be applied in three ways: support services for agritourism, policy and regulations, and future research.

Post-secondary coursework related to agriculture and the food supply has been at the core of the United States' land-grant system for more than 150 years. However, as the complexity of food systems has grown, so too have critiques that the education provided in these programs is too narrow to adequately prepare graduates to address pressing food systems issues. In response, some higher education institutions have developed degrees in food systems. To support development of this burgeoning field, we created, tested, and refined four evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, equity-oriented, open-access teaching modules. These modules are based on our experience conducting a multi-site, multi-year transdisciplinary investigation of subsidized, or “cost-offset”, community supported agriculture and a survey asking instructors at land-grant institutions (n = 66) about topic offerings and current unmet needs for instructional materials. Our collaboration illuminated the potential and challenges of food systems research; underscored the value of transdisciplinary research teams; and identified several equity-oriented topics related to the design, implementation, and evaluation of local food initiatives suitable for advancing sustainable foods systems education. Instructors reported that the most helpful teaching aids would be case studies, lesson plans with active learning components, and reference lists with relevant peer-reviewed publications. The final modules seek to shed light on the complexity of food systems projects and build knowledge, vocabularies, and skills across disciplines engaged with food systems. Per instructor-defined needs, each module features a case study, active-learning activities, and references. We anticipate that the adaptable modules will be suitable for a wide range of students and courses.

Cost-offset community supported agriculture (CO-CSA) appears to be a promising way to increase low-income households’ access and intake of fresh produce, while also helping CSA farms expand their farm business. Yet single farms operating CO-CSAs may struggle to balance the demands of farming with CO-CSA program administration, funding, and recruitment. To address these chal­lenges, CO-CSA programs operated by nonprofits have emerged, equipped with dedicated infrastruc­ture, resources, and staffing. This study aims to describe organizational models and best practices of nonprofit CO-CSA programs, using a qualitative approach. We conducted interviews with five well-established nonprofit CO-CSA programs in the U.S. Administration of these five nonprofit CO-CSAs took several forms: (1) providing direct sub­sidies to individual CO-CSA member farms; (2) functioning themselves as an aggregator, packer, and distributor of regional produce; and (3) sourcing from an in-house farm incubator or food hub, then packing and coordinating delivery to pick-up sites. Nonprofit CO-CSA funding strategies included grants from federal and local government sources, private donations, fundrais­ing, and grants. Marketing efforts occurred via social media, community events, and word of mouth. Both fundraising and recruitment were greatly facilitated by relationships with community partners. Having dedicated staff, as well as a com­munity that values local agriculture and social jus­tice, were identified as success factors. This descriptive, qualitative study systematically com­pares the attributes of five nonprofit CO-CSA programs. Future research should focus on identifying the cost-effectiveness of nonprofit CO-CSAs, compare the relative merits of single-farm and nonprofit CO-CSAs, and quantify the eco­nomic benefit of CO-CSA programs for farmers and local communities.

Transdisciplinary research, involving scholars and practitioners from a variety of fields, disciplines, and experiences, helps identify and explore the dynamic, multidimensional intersections among food systems challenges. While a valuable practice for exploring the food system in a meaningful way, transdisciplinary research in and of itself is a complex collaborative process. To support efforts for transdisciplinary approaches to food systems challenges, the Food Systems department at the University of Vermont sponsored a two-day workshop. This article uses poetic transcription drawn from participants’ written evaluation of the workshop to analyze and share themes in experi­ences with transdisciplinary research and collabora­tions. The results, presented in a set of poems, promote conversation and understanding around the importance of transdisciplinary collaborations, as well as their challenges and opportunities for food systems.

The Farm Fresh Food Box (F3B) project is a mar­ket innovation that aims to capitalize on successful characteristics of direct-to-consumer (DTC), values-based supply chains (VBSCs), and tradi­tional supply chains with the goals of expand­ing producer sales and improving rural food access. In the F3B model, farmers sell boxes of fresh pro­duce in rural retail outlets to bring food to custo­mers with limited access to locally grown foods. We present pilot findings on indicators of relation­ship quality, communication of embedded value, and food environment, and compare these with extant research to assess whether F3B behaves like a DTC, VBSC, a traditional supply chain, or some­thing else entirely. Unlike much of the previous value-chain research, this work places a unique emphasis on the importance of the farmer-retailer relationship. We merge existing knowledge of DTC strategies and barriers with those of VBSCs and traditional supply chains to understand better the process of expanding into new outlets and con­sumer populations. We find that while the F3B model reduces some resource constraints, it adds a layer of complexity that requires time and expertise to develop a quality relationship between producers and retailers. Additionally, it is apparent that the F3B model must be tailored to fit local contexts of farmers and retailers participating in F3B market innovations.

To improve low-income families’ access to fresh local produce, some farmers offer subsidized or “cost-offset” community supported agriculture (CO-CSA) shares. We evaluated a structured planning and implementation process conducted during the final intervention year of the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) study, which aimed to help participating farmers (N=12) to sustain a CO-CSA program after study funding ended. The process included training webinars, planning tools to develop CO-CSA continuation funding and recruitment strategies, regional coach­ing teams to provide technical assistance, and peri­odic group conference calls to facilitate shared learning among F3HK farmers. Our evaluation explored the content of farmers’ CO-CSA contin­u­ation plans, their experiences during implementa­tion, their opinions about the planning process, and their future plans regarding their CO-CSA. We found that F3HK farmers used diverse methods to plan, recruit, and raise funds, with each farm adapt­ing strategies to fit their local conditions and farm business. Many farmers found success with word-of-mouth advertising and CSA member donations. Yet lack of farm resources—time, money, and ex­pertise—was a continual barrier to moving for­ward. As with full price CSAs, reciprocity was a key factor: farmers needed to consider the needs and preferences of low-income consumers, and CO-CSA members needed to understand their financial responsibility to the farmer. In general, F3HK farmers appreciated the continuation planning pro­cess, but expressed a desire for more technical assistance with grant writing. Farmers were com­mitted to the success of the CO-CSA continuation planning process, and most intended to continue the CO-CSA the following year.

First paragraph: This special issue draws attention to the diverse values applied to, embedded in, and emerging from food systems. Although scholarship has long rec­ognized that a range of values is at play in food systems—and the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development has been paramount to showcasing this type of research—the dominant perspective continues to elevate a highly central­ized model that prioritizes the values of maximi­za­tion (of yield and profit) above all else. Yield and profit are no doubt important, but the unparalleled emphasis they receive obscures the other important social and environmental values that inform how and why people engage in food systems. As so many food system scholars have previously articu­lated, what we need for relevant, inclusive, and effective policies are accurate representations of food systems and the actors who construct and maintain them. The position of this special issue is that transdisciplinary research is critical to ask and answer questions about values in ways that embrace complexity. . . .

Some farmers are offering subsidized or “cost-offset” community supported agriculture (CO-CSA) shares as a strategy to counter market saturation and improve low-income families’ access to fresh local foods. However, little is known about farmers’ experiences with this model, particularly in regard to the balance between additional resources required for adoption and subsequent contributions to farm revenue. As part of the Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids Study of the impact of a CO-CSA on dietary behaviors in low-income families, we conducted qualitative interviews with 12 farmers across four states after the first and the third years of CO-CSA implementation. We explored these data to understand what accommodations farmers provided to low-income families, the benefits and challenges of implementing the CO-CSA model, and farmers’ perceptions of its impact on cash flow and profitability. We found that farmers selected pick-up locations that met CO-CSA members’ needs, were responsive to members’ food preferences in selecting CSA contents, and allowed for late payments and pickups, though sometimes this placed an additional burden on farmers’ time and resources. Additionally, weekly payment transactions led to increased recordkeeping. Despite its challenges, most farmers said CO-CSA adoption was a worthwhile addition to their business model. Expanding food access through this mechanism may become more sustainable with the additional support of innovative policies like eased land-use restrictions, operational models, and community strategies to fund and operate CO-CSA programs. This is an area ripe for future research, as there is little documentation on both single farm and multifarm CO-CSA operations.

First paragraph: The U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service’s Food Expenditures by Outlet data provide insight as to why the lockdowns related to COVID-19 have been so devastating for U.S. farmers. In 2018, American consumers bought a total of $628bn[1] worth of food, of which $460bn was spent at grocery stores and $168bn at warehouse clubs and supercenters (see Figure 1 and Table 1). But expenditures on food away from home exceeded that amount: $680bn was spent at restau­rants, $337.8bn at full-service restaurants and $340.2bn at limited-service restaurants.[2] The social distancing and stay-at-home orders related to the COVID-19 pandemic have forced many restaurants to close and those remaining in business to switch to pick-up or delivery only options. Because restaurant supply chains are highly specialized and time sensitive, reallocation of these supply chains has not come quickly enough to accommodate the shifts in consumption toward at-home eating patterns. . . . [1] All amounts are in U.S. dollars. [2] Not all of this represents the value of agricultural products; a large share of this is value-added in the form of rents and wages.

First paragraph: Our food system has been disrupted. Shopping at a grocery store during the COVID-19 pan­demic is not a pleasant experience, and, for some of the most vulnerable, it can be outright dangerous. It may become worse. How long will supply chain disruptions continue and what are upcoming challenges? From illness in the fields where agricultural workers pick our food and the closing of food processing facilities to the threat that trucking lanes may be shut down, the possibilities seem real right now. . . .

School lunch programs are important pillars in the food system, as they impact children's health, local agriculture, and community food security. When offering a new lunch entrée that contains vegetables, schools must consider whether students will choose the new entrée to avoid low participation rates and decreased revenue. Previous research in marketing suggests that sampling (i.e. taste testing) can positively impact consumer choice. In terms of encouraging students to eat school lunch and particularly items that include vegetables, it is often assumed that sampling will help direct food choice to healthier items, but little research has investigated the impact of sampling on food choice in a school lunch environment. The objective of this research was to investigate in a pilot study whether providing samples of a vegetable-focused lunch entrée the day before it appeared on the school lunch menu increased National School Lunch Program (NSLP) participation. The study took place at a Vermont middle school in 2015. Four new vegetable-focused entrées were supplied over three consecutive months. During month two, the entrées were sampled at a middle school the day before they were offered for sale, and NSLP participation, as well as revenue was tracked over three months. Our results suggest that sampling may have a positive impact on NSLP participation rates and food service revenue, but that more research is needed to better assess how sampling can be utilized in the most efficacious way to promote NSLP participation and healthy eating patterns. Keywords: Sampling, School lunch, Middle school, Vegetable consumption

Abstract Background Childhood obesity persists in the United States and is associated with serious health problems. Higher rates of obesity among children from disadvantaged households may be, in part, attributable to disparities in access to healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables. Community supported agriculture can improve access to and consumption of fresh produce, but the upfront payment structure, logistical barriers, and unfamiliarity with produce items may inhibit participation by low-income families. The aim of this project is to assess the impact of subsidized, or “cost-offset,” community supported agriculture participation coupled with tailored nutrition education for low-income families with children. Methods/design The Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids community-based, randomized intervention trial will build on formative and longitudinal research to examine the impact of cost-offset community supported agriculture on diet and other health behaviors as well as the economic impacts on local economies. The intervention will involve reduced-price community supported agriculture shares which can be paid for on a weekly basis, nine skill-based and seasonally-tailored healthy eating classes, and the provision of basic kitchen tools. Low income families with at least one child aged 2–12 years will be recruited to join existing community supported agriculture programs in New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington. In each program, families will be randomized 1:1 to intervention or delayed intervention groups. Data will be collected at baseline, and in the fall and spring for 3 years. The primary outcomes are children’s intake of fruits and vegetables and foods high in sugar and/or (solid) fat, as well as diet quality; secondary outcomes include physical, behavioral, psychosocial, and environmental variables. Cost-effectiveness and economic impact at the farm and community levels also will be assessed. Discussion This integrated project will provide important information and contribute to the evidence base regarding the use of local agricultural interventions to improve children’s dietary behaviors and weight maintenance. Findings also will inform the development of a toolkit for farmers and education modules related to local food system innovations for undergraduate and graduate students. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02770196 . Registered 5 April 2016.

Spatial context may be important to direct to con­sumer (DTC) programs aimed at improving fresh fruit and vegetable access for low-income individu­als. The purpose of this study was to examine the sociodemographic and geospatial context (distance to pickup sites, number and density of proximal food retail outlets, etc.) surrounding community supported agriculture (CSA) pickup locations in relation to low-income customer residential loca­tions, and to synthesize this information with inter­view-derived perspectives on the challenges and opportunities of the pickup location from DTC producers and customers. This in-depth study examined cost-offset community supported agri­culture (CO-CSA) operations across four U.S. states (New York, North Carolina, Vermont, and Washington) and varying pickup sites (n=23), with pickup operational decisions determined by farm­ers (n=12). Physical addresses of farms, CO-CSA customers, and pickup sites were collected and geocoded. Geographic information systems (GIS) was used to examine road network distances for pickup locations across the study sites. Demo­graphic information at the census block level (e.g., percent racial minority, percent poverty level) was obtained for all study sites. Descriptive statistics were generated for geospatial variables. In-depth interviews with farmers and focus groups with CO-CSA customers were conducted to understand experiences with the CO-CSA in terms of physical access of pickup sites. We found that pickup sites were an average of 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) from customers’ homes, and on average, further than the supermarket (2.9 miles or 4.7 km). Farmers reported their efforts to select convenient pickup locations for low-income customers, though CO-CSA customers expressed mixed levels of accessi­bility. Spatial inaccessibility and differences in soci­odemographic data for customer versus pickup may explain perceived inaccessibility for some cus­tomers. These findings may help inform future approaches to plan and evaluate DTC operations targeting low-income individuals by consider­ing geospatial context and stakeholder experiences.

Objective: This research examines the effects of educational materials, delivered with "take-home and cook-with-friends" meal kits, on college students' food agency. Participants: In the spring of 2021, 186 students were recruited at a US public university and randomly allocated into either an intervention group that received meal kits and educational materials or a control group that received only meal kits. Methods: Meal kits containing local ingredients were distributed weekly to the participants and surveys were conducted to measure participants' food agency, using the "Cooking and Food Provisioning Action Scale" (CAFPAS). Hypothesis tests and regression analysis were then conducted to examine the educational intervention's effects on the CAFPAS scores. Results: The educational intervention had a positive and statistically significant effect on students' CAFPAS scores. Conclusions: Educational interventions hold promise in enhancing college students' food agency, at least in the short term.

First paragraphs: This special issue of the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development highlights the best of the 2014 Food Systems Summit held at the University of Vermont. The Summit focused on local-level responses to globalization through the following themes: the impact of our geopolitical context on our food system, the biophysical constraints we face for food production globally, and the implications of behavior and culture for our food system. Using a format of refereed presentations and keynote speakers, and allowing for a dialogue between and among scholars, practitioners, policy makers, community activists and interested citizens, the Summit provided a space for lively pushing of the envelope by highlighting constraints and problems with our current food system and offering thoughtful, evidence-based solutions for improvement. Several presenters took the opportunity to go through the referee process. Five of those papers are included in this special issue, along with three commentaries written by the three keynote speakers. What is unique about the UVM Food Summit is the complex web of inquiry, discussion, openness, and questioning of the status quo by stakeholders in the food movement who don't often come together in the same venue. Conversing about one of the presentations or at the Taste of Vermont reception held on one evening of the Summit, one might find the Vermont secretary of agriculture interacting with a full or assistant professor, a staffer for U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy or Bernie Sanders, the executive director of Vermont's Farm to Plate initiative, and a dairy producer or small vegetable grower. In order to foster change that can improve working conditions of farm workers, provide tasty and healthy meals to schoolchildren, improve the economic conditions of farmers, and insure food access for now and into the future it is necessary for a wide range of actors to have a seat at the same table on an equal basis. That was and remains the goal of the annual UVM Food Systems Summit. What made the 2014 Summit even more meaningful was its place as a preconference event to the joint meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society (AFHVS) and the Association for the Study of Food and Society (ASFS)—further expanding the audience across many disciplines as well as organizations....

Farm-to-school (FTS) programs have become more widely adopted in recent years because of their potential to mitigate childhood obesity, as well as their economic development and educational benefits. As a result of FTS programs' diverse purposes and grassroots nature, the types of activities they encompass vary considerably from program to program and no systematic measures of impact have emerged. Furthermore, FTS programs launched in colder climate regions may be particularly challenging due to a shorter growing season and narrower range and volume of available products. In this exploratory study, we set out to learn more about the factors that lead to increased procurement of local food in FTS programs. To do this we analyze the results of three recent studies of the impact of FTS programming on school purchases of locally produced foods in Vermont, conducted in 2012 and 2013. The results of a census of FTS programs in Vermont and an evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snacks program indicate that price subsidies do not necessarily increase local food procurement in Vermont, while a study of FTS programs working with food hubs in Vermont suggests that social capital in the form of viable partnerships and relationship-building holds promise for increasing the procurement of local food. Implications for FTS programming and future research are discussed.

First paragraph: On November 18, 2014, I had the opportunity to see an advance screening of Food Chains, a documentary from the producers of Fast Food Nation and Food, Inc. (It was released in the U.S. on November 21.) The film is about the long and arduous journey of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) to win rights — basic rights — as farmworkers. The film was shown at the American Public Health Association (APHA) meetings in New Orleans, sponsored by the Food and Environment Working Group at APHA and hosted by Healthy Food Action. Worker rights have a lot to do with public health. But the film serves a much bigger audience. It can be used as a transdisciplinary starting point for discussion by scholars and practitioners in the food system who are interested in health, worker safety, food justice, labor laws, unlikely partners, and economic power and concentration in the food industry...

In this paper we present the evolution of a transdisciplinary food systems (FS) initiative at a small land-grant university. The first indication of the relevance of food systems study at this university came from faculty and students, which then progressed to the establishment of structural changes and financial support by the administration. This commentary demonstrates that successfully incorporating transdisciplinary academic support, research, and educational programs is not an easy endeavor and requires multilevel buy-in from all strata within the organization. This approach also takes substantial time and resource commitment from faculty, staff, students, administration, and the community. If approached in a holistic, transdisciplinary manner, FS initiatives will link what universities do best with improvement in the FS continuum from food production to public health. As with most new initiatives, there are both barriers and triggers to success, and work is ongoing. Using the lens of the University of Vermont (UVM), this paper poses questions and provides best practice advice to others who seek collaboration across disciplines that goes beyond inter- or multidisciplinarity collaboration.