SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
AT THE CHILD AND FAMILY STUDY CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-STOUT
December 18th, 2012
Mallory Cina & Jayna Sinn
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
............................................................................................................................................................
CURRENT CONDITIONS
ANALYSIS OF STARS
3
.............................................................................................................................................
3
....................................................................................................................................................
4
ANALYSIS OF THE GO GREEN RATING SCALE
LOCAL FOODS ANALYSIS
..............................................................................................
5
..........................................................................................................................................
8
ORDERING FROM FIFTH SEASON
........................................................................................................................
9
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
..........................................................................................................................
Social
..................................................................................................................................................................
Environment
....................................................................................................................................................
Economy
............................................................................................................................................................
10
11
12
13
PROJECT CHALLENGES
............................................................................................................................................. 14
RECOMMENDATIONS
............................................................................................................................................. 15
REFLECTIONS
........................................................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES
.............................................................................................................................................................. 18
APPENDICES
.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A. Project Timeline
..........................................................................................................................
19
Appendix B. Communications and Meeting Notes ................................................................................ 20
Appendix C. UW-Stout’s Dining Services Contract ................................................................................ 24
Appendix D. Child and Adult Care Food Program Contract Appendix E. Key Contacts and Organizations ................................................................. 26
............................................................................................... 28
Appendix F. Reinhart Food Suppliers within 250 Miles of UW-Stout .................................................. 29
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
3
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the following report is
to provide recommendations to UW-Stout’s
Child and Family Study Center (CFSC) on ways
to provide more fresh, local, and organic food
to children and staff, while adhering to their
UW-Stout allocated budget. Sustainability
education recommendations for the CFSC is the
secondary goal of our project. We believe our
recommendations will lead to immediate changes
in procedure, while also creating opportunities to
spread awareness. We will provide CFSC teachers
with accessible knowledge and actionable
activities. The teachers, in turn, will educate
countless children who will then influence their
parents. All in all, we hope to inspire the community
to spread knowledge about sustainability.
A variety of resources were used for our
project. The Go Green Rating Scale for Early
Childhood Settings was utilized to accurately
measure the level of sustainable food systems
at the CFSC. The Go Green Rating Scale is one
of the few rating scales to outline a researchbased, comprehensive set of standards for “green”
early child care. The standards are measurable
and graduated, enabling a program to move up
the scale toward the healthiest environment
possible (Go Green Rating, 2012). Thus, the Go
Green Rating Scale is a good tool for analyzing
the level of sustainable food systems at the CFSC.
Sustainability Tracking, Assessment, & Rating
System (STARS) is a transparent, self-reporting
outline for colleges and universities to measure
their sustainability performance. STARS offers
meaningful comparisons over time and across
institutions, and provides incentives for “continual
improvement toward sustainability” (AASHE,
2012). In the last five years, UW-Stout has adopted
STARS to measure sustainability performance.
This project would not have been possible
without the support of several contacts. These
individuals include: Sarah Rykal, Krista James,
Judy Gifford, Linda Vanderloop, and Jim Selz
(Appendix E). As advisers, Sarah Rykal and Krista
James offered valuable insight on life cycle
analysis. Already proponents of sustainability,
Judy Gifford and Linda Vanderloop were very
receptive to our idea to implement a local and
organic food program at the CSFC. They were also
more than willing to provide us with important
data in a timely manner. And in turn, Jim Selz
aided us in organizing and interpreting this data.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
As of fall 2012, the CFSC’s food program
adheres to two major service agreements: the UWStout Dining Service Agreement for Lunch Meal
Services (Appendix C) and the reimbursement
for meals/snacks program with the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Child and
Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (Appendix D).
In theory, the CFSC has the option to create meals
on-site and hire a cook, but the center lacks the
facilities to do so. Since the budget influences
their decision, it would be more effective to
work on creating changes at the level of Dining
Services.
Thanks to prior research conducted by
UW-Stout Sustainability Capstone students and
Jim Selz, the university has a complete list of 2011
food purchases from suppliers within 250 miles
of UW-Stout (Appendix F). These 13 companies
are considered to be local according to STARS.
The data for these purchases was collected from
Reinhart, a food distributor company, since it
contributed to the largest fiscal quantity (Hain, et
al, 2012).
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
ANALYSIS OF STARS
The STARS framework recognizes
relative
progress
toward
sustainability
by providing resources to understanding
sustainability, enabling comparisons over time,
creating incentives for improvement, facilitating
information sharing, and building a stronger
community. It is designed to accommodate
different types of colleges and universities.
The Food and Beverage Purchasing is a
credit worth up to 6 points within the Operations
section of STARS, which is worth up to 100 points
total. The entire rating system goes up to 300
total points.
This credit includes food and beverage purchases
for on-campus dining services operated by
the institution or the institution’s primary on-
4
site contractor. Institution purchases food and
beverages that meet at least one of the following
criteria:
• Grown and processed within 250 miles of the
institution
• Third-party certified (USDA Certified Organic,
Marine Stewardship Council Blue Ecolabel,
Food Alliance, Fair Trade, Certified Humane
Raised and Handled) (AASHE, 2012)
Our evaluation is focused on the local
food criteria using the list of 13 companies
located within 250 of UW-Stout (Appendix F).
Reinhart is a foodservice company that orders
from many suppliers. Out of 66 companies, only
13 meet the STARS criteria for sourcing food
locally (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Reinhart Food Suppliers Located within 250 Miles of UW-Stout.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE GO GREEN RATING
SCALE
According to Phil Boise, author of the
Go Green Rating Scale, “green” is defined as
being “safe, sustainable, and functional.” Safe
entails the reduction or complete elimination of
exposure to toxins, such as pesticides or harsh
chemicals. Sustainable incorporates the three
realms (social, economic, and environment) of
triple bottom line to ensure that today’s children
and future generations will have the same quality
of resources. Last, functional requires that the
product or practice be efficient and durable, and
satisfies the desired task with little to no waste
(CITE). Using the Go Green Rating Scale, a child
care center can measure a variety of indicators
to determine their level of sustainability. For our
report, we examined several green living and
stewardship indicators. Utilizing these indicators,
we assessed the CSFC’s current baseline for
organic foods, involvement of child, and outreach
on a scale from 1 (lowest green rating) to 7 (highest
5
green rating).
One main goal of the green living and
stewardship indicator is the reduction of foodrelated waste and the promotion of organic food.
The Go Green Rating Scale defines organic as food
that is grown and processed without any synthetic
chemicals. More specifically, certified organic as
food that was grown and processed in accordance
with the practices of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s National Organic Program (NOP).
Based on these guidelines, the CSFC scored
3 out of 7 for providing the children organic food
(Table 1). In an email communication (Appendix B),
Judy Gifford stated that the CSFC does occasionally
provide organic food when purchasing procedure
and budget allow it. Yet, she could not provide us
with a specific invoice that tracked these organic
food purchases. The Go Green Rating Scale does
not include a local food indicator. However, they
do promote purchasing local foods because of its
low transportation costs.
Organic Food
The food we provide to children is organic. This guideline covers food
provided throughout the year.
Milk – dairy, soy, rice or other
Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products – dairy, soy, rice, or other
Vegetables
Fruits
Grain products
Juice – fruit or vegetable
Infant formula
Baby food
All food types above, if applicable, are organic ………….………………………………. = 7
More than 50% of food types above are organic, as applicable …………….. = 5
We serve some organic foods ……………………..……..………….…………………………………. = 3
We are not able to serve organic food …………………………………………………………... = 1
Table 1. Go Green Rating Scale, Organic Food Scoring for the CFSC.
BASELINE
7654321
11/08/12
IMPROVED
7654321
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
The Go Green Rating Scale also states that a child
care center should encourage the stewardship
of resources for future generations. This is best
accomplished by involving the children, their
parents or guardians, and teachers in greenliving efforts. The actions and behaviors a person
witnesses as a young child can establish patterns
in their own lives. For example, a child is more
likely to have a deep connection with nature if
they participate in gardening or recycling. These
green-living routines, if taught at an early age, can
have a positive impact on a child’s health and the
environment for generations to come. The CFSC
scored 5 out of 7 for both the involvement of
6
children in sustainable efforts, and the frequency of
these activities (Table 2). According to Judy Gifford
(Appendix B), the children get to go outside every
day year round, if the weather permits it. Along
with participating in small indoor and outdoor
gardens, the children are also involved with the
CFSC’s vermicomposting project. The CFSC does
take initiative to conserve water and energy by
purchasing high efficiency washers and dryers.
However, this does not make the CFSC eligible for
a higher rating because there is little education on
resource conservation to the children.
We Involve Children
BASELINE
7654321
We involve children in our green-living efforts by promoting Go Green
Rating Scale principles. These include
11/08/12
Time in nature
Growing an organic garden with harvestable fruit, vegetable,
or flowers
Growing an organic indoor garden or plants
Recycling
Reusing classroom supplies
Washing dishes
Water conservation
Energy conservation
Litter collection
IMPROVED
7654321
We involve children in 7-9 of the activities above …….……………………………….
We involve children in 5-6 of the activities above ….………………………………….
We involve children in 2-4 of the activities above ……………………………………...
We involve children in 0-1 of the activities above ……………………………………..
=7
=5
=3
=1
Frequency of Activities
We involve the children in the above activities daily ………………………………..
We involve the children in the above activities weekly …….……………………..
We involve the children in the above activities monthly ……..…………………..
We involve the children in the above activities less than monthly ...……..
=7
=5
=3
=1
Table 2. Go Green Rating Scale, We Involve Children Scoring for the CFSC.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Although the CFSC communicates with families
regularly, it is only occasionally focused on
green principles; thus, the CFSC scores 3 out
of 7 in outreach (Table 3). At local 4-K teacher
and director meetings, Judy Gifford and her
colleagues have shared various ways to approach
sustainability at four-year old kindergarten sites
(Appendix B). Moreover, staff members model
recycling and vermicomposting to children
and their parents or guardians on a daily basis.
Nonetheless, there are no promotional materials
to involve parents or teachers in green-living
practices. Little effort has been made to designate
a green team within the CFSC to ensure that
7
sustainability topics are included in newsletters or
the staff handbook. Altogether, the CFSC is making
strides on incorporating green-living behaviors
within their program, but there is always room for
more progress. These scores given to the CFSC are
baseline ratings. They are designed to show the
CFSC specific green-living efforts that they could
develop and expand upon. Then, in a year or two
the CFSC can return to the Go Green Rating Scale
guidelines, assess their efforts, and determine
which areas they have improved upon since the
baseline rating.
Outreach
BASELINE
7654321
We promote Go Green Rating Scale principles and practices to our
families, colleagues, and community; we involve our families and
the community in our green decision-making process. Outreach is
accomplished through
11/08/12
Communications to families
Green team meetings
Presentations at professional meetings, associations, or conferences
Demonstration of green practices to parents and guardians
Provider-to-provider conversations
Newsletters
Promotional materials
Staff handbook
Family Handbook
Other
We checked 7-10 of the criteria above …….………………………………………………….
We checked 5-6 of the criteria above …….…………………………………………………….
We checked 2-4 of the criteria above ….……………………………………………………….
We checked 0-1 of the criteria above …….…………………………………………………….
Table 3. Go Green Rating Scale, Outreach Scoring for the CFSC.
=7
=5
=3
=1
IMPROVED
7654321
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
LOCAL FOODS ANALYSIS
After reviewing the Breakfast/Snack
Purchases List from the CFSC, we narrowed down
potential local food items into a list of 13. We
then sent that list to UW-Stout Dining Services and
responded with the specific brand they come from.
Using this information, we were able to analyze
the CFSC order list and determine the percentage
of local food purchases (Figure 2). Kemp’s is the
only company on the list that sources its food
locally and is also located within 250 miles. Yogurt
is currently the only product ordered from Kemp’s.
The CFSC also orders milk from Kemp’s; however,
the order is tied to the Dining Services contract,
not the USDA reimbursement Breakfast/Snack
program. The amount of money spent on yogurt
was subtracted from the entire amount spent.
Using these numbers, we determined that 2% of
the entire purchase is spent on local food.
8
Table 4. Breakdown of CFSC Breakfast/Snack
Purchases.
*Indicates local
Figure 2. Percentage of Local Food Purchased for Breakfast/Snack at the CFSC January - May in 2012
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
ORDERING FROM FIFTH SEASON
One great resource the CFSC should
consider for purchasing their local or organic
foods is the Fifth Season Cooperative. This Coop is currently contracted with Reinhart as a
food supplier. Located in Viroqua, Wisconsin,
Fifth Season is a multi-stakeholder cooperative
comprised of producers, producer groups, food
manufacturers, distributors, and buyers. Above
all, Fifth Season values “local” and “sustainable”
agricultural practices (Fifth Season, 2010). Based
on the invoice from UW-Stout Dining Services,
the CFSC may request specific items from Fifth
Season: apples, sliced cheddar, string cheese,
English muffins, wheat bagels, applesauce and
juice. If the CFSC purchased these food products
9
from Fifth Season, we estimate they could increase
their local food purchases by 25-30% (Figure 3).
This percentage is based on the prices in the CFSC
Jan-May 2012 order list. It is important to note
that many foods the CFSC serves, such as apples,
are considered seasonal items by Fifth Season.
Thus, Fifth Season may not be able to provide the
CFSC with apples year round. One viable solution,
however, is for the CFSC to begin planning their
snacks and breakfast meals around seasonal food
offerings. It is also possible that some of the Fifth
Season food items may be more expensive.
Figure 3. Projected Percentage of CFSC Local Food Purchases with Fifth Season.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
10
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE ANALYSIS
While the definition of sustainability
continues to be debated among professionals
and scholars within the field, they all typically
envision sustainability as having three realms:
social, economic, and environmental. Economists
have defined this as the triple bottom line.
Currently, a large portion of the world’s industries
operate on a weak sustainability model (Figure
4). While this model places a high emphasis on
economic prosperity, it fails to address concerns
of environmental and social well-being. However,
the triple bottom line stresses that all three realms
are intimately intertwined, and cannot exist
without another (Hitchcock & Willard, 2009). The
strong sustainability model (Figure 4) exemplifies
the triple bottom line. Rather than choosing one
realm over another, such as economic growth or
environmental health, the strong sustainability
model seeks to optimize all three. It is important
to note that sustainability is different from the
environmental movement because it validates the
need for a healthy economy. Nature does have
limits that society must learn to live within or
suffer the consequences. Yet, there is a distinction
between ‘growth’ as in increasing the material
output or becoming bigger and ‘development’ as
in moving forward, innovating, and getting better
(Hitchcock & Willard, 2009). And indeed, the food
system is the perfect sector to implement the
triple bottom line to become better, not bigger.
Figure 4. Weak vs. Strong Sustainability Model
Source: Hain, et al, 2012.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
SOCIAL
When developing a more sustainable food
system it is important to address social aspects, such
as human health and education. Recent studies
have found convincing evidence that children
should eat organic because they are “vulnerable
in their early years, and developmentally, they
are susceptible to environmental hazards that
may affect their potential for long, healthy lives”
(Go Green Rating, 2012). According to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2012), exposure
to pesticides may hinder a child’s development
by blocking the absorption of important food
nutrients. Several studies have shown lower levels
of nitrate in organic foods verses conventionally
grown foods. These findings are significant because
of the association of nitrates with increased risk
of gastrointestinal cancer and, in infants, a blood
disorder known as methemoglobinemia. Studies
have also found higher vitamin C concentrations in
organic leafy vegetables, such as spinach, lettuce,
and chard compared to the same conventionally
grown vegetables. Moreover, some studies have
demonstrated that organic products, like milk
and produce have higher concentrations of
antioxidants and poly-unsaturated fatty acids
than their conventional counterparts (Foreman
and Silverstein, 2012). Rather than suffer from
health problems later on in life, a human that eats
organic foods as a young child can potentially
reduce health problems as an adult. Thus, it is
ideal for a child to eat a variety of organic foods to
ensure healthy development.
If the price or availability of certain organic
foods is less than ideal, the next best choice is
to serve fresh and local foods. Even if a child is
consuming the recommended amount of fruits
and vegetables, experts contend that they may
not be getting all the nutrients if the fruits and
vegetables are cooked. Heat can destroy up to 97
11
percent of vitamins B and C, and up to 40 percent
of vitamins A, D, E and K in vegetables. Moreover,
the pasteurization process used for package juices
kills essential nutrients and enzymes. Experts
recommend a diet rich in raw foods to obtain
sufficient cancer-fighting phytonutrients like
free-radical-scavenging carotenes and alkalizing
chlorophyll and anti-viral flavonoids (Piscopo,
2011). Often enough, frozen or prepared dishes are
quality foods, but the fresh taste of certain fruits
and vegetables are unparalleled. Serving fresher
tasting produce may also encourage children to
try new foods and adopt healthy eating habits.
This is especially important because children’s
taste pallet develops early on in life.
Purchasing food locally is one of the
simplest ways to ensure that the food being
served to the children is fresh. In many cases, large
industrial farms harvest and ship produce while it
is still green so it will be ripe for the customer at
the grocery store. If produce is harvested before
it is ripe, it will be unable to reach the maximum
nutritional value that it would achieve if it was left
to ripen in the field. Even if the produce is ripe,
its nutritional value is diminished in the process
of being harvested and appearing on the grocer’s
shelves. According to several studies, up to 50
percent of the nutritional value of some fruits
and vegetables can be lost in a week. For many
industrial farms located on the West coast, it may
take up to a week to ship produce to Midwestern
customers. Conversely, smaller farms who sell
at local markets harvest their produce two to
three days before going to market. Along with the
benefits of increased nutrition, buying local can
create new relationships with not just the food,
but local farmers (Erbele, 2011). Eating the food
that was grown and harvested in one’s community
develops a harmonious relationship with nature.
Local farmers and their families are also being
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
supported, thus aiding in building strong, healthy,
and happy communities. Altogether, organic, fresh,
and local foods play a significant role in societal
well-being, and should be taken into consideration
at the CFSC.
The first step toward smart food choices
is education. An effective educational program
should reach teachers, children, and parents and
be as accessible as possible. One major challenge
of adopting a sustainable food system is that, in
most cases, organic food is more expensive than
conventional food. As a result, many parents and
child centers cannot afford to purchase organiconly food. As Joel Forman, an associate professor
of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine
says, “We don’t want to be telling people to eat
organic if in the end, they eat less healthy.” In
response to these concerns, the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) published two lists, The
Dirty Dozen and The Clean 15 (Table 5) to inform
consumers on which produce contains more
pesticide or herbicide residue, like spinach and
celery, and going conventional for veggies like
cabbage and sweet potatoes, which tend to have
less (Shute, 2012). These two comprehensive lists
are good resources for parents and teachers who
are new to buying organic foods.
There are plenty of quality educational
resources available on sustainable foods systems;
they just need to be made accessible to teachers
and parents. Workshops may be the best way to
foster communication about sustainable food
systems among parents, children, and teachers.
For instance, after hosting a workshop on organic
foods, a child center could distribute EWG’s The
Dirty Dozen and The Clean 15 lists to parents.
These workshops could educate parents, children,
and teachers about making smart choices about
organic, fresh, and local foods.
12
Table 5. The EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides
in Produce
Source: Environmental Working Group, 2012.
ENVIRONMENT
The perception of our environment is
changing slowly but steadily, and many now see it
as more than an endless resource to exploit. Food
systems rely heavily on the land they are grown
upon. Organic food is important because it uses
restorative processes on the land. Soil erosion,
nutrient depletion, and monoculture are all
problems the agricultural industry faces today.
Soil loss from non-sustainable farming practices
degrade arable land and render it unproductive
which causes it to be abandoned. This has been
happening at an increased rate in recent years.
According to experts, in the last 40 years, nearly
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
one-third of the world’s arable land has been
lost by erosion (Pimentel, et al, 1995). By building
organic matter in the soil and rotating crops or
pasture, organic farms tend to recover from and
adjust easily to misfortune or change, thereby
preventing loss of more arable land (Silva, 2012).
The goal of most agricultural production
is the harvest and removal of relatively large
amounts of concentrated nutrients, particularly
nitrogen, from landscapes (Glover, 2010). Current
conventional practices do not restore those
essential nutrients back to the land, causing
the quality of the food harvested to contain less
nutrients, and thereby a lower quality food product
(Brandt, 2011). High quality nutrients are vital to a
growing child’s body, which means organic foods
are consistently of a higher quality because those
nutrients are continually being restored.
The label ‘Organic’ is certified by the
USDA which determines the food was grown
using approved methods that integrate cultural,
biological, and mechanical practices that foster
cycling of resources, promote ecological balance,
and conserve biodiversity (USDA, 2012). This is
a very good model of sustainability within the
food system. Biodiversity is mentioned as an
integral aspect of organic farming, but the core
of industrial food production is monoculture – the
practice of growing single crops intensively on a
very large scale. (Union of Concerned Scientists,
2012). Monocultures rely heavily on chemical
inputs such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.
The single crop will deplete the soil of specific
nutrients years after year, which is replaced by
man-made nutrients from the fertilizer. Studies
have shown that crop yields have been dropping
since the 1970’s, when man-made chemical
fertilizers became extremely affordable (Gruhn,
2000). The crop also attracts pests and – with no
natural defenses that biodiversity would supply
13
– require pesticides to kill them. A recent study
has shown that increasing crop diversity in rowcrop ecosystems can lead to significant increases
in ecosystem function related to crop production
and affect grain yield, particularly in corn (Smith
et al., 2008). A monoculture is not an advance
in technology, rather a dead-end in long-term
solutions. Biodiversity is a sustainable practice
that will retain use of land for generations to
come.
ECONOMY
Economy plays a vital role in the triple
bottom line, but it should not lead all decision
making. Finances are the most tangible element
in business and are overwhelmingly used as the
only basis for directing choices and measuring
success. But when money is the measure for all
decisions the other realms suffer. For instance,
a company that wishes to provide extremely
affordable clothing can do so but at a cost. A
sweatshop is a place of employment that has low
pay, poor working conditions, and long hours. They
are places of human misery and environmental
pollution (Powell, 2004). Sustainability measures
success equally in all realms, raising the standards
of happiness, health, and environmental
responsibility. In the last decade the food industry
has been feeling pressure from consumers to
become more transparent about their products
and is reluctant to make necessary changes.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a large
lobbying group, is resisting the development
of an industry wide rating system for healthier
foods (Warner, 2005). An important concern
within the food industry’s existing conditions
is transportation. A food mile is defined as the
distance food travels from where it is grown or
raised to where it is purchased (Pirog, 2001).
The way food gets to the end-user is often quite
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
complicated when viewed from outside of
the financial decision-making. Dining Services
operates within the University by contract, while
ordering through contracts with other companies.
These companies source food from a variety
of suppliers and look for the most affordable
option. But the cost may not be affordable in the
other two realms of social and environmental
responsibility. The true cost is passed on which
creates inequality and imbalance. Some food
items come from across the country – or globe –
and rack up many miles of travel. Miles travelled
translates into higher fuel use and CO2 emissions.
PROJECT CHALLENGES
The biggest challenge we faced while
assessing the food purchases for the CFSC was
the availability of information. While many
universities have contracts with food distributors
for all dining purchases, UW-Stout is unique in the
sense that it is self-operated. Ann Thies, Director
of Dining Services, and Jim Selz, Assistant Director,
handle all purchases for Dining Services. Upon
working with Ann Thies and Jim Selz, we realized
the complex logistics of running a university
dining service that also caters to a child care
center on campus. At times, it can even be difficult
for Ann Thies or Jim Selz to identify where their
food purchases are grown and processed.
Secondly, the CFSC’s contracts with Dining
Services and CACFP limited us from offering new
ideas about local and organic food systems. There
is no doubt that these contracts are necessary for
the CFSC. The Dining Services contract promotes
solidarity among the CSFC and the university.
The CSFC also finds it more convenient to order
through Dining Services, rather than making their
own food purchases. Likewise, the CACFP contract
makes quality child care more accessible to low
income families who may otherwise not be able
14
to afford it. Nonetheless, these contracts do
have their limitations. All food purchases for the
CSFC must be tax exempt. The CSFC is allowed
to purchase certain breakfast and snack items;
however, most meals for the children are planned,
cooked, and delivered by Dining Services. Thus,
the CSFC may not have a direct role in how their
food is purchased or prepared.
UW-Stout’s restrictions and overemphasis
on the economic portion of the triple bottom line
was also a major challenge we encountered. Local
and organic foods are not always the cheapest
option. And while Dining Services wants to serve
healthy, quality meals, the decision to do so is
usually determined by the price of the product
first and foremost. The CFSC must also stay within
the budget allocated by Dining Services. All of
these requirements allow only small changes
which occur slowly over time, as each step must
be thought through and and considered carefully
from all sides.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The CFSC is already making proactive
steps towards the direction of sustainability. Our
recommendations are meant to fit within the
CFSC’s current environment and encourage a
more sustainable food system. Based on our data,
suggestions will be made for purchasing more
local foods as well as how to incorporate healthy
food curricular activities.
First, it is important that Dining Services
and the CFSC boost their communication. We
recommend an annual meeting between Judy
Gifford, Linda Vanderloop, Ann Thies, Jim Selz,
and other interrested parties. Brent Tilton is
the Director of Procurement and Materials
Management and could be helpful as well. This
meeting would be a productive and friendly way to
get to know each other, discuss the CFSC’s wants
and needs, and possibly new directions in food
purchases. An annual meeting would be beneficial
for both parties to communicate in person rather
than simply email. It may also be valuable to have
Sarah Rykal act as a consultant at this meeting.
She could provide an insightful yearly assessment
on sustainability and help make it a priority for
both parties. A possible time could be at the start
of a semester, spring or fall, before the purchase
order is sent out.
Next, Dining Services could enlist the help
of eager Sustainable Design & Development Minor
Capstone Students to assist in working toward
developing and implementing a more efficient
invoice system to keep track of food origins and
suppliers. As noted previously, one of the major
challenges of this report was the availability
of information. There have been inquiries from
separate organizations on campus requesting
from Dining Services a detailed list of their food
products’ origins. We understand that Dining
Services is very busy maintaining the system as
15
is, and this recommendation is meant to make
the system flow more smoothly for all parties. In
the early phases, the invoices could identify food
items that are local versus non-local and provide
the origin. Then, the invoices could be designed
to distinguish organic and even fair-trade food
products. While it may take some initial effort,
the creation of a new invoice system would be
highly beneficial for Dining Services. Altogether
these recommendations would allow for more
transparency across the board, streamlining the
ordering workflow as well as information and
data inquiries, and making assessments for STARS
simpler for the University. For example, the Kemp’s
milk order is currently too difficult to include in
the CFSC Local Food Analysis since it is tied in with
the meal service, but if all food purchased by the
CFSC could be included in an evaluation, the local
food percentage would likely rise.
Included in this report is a Microsoft (MS)
Excel File that contains the pie chart of the local
food purchase data. When new purchase data for
a semester or year is acquired, simply find the
total amount spent on local foods, subtract that
number from the total purchase amount, and
type those two numbers in the pie chart Excel
file. Highlight the numbers and use MS Excel to
automatically create a pie chart. The pie chart can
be copied and pasted in a brochure in MS Word.
This visual representation is very transparent and
encourages growth, allowing families and staff to
understand where the food comes from. While the
percentage is currently low, hopefully, with small
steps, it can be improved and tied in with other
foods that fall into the category of sustainability,
such as Organic, Fair-Trade, Humane, or other. We
have also included a print-ready informational
pamphlet about sustainability for parents and
staff.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Figure 5. LANA Logo
We discovered a easily accessible program
through the Minnesota Department of Health
called LANA, “Learning About Nutrition through
Activities”. Instead of creating educational
activities on our own, we thought this would be
more comprehensive and better developed. There
is no accreditation necessary and a Childcare
Center may pick and choose sections that best
suit their needs. The mascot of the program is
Lana the Iguana, an animal who eats only fresh
fruit and vegetables (Figure 5). The program
provides games & graphics cards, family resources
to connect with parents on what is happening in
the program each month, and a cooking kit. The
program activities are broken into four areas:
Daily - Menu and mealtime
Weekly - Tasting activities and Cooking Activities
Monthly - Theme units
Periodically - Family Involvement
The entire program is available for free online at:
Presently, the CFSC has had great success
http://www.health.state.mn.us/cdrr/
nutrition/nutritioneducation/lana
16
at teaching the children healthy eating habits
during snack times. For example, the children were
fascinated when teachers sliced apples for them
and were able to dry the fruit in a dehydrator. They
were even more delighted to eat the final product.
For the most part, children are more likely to try
nutritious foods when they are involved with the
process of growing or cooking the food. A yogurt
maker would be another great way to involve the
children. By making yogurt from local and even
organic dairy ingredients, the children could learn
firsthand that healthy homemade food does taste
delicious.
To better assess their progress in
sustainable efforts, the CFSC should fully adopt
and utilize the Go Green Rating Scale. Last year,
the CFSC purchased the Go Green Rating Scale
resources needed to accurately evaluate their
program. Due to time constraints, however, the
CSFC has yet to fully enact the Go Green Rating
Scale. Our project marks the first step taken by the
CSFC to measure and score their program based
on the rating scale. The CSFC now has an accurate
baseline score for organic food, involvement of
children, and outreach. While this is a wonderful
starting point, other areas can be easily assessed
by future Capstone students. The CSFC can
establish baseline scores for a variety of indicators,
such as pesticides, air-quality management, and
cleaners and disinfectants. To accomplish this, the
CSFC should develop a “green team” consisting
of students, staff, teachers, and even parents. The
team would be responsible for the research and
promotion of sustainable initiatives at the CSFC.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
REFLECTIONS
After presenting our results on December
13th, 2012, we received further recommendations
from the CSFC to consider. It was suggested that the
CFSC partner with the Menomonie school district
to learn about their local food program since
they purchase a variety of food items from Fifth
Season. Also, the CFSC is very keen on recruiting
capstone students to conduct further research
and implement local and organic food programs.
Along with a new invoice system possbility for
Dining Services, a capstone student could also
create a survey to assess parents’ thoughts and
attitudes towards sustainable meal options at
the CFSC. This survey could provide compelling
data that could persuade Dining Services to
purchase more local and organic foods. Finally,
the idea of the CFSC partnering with the Stout
Student Association (SSA) was discussed. The CFSC
believes that if the student body proposed a more
sustainable food system on campus it would carry
more weight due to the large number of students
involved.
17
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
18
REFERENCES
Erbele, M. L., (2011). A local approach. Today’s Chiropractic Lifestyle, 50-54.
Fifth Season Cooperative. (2010). Home. Retrieved from http://fifthseason.coop.
Foreman, J. and Silverstein, J. (2012). Organic foods: Health and environmental advantages and
disadvantages. Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 10, 1
12. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-2579.
Glover, J. (2010). Harvested perennial grasslands: Ecological models for farming’s perennial
future. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and the Environment 137. Retrieved from
http://www.elsevier.com.
Hain, K., Melcarek, R., Sandin, C., and Zweber, S. (2012). Local foods initiative. University of
Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI.
Hitchcock, D. and Willard, M. (2009). The triple bottom line. Discussion course on sustainable
systems at work (40). Portland, Oregon: Northwest Earth Institute.
Pimentel, D., Harvey, C., Resosudarmo, P., Sinclair, K., Kurz, D., McNair, M., Crist, S., Shpritz,
L., Fitton, L., Saffouri, R., Blair, R. (1995). Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil
Erosion and Conservation Benefits. Science, Vol. 267.
Pirog, R., Van Pelt, T., Enshayan, K., Cook, E. (2001). Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa perspective
on how far food travels, fuel useage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Ames, Iowa: Leopold Center
for Sustainable Agriculture.
Piscopo, L. (2011). Get juiced. Natural Health, 41 (6). Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=25&sid=1db67c85-2adf-481a-988eb5c8c3ac830f%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9
h&AN=62239334.
Redleaf Press. (2012). Go green rating scale for early childhood settings. Retrieved from
http://www.gogreenratingscale.org/pages/ggrs_detail.html.
Shute, N. (2012). Docs say choose organic food to reduce kids’ exposure to pesticides. National
Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/22/163407880/docs-say-choose-organic-food-to-
reduce-kids-exposure-to-pesticides.
Silva, E., Paine, L., Barnridge, M., Carusi, C., McNair, R. (2012). Organic Agriculture in
Wisconsin: 2012 Status Report. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.
The Environmental Working Group. (2012). EWG’s 2012 shopper’s guide to pesticides in
produce. Retrieved from http://www.ewg.org/foodnews/summary/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Pesticides and food: Why children may be
especially sensitive to pesticides. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/food/pest.htm.
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
APPENDICES
OCTOBER
SEPTEMBER
Appendix A. Project Timeline.
09/04 First class meeting
09/13 Class discussion
09/20 Linda Walsh presentation from Sustainable Dunn
09/27 Divided into groups. Mallory & Jayna work with CFSC,
Wendy, Aaron, John, Nathan with City of Menomonie
10/04 Group work
10/08 Meeting with Sarah Rykal: prepare for meeting with
Judy Gifford
10/09 Meeting with Judy Gifford: discuss possible options for project focus
10/11 Group work: decided to focus on food system
10/12 Meeting with Linda Vanderloop: gathered invoices and insight into
ordering
10/16 Meeting with Linda Vanderloop: gathered detailed information on food contracts
10/18 Progress Report #1 Presentation
DECEMBER
NOVEMBER
10/25 Meeting with Joe & Lucy Lawrence: discussed how Little Sprouts
purchases food
11/01 Progress Report #2 Presentation
11/08 Group work
11/15 Final Draft Discussion
11/26 Rough Final Draft Due
12/06 Final Presentation
19
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Appendix B. Communications & Meeting Notes
1. Communications
a. Email correspondence. From Judy Gifford.
giffordj@uwstout.edu
We were wondering if you could answer the following questions from the Go Green Rating Scale for our report.
Please answer yes or no, and provide examples if you feel necessary. The questions are as follows...
The food we provide to children is organic. This guideline covers food provided throughout the year. We provide
organic food occasionally, when purchasing procedures and budget permit.
* Milk - dairy, soy, rice, or other
* Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products - dairy, soy, rice, or other
* Vegetables
* Fruits
* Grain products
* Juice - fruit or vegetable
* Infant formula
* Baby food
We involve children in our green-living efforts by promoting Go Green Rating Scales principles. These includes...
* Time in nature Children go outside every day year round, weather permitting.
* Growing an organic garden with harvestable fruit, vegetables, or flowers We work with SAEA to grow an organic
vegetable garden; it is very small, but we were able to harvest a few vegetables (i.e. kale) and consume them. We
have an ongoing vermicompost project. Worms are used in our organic garden.
* Growing an indoor organic indoor garden or plants We have begun a mini greenhouse indoors. As of now it only
has a few plants in it—beans and peas.
* Recycling We recycle plastics, cans, paper, corrugated—according to the bins provided by UW-Stout.
* Reusing classroom supplies
* Washing dishes We wash dishes with a dish sanitizer; children and adults use washable utensils, plates, cups,
bowls, and serving dishes for breakfast, snack, lunch and snack.
* Water conservation We have purchased high efficiency washers and dryers for both sites.
* Energy conservation We have purchased high efficiency washers and dryers for both sites. We try to remember to
turn off lights and other items when not in use.
* Litter collection We regularly pick up littler on the playgrounds; occasionally we pick up litter in the extended
neighborhood and campus community. (Children and adults wear gloves.)
How often do you involve the children in these above activities? Daily, weekly, monthly, or less than a month? It
depends upon the activities.
We promote Go Green Rating Scale principles and practices to our families, colleagues, and community; we involve
our families and the community in our green decision-making process. Outreach is accomplished through...
* Communication to families We communicate to families regularly, but only occasionally is the focus on the green
principles.
* Green team meetings None
* Presentations at professional meetings, associations or conferences Two of us have presented at a national
conference. Individually we have spoken at regional conferences and a local organization of future educators.
* Demonstrations of green practices to parents and guardians No real demonstrations have occurred, but staff
model recycling, vermicomposting, etc., daily.
* Provider-to-provider conversations At our local 4-K Teachers and Directors meetings, we have all shared the
various ways we approach sustainability at the 4 year old Kindergarten sites.
* Newsletters Newsletters are sent out regularly,but cover a multitude of topics. It would be great to have some
promo materials to send out occasionally to the families, too.
* Promo materials
* Staff handbook Our Staff Handbook and Family Handbook are available online; some families and staff request a
printed copy.
* Family handbook
20
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
b. Email correspondence. From Diane Chapeta.
info.fifthseason@gmail.com
Good Morning Jayna and Mallory,
Thank you for contacting the cooperative with your request for a product listing and product pricing. I have
attached a product list with Reinhart product codes for 2012.
Because our product line continues to grow as we create relationships with producers and processors in our region,
food items in Reinhart will change according to the season, and new items are sometimes added on a monthly
basis.
Pricing from Reinhart will differ between customer accounts. The best way to determine pricing would be for the
customer to log on Tracs and look up our products in the local book. All Fifth Season products will have a precursor
of FSC in the product name.
Thank you for your interest in our cooperative and local foods!
Diane
Diane Chapeta
Operations Manager
Fifth Season Cooperative
Keep it local!
1201 N Main St - Suite 9
Viroqua WI 54665
608 638 COOP (2667)
dchapeta.fifthseason@gmail.com
http://fifthseason.coop/
21
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
22
2. Meeting Notes
a. Meeting notes. 10/9/12 Meeting with Judy Gifford at the CFSC.
Food Breakdown
• Contact through Commons Dining Services
• Must meet CACFP requirements
• Cannot pay tax, must be tax-free, also must
purchase first through dining services
• Budget is important
• Measure food waste – what, how much,
paper vs food
Other
• Want a mix of easy, low-hanging fruit and
long term projects
• Contact list…
• Advertising? Green & what it means
• Sunshine learning center, green without
flaunting
• Little Sprouts blatant
• Mellaleuca, green cleaner
• What about using Vinegar & hydrogen
peroxide
Presentation
• Set a date
• 2 presentations
• ASAP for families
• Book a room soon
• Conference room at IT lab
Waste Reduction
• Diaper education
• Composting system, lots of excess paper
towels
• Community garden, compost area?
• Transport of compost
• Commons composting in the spring already?
• Grant for rotary turner possibly, is actually
$80 from Randy Idy
Cleaning Supplies
• State licensing DCF 251
• Requirements on top of University
requirements
• Germ studies possibly
• Contact state about licensing
Facilitate a discussion
Or Q&A
• Parent meeting first? Incorporate feedback
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
23
b. Meeting notes. 10/12/12 Meeting with Linda Vanderloop.
Food
• Hire a chef? No, no facilities within the
center, and not convenient as dining
services mandatory contract with Dining
Services? no
• Data from Jim Selz
Must buy supplies from Grainger or Schillings
• study of what things teachers actually use
• state contract with Ecolab for dishwashing
liquid (costs more)
Compost
• measure paper towels
• weight paper towels
• weight used + weigh used weight
• contact Arthur about composting in Jarvis
recommend diaper service
• cannot launder children’s clothing
• cannot do cloth diapers unless doctors note
• How many diapers go through in a week?
●
c. Meeting notes. 10/25/12 Meeting Joe & Lucy Lawrence at Little Sprouts.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Education is most important
Worth the extra money
It really isn’t cheap, but worth the extra
money for quality
Baseline costs
Buyer’s club with Frontier or Country Life
Vitamin D, extra protection against cold-flu
season
Find flexibility within CACFP guidelines,
instead of bottom-line bread, get whole
wheat better quality
d. Meeting notes. 11/15/12 Meeting with Jim Selz.
•
•
•
Hard to identify local suppliers on food
invoice
Consolidated list of potential local food and
suppliers
Emphasis placed on switching to local foods
as a big step
•
•
•
•
Dairy is the most strict, milk vs soymilk,
allergies
Ask others, how much would you pay for
your child’s health? $2 extra not very high
Pathways holds a non-violent
communication group about controversial
topics
Look into Dr. Mercola, natural doctor
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Appendix C. UW-Stout’s Child and Family Study Center Dining Services Contract.
24
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
25
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Appendix D. Child and Adult Care Food Program Contract.
26
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
27
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Appendix E. Key Contacts and Organizations.
28
SUSTAINABLE FOODS INITIATIVE
Appendix F. Reinhart Food Suppliers within 250 Miles of UW-Stout. (Hain, et al, 2012).
29