Too cool for farm to school? Analyzing the determinants of farm to school programming continuation

Aiding farm to school implementation: An assessment of facilitation mechanisms

“…While 16% incorporated school district funding, this is how all school meals are funded, so it is impossible to tease out how much of this is due to specific farm to school reimbursement policies. Thus, there appears to be low take-up of funded policies, which is in line with suggestions that school districts are not able to capitalize on state-level incentives (Roche, Conner, and Kolodinsky 2015;Bonanno and Mendis 2021). In the Appendix, we disaggregate state policies to further explore this relationship, though we generally find that policies of all type are insignificant.…”

“…In Vermont, schools receiving state grant funding were more likely to both have a farm to school program and implement local procurement (Roche, Conner, and Kolodinsky 2015). However, Bonanno and Mendis (2021) found little relationship between farm to school policies and continuation of a farm to school program, though coordinators had a positive impact. While 41 states have enacted a farm to school policy or resolution, only 25 of them include a funded position or program (NFSN and CAFS 2019).…”

“…Variables that were positively related to the presence or continuation of a farm to school program included school size (O'Hara and Benson 2017; Botkins and Roe 2018; Bonanno and Mendis 2021), local agricultural production (O'Hara and Benson 2017), the proportion of local farms that participated in directmarketing (Botkins and Roe 2018), the number of farmers' markets (Botkins and Roe 2018), the percent of students that are Hispanic or Black (Botkins and Roe 2018), the proportion of nearby schools that already had a farm to school program (Botkins and Roe 2018), and being in a more urban location (Botkins and Roe 2018). Variables that had a negative relationship to the presence of a farm to school program included the county poverty rate (O'Hara and Benson 2017), the percent of students eligible for reduced or free school lunch (O'Hara and Benson 2017), local milk prices (Botkins and Roe 2018), and student expenditures (Bonanno and Mendis 2021). There were slightly different results when it came to local food expenditures as positive factors included the county population (O'Hara and Benson 2017), school size (O'Hara and Benson 2017), the percent of students eligible for reduced or free school lunch O'Hara and Benson 2017), and the breadth of a school's definition of local, while the county poverty rate still had a negative impact (O'Hara and Benson 2017).…”

Assessment of the diet-environment-health-cost quadrilemma in public school canteens. an LCA case study in Galicia (Spain)

“…The advancement of win-win food scenarios faces significant barriers at several levels (Shen et al 2017;Neto and Gama Caldas 2018;Bonanno and Mendis, 2021) and different time periods (Chambers et al 2020). Having more organic products in the menu clashes with a lack of information on these products (Xie et al 2015;Melovic et al 2020) in addition to higher prices (Aschemann and Zielke, 2017;Filippini et al 2018) and the fact that some consumers prioritize health benefits over environmental benefits (Jensen et al 2011;Hjelmar., 2011).…”

“…The importance of promoting public policies within the context of the European Green New Deal (EC 2020) aimed at establishing and fostering consumption habits that meet and/or improve nutritional requirements while minimizing the environmental impact of the whole supply chain has been widely discussed (Wunderlich et al 2018;Neto and Gama Caldas 2018;Bonanno and Mendis 2021). Dietary change is one of the major topics discussed in the literature, and it has served to identify the main hotspots in terms of nutritional quality and environmental impact (Castañé and Antón, 2017;Clark et al 2018;Esteve-Llorens et al 2019;Lopes et al 2021).…”