One-third of adults are now obese, and children's obesity rates have climbed from 5 to 17 percent in the past 30 years. The causes of the nation's obesity epidemic are multi-factorial, having much more to do with the absence of sidewalks and the limited availability of healthy and affordable foods than a lack of personal responsibility. The broad societal changes that are needed to prevent obesity will inevitably affect activity and eating environments and settings for all ages. Many aspects of the obesity problem have been identified and discussed; however, there has not been complete agreement on what needs to be done to accelerate progress. Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention reviews previous studies and their recommendations and presents five key recommendations to accelerate meaningful change on a societal level during the next decade. The report suggests recommendations and strategies that, independently, can accelerate progress, but urges a systems approach of many strategies working in concert to maximize progress in accelerating obesity prevention.The recommendations in Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention include major reforms in access to and opportunities for physical activity; widespread reductions in the availability of unhealthy foods and beverages and increases in access to healthier options at affordable, competitive prices; an overhaul of the messages that surround Americans through marketing and education with respect to physical activity and food consumption; expansion of the obesity prevention support structure provided by health care providers, insurers, and employers; and schools as a major national focal point for obesity prevention. The report calls on all individuals, organizations, agencies, and sectors that do or can influence physical activity and nutrition environments to assess and begin to act on their potential roles as leaders in obesity prevention.

Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation

Taking departure in the theory of resilience in social-ecological systems, we present an analysis and discussion of how resilience theory can be applied to agroecosystems. Building on the premise that agroecosystems are too complex for resilience to be measured in any precise manner, we delineate behavior-based indicators of resilience within agroecosystems. Based on a review of relevant literature, we present and discuss an index of 13 such indicators, which, when identified in an agroecosystem, suggest that it is resilient and endowed with the capacity for adaptation and transformation. Absence of these indicators identifies points of intervention for managers and stakeholders to build resilience where there is vulnerability. The indicators encompass various phases in the adaptive cycle and seek to link core aspects of social-ecological systems. We stress the strong societal need for building resilience in agroecosystems and advocate for a broader way of evaluating resilience in agroecosystems.

/pdf/an-indicator-framework-for-assessing-agroecosystem-3d1laao30r.pdf

An Indicator Framework for Assessing Agroecosystem Resilience

Antivirus-built environment: Lessons learned from Covid-19 pandemic

The use of fly larvae for organic waste treatment.

This study uses nationally representative data on the marketing of local foods to assess the relative scale of local food marketing channels. This research documents that sales through intermediated marketing channels, such as farmers’ sales to local grocers and restaurants, account for a large portion of all local food sales. Small and medium-sized farms dominate local foods sales marketed exclusively through direct-to-consumer channels (foods sold at roadside stands or farmers’ markets, for example) while large farms dominate local food sales marketed exclusively through intermediated channels. Farmers marketing food locally are most prominent in the Northeast and the West Coast regions and areas close to densely populated urban markets. Climate and topography favoring the production of fruits and vegetables, proximity to and neighboring farm participation in farmers’ markets, and good transportation and information access are found to be associated with higher levels of direct-to-consumer sales.

/pdf/direct-and-intermediated-marketing-of-local-foods-in-the-2uwgo1rg0t.pdf

Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States

This comprehensive overview of local food systems explores alternative definitions of local food, estimates market size and reach, describes the characteristics of local consumers and producers, and examines early indications of the economic and health impacts of local food systems. There is no consensus on a definition of “local” or “local food systems” in terms of the geographic distance between production and consumption. But defining “local” based on marketing arrangements, such as farmers selling directly to consumers at regional farmers’ markets or to schools, is well recognized. Statistics suggest that local food markets account for a small, but growing, share of U.S. agricultural production. For smaller farms, direct marketing to consumers accounts for a higher percentage of their sales than for larger farms. Findings are mixed on the impact of local food systems on local economic development and better nutrition levels among consumers, and sparse literature is so far inconclusive about whether localization reduces energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

Consumer demand for food that is locally produced,marketed, and consumed is generating increased interest in local food throughout the United States. As interest grows, so do questions about what constitutes local food and what characterizes local food systems.
What Is the Issue?
This study provides a comprehensive literature-review-based overview of the current understanding of local food systems, including: alternative defi nitions; estimates of market size and reach; descriptions of the characteristics of local food consumers and producers; and an examination of
early evidence on the economic and health impacts of such systems.
What Did the Study Find?
There is no generally accepted definition of “local” food.
Though “local” has a geographic connotation, there is no consensus on a definition in terms of the distance between production and consumption. Definitions related to geographic distance between production and sales vary by regions, companies, consumers, and local food markets. According to the definition adopted by the U.S. Congress in the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act,the total distance that a product can be transported and still be considered a “locally or regionally produced agricultural food product” is less than 400 miles from its origin, or within the State in which it is produced. Definitions based on market arrangements, including direct-to-consumer
arrangements such as regional farmers’ markets, or direct-to-retail/foodservice arrangements such as farm sales to schools, are well-recognized categories and are used in this report to provide statistics on the market development of local foods.
Local food markets account for a small but growing share of total U.S. agricultural sales.
• Direct-to-consumer marketing amounted to $1.2 billion in current dollar sales in 2007, according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, compared with $551 million in 1997.
• Direct-to-consumer sales accounted for 0.4 percent of total agricultural sales in 2007, up from 0.3 percent in 1997. If nonedible products are excluded from total agricultural sales, direct-to consumer sales accounted for 0.8 percent of agricultural sales in 2007.
• The number of farmers’ markets rose to 5,274 in 2009, up from 2,756 in 1998 and 1,755 in 1994, according to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.
• In 2005, there were 1,144 community-supported agriculture organizations, up from 400 in 2001 and 2 in 1986, according to a study by the National Center for Appropriate Technology. In early 2010, estimates exceeded 1,400, but the number could be much larger.
• The number of farm to school programs, which use local farms as food suppliers for school meals programs and promote relationships between schools and farms, increased to 2,095 in 2009, up from 400 in 2004 and 2 in the 1996-97 school year, according to the National Farm to School Network. Data from the 2005 School Nutrition and Dietary Assessment Survey, sponsored by USDA’s Food and Nutrition
Service, showed that 14 percent of school districts participated in Farm to School programs, and 16 percent
reported having guidelines for purchasing locally grown produce. 
Production of locally marketed food is more likely to occur on small farms located in or near metropolitan counties.
Local food markets typically involve small farmers, heterogeneous products, and short supply chains in which farmers also perform marketing functions, including storage, packaging, transportation, distribution, and advertising. According to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, most farms that sell directly to consumers are small farms with less than $50,000 in total farm sales, located in urban corridors of the Northeast and the West Coast.
In 2007, direct-to-consumer sales accounted for a larger share of sales for small farms, as defi ned above, than for
medium-sized farms (total farm sales of $50,000 to $499,999) and large farms (total farm sales of $500,000 or more).
Produce farms engaged in local marketing made 56 percent of total agricultural direct sales to consumers, while accounting for 26 percent of all farms engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing. Direct-to-consumer sales are higher for
the farms engaged in other entrepreneurial activities, such as organic production, tourism, and customwork (planting,
plowing, harvesting, etc. for others), than for other farms. In 2007, direct sales by all U.S. farms surpassed customwork to become the leading on-farm entrepreneurial activity in terms of farm household participation. Barriers to local food-market entry and expansion include: capacity constraints for small farms and lack of distribution systems for moving local food into mainstream markets; limited research, education, and training for marketing local food; and uncertainties related to regulations that may affect local food production, such as food safety requirements.
Consumers who value high-quality foods produced with low environmental impact are willing to pay more for locally produced food. Several studies have explored consumer preferences for locally produced food. Motives for “buying local” include perceived quality and freshness of local food and support for the local economy. Consumers who are willing to pay higher prices for locally produced foods place importance on product quality, nutritional value, methods of raising a product and those methods’ effects on the environment, and support for local farmers.
Federal, State, and local government programs increasingly support local food systems. Many existing government programs and policies support local food initiatives, and the number of such programs is growing. Federal policies have grown over time to include the Community Food Project Grants Program, the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Federal State Marketing Improvement Program, National Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, and the Community Facilities Program. State and local policies include those related to farm-to-institution procurement, promotion of local food markets, incentives for low-income consumers to shop at farmers’ markets, and creation of State Food Policy Councils to discuss opportunities and potential impact of government intervention. (WIC is the acronym for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children).
As of early 2010, there were few studies on the impact of local food markets on economic development, health, or environmental quality.
• Empirical research has found that expanding local food systems in a community can increase employment and
income in that community.
• Empirical evidence is insuffi cient to determine whether local food availability improves diet quality or food security.
• Life-cycle assessments—analyses of energy use at all stages of the food system including consumption and disposal—suggest that localization can but does not necessarily reduce energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Existing analyses of local food markets by universities, government agencies, national nonprofit organizations, and
others of local food markets were synthesized to evaluate the definition of local foods and the effects of local food systems on economic development, health and nutrition, food security, and energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The
report’s content relies on data collected through the 2007 Census of Agriculture, as well as other surveys by USDA’s
Agricultural Marketing Service, the National Farm to School Network, university extension departments, and others, to
provide a comprehensive picture of types of local food markets, their characteristics, and their importance over time.

/pdf/local-food-systems-concepts-impacts-and-issues-27bq0hvz0t.pdf

Food that is locally produced, marketed, and consumed—termed “local food”—is not a particularly new concept in the U.S. food system. Local food and its proponents have origins in the “Slow Food” movement and organic agriculture, and it is common to hear arguments for a relocalization of the food system. Yet recent interest in local food suggests that the term “local” is being used in new and different ways, and by people and organizations that would have previously had no interest in movements that challenge the mainstream food system.

Michael S. Hand

Papers

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

Just What Does Local Mean