Editorial by GFC Principal Investigator Sparks Dialogue Around a ‘Department of Food’

An editorial by Dr. Samina Raja, a principal investigator of Growing Food Connections, was recently featured in The Conversation.  The discussion features the work of planners in addressing food systems and highlights why all cities should have a Department of Food.  Read the article below or see the original article here.

Why all cities should have a Department of Food

Dr. Samina Raja, April 3, 2015

In the United States, we live in a nation where hunger and obesity go hand in hand. More than 17 million US households struggle to put food on the table, and when they do, it’s often high in fat and sugar because healthy options are scarce in low-income neighborhoods.

These problems are well known. They’re frequently in the news. But what’s missing from the conversation is a discussion of how they came to be.

The dearth of grocery stores and other sources of fresh food in underserved communities is not a product of happenstance, but the result, in part, of poor urban and regional planning.

More than 38,000 local governments — counties, cities, villages, towns and townships — exist in the United States, and their operations impact the lives of more than 319 million Americans on a daily basis. These entities are entrusted with a broad set of responsibilities: They ensure public safety; they regulate economic activity; they have departments that deliver water, education, transportation, green space (parks) and social services.

Yet, local governments pay little systemic attention to the one resource most essential for all Americans’ well-being: food.

Local food policy

In a 2014 survey of planners and other elected officials who are members of the American Planning Association, the University at Buffalo and partners found abysmally low levels of engagement by local governments in the realm of food. Just 13 percent of 1,169 respondents working for these governments named food systems planning as a significant priority in their work. A full 50 percent said their engagement was non-existent or minimal.

This disturbing lapse contributes to a bevy of food-related problems, from disparities in food access among consumers to financial struggles among farmers, many of whom hold two jobs to make ends meet.

It doesn’t have to be that way. Last month, a project launched to help eight communities across the US to connect family farmers to consumers who lack access to healthy food. Called Growing Food Connections, it’s a federally funded project I lead along with the American Farmland Trust and other partners. The targeted regions will be urban and rural, ranging from the Kansas City metro area to two sparsely populated areas of New Mexico. Local governments will play an important role in each.

The project will do research around how local governments can remove public policy barriers to locally grown food and foster connections between family farmers and underserved community residents. We plan to provide policy recommendations to improve local food security by encouraging sustainable and economically viable food production.

Blocking farmers markets?

But making improvements in eight forward-thinking communities is not enough.

Across the country, we need to incorporate food into the way we plan and organize the places we live. For this, we need officials in local government who are dedicated full-time to addressing the problem.

That’s because the food system is complicated: It includes physical components such as land for farming; facilities for storage, butchering and retail; and transportation networks for distributing food. It also includes natural resources such as soil, water, sunshine and pollinators, and human resources like entrepreneurs and a trained workforce of farmers, farmworkers, butchers, processors and chefs.

Today, in many communities, this infrastructure is in a state of disrepair. Zoning codes that dictate where food businesses can locate are often incredibly antiquated, some dating back to the 1950s. Some prohibit people from growing food on their own front yards. Others ban farmers’ markets in residential neighborhoods, making it difficult for people without cars to reach healthy food destinations. Many additional problems persist.

Urban planners and food

So how would food systems planners in local government address these concerns?

They would perform a pulse-taking function, tracking problems as well as missed opportunities. They would ensure that land use and transportation plans protect assets such as farmland. They would help bring amenities like farmers’ markets and community gardens to neighborhoods that need them. They would rewrite outdated zoning codes. They would assist in creating stronger regional supply chains of farmers, processors, distributors and consumers.

Baltimore, Maryland and Seattle, Washington are cities where thoughtful planning is already taking place. Both have staff focused on developing purposeful food policy. Both also have food policy councils — advisory groups of committed, volunteer residents — who advocate for improvements.

This allocation of resources has paid dividends. In Seattle, the city runs P-Patch, one of the largest municipal community gardening programs in the country. The city provides staff and financial support for the project, which enabled residents to grow food and donate 29,000 pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables to food banks and programs in 2014.

Recognizing the value, Seattle’s voters included US$2 million in a 2008 Parks and Green Spaces Levy for P-Patch community garden development, and the city’s comprehensive plan encourages community gardens as a land use.

Bringing food production back

One great irony is that local government agencies, such as departments of planning and economic development, have continually shaped communities’ food infrastructure, albeit with little awareness that they are doing so.

Local governments create land use plans that place prime farmland in the path of development. They regulate access to water for food growers. They tax food businesses. They enforce outdated zoning codes. And they do it all with little or no systemic understanding of their communities’ food infrastructure — and certainly with no departments of food.

These modern failures of local planning have precedent in the City Beautiful movement of the early 1900s. During that era, planners designed cities for grandeur rather than quotidian functions such as growing and harvesting food.

A preoccupation with auto-centric development further degraded food infrastructure from the mid-century onwards. In 1965, for example, the city of Buffalo, New York sold the century-old Washington Market, where vendors hawked poultry, dairy, fruits and vegetables from 400 stalls, to a bank. The buyer razed the market to create a parking lot that remains there today.

Fortunately for Buffalo, city officials and planners are now supporting grassroots efforts to rebuild food infrastructure through innovative public policy.

Baltimore Food Policy Director

Jurisdiction Name: Baltimore
State/Province: MD
Country: United States
Type of Government: Municipality
Population: 620,961
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: PDF
Policy type: motion
Year: 2011
GFC Topic: community food connections, community food production, community food security
Keywords: agriculture, children, economic development, food access, food desert, food policy, food policy advisor position, food production, food security, obesity, staffing, urban, urban agriculture
Adopting Government Department(s):

Baltimore City Council, Baltimore Board of Estimates

Lead Implementing Entity(s): Baltimore City Planning Department
Support Entity(s):

Baltimore City Office of Sustainability

Funding Amount: $90,220
Funding Sources: General Fund
Policy Outcome(s):

Approved funding for a full-time Food Policy Director to implement the City’s Food Policy Task Force plan, which calls for increasing access to healthy foods and fighting childhood obesity.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1Link 2

Baltimarket Grant Agreement

Jurisdiction Name: Baltimore
State/Province: MD
Country: United States
Type of Government: Municipality
Population: 620,961
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: PDF
Policy type: grant agreement
Year: 2014
GFC Topic: community food connections, community food security
Keywords: SNAP, affordability, corner store, culturally appropriate, food access, food desert, food infrastructure, grocery store, health, healthy corner store program, healthy eating, healthy food, institution, school, seniors, supermarket
Adopting Government Department(s):

Baltimore City Council

Lead Implementing Entity(s): Maryland Community Health Resources Commission
Support Entity(s):

Baltimore City Health Department

Funding Amount: $275,000
Funding Sources: Baltimore City Council
Policy Outcome(s):

Provided funding through February 28, 2015 to implement the Baltimarket Healthy Stores project, a suite of community-based programs that aim to improve the health and wellness of Baltimore City residents and includes the Virtual Supermarket Program and the Neighborhood Food Advocates Initiative.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1

City and County of Denver Climate Adaptation Plan, Denver, Colorado

Jurisdiction Name: Denver
State/Province: CO
Country: United States
Type of Government: Municipality/County
Population: 600,158
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: WebPDF
Policy type: plan
Year: 2014
GFC Topic: community food connections, community food production, community food security
Keywords: agriculture, climate, climate adaptation, climate change, education, food acess, food hub, food retail, food security, local agriculture, local food, local food access, pest management, pests, plan, protection
Adopting Government Department(s):

City and County of Denver

Lead Implementing Entity(s): Denver Climate Resilience Committee
Support Entity(s):

Supporting entities include city agencies and community partners, depending on the activities/strategies listed throughout the plan

Funding Amount: n/a
Funding Sources: n/a
Policy Outcome(s):

The 2014 City and County of Denver Climate Adaptation Plan is a supplement to the 2007 Climate Action Plan. These two documents, along with an updated 2015 Climate Action Plan, all work in tandem to address persistent climate-related challenges. One of the sections in the Climate Adaptation Plan is food and agriculture, the aim of which is to identify strategies that can adapt Denver’s food and agricultural systems to changing climate conditions. The two main goals of the section are to: 1) increase food security and 2) protect local agricultural resources against the increased threat of pests, invasive species and noxious weeds. The strategy to accomplish the former goal is to encourage local agriculture and a broad range of food outlets and regional food hubs for processing and distributing local foods. The strategy to accomplish the latter goal is to identify and assess invasive species and other threats to agricultural resources. Both strategies plan to utilize partnerships with educational and extension programs and public outreach campaigns.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1

Widgets

No widgets found
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec non velit faucibus, mollis nunc eget, hendrerit odio. Donec ultricies odio vel lobortis venenatis. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus. Etiam justo diam, hendrerit et orci et, consequat fermentum leo. Maecenas at dui consequat, tincidunt diam non, eleifend justo. Pellentesque bibendum mi a scelerisque molestie. Donec vitae purus iaculis, tristique magna in, tincidunt orci. Morbi facilisis nulla et sem varius, a tincidunt felis vehicula. Proin nisi est, porttitor at sodales sed, ultricies vel lorem. Donec rhoncus tincidunt dolor, aliquam consectetur sapien bibendum facilisis. Sed ut tortor ligula. Nulla nisi est, aliquet a dolor nec, tempus euismod velit.

No widgets found
Quisque semper tellus id neque adipiscing, a suscipit sapien aliquam. Quisque et mi dictum, tempus odio ac, condimentum tellus. Donec sed felis vitae risus pulvinar iaculis. Morbi porttitor rhoncus diam hendrerit pulvinar. Sed placerat id lacus id feugiat. Suspendisse pulvinar dapibus ante, blandit facilisis nisl dictum eget. Cras interdum faucibus metus ut tristique.

Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

No widgets found
Quisque semper tellus id neque adipiscing, a suscipit sapien aliquam. Quisque et mi dictum, tempus odio ac, condimentum tellus. Donec sed felis vitae risus pulvinar iaculis. Morbi porttitor rhoncus diam hendrerit pulvinar. Sed placerat id lacus id feugiat. Suspendisse pulvinar dapibus ante, blandit facilisis nisl dictum eget. Cras interdum faucibus metus ut tristique.

No widgets found
Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

No widgets found
Quisque semper tellus id neque adipiscing, a suscipit sapien aliquam. Quisque et mi dictum, tempus odio ac, condimentum tellus. Donec sed felis vitae risus pulvinar iaculis. Morbi porttitor rhoncus diam hendrerit pulvinar. Sed placerat id lacus id feugiat. Suspendisse pulvinar dapibus ante, blandit facilisis nisl dictum eget. Cras interdum faucibus metus ut tristique.

Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

No widgets found
Quisque semper tellus id neque adipiscing, a suscipit sapien aliquam. Quisque et mi dictum, tempus odio ac, condimentum tellus. Donec sed felis vitae risus pulvinar iaculis. Morbi porttitor rhoncus diam hendrerit pulvinar. Sed placerat id lacus id feugiat. Suspendisse pulvinar dapibus ante, blandit facilisis nisl dictum eget. Cras interdum faucibus metus ut tristique.

Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

No widgets found
Quisque semper tellus id neque adipiscing, a suscipit sapien aliquam. Quisque et mi dictum, tempus odio ac, condimentum tellus. Donec sed felis vitae risus pulvinar iaculis. Morbi porttitor rhoncus diam hendrerit pulvinar. Sed placerat id lacus id feugiat. Suspendisse pulvinar dapibus ante, blandit facilisis nisl dictum eget. Cras interdum faucibus metus ut tristique.

Donec porta odio dolor, non sollicitudin leo consequat sit amet. Fusce aliquam blandit ligula, at imperdiet purus dignissim nec. Integer lacinia purus augue, at bibendum nibh vestibulum non. Maecenas in convallis leo, ut facilisis leo. Phasellus nec dapibus neque. Aliquam aliquam ligula augue, ut malesuada purus malesuada eget. Cras nec ullamcorper ligula. Sed sed ornare libero, vel suscipit enim. Duis congue felis eget mauris auctor molestie sed quis odio. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Duis bibendum iaculis imperdiet. Ut ut erat non tortor blandit volutpat vel non dolor. Nunc tincidunt erat nulla, ut lobortis mauris posuere ac.

Backyard Chickens Policy, Ordinance No. 8378

Jurisdiction Name: Lawrence
State/Province: KS
Country: United States
Type of Government: Municipality
Population: 89,512
Population Range: 50,000 to 249,999
Policy Links: Web
Policy type: ordinance
Year: 2009
GFC Topic: community food production
Keywords: agriculture, backyard chickens, food production, fowl, production, urban, urban agriculture
Adopting Government Department(s):

Lawrence City Commission

Lead Implementing Entity(s):
Support Entity(s):

n/a

Funding Amount: not applicable
Funding Sources: not applicable
Policy Outcome(s):

amended code of the City of Lawrence to allow the raising of fowl on residential property

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1Link 2

Baltimore City Building, Fire, and Related Codes Revisions, Ordinance No. 13-93

Jurisdiction Name: Baltimore City
State/Province: MD
Country: United States
Type of Government: Municipality
Population: 620,961
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: PDF
Policy type: ordinance
Year: 2013
GFC Topic: community food production
Keywords: agricultural practices, agriculture, building code, farm, food production, greenhouse, hoophouse, permit, production, urban, urban agriculture
Adopting Government Department(s):

Baltimore City Council

Lead Implementing Entity(s):
Support Entity(s):
Funding Amount:
Funding Sources:
Policy Outcome(s):

Amended Baltimore City’s Building, Fire, and Related Codes; resulted in changes to Section 105.2 to allow for the use of hoophouses without obtaining a permit.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1

fresh: Edmonton’s Food and Urban Agriculture Strategy

Jurisdiction Name: Edmonton
State/Province: AB
Country: Canada
Type of Government: Municipality
Population: 812,201
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: PDF
Policy type: plan
Year: 2012
GFC Topic: community food connections, community food production, community food security
Keywords: advisory group, agriculture, animal permit, animals, backyard animals, backyard chickens, chickens, community garden, development, economic development, farm to institution, farmers market, farmland preservation, food access, food distribution, food infrastructure, food policy council, food processing, food procurement, food production, food purchasing, food retail, food security, food system, food system metrics, healthy food, honeybees, land use, local economy, local farm products, local food, local food access, local food economy, local food procurement, local food production, local food purchasing, locally grown food, sustainability, urban agriculture, vacant property, zoning
Adopting Government Department(s):

Edmonton City Council

Lead Implementing Entity(s): City of Edmonton
Support Entity(s):

Edmonton Food Council, Northlands, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Alberta, Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, Edmonton School Boards, Edmonton's Food Bank, Sustainable Food Edmonton, Urban Development Institute

Funding Amount: n/a
Funding Sources: City of Edmonton, Northlands, University of Alberta, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development
Policy Outcome(s):

Establishment of the Edmonton Food Council; Amendment to the Zoning Bylaw to integrate and enable more urban agriculture throughout the city; Amendment to the Animal Control and Licensing Bylaw to allow urban hens and bees; Receipt of a McConnell Foundation grant to increase local food purchasing by large distributors and institutions, in partnership with Northlands; In partnership with the University of Alberta, establishment of a multi-million dollar international research project on resilient urban food systems; improvement to City of Edmonton processes to streamline and enable more community gardens; improvement to the City of Edmonton’s Sustainable Purchasing Policy to increase procurement of more local foods.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1Link 2

Backpack Food Distribution Program, Cumberland County, Maine

Jurisdiction Name: Cumberland County
State/Province: ME
Country: United States
Type of Government: County
Population: 288,204
Population Range: 250,000 to 999,999
Policy Links: WebPDF
Policy type: program
Year: 2015
GFC Topic: community food connections, community food security
Keywords: Food assistance programs, children, distribution, food access, healthy food, hunger, low-income, nutrition, youth
Adopting Government Department(s):

Cumberland County

Lead Implementing Entity(s): Town of Harpswell, Town of Bridgton
Support Entity(s):

Good Shepherd Food Bank of Maine

Funding Amount: $11,000 total: $5,000 to Town of Bridgton, $6,000 to Town of Harpswell
Funding Sources: Cumberland County Community Development Block Grant Program
Policy Outcome(s):

Allocates grant funds to provide low-to-moderate income children in local schools with bags of healthy, easy-to-prepare foods made up of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and proteins when school meals are unavailable (ie. Weekend days and extended school breaks); program was re-approved for funding from the same source in the 2016-2020 Action Plan for Cumberland County Community Development Department.

Additional Resources and Information: Link 1Link 2