Jan Poppendieck: Rethinking School Food for the 21st Century

Jan Poppendieck teaches sociology at Hunter College, City University of New York. Her book Free for All: Fixing School Food in America (University of California Press, 2010) is a comprehensive overview of the mess our nation's school lunch program is in today.

Free for All explores the history of school lunches in America, documents the financial and policy constraints that determine what kids eat, and presents her vision of a system that provides healthy, affordable and fresh food for the nation's students.

TakePart spoke to Poppendieck about her work, and tried to stump her with reader questions about steps parents can take to improve their schools and communities.

 

TakePart: Who decides what's put on a school menu? Is it a chef? Is it a cook in the kitchen? Or is it a school district bureaucrat with a bunch of charts? 

Most districts have a director of child nutrition or a director of school food service, who has the ultimate sign-off on the menu and the obligation to make sure that that menu complies with federal guidelines. Many districts have recently hired chefs to participate in the process of menu development. In some school districts, those chefs are the food service directors. 

So you see the high profile Baltimore school district under chef Tony Geraci; he was both the executive chef and the food service director. There’s a chef now in Los Angeles—I think he’s more a consulting chef. In New York, Chef Jorge Collazo has a whole department that develops recipes, and does tests with the kids and tries to make school food more attractive—but he is not the managing director. 

In most communities in the United States, [the decision maker] is not a chef. 
 
TakePart: You describe a lot of taking food out of the freezer, separating food on trays, and a lot of heating and reheating—but not a lot of actual cooking. Was there ever cooking done in these cafeterias?

Workers during the Great Depression were cooking with fresh ingredients in school cafeterias, right on up to the ‘40s, ‘50s, and ‘60s. The conversion to reliance on bulk, convenience foods—which is the defrost and reheat stuff—began in the ‘70. The big conversion to that approach was in an effort to cut costs [in the ‘80s]. In the years since that conversion, many schools failed to replace kitchen equipment when it died; so many schools no longer have the equipment that would permit a lot of scratch cooking. They are largely equipped with convection ovens that are suited for the defrost and reheat approach.

It’s a matter of money, equipment, and skills. 
 
When you convert from fresh cooking to using things that have been cooked elsewhere and need to be defrosted and reheated, you can employ a lower skill-level at a lower wage. That’s who you have in your kitchen: people who know how to defrost and reheat, how to wield that box cutter. Although wonderful experiments throughout the country are training people who are doing defrost and reheat, and it turns out they’re enthusiastic about learning to cook.

TakePart: Ultimately, does this system—as it has developed over time—work? Does it just need to be tweaked? Or do we need to completely blow up the model for future generations of kids?

We need to go back to square one and rethink school food for the 21st century. There’s a lot of anachronism in our approach to school food, and that’s what I’ve argued in the book—that it’s time for a paradigm shift. 

We need to make school lunch part of the school day, integrated with the curriculum. It needs to be something everyone participates in. In the same way as when you go to summer camp, and everybody goes to meals, and [meal time is] an important part of the social experience of camp. 

The current situation—where we’re selling food to children, and some children get to eat free—is problematic because of the stigma that attaches. But the kids paying full price are the ones in the driver’s seat, in the way customers are always in the driver’s seat. Their preferences have pushed school foods in some very unhealthy directions.

I’m not talking about force-feeding children gruel. But if we were to move toward a universal free [meal] approach similar to what they do in Sweden, we would have a lot more degrees of freedom about serving healthier meals. Eating lunch at school would be the norm if parents were paying for it through the taxation system. [Parents would] be less likely to give kids a lot of money to drive to the nearest convenience store—which is what happens in far too many communities. They’re driving to the nation’s worst nutrition supply—the gas station convenience store.

TakePart: This would require investment at various levels of government. How do you pay for that?
 
In the context of what’s happening in Washington right now, I expect a certain amount of ridicule for suggesting that we need to invest another $14 to $15 billion a year in school food—and that’s what I calculate it’ll cost to do this. 

If we want to harness the potential of school food to address the widespread obesity and diabetes epidemics that are rooted in the way we eat, we need to revamp [school meals.] We will save money in the long run. 

But members of congress don’t get elected in the long run—they run every two years, and they’re facing constituents that have been, I think, miseducated about taxation in a free society. We’ve developed a kind of allergy toward taxation that isn’t consonant with doing things well that need to be done. 

TakePart: So if someone says, "I really care about the quality of food the kids are getting in my area, I want to do something to change the system, and I want to get rid of the stuff they’re serving now. But I believe we have to do it within the current budget," is that possible?

There are examples of wonderful transformations of terrific school meal programs. Take a look at the school meals in St. Paul, Minnesota, or in Portland, Oregon, or in Burlington, Vermont, to see some very good meals made available within the context of the current system.
The fact that some systems can break even, at the current rate, does not mean all systems can. But a lot can be done. It requires a kind of heroic effort. Someone has to go in and provide the expertise and leadership and lead this process.

TakePart: Your book recommends universal free lunch for all students. What else needs to change fundamentally? What would the system look like? 

Universal free would take us out of the need to treat children like customers, and we’d have more freedom about what to serve. Lunch could become a cafeteria classroom, and a real part of the school day. 

I would love to see schools serving lunch in locations other than the cafeteria. Many schools would agree to do that if all students ate at the school. There are library programs where children pick up their lunch, bring it to the library, and the librarian would read to the children during lunch, with the literary lunch club. I can picture schools with lunch club activities. We begin to value that period of the day as an opportunity for both building social bonds and for teaching students about healthy eating. 

We’d need a big change in attitude by school administrators. They would need to see the school food service staff as educators. And school food service staff would need training and investment in them to rise to that. 

TakePart: The book also points out that our school lunch policy is largely tied to our national agricultural policy. Is that a smart relationship to be continuing?

The original arrangement—the federal government’s primary form of aid to school food meals was to donate commodities—is not true anymore. 

The federal government does donate commodities. Last year it was about $0.17 a meal worth of donations for the lunch program. It makes a difference, but it’s not a huge difference. I mean, food service directors will tell you they couldn’t break even without it; so it’s a crucial difference. 
But it’s not a situation where the federal government is dumping unhealthy surplus commodities on those schools. Schools have a very long list of commodities from which they can order. Unfortunately, it goes through a sort of bottleneck at the state level. 

While a particular school may want to order a very healthy form of commodity, the state may bundle the orders so they can’t make healthy choices. Lean meat, for instance, is available now. But if their state orders a full fat variety, not all schools effectively have access to it.
The more important relationship between school food and agricultural policy is that federal subsidies for corn and soy and wheat have made snack foods and manufactured food artificially cheap. If you look over time, at what it costs to buy manufactured junk, versus what it costs to buy fresh food and vegetables, it’s no wonder schools have trouble affording fresh food for children. 

We need to transfer a lot of that subsidy out of the basic commodities and into the foods that Americans need more in our diets—fresh fruits and vegetables. If we were subsidizing fruits and vegetables with the kind of money we’ve been putting into corn and soy, those products would be more affordable to schools just as they’d be more affordable for consumers out in the community. 

TakePart: Who’s getting it right? You mentioned St. Paul and Burlington and Portland…
There are wonderful programs here and there in America. 
 
In Healdsburg, California, the food service director has reestablished a lot of fresh cooking on-site. That’s certainly an example people should take a look at. 

There’s a school in Davenport, California, where the fifth graders prepare the school lunch; it’s a course called Food Lab. About 20 fifth graders divide into five teams, one for each day of the week. They scale up the recipes and fix the lunch. It’s obviously something very difficult to replicate in a large system. 

The federal government has a publication called Making It Happen: School Nutrition Success Stories. People can look there for some wonderful stories of improved meals—Baltimore is another example. 

TakePart: Why don’t we see more schools growing their own vegetables? We could teach kids about gardening and important life skills, and make the schools healthier…
School gardens are becoming very popular, and it’s a wonderful movement. A school garden is a wonderful thing. But it’s a long, long step from a school garden to any substantial supply for the cafeteria. Many schools don’t have anyone on staff who is equipped to grow food in large quantities.

The first school gardens often found there were barriers to getting their food into the cafeteria. The food service director was worried about liability issues, or the menu has been planned a year in advance. They had trouble getting their food incorporated. 

Many models are adjusting the regulations so that food grown on the school premises is used in the cafeteria. In urban settings, especially, you’ve got to have the soil tested and make sure that the food grown in the school garden is healthy enough. 

If parents are persistent, they probably can get [a program started]. In New York City, we call it a Garden to Café program. Last year, 24 schools were participating; this year, 40-some schools are participating. That’s not a lot out of our 1,200 school sites, but it’s going in the right direction.

TakePart: If students and parents demand that healthy food is served in the cafeteria, is that bound to create problems for kids who “don’t have that kind of money”?
This issue is working at the national level because the latest legislation—the Healthy and Hunger-Free Kids Act—required that the paid lunch price rise over time to match the level of the federal reimbursement. 

If the federal imbursement is $2.75, let's say, and the paid lunch is selling for $2, then isn’t the free lunch subsidizing the paid lunch and wouldn’t the free lunch be healthier if the school had all of that $2.75 to spend on preparing it?

One of the reasons I ended up coming out for universal free meals, is because if you are one dollar over the eligibility level for reduced price meals, then you move directly to full price. A lot of families can’t afford the full price. 

If the full price rises to $3—not uncommon in affluent communities—a lot of kids who aren’t eligible for the reduced price can’t afford full price; so they’re not getting any benefit from the program. Their parents are likely to give them a dollar. They’ll stop by the corner store and show up with a soft drink and a bag of chips. 
 
Food service directors told me the main thing they needed was more money. But all kinds of nifty experiments are going on around the country. People were able to serve better meals by making changes in menu planning, the management of the program, the amount of waste in the program—in some cases even by getting rid of the a la carte

TakePart: What can parents do at a local level to change things?


The fact that people are asking is a hopeful sign. In all school districts, there is required to be a wellness policy committee, and in many individual schools, there is a wellness committee. So one of the first places to turn to find other parents who share their concerns is to the wellness committees. 

Start with a plan that they’re going to cooperate with the food service director; don’t start with the assumption that this is an adversarial relationship. Start with the assumption that pretty much everyone wants the same thing here, which is healthier food for the children. 

Meet with the food service director and find out what the local challenges are. See if there are ways to mobilize parents to help.

Procuring more locally has been a big step in improving not just the quality of food, but also the sense of investment of the program and ownership of the program. So very often wellness committees or parent advisory committees can get the ball rolling for local procurement. Sometimes parents can do some fundraising to provide a salad bar. There’s been a small revolution in salad bars, developing what we call low riders, so salad bars are the right height for elementary school children. 

Parents need to find other parents. It’s almost never something that one parent acting alone can have much impact on. They need to engage school principals, school administrators, and make clear that they care. 

TakePart: If someone is looking for a meal with locally sourced greens, with grass-fed protein, is it possible to get that on a mass scale in a school lunch program?

If we want that, we need to be prepared to invest more. On the one hand, the larger the market for organic [products], the more people will get involved in producing it, and the cost will come down. If you think about those 7 billion meals a year in the school food program, you think, "Wow, if we could shift this whole sub system toward organic, sustainably produced, humanely raised, we could shift the whole system." Ultimately, the answer is to push the food system in that direction, which will lower the prices and make it more feasible. 

The quick answer is that, in general, the prices that schools can reasonably charge children are not sufficient to cover an all-organic and grass-fed meal.

TakePart: What responsibilities do parents and families have to change the way kids eat at school, by changing the way they eat at home?

That would be great if families would change the way they eat in a more healthy direction, and kids would come to school accustomed to healthier food. That would be their preference, and they would want it. That’s when I start thinking "pie in the sky."

The tools of public policy are cumbersome. We don’t have a way of re-educating families and changing the way they eat. We do have children for a substantial number of meals a year in school, with taxpayer investment. It would be more realistic to think that we could change what’s available at school. Maybe some of this would filter back to home or influence what the next generation of parents feeds their children. 

How to Make Oatmeal . . . Wrong | New York Times

 By MARK BITTMAN, February 22, 2011, 8:30pm

There’s a feeling of inevitability in writing about McDonald’s latest offering, their “bowl full of wholesome” — also known as oatmeal. The leadingfast-food multinational, with sales over $16.5 billion a year (just under the GDP of Afghanistan), represents a great deal of what is wrong with American food today. From a marketing perspective, they can do almost nothing wrong; from a nutritional perspective, they can do almost nothing right, as the oatmeal fiasco demonstrates.

One “positive” often raised about McDonald’s is that it sells calories cheap. But since many of these calories are in forms detrimental rather than beneficial to our health and to the environment, they’re actually quite expensive — the costs aren’t seen at the cash register but in the form of high health care bills and environmental degradation.

Oatmeal is on the other end of the food spectrum. Real oatmeal contains no ingredients; rather, it is an ingredient. As such, it’s a promising lifesaver: oats are easy to grow in almost any non-extreme climate and, minimally processed, they’re profoundly nourishing, inexpensive and ridiculously easy to cook. They can even be eaten raw, but more on that in a moment.

Like so many other venerable foods, oatmeal has been roundly abused by food marketers for more than 40 years. Take, for example, Quaker Strawberries and Cream Instant Oatmeal, which contains no strawberries, no cream, 12 times the sugars of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats and only half of the fiber. At least it’s inexpensive, less than 50 cents a packet on average. (A serving of cooked rolled oats will set you back half that at most, plus the cost of condiments; of course, it’ll be much better in every respect.)

Related Reading List

Alternatives to McDonald’s Oatmeal

• Read more »

The oatmeal and McDonald’s story broke late last year, when Mickey D’s, in its ongoing effort to tell us that it’s offering “a selection of balanced choices” (and to keep in step with arch-rival Starbucks) began to sell the cereal. Yet in typical McDonald’s fashion, the company is doing everything it can to turn oatmeal into yet another bad choice. (Not only that, they’ve made it more expensive than a double-cheeseburger: $2.38 per serving in New York.) “Cream” (which contains seven ingredients, two of them actual dairy) is automatically added; brown sugar is ostensibly optional, but it’s also added routinely unless a customer specifically requests otherwise. There are also diced apples, dried cranberries and raisins, the least processed of the ingredients (even the oatmeal contains seven ingredients, including “natural flavor”).

A more accurate description than “100% natural whole-grain oats,” “plump raisins,” “sweet cranberries” and “crisp fresh apples” would be “oats, sugar, sweetened dried fruit, cream and 11 weird ingredients you would never keep in your kitchen.”

Since we know there are barely any rules governing promotion of foods, one might wonder how this compares to real oatmeal, besides being 10 times as expensive. Some will say that it tastes better, but that’s because they’re addicted to sickly sweet foods, which is what this bowlful of wholesome is.

Others will argue that the McDonald’s version is more “convenient.” This is nonsense; in the time it takes to go into a McDonald’s, stand in line, order, wait, pay and leave, you could make oatmeal for four while taking your vitamins, brushing your teeth and half-unloading the dishwasher. (If you’re too busy to eat it before you leave the house, you could throw it in a container and microwave it at work. If you prefer so-called instant, flavored oatmeal, see this link, which will describe how to make your own).

If you don’t want to bother with the stove at all, you could put some rolled oats (instant not necessary) in a glass or bowl, along with a teeny pinch of salt, sugar or maple syrup or honey, maybe some dried fruit. Add milk and let stand for a minute (or 10). Eat. Eat while you’re walking around getting dressed. And then talk to me about convenience.

The aspect one cannot argue is nutrition: Incredibly, the McDonald’s product contains more sugar than a Snickers bar and only 10 fewer calories than a McDonald’s cheeseburger or Egg McMuffin. (Even without the brown sugar it has more calories than a McDonald’s hamburger.)

The bottom-line question is, “Why?” Why would McDonald’s, which appears every now and then to try to persuade us that it is adding “healthier” foods to its menu, take a venerable ingredient like oatmeal and turn it into expensive junk food? Why create a hideous concoction of 21 ingredients, many of them chemical and/or unnecessary? Why not try, for once, to keep it honest?

I asked them this, via e-mail: “Why could you not make oatmeal with nothing more than real oats and plain water, and offer customers a sweetener or two (honey, the only food on earth that doesn’t spoil, would seem a natural fit for this purpose), a packet of mixed dried fruit, and half-and-half or — even better — skim milk?”

Their answer, via e-mail and through a spokesperson (FMO is “fruit and maple oatmeal”): “Customers can order FMO with or without the light cream, brown sugar and the fruit. Our menu is entirely customizable by request with our ‘Made for You’ platform that has been in place since the late 90s.”

Oh, please. Here’s the thing: McDonald’s wants to get people in the store. Once a day, once a week, once a month, the more the better, of course, but routinely. And if you buy oatmeal, they’re o.k. with that. But they know that, once inside, you’ll probably opt for a sausage biscuit anyway.

And you won’t be much worse off.

Visit my blog, where you can find out more about my columns, or what I just cooked. You can also join me on Facebook or Twitter.

Who Will Fix Food? Obama? Walmart? You?

Leslie Hatfield, Senior editor, GRACE, February 18, 2011 12:15 PM

A few weeks ago, when President Obama gave his State of the Union Address, food issue analysts and activists livetweeted the event, hungry for a few crumbs by which to make out the President's thoughts on the state of food policy. The crumbs were few and far between and nearly impossible to interpret, like his promise to make it easier for farmers to grow more food (though in hindsight, this may have been a hint that the USDA was about to go on a GMO-approving binge -- this being the third in as many weeks by my count -- even though studies like this one from the Union of Concerned Scientists show that genetic modification is not a silver bullet to greater yields). The biggest edible takeaway, of course, was the smoked salmon joke that Grist's Tom Philpott pointed out, seemed to underscore Obama's laissez-faire attitude.

The following Thursday, Obama took to YouTube and to the delight of foodies around the country, took a pointed question about food from Slow Food USA president, Josh Viertel. In response, the President pointed to the First Lady's Let's Move campaign (which has since celebrated its first anniversary), specifically, to the campaign's recently announced partnership with Walmart, which has been the subject of much controversy in both mainstream and online media.

Rockstar food advocate Anna Lappe hit one out of the park with her scathingly skeptical post on Civil Eats, and for the record, this is the neighborhood where this blogger comes down, too. Of course, it is important to remember that even the tiniest step from a behemoth like Walmart has more (at least, tangible) impact than major steps taken by even thousands of everyday folks like you and me. But for my money, there are bigger obstacles to a healthier nation than a dearth of healthful food at big box stores, or a dearth of big box stores in urban food deserts (part of Walmart's plan is to enter urban areas where access to healthful food is poor - activists in many of these areas have fought long and hard to prevent the chain from coming in) and if I may point out the obvious, to fight a problem as big as Americans' expanding waistlines and alarming rates of preventable diseases like diabetes, we need a sea change, with help from all sides, including government, corporations, as well as from citizens.

It turns out that Viertel wasn't buying it either, and said so quite bluntly in the article he just published in The Atlantic, "Froot Loops vs. Real Fruit: For Real Change, Don't Look to Obama." At the end of the piece, he suggests that we, as citizens, will have to look to ourselves, and each other, for real change.

We have a role to play. We've got to choose food that reflects our values. But further, we have hands-on work to do building projects in our communities that make them more like they should be -- from gardens in public schools to farmers markets in low-income communities. And we've got to stand together to push for federal policy that serves eaters and farmers before it serves corporations.

Food & Water Watch's Wenonah Hauter went one further early this week, on Huffington Post with "Food Policy We Can't Believe In," where she touches on all the current food and agriculture issues: genetically engineered salmon, alfalfa and more; Chinese chicken imports; food safety; offshore fish farms; the administration's failure to implement rules from the last Farm Bill that would help level the playing field for smaller-scale producers and yes, Walmart.

Is the first-term Obama administration "dissing" his base and following the money? What are people dissatisfied with this failure to do? The answer: Eaters must become more political. We can't just vote with our forks.

Awhile back, I asked Dr. Wallinga, of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, what he thought about the Walmart deal:

We didn't rely on WalMart to get lead out of gasoline. Nor did we wait for WalMart to take on Big Tobacco. If we want to raise kids in communities with healthier food, we can't rely on WalMart to bring that about. We need better public policies.

Wallinga, who recently wrote a smart post on this subject for IATP, is promoting a Charter for a Healthy Farm Bill (PDF) at Healthy Food Action. A number of high-profile medical professionals, including NYU nutritionist Dr. Marion Nestle, Johns Hopkins' Dr. Robert Lawrence, Dr. Andrew Weil and Dr. Phillip R. Ree (former US Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services), have signed on to the Charter, which is holistic in nature and includes sections on transparency, fairness and environmental sustainability. In fact, better food policies would not only stand to shrink waistlines and diabetes rates, they would help rebuild local economies, create jobs and better the health of our environment.

Everyday citizens can stand in support of the Charter, too, and I hope they do. During the run up to the last iteration of the Farm Bill (if not before), while industry lobbyists were busy greasing the palms of every politician they could get in front of, good food advocates called for renaming the legislation the Food Bill. Because, as fewer and fewer of us are tied to the land, average citizens don't always see a connection between themselves and policies ostensibly geared toward those who still do raise crops and animals. But we all eat, so the Farm Bill affects all of us. And those of us who still have jobs pay taxes, so we should care about how our tax dollars influence our food systems, too. Because the State of the Food Union is not so strong. But it could be, with a little help from friends on the inside.

Follow Leslie Hatfield on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lesliehatfield

Social Media Week: The Future of Health, Food, and Tech

Posted by Ellie Cachette on February 8th, 2011 10:28 AM


Where is the future of food and tech headed?  What do we need to measure so that we can make positive changes? Many apps track fitness like FitBit and calories like DailyBurn but what is the core of major health change and how is tech going to answer the question? This week in NYC for Social Media Week 2011 HealthTechFood explored the future of health and why measuring health with technology devices is going to save humanity. Each speaker touched on different angles of how to implement massive health changes across local and international.  All agreed that mobile and apps could move the future but each speaker had a different area they felt was important to review.

MEASURING
Steven K. Dean (@sgdean) founder of  The Quantified Self talked about the measurement as the future.  He believes that metrics can shape the future but technology will also need to be careful to not hook us too much, “If we can measure it, we can improve it” but he continued “we need to make sure to avoid SMS overload.”

AWARENESS
Slowfood, Jerusha Klemperer (@slowfoodusa) theorized that evaluating food systems and processes were important.  She mentioned understanding the difference between Foodshed (the difference between where food is produced and consumed) and also food waste.  In modern times she said its important to “understand where food is coming from” and to not be naive about how processed food comes to life.

MOBILE
Why Mobile? Jane Sarasohn-Kahn, (@healthythinker) an economist and member of Health Populi talked about health and not being afraid to use programs that people have access to. She talked about mobile apps to help people date and have safe sex like Cupid Me and how 1 in 4 americans don’t have  landlines. Despite economic seperations most people have access to mobile so she argued the focus of health int he future should be mobile.

TECHNOLOGY
TED lecturer and inventor of the K1 syringe, Marc Koska stated some grave statistics.  While funding flows to Africa and lesser developed countries he broke down the future of health relief very simply: vaccines and shots are killing humanity. He argues that 20MM people a year are injected with HIV from the lack of sanitation and 62% of injections cause some illnesses.  He doesn’t tweet but he believes that making large health change will require clean technologies that don’t require massive societal change just product change.

Food and health related infographics.

Luminary labs put together an interesting collection of 59 food and health related infographics. Available at:

http://www.slideshare.net/LuminaryLabs/health-tech-food-infographic-reel?from=ss_embed

Real Time Farms Launching More Robust Food Information Platform

by Danielle Gould on 07. Feb, 2011
“We also think that if people feel they can use the data for other purposes besides viewing it on Real Time Farms, they’ll be more likely to want to participate. It’s a win-win.” – Real Time Farms

Real Time Farms is a web platform that uses crowdsourcing to help you “connect the dots of your food web” and understand where your food is coming from. It’s no secret that truly understanding the full social, environmental, and health implications of any given food is a nearly impossible feat for any one person to undertake. Information technology, however, offers unique opportunities for collecting the disparate pieces of information that in aggregate begin to provide a better picture of these implications. This week, Real Time Farms launches their newly designed site, which takes us one step closer to understanding real-time information about farms, food artisans, and farmers markets.

Real Time Farms is dedicated to opening up their sites data  via an API (Application Programming Interface), so we can all benefit from the information being aggregated, even outside of the Real Time Farm platform. Anyone doing food system research or market research knows how challenging it is to find accurate, relevant, easily searchable, and current data growing practices, prices paid to farmers, etc… I encourage you to check out Real Time Farms and consider investing in their SeedStarter campaign, which will ultimately benefit us all through better access to these kinds of data.

I got a chance to catch up with Co-founders Karl & Cara Rosaen to learn more about the newly designed site. Read on to get an inside view of what data they will be collecting and how.

Danielle Gould: I understand you’re launching a redesigned site, what kind of new features should we expect to see?

Cara & Karl Rosaen: We are! It will be live by Feb. 11, 2011 in time for TEDxManhattan’s “Change The Way We Eat” Conference.

The site is sexier and more user-friendly! With the help of our monthly user-testers, feedback from our regular users, and our new design firm (thanks T Square Design!), we have done a complete site overhaul! With all that we have learned, we are ecstatic to launch it! Let us know what you think.

See what’s happening across the country! Since our initial launch in April 2010, we’ve had the privilege of getting a bird’s eye view of all the information on farms, food artisans, and farmers markets that people have been adding from all across the country. Now you can have a look too. The front page gives you an overall picture of what’s being added in real-time! You can then go deeper, enter in your zip code, and be taken to information particular to your neck of the woods.

Search farms, food artisans, and distributors! You can add them and search them. While the first launch is focused on getting our new look out as soon as possible, we have plans to quickly enhance these features. You’ll soon be able to trace the ingredients of your favorite local food artisan’s jalapeno-cheddar bread back to the farms that sourced it. Similarly, you’ll be able to see the farms your area’s distributors source from. We’re a platform for connecting the dots of your food web. If you know of a farm, food artisan product, or food distributor that isn’t listed, add them. The site is user-generated, meaning we are powered by the people. Add your favorites now! We just make the tools to help you tell the story.

Show Your Support and Affiliation! Personal [profiles have expanded so you can mark you favorite farms and farmers markets as well as indicate whether or not you volunteer, farm, or manage a local farm and/or farmers market.

You can now read the oh so elusive Real Time Farms Blog (well-hidden on the last site). Our Editor-In-Chief, Lindsay-Jean Hard, posts fresh content each week with the help of other writers on our team.
You can explore the reasons locavores, chefs, market managers, and farmers across the country are using Real Time Farms! Watch video clips, read testimonials, and most importantly, explore the tools we’ve created for you to share you’re food story with the world.

DG: What services do you offer restaurants?
 
CR & KR: We offer tools for restaurants to tell and share the story behind their food. The service allows them to upload their menu, link every ingredient back to the farm (and its growing practices, pictures, and history), and then publish this farm-linked menu to our site and embed it within their own site. In knowing the farm or food artisan’s story, customers learn the dish’s story.
We add functionality, rather than more work. Restaurants can use Real Time Farms as their primary menu management system. They can plug into the ever-growing database of information on Real Time Farms, edit and farm-link their menus to rich farm profiles, and publish this rich menu in multiple places, instantly. Now, the customer can learn the story of their food, click on a dish, click on “pasture-raised beef” and see pictures of the cows in the pasture, read about the growing practices of the farm, and feel confident in what they are eating.
(For a more complete listing of the full functionality of the basic package, visit realtimefarms.com starting Friday, Feb 11th)

DG: How many restaurants are you looking to secure over the next year? How will your SeedStarter campaign enable you to do that?

CR & KR: Our goal is to showcase 500 restaurants nationwide this year. It is a high bar, but we think it’s possible. The money we raise through our SeedStarter campaign (named in homage to the funding platform, KickStarter) will give us the boost we need to make it happen. Part of the funding will be used for the curricula, education materials, and necessary technology needed to support our Food Warrior Summer Interns. These interns will be collecting highly-detailed information on farms, food artisans, and distributors in our five target areas nationwide. The money will also help us market and travel to each of these five locations to secure the 500 restaurants that will help us become financially viable.

As a member of the fast-growing sector of social ventures, we will use the money to build a viable business that will enable us to continue to fulfill our social mission; bring transparency to our food system and connect people to farm-fresh produce in their area. Help us make it happen!


current site screenshot

DG: In our last interview, you said that Real Time Farms will be collecting information about farmers’ growing practices. How will you collect this data and how will you ensure that it is accurate?

CR & KR: That’s true. To date, you can find basic information on growing practices in many of the farm profiles on Real Time Farms. We’re setting up a framework to allow people to answer much more detailed and structured questions about growing practices (from soil preparation and maintenance to pest management). We have been interviewing consumers to learn about what they want to know about the way their food is grown, and talking with fruit and vegetable growers, meat producers, and fisheries, learning about how we can most effectively share their story. Crowd-sourcing this information will be integral given the depth and breadth of the questions. Our job is to present the information to users in a way that is helpful; neither overwhelming, nor shallow.

We can’t ever personally guarantee the accuracy, we can only provide the tools to allow people to collaborate to capture the most accurate answer. As we see how people use the tools, we may add additional access controls, such as reputation-based contribution systems. We have a lot of ideas, but want to wait to see how users behave, before worrying too much about controls and restrictions. We are reassured by the accuracy of crowd-sourced sites, such as Wikipedia and Stackoverflow.com. It’s worth noting some of the research validating the accuracy of crowd-sourced models. In 2005, a study, published in the journal Nature, found Wikipedia was nearly as accurate as the Encyclopedia Britannica. (Jim Giles (December 2005). “Internet encyclopedias go head to head”. Nature 438 (7070): 900–901. doi:10.1038/438900a. )

DG: You’ve mentioned that Real Time Farms is ultimately interested in opening up all of the data you are aggregating, why? How do you envision doing that?

CR & KR: We plan on opening up the data via an API (Application Programming Interface) so that people can take the data and play with it to analyze and/or build new tools. The great thing about opening API’s is that you can never anticipate what people can come up with. We will love to watch what happens!
We also think that if people feel they can use the data for other purposes besides viewing it on Real Time Farms, they’ll be more likely to want to participate. It’s a win-win. It also just feel right and fits with our social mission.

How Much Do Fruits and Vegetables Cost?

How Much Do Fruits and Vegetables Cost? 
By Hayden Stewart, Jeffrey Hyman, Jean C. Buzby, Elizabeth Frazão, and Andrea Carlson, Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-71), February 2011 

"Federal dietary guidance advises Americans to consume more vegetables and fruits because most Americans do not consume the recommended quantities or variety. Food prices, along with taste, convenience, income, and awareness of the link between diet and health, shape food choices. 

We used 2008 Nielsen Homescan data to estimate the average price at retail stores of a pound and an edible cup equivalent (or, for juices, a pint and an edible cup equivalent) of 153 commonly consumed fresh and processed fruits and vegetables. We found that average prices ranged from less than 20 cents per edible cup equivalent to more than $2 per edible cup equivalent.

We also found that, in 2008, an adult on a 2,000- calorie diet could satisfy recommendations for vegetable and fruit consumption in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (amounts and variety) at an average price of $2 to $2.50 per day, or approximately 50 cents per edible cup equivalent."

Rahm Emanuel food policy takes page from Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" playbook

By Lynn Sweet on February 1, 2011 12:34 PM 

WASHINGTON--Chicago mayoral candidate and former White House House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel unveiled a food policy on Tuesday that mirrors First Lady Michelle Obama's campaign to bring more healthy and affordable food choices to urban "food deserts."

Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign--a year old next week--identified problems that still need solving, even in her own Chicago back yard. Mrs. Obama has been advocating public/private partnerships in her speeches to the nation's mayors and governors through the past year. Last month, Mrs. Obama lent her stature to Walmart when she appeared a the retailing giants roll out of a host of plans to repackage, reformulate and reprice food in order to reduce salt and sugar, trim portion sizes, and cut prices on fresh fruits and vegetables.

I talked with Emanuel policy director David Spielfogel--asking about borrowing a page from the White Ho
use playbook-- and he said the he consulted heavily with local groups in creating the plan.
What Emanuel has in his proposals (the whole plan at the click) is how a city can work with local non-profits and rewrite ordinances if necessary to make it easier to bring fresh healthy choices to underserved communities.

below, Emanuel's food plan.....

RAHM EMANUEL ANNOUNCES PLAN TO EXPAND ACCESS TO FRESH FOODS AND ERADICATE FOOD DESERTS IN CHICAGO

This morning, mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel unveiled his plan to increase access to fresh food options and eradicate food deserts in communities throughout Chicago. More than 600,000 Chicagoans lack easy access to a grocery store offering healthy and fresh foods. While Rahm will continue to engage large retailers in the fight against food deserts, a comprehensive strategy is needed to tackle food deserts in our city. Rahm's plan calls for engaging smaller local grocery stores, facilitating public-private partnerships and encouraging community gardens to thrive. And Rahm will reform the zoning regulations that have stifled the growth of urban agriculture in Chicago, paving the way for a renaissance in local food production and improved food distribution to underserved communities.


EXPANDING ACCESS TO FRESH, HEALTHY FOODS

More than 600,000 of Chicago's three million residents live in neighborhoods that lack access to fresh food. Located primarily on Chicago's south and west sides, these "food deserts" make it difficult to purchase healthy and fresh fruits, vegetables and meat. The lack of a store also cripples a neighborhood's ability to attract economic investment that will lead to job growth, and creates areas that show significantly higher rates of health problems. A recent study found that, among those living in neighborhoods with the worst access to fresh food, 1 out of every 100 residents die from cardiovascular issues - nearly double the rate found in areas that have access to grocery stores. While there is no simple solution to eradicate food deserts, the public health and economic development consequences require action.

A GROCERY STORE IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD

Rahm's plan to combat food deserts is based on finding creative solutions that draw on the strengths of the public-private partnerships, community organizations and corporate investment.

Send a clear message to retailers: doing business in Chicago requires doing business in all neighborhoods

Grocery stores and other retailers are finding that underserved communities can often serve as profitable locations for new investment. As an example, last year Walgreens started selling an expanded selection of food, including fresh fruits and vegetables at ten stores in Chicago that were selected specifically for their location in food deserts. As mayor, Rahm will hold meetings with corporate leaders to encourage them to continue diversifying their food options as they seek permitting to open stores in more affluent neighborhoods.

Utilize federal, state and local economic incentives to expand food options

While large chain stores are certainly part of the solution, Rahm will also make small- and mid-sized independent food retailers an integral part of his plan. Rahm will leverage federal programs like President Obama's Healthy Food Financing Initiative and the Federal New Markets Tax Program, which enables companies to get federal tax credits for investing in projects in economically distressed communities, to increase food options while generating economic development.

Other cities and states have seen success with these programs, which can be easily replicated in Chicago. In the state of Pennsylvania, the use of these programs has increased access to healthy food for 400,000 people, while creating or retaining 4,860 jobs. Other options that will be considered include giving employers a tax credit of $1,500 for every employee hired from within a food desert zone. Additionally, retailers may be eligible for tax-exempt bonds for use on a variety of store upgrades - from the actual purchase of a building to equipment, or even product purchases.

EXPAND URBAN AGRICULTURE

For centuries, Chicago's fertile land has been used to grow fresh produce and create employment opportunities. But today, city government stands in the way of a renaissance of local food production by limiting the size and revenue potential of these enterprises. Rahm wants to break down these barriers and help local businesses and non-profits to secure land, sell their produce on-site, and create after-school and job training opportunities. The initiative will focus expansion on Chicago's south and west sides where large food deserts prevent communities from accessing fresh and healthy produce.

Cut the bureaucratic and regulatory prohibitions on urban agriculture

On Chicago's south and west side, community efforts are already underway to convert empty plots - often in a state of urban ruin and a hub for crime and drugs - into community gardens. Rahm recognizes the value of these community-initiated efforts and wants to support them by cutting the arcane zoning regulations that make it difficult for community gardens to thrive. Previous efforts to open community gardens and farms in the city have been stymied by a lack of clarity around the zoning ordinances. In one instance, it took two years to open a single community farm simply because of the regulatory red tape. As mayor, Rahm is committed to eliminating these bureaucratic and regulatory obstacles so that Chicagoans can exercise their innovation and more readily develop agricultural solutions that meet their needs. In addition to updating the zoning guidelines, Rahm will also help develop a set of Site Guidelines, which will guide community and commercial garden installations to ensure that community gardens are able to be run in efficient and cost-effective manners.

Allow fresh produce to be sold on-site

Current Chicago laws prohibit businesses from operating in residential zones without rezoning. While this makes sense through most of the city, it prohibitsfood grown on agricultural plots from being sold on-site. Rahm will work with the City Council to reform the zoning code so that fresh produce can be sold where it is grown. This will have particular impact on Chicago's south and west sides where non-profit organizations are turning blighted lots into agricultural plots.

Expand permits for mobile food trucks and allow food to be cooked on-site

Mobile food trucks are a staple in many American cities, but Chicago lags behind. These trucks provide freshly-prepared food in neighborhoods across the city. Rahm will support a city ordinance to expand licensing for these trucks while ensuring that local small businesses aren't negatively affected. The new policy would reform the city's existing regulations that prohibit most forms of street food vendors. By expanding the variety and number of food trucks, Chicago can promote a new industry that creates good jobs and expands access to fresh food.



###