CAN Research Paper #1: College and University Purchasing of Local
Farm and Food Products in Central Appalachia – Current Status and
Trends
Submitted by Anthony Flaccavento, SCALE, Inc, July 25th , 2010
Introduction and Overview
Research was conducted by SCALE, Inc during May – July, 2010. Megan Williams,
under subcontract with SCALE, undertook most of the information gathering and
compilation, as well as surveys of food service personnel at various schools. Anthony
completed these phone interviews with food service staff, reviewed and discussed with
Megan all of the information gathered and wrote this paper.
Information was obtained on 17 schools in or near the five state region, including four
each in Virginia and Tennessee and three each in Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia.
The extent and quality of information varies, depending both upon published information
(including school websites) and the responsiveness of dining service staff to enquiries.
All major state universities in the region – Ohio University, University of Tennessee,
Virginia Tech and West Virginia University – or nearby – University of Virginia,
University of Kentucky – were included. It should be noted that information gathered
from different sources sometimes seems inconsistent or of questionable reliability. This
includes both total dining service budgets – Virginia Tech’s published information
suggests that they spend more than double per student on food compared to UK or WVU
– and amounts spent on local purchases. The latter has not been well tracked by many
schools thus far, as they have relied on distributors for their “local sourcing”.
The intent of this review is not to provide a comprehensive analysis of every school in the
region, but to surface common challenges or obstacles and promising trends and
opportunities, the understanding of which might help propel greater purchasing of locally
raised or produced foods by colleges and universities in the region.
List of Schools on which some information was gathered
Kentucky: University of Kentucky; Berea College; Center College (Unable to find
information or elicit response from Eastern Kentucky University)
Ohio: Ohio University; Kenyon College; Denison University
Tennessee: University of Tennessee; East Tennessee State University; Tusculum
College; Sewanee College
Virginia: Virginia Tech; University of Virginia; Radford University; Washington and
Lee University
West Virginia: West Virginia University; Marshall University; West Virginia State
University
Dining Service Operations – Self operated vs contract
The trend at colleges and universities across the country has, for more than a decade been
to contract out their dining services. This trend holds true in the central Appalachian
region, without regard to the size of the student body.
Self Operated Dining Services: University of Kentucky; Ohio University; Virginia Tech;
Washington and Lee University;
Corporate dining services: Aramark – University of Virginia; University of Tennessee;
West Virginia University; East Tennessee State University; Tusculum College; Sewanee
College;
Sodexo – Berea College; Denison University; Marshall University; Centre College;
Other – Radford University (Chartwells); West Virginia State (AVI)
In the region as a whole, only 4 of the 17 colleges and universities examined have self
operated dining services (24%), compared to 13 which contract out their food services
(76%). This is significant, as the “self-op” schools are consistently better performers
when it comes to local and sustainable purchasing, though there are corporate dining
service operations with serious commitments to local and sustainable buying, particularly
Berea College and to a lesser degree, UVA.
Summary of Key Findings
1. It is difficult to accurately assess total local/sustainable food purchases for two
reasons: First, most schools rely on food distributors, ranging from Sysco to local
companies, and most of these in turn have only recently begun to track and
document local purchasing practices. This information should be more reliable
and available going forward because of the general demand for this type of
purchasing. Secondly, the question of what constitutes a “local purchase” is
complicated and inconsistently defined. This is true not so much in terms of
miles traveled – most seem to be arriving at 100 – 250 miles as a reasonable
description of “local” - but in terms of the nature of the product. Several schools
for instance include products like milk, other dairy items and baked goods in their
local category because the supplier is located reasonably close to them. However,
in some of those instances, the farms supplying the milk are scattered much
further away and the “local dairy company” is really serving as an aggregator.
2. Nearly all of the schools are seeking to increase purchase of local foods
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
significantly over the next several years, ranging from 5% annual increases – the
stated goal of some Aramark schools – to Washington and Lee’s plan to increase
to 35 to 40% by 2011.
Schools with self operated dining services – Ohio University, UK, Virginia Tech
and W & L – are for the most part substantially ahead of those with corporate
food services, the latter constituting ¾ of the sample. The self-op schools are
buying more, have more ambitious goals to increase local and sustainable foods in
their system, are more aggressive and creative about getting there, and more
empathetic with local suppliers/farmers.
In that same vein, self op dining service directors are not yet requiring GAP
certification of produce farmers, often a major obstacle to smaller growers.
Virtually all of the schools are looking for clear food safety standards and
protocols to minimize their risks, including that farmers be trained in GAP
procedures, food safety and sanitation, and in some cases water testing. The
traceability of the food is also of great importance across the board. The
difference at this point is that the corporate food service providers, with the
exception of Berea College and WVU, are requiring actual GAP certification of
participating produce farmers. The food service director at WVU was almost
completely unfamiliar with GAP, perhaps a blessing in disguise.
Regarding purchase of meats, all the schools purchase only USDA slaughtered
beef and pork (very few appear to purchase lamb). This is an obstacle for those
farmers and areas of the region where no USDA slaughterhouse capacity exists.
Purchase of local poultry varies, following to some degree the different
allowances of state laws on poultry slaughter.
Purchase of local, generally free range eggs is relatively common and growing.
This seems to be an area for significant potential increase as processing rules tend
to be flexible and relatively easy to meet. Pricing, as with other items, may
present greater challenges.
Every school has concerns about food safety and their own liability, and as a
result, all require product liability insurance policies ranging from $1 million to
$5 million. This requirement is not necessarily on the individual grower, as the
policy can be carried by the aggregator (eg Appalachian Harvest) or the local
distributor, though the latter are less likely to do this with growers they do not
manage or control.
Although there is some variability, it appears that in the vast majority of cases it is
school administrators and/or dining service staff – particularly the “sustainability
coordinators” – who are driving the movement towards local and sustainable
foods, rather than students. This perspective came from school administrators and
dining service leaders, but was reinforced by Elena Dulys-Nusbaum, a student
leader at Virginia Tech and southeast staff person for the Real Food Challenge, a
student-based effort to mobilize students for “real food” on campuses. This is not
to say that students are not concerned about the food they are eating, or that
various student environment and food-based groups are not beginning to get
involved, in some cases strongly pushing for local and sustainable purchases. The
overall assessment of those involved nonetheless is that these are the exceptions
around the region, and not the primary driver at this point. This somewhat
surprising finding could be considered an opportunity for partnerships with the
Real Food Challenge and other student organizations.
Specific Needs or Concerns of Dining Service Personnel
While the enthusiasm for local purchasing varies, it seems clear that nearly all of the
schools examined (and likely some not included in this sample) are either planning or
wanting to purchase considerably more produce, eggs, meats and other foods from local
farmers and producers. However, only a handful of the schools have personnel who know
how to go about sourcing locally and are willing to go to what they consider to be the
considerable amount of extra work it takes to make this happen. Certainly Berea, Ohio
University, Washington and Lee and Virginia Tech fall into this category, probably
University of Kentucky, Radford University and Denison University as well. For the
other schools, it will require someone making it relatively easy for them to find and
purchase local foods, and to ensure that these foods meet their safety and quality
standards.
For all of the schools in the sample, including even those schools who’ve clearly made
local foods a priority, certain needs or concerns surfaced:
One stop shopping – Some dining service personnel have worked hard to develop
relationships with individual farmers and seem willing to continue doing some
purchasing directly from these farmers, but even they join their colleagues in describing
local food as more difficult – and more costly – because of the disproportionate amount
of time it takes to procure. Thus there is a strong preference for someone to aggregate
and distribute the goods of many local suppliers to them, at least in categories (produce,
meats, etc). ACEnet and Rural Action, Appalachian Harvest and Creation Gardens and
Produce Source Partners, two local distribution companies in Kentucky and Virginia
respectively, were mentioned as examples of making local purchasing more feasible and
reliable.
Food safety – This is a concern across the board, though understanding of and
requirement for GAP protocols or audits varies. When schools purchase from an
established distributor, whether Sysco or a local company, they assume that these issues
are being adequately handled, an assumption they do not make when considering
purchasing directly from farmers.
In this regard, the GAP roundtable meeting tentatively planned for early fall by the east
TN/southwest VA subregional network and UT may be important to everyone in the
region working to sell to colleges and universities.
Reliability and seasonality – Of course there is a desire for consistent, quality supply
from everyone, and several mentioned the desire for produce farmers to extend their
season with hoop houses or high tunnels in order to provide for a greater part of the
academic year. This also extends to the volumes that are available, which are generally
seen as too small and too variable; one purchaser spoke of the desire for “guaranteed
volumes”, which would make his job much easier.
Pricing and cost – Generally this did not surface as a major obstacle in the interviews or
survey responses, though I suspect it will be more significant if and when the proportion
of local foods purchased increases substantially. The cost of procuring local food, in
terms of staff time particularly, did come up on several occasions, reinforcing the need
for aggregators and distributors to reduce this burden on food service personnel.