Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs

Abstract

Farm-to-school (F2S) local food procurement must be cost-effective to be financially sustainable without policy support. We test, among schools participating in F2S programs, whether market channel procurement strategies for local foods affect schools’ perceptions of whether meal costs decline as a result of F2S participation. Schools that buy local foods exclusively from intermediaries are 7 percentage points less likely to report lower costs from undertaking F2S initiatives. We further demonstrate that the probability that schools source local foods exclusively from intermediaries is influenced by the number of direct marketing farmers in their county.

Procurement from local producers for food service in primary and secondary school settings: A scoping review

“…This demonstrates the key role that cooperatives play within local communities, as they can consolidate produce to supply to schools and other businesses; bearing in mind that one study indicated that purchasing exclusively from a local distributor or co-operative was unlikely to reduce the cost per meal. 24 More widespread and targeted education on when locally grown crops are in season and cheapest, including ideas on how they can be incorporated into menus would be beneficial in Australia. 31 Government funding and in-kind support is important in ensuring school-based local food procurement programmes can become and remain financially viable, and in many instances so that they can be established in the first place.…”

Farm-to-School Programs in Portuguese Low-Density Rural Areas: How to Engage Farmers

“…On the other hand, small farmers who participate in FTS must address a number of concerns and challenges (Bala et al, 2008;Fitzsimmons & O'Hara, 2019;Morgan & Sonnino, 2008;Smith et al, 2016;Vallianatos et al, 2004), such as the need to comply with public sector food procurement contracts, which are typically awarded on the basis of 'best value' and 'the economically most advantageous tender' (i.e., low cost), with little or no regard for the effects of the entire agri-food cycle on human health and the environment; unfamiliarity with school invoicing, packing, and delivery requirements; difficulty in ensuring on-time deliveries; time-consuming contractual procedures outlined in public contracts and purchasing directives; difficulty maintaining a consistent supply, particularly in the absence of organized cooperatives.…”

Sustainability Recommendations and Practices in School Feeding: A Systematic Review

“…This review has some limitations. First, it was not possible to state that the school feeding policies/programs that mentioned concerns about sustainability were exhausted, since the policies were [130] 2 Damapong, Kongnoo and Monarumit (2013) [131] 1 Dirks (2011) [132] 3 Eich (2015) [133] 5 Ellinder et al (2020) [113] 2 Elnakib et al (2021) [134] 2 Colombo (2021) [135] 3 Ferderbar (2013) [136] 2 Filippini et al (2018) [137] 5 Fitzsimmons and O'Hara (2019) [138] 4 Franzoni (2015) [139] 4 Gaddis and Jeon (2020) [38] 1 Ghattas et al (2020) [140] 2 Granillo-Maciías (2021) [141] 3 Green (2016) [142] 2 Gregolin et al (2017) [143] 4 He (2013) [144] 1 Hendler, Ruiz and Oliveira (2021) [145] 3 Henry-Stone (2008) [146] 3 Hodgkinson (2011) [147] 3 Johnston et al (2009) [148] 5 Jones (2012) [149] 5 Kipfer (2018) [150] 3 Koch (2000) [151] 2 Lalli (2020) [152] 5 Lauffer (2019) [153] 2 Lawless (2013) [154] 3 Lindgren (2020) [112] 3 Løes; Nölting (2011) [28] 1 Løes; Nölting (2009) [155] 1 McCarty (2013) [156] 2 Medina (2009) [157] 5 Melão (2012) [158] 4…”