Becca B. R. Jablonski
Paul Milbourne
Siobhan Maderson- School of Geography and Planning, University of Cardiff, Cardiff, United Kingdom
City, national, and multinational governments are increasingly leveraging nutrition programme spending, specifically pursuing policies that require or incentive “local” procurement, to meet a myriad of goals. However, these policies involve tradeoffs that are often not fully considered by government officials, planners, and advocates. This perspective article provides some examples of those tradeoffs from the peer-reviewed literature, which, we argue, are useful to consider in setting school feeding programme policies to achieve sustainability goals.
1. Introduction
The understanding that food systems play a critical role in achieving multiple United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) [(e.g., 1, 2)], is driving many city, national, and multinational governments to implement sustainable food policies. Leveraging municipal spending on nutrition programmes, with a focus on “local” school feeding programmes, appears to be the most common strategy implemented by governments worldwide [(e.g., 3, 4)]. This is likely due to the size of school feeding programme budgets, which are estimated at $70B U.S. annually, reaching about 368 million children globally (5).
Governments are creating policies to leverage this spending in order to achieve multiple SDGs, including reducing hunger and promoting good health and well-being (UN SDGs 2 and 3), creating opportunities for decent work and economic growth (UN SDG 8), and creating or growing markets for sustainably produced food (UN SDG 12) (6). For example, the National School Feeding Programme in Brazil requires 30 percent of its budget be used to purchase food from family farms (2). In the United States (U.S.), a dedicated Federal funding programme supports farm to school programmes, which helped to spur the reported $1.26 billion spent by schools on locally procured items in the 2018–2019 school year (4). Part of governments’ rationale for these policies is that local purchasing are believed to increase consumption of fresh, healthy food, increase farm access to markets, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and waste through shorter supply chains (6).
However, from a theory of economic policy perspective, multiple policy instruments are needed to meet multiple goals. When a single policy instrument is used to meet multiple goals (or there are fewer instruments than targets), the best one can achieve is a second-best outcome that requires placing some priorities (weights) on the goals [(e.g., 7)]. In other words, tradeoffs across goals will inherently exist if multiple policy instruments are not available. In line with this theoretical framework, “local” school feeding programme policies involve tradeoffs, and these are often not fully considered by government officials, planners, and advocates. Further, these policies can fall into a “local trap,” wherein local is assumed to be better across many dimensions (8). This perspective article provides some examples of those tradeoffs from the peer-reviewed literature, which, we argue, are useful to consider in setting school feeding programme policies to make progress towards the UN’s SDGs.
2. Perspective guided by literature
2.1. Reducing hunger and promoting good health and well-being (UN SDGs 2 and 3)
Increasing local food procurement in schools is frequently aligned with governments’ desire to improve healthy eating goals among students and their families, as well as reducing malnutrition and food insecurity [(e.g., 2)]. It is well-documented that providing meals in schools, and especially healthy meals, supports positive student educational and health outcomes [(e.g., 9, 10)], but additional benefits resulting from local procurement are much less clear. Part of the challenge is that conducting research in school settings is notoriously difficult, and, as a result, there are few peer-reviewed studies that employ rigorous methods (e.g., randomized control trials). Those that do provide a rigorous analysis suggest that local food in schools may improve food and nutrition-related knowledge and encourage healthy food selection among children, but the evidence on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption is mixed (11). In other words, the health effects are unclear if differences in knowledge and selection do not result in changes in consumption.
Tradeoffs may result from the fact that locally grown and raised food may be more expensive than nonlocal items (12). Local supply chains may incur higher transaction costs due to decreased efficiency. This issue may be exacerbated if policies prioritize purchases from local smallholders that have higher costs of production (13). As schools are budget constrained, shifts to local purchasing may involve tradeoffs that could negatively impact other procurement decisions and, thus, student health outcomes (12).
2.2. Creating opportunities for decent work and economic growth (UN SDG 8)
The food system is global, concentrated in the hands of major food corporations, and vertically integrated, which enhances its economic efficiency (14). Due to budget constraints, schools use this system to procure most of their local products. In other words, most local food does not move directly from the farm to the school, but through an intermediary, such as a wholesaler or distributor (15). Given the market power of the large-scale supply chain actors—even those that are moving locally grown and raised items—there is insufficient evidence that they pass any price premiums to local farmers. In fact, research on food supply chain consolidation and vertical integration finds economic benefits for consumers, but complex implications for farmers, and negative impacts for smallholders and rural communities (14).
Another potential challenge around “local” strategies centers around the economic concept of “beggar-thy-neighbor” [(e.g., 16)]. If there is not an absolute increase in purchasing (and therefore production or the value of production) as a result of changes in school food buying patterns (which is unlikely to be the case other than perhaps in the poorest countries), then local purchases are likely to represent a shift in sourcing. Thus, shifts to local purchasing by schools come at the expense of nonlocal products (17). While there may be a local economic benefit, there may be a disbenefit to other regions. Given that local school food procurement strategies are more dominant in more affluent countries, this strategy may negatively impact the global South and more agriculturally dependent economies (18).
Similarly, as most of the world’s population lives in urban areas (19), and hundreds of cities are enacting food policies [(e.g., 20, 21)], gains in urban regions may come at the expense of rural ones. Research from several countries specifically calls for improved regional governance and infrastructure structures to more effectively link urban, peri-urban, and regional areas [(e.g., 22, 23)]. As rural stakeholders, and particularly rural farmers, that still represent the majority of food production are often left out of urban food policy dialogues (24), broader opportunities for positive regional impacts from “local” food policies remain limited.
Though not a tradeoff per se, a further area of complexity is that “local” food is often produced by nonlocal workers. As the major food retailers have sought to reduce food costs for their consumers, cost pressures have been passed onto food producers and processors. This has led to shifts in local work regimes, involving more precarious working conditions for farm laborers and the increased use of international migrant workers to harvest, process, and package food. Some research claims that the relocalization of global North food systems may have detrimental impacts on the livelihoods of those farmers and agricultural laborers in global South countries reliant on export markets to sell their produce. Indeed, particular sectors of the farming system are now as dependent on migrant labor as they are on climate, soils and fertilizers. Certainly, there has been little appetite amongst national governments to discuss how the structural conditions of agri-food work could be improved to provide decent local employment opportunities. Instead, there appears to be an acceptance that such work will continue to be undertaken by international migrant workers, with the agri-food sector viewed as an exception to restrictive national migration policies across several Global North countries (25).
2.3. Responsible production (UN SDG 12)
Many municipalities are in part leveraging school feeding programmes to incentivize transitions to more environmentally sustainable procurement, but there is little evidence to support that producers selling through local markets use more environmentally sound practices. In the U.S., some studies indicate that producers using conventional markets spend more, on average, for chemical inputs and fertilizers than locally oriented operations, which are more likely to use manure (26). However, the overall use of chemical inputs and fertilizers is declining, with the biggest declines occurring on operations using conventional markets. Conventionally oriented producers are also more likely to use no-till or conservation tillage (26). Further, shifts to local food procurement with additional preferences for environmentally friendly labels, such as organic, can result in additional tradeoffs if the specific context of climate, place, and commodity are not considered [(e.g., 27)]. For example, in drought-prone, semi-arid cropland systems there can be negative effects on erosion potential and organic carbon in the soil (28).
The link between local foods and food waste is even less clear. An inverse relationship may exist between the amount of food waste and packaging waste if local foods use less processing and packaging, possibly resulting in more food waste from spoilage and less efficient home preparation (26). The limited research in school settings has mixed results, mostly with small sample sizes using plate waste assessments [(e.g., 29)]. Further, some research related to community supported agriculture schemes finds that consumers are more likely to waste products that they are unsure how to prepare (30). Given constraints around seasonality in many parts of the world, this challenge may also apply to school settings, where students may be less familiar with seasonal products and thus less willing to try them.
The literature also suggests that the provision of local foods may actually result in a larger transportation footprint in terms of both greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption due to transportation inefficiencies [(e.g., 31–33)]. Although there are thought pieces and limited research that suggest environmental benefits to localized food systems [(e.g., 34)], the overwhelming takeaway is that what you eat may be more important than whether or not it is local (32). In other words, local is not inherently environmentally better; impacts need to be carefully considered within the context of many other factors.
3. Conclusion
Although there are potential benefits for food policies that view “local” school food procurement as a step towards achieving sustainable development goals, we caution policymakers, advocates, and planners not to make a priori assumptions that local is better. Returning to the theory of economic policy, achieving multiple goals will require more policy instruments than just changes to procurement structure (7). If policymakers do not consider what these other instruments might be and, tradeoffs will exist. However, starting with a more holistic view of the food system—both throughout the entire supply chain as well as across jurisdiction – can help policymakers to more carefully consider the multiple policy instruments that may be appropriate. For example, in order to reduce hunger and promote good health and well-being (UN SDGs 2 and 3) analysis can be conducted by policymakers to understand ways in which local procurement can occur without (or with only minimally) increasing costs to schools. This may involve additional policy instruments that incentivize mainstream distributors to work with more local producers and processors. Similarly, creating opportunities for decent work and economic growth (UN SDG 8) may require more careful consideration around definitions of local so that benefits do not come at the expense of neighbouring locales. To do this, directly and indirectly impacted stakeholders (not just those within a particular political jurisdiction) can be included in conversations leading up to policy-decisions. In this context, policy instruments may include funding for programs that support technical assistance or supply chain infrastructure to engage regional farmers and ranchers. And, creating or growing markets for sustainably produced food (UN SDG 12) requires consideration of local conditions. Production systems associated with generating positive environmental impacts are not automatically transferable to other locations; their impacts may vary depending on geographical location. Accordingly, policy instruments that incentivize producer investment to achieve environmental benefits may be coupled with procurement incentives to achieve goals.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
BJ, PM, SM, and KM contributed to conception and design of the study. BJ wrote the first draft of the manuscript. BJ and PM wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research is supported by the Food Trails project, which received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation program, grant agreement no. 101000812, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the United States Department of Agriculture, under award no. 2021-68006-34029, and the US-UK Fulbright Commission.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Herrero, M, Thornton, PK, Mason-D’Croz, D, Palmer, J, Bodirsky, BL, Pradhan, P, et al. Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the sustainable development goals. Lancet Planet Health. (2021) 5:e50–62. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1
2. World Health Organization (WHO) (2022). Healthy public food procurement and service policies. Departmental News. Available at: https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2022-the-untapped-potential-of-healthy-public-food-procurement-and-service-policies-to-support-the-repurposing-of-food-and-agricultural-policies-for-delivery-of-affordable-healthy-diets
3. National Farm to School Network and Vermont Law School’s Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (NFSN and CAFS) (2021). State farm to school policy handbook 2002–2020. National Farm to School Network. Available at: https://www.farmtoschool.org/resources-main/state-farm-to-school-policy-handbook
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS). N.D. farm to school census results overview. Available at: https://farmtoschoolcensus.fns.usda.gov/census-results-overview
5. World Food Programme (WFP). (2013). State of school feeding worldwide. Rome. Available at: https://www.wfp.org/publications/state-school-feeding-worldwide-2013
6. Hintz, J, d’Addario, F, and Defranceschi, P. (2021). The power of the public plate: analysis of the public procurement impact across the food value chain. Local governments for sustainability (ICLEI) and one planet network. Available at: https://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/from-crm/The%2520Power%2520of%2520the%2520Public%2520Plate_Analysis%2520ICLEI%2520OPN%2520SPP%25202021.pdf
7. Acocella, N, DeBartolomeo, G, and Hallett, AH. The theory of economic policy in a strategic context. New York: Cambridge University Press (2013).
8. Born, B, and Purcell, M. Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. J Plan Educ Res. (2006) 26:195–207. doi: 10.1177/0739456X06291389
9. Afridi, F. The impact of school meals on school participation: evidence from rural India. J Dev Stud. (2011) 47:1636–56. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2010.514330
10. Belot, M, and James, J. Healthy school meals and educational outcomes. J Health Econ. (2011) 30:489–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2011.02.003
11. Prescott, MP, Cleary, R, Bonanno, A, Costanigro, M, Jablonski, BBR, and Long, AB. Farm to school activities and student outcomes: a systematic review. Adv Nutr. (2020) 11:357–74. doi: 10.1093/advances/nmz094
12. Long, AB, Jablonski, BBR, Costanigro, M, and Frasier, WM. The impact of state farm to school procurement incentives on school purchasing decisions. J Sch Health. (2021) 91:418–27. doi: 10.1111/josh.13013
13. Jablonski, BBR, and Schmit, TM. Differential expenditure patterns of local food system participants. Renew Agric Food Syst. (2016) 31:139–47. doi: 10.1017/S1742170515000083
14. Saitone, TL, and Sexton, RJ. Concentration and consolidation in the U.S. food supply chain: the latest evidence and implications for consumers, farmers and policy makers. Econ Rev. (2017) 102:25–59. Available at: https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/764/Concentration_and_Consolidation_in_the_U.S._Food_Supply_Chain_The_Latest_Evidence_and_.pdf
15. Murphy, E, Hevesh, A, and Scott, S. School districts get locally produced foods from a variety of sources. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service (2022).
16. Thilmany, D, McKenney, N, Mushinski, S, and Weiler, S. Beggar-thy-neighbor economic development: a note on the effect of geographic interdependencies in rural markets. Ann Reg Sci. (2005) 39:593–605. doi: 10.1007/s00168-005-0229-x
17. Christensen, L, Jablonski, BBR, Stephens, L, and Joshi, A. Evaluating the economic impacts of farm-to-school procurement: an approach for primary and secondary financial data collection of producers selling to schools. J Agric Food Syst Community Dev. (2019) 8:73–94. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2019.08C.002
18. Morgan, K. Local and green, global and fair: the ethical foodscape and the politics of care. Environ Plan A. (2010) 42:1852–67. doi: 10.1068/a42364
19. United Nations (UN) (2018). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html
20. Jablonski, BBR, Bauman, A, and Thilmany, D. Local food market orientation and labor intensity. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. (2021) 43:916–34. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13059
21. Moragues-Faus, A, and Battersby, J. Urban food policies for a sustainable and just future: concepts and tools for a renewed agenda. Food Policy. (2021) 103:102124. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102124
22. Blay-Palmer, A, Santini, G, Dubbeling, M, Renting, H, Taguchi, M, and Giordano, T. Validating the city region food system approach: enacting inclusive, transformational city region food systems. Sustainability. (2018) 10:1680. doi: 10.3390/su10051680
23. Clark, JK, Conley, B, and Raja, S. Essential, fragile, and invisible community food infrastructure: the role of urban governments in the United States. Food Policy. (2021) 103:102014. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102014
24. Jablonski, BBR, Carolan, M, Hale, J, Thilmany McFadden, D, Love, E, Christensen, L, et al. Connecting urban food plans to the countryside: leveraging Denver’s food vision to explore meaningful rural-urban linkages. Sustainability. (2019) 11:2022. doi: 10.3390/su11072022
25. Milbourne, P, and Coulson, H. Migrant labour in the UK’s post-Brexit agri-food system: ambiguities, contradictions and precarities. J Rural Stud. (2021) 86:430–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.009
26. Low, SA, Adalja, A, Beaulieu, E, Key, N, Martinez, S, Melton, A, et al. (2015). Trends in U.S. local and regional food systems. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Administrative Publication Number 067. 92 pp. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42805/51173_ap068.pdf?v=42083
27. Poore, J, and Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. (2018) 360:987–92. doi: 10.1126/science.aaq0216
28. Jablonski, KE, Dillon, JA, Hale, JW, Jablonski, BBR, and Carolan, MS. One place doesn’t fit all: improving the effectiveness of sustainability standards by accounting for place. Front Sustain Food Syst. (2020) 4:557754. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.557754
29. Qi, D, Li, R, Penn, J, Houghtaling, B, Prinyawiwatkul, W, and Roe, BE. Nudging greater vegetable intake and less food waste: a field experiment. Food Policy. (2022) 112:102369. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102369
30. Porpino, G. Household food waste behavior: avenues for future research. J Assoc Consum Res. (2016) 1:41–51. doi: 10.1086/684528
31. Coley, D, Howard, M, and Winter, M. Local food, food miles and carbon emissions: a comparison of farm shop and mass distribution approaches. Food Policy. (2009) 34:150–5. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.11.001
32. Ritchie, H, Rosado, P, and Roser, M. (2022). Environmental impacts of food production. Our World InData.org. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
33. Webb, J, Williams, AG, Hope, E, Evans, D, and Moorhouse, E. Do food imported into the UK have a greater environmental impact than the same foods produced within the UK? Int J Live Cycle Assess. (2013) 18:1325–43. doi: 10.1007/s11367-013-0576-2
Keywords: food policy, sustainable development goals, public food procurement, farm to school, local food
Citation: Jablonski BBR, Milbourne P, Maderson S and Morgan K (2023) Considering tradeoffs in “local” food policies: examples from school feeding programmes. Front. Nutr. 10:1242493. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1242493
Edited by:
George C. Davis, Virginia Tech, United StatesReviewed by:
Katherine Harris-Lagoudakis, Iowa State University, United StatesJackie Yenerall, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, United States
Copyright © 2023 Jablonski, Milbourne, Maderson and Morgan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Becca B. R. Jablonski, YmVjY2FqYWJsb25za2lAZ21haWwuY29t