Perspectives of Stakeholders on Implementing a Farm-to-University Program at an HBCU

Vilme, Helene; López, Ivette A; Walters, Lurleen M.; Suther, Sandra; Brown, Clyde; Dutton, Matthew; Barber, Janet

doi:10.5993/ajhb.39.4.9

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Various challenges encountered in implementing the Real Food Commitment at JHU, particularly those that reflect larger dynamics within the food system, reflected experiences similar to those reported by other institutions engaging in local and sustainable procurement initiatives. These include costs, the seasonality of produce, and the capacity of small producers or distributors to meet the demand for a high volume of produce, especially if preparing or processing produce is required (Bobronnikov et al, 2021;Vilme et al, 2015). Participants echoed challenges discussed in Apoliona-Brown et al (2020) and Santo and Fitch (2018) about working with food-service management companies, including rebates being an inhibitor to procurement shifts and the limits to flexibility in procurement choices when working with these companies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the successes and challenges toward achieving the Real Food Commitment at Johns Hopkins University

Berger

Santo

Garces

2022

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With their significant purchasing power, institutions of higher education can create substantial changes in the food system through their food purchases. The Real Food Challenge launched a national campaign in 2011 to shift food procurement at colleges and universities across the United States to local and community-based, fair, ecologically sound, and humane sources. In 2013, the president of Johns Hopkins University (JHU) signed on to the Real Food Commitment, pledging to purchase at least 35% “Real Food” by 2020. Drawing on interviews with students, dining staff, and vendors as well as an analysis of purchasing data, this research analyzes the successes and challenges that JHU stakeholders encountered in their efforts to implement this commitment. Although the university fell short of achieving its goal of 35% “Real Food” procurement, JHU spent US$4.7 million on local and community-based, humane, ecologically sound, and fair foods between 2013 and 2019. Most of the university’s successful procurement shifts focused on local and community-based foods and animal source foods. Challenges that hindered additional procurement shifts included the volumes and food preparation required by the university, student dining preferences, contracts that required purchasing from specific vendors, and staffing limitations. Lessons learned from the implementation of the Real Food Commitment can inform the evolution of sustainable and ethical food procurement standards at JHU as well as other universities and institutions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the successes and challenges toward achieving the Real Food Commitment at Johns Hopkins University

Berger

Santo

Garces

2022

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Various challenges encountered in implementing the Real Food Commitment at JHU, particularly those that reflect larger dynamics within the food system, reflected experiences similar to those reported by other institutions engaging in local and sustainable procurement initiatives. These include costs, the seasonality of produce, and the capacity of small producers or distributors to meet the demand for a high volume of produce, especially if preparing or processing produce is required (Bobronnikov et al, 2021;Vilme et al, 2015). Participants echoed challenges discussed in Apoliona- and Santo and Fitch (2018) about working with food-service management companies, including rebates being an inhibitor to procurement shifts and the limits to flexibility in procurement choices when working with these companies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2022

J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the environmental impact of food choices was not explicitly stated, the comment accentuating the “premium” value of foods that are ‘organic, locally sourced, or free trade’ underscores an opportunity to engage consumers around food choice as a larger social issue ( Perry and Grace, 2015 ). The influence of food choice on social welfare may be particularly relevant to younger populations ( Vilme et al, 2015 ), and even more so among individuals affiliated with universities, especially in the public health field. However, it is important to note that there is limited awareness of the environmental impact of food choice across other sectors ( de Boer et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does a grill menu redesign influence sales, nutrients purchased, and consumer acceptance in a worksite cafeteria?

Vadiveloo

Malik

Spiegelman

et al. 2017

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worksite cafeterias are compelling venues to improve diet quality through environmental changes.We conducted a pre-post study to evaluate how a cafeteria-initiated grill menu redesign influenced sales, revenue, and nutrient content of foods purchased. Secondly, we evaluated consumer opinions about menu changes to inform practices for worksite environment interventions. Monthly sales data (2012–2015) were used to compute gross sales and revenue of entrées and side dishes pre-post menu changes. Alternative protein sources replaced red meat; nutrient composition and nutrients purchased were compared using Food Pro software. Consumer responses were queried using online surveys; open-ended responses were analyzed using NVivo. Differences in sales and nutrient content pre-post menu redesign were tested with Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests. Gross sales of entrées (61 vs. 222 servings/month; p = 0.01) and side dishes (120 vs. 365 servings/month; p = 0.001) increased more than three-fold post-menu changes. Revenue from entrées (312 vs. 1144 USD/month; p = 0.01) and side dishes (238 vs. 914 USD/month; p = 0.001) also increased; per entrée, consumers purchased significantly more unsaturated fat (5 g), and less saturated fat (3 g) and sodium (100 mg). For side dishes, they purchased fewer calories (48 kcal) and unsaturated fat (2.9 g), but more fiber (1.8 g), and sodium (260 mg). Four themes emerged from consumer responses: the importance of 1) variety, novelty, choice; 2) cost, affordability, value; 3) health; and 4) food quality, taste. Menu redesign can improve nutrient content, while also increasing sales and revenue. Multi-dimensional assessment of the nutritional, consumer, and retailer implications is desirable practice for enacting similar environmental changes.

show abstract

Perspectives of Stakeholders on Implementing a Farm-to-University Program at an HBCU

Abstract: While there is student desire for improved access to fresh produce on campus, there are perceived barriers to overcome. University partnerships are needed to address the desired nutritional improvements.

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Evaluating the successes and challenges toward achieving the Real Food Commitment at Johns Hopkins University

Evaluating the successes and challenges toward achieving the Real Food Commitment at Johns Hopkins University

Untitled

Does a grill menu redesign influence sales, nutrients purchased, and consumer acceptance in a worksite cafeteria?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About