Add Comment

Moving the region’s agriculture toward more higher-value produce and “value-added” production, such as developing new products to meet new consumer demands, is essential to making agricultural activity an economically competitive alternative to development for property owners.  More efficient markets might be facilitated through stronger distribution networks, year-round outlets for local food, marketing and verification programs, and technical assistance to wholesale customers. 

16)    Create and strengthen marketing programs for local food
“Buy local” programs help to coordinate retail marketing and provide branding and advertising for local foods.  The Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources operates a statewide marketing and branding program (Massgrown) and supports four regional “Buy Local” programs.  However, only small portions of the MAPC region are covered by these programs: Essex County Buy Fresh on the North Shore, and Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership on the South Shore.  Expanding the geographic and operational scope of such programs would reach more farmers and potential markets. New programs are needed to ensure that all MAPC municipalities are served by a buy local program.   

The operational scope of the buy local model might expand to include more wholesale marketing and institutional assistance, comparable to the existing Massachusetts Farm to School Program (a nonprofit) but with a broader scope and more robust funding.   A strong regional clearinghouse could assist public agencies, institutions, and food service outlets (retail markets, restaurants, value-added producers) that wish to source more local foods.  Such a clearinghouse could also facilitate and support technical assistance programs (training, marketing, equipment) to help wholesale customers make the transition to more local sourcing.  This recommendation and implementation should be coordinated with the Department of Education School Lunch Program and the School Nutrition Association.  

To be successful, retail programs require considerable up-to date research (customer surveys and other forms) regarding buying preferences to identify the most significant market opportunities, and to shape marketing (both conventional and social marketing).  Such marketing should support and highlight both small and large farms.  

The state has an existing program to support for agri-tourism; the DAR “Agro-Activities” map and guide are a key element of this program and should be updated regularly and available in print or online.    

Buy local programs and clearinghouses should be coordinated with or possibly integrated into a statewide/regional Food Policy Council (described in Strategy #9, Ensure Access to Healthy Food.)   These programs should also coordinate with programs in adjacent states, since “local” doesn’t necessarily stop at the state boundary. 

17)    Expand school and institutional purchasing programs.  
School and institutional purchasing programs are a very important component of a strong local agriculture economy.  Feeding locally grown foods to students can be a good way for food service directors to improve the nutritional value and taste of school meals, while supporting the local economy. Selling local products to schools can be profitable for Massachusetts growers who are looking for a new way to connect with local consumers.  For participating farmers, the steady business represented by institutional purchasers can provide stability when retail markets are sluggish or harvests are high.

To date there are about 100 public school districts, private schools, and colleges in the Commonwealth serving local food, over half of which have received assistance from the Massachusetts Farm to School Project funded by Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. Over 40 farms are currently selling locally grown foods to these schools across the state.

Local sourcing should be a priority for food service purchasing in state agencies, local government (including schools), and private institutions such as hospitals and universities.  Colleges, universities, and institutions can be “anchors” for local farm to school markets, which can also include local schools with less purchasing power

Local food preference should be incorporated in bid specifications and contracts.  The University of Massachusetts Amherst, in its contract with its distributors, reserves the right to purchase a certain percent of its produce from local farmers.  However, UMass Amherst is one of the few institutions that do not contract with a foodservice corporation, so this model may have limited applicability.

Food service management companies must take a leading role in purchasing local food, seeking out alternative distribution systems, and demanding accountability from distributors who sell “local” food.  Such an effort depends on reliable audit and verification systems described below. 

17.a    The Legislature should amend the Massachusetts Preferential Purchasing Law of 2006 to include state colleges and universities 

17.b    Institutional purchasers should consider the creation of on-site farmers markets

18)    Standardize labeling or verification programs for “local foods”
Many schools, institutions, and large companies contract with food service management companies, who have relationships with food distributors.  Customers who request (and reportedly receive) local foods may have no way of verifying whether or how much of the foods came from local farmers.  Public health is also an important concern: the production and distribution processes must be certified, and foods must be traceable in case of recalls or health concerns.  There are existing public health regulations that address production and processing standards, but these may be ill-suited to necessary uses and the diversity of farmers.

All stakeholders (customers, food service management companies, distributors, DAR, advocates) need to develop guidelines regarding “local” labeling, and a process should be set up for third party verification of local foods purchased through conventional food distributors.  

19)    Create more infrastructure to support processing and distribution of local produce.  
Examples include the Western Mass Food Processing Center, a support and training center for agricultural producers and growers making value-added products or preserving harvests run by the Franklin Co. Community Development Corporation.  Such facilities can convert seasonal local products to value-added products and preserved products that can be sold year-round.  They can also be used for initial food prep to facilitate farm-to-school purchases, such as preparation of carrot coins or apple slices.  They can also be used by community members for personal canning and food preservation.  More organized distribution systems for local produce can also facilitate farm to school/institution programs by consolidating the products of many small farms and reducing the number of independent contracts and delivery routes.  Many models exist in Massachusetts, including growers’ cooperatives (Pioneer Valley Growers Association); farmer/distributors (Czajkowski Farm in Hadley), and commercial consolidators (Red Tomato in Canton.)

19.a    The Legislature should increase funding for Agricultural Innovation Center Grants to $2million 

20)    Establish a Boston Public Market to provide a year-round venue for local food products  
Public markets include vendors or merchants who meet regularly at the same location; a sponsoring entity that has legal and financial responsibility and that oversees operations; and, in some cases, a structure to house the market. A public market expands upon traditional farmers’ markets by making fresh food available throughout the year, typically operating several days each week. Within a large, centrally-located market hall, customers find a broad selection of local produce and food products, as well as specialty foods.  The number and diversity of vendors create a critical mass that can attract customers from throughout the city. Local farmers selling once or twice a week can be an important component of a public market.  Examples of successful public markets can be found in Portland (Maine), Seattle, and San Francisco

The Boston Public Market Association is currently working toward creation of such a market and submitted a proposal for such a use on the Central Artery parcels.  Should a Central Artery location not materialize, the City of Boston, the Commonwealth, and other agencies such as MassPort should work to find a site that could be provided for a market at nominal cost.  The 2008 Environmental Bond bill included $10 million toward creation of such a market.