United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Economic 

Research 

Report 

Number 97

May 2010

Local Food Systems

Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

Steve Martinez, Michael Hand, Michelle Da Pra, Susan Pollack, 

Katherine Ralston, Travis Smith, Stephen Vogel, Shellye Clark, 

Luanne Lohr, Sarah Low, and Constance Newman
Visit Our Website To Learn More!

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/

FoodMarketingSystem/

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and, where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic 

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is 

derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

www.ers.usda.gov

Recommended citation format for this publication:

Martinez, Steve, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and 

Issues, ERR 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, May 2010.

Use of commercial and trade names does not imply approval or 

constitute endorsement by USDA. 

Cover photo credit: Shutterstock.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Steve Martinez, Martinez@ers.usda.gov

Michael Hand, Michelle Da Pra, Susan Pollack, Katherine Ralston, 

Travis Smith, Stephen Vogel, Shellye Clark, Luanne Lohr, Sarah Low, 

and Constance Newman

Local Food Systems

Concepts, Impacts, and Issues

Economic

Research

Report

Number 97

May 2010

Abstract 

This comprehensive overview of local food systems explores alternative defi nitions of local 

food, estimates market size and reach, describes the characteristics of local consumers and 

producers, and examines early indications of the economic and health impacts of local food 

systems. There is no consensus on a defi nition of “local” or “local food systems” in terms of 

the geographic distance between production and consumption. But defi ning “local” based on 

marketing arrangements, such as farmers selling directly to consumers at regional farmers’ 

markets or to schools, is well recognized. Statistics suggest that local food markets account 

for a small, but growing, share of U.S. agricultural production. For smaller farms, direct 

marketing to consumers accounts for a higher percentage of their sales than for larger farms. 

Findings are mixed on the impact of local food systems on local economic development and 

better nutrition levels among consumers, and sparse literature is so far inconclusive about 

whether localization reduces energy use or greenhouse gas emissions. 

Keywords: local food systems, farmers’ markets, direct-to-consumer marketing, direct-toretail/foodservice marketing, community supported agriculture, farm to school programs, 

Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, food miles

Acknowledgments

We thank Debbie Tropp, Jim Barham, Adam Diamond, Andrew Jermolowicz, Cheryl Brown, 

Richard Reeder, and an anonymous reviewer for their extensive comments, and Elise Galon 

and Michael LeBlanc for manuscript review. Thanks also to ERS editor Priscilla Smith and 

ERS designer Curtia Taylor. 
ii

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

What Is Local Food? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Other Characteristics That Consumers Attribute to “Local Food”. . . . . . . 4

Local Food Market Typology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Characteristics of Local Food Suppliers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Most Farms That Sell Directly to Consumers Are Small . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Produce Farms Account for Over Half of Direct Sales 

to Consumers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Direct Sales Are Higher for Farms Engaging in 

Other Entrepreneurial Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Barriers to Market Entry and Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Characteristics of Local Food Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Consumer Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Foodservice Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Food Retailers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Government Programs and Policies Supporting Local Foods . . . . . . . 35

Federal Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

State and Local Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Benefi ts of Local Food Markets: A Look at the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Health and Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Food Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Food Miles, Energy Use, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Research Gaps in Understanding the Role of Local Foods . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendix A: Literature Review of Local Food Marketing 

Perceptions at Various Stages of the Food System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix B: Federal Policies, Programs, and Grant Money 

in the 2008 Farm Act That Support Local Food Producers . . . . . . . . . 77
iii

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

Consumer demand for food that is locally produced, marketed, and consumed 

is generating increased interest in local food throughout the United States. As 

interest grows, so do questions about what constitutes local food and what 

characterizes local food systems.

What Is the Issue?

This study provides a comprehensive literature-review-based overview of 

the current understanding of local food systems, including: alternative defi nitions; estimates of market size and reach; descriptions of the characteristics 

of local food consumers and producers; and an examination of early evidence 

on the economic and health impacts of such systems.

What Did the Study Find?

There is no generally accepted defi nition of “local” food.

Though “local” has a geographic connotation, there is no consensus on a 

defi nition in terms of the distance between production and consumption. 

Defi nitions related to geographic distance between production and sales vary 

by regions, companies, consumers, and local food markets. According to the 

defi nition adopted by the U.S. Congress in the 2008 Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act (2008 Farm Act), the total distance that a product can be transported and still be considered a “locally or regionally produced agricultural 

food product” is less than 400 miles from its origin, or within the State in 

which it is produced. Defi nitions based on market arrangements, including 

direct-to-consumer arrangements such as regional farmers’ markets, or 

direct-to-retail/foodservice arrangements such as farm sales to schools, are 

well-recognized categories and are used in this report to provide statistics on 

the market development of local foods.

Local food markets account for a small but growing share of total U.S. 

agricultural sales.

• Direct-to-consumer marketing amounted to $1.2 billion in current dollar 

sales in 2007, according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, compared 

with $551 million in 1997.

• Direct-to-consumer sales accounted for 0.4 percent of total agricultural 

sales in 2007, up from 0.3 percent in 1997. If nonedible products are 

excluded from total agricultural sales, direct-to-consumer sales accounted 

for 0.8 percent of agricultural sales in 2007.

• The number of farmers’ markets rose to 5,274 in 2009, up from 2,756 in 

1998 and 1,755 in 1994, according to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

• In 2005, there were 1,144 community-supported agriculture organizations (CSAs) in operation, up from 400 in 2001 and 2 in 1986, according 

to a study by the nonprofi t, nongovernmental organization National 

Center for Appropriate Technology. In early 2010, estimates exceeded 

1,400, but the number could be much larger.
iv

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

• The number of farm to school programs, which use local farms as food 

suppliers for school meals programs, increased to 2,095 in 2009, up from 

400 in 2004 and 2 in the 1996-97 school year, according to the National 

Farm to School Network. Data from the 2005 School Nutrition and 

Dietary Assessment Survey, sponsored by USDA’s Food and Nutrition 

Service, showed that 14 percent of school districts participated in Farm 

to School programs, and 16 percent reported having guidelines for 

purchasing locally grown produce.

Production of locally marketed food is more likely to occur on small 

farms located in or near metropolitan counties.

Local food markets typically involve small farmers, heterogeneous products, 

and short supply chains in which farmers also perform marketing functions, 

including storage, packaging, transportation, distribution, and advertising. 

According to the 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture, most farms that sell 

directly to consumers are small farms with less than $50,000 in total farm 

sales, located in urban corridors of the Northeast and the West Coast. 

In 2007, direct-to-consumer sales accounted for a larger share of sales for 

small farms, as defi ned above, than for medium-sized farms (total farm sales 

of $50,000 to $499,999) and large farms (total farm sales of $500,000 or 

more). Produce farms engaged in local marketing made 56 percent of total 

agricultural direct sales to consumers, while accounting for 26 percent of all 

farms engaged in direct-to-consumer marketing. Direct-to-consumer sales 

are higher for the farms engaged in other entrepreneurial activities, such as 

organic production, tourism, and customwork (planting, plowing, harvesting, 

etc. for others), than for other farms. In 2007, direct sales by all U.S. farms 

surpassed customwork to become the leading on-farm entrepreneurial 

activity in terms of farm household participation.

Barriers to local food-market entry and expansion include: capacity 

constraints for small farms and lack of distribution systems for moving local 

food into mainstream markets; limited research, education, and training for 

marketing local food; and uncertainties related to regulations that may affect 

local food production, such as food safety requirements.

Consumers who value high-quality foods produced with low environmental impact are willing to pay more for locally produced food.

Several studies have explored consumer preferences for locally produced 

food. Motives for “buying local” include perceived quality and freshness of 

local food and support for the local economy. Consumers who are willing 

to pay higher prices for locally produced foods place importance on product 

quality, nutritional value, methods of raising a product and those methods’ 

effects on the environment, and support for local farmers. 

Federal, State, and local government programs increasingly support 

local food systems. 

Many existing government programs and policies support local food initiatives, and the number of such programs is growing. Federal policies have 

grown over time to include the Community Food Project Grants Program, 
v

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, Senior Farmers’ Market 

Nutrition Program, Federal State Marketing Improvement Program, National 

Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, 

and the Community Facilities Program. (WIC is the acronym for the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.)

State and local policies include those related to farm-to-institution procurement, promotion of local food markets, incentives for low-income consumers 

to shop at farmers’ markets, and creation of State Food Policy Councils to 

discuss opportunities and potential impact of government intervention.

As of early 2010, there were few studies on the impact of local food 

markets on economic development, health, or environmental quality.

• Empirical research has found that expanding local food systems in a 

community can increase employment and income in that community. 

• Empirical evidence is insuffi cient to determine whether local food availability improves diet quality or food security. 

• Life-cycle assessments—complete analyses of energy use at all stages of 

the food system including consumption and disposal—suggest that localization can but does not necessarily reduce energy use or greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

How Was the Study Conducted?

Existing analyses of local food markets by universities, government agencies, national nonprofi t organizations, and others of local food markets were 

synthesized to evaluate the defi nition of local foods and the effects of local 

food systems on economic development, health and nutrition, food security, 

and energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The report’s content relies 

on data collected through the 2007 Census of Agriculture, as well as other 

surveys by USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the National Farm to 

School Network, university extension departments, and others, to provide a 

comprehensive picture of types of local food markets, their characteristics, 

and their importance over time.
1

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

In the early 1900s, nearly 40 percent of Americans lived on farms, compared 

with 1 percent in 2000, and much of the food bought and consumed in the 

United States was grown locally (Pirog, 2009). Communities gained knowledge of the quality of foods through direct contact with farmers. Aside from 

canning, dehydrating, salting, or smoking, few foods were processed or 

packaged, and fruits and vegetables, fi sh, and dairy products typically traveled less than a day to market (Giovannucci, et al., 2010). For many foods, 

consumption was dictated by local seasonality. 

Following World War II, the U.S. food system shifted from local to national 

and global food sources. Regional and global specialization—spurred by 

lower transportation costs and improvements in refrigerated trucking—reinforced transition to nonlocal food systems. With improved transportation, 

perishable items such as meats, eggs, fruits, and vegetables, as well as some 

perishable processed products like orange juice, could be shipped across the 

globe at affordable prices. Land and climate, coupled with technology, help 

determine the pattern of regional and global specialization. Fruit and tree nut 

production became concentrated predominantly in California as well as in 

Florida and a handful of other States because those States provided the best 

climate and environment. Geographic concentration also was infl uenced by 

the availability of feasible alternatives to commodities that farmers could no 

longer produce competitively. For example, with the decline of the cotton 

industry in the South, the broiler industry expanded through the use of 

production contracts.

U.S. imports of food products have grown over the past three decades 

because of many factors, including consumer demand, the growing U.S. 

immigrant population, improvements in shipping and quarantine methods, 

and the implementation of free-trade agreements. While some food imports 

compete with domestically produced products, others complement domestic 

production (e.g., fresh grapes, stone fruit, berries), giving consumers yearround availability (USDA, ERS, Fruit and Tree Nut Yearbook Data Archive). 

Consumer demand for tropical products that cannot be produced profi tably 

in the United States, such as bananas, pineapples, mangos, and papayas, has 

further increased the importance of U.S. fruit imports (USDA, ERS, Fruit 

and Tree Nut Yearbook Data Archive). 

Agricultural exports have helped some U.S. farmers maintain grower 

prices and stay economically viable even as domestic demand changes. For 

example, Americans now consume fewer grapefruit and grapefruit products compared to 20 years ago. As a result, the industry turned to the export 

market. In the mid-1980s, about a third of U.S fresh grapefruit was exported, 

and by the middle of the fi rst decade of the 2000s, almost half were shipped 

overseas. 

Recently, developments in the mainstream food system have been accompanied by growth in local food systems, or a relocalization of the food system. 

Evidence suggests signifi cant demand for locally produced foods. About 

four out of fi ve respondents to a 2006 national survey said they purchased 

fresh produce directly from growers either occasionally or always (Keeling-
2

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Bond et al., 2009). Other recent national surveys also refl ect high consumer 

interest—about half of respondents said they purchased food directly from 

farmers either by visiting farmers’ markets, joining a CSA, or buying direct 

from the farmer (Zepeda and Li, 2006).

Growing interest in local foods in the United States is the result of several 

movements (Guptill and Wilkins, 2002). The environmental movement 

encourages people to consider geographic dimensions in their food choices. 

Long-distance transport of food is considered to contribute to greenhouse 

gas emissions. The community food-security movement seeks to enhance 

access to safe, healthy, and culturally appropriate food for all consumers. 

Challenges to the dominance of large corporations also have contributed to 

efforts to expand local food. The Slow Food movement, which originated in 

Italy, is a response to homogenous, mass-produced food production, and the 

“fast” nature of people’s lives, by encouraging traditional ways of growing, 

producing, and preparing food (Gaytan, 2003). The local food movement 

also refl ects an increasing interest by consumers in supporting local farmers, 

and in better understanding the origin of their food (Ilbery and Maye, 2005; 

Pirog, 2009).

This report introduces the topic of local foods by synthesizing existing 

information and analyses to assess developments and gauge the effects of 

the growth in local food systems. This synthesis provides a comprehensive 

view of locally produced, marketed, and consumed food. We begin with a 

discussion of the defi nition of local foods and the various types of local food 

markets. Then we consider the characteristics of local food suppliers and 

some of the opportunities for and constraints on local foods expansion, as 

well as the characteristics of local food demand from consumers, foodservice, and food retailers. Government programs and policies to support local 

foods are reviewed next. Finally, we review the emerging literature on the 

potential benefi ts of local foods.
3

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

What Is Local Food?

Unlike organic food, there is no legal or universally accepted defi nition 

of local food. In part, it is a geographical concept related to the distance 

between food producers and consumers. In addition to geographic proximity 

of producer and consumer, however, local food can also be defi ned in terms 

of social and supply chain characteristics. In this section, we fi rst describe 

local foods as a geographic concept. Then, we examine other features 

that have been used to defi ne “local” foods. Finally, we briefl y describe a 

typology of local food markets, which adds a more tangible perspective to 

the local foods concept.

Geography

Terms such as “local food,” “local food system,” and “(re)localization” 

are often used interchangeably to refer to food produced near its point of 

consumption in relation to the modern or mainstream food system (Peters 

et al., 2008). The New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) defi nes a 

“locavore,” which was NOAD’s 2007 word of the year, as a local resident 

who tries to eat only food grown or produced within a 100-mile radius. This 

100-mile radius measure is not, however, a standard for local markets. For 

example, Durham et al., (2009) found that many consumers disagree with the 

100-mile designation for fresh produce. 

In terms of defi ning distance, opinions are quite varied. Distances that are 

perceived to constitute local may vary by region. Population density is 

important because what is considered local in a sparsely populated area 

may be quite different from what constitutes local in a more heavily populated region. This is referred to as “fl exible localism,” with the defi nition of 

“local” changing depending on the ability to source supplies within a short 

distance or further away, such as within a State (Ilbery and Maye, 2006). For 

example, in King County, WA, a densely populated urban county, a survey 

of 54 producers found that 66 percent defi ned local market as their own or 

surrounding counties (Selfa and Qazi, 2005). On the other hand, in Grant 

County, a sparsely populated rural and agriculturally based county, only 20 

percent of 61 producers surveyed considered their local market to be their 

own or surrounding counties. 

Different defi nitions may also be appropriate, depending on the situation. For 

example, with regards to the Value-Added Agricultural Market Development 

program, run by USDA Rural Development, the 2008 Farm Act defi nes 

the total distance that a product can be transported and still be eligible for 

marketing as a “locally or regionally produced agricultural food product” as 

less than 400 miles from its origin, or the State in which it is produced. 

Geographic proximity considerations have led to some controversy as to 

whether State-funded branding programs, which are aimed at promoting or 

identifying State-produced agricultural products, are part of the local food 

system. While some studies also include State-branded products as a type 

of local food product (Jekanowski, et al., 2000), other studies consider State 

labels not to be a good proxy for local food (Zepeda and Li, 2006). This is 

because consumers generally defi ne “local” in terms smaller than their State, 
4

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

and many State-branding programs target consumers in other States, or 

perhaps internationally. For example, the Florida Department of Agriculture 

recently partnered with a supermarket chain in Ireland to promote the State’s 

strawberries as part of its “Fresh from Florida” marketing campaign. Foods 

that have a brand associated with a particular locality or region, but serve 

largely external markets, are sometimes referred to as “locality foods” to 

distinguish from local foods (Hughes et al., 2007). 

Other Characteristics That Consumers 

Attribute to “Local Food” 

Geographic proximity is only one component of the local foods defi nition 

(Thompson et. al., 2008). There are a host of other characteristics that may 

be used by consumers to defi ne local food systems. Some may associate 

production methods as part of what defi nes local food (Thompson et. al., 

2008). For instance, sustainable production and distribution practices reduce 

use of synthetic chemicals and energy-based fertilizers, are environmentally 

friendly, and limit chemical and pesticide residue on food. 1 Some consumers 

also extend sustainable production to include fair farm labor practices and 

animal welfare. 

The concept of local food may also extend to who produced the food: the 

personality and ethics of the grower; the attractiveness of the farm and 

surrounding landscape; and other factors that make up the “story behind 

the food.” The term “provenance,” which describes the method or tradition of production that is attributable to local infl uences, seems to capture 

the essence of this component of the local food defi nition (Thompson et al., 

2008).2 Local food systems have also been synonymous with small farms 

that are committed to place through social and economic relationships 

(Hughes et al., 2007). Social embeddedness in the sense of social connections, mutual exchange, and trust is viewed by some as an important feature 

of direct agricultural marketing (Hinrichs, 2000; Sage, 2003). 

Local food may be defi ned by the characteristics of intermediate stages of the 

supply chain, such as processing and retailing. According to Marsden et al. 

(2000), a short food supply chain (SFSC) facilitates some form of connection 

between the food consumer and producer by providing clearer signals 

related to the origin of the food product. The most important feature of a 

SFSC is that the product reaches the consumer embedded with information, 

such as through package labeling or personal communication. This enables 

consumers to connect with the place of production and, perhaps, the people 

involved and methods used to produce the product. One type of SFSC is 

spatial proximity, where products are produced and retailed in a specifi c 

region of production, and consumers are made aware of the local nature 

of products.3

Local Food Market Typology

Because there is no universal defi nition of local food, defi ning types of local 

food markets facilitates our ability to evaluate these markets. Two basic types 

of local food markets include those where transactions are conducted directly 

between farmers and consumers (direct-to-consumer), and direct sales by 

 1For some consumers, the importance of “environmentally sustainable” 

practices may exclude some products 

that are produced and consumed within 

“close” proximity from fi tting a local 

defi nition. For example, a case study 

of a certifi ed organic produce grower 

in southern Idaho found that when the 

grower sells to Albertsons, a mainstream grocery retailer, the food must 

be shipped from the farm to a distribution center located 235 miles away in 

Utah (DePhelps et al., 2005). It can 

then be shipped back to Idaho for sales 

in local stores. 

2The European concept of “terroir,” or “sense of place,” encompasses 

characteristics of both locality foods 

and provenance. It refers to a geographical area through the name of the 

product, brand, or signals of quality, 

and to the reputation of the place in 

terms of culture, history, and other features (Aurier et al., 2005; Cox, 2008). 

3Two other types of SFSCs 

include face-to-face and spatially 

extended. In a face-to-face SFSC, the 

consumer purchases directly from the 

producer or processor, but it may not be 

considered a local food supply chain. A 

spatially extended SFSC communicates 

information about the place of production and those producing the food 

to consumers who are outside of the 

production region, and who may have 

had no experience with the region.
5

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

farmers to restaurants, retail stores, and institutions such as government entities, hospitals, and schools (direct-to-retail/foodservice). 4 Venues for directto-consumer marketing of local foods include farmers’ markets, community 

supported agriculture (CSAs), farm stands/onfarm sales, and “pick your 

own” operations. Other less formal sources of local foods that are typically 

diffi cult to measure or are unmeasured include home gardening and sharing 

among neighbors, foraging and hunting, and gleaning programs. 

Direct-to-Consumer Marketing

The Census of Agriculture, conducted by USDA’s National Agricultural 

Statistics Service every 5 years, currently provides the only measurable 

indicator of the direct-to-consumer local food marketing channel. However, 

“direct-to-consumer marketing” and “direct sales to consumers” as defi ned 

by the most recent agricultural census (2007) are not equivalent concepts.5

For example, catalog or Internet sales are included in the agricultural 

census’s direct sales to consumers, but customers are typically not local 

(Hughes et al., 2007). 6

Direct-to-consumer sales of agricultural products account for a small, but 

fast-growing segment of U.S. agriculture, increasing by $399 million (49 

percent) from 2002 to 2007, and by $660 million (120 percent) from 1997 to 

2007 (table 1). According to the 2007 Census, 136,800 farms, or 6 percent 

of all farms in the United States, sold $1.2 billion worth of farm products 

directly to consumers, or 0.4 percent of all agricultural sales. If non-edible 

products are excluded from total agricultural sales, then direct-to-consumer 

sales as a percentage of agricultural sales increases to 0.8 percent in 2007 

(Soto and Diamond, 2009). Direct-to-consumer marketing is also a small 

but growing share of U.S. at-home food consumption. In 2007, direct-toconsumer sales grew to 0.21 percent of total home consumption, compared 

to 0.15 percent in 1997 (see table 1). Nationally, direct-to-consumer sales per 

farm averaged $8,853. 

Recent growth in direct-to-consumer marketing farms and sales has come 

from larger operations, and fruit, vegetable, and beef farms (table 2 and table 

3). For example, operations with $50,000 or more in annual sales increased 

direct-to-consumer sales by 64 percent, or $274 million, from 2002 to 2007, 

which exceeded all other size categories. The number of beef farms involved 

in direct-to-consumer marketing grew by 33 percent (or 8,851 farms) from 

2002 to 2007, followed by farms marketing vegetables and melons, which 

grew by 24 percent (or 3,474 farms). 

Farmers’ Markets

A farmers’ market is a common area where several farmers gather on a recurring basis to sell a variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and other farm products 

directly to consumers. They were once the core focal point for selling fresh 

products in urban centers, but their signifi cance gradually declined as cities 

grew larger and more mobile (Futamura, 2007). Most established farmers’ 

markets have hired individuals to oversee the organization, rules and regulations, and promotions for all growers. Most also charge vendor fees for 

selling privileges, including a fl at fee as space is available, a membership fee 

 4Local food products may also 

move through an intermediary, such as 

a wholesaler or the fi rm’s distribution 

center, before reaching a retail outlet or 

consumer. For example, buying clubs 

are often operated out of someone’s 

home or offi ce. They are formed by 

groups of people that place large orders 

directly with a distributor, allowing 

them to order in bulk quantities at 

wholesale prices. The shipments are 

delivered directly to a dropoff destination where club members receive and 

sort the products. 

 5Specifi cally, the ag census 

defi nes direct sales to consumers as 

the value of agricultural products 

sold directly to individuals for human 

consumption from roadside stands, 

farmers’ markets, pick-your-own sites, 

etc. It excludes nonedible products, 

but includes livestock sales. Sales of 

agricultural products by vertically 

integrated operations through their own 

processing and marketing operations 

are also excluded.

 6There are websites that facilitate online local food transactions. 

For example, one new website offers 

consumers within a 30-mile radius of 

Farmington, ME, an opportunity to 

order local food online for pickup at 

specifi c times and locations (Jespersen, 

2009). Consumers can learn about the 

producers, link to their websites, and 

place orders, which are paid through 

Internet payment sites, such as PayPal. 

Also, see http://www.farmersonlinemarket.net/index.cfm/.
6

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1

Direct marketing’s impact on agriculture and consumption, 1997-2007

Year

Total 

agricultural sales

Direct-to-consumer 

sales

Total at-home 

consumption

Direct–to-consumer 

sales as percentage of total 

agricultural sales

Direct–to-consumer 

sales as percentage of total 

home consumption

-------------------------Million dollars------------------------- -------------------------Percent-------------------------

2007 297,220 1,211 577,002 0.4 0.21

2002 200,646 812 451,278 0.4 0.18

1997 196,865 551 374,080 0.3 0.15

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture data, 

various years.

Table 2

Direct sales by commodity, 2002 and 2007

Vegetable

and melon 

Fruit and 

tree nut Beef Other animal products

Other crops 

and plants

Number of farms

2002 14,487 14,381 27,133 41,016 21,190

2007 17,961 17,161 35,984 43,274 22,437

Percent change 24 19 33 6 6

Value (million dollars)

2002 198.2 196.5 77.0 179.7 160.9

2007 335.3 343.9 141.4 236.0 154.7

Percent change 69 75 84 31 -4

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture 

data, 2002 and 2007.

Table 3

Sales from operations selling directly to consumers, by sales class, 2002 and 2007

2007 2002 Percent change 2002-07

Farm size by annual 

sales (dollars) Farms Sales value Farms Sales value Farms Sales value

Number 1000 $ Number 1000 $ Percentage

1 to 499 35,440 7,217 32,420 6,645 9.3 8.6

500 to 999 20,547 14,013 19,145 13,124 7.3 6.8

1,000 to 4,999 49,957 113,960 42,660 93,611 17.1 21.7

5,000 to 9,999 13,060 88,174 9,598 64,517 36.1 36.7

10,000 to 24,999 10,032 151,063 7,256 108,766 38.3 38.9

25,000 to 49,999 3,903 133,328 2,831 96,322 37.9 38.4

50,000 or more 3,878 703,515 2,823 429,220 37.4 63.9

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture, 2002 and 2007.
7

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

for the entire season, or a fee based on a percentage of vendor sales (Ragland 

and Tropp, 2009). 

The number of farmers’ markets grew to 5,274 markets in 2009, a 92-percent 

increase from 1998 (USDA, AMS, 2009) (fi g. 1). They are concentrated in 

densely populated areas of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast (fi g. 2). 

According to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s 2006 National 

Farmers’ Market Survey, the most popular product category sold at farmers’ 

markets was fresh fruits and vegetables, which was sold by nearly 92 percent 

of farmers’ market managers in 2005, followed by herbs and fl owers, and 

honey, nuts, and preserves (Ragland and Tropp, 2009). However, not all 

products sold at farmers’ markets are part of the local food system (Hughes 

et al., 2007). For example, some vendors may come from outside the local 

region, and some local vendors may not sell products that are produced 

within the region. 

A sample of nine farmers’ markets in central Virginia illustrates the variation 

in local food defi nitions, monitoring procedures, and selling facilities across 

farmers’ markets, even within the same region (Battle, 2009). 7 Four of the 

markets defi ne “local” as goods grown or produced within a 100-mile radius 

and in Virginia. Two markets required food to be grown within a 75-mile 

radius, and one required food to be grown within the county. Two others 

have looser requirements, allowing some vendors to sell non-local produce. 

For the seven markets with specifi c growing location requirements, site visits 

are conducted at fi ve markets to verify compliance. One market also had 

restrictions on reselling goods. According to the USDA survey, 63 percent 

of farmers’ market managers reported that vendors were required to sell only 

the products that they produced (Ragland and Tropp, 2009). 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

During the 1960s, the concept of community supported agriculture originated 

in Switzerland and Japan (Farnsworth et al., 1996). A group of people buy 

shares for a portion of the expected harvest of a farm. CSAs traditionally 

 7More than two-thirds of farmers’ 

market managers surveyed by USDA 

reported that the market manager (36.6 

percent) or vendor-operated board of 

directors (32 percent) was responsible 

for creating market rules and bylaws 

(Ragland and Tropp, 2009).

Figure 1

U.S. farmers' market growth, 1994-2009

Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Farmers' Market Survey. 

1,755

2,410

2,746 2,863 3,137

3,706

4,385

4,685

5,274

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009
8

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 2

Farmers' market locations by county, 2009

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service, Food Environment Atlas, 2010. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/foodatlas.

required a one-time payment at the beginning of the season, but have since 

become more fl exible, offering two- to four-installment payment plans or 

payments on a monthly basis (Woods et al., 2009). Consumers often take 

on added risk because they pay a fi xed amount in advance, regardless of 

the realized quantity and quality of the harvest. Some CSAs offer members 

a price discount in exchange for providing farm labor. Members may be 

required to pick up their food at the farm, or it may be delivered to a centralized location, farmers’ market, or directly to the home or offi ce (Woods et 

al., 2009). 

In 1986, there were 2 CSA operations in the United States (Adam, 2006). 

By 2005, there were 1,144 CSAs compared to 761 in 2001, an increase 

of 50 percent (Adam, 2006). In 2010, the Robyn Van En Center, provider 

of a national resource center about CSAs based at Wilson College in 

Chambersburg, PA, estimates that there are over 1,400 CSAs in operation, 

but a 2009 survey found 700 CSAs in 9 States, which suggests the number 

could be much greater. An online registry estimates that the number of CSAs 

exceed 2,500 (Local Harvest, 2010) and are concentrated in the Northeast, 

areas surrounding the Great Lakes, and coastal regions of the West (fi g. 3). 

Business organizations for CSA programs include sole proprietorships (single 

farm), partnerships and farm cooperatives (multiple farms), and limited 

liability corporations. The larger CSAs tend to have more complex business 

structures (Woods et al., 2009). One advantage of multifarm CSAs is that 

farms can specialize in production to provide more variety in the total share. 
9

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

The typical CSA offers a mix of between 8 and 12 types of produce and 

herbs per week per shareholder throughout the growing season (Kantor, 

2001). The types of products offered have greatly expanded. According to a 

recent survey of 205 CSA producers in 9 States, 75 percent of survey respondents indicated that members could purchase nonproduce items, in addition 

to their CSA shares (Woods et. al., 2009). The most popular types of nonproduce items were eggs, meat, and fl owers. CSAs do not necessarily produce 

all of the products distributed in their CSA shares. Woods et al., (2009) found 

that 29 percent of CSAs surveyed did not produce all of their own products, 

with most reporting purchases from other local growers. 

Other Types of Direct-to-Consumer Marketing 

Other types of direct-to-consumer marketing include pick-your own, farm 

stands, community gardening, and on-farm stores (Lawless et al., 1999). 

Pick-your-own (PYO), or U-pick, operations became popular in the 1930s 

and 1940s, during the Depression and after World War II, when produce 

prices were low and producers could not cover labor and material costs 

(Lloyd et al., 1995). Crops that are well-suited for PYO operations include 

those with high labor requirements per acre, yet require little expertise 

to harvest. Examples include berries, tomatoes, pumpkins and Christmas 

trees. Roadside farm stands and on-farm stores operate year round from a 

permanent structure, or only during harvest periods from a truck, trailer, 

or tent (Lloyd et al., 1995). In urban areas, mobile fruit and vegetable 

vending provides opportunities for local produce to be introduced as impulse 

Figure 3

Community Supported Agriculture locations, 2009

Source: Local Harvest, 2010. Available at: http://www.Localharvest.org. © Local Harvest. Map used with permission from Local Harvest.
10

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

purchases for consumers in public areas such as parks and on city sidewalks. 

Mobile venders offer opportunities to provide underserved communities with 

fresh produce in locations where brick-and-mortar stores are not feasible, and 

can be adept at providing culturally appropriate food items (Public Health 

Law and Policy, 2009). 

Community gardening, household gardening, and garden sharing are technically not market sources of local foods, but are important in providing 

households with local food access. According to the National Gardening 

Association’s Impact of Home and Community Gardening in America 

Survey, 43 million U.S. households intended to grow their own fresh fruits, 

vegetables, berries, and herbs in 2009, up from 36 million, or 19 percent 

more than 2008. Food gardening in 2008 was valued at $2.5 billion. About 

$2.8 billion was spent on gardening inputs in 2008, or about $70 per 

gardening household (National Gardening Association, 2009). Vegetables, 

the most popular type of food gardening product, were grown by 23 percent 

of all households, fruit trees by 10 percent, berries by 6 percent, and herbs 

by 12 percent. The average garden size was 600 square feet in 2008, but 

the median size was 96 square feet. Most food gardeners were women (54 

percent), 45 years of age and older (68 percent), residents of the South (29 

percent) and Midwest (26 percent), in households with annual incomes of 

$50,000 and over (49 percent), in married households (64 percent), and in 

households with no children at home (67 percent).

Among gardening households, 23 percent stated that one reason for 

gardening is to share food with others. About 33 million households (91 

percent of gardening households) had a food garden at home, and 2 million 

(5 percent) had one at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative (known 

as garden sharing), while 1 million (3 percent) participated in a community 

garden (National Gardening Association, 2009). Not only do households 

consume and share their produce with neighbors, relatives, and friends, 

but food banks also benefi t from and participate in community gardens. 

Through the Garden Writers Association program Plant a Row for the 

Hungry, gardeners have supplied more than 14 million pounds of herbs and 

vegetables to food banks and soup kitchens since 1995 (Garden Writers 

Association, 2008). Gardening is also correlated with increased awareness 

and consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables and greater physical activity 

among children (Heim et al., 2009), urban adults (Alaimo et al., 2008), and 

seniors (Park et al., 2009). 

Direct-to-Retail/Foodservice Marketing

Most local food may not be direct-to-consumer. According to research fi rm 

Packaged Facts (2007), local food sales through all marketing channels in the 

United States were $5 billion in 2007, compared to $1.2 billion in direct-toconsumer sales for human consumption (table 1). 

Guptill and Wilkens (2002) conducted interviews with seven owners and 

managers of different types of grocery stores in one New York county to 

assess their experiences with selling locally produced foods. Based on interview results, produce and, to a lesser extent, dairy and other perishables are 

the most important focus in promoting local food. In addition, local foods 

are consistently promoted as “special” or “premium” products. Geographic 
11

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

defi nitions of local included the local county and surrounding counties, or a 

30-mile radius, which covers much of the same territory. 

Based on site visits to 38 grocery stores in Wisconsin and neighboring areas, 

Lawless et al., (1999) found common marketing strategies among the stores. 

For example, many stores included the location of the produce source, such 

as Wisconsin-grown or photographs of farm suppliers. Fresh produce was 

the most popular local food item, followed by dairy and eggs. On average, 

57 percent of their local food purchases were directly from farmers rather 

than wholesalers. 

Small, independent grocery retailers, whose identity and store assortment 

practices have closer links to specifi c geographic locations, are better positioned to incorporate local food as part of their corporate identity (Packaged 

Facts, 2007). Dorothy Lane Market, a small independent supermarket with 

three gourmet stores in Dayton, OH, began as a fruit stand in 1948. Since 

that time, it has developed a strong relationship with local farmers and now 

carries products that traveled a short distance in all departments. However, 

just last year it adopted a defi nition of “local” as food locally grown or raised 

within a 250-mile radius of Dayton.

While the relationship is indirect, the results of a 2008 USDA survey about 

organic foods reveal the importance of niche retail marketing channels 

in distributing highly differentiated farm products to consumers (USDA, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010). According to the survey, a 

surprisingly large percentage of organic farm products were sold by retail 

stores specializing in natural foods (6.7 percent), compared to conventional supermarkets (12.1 percent). Whole Foods, a natural and organic 

food retailer, has its own guidelines for using the term “local” in stores, 

which vary by store. To be considered for the local designation, products 

must have traveled less than a day (7 or fewer hours by car or truck) from 

farm to store. However, most of its stores have established even shorter 

maximum distances. 

As food companies strive to grow or maintain market share in a slowly 

growing domestic food economy, mainstream distribution channels for 

marketing food products in the United States are changing. Over the past 

10 years, the food industry has seen an infl ux of store types not traditionally involved in food sales, led by supercenters. This has created incentives 

for fi rms to differentiate from the competition by responding to consumer 

demand for new product offerings, including local foods. More supermarkets 

are installing local aisles in their stores, and more small specialty plants are 

being built to handle locally produced food for those stores (Smith, 2009). 

Several leading retailers have recently announced local food initiatives. In a 

July 1, 2008, press release, Wal-Mart expressed its commitment to “source 

more local fruits and vegetables to keep produce prices down and provide 

affordable selections that are fresh and healthful.” More recently, Safeway, 

the fi fth-largest U.S. food retailer, announced that it is launching a campaign 

to signifi cantly increase its focus on locally grown produce. Publix, the 

sixth-largest U.S. grocer, recently indicated that it will promote Redlands 

Raised produce in its Florida stores. The Redlands Raised produce is grown 

in southwest Miami-Dade County and uses the “Fresh from Florida” State 
12

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

brand in its other southeastern stores. 8 Grand Rapids, MI-based Meijer, the 

tenth-largest grocery retailer in the Nation, announced that it will expand 

its “Home Grown” initiative by working with more than 65 local growers 

to increase sourcing of local produce. Sudbury, PA-based Weis Markets, a 

large regional grocer in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, 

and West Virginia, launched its new “Local and Proud of It” campaign to 

highlight its commitment to offering locally grown produce, which accounts 

for 20 percent of its total in-season produce sales. Grand Rapids, MI-based 

Spartan Stores, a food wholesaler that owns 84 corporate grocery stores, 

promotes a relatively new “Michigan’s Best” campaign and highlights fresh 

food produced in Michigan on its website. 

A recent inspection of the top 10 U.S. food retailers’ websites provides some 

insight into mainstream retailer ventures into local food marketing and prominence attained by the local food movement (table 4). Seven sites have some 

reference to local foods. Only Wal-Mart and Delhaize America (operator of 

Food Lion, Bloom, Bottom Dollar, and other supermarkets) have a specifi c 

defi nition of local food. Texas-based H.E. Butt and Ahold (a Netherlandsbased international grocery retailer who owns the Giant and Stop & Shop 

grocery chains in the United States) simply advertise State-grown produce 

without providing a specifi c defi nition of “local.” Three of the retailers 

provide information about the quantity of produce they sell that is sourced 

locally within season, ranging from 20 percent for Wal-Mart to 30 percent 

for Safeway and Meijer. Kroger and Meijer also mention auditing practices 

as part of their quality and safety assurances. 

Consumer-owned retail food cooperatives are another type of distribution 

channel for marketing local foods. These are organizations that are owned 

and operated by their members. They are similar to grocery stores that offer 

price discounts to members, stock many products in bulk, and are often 

committed to purchasing organic and locally grown foods. Membership is 

open to anyone who invests a small fee, which enables them to provide input 

into the operation of the co-op. Many co-ops offer discounted member fees 

to those who work at the store, often committing a few hours a week to help 

unload deliveries, shelve products, or work as cashiers. 

In 2006, 87 percent of fi ne-dining establishments served local items, as did 

75 percent of family dining and casual dining restaurants (Packaged Facts, 

2007). Some restaurants exclusively offer locally grown foods and are willing 

to have a more limited menu in order to offer in-season products that they 

believe their customers want. These types of restaurants typically open in 

places where consumers are highly supportive of the local foods movement. 

Surveys conducted by the National Restaurant Association (NRA) suggest 

increasing interest in local foods by restaurants and their patrons. An annual 

survey of professional chef members of the American Culinary Federation 

found that locally grown produce ranked fi rst in hot trends for 2010, and 

locally sourced meats and seafood ranked second (see more details at: http://

www.restaurant.org/pdfs/research/whats_hot_2010.pdf/). Eighty-eight 

percent of chefs rated locally grown produce as a hot trend, 10 percent 

considered it a “perennial favorite,” and 2 percent ranked it as “yesterday’s 

news.” The local-foods trend has become particularly popular at fi ne-dining 

establishments. According to NRA’s 2008 operator survey, 89 percent of 

 8State-funded branding programs 

grew from 23 States in 1995 to 43 in 

2006.
13

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 4

Local foods on the top 10 grocery retailer websites1

Local foods on 

website Defi nition Amount sourced locally Comments

Wal-Mart Yes Grown and available for purchase 

within a State’s 

borders.

$400 million in locally 

grown produce. During summer season, 

locally sourced produce 

accounts for one-fi fth of 

produce available. 

Most extensive information on local 

foods among the top 10 grocery retailers, including an online feature. Clear 

locally grown signage in stores with 

offi cial State-grown marks.

Kroger Yes Not defi ned Not available Local produce sourced in June, July, 

and August. Field inspectors examine 

produce in fi elds near store to ensure 

quality and sanitation guidelines are 

followed. 

Costco No na2 na na

Supervalu No na na na

Safeway Yes “Regional” growing 

partners

Over 30 percent of 

produce

Part of CSR3 reporting in community 

enrichment activities

Publix No na na na

Ahold Yes Pennsylvania 

Preferred

Not available Part of their CSR3 reporting in sustainable trade activities

Delhaize 

America4

Yes The 16 States in 

which the company 

operates

Not available Part of their CSR3 reporting in responsible sourcing activities 

H.E. Butt Yes Texas blueberries Not available Touts Texas-grown blueberries as part of 

its local buying tradition

Meijer Yes Not defi ned 30 percent of fruit and 

vegetables are sourced 

locally during peak 

growing season.

Features a growing chart indicating when fruits and vegetables are in 

season, and a farmer “behind the fresh 

produce on our shelves;” visits farms 

and works with growers on quality and 

safety expectations; most locally grown 

produce goes directly to the distribution 

center for quality checks 

1As of June 2009.

2na= not applicable

3Corporate social responsibility (CSR).

4Hannaford Supermarkets, operated by Delhaize America, recently launched an interactive map on their website to show where 

their local vendors are located and the types of products provided (http://www.hannaford.com/Contents/Our_Stores/close_to_

home/ny/ny.shtml).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of company websites.
14

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

fi ne-dining operators served locally sourced items, and 90 percent believed it 

will become more popular (National Restaurant Association, 2009). 

Nearly 30 percent of quickservice operators served locally sourced items in 

2008, and nearly half believe these items will grow more popular (National 

Restaurant Association, 2009). Locally sourced items ranked third on the 

list of “hot/trendy” food items in the quickservice segment. Seventy percent 

of adults said they were more likely to visit a restaurant that offers locally 

produced food items. In 2008, Chipotle Mexican Grill, one of the fastest 

growing quickservice chains, began purchasing 25 percent of at least one 

produce item for each of its stores from farms located within 200 miles. 

A survey of restaurant chefs and food buyers belonging to Chefs 

Collaborative, a national network of more than 1,000 members who support 

sustainable cuisine, found that many members have signifi cant expertise in 

purchasing local food (Food Processing Center, 2003). Ninety percent of 

survey respondents indicated that their establishments have promoted the 

use of locally grown food on their menus or advertising material. Thirty-four 

percent reported that over half of their food purchases were locally grown, 

and 16 percent purchased at least 75 percent of their food from local sources. 

Eighty-one percent have purchased ingredients directly from farmers, 71 

percent have shopped at farmers’ markets, 54 percent have bought locally 

grown products from foodservice distributors, 46 percent from local processors, and 39 percent from farmers’ cooperatives. More than half indicated a 

preference for purchasing directly from a farmer. 

Farm to school programs represent an important component of the institutional market for locally grown produce. These are collaborative programs 

that connect schools to local farmers. For most of these programs, school 

food authorities buy fresh produce directly from local farmers for some or 

all of their produce needs (Joshi et al., 2007; USDA, FNS, 2010a). In other 

programs, schools sponsor school garden projects or fi eld trips to nearby 

farms as part of an expanded nutrition education curriculum. 

The overall goals of the programs are to provide children with access to fresh 

fruits and vegetables, and promote relationships between schools and farms 

that can strengthen over time. Many school foodservice directors are seeking 

approaches to increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in response to 

concerns about childhood obesity and school meal quality. Proponents 

believe that farm to school programs provide many benefi ts to students and 

small farmers (Joshi and Azuma, 2009). Students, it is argued, will be more 

interested in eating healthy fruits and vegetables because local produce is 

fresher and more fl avorful. In addition, they will be more inclined to eat 

fruits and vegetables that they have seen growing in the fi elds or in their own 

gardens. Proponents also argue that schools can provide an environment that 

stimulates better eating habits from an early age by showcasing local produce 

and how to prepare it. For farmers, schools can provide a relatively larger 

and more dependable market for their produce. 

Farm to school programs have grown rapidly over the last decade (fi g. 4). 

The National Farm to School Network, a collaboration of groups supporting 

farm to school programs, estimated that there were 2,051 farm to school 

programs in the United States in 2009; twice as many as in 2005-06. As of 
15

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

August 2009, they estimated that 41 States had some kind of farm to school 

program, and 8,943 schools in 2,065 districts participated.

While data and analysis of farm to school programs are scarce, a recent 

survey about school nutrition issues included questions about the purchase of 

locally grown food and State farm to school programs. The nationally representative 2005 School Nutrition Dietary Study-III (SNDA III) asked: “Does 

your school district have guidelines on purchasing locally grown foods” and 

“Does your district purchase food from the ‘State Farm to School’ program?” 

Participation in the State farm to school programs was reported to be fairly 

high given the newness of the programs (table 5). Fourteen percent of school 

districts reported participating. Even more school districts reported having 

guidelines for purchasing locally grown produce.

Another source of information about the growth of local markets in schools 

comes from the School Nutrition Association (SNA). 9 Each year, the group 

publishes results from a member survey on practices, trends, and policy 

issues. The 2009 SNA survey included a question about the extent to which 

school food authorities (SFAs) purchase local foods (“Does your foodservice 

program purchase food items from local growers?”).10 Thirty-four percent 

of the 1,207 SFA members sampled answered yes, and 22 percent said that 

they did not, but are considering doing so (table 6). They also found that 

the largest districts were most likely to purchase local foods; 44 percent 

compared to 27 percent for the smallest schools. Districts in the Northeast 

were the most likely to purchase local foods, with 57 percent saying “yes,” 

while the Mideast was least likely.11

Hospital and foodservice administrators note that healthcare institutions 

can infl uence better eating habits through purchasing local foods for use 

in cafeteria or food-court service and patient meals (Sachs and Feenstra). 

Local seasonal produce can be less expensive than nonlocal purchases, and 

 9SNA is a national, nonprofi t 

professional organization for school 

food authorities, representing more 

than 55,000 members.

 10The 2009 survey, called The 

School Nutrition Operations Report: 

The State of School Nutrition 2009, had 

a 34-percent response rate and a sample 

of 1,207 members.

 11The SNA results are at best 

representative of SNA members, but 

they are not designed to be representative of all school districts. Compared 

to the SNA survey, the question posed 

in SNDA-III is slightly different, since 

it only asks whether there are district guidelines or not. Therefore, the 

SNDA-III results could be failing to 

count schools or districts that purchase 

local foods, but do not have guidelines 

for doing so. In addition, some schools 

may have guidelines, but do not purchase local products.

Figure 4

Growth in farm to school programs

Source: National Farm to School Network. 

Number of programs

Year

2 6

400

1,000

2,051

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1996-97 2001 2004 2005-06 2009
16

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

School district participation in State farm to school programs and use 

of guidelines for buying fresh or locally grown produce, 2005

Weighted share 

(N=391)

School district participates in State farm to school program 14 percent

School district has guidelines for buying locally grown produce 16 percent

School district has guidelines for buying fresh produce 10 percent

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of School Nutrition Dietary 

Assessment III survey data.

Table 6

Local food purchases by school foodservice directors, 20091

Yes No, but are 

considering No Not sure/no response

Percent

Overall 34 22 40 4 

Region2 Mideast 21 25 53 1 

Northeast 57 21 19 4 

Southeast 26 19 51 4 

West 39 16 37 8 

Midwest 26 29 43 3 

Northwest 45 20 33 1 

Southwest 23 22 50 5 

School size 

(number of 

students)

Under 1,000 27 17 54 2 

1,000–2,499 39 23 37 2 

2,500–4,999 31 22 44 4 

5,000–9,999 33 25 38 5 

10,000–24,999 31 23 40 5 

25,000+ 44 13 36 8 

1 Sample size = 1,207.

2 The School Nutrition Association regional defi nitions differ from those of commonly used 

Census regions. These are the States that comprise each School Nutrition Association region:

Mideast = Maryland, Washington, DC, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan

Northeast = Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, 

New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

Southeast = Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky

West = California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico

Midwest = North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, 

Wisconsin

Northwest = Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming

Southwest = Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana

Source: School Nutrition Association, School Nutrition Operations Report: The State of School 

Nutrition 2009.
17

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

featuring local foods has been found to increase sales at hospital cafeterias, 

and represents a potential strategy to attract employees and patients (Sachs 

and Feenstra). Health Care Without Harm (http://www.noharm.org), an international coalition of 430 organizations in 52 countries, works with hospitals 

to develop and promote food-purchasing practices consistent with social, 

environmental, and healthy diet goals. As of 2009, 284 hospital facilities, 

including several private corporate hospitals, had signed the Health Care 

Without Harm Healthy Food Pledge to: increase offerings of fruits and vegetables, along with minimally processed foods; identify and adopt sustainable food procurement, including purchasing local foods; and promote and 

educate about healthy foods. (For more details, see: http://www.noharm.org/

us_canada/issues/food/signers.php/).
18

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Characteristics of Local Food Suppliers

At local food markets, multiple small farmers sell a variety of products and 

are part of a short supply chain in which farmers take on marketing functions, 

including storage, packaging, transportation, distribution, and advertising 

that would be handled by market intermediaries if they were selling in the 

mainstream food system. In this section, we examine the characteristics of local 

food suppliers, and challenges associated with expanding local food supplies. 

Hunt (2007) found that vendors surveyed at eight farmers’ markets in Maine, 

who identifi ed themselves as farmers, were younger and more educated than 

other farmers in the State or region. The mean age of the surveyed farmers was 

44, compared with an average age of 54 for all Maine farmers. The farmers’ 

market vendor-farmers reported higher levels of education, with 53 percent 

completing 4-year degrees, compared with 19 percent of other farmers in the 

region. Vendor farmers also had higher median annual household income 

($42,500) compared with other Maine farm and ranch households ($10,995). 

Starr et al., (2003) conducted telephone interviews with farmers in Colorado 

about direct sales to foodservice operations. The researchers found that the 

likelihood of a farm being involved in direct marketing was greater if: a farm 

was smaller; a farm grew more types of products; and the farmer placed greater 

importance on using environmentally friendly production practices. 

According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, on average, the primary 

operator of a farm selling directly to consumers had 4 years less experience 

than operators not engaged in direct-to-consumer sales. Two out of fi ve of the 

primary operators were classifi ed as beginning farmers, and three out of fi ve 

farms were classifi ed as socially disadvantaged.12

Most Farms That Sell Directly to Consumers Are Small 

Counties with the highest levels of direct sales are concentrated in the urban 

corridors of the Northeast and the West Coast (fi g. 5). Direct sales in these 

counties amount to $1 million or more. Counties with median direct sales of 

$122,000 or less are concentrated in the Great Plains and South regions.13

Access to urban markets is crucial to farms engaged in direct sales. There 

were 71,400 direct-sales farms located in metro counties, and 44,100 were 

located in rural counties adjacent to metro counties (table 7). Together, these 

farms accounted for 84 percent of all farms engaged in direct sales. Farms 

in metro and adjacent areas earned nearly $1.1 billion from direct sales to 

consumers—or 89 percent of all direct sales income. Direct sales per farm 

decreased for farms located progressively further from metropolitan counties; averaging $10,987 for farms located in metro counties, $6,767 for farms 

in rural counties adjacent to metro counties, and $6,090 for farms in remote 

rural counties.

While three broad sales classes of farms accounted for roughly one-third each 

of total direct sales, small farms accounted for the largest number of farms 

engaged in direct sales (see table 7). Average direct sales per small farm was 

relatively low, but accounted for over 35 percent of such farms’ total farm 

 12USDA’s current defi nition of 

a beginning farm is one operated by a 

farmer who has not operated a farm or 

ranch for more than 10 years. USDA’s 

defi nition of a socially disadvantaged 

group is one whose members have been 

subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice 

because of their identity as members 

of a group without regard to their individual qualities. Women have also been 

added to the list of socially disadvantaged farm operators. 

 13The Plains include Kansas, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, and Texas. The South 

includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

South Carolina.
19

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

sales, providing an important sales outlet for farm output. By selling directly 

to consumers, small farmers may retain some of the value-added captured by 

other fi rms further down the supply chain. Gale (1997) suggested that this 

form of marketing can assist rural communities by preserving small farms.

In contrast, the medium and large farms accounted for fewer direct-sales 

farms. While they earned larger direct sales per farm than small farms, direct 

sales accounted for decreasing contributions to their total farm sales (see 

table 7). Average direct sales per farm accounted for 17 percent of mediumsized farms’ total sales, and only 7.5 percent of large farms’ total sales. 

Direct sales ventures among large farms appear to be well integrated into 

diversifi ed farm operations, but are far less important marketing outlets in 

generating additional farm income.

Produce Farms Account for Over Half of Direct Sales 

to Consumers

Although there were fewer produce growers engaged in direct sales compared 

with livestock and other crop producers, they accounted for a larger share of 

all produce farms (see table 7). Forty-four percent of all vegetable and melonFigure 5

Value of direct sales to consumers by county, 2007

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture.

Legend

Median sales or less

$123,000 up to $1 million

$1 million up to $2.5 million

$2.5 million or more

Not available/disclosure issues
20

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 7

Direct farm sales to consumers, by farm type, value of sales, and metro-adjacency status, 2007

Farms reporting 

direct sales

Share of 

all farms1 Direct sales Share of 

all sales2

Direct sales 

per farm3

Thousands Percent Million dollars Percent Dollars

Farm type

 Vegetables & melons 18.0 44.1 335 25.1 18,611

 Fruits and nuts 17.2 17.5 344 26.2 20,000

 Other crops 22.4 2.4 155 7.2 6,920

 Livestock & livestock products 79.3 6.9 377 9.3 4,754

Farm sales class (annual sales)

 Small farm (less than $50,000) 116.0 6.1 372 35.2 3,206

 Medium farm ($50,000 to $499,999) 17.9 7.3 466 17.0 26,016

 Large farm ($500,000 or more) 2.9 3.1 373 7.5 127,113

Urbanization

 Metropolitan counties 71.4 8.0 783 18.1 10,969

 Nonmetro counties adjacent to metro areas 44.1 5.6 299 11.2 6,768

 Remote rural counties 21.3 4.1 130 7.3 6,090

Total 136.8 6.2 1,211 13.8 8,853

1Direct sales farms as a percentage of all farms in this farm type, farm sales, or urbanization category. 

2Direct sales as a percentage of total sales for farms reporting direct sales.

3Direct sales divided by number of farms reporting direct sales.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture data. 

producers sold directly to consumers, while 17 percent of all fruit and nut 

producers were engaged in direct sales. On the other hand, only 7 percent of 

all livestock producers and 2 percent of other crop producers were engaged in 

direct sales to consumers.14 Fruit and nut producers and vegetable and melon 

producers also earned higher direct sales per farm (see table 7). 

Among products sold through direct markets, vegetable and fruits need 

little processing and, therefore, are most readily available for market either 

through farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and pick-your-own operations. 

While only 26 percent of all direct-sales farms were vegetable and fruit 

farms, they accounted for 56 percent of all direct sales (fi g. 6). Producers 

of other crops, livestock, and livestock products accounted for nearly threefourths of all direct-sales farms, but earned only one-third to one-fourth of 

the sales per farm generated by vegetable and fruit producers. 

Direct Sales Are Higher for Farms Engaging in Other 

Entrepreneurial Activities

Direct sales to consumers have been seen as an alternative income source for 

the farm entrepreneur. Given the high participation rate among small farms 

in direct sales, Gale (1997) posited that direct sales can serve as a catalyst 

for other income-generating onfarm entrepreneurial activities, such as agritourism. According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, 14 percent of all farms 

 14Livestock producers include 

those that raise livestock and produce 

livestock products. The production of 

beef from all cattle operations, chicken 

meat from all chicken operations, and 

turkeys accounted for 90 percent of 

sales in the livestock category. Dairy 

products and eggs accounted for 96 

percent of sales in the livestock products category.
21

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

participated in one or more of the following onfarm entrepreneurial activities: 

direct sales to consumers, value-added production of farm goods, customwork, agritourism, alternative energy production, sales of forest products, 

sales through community supported agriculture, and organic production.15

In 2007, direct-sales activities surpassed customwork to become the leading 

onfarm entrepreneurial activity involving farm household participation. 

Integrating other onfarm entrepreneurial activities with direct-sales ventures 

appears to capture synergies, which leads to increased income from direct 

sales to consumers. Among direct-sales farms, 68 percent engaged in direct 

sales alone, and earned $6,844 per farm (fi g. 7). At the opposite end of the 

spectrum, 2 percent of direct-sales farms engaged in three additional onfarm 

entrepreneurial activities, averaging $28,651 in direct sales per farm, or four 

times that of farms engaged in direct sales only.

Bundling other onfarm entrepreneurial activities with direct sales appears to 

be an important strategy for small farms, as they constituted 77 percent of 

all farms combining direct sales with other activities. Small farms engaged 

in other entrepreneurial activities also sold directly to consumers, including 

28 percent that produced value-added goods on the farm, such as processed 

products; 33 percent that participated in CSAs; and 49 percent of organic 

producers (fi g. 8). Small farms appear to exploit complementarities between 

these activities and direct-sales ventures. For the other onfarm activities, the 

link with direct sales does not appear as strong: only 8 percent of all small 

farms operating agritourism enterprises also sold directly to consumers; 13 

percent of small farms that engaged in customwork or alternative energy 

production on the farm sold directly; 14 percent of small farms that produced 

forest products sold directly (see fi g. 8). 

 15Customwork includes gross 

receipts received by farm operators 

for providing services for others such 

as planting, plowing, spraying, and 

harvesting. Forest products include 

standing timber, pulpwood, fi rewood, 

etc. from the farm or ranch operation. It 

excludes income from nonfarm timber 

tracts, sawmill businesses, cut Christmas trees, and maple products.

Figure 6

Direct-sales farms and income by farm type, 2007

Source: USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture. 

16%

58%

13%

13%

Livestock

13%

31%

28%

28%

Number of direct-sales 

farms – 136,800 

Income from direct 

sales – $1.2 billion 

Vegetable 

and melon

Fruit and nut Other crops 

and plants
22

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 7

Bundling of other onfarm activities with direct sales

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Direct sales only 1 2 3+

Number of additional onfarm activities engaged in by direct-sales farms

Percent

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Dollars

Percent of all farms 

reporting direct sales

Percent of all 

direct sales 

Average direct

sales per farm

$28,651

$6,844

$10,568

$19,818

Figure 8

Small farms with direct sales often engage in other 

entrepreneurial activities

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of USDA, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service, 2007 Census of Agriculture data.

Percent

Type of onfarm entrepreneurial activity

0

10

20

30

40

50

Customwork

Forest

products

Agritourism

Alternative

energy 

Farmproduced

goods

CSAs Organic

products

Onfarm activities unrelated 

to local foods systems

Complementary onfarm 

activities linked to local 

foods systems

Organic farms that marketed directly to consumers sold a larger percentage 

of organic commodities compared with all organic farms, and earned more 

per farm from direct sales compared to all direct-sales farms. For all 20,474 

farms recording organic sales in the 2007 Census of Agriculture, sales of 

organic commodities accounted for $1.7 billion, or 27 percent of $6.1 billion 

in total farm sales. Forty-one percent of these farms also sold $131 million of 

farm output directly to consumers, and sales of organic commodities represented 44 percent of their total sales.16 Organic farms that sold directly to 

 16Census of Agriculture currently 

does not provide data for determining 

the percentage of these farms’ direct 

sales that is attributable to organic commodities. Census data cannot identify 

those farms that produce only organic 

products. 
23

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

consumers earned an average of $15,512 in direct sales per farm, which was 

75 percent above average direct sales per farm for all direct-sales farms.

Barriers to Market Entry and Expansion

Barriers to entry and expansion may hinder progress in local-food market 

development. Market barriers and solutions to these constraints follow:

Capacity Limitations Constrain Small, Local Growers

For producers of local foods, who often run small-scale farm operations, it 

can be diffi cult to meet intermediary demands for high volumes, consistent 

quality, timely deliveries, and out-of-season availability (Shipman, 2009; 

Sachs and Feenstra, undated; Abate, 2008; Gregoire et al., 2005; Guptill 

and Wilkens, 2002; Chefs Collaborative, 2008). It may be diffi cult for small 

local growers to scale up, as much time is spent off-farm, selling products 

to consumers. Findings from the USDA Agricultural Management Survey 

(ARMS) indicate that growers who work off-farm generally have fewer 

incentives to expand and become more effi cient than do small growers who 

do not participate in alternative, off-farm marketing activities (FernandezCornejo et al., 2007). In other words, the incentive of smaller farmers to 

expand and become more effi cient is diminished as more time is spent offfarm performing additional entrepreneurial activities such as marketing at 

farmers’ markets. 

Signifi cant costs of direct marketing and onfarm processing, especially those 

related to time and labor, can present obstacles to expansion of local food 

sales (Lawless et al., 1999; Biermacher et al., 2007). Interviews with farmers 

in New York (LeRoux et al., 2009; Uva, 2002) and California (Hardesty, 

2008; Kambara and Shelley, 2002) indicated that shortage of labor related 

specifi cally to marketing activities is consistently reported by farmers as 

being a barrier to direct marketing. Proximity to metro areas only somewhat alleviates labor constraints if farm wages and work availability are not 

competitive with urban labor conditions. Time involved in customer relations, travel and delivery, processing and packing, and scheduled harvesting 

to meet the needs of direct marketing varies across direct-marketing venues, 

but is particularly extensive for farmers’ markets and u-pick operations 

(LeRoux et al., 2009). 

From the farmers’ perspective, marketing risks when selling in local markets 

include low sales volume, price competition from multiple sellers with 

the same product and local angle, rejection based on quality requirements, 

inability to meet specifi cations, inability to meet logistical requirements, and 

buyers backing out of contracts (LeRoux et al., 2009). These concerns are not 

easily managed by the smallest growers, particularly differences in specifi cations and packaging across outlets. Many farmers who successfully bridge 

multiple direct outlets invest in technologies and management strategies that 

permit the same harvesting, processing, and transportation systems to be used 

across outlets. For example, bagged lettuces can be sold to both school lunch 

programs and at farmers’ markets, possibly in different sized bags but using 

the same postharvest supply and marketing chain. By having a single production process that appeals to multiple markets, risk of sales shocks in one 

outlet may be offset by availability of different outlets.
24

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Obstacles to restaurant purchases include inconsistent availability and 

quality, diffi culty identifying reliable local suppliers, diffi culty in making 

purchases (due to farmers’ ordering procedures), and dealing with multiple 

suppliers (Painter, 2008). These concerns are echoed in surveys of institutional buyers summarized by Hardesty (2008): year-round availability, local 

and State regulations, working with multiple vendors, obtaining adequate 

supply, reliable food quantity, and on-time delivery. 

While foodservice directors in Minnesota have expressed interest in a wide 

variety of locally produced products, many felt that they had limited knowledge about what products were available locally and at what times of the year 

(Berkenkamp, 2006). Some of these obstacles can be reduced by training 

sessions that explain what is grown in the region, and teach foodservice staffs 

how and when to introduce these products into school menus (Hurst, 2009). 

In addition, many directors noted problems fi nding farmers who have the 

needed product, price, and delivery capacity. In some cases where farmers 

lacked the delivery capacity to deliver to multiple schools, foodservice staff 

had to arrange transportation or deliver the food themselves (Berkenkamp, 

2006). Time needed to negotiate terms and coordinate deliveries was cited by 

many directors as reasons for purchasing a limited number of local products. 

A signifi cant number of foodservice directors also expressed displeasure 

with products not being delivered at the date and time expected, and with the 

quality dimensions specifi ed. In most cases, the districts relied on a single 

farmer and had no contingency plan. 

In addition to budget constraints, major challenges to local purchasing in 

hospitals include: large volumes needed; effi ciencies required in ordering, 

delivery, and billing; contract requirements with existing vendors; lack of 

staff skills in preparing fresh foods; and lack of administrative support (Sachs 

and Feenstra, undated). School lunch programs face similar constraints. 

Some Federal purchasing programs may have an uncertain effect on local 

food procurement. USDA purchases and processes food through several 

programs including The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the 

Commodity Supplemental Food Program.17 Without a specifi c policy to 

encourage local purchases, these national programs may favor purchases 

from large suppliers who can offer discounts on pricing and can better facilitate bulk shipments. 

Small local growers sometimes overcome scale limitations by pooling 

resources and diversifying tasks within the supply chain. Production pooling 

allows small local farmers to capture the advantages that come with larger 

scale production systems (economic and logistical effi ciencies), and may 

work to meet the supply requirements of large institutional markets (Abate,

2008). Based on their literature review, Vogt and Kaiser (2008) found that 

recommendations made by farmers to increase direct farm sales to institutions included building a local customer base and partnering with other 

farmers. They also found that the most commonly cited factor to increase 

the likelihood of farm to school program success was farmer co-ops/regional 

brokers to allow “one-stop shopping.” Interviews with small-scale farmers 

by Lawless et al., (1999) found cooperation between farmers in promoting 

or managing direct marketing ventures to be an important ingredient in their 

 17The 2008 Farm Act contains a 

provision authorizing $60 million of 

Commodity Credit Corporation funds 

over 4 years for a pilot project to assess 

local/regional purchases of food aid for 

emergency relief.
25

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

success. None of the farmers interviewed in the study expressed interest in 

expanding sales to local restaurants without working together in a joint effort.

Producers can move higher volumes of local food along the supply chain by 

using an intermediary to pack, distribute, or ship local products to consumers 

through traditional supermarket channels, restaurants, or institutions. Such 

intermediaries allow growers to spend more time managing the farm. 

However, Berkenkamp (2006) found few cases where school districts were 

working through distributors to purchase local produce on a large scale. 

Production Capacity Is Constrained by Lack of Infrastructure 

Lack of infrastructure related to distribution of local and regional food has 

also been reported as a barrier to local food market development (Shipman, 

2009; Vogt and Kaiser, 2008; Kirby, Jackson, and Perrett, 2007; Chefs 

Collaborative, 2008). The local food supply chain lacks mid-scale, aggregation and distribution systems that move local food into mainstream markets 

in a cost-effective manner (Day-Farnsworth et al., 2009). Lack of investment capital for supply chain infrastructure, such as vehicles, temperaturecontrolled storage facilities, and processing plants, can be a signifi cant barrier 

to starting local aggregation and distribution businesses. Farmers have stated 

that regulatory and processing barriers to meat and value-added product sales 

present signifi cant obstacles to increasing local sales (Ostrom, 2006). Smallscale meat processing facilities often lack capacity, equipment, acceptable 

inspection status, and human/fi nancial capital to meet demand requirements 

(Matteson and Heuer, 2008). In addition, both growers and buyers express 

a need for more midscale food processing to improve effi ciencies in institutional food preparation (Day-Farnsworth et al., 2009). 

Vogt and Kaiser (2008) found that while institutional food buyers may 

be interested in regional foods, it was seldom a priority because of few 

supporting programs and inadequate distribution channels. Commonly cited 

barriers included the convenience of current ordering method, complicated 

logistics for negotiations, unreliable supply and on-time delivery due to 

seasonality or small farm size that make planning diffi cult, and information 

about regional growers. Entrepreneurs that have access to funding or in-kind 

resources for infrastructure, professional marketing, and other services have 

clear advantages in the supply chain (Day-Farnsworth et al., 2009). 

One of the biggest problems faced by school districts is their dependence on 

large, steady supplies of precooked food (Hurst, 2009). Many school systems 

are not prepared to handle foods that come directly from farms. Further 

processing of products such as whole carrots, potatoes, and chickens present 

problems for small, understaffed school kitchens, and may discourage school 

districts from “scaling up” their purchases of local foods (Berkenkamp, 

2006). This suggests a role for distributors in purchasing and processing farm 

products, and ensuring that foods meet sanitation standards.

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 required that the Secretary 

of Agriculture encourage institutions operating all Child Nutrition Programs 

to purchase unprocessed locally grown and locally raised agricultural 

products. As of October 1, 2008, such institutions could apply an optional 

geographic preference when buying unprocessed locally grown or locally 
26

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

raised agricultural products; this could affect farm to school programs. This 

option also could be used by the Department of Defense Fresh Program when 

purchasing for Child Nutrition Programs. USDA published a proposed rule 

defi ning “unprocessed agricultural products” to be used for the purpose of 

applying the optional geographic preference

The proposed rule is currently being implemented until a fi nal rule is 

published. For purposes of applying the optional geographic preference 

provision, “unprocessed locally grown or locally raised agricultural products” means only those agricultural products that retain their inherent character. Agricultural products that undergo the following food handling and 

preservation techniques are considered to be unprocessed: cooling; refrigerating; freezing; size adjustment made by peeling, slicing, dicing, cutting, 

chopping, shucking or grinding; drying/dehydration; washing; applying high 

water pressure or “cold pasteurization;” packaging (such as placing eggs in 

cartons); vacuum packing and bagging (such as placing vegetables in bags); 

butchering livestock and poultry; cleaning fi sh; and the pasteurization of 

milk. However, the following processing activities disqualify a product from 

geographic preference: cooking, seasoning, canning, combining with other 

products, and processing meat into a hamburger patty. 

Restrictions on handling may be a limitation to local food growers who 

have diffi culty selling to schools without kitchens (Shipman, 2009), or to 

growers or handlers looking to market locally produced, value-added products. Budget pressures have forced many school food authorities to switch 

to central kitchens and satellite heat-and-serve facilities, so many schools 

are unable to handle unprocessed fresh produce. Barriers that were consistently cited by food buyers included inadequate labor to process food, limited 

storage and processing facilities at schools, and extra preparation time 

required for unprocessed produce (Vogt and Kaiser, 2008). Additionally, 

there is often confusion in schools over what is considered “de minimis 

[minimal] handling,” and what is classifi ed as “local,” given that the individual institution is responsible for defi ning the area for any geographic preference (e.g., State, county, region, etc.) (USDA, FNS, 2010c).

Traceback Mechanisms

Because most small farmers must combine their products with other farmers’ 

products to make processing and shipping more economical, challenges are 

posed for product quality, consistency, and traceability. With two or more 

suppliers, which is often the case in mainstream supply chains, traceback can 

be more diffi cult if not impossible (Golan et al., 2004). Once a product is 

combined (aggregated) with others, it is no longer identifi ed with the origin 

and production processes of a particular farm. Many enterprises communicate this information using multiple strategies tailored to distinct market 

segments (Day-Farnsworth, 2009). In many cases, knowing how the food 

was produced supersede third-party certifi cation to differentiate products. 

Without traceability in place, buyers must assume higher levels of risk 

and liability in cases of foodborne illness. Because these buyers attempt to 

reduce risk, they often look for established recordkeeping processes before 

purchasing local food from their supplier. However, many small and local 

growers lack the knowledge or resources necessary to create product moni-
27

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

toring systems that would facilitate quick and easy product identifi cation 

and traceback (Shipman, 2009). Traceability requirements may be hindering 

the growth of local foods because they may be cost-prohibitive for small 

producers (Hazell et al., 2006). Adoption of easy-to-use recordkeeping 

devices and farm-level information labeling can facilitate identifi cation of 

farm source during a foodborne illness outbreak and encourage local food 

purchases by large commercial buyers. 

Limited Farmer Expertise and Training 

The process of producing and selling fresh, local commodities includes 

inherent risks, such as exposure to bad weather, pest infestations, quality 

inconsistencies, food safety liability, and fl uctuating input prices. Growers 

often need education and training at the local level to meet market requirements and expand access to local customers on issues related to risk 

management; appropriate postharvest practices; recordkeeping; good agricultural practices (GAP)18 certifi cation; and liability insurance requirements (Shipman, 2009; Tropp and Barham, 2008; Lawless, et al., 1999). 

Beamer (1999) found that retailers in Virginia believed local producers were 

capable of producing fresh produce of retail quality, but lacked the commitment, expertise, and resources to cool, grade, and package the produce in a 

commercially acceptable manner. Lack of accounting skills for direct sales 

to retail food stores or foodservice outlets has impeded further increases in 

direct marketing (Lawless, et al., 1999). For producers who had never sold 

directly to local foodservice operations, Gregoire et al. (2005) found some 

obstacles to be more important including local and State regulations; knowledge of foodservice’s purchasing practices; and ensuring a safe food supply.

Leadership and training for young farmers and farmers’ market participants 

has been reported to be a necessary element for local food systems growth 

(Tropp and Barham, 2008). Encouraging volunteerism either onfarm or 

at marketing outlets, such as local farm stands, has been reported as one 

successful way to train a new generation of farmers interested in local 

marketing (Karlen, 2009). 

Regulatory Uncertainties

Uncertainties exist in regulatory scope and enforcement jurisdiction of 

local food requirements across State, County, and municipal lines, as well 

as between Federal agencies which may impede the fl ow of information 

between various regulators (Tropp and Barham, 2008). For example, what 

may be a “voluntary” food safety requirement by the Federal Government 

may not be interpreted as such by enforcing authorities at the State level 

(Tropp and Barham, 2008). Another example is the application process for 

participation in the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, which provides 

WIC participants with coupons that can be used at local food outlets. While 

the program is administered by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, it is 

implemented by various States, regions, and local entities that sometimes 

apply different standards for vendor participation (Tropp and Barham, 2008). 

Lack of clear rules and jurisdictional lines sometimes means that growers 

must determine which regulations apply to their situation and who is responsible for developing and enforcing regulations (Tropp and Barham, 2008). 

 18These are U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration guidelines for reducing 

microbial contamination.
28

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Costs and uncertainties related to food safety and processing regulations 

affect direct-to-consumer marketing activities across State, county, and 

municipal boundaries, especially on-farm production and post-harvest 

handling practices (Tropp and Barham, 2008). For example, there may be 

costs related to complying with State rules on processing, and uncertainty 

about whether direct farm sales are exempt from existing food safety and 

processing regulations in certain locations. Clearly stated health and safety 

rules and licensing and inspection requirements can facilitate the successful 

operation of farmers’ markets. 
29

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Characteristics of Local Food Demand

In this section, we explore reasons for interest in local food markets from the 

perspective of consumers and direct-to-retail/foodservice marketing outlets. 

We begin with an assessment of consumer motives for purchasing local 

foods, and their willingness to pay. By better understanding demand-side 

willingness to pay for local foods, we can better understand incentives for 

providing these products. Then, we rely on a smaller set of available studies 

to evaluate the opinions of foodservice buyers and grocery retailers regarding 

local food marketing. For some grocery retailers, we also suggest the corporate social responsibility movement as a possible factor in the growing 

interest in local foods.

Consumer Preferences

Several studies, both national and smaller scale, have explored consumer 

preferences for locally produced food. While some studies have investigated 

characteristics and attitudes of those who purchase local food, others have 

asked respondents about their perceptions of local food. Also, some studies 

have measured the premium that consumers would be willing to pay for local 

food in a hypothetical context. In this section, we summarize the aforementioned studies that examined: (1) characteristics, perceptions, and attitudes of 

local food buyers (appendix table 1), and (2) magnitude and determinants of 

willingness to pay (appendix table 2). 

Preferences Drive Local Food Purchases 

The most recent national data suggest that while local food consumers are 

demographically diverse, they are very similar in their motivations for 

buying local. The majority of respondents to a national study cited freshness 

(82 percent), support for the local economy (75 percent), and knowing the 

source of the product (58 percent) as reasons for buying local food at direct 

markets or in conventional grocery stores (Food Marketing Institute, 2009). 

Two national studies found that consumers with varying educational and 

income levels were equally likely to purchase local food (Keeling-Bond et 

al., 2009; Zepeda and Li, 2006), while other studies have found local food 

patrons to be more educated and earning above-average income (Brooker and 

Eastwood, 1989; Eastwood, 1996; Eastwood et al., 1999; Govindasamy et al., 

1998). Consumers who enjoy cooking, growing a food garden, frequenting 

health food stores, and purchasing organic food were more likely to buy 

local food. On the other hand, environmental and health-related attitudes and 

behaviors, while well received among local food consumers, were not important factors affecting actual food purchases (Zepeda and Li, 2006). Those 

who frequented direct markets purchased local foods for their quality and 

freshness (Keeling-Bond et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, those who placed 

a greater emphasis on supporting local businesses and producers, or who 

preferred to purchase fresh rather than processed produce, were more likely 

to shop at direct markets (Keeling-Bond et al., 2009).

Differences in access to local food and relative prices across regions could 

lead to differences in buyer profi les. Since the 1980s, geographically limited 

studies of local food buyers found that buyers judged local produce to be 
30

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

fresher looking and tasting, of higher quality, and a better value for the price 

(Kezis et al., 1984; Wolf, 1997; Wolf et al., 2005). Among shoppers in the 

southeastern United States, demographic characteristics were weak predictors of the decision to purchase locally produced dairy products. On the 

other hand, respondents who consider locally produced milk as a unique 

product, or of better quality, were more likely to express an interest in 

buying local dairy products (Best and Wolfe, 2009). A survey of New Jersey 

farmers’ markets patrons revealed that consumer decisions to purchase from 

farmers’ markets were affected most by quality and freshness (63 percent 

and 59 percent, respectively), then by convenience (20 percent) and by price 

(16 percent) (Govindasamy et al., 1998). A survey of Tennessee farmers’ 

markets patrons found that customers frequently visited a farmers’ market to 

support local farmers; to fi nd locally produced foods; for nutritional reasons; 

and for the freshness, value, and quality of the produce (Eastwood et al., 

1999). Consumers were found to associate local food with enhancing the 

local economy and benefi ting the environment (Zepeda and Leviten-Reid, 

2004). Farm background was also associated with those consumers that 

purchased local foods (Brown, 2003). 

In other studies, the role of demographic characteristics was somewhat 

stronger. Consumers who were female, older, more educated, higher income 

earners, and members of environmental groups were more likely to buy 

local food (Brown, 2003; Brooker and Eastwood, 1989; Eastwood, 1996; 

Eastwood et al., 1999; Govindasamy et al., 1998). CSA membership was 

found to be positively linked to higher education, a preference for organic 

products, and fi nding out about the CSA via word-of-mouth (Zepeda and 

Leviten-Reid, 2004). Whether the observed variation in the role of education 

and income refl ects a trend or differences in availability and prices of local 

food is diffi cult to assess: separating the infl uence of location from time is 

diffi cult due to lack of comparability among the studies. 

Local foods may be more diffi cult for consumers to fi nd than mainstream 

food due to seasonal constraints, limited accessibility, or limited awareness 

of farmers’ markets accessibility (Hardesty, 2008). These barriers may be 

considered as transaction costs, which include costs of fi nding local food 

markets, obtaining information on their product offerings, obtaining access 

to markets, and searching for the best prices. Surveys suggest that reasons 

for not shopping at a farmers’ market include: absence of availability in the 

patron’s vicinity; lack of knowledge about market existence; inconvenience 

(too far to drive); food of comparable quality at more convenient locations; 

and prices being too high (possibly due to timing of survey—beginning of 

the season) (Govindasamy et al., 1998; Eastwood, 1996; Eastwood et al., 

1999). Consumers who never shop at direct markets placed an emphasis on 

convenience and aesthetics (Zepeda and Li, 2006). 

A lack of product choice and the amount of produce provided, as well as 

transportation and inconvenience of pickup place or time, has been found to 

deter CSA membership (Zepeda and Leviten-Reid, 2004). Income does not 

seem to be an important factor in choice of where to purchase fresh produce, 

but time-constraining factors, such as presence of children under the age of 

18, do appear to matter (Keeling-Bond et al., 2009; Kolondinsky and Pelch, 

1997). As with other market choices, price, availability, and transaction costs 

associated with obtaining local foods can be a barrier to consumers, espe-
31

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

cially in low-income areas where access to supermarkets is limited (food 

deserts) (Ver Ploeg et al., 2009).

Quality, Nutrition, and Environmental Concerns Increase 

Willingness To Pay

While most consumers report buying local foods at least occasionally, 

knowing the amount that consumers would be willing to pay is useful for 

marketing local foods. Eight studies have measured the additional premium 

that consumers would be willing to pay for locally produced foods in 10 

States: Colorado, Ohio, Tennessee, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, 

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Maine, and West Virginia, as well as New England. 

Products included produce (potatoes, strawberries, salad greens), animal 

products (beef and pork), and value-added products (syrup, salsa, blueberry 

products, and applesauce). 

There are several approaches to eliciting a consumer’s willingness to pay 

for a hypothetical item. First, some studies asked consumers to indicate the 

premium they would be willing to pay for a locally produced product. A 

second version asked consumers to indicate whether they would pay a given 

amount. If the consumer answers “yes,” then a higher value is presented, 

and if the consumer answers “no,” then a lower value is presented. Starting 

values are varied to adjust for some consumers’ tendency to take the starting 

value as a norm. A third version asks consumers to rate several prices as 

“reasonable to pay” or “beginning to be too expensive” and “too expensive.” 

A fourth approach asks respondents to choose between alternatives in pairs 

designed to contrast hypothetical prices and levels of other attributes of a 

product. This is useful for determining the relative importance of different 

attributes associated with local food. 

The results of the studies that measured the magnitude of willingness to 

pay are presented in fi gure 9. Values range from about 9 percent for New 

England specialty products (syrup, salsa) and Colorado potatoes to 50 

percent for fresh Florida-grown produce. Differences in methodology used 

by each study may account for some of the variation, but other factors are 

Figure 9

Willingness to pay for local foods

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compilation from various studies.

Percent

31

50

23

27

36

21

9

27

9

0 10 20 30 40 50

Pennsylvania applesauce

Florida fresh produce

South Carolina animal products

South Carolina produce

Michigan greens

Louisiana strawberries

New England specialty products

Ohio strawberries 

Colorado potatoes
32

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

likely to contribute to differences in consumer willingness to pay, including 

product perishability, base price, and regional differences in attitudes toward 

local food and food in general. 

Darby et al., (2008) noted that consumers associate many attributes with 

“local,” including freshness, support for the local economy, support for 

small farms, and environmental sustainability. To decompose the effects of 

multiple attributes on willingness to pay for strawberries, survey takers asked 

respondents to choose between alternatives in pairs designed to contrast 

levels of proximity, “corporateness,” freshness, and price (Darby et al., 

2008). The study also separated grocery-store shoppers from direct-market 

shoppers, and found that grocery-store shoppers were willing to pay more 

for a “freshness guarantee” marked as “harvested yesterday” than for food 

that was produced within closer proximity but not “guaranteed” fresh. On the 

other hand, direct-market shoppers were willing to pay more for both attributes, but placed a higher premium on information about production location 

(proximity) than on a marked freshness guarantee. 

While measurements of mean willingness to pay give some indication 

of consumer interest in a product, the distribution and determinants of 

willingness to pay are more useful for identifying the potential market for 

local foods. That is, how many consumers will pay a given amount, and what 

characteristics do they share? All of the studies that measured willingness to 

pay examined demographic characteristics, and some also looked at attitudes 

and perceptions.

Appendix table 2 summarizes results of studies that examined the determinants of willingness to pay for locally produced food. Taken together, 

available studies suggest that purchase of local food is widespread, and willingness to pay a premium is not limited to consumers with higher incomes. 

Consumers with higher willingness to pay placed higher importance on 

quality (Brown, 2003; Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009), nutrition 

(Loureiro and Hine, 2002), the environment (Brown, 2003), and helping 

farmers in their State (Carpio and Isengildina-Massa, 2009). 

Similar to studies discussed earlier, fi ndings related to demographic characteristics were not consistent across studies. Gender was a signifi cant determinant in three of nine studies, but with opposing results—female respondents 

were more likely to pay more in Missouri and South Carolina, while the 

likelihood of male respondents paying more was higher in Ohio. Income 

was statistically signifi cant in fi ve studies, but willingness to pay was not 

always higher at higher incomes. In a study of Knoxville, TN, consumers by 

Eastwood et al (1987), the second-lowest income group ($10,000-20,000) 

was more willing to pay a premium for local apples than the lowest income 

group (< $10,000), but willingness to pay was not higher for higher income 

groups. For locally produced broccoli and cabbage, higher income individuals were signifi cantly less willing to pay a premium. College education 

was also associated with lower willingness to pay a premium for broccoli, 

cabbages, and peaches.

Differences in knowledge mattered. In a study of willingness to pay for 

applesauce from local apples, James et al. (2009) asked consumers to 

answer questions that tested their knowledge of agriculture, nutrition, and 
33

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

the environment. Respondents with higher knowledge scores had lower 

willingness to pay for locally produced food. On the other hand, studies 

in Missouri (Brown, 2003) and South Carolina (Carpio and IsengildinaMassa, 2009) found that having been raised on a farm or having worked in 

agriculture increased willingness to pay for locally produced food. 

Foodservice Demand

Among restaurateurs, chefs buy locally grown foods for perceived superior 

quality and freshness, to meet customer requests, to access unique products, and to support local businesses (Painter, 2008). From the restaurants’ 

perspective, local products add consumer appeal and represent a way of 

differentiating from the competition (Packaged Facts, 2007). 

Starr et al., (2003) interviewed chain restaurants, locally-owned restaurants, 

and institutions (schools, prisons, nursing homes). Those that purchased local 

food products were more likely than the others to report that supporting local 

business is important. For local restaurants, important factors in increasing 

the likelihood of buying local foods were minimizing environmental impact 

and being located in an agricultural region. For institutions, emphasis on 

buying food that is free of pesticides increased the likelihood. The authors 

surmise that this may be due to the presence of schools in the institution 

sample, and potential health threat to children. Factors not considered statistically important by local food buyers included price, dependability of supply, 

freshness, and size of operation. 

Another survey of buyers for foodservice establishments found that they 

agreed, or strongly agreed, that purchasing local can be profi table (Food 

Processing Center, 2003). Reasons for purchasing locally grown food included:

• Locally grown foods have higher or better quality.

• Locally grown products are fresher. 

• Positive relationships have developed with producers. 

• Customer requests have been received for locally grown products, especially after carrying local foods for a period of time. 

• The availability of unique or specialty products. 

Five surveys conducted of foodservice directors in several States, some of 

whom already purchased locally (appendix table 4),19 identifi ed several 

motives for local food purchases by institutional foodservice directors, 

including public K-12 schools, colleges, universities, and hospitals. Desire 

for fresher produce or increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables 

was important in all of the studies. Support for local farms, businesses, and 

community was the top motivation cited in three studies. Two studies ranked 

public relations as the fi rst or second leading motive. Ability to purchase 

small quantities was a reported benefi t in two studies. 

Food Retailers

Despite recent interest by food retailers, there are few studies of retailer 

perspectives of local food procurement (Illbery and Maye, 2006). Guptill 

 19Response rates for some of the 

surveys were low, so results are diffi cult 

to generalize.
34

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

and Wilkens (2002) interviewed seven grocery store owners and managers. 

Most stated that locally grown food is a growing trend that is important to 

consumers and their organization. Most also perceived that consumer interest 

derives from their preference for high-quality fresh produce, and concerns 

about the local economy, food safety, chemical use, and genetic engineering. 

Lawless et al., (1999) surveyed both retailers and farmers and found that 

they believed great opportunities exist for selling more local foods if larger 

grocers were to source more local farm products. Retailers reported that local 

foods were valued and purchased for their social and food quality benefi ts. 

Social benefi ts included support for the local economy and perceived environmental benefi ts. Quality benefi ts included freshness, taste, and high 

quality. It was further revealed that consumers’ perceived benefi ts of locally 

sourced food may provide a competitive advantage over mainstream food. 

As part of the global emergence of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) 

movement and fi rms’ efforts to differentiate from the competition, leading 

retailers Safeway, Ahold, and Delhaize included local food procurement 

activities in their CSR reports (see table 1). These are voluntary reports of a 

company’s social and environmental activities, and fi nancial information.20

In addition, Ahold and Delhaize include the global reporting initiative (GRI) 

index. The GRI is an independent institution whose goal is to develop guidelines for CSR reporting. The GRI index provides standardized guidelines for 

reporting progress on corporate economic, environmental, and social performance. Local food policy, practices, and share of expenditures were reported 

as part of Ahold’s economic performance indicators related to sustainable 

trade that benefi ts communities and small local businesses. Belgium-based 

Delhaize Group, the parent company of Delhaize America, reported “local 

suppliers: practices and spending” as part of their economic performance 

under “management approach and performance” indicators. 

 20Proponents of CSR argue that 

company objectives should broaden to 

include sustainable growth, equitable 

employment practices, and long-term 

social and environmental well-being. 

In addition, they believe that other 

groups should be included in corporate 

decisions, not only employees, but also 

residents affected by the decisions, 

governments, and organizations that 

are advocates for environmental and 

social causes. CSR shifts the emphasis 

from traditional government regulation 

of corporate conduct to the promotion 

of corporate disclosure of activities 

that address social and environmental 

issues. 
35

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Government Programs and Policies 

Supporting Local Foods 

Government programs and policies that address barriers to local food 

production and directly support local food purchases can serve as a catalyst 

for growth of local food markets. Although the United States does not have 

a broad strategy of public procurement of local foods, there are policies 

and programs that support local food initiatives (appendix B; Macleod 

and Scott, 2007). In this section, we discuss the major Federal, State, and 

local programs and policies that support the growth of local food markets. 

Federal policies are further delineated by the agency responsible for 

administering the program and provisions in the 2008 Farm Act that affect 

local food marketing.

Federal Policies 

In 1994, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) began a project that offers 

its food-buying services to local institutions, such as schools and hospitals, 

to take advantage of unused trucking capacity in DoD. In 1996, the program, 

referred to as the Fresh Program, partnered with USDA to procure produce 

for institutions that was grown within their State, with preferences increasingly given to small and medium-sized farms. By the 1997/98 school year, 

the program had expanded to 38 States. Although programs vary by State, 

DoD typically organizes a meeting with foodservice and State agriculture 

employees, assisting farmers in obtaining a fair price and necessary certifi cation, and ensuring that standards and requirements are met. 

Through congressional passage of the Community Food Security Act, as part 

of the 1996 Farm Act, the Community Food Project Grants Program (CFP) 

was established. It is a Federal grants program administered through USDA’s 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (formerly the Cooperative 

State Research, Extension, and Education Service (CSREES)). The CFP 

awards grants to projects that address food insecurity issues by supporting 

community-based food projects in low-income communities. Examples 

include training and technical assistance to increase the capacity of local 

food production and promote “buy local” campaigns, and support to better 

understand the opportunities and obstacles to local food production and 

consumption. 

In 1999, USDA launched the Community Food Security Initiative (Kantor, 

2001). This nationwide initiative sought to forge partnerships between USDA 

and local communities to build local food systems, increase food access, and 

improve nutrition. These include farmers’ markets and CSAs designed for 

low-income communities that lack the funding for investing upfront in future 

harvests (Starr et al., 2003; Hamilton, 2005).

The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 requires school 

districts participating in federally funded meal programs to implement local 

wellness policies. As wellness programs became established in elementary 

schools across the Nation, the combination of nutritional education and 

agricultural production has led proponents to tout local foods as part of a 

healthy eating solution (Matteson and Heuer, 2008). Over the past decade, a 
36

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

number of federally created programs have been developed and implemented 

in a variety of venues, from farm to school programs to local food as part 

of healthcare initiatives. The programs, administered at the State level, are 

described in the following sections:

Food and Nutrition Service Programs

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service administers two important programs 

that promote the use of farmers’ markets, and are available in most States; 

the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) and the Senior 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) (Hamilton, 2005). The FMNP 

was established by Congress in 1992 to provide Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) participants with 

coupons, in addition to their regular WIC benefi ts, that can be exchanged 

for eligible foods from farmers, farmers’ markets, and roadside stands. In 

2006, the USDA issued fi nal regulations for the seniors program, making it 

a permanent program rather than a competitive grant. Low-income seniors 

are provided SFMNP coupons that can be used at authorized farmers’ 

markets, roadside stands, and CSA programs.

The FMNP is currently authorized in 45 States, territories, and Indian Tribal 

Organizations. State agencies, such as agriculture or health departments, 

apply for funds and administer the program. During fi scal year (FY) 2008, 

2.3 million WIC participants received FMNP benefi ts (over 25 percent of all 

participants), and coupons redeemed resulted in over $20 million in revenue 

to farmers. Eligible food was available from 16,016 farmers, 3,367 farmers’ 

markets (72 percent of all farmers’ markets), and 2,398 roadside stands that 

were authorized to accept FMNP coupons. Congress provides funds for the 

program that supports all food costs and 70 percent of administrative costs. 

For FY 2009, $19.8 million was appropriated for FMNP, down from $23.8 

million in 2006. From 2006 to 2008, fi ve States and Puerto Rico accounted 

for over half of the program grant levels (fi g.10). 

Figure 10

Funding levels for WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, FY 2006-08

Note: WIC is the acronym for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children.

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service.

Million dollars

Fiscal year (Oct. 1 - Sept. 30)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2007 2008

California Puerto Rico Pennsylvania New Jersey

New York Texas Other
37

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

For the SFMNP, the 2008 Farm Act provides $20.6 million annually to 

operate the program through 2012. In FY 2008, the grant level was increased 

to $21.8 million, after ranging from $14.9 to $16.8 million between FY 

2001 and FY 2007. Grants were awarded to 49 State agencies and federally 

recognized Indian tribal governments, and 963,685 people received SFMNP 

coupons. In 2008, products were available from over 17,156 farmers at 3,159 

farmers’ markets, 2,512 roadside stands, and 199 CSAs. 

Agricultural Marketing Service Programs

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service administers several grant programs 

supporting local food initiatives across the country. The Federal State 

Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State 

agencies to assist in exploring new market opportunities for food and agricultural products, and encourage research to improve the performance of the 

food marketing system. In 2009, 8 out of 23 grants awarded went to projects supporting local foods, such as funding to improve the effectiveness of 

Colorado MarketMaker;21 develop a centralized State wholesale distribution 

system for locally grown foods; and develop an analytical model for more 

effi ciently allocating State resources to promote locally grown food.

Introduced in the 2002 Farm Act, the National Farmers’ Market Promotion 

Program (FMPP) was funded for the fi rst time in 2006. FMPP is a competitive grants program for local governments, agricultural cooperatives, 

farmers’ markets, and other eligible groups to improve and expand farmers’ 

markets, CSAs, and other local food markets. Projects that were awarded 

grants in FY 2008 included training for farmers’ market managers; promotion of farmers’ markets through signage and local TV, newspaper, and radio 

advertisement; and educating produce growers about the profi t potential of 

season-extending, high-tunnel production technology. Approximately $5 

million is allocated for FMPP for FY 2009 and FY 2010, and $10 million for 

FY 2011 and FY 2012. 

The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) was authorized in 2004 

to provide grants to States to enhance the competitiveness of specialty crops, 

which include fruits, vegetables, and fl oriculture. State agencies are eligible 

to apply for grant funds for uses that include “buy local” and State product 

marketing campaigns. For example, in FY 2008, grants were awarded to 

projects that promote local food through print materials, electronic media, 

and a specialty crop website; educate consumers about how to locate and 

purchase local specialty crops; and evaluate the development of a farm to 

school program. 

Rural Development

USDA’s Rural Development administers the Community Facilities Program 

that supports rural communities by providing loans and grants for construction, acquisition, or renovation of community facilities or the purchase of 

equipment for community projects. Projects must benefi t the community as 

a whole rather than private, commercial entities. Examples include projects 

that support farmers’ markets, community kitchens, and food processing 

centers. Loan amounts averaged $665,229 in FY 2008, but vary widely. 

 21MarketMaker is a national 

partnership of land grant institutions 

and State departments of agriculture 

dedicated to building an electronic infrastructure that would more easily connect farmers with economically viable 

new markets. It provides an interactive 

mapping system that locates buyers 

(e.g., retailers, wholesalers, processors) 

and sources of agricultural products 

(e.g., farmers, farmers’ markets). 
38

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

2008 Farm Act 

Currently, the primary Federal policy that supports local and regional food 

systems is the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act, commonly referred 

to as the 2008 Farm Act (see appendix B). Provisions include funds under 

the Business and Industry Guarantee Loan Program (B&I) to aid rural 

food enterprise entrepreneurs and local food distribution, and funding for 

the Value-Added Agricultural Market Development (VAAMD) program 

emphasizing local food distribution. The 2008 Farm Act supports locally and 

regionally produced food through a set-aside within the B&I loan program 

for facilitating the storing, processing, and distribution of local and regional 

food products. Through FY 2012, at least 5 percent of the funds made available to the program will be reserved for local food initiatives, amounting to 

over $100 million in FY 2010. 

The VAAMD program, formerly the Value-Added Producer Grant Program 

(VAPG), provides grant funding for agricultural producers who add value to 

their products through processing or marketing, thereby raising farm income. 

Under the 2008 Farm Act, producers of food that is marketed locally are 

eligible for the program, which supports activities such as business planning and website development, and additional marketing staff to increase the 

farmers’ share of the food dollar. Through FY 2012, 10 percent of funds will 

be reserved for developing local and regional supply networks that connect 

small- and medium-sized farms to markets, thereby increasing competitiveness and profi ts.

The Rural Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program was modifi ed 

to give priority for loan guarantees to those involved in local food distribution. The National School Lunch Act was amended to encourage institutions receiving funds to purchase locally grown unprocessed agricultural 

products. Funding was also increased for the Farmers’ Market Promotion 

Program, Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, and Specialty Crop 

Block Grants.

The 2008 Farm Act reauthorizes the Community Food Project Grants 

Program (CFP) as a permanent program with $5 million per year in mandatory funding. The 2008 Farm Act also created, within the CFP program, the 

Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center to provide grants for 

promoting development of enterprises that distribute and market healthy and 

locally produced food to underserved communities. Mandatory funding was 

authorized for 3 years at $1 million annually. 

The 2008 Farm Act created a new program, the Rural Microentrepeneur 

Assistance Program, to provide entrepreneurs in rural areas with skills to 

establish new businesses and continue operation of existing microenterprises. 

Although not directed specifi cally at agriculture-related businesses, examples 

include funding to initiate a marketing business to sell local food or provide 

working capital to renovate a small store. Funding was authorized at $15 

million in mandatory funding from FY 2009 to FY 2012. 
39

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative

In 2009, USDA launched the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” 

initiative, an agencywide effort to create new economic opportunities by 

better connecting consumers with local producers. As part of the initiative, 

several funding efforts and programs were announced to assist farmers, help 

consumers access nutritious foods, and support rural community development. Representatives from various USDA agencies have identifi ed the 

following funding efforts and programs, which may be used to cultivate local 

capacity to strengthen local and regional food systems, including:

• $18 million for the Value-Added Agricultural Market Development 

Program (VAAMD).

• A new voluntary cooperative program created by the 2008 Farm Act 

will allow select State-inspected establishments to ship meat and poultry 

products in interstate commerce. The program supplements the existing 

Federal-State cooperative inspection program to allow State-inspected 

plants with 25 or fewer employees to ship products across State lines. 

This will create new economic opportunities for small establishments 

with limited markets.22

• “Farm to School Tactical Teams” formed by AMS and FNS to assist 

school administrators as they transition to purchasing more locally 

grown foods. 

• $8.6 million awarded by USDA’s Risk Management Agency to provide 

producers with opportunities to learn more about managing risk in their 

businesses, and providing educational opportunities for underserved 

farmers with limited resources.

State and Local Policies

Most regulations that directly affect local food systems take place at the State 

or local level, such as those related to public safety and health, or application of sales taxes. At the State level, a range of policies help create the 

environment in which farmers’ markets operate. These include programs to 

expand the number of farmers’ markets and use the markets to accomplish 

other economic development goals, such as the marketing of State identifi ed 

food. For States participating in the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs, 

signifi cant questions relate to who will administer the program and where the 

required matching funds for administration will come from. 

State and local policies can have important impacts in areas such as farm 

to institution procurement policies and the use of electronic benefi t transfer 

(EBT) cards at farmers’ markets. Paper food stamp coupons were replaced 

with EBT cards in June 2009. EBT allows recipients to authorize transfer 

of their government benefi ts from a Federal account to a retailer account to 

pay for food products received (USDA, FNS, 2010b). Although SNAP is 

federally funded, it is administered at the State and local levels, so policies 

on acceptance of EBT at farmers’ markets vary. A USDA survey of farmers’ 

market managers found that the use of EBT terminals to accept food stamps 

ranged from 0 percent of farmers’ markets in the Southwest to 15.9 percent 

in the Far West (Ragland and Tropp, 2009). Some States have enacted laws 

 22The U.S. Census Bureau provides information on animal slaughtering and processing plants with paid 

labor, and 19 or fewer employees. In 

2007, States with the highest number 

of these plants included Texas (130), 

California (113), and Missouri (101) 

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 
40

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

to fund pilot programs that provide EBT access to farmers’ markets, while 

other States have partnered with local businesses, farm groups, and banks to 

create pilot programs. USDA also provides free wired point-of-sale machines 

in some States for EBT transactions.23

Some States and localities offer incentives to low-income people to shop at 

farmers’ markets. New York City’s Health Bucks Incentive Program distributes free coupons to low-income consumers for purchasing fresh produce at 

farmers’ markets. States and municipalities can also support farmers’ markets 

by supporting land use policies that favor small farms and zoning policies 

that make space for markets.

Legislatures in a few States have funded efforts to promote farmers’ markets 

and expand their availability. Several States have implemented programs to 

regulate the development and operation of farmers’ markets, and specify the 

types of products that can be sold in order to develop consistent statewide 

standards. In recent years, a number of States have created State Food Policy 

Councils to stimulate statewide discussion of opportunities and potential 

impact of government policies.24 At the local and regional levels, policies 

relating to farmers’ markets are among the most common activities undertaken by the councils (Hamilton, 2005). 

There is also some policy movement at the State level on broader systemwide 

legislation. For example, the Illinois Food, Farms, and Jobs Act was signed 

into law in 2007 to create a task force to encourage and promote local food 

production. 

The National Conference of State Legislatures has compiled a comprehensive, searchable database that lists all State policies and policy proposals 

related to local foods since 2004 (fi g. 11).25 Most of these bills address development and promotion of farmers’ markets and farm to school programs. 

Other local food topics include establishing commissions to provide advice 

on creating and sustaining local food markets; amending laws to permit farm 

 23Congress recently authorized 

AMS to set aside 10 percent of Farmers’ Market Promotion funds to help 

farmers’ markets acquire wireless EBT 

terminals (Ragland and Tropp, 2009).

 24Food Policy Councils are comprised of a broad range of individuals 

from farm and consumer groups, food 

processors and distributors, anti-hunger 

groups, academia, and State government. 

 25The status of the bills is categorized as active, inactive, adopted as law, 

vetoed, or carried over. 

Figure 11

State legislative bills focusing on local foods, 2004-09

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures, Healthy Community Design and Access 

to Healthy Food Database 2010.

Number of bills

Farm to school 

programs

Farmers’ markets Other

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Farmers' markets and 

farm to school programs
41

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

operations to advertise with roadside signage; and strengthening distribution 

networks for local foods. 

Most policy issues facing farmers’ markets develop at the local level because 

farmers’ markets are a local activity (Hamilton, 2005). The most commonly 

encountered local policy issues relating to farmers’ markets are operational 

questions, such as where the market can operate, parking, security, and 

confl icts with adjacent businesses. These policies can be signifi cant factors 

in determining the success and existence of a market. Cities also address 

issues related to regulation of farmers’ markets, such as the need for permits, 

zoning exceptions, or approval of a market ordinance. Cities may be involved 

in promoting and developing markets as part of a local food policy initiative or may assume responsibility for operating and funding markets. For 

example, Berkshire Grown, originally the Berkshire Regional Food and 

Land Council, promotes food, fl owers, and plants produced in the Berkshire 

region of Massachusetts and builds partnerships between farmers, chefs, and 

consumers (http://www.berkshiregrown.org). 
42

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Benefi ts of Local Food Markets: A Look at 

the Evidence

Recent expansion of public programs that support local food systems 

suggests that interest in local foods extends beyond the motivations of 

consumers and producers. The Federal, State, and local programs discussed 

in the previous section devote signifi cant resources to support local foods, 

because growth in local foods is expected to generate public benefi ts that are 

currently lacking in the food marketing system. Examining the costs, benefi ts, and unintended consequences of local food markets can provide input 

into effective design of programs that involve local foods. It can also identify situations in which adopting local food characteristics is a cost-effective 

tool for accomplishing policy goals. In the aggregate or at a national level, 

however, impacts of local food systems may be diffi cult to discern because 

of the relatively small portion of food that is produced and consumed in local 

food markets.

In this section, we examine the conceptual framework for four potential 

impacts of local food systems compared to mainstream systems, and review 

the empirical evidence of their existence. These include economic development impacts, health and nutrition benefi ts, impacts on food security, and 

effects on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. We selected these 

impacts because they are the focus of programs and policies that involve 

local foods or have been the focus of numerous empirical analyses. Programs 

and policies are commonly focused on economic and business development, health and nutrition, or a combination of these goals. For example, the 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program is designed to work within the existing 

framework of the WIC program to provide locally grown produce to participants. Farm to school programs may seek to increase the availability of 

healthy food options in schools, while also supporting farms and other businesses in the local economy. Studies of relationships between local foods, 

energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions have been the focus of much of 

the empirical literature on local food impacts. The U.S. food system accounts 

for about 16 percent of total U.S. energy consumption (Canning et al., 2010; 

Heller and Keoleian, 2003), and much of this energy is derived from burning 

fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG). 

It should be noted that local food systems have the potential to generate other 

public benefi ts. It has been suggested that local food systems could reduce 

food safety risks by decentralizing production (Peters et al., 2008). Eating 

locally has been viewed as a way to help preserve farmland by allowing 

new residential communities to be established on farms in urbanizing areas 

(Ikerd, 2005). Other public benefi ts include the development of social capital 

in a community, preservation of cultivar genetic diversity (see, for example, 

Goland and Bauer, 2004), and environmental quality. This is likely not an 

exhaustive list. Not all potential benefi ts of local food systems are discussed 

in this report because there is not adequate empirical research in 2010 

on a particular topic, due to limited applicability to existing government 

programs, or a lack of a clear conceptual framework that relates local foods 

to these other potential impacts. 
43

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Economic Development

The expansion of local food markets implies that consumers in a particular 

area are purchasing more of their food from nearby sources, and that more of 

the money they spend remains in their local community. Hence, local food 

systems have the potential to positively impact the local economy. Claims 

of economic development impacts—in the form of income and employment growth—are common in local foods research. Ross et al. (1999), 

Marketumbrella.org (1999), Marsden et al. (2000), and Ikerd (2005) suggest 

that expansion of local foods may be a development strategy for rural areas. 

Zepeda and Li (2006), Darby et al. (2008), Lawless et al. (1999), and Starr 

et al. (2003) cite farmers’ retention of a greater share of the food dollar by 

eliminating money going to the “middlemen” as a possible benefi t. Roininen 

et al. (2006) assert that local food systems may encourage growth in local 

labor markets. 

The most direct way that expansion in local food systems could impact 

local economies is through import substitution. If consumers purchase food 

produced within a local area instead of imports from outside the area, sales 

are more likely to accrue to people and businesses within the area. This may 

then generate additional economic impacts as workers and businesses spend 

the additional income on production inputs and other products within the area 

(Swenson, 2009). 

Shifting the location of intermediate stages of food production and directto-consumer marketing can also be considered forms of import substitution. For example, shifting processing activities (e.g., beef slaughtering and 

processing) to the local area may result in a larger portion of the value of the 

fi nished product remaining in the local area. Part of this effect may be due to 

producers retaining a greater share of the retail price of their products as they 

assume responsibility for additional supply chain functions (e.g., distribution 

and marketing).

Empirical studies suggest that local foods can have a positive impact on 

local economic activity through import substitution and localization of 

processing activities. Using an input-output model (see box, “Input-Output 

Models and the Multiplier Effect”), Swenson (2008 and 2009) predicted that 

locally produced fruits, vegetables, and meat products would increase output, 

employment, and labor incomes in Iowa. This was due, in part, to development of direct-marketing facilities and increases in local meat slaughtering 

and processing. 

Farmers’ markets have been found to have positive impacts on local economies. Otto and Varner (2005) estimated that each dollar spent at farmers’ 

markets in Iowa generated 58 cents in indirect and induced sales, and that 

each dollar of personal income earned at farmers’ markets generated an additional 47 cents in indirect and induced income (multipliers of 1.58 and 1.47, 

respectively). The multiplier effect for jobs was 1.45; that is, each full-time 

equivalent job created at farmers’ markets supported almost half of a fulltime equivalent job in other sectors of the Iowa economy. Similarly, multipliers associated with farmers’ markets in Oklahoma have been estimated to 

be between 1.41 and 1.78 (Henneberry et al., 2009).
44

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

The magnitude of the economic impact from import substitution depends 

on the sources of inputs for local production and processing (i.e., whether 

money spent on inputs is retained locally or not), and the degree to which a 

local supply chain displaces local economic activity that supported nonlocal 

products. This could include reductions in traditional commodity marketing 

(e.g., grains) or industries that support distribution and marketing of nonlocal 

food products (e.g., supermarkets). 

Accounting for displaced economic activity within the local community 

reduces the positive economic impacts of localization, although estimated 

overall benefi ts are still positive. Swenson (2008) assumed that an increase 

in acreage devoted to local fruit and vegetable production would replace corn 

and soybean acreage, which partially offsets some of the predicted economic 

benefi ts. Hughes et al., (2008) account for lost spending at mainstream 

retail stores due to spending at farmers’ markets in West Virginia. The net 

economic impacts of farmers’ markets in the State were found to be positive, 

but lost sales at retail stores offset some of this impact. Farmers’ markets in 

Input-Output Models and the Multiplier Effect

An input-output model is a detailed accounting of regional industries. 

It provides estimates of the amounts and types of inputs that local 

industries purchase from local suppliers and from imported sources. These 

linkages form the basis for calculating the multiplier effect that changes 

in production may have within the region. For example, if production in 

a sector increases, then production in the sectors that supply goods and 

services to support the increase will also rise. In turn, sectors that supply 

goods and services to the supporting sector will increase, and so on.

The total economic impact is composed of three effects; direct, indirect, 

and induced. Direct effects are the value of new production, processing, and 

retail output, and the additional jobs and labor income generated. Indirect 

effects measure the total value of locally supplied inputs and services 

provided by businesses that serve the producers (e.g., machinery, feed, 

seed, fertilizer, fi nancial services), and processing and retailing activities. 

Induced effects accrue when workers in the direct and input supply sectors 

spend their earnings in the region.

Input-output modeling is one of the most accepted means of estimating 

economic impacts. This is because it provides a concise way of articulating 

interrelationships among industries and regions. Resulting simulations are 

designed to help understand intrinsic economic gains from the value of 

production shifts within an economy as local food production increases. 

Scenarios must be thoughtfully conceived, and rely on accurate detailed 

data. 

However, these models have several limitations. For example, they do 

not indicate whether households, on average, are economically better 

off. Also, there may be costs to production shifts that are not identifi ed in 

simulation models. 

Sources: Swenson, 2008; Horowitz and Planting, 2006.
45

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

West Virginia were estimated to generate $656,000 in annual labor income, 

$2.4 million in industry output, and 69.2 full-time equivalent jobs. While still 

positive, these impacts were offset by $463,000 in lost labor income, $1.3 

million in lost industry output, and 26.4 lost full-time equivalent jobs generated by mainstream retail stores (see table 3 in Hughes et al., 2008). 

Local food markets may stimulate additional business activity within the 

local economy by improving business skills and opportunities. Feenstra et 

al., (2003) examined the role of farmers’ markets in creating and sustaining 

new rural businesses. Farmers’ markets helped medium ($10,000-$99,999 

gross sales) and large-scale ($100,000 or more gross sales) enterprises to 

expand or complemented existing, well established businesses. For small 

vendors (less than $10,000 gross sales), farmers’ markets appeared to operate 

as a relatively low-risk incubator for new businesses and a primary venue 

for part-time enterprises in a nurturing environment. These types of benefi ts 

are diffi cult to quantify because investments in business skills and development may take years to generate observable benefi ts. However, business skill 

development may be an attractive benefi t in areas where few other options 

are available to acquire additional skills and market experience.

The presence of local food markets may also spur consumer spending at 

other businesses in a community. This spillover spending could support 

the retail sector in a community if, for example, a farmers’ market draws 

consumers to an area where they would not have otherwise spent money. Lev 

et al., (2003) found that many farmers’ market shoppers traveled to downtown areas specifi cally to patronize the market, and also spent additional 

money at neighboring businesses. 

These empirical examples suggest that the economic benefi ts of expanding 

local food systems can be unevenly distributed. Some sectors of the economy 

will lose sales, income, and jobs, while others will gain. Also, the geographic 

distribution of benefi ts and costs may not be uniform. By defi nition, 

economic benefi ts generated via import substitution in one location would 

result in reduced economic activity in areas from where the goods were 

previously exported. The location, distribution, and magnitude of these costs 

have not been studied for local food systems. 

It is also not clear how estimates of net economic benefi ts would be affected 

if the costs of public investments in local food markets are accounted for.26

Some programs have provided public fi nancing to support local food systems 

for several years (e.g., the Farmers Market Promotion Program began in 

1976), and local governments often either directly operate local markets or 

provide resources to support their operation (e.g., use of public space for 

markets). These costs have not been accounted for in existing research on the 

economic impacts of local food markets.

Health and Nutrition 

The relationship between local foods and healthy food items, such as fresh 

fruits and vegetables, has led to claims that local food systems may provide 

health benefi ts from improved nutrition, obesity prevention, and a reduced 

risk of chronic diet-related disease. Potential health benefi ts have been cited 

as a justifi cation for farm-to-institution marketing programs, including 

 26Public investments are also 

made for reasons that may not be 

related to increases in sales, incomes, 

and employment, such as health and 

nutrition (discussed in this section).
46

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

farm to school programs (Vogt and Kaiser, 2008; Bagdonis et al., 2009; 

Oklahoma Food Policy Council, 2003), and as a benefi t of joining a community supported agriculture (CSA) program (Lea et al., 2006). Others have 

suggested that promoting locally grown food can improve community health 

outcomes (Conner and Levine, 2007; Thompson et al., 2008). 

Local foods may affect health and nutrition in one of two general ways. 

First, local food systems may offer food items that are fresher, less 

processed, and retain more nutrients (e.g., because of shorter travel 

distances) than items offered in nonlocal systems. For example, locally 

obtained food may be healthier because “freshly picked foods ... retain 

more nutrients than less fresh foods” (Lea, 2005, p. 23). Consumers may 

purchase the same amounts and types of fruits and vegetables, but since 

local foods are fresher, the nutrient content of diets is improved. Whether 

or not local food systems tend to improve health and nutrition in this way is 

largely an unresolved empirical question. Locality may be only one factor 

that determines product freshness or retention of nutrients (Lee and Kader, 

2000), and a link between travel distance and nutrient content has not yet 

been established (Vogt and Kaiser, 2008). 

Second, local food systems may increase the availability of healthy food 

items in a community and encourage consumers to make healthier food 

choices. For this to be true, at least two conditions must be met: Local foods 

systems must increase the availability of healthy food items in a way that is 

infeasible or impractical for non-local systems, and consumers who purchase 

local food must make different dietary choices that they would not have 

made without the local option available. 

Morland et al., (2002) and Moore et al., (2008) suggest that improved access 

to healthy foods is associated with healthier dietary choices. Also, anecdotal evidence indicates that CSA membership is associated with increased 

fruit and vegetable consumption (Perez et al., 2003; Olberholtzer, 2004). 

However, it is not clear that there is a relationship between improved access 

and health outcomes (Glanz and Yaroch, 2004; Ver Ploeg et al., 2009), 

or that local characteristics, as opposed to access in general, play a role in 

consumer and dietary choices. 

Introducing healthy food options in schools may be an effective means of 

improving children’s diets. Farm to school initiatives that increase availability, reduce prices, and provide point of purchase information have been 

found to be effective strategies to increase fruit and vegetable consumption in schools (French and Stables, 2003). What is still unclear is whether 

local characteristics are driving these results, or if innovative curricula and 

cafeteria menu changes are responsible. For example, McAleese and Rankin 

(2007) found that children exposed to a garden-based education curriculum 

reported greater fruit and vegetable consumption, even though no effort was 

made to improve the availability of local foods at the schools.

Food Security 

Local food characteristics have commonly been associated with efforts to 

improve food security, particularly at the community level. Food security 

means that all people at all times have access “to enough food for an active, 
47

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

healthy life,” and is a necessary condition for a nourished and healthy population (Nord et al., 2009). Those who are food insecure have limited or uncertain availability of healthy and safe food or have uncertain ability to acquire 

food in normal ways. As of 2008, more than 6.7 million households in the 

United States had very low food security (i.e., multiple instances of reduced 

food intake and disrupted eating patterns) (Nord et al., 2009).

Direct marketing has been a key component of community food security programs, with the goal of reducing community food insecurity and 

supporting rural communities by strengthening traditional ties between 

farmers and urban consumers (Kantor, 2001). In particular, farmer’s markets 

have been associated with food security programs because they are increasingly capable of accepting benefi ts from Federal and State food and nutrition 

programs (e.g., food stamps) (Thilmany and Watson, 2004). 

The potential for local food systems to improve food security is conceptually similar to claims related to health benefi ts. That is, expanding local 

food options may increase the availability of healthy food items, particularly 

in areas with limited access to fresh food. The prevalence of healthy food 

items may encourage increased intake of fruits and vegetables, and improved 

availability may reduce problems related to food access and uncertainty. 

An implicit assumption in this argument is that local food systems improve 

access and reduce uncertainty (Cowell and Parkinson, 2003). 

Despite the use of local foods as a strategy to reduce food insecurity, little 

research has been conducted to examine its effi cacy in reducing insecurity. 

Evidence suggests that healthy eating habits are associated with participation in the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (Kunkel et al., 

2003), and in the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program when nutrition 

education accompanied coupon distribution (Anderson et al., 2001). These 

programs have been cited as important components that impact food security 

(McCullum et al., 2005). However, while these studies make the case that 

programs with local food characteristics impact healthy food choices, food 

security is infl uenced by other factors, such as economic conditions, income, 

and poverty status (Tarasuk, 2001; Nord and Andrews, 2002). To our knowledge, no study has attempted to demonstrate a clear relationship between 

these factors, observed food security, and local food characteristics. 

The potential for local foods to affect food security may be limited by several 

factors. For example, farmers’ markets may experience low-volume sales 

that are similar to those faced by other retailers in low-income neighborhoods (Kantor, 2001). There is also no a priori expectation that local food 

systems will address the needs of low-income households who are subject to 

food insecurity. Prices depend on the market dynamics in a particular location. Prices for some products in local food markets may be comparable to or 

below prices in other markets in a community, but may be higher for other 

products or in other locations (Pirog and McCann, 2009). For example, some 

farmers may use local food markets as a residual or supplemental revenue 

stream and be willing to accept lower retail prices than farmers who use local 

markets as their primary source of income.

Although the precise role of local food characteristics in affecting food security is ambiguous, it is possible that a relationship is diffi cult to detect due 
48

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

to the current size and scope of local food markets. Given that a relatively 

small portion of food is produced and consumed in local food markets, any 

observable impacts may be overwhelmed by other factors, such as the myriad 

programs and policies that impact food security. 

Food Miles, Energy Use, and Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions27

According to Pirog et al., (2001) and Saunders and Hayes (2007), food is 

traveling further from farmers to consumers as the food system increasingly 

relies on long-distance transport and global distribution networks. Concerns 

about fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have increased 

scrutiny of the environmental impacts of transportation in the food system 

and the distance food travels to consumers. Advocates of localization of 

the food system argue that reducing transport distances for food, or food 

miles, can reduce fossil fuel energy use, pollution, and GHG emissions (e.g., 

Thompson et al., 2008; Anderson, 2007). This claim has also been cited as a 

potential benefi t of localization among local food system researchers (Brown, 

2003; Lea, 2005; Selfa and Qazi, 2005; Vogt and Kaiser, 2008). 

Distance is clearly a factor that determines energy use and emissions 

resulting from food transport. Given two otherwise identical supply chains, 

the supply chain with greater food travel distance will use more energy and 

emit more pollution. But supply chains of different lengths (i.e., different 

number of production and marketing stages) are seldom identical; the mode 

of transport, load sizes, fuel type, and trip frequency all affect energy use and 

emissions. 

Saunders and Hayes (2007) reviewed studies that focused on transport 

elements of the food supply chain, with emphasis on the United Kingdom.28

These studies highlight the importance of transportation mode in determining 

fuel use and carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions. For example, cherries imported 

from North America had the highest ratio of emissions to product transported, refl ecting the use of air freight. On the other hand, apples imported 

from New Zealand traveled a greater distance, but had a lower emissions 

ratio because they traveled by sea, a highly energy-effi cient means of moving 

goods.

Saunders and Hayes also reviewed several studies that compare energy use 

and emissions from locally sourced products, domestic products sourced 

from a mainstream retailer, and imported products. Transportation CO2 emissions were found to be greater for imported produce than domestic produce. 

Comparisons of local food systems to food sourced from mainstream retailers 

found no signifi cant differences in transportation energy use, except for those 

products transported by air. The shorter distance traveled in local markets 

was offset by the greater transportation effi ciency of the mainstream system, 

which lowered energy use per unit transported.29

A complete assessment of food system energy use and GHG emissions 

requires the consideration of all stages of food production and distribution. 

Other contributions to energy use and emissions—particularly related to 

production, processing, storage, and preparation—may be as important as 

transportation in assessing the overall impact of local food systems. Life-

 27Other environmental impacts of 

alternative food systems are excluded. 

For example, the continued shift of 

production to larger dairy operations in 

the mainstream dairy system creates increased environmental risks associated 

with the concentration of manure-based 

nitrogen and phosphorus (MacDonald 

et al., 2007). 

 28Many studies of energy use and 

GHG emissions focus on the food system in the United Kingdom or the rest 

of Europe. These studies are useful for 

providing a conceptual framework for 

how energy use and GHG emissions are 

generated in the U.S. food system, but 

empirical estimates may not be directly 

applicable. Production practices, transportation modes, the composition of the 

food basket, consumer preferences, and 

the origin of food imports may not be 

comparable to the U.S. food system.

 29Fuel use per unit of product 

hauled depends on distance traveled, 

the fuel effi ciency of the transport 

mode (i.e., miles per gallon), and the 

total load size hauled. Transportation 

modes that move large loads of food 

from production to retail may reduce 

the effects of longer distances traveled 

(Mariola, 2008; and Desrochers and 

Shimizu, 2008). This suggests that local 

food systems can achieve reductions in 

per unit fuel use when short transport 

distances are coupled with larger load 

sizes.
49

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

cycle assessments (LCA) of inputs and outputs are one way to account 

for energy use and emissions in the food system (table 8). LCA generally 

considers both the direct emissions from activities, such as production and 

transport, and emissions generated during the manufacture of inputs, such 

as fertilizer, pesticides, and electricity (Edwards-Jones et al., 2008).30 A 

full life-cycle assessment would also extend beyond national boundaries 

and would not end with the consumption of fi nal market goods (Canning et 

al., 2010).

Empirical studies of food transportation energy use and GHG emissions do 

not agree on whether local food systems are more energy- and emissionseffi cient, refl ecting great variation among local foods markets. In some cases, 

local and regional food systems are more effi cient (Pirog et al., 2001; Jones, 

2002; Blanke and Burdick, 2005; Coley et al., 2009), and distance is an 

important factor in determining environmental impacts from transportation 

(Pretty et al., 2005). Others have found that distance is neither an adequate 

measure of impact (Saunders and Hayes, 2007), nor particularly relevant, 

because transportation accounts for a relatively small share of energy use 

and emissions in the food system (Weber and Matthews, 2008). In the 

United States, agricultural production, processing, and household storage and 

preparation each account for a larger share of food system energy use than 

transportation (Heller and Keoleian, 2003). Total energy use and emissions 

are affected by differences in inputs used in each segment in the food supply 

chain (Carlsson-Kanyama et al., 2003), production practices and natural 

endowments (Saunders, et al., 2006), and crop yields and fertilizer use (Kim 

and Dale, 2008; Lehuger et al., 2009). Finally, Weber and Matthews (2008) 

suggest that differences in types of food products and diet composition may 

have important implications for energy use and emissions in the food system. 

Research Gaps in Understanding 

the Role of Local Foods

As interest in local food systems as a component of food and agriculture 

policy has increased in recent years, so has the desire to understand how 

expanding local food markets impact farmers, consumers, and communities. 

Consumer, distributor, and producer interest in local foods has increased 

rapidly as consumers demand unique product characteristics and producers 

 30LCAs attempt to capture a 

broader scope of energy use and emissions in the food system, but have 

limitations. Selection of the types of 

impacts to consider and how to model 

them, the spatial scope of the analysis, 

and the time horizon of the analysis can 

all affect LCA results and may limit 

their interpretability. See Reap et al., 

(2008) for a summary of limitations of 

LCAs. 

Table 8

Components of life-cycle assessment analysis and inputs of the food 

supply chain

Scope Inputs

Farm inputs Seed, land, fertilizer, water, herbicide, pesticide, etc.

Farm production Capital (machinery, buildings, etc.), energy (fuel, 

electricity, oil), labor Processing

Distribution Storage, waste, transportation, labor

Consumption Transportation, preparation, waste

Disposal Recycle, waste, transportation

Source: Adapted from fi gure 4 in Desrochers and Shimizu (2008). 
50

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

seek additional viable revenue streams. Local food has also generated great 

enthusiasm for its potential benefi ts. Yet local foods still represent a small 

portion of U.S. agriculture, and much remains to be learned about the future 

role of local foods in the United States. 

Assessing the future growth in local food systems will require detailed 

knowledge about how and why farms sell products in local markets. USDA’s 

Census of Agriculture and Agricultural Resource Management Survey are 

useful tools for pinpointing certain local food marketing activities (e.g., 

sales direct to consumers) and the farms that engage in these activities. But 

future research will need to examine relationships between farm size and 

location, land and operator characteristics, mix of products and marketing 

outlets, and relative costs and returns associated with local food marketing. 

Understanding these relationships will help uncover the incentives and disincentives that exist for participating in local food markets, how they vary 

across the farm landscape, and how policies can encourage participation. 

Future research on farm participation in local food markets will require more 

detailed data about the different types of local food activities. Data currently 

available could be improved along two dimensions. First, more detailed 

information about the relative magnitude of local food sales, including 

types of products sold by market type, would provide a more complete 

picture of the size of local foods markets. Second, surveys that gather 

detailed farm business and operator characteristics, such as ARMS, are not 

designed to provide a detailed description of local food marketing activities. 

Oversampling of direct-marketing farms or other operations that are likely 

to participate in local foods markets could increase the ability to answer 

research questions about farm-level decisions in local foods markets.

A second gap in the research on local foods is an understanding of the 

potential public benefi ts of expanding local food systems, particularly as 

they relate to public policies and programs that support local foods. With 

increasing food insecurity, lack of food access (food deserts), and diet-related 

health problems, local food systems may be a way to circumvent these problems. But as the research in the previous section makes clear, defi nitive links 

between local foods and desirable public policy outcomes need to be studied 

to fi ll knowledge gaps.

Of particular interest is whether local food systems are capable of effectively improving access to healthy foods in underserved communities, and 

whether improved access can translate into improved health and diet-related 

outcomes. Further, farm to school programs that combine local food availability with innovative curricula and food-related education may be a desirable method for encouraging healthy eating habits at a young age. Many 

of these programs are currently in their infancy, which limits the ability of 

researchers to draw defi nitive conclusions about their effi cacy. Future evaluation of these programs will help to determine situations when supporting 

local foods can support policy goals.
51

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Glossary 

Census of Agriculture: The census of U.S. agriculture, conducted by 

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, is based on a 5-year cycle 

of data collection for years ending in 2 and 7. Results for the most recent 

agricultural census, 2007, were released in February 2009 and updated in 

December 2009.

Community supported agriculture (CSA): Marketing arrangement in 

which members purchase shares of a farmer’s expected yield before planting. 

Each week during the growing season the farmer delivers each member’s 

weekly share of food to predetermined locations or packs the share for 

members to pick up at the farm. 

Customwork: Services that farm operators provide for others such as 

planting, plowing, spraying, and harvesting.

Direct-to-consumer marketing: Local food marketing arrangement in 

which producers sell agricultural products directly to the fi nal consumers, 

such as sales to consumers through farmers’ markets, CSAs or farm stands. 

Direct-to-retail/foodservice marketing: Local food marketing arrangement 

in which producers sell agricultural products directly to the fi nal sellers, such 

as sales to restaurants, supermarkets, or institutions, including schools and 

hospitals.

Farmers’ market: Marketing outlet at which farmers sell agricultural products to individual customers at a temporary or permanent location on a periodic and recurring basis during the local growing season or during the time 

when they have products available, which might be all year.

Farm to school programs: Collaborative projects that connect schools and 

local farms to serve locally grown, healthy foods in K-12 school settings, 

improve student nutrition, educate students about food and health, and 

support local and regional farmers.

Fiscal year: Federal fi scal years run from October 1 to September 30 and are 

named after the year in which they end.

Food miles: The distance a food product travels from the place of production 

to the location where it is sold for fi nal consumption.

Food provenance: The identifi able geographical origin and associated 

production methods and traditions of a food. 

Life-cycle assessment (LCA): Method used to analyze the consumption and 

environmental burdens associated with a product from cradle to grave.

Local food: Food produced, processed, and distributed within a particular 

geographic boundary that consumers associate with their own community.

Locality foods: Food from a specifi c geographic location, such that the character and taste are attributed to geographic conditions, production methods 
52

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

and/or traditions of the locality. The name of the locality may be used in 

marketing the product, such as for state branding programs.

Locavore: A consumer who primarily eats minimally processed, seasonally 

available food grown or produced within a specifi ed radius from his or her 

home, commonly 100 or 250 miles.

MarketMaker: A national partnership of land-grant institutions and State 

departments of agriculture dedicated to building an electronic infrastructure that would more easily connect farmers with economically viable new 

markets. It provides an interactive mapping system that locates buyers (e.g., 

retailers, wholesalers, processors) and sources of agricultural products (e.g., 

farmers, farmers’ markets).

National Farmers’ Market Promotion Program: A competitive grants 

program for local governments, agricultural cooperatives, farmers’ markets, 

and other eligible groups to improve and expand farmers’ markets, CSAs, 

and other local food markets. 

National Center for Appropriate Technology: Nonprofi t organization 

located in Butte, MT. 

National Farm to School Network: A collaborative project of the Center 

for Food & Justice, a division of the Urban & Environmental Policy Institute 

at Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA, and the Community Food Security 

Coalition, a Portland, OR-based nonprofi t organization.

School Nutrition Association: A national, nonprofi t professional organization for school food authorities, representing more than 55,000 members.

Social embeddedness: Economic relationships are shaped by and depend on 

social relations in a community.
53

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Abate, G. 2008. “Local Food Economies: Driving Forces, Challenges, and 

Future Prospects,” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 3: pp. 

384-399.

Adam, K.L., 2006. Community Supported Agriculture, National Sustainable 

Agriculture Information Service, National Center for Appropriate 

Technology, Butte, MT. 

Alaimo, K., et al. 2008. “Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Urban 

Community Gardeners,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior. Vol. 

40, pp. 94-101.

Allen, P. 1999. “Reweaving the Food Security Safety Net: Mediating 

Entitlement and Entrepreneurship,” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 16, 

pp. 117-129.

Anderson, M.D. 2007. The Case for Local and Regional Food 

Marketing, Farm and Food Policy Project issue brief. Northeast-Midwest 

Institute, Washington, DC. Accessed November 2009 at: http://www.

farmandfoodproject.org/index.asp

Anderson, J., et al. 2001. “5 A Day Fruit and Vegetable Intervention 

Improves Consumption in a Low Income Population,” Journal of the 

American Dietetic Association, Vol. 101, pp. 195-202.

Aurier, P., F. Fort, and L. Sirieix. 2005. “Exploring Terroir Product 

Meanings for the Consumer,” Anthropology of Food, May 2005. Accessed 

November 4, 2009 at: http://aof.revues.org/index187.html

Bagdonis, J.M., C.C. Hinrichs, and K.A. Schafft. 2009. “The Emergence and 

Framing of Farm to school Initiatives: Civic Engagement, Health and Local 

Agriculture,” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 26, pp. 107-119.

Barham, E. 2003. “Translating Terroir: The Global Challenge of French 

AOC Labeling,” Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 127-138.

Battle, E. 2009. “The Wait is Over as Area Farmers Markets Open,” The 

Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, VA, April 22, 2009. 

Beamer, B. March 1999. How To Sell Fresh Produce to Supermarket Chains, 

report paper from Rural Economic Analysis Program, Virginia Polytechnic 

Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Beery, M., and M. Valliantos. 2004. Farm to Hospital: Promoting Health 

and Supporting Local Agriculture. UEPI Papers–Research Brief. Urban and 

Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA.

Bellows, A.C., and M.W. Hamm. 2001. “Local Autonomy and Sustainable 

Development: Testing Import Substitution in Localizing Food Systems,” 

Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 18, pp. 271-284. 
54

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Berkenkamp, J. 2006. Making the Farm/School Connection: Opportunities 

and Barriers to Greater Use of Locally-Grown Produce in Public Schools, 

Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul/

Minneapolis, MN. Accessed March 3, 2010 at: http://www.ifound.org/

oomph/images/Berkenkamp_TheFarmSchoolConnection.pdf

Berkenkamp, J., and D. Burtness. 2008. Farm to School in Minnesota: 

A Survey of School Foodservice Leaders, Minnesota School Nutrition 

Association and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis, 

MN.

Best, M.J., and K.L. Wolfe. 2009. “A Profi le of Local Dairy Consumers in 

the Southeast and the Potential for Dairies to Market Value-Added Products 

Locally,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 40, pp. 22-31. 

Biermacher, J., et al. 2007. “Economic Challenges of Small-Scale Vegetable 

Production and Retailing in Rural Communities: An Example from Rural 

Oklahoma,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 38, pp. 1-13.

Blanke, M.M., and B. Burdick. 2005. “Food (miles) for Thought,” 

Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 12, pp. 125-127.

Boehlje, M. 1996. “Industrialization of Agriculture: What are the 

Implications?,” Choices, First Quarter 1996.

Borlaug, N.E. 2009. “Farmers Can Feed the World,” The Wall Street 

Journal, July 31, 2009.

Born, B., and M. Purcell. 2006. “Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and 

Food Systems in Planning Research,” Journal of Planning Education and 

Research, Vol. 26, pp. 195-207.

Bressler, R.G., Jr., and R.A. King. 1970. Markets, Prices, and Interregional 

Trade. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Brooker, J.R., and D.B. Eastwood. February 1989. “Using State Logos to 

Increase Purchases of Selected Food Products,” Journal of Food Distribution 

Research, Vol. 20, pp. 175-183.

Brown, C. 2003. “Consumers’ Preferences for Locally Produced Food: A 

Study in Southeast Missouri,” American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 

Vol. 18, pp. 213-224.

Brown, C., and S. Miller. 2008. “The Impact of Local Markets: A Review 

of Research on Farmers’ Markets and Community Supported Agriculture 

(CSA),” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 

1296-1302.

Canning, P., et al. 2010. Energy Use in the U.S. Food System, USDA, 

Economic Research Service, ERR-94.
55

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Cantrell P., et al. 2006. Eat Fresh and Grow Jobs, Michigan, Michigan 

Land Use Institute, Beulah, MI. Accessed April 23, 2009 at: http://www.

mottgroup.msu.edu/portals/0/downloads/EatFresh.pdf

Capper, J.L, R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009. “The Environmental 

Impact of Dairy Production: 1944 Compared with 2007,” Journal of Animal 

Science, Vol. 87, pp. 2160-2167.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A., M.P. Ekström, and H. Shanahan. 2003. “Food and 

Life Cycle Energy Inputs: Consequences of Diet and Ways to Increase 

Effi ciency,” Ecological Economics, Vol. 44, pp. 293-307.

Carpio, C.E., and O. Isengildina-Massa. 2009. “Consumer Willingness to 

Pay for Locally Grown Products: The Case of South Carolina,” Agribusiness, 

Vol. 25, pp. 412–426.

Chefs Collaborative. 2008. Chefs Collaborative Regional Food 

Infrastructure Project Summer 2008. Chefs Collaborative, Boston, MA.

Coley, D., M. Howard, and M. Winter. 2009. “Local Food, Food Miles and 

Carbon Emissions: A Comparison of Farm Shop and Mass Distribution 

Approaches,” Food Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 150-155.

Conner, D.S., and R. Levine. 2007. “Circles of Association: The Connections 

of Community-Based Food Systems,” Journal of Hunger and Environmental 

Nutrition, Vol. 1, pp. 5-25.

Connor, John M., and William A. Schiek. 1997. Food Processing: An 

Industrial Powerhouse in Transition. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Cowell, S.J., and S. Parkinson. 2003. “Localisation of UK Food Production: 

An Analysis Using Land Area and Energy as Indicators,” Agriculture, 

Ecosystems & Environment, Vol. 94, pp. 221-236.

Darby, K., et al. 2008. “Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally 

Produced Foods,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 

476-486.

Day-Farnsworth, L., et al. 2009. Scaling Up: Meeting the Demand for 

Local Food, University of Wisconsin-Extension Ag Innovation Center and 

UW-Madison Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, Madison, WI.

DePhelps, C., et al. 2005. Mid-Size Producer, Capturing Local Value: M&M 

Heath Farms, The Northwest Direct Farmer Case Study Series, Case No. 4, 

Rural Roots, Inc., Moscow, ID.

Desrochers, P., and H. Shimizu. 2008. Yes, We Have No Bananas: A Critique 

of the ‘Food Miles’ Perspective, Mercatus Center Policy Primer No. 8, 

George Mason, University, Arlington, VA. Accessed April 16, 2009 at: 

http://nercrd.psu.edu/LocalFoods/MercatusPolicySeries.pdf
56

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Dimitri, C., A. Effl and, and N. Conklin. 2005. The 20th Century 

Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy, USDA, Economic 

Research Service, EIB-3. 

Dimitri, C., and A. Effl and. 2005. “Milestones in U.S. Farming and Farm 

Policy,” Amber Waves, Vol. 3, Issue 3.

DuPuis, E.M., and D. Goodman. 2005. “Should We Go ‘Home’ to Eat?: 

Toward a Refl exive Politics of Localism,” Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 21, 

pp 359-371. 

Durham, C.A., R.P. King, and C.A. Roheim. March 2009. “Consumer 

Defi nitions of ‘Locally Grown’ for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.” Journal of 

Food Distribution Research, Vol. 40, pp 56-62.

Eastwood, D.B. October 1996. “Using Customer Surveys to Promote 

Farmers’ Markets: A Case Study.” Journal of Food Distribution Research, 

Vol. 27, pp 23-30.

Eastwood, D.B., J.R. Brooker, and M.D. Gray. March 1999. “Location and 

Other Market Attributes Affecting Farmers’ Market Patronage: The Case of 

Tennessee,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 30, pp. 63-72.

Eastwood, David B., John R. Brooker, and Robert H. Orr. December 1987. 

“Consumer Preferences for Local Versus Out-of-State Grown Selected 

Fresh Produce: The Case of Knoxville, Tennessee,” Southern Journal of 

Agricultural Economics, Vol. 19, pp. 183-194.

Edwards-Jones, G., et. al. 2008. “Testing the Assertion That ‘Local Food is 

Best’: The Challenges of an Evidence-Based Approach,” Trends-in-FoodScience-and-Technology, Vol. 19, pp. 265-274.

Farnsworth, R.L., et al. 1996. “Community Supported Agriculture: Filling a 

Niche Market,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 27, pp. 90-98.

Feenstra, G.W. 1997. “Local Food Systems and Sustainable Communities,” 

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 21, pp. 28-36. 

Feenstra, G.W., et al. 2003. “Entrepreneurial Outcomes and Enterprise 

Size in U.S. Retail Farmers’ Markets,” American Journal of Alternative 

Agriculture, Vol. 18, pp. 46-55.

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. 2007. Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, and 

Farm Economic Performance, USDA, Economic Research Service, ERR-36.

Food Marketing Institute. 2009. U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends, Food 

Marketing Institute: Arlington, VA.

Food Processing Center. 2003. Approaching Foodservice Establishments 

With Locally Grown Products, University of Nebraska-Institute of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lincoln, NE.
57

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

French, S.A., and G. Stables. 2003. “Environmental Interventions to Promote 

Vegetable and Fruit Consumption Among Youth in School Settings,” 

Preventive Medicine, Vol. 37, pp. 593-610.

Futamura, T. 2007. “Made in Kentucky: The Meaning of ‘Local’ Food 

Products in Kentucky’s Farmers’ Markets,” The Japanese Journal of 

American Studies, Vol. 18, pp. 209-227.

Gale, F. 1997. “Direct Farm Marketing as a Rural Development Tool,” Rural 

Development Perspective, Vol. 12, pp. 19-25.

Gallons, J., et al. February 1997. “An Analysis of Consumer Characteristics 

Concerning Direct Marketing of Fresh Produce in Delaware: A Case Study,” 

Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 28, pp. 98-106.

Garden Writers Association. 2008. Plant A Row for the Hungry–Overview, 

Garden Writers Association, Manassas, VA. Accessed February 25, 2010 at: 

http://www.gardenwriters.org/gwa.php?p=par/index.html

Gaytan, M. 2003. Globalizing the Local: Slow Food and the Collective 

Imaginary, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American 

Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA, August 16, 2003. 

Giovannucci, D., E. Barham, and R. Pirog. 2010. “Defi ning and Marketing 

‘Local’ Foods: Geographical Indications for U.S. Products,” Journal of 

World Intellectual Property, Special Issue: The Law and Economics of 

Geographical Indications, Vol. 13, March 2010.

Giraud, K.L., C.A. Bond, and J.J. Bond. 2005. “Consumer Preferences for 

Locally Made Specialty Food Products Across Northern New England.” 

Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Vol. 34, pp. 204-216. 

Glanz, K., and A.L. Yaroch. 2004. “Strategies for Increasing Fruit and 

Vegetable Intake in Grocery Stores and Communities: Policy, Pricing, and 

Environmental Change,” Preventive Medicine, Vol. 29, pp. S75-S80.

Golan, Elise, et al. 2004. Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Economic 

Theory and Industry Studies, USDA, Economic Research Service, AER-830.

Goland, C., and S. Bauer. 2004. “When the Apple Falls Close to the Tree: 

Local Food Systems and the Preservation of Biodiversity,” Renewable 

Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 228–236.

Govindasamy, R., et al. June 1998. Farmers’ Markets: Consumer Trends, 

Preferences, and Characteristics, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment 

Station Report P-02137-7-98, Department of Agricultural, Food, and 

Resource Economics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Grannis, Jennifer, and Dawn Thilmany. 2002. “Marketing Natural Pork: An 

Empirical Analysis of Consumers in the Mountain Region,” Agribusiness, 

Vol. 18, pp. 475–489.
58

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Gregoire, M.B., S.W. Arendt, and C.H. Strohbehn. 2005. “Iowa Producers’ 

Perceived Benefi ts and Obstacles in Marketing to Local Restaurants and 

Institutional Foodservice Operations,” Journal of Extension, Vol. 43. 

Accessed April 8, 2009 at: http://www.joe.org/joe/2005february/rb1.php

Gregoire, M.B., and C. Strohbehn. 2002. “Benefi ts and Obstacles to 

Purchasing Food From Local Growers and Producers,” Journal of Child 

Nutrition & Management, Issue 1, Spring 2002. Accessed March 3, 2010 at: 

http://docs.schoolnutrition.org/newsroom/jcnm/02spring/gregoire

Guptill, A., and J.L. Wilkins. 2002. “Buying into the Food System: Trends 

in Food Retailing in the U.S. and Implications for Local Foods,” Agriculture 

and Human Values, Vol. 19, pp. 39-51.

Guthman, J. 2007. “Commentary on Teaching Food: Why I am Fed up with 

Michael Pollan, et al.,” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 24, pp. 261-264.

Hamilton, N.D. October 29, 2005. “Farmers’ Market Policy: An Inventory of 

Federal, State, and Local Examples,” Prepared for Project for Public Spaces, 

Drake University Agricultural Law Center, Des Moines, IA. 

Hardesty, S.D. 2008. “The Growing Role of Local Food Markets,” American 

Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 90, pp. 1289-1295.

Hazell, P., et al. November 2006. “The Future of Small Farms: Synthesis 

Paper (version 1),” Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural Development, 

Santiago, Chile. Accessed April 2010 at: http://www.rimisp.org/getdoc.

php?docid=6444

Heim, S., J. Stang, and M. Ireland. 2009. “A Garden Pilot Project Enhances 

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption among Children,” Journal of the American 

Dietetic Association, Vol. 109, pp.1220-1226.

Heimlich, R.E., and W. D. Anderson. 2001. Development at the Urban 

Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land, USDA, 

Economic Research Service, AER-803.

Heller, M.C., and G.A. Keoleian. 2003. “Assessing the Sustainability of the 

US Food System: A Life Cycle Perspective,” Agricultural Systems, Vol. 76, 

pp. 1007-1041.

Henneberry, S.R., B. Whitacre, and H.N. Agustini. November 2009. “An 

Evaluation of the Economic Impacts of Oklahoma Farmers’ Markets,” 

Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 40, pp 64-78.

Hill, H., 2008. Food Miles: Background and Marketing, National Sustainable 

Agriculture Information Service, National Center for Appropriate 

Technology, Butte, MT. 

Hinrichs, C.C. 2000. “Embeddedness and Local Food Systems: Notes on 

Two Types of Direct Agricultural Market,” Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 

16, pp. 295-303.
59

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hinrichs, C.C., 2003. “The Practice and Politics of Food System 

Localization,” Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 19, pp. 33-45.

Hinson, Roger A., and Michael N. Bruchhaus. 2005. “Louisiana 

Strawberries: Consumer Preferences and Retailer Advertising,” Journal of 

Food Distribution Research, Vol. 36, pp. 86-90.

Hoppe, R.A., and P. Korb. 2006. Understanding U.S. Farm Exits, USDA, 

Economic Research Service, ERR-21.

Horrigan, L., R.S. Lawrence, and P. Walker. 2002. “How Sustainable 

Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of 

Industrial Agriculture.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, pp. 

445-456.

Horowitz, K.J., and M.A. Planting. 2006. Concepts and Methods of the 

Input-Output Accounts, Working Paper WP2006-06, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accessed November 2009 at: 

http://www.bea.gov/papers/working_papers.htm

Hughes, D.W., et al. 2008. “Evaluating the Economic Impact of Farmers’ 

Markets Using an Opportunity Cost Framework,” Journal of Agricultural 

and Applied Economics, Vol. 40, pp. 253-265.

Hughes, D.W., et al. 2007. What is the Deal with Local Food Systems: Or, 

Local Food Systems from a Regional Perspective, Working Paper 11-2007-

01, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

Hunt, A.R. 2007. “Consumer Interactions and Infl uences on Farmers’ Market 

Vendors,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 22, pp. 54-66. 

Hurst, S. 2009. Minnesota School Food Survey. Accessed 

March 2010 at: http://www.gourmet.com/foodpolitics/2009/03/

politics-of-the-plate-minnesota-school-food-survey/.

Ikerd, J. 2005. Eating Local: A Matter of Integrity, presentation at The Eat 

Local Challenge kickoff event, Portland, OR, June 2, 2005.

Ilbery, B., and D. Maye. 2006. “Retailing Local Food in the Scottish-English 

Borders: A Supply Chain Perspective,” Geoforum, Vol. 37, pp. 352-367.

Ilbery, B., and D. Maye. 2005. “Food Supply Chains and Sustainability: 

Evidence from Specialist Food Producers in the Scottish/English Borders,” 

Land Use Policy, Vol. 22, pp. 331-344.

Izumi, B.T., et al. 2006. “Results From the 2004 Michigan Farm to School 

Survey,” Journal of School Health, Vol. 76, pp. 169-174.

James, Jennifer, Bradley Rickard, and William Rossman. 2009. Product 

Differentiation and Market Segmentation in Applesauce: Using a Choice 

Experiment to Assess the Value of Organic, Local, and Nutrition Attributes, 

Working Paper WP 2009-01, Department of Applied Economics and 

Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
60

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Jekanowski, M.D., D.R. Williams II, and W.A. Schiek. 2000. “Consumers’ 

Willingness to Purchase Locally Produced Agricultural Products: An 

Analysis of an Indiana Survey.” Agricultural and Resource Economics 

Review, Vol. 29, pp. 43-52.

Jespersen, B. 2009. “Farmers’ Market in New Territory with Online Sales 

Venture,” Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME, June 29, 2009. 

Jones, A. 2002. “An Environmental Assessment of Food Supply Chains: A 

Case Study on Dessert Apples,” Environmental Management, Vol. 30, pp. 

560-576.

Joshi, Anupama, and Andrea Misako Azuma. 2009. Bearing Fruit: Farm 

to School Program Evaluation Resources and Recommendations. National 

Farm to School Program, Center for Food & Justice, Urban & Environmental 

Policy Institute, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA. Accessed March 2010 

at: http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/bearingfruit.htm

Joshi, Anupama, Marion Kalb, and Moira Beery. 2007. Going Local: 

Paths to Success for Farm to School Programs, National Farm to School 

Program, Urban & Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, Los 

Angeles, CA. Accessed March 2010 at: http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/

publications/goinglocal.pdf

Kambara, K.M., and C.L. Shelley. 2002. The California Agricultural Direct 

Marketing Study, California Institute of Rural Studies, Davis, CA.

Kantor, L.S. 2001. “Community Food Security Programs Improve Food 

Access,” Food Review, Vol. 24, pp. 20-26.

Karlen, A. 2009. Programs for Local Food Systems: What’s Available, 

What Works?, Panel discussant at Workshop on Local Food Systems: 

Emerging Research and Policy Issues, USDA, Economic Research Service, 

Washington, DC. June 26, 2009.

Keeling-Bond, J., D. Thilmany, and C. Bond. 2009. “What Infl uences 

Consumer Choice of Fresh Produce Purchase Location?” Journal of 

Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1):61-74.

Key, N., and M.J. Roberts. 2007. “Measures of Trends in Farm Size Tell 

Differing Stories,” Amber Waves, Vol. 5, Issue 5.

Kezis, A.S., et al. 1984. “Consumer Acceptance and Preference for Direct 

Marketing in the Northeast,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 

15, pp. 38-46.

Kim, S., and B.E. Dale. 2008. “Effects of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application 

on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economics of Corn Production,” 

Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 42, pp. 6028-6033.

Kirby, L.D. “Restaurants as a Potential Market Channel for Locally-Grown 

Food in Western North Carolina.” Prepared for the Appalachian Sustainable 

Agriculture Project, November 2006. 
61

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Kirby, L.D., C. Jackson, and A. Perrett. 2007. Growing Local: Expanding the 

Western North Carolina Food and Farm Economy, Appalachian Sustainable 

Agriculture Project, Asheville, NC.

Kolodinsky, J.M., and L.L. Pelch. 1997. “Factors Infl uencing the Decision 

to Join a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Farm,” Journal of 

Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 10, pp. 129-141.

Kuches, K., et al. 2000. “The Impact of Respondents’ Characteristics on 

Purchasing Decisions,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vo. 31, pp. 

131-138.

Kunkel, M.E., B. Luccia, and A.C. Moore. 2003. “Evaluation of the South 

Carolina Seniors Farmers’ Market Nutrition Education Program,” Journal of 

the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 103, pp. 880-883.

Lawless, G., et al. 1999. The Farmer-Food Buyer Dialogue Project, UWCC 

Occasional Paper No. 13, University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for 

Cooperatives, Madison, WI. Accessed April 2009 at: http://www.uwcc.wisc.

edu/info/ffbuyer/toc.html

Lea, E. 2005. “Food, Health, the Environment and Consumers’ Dietary 

Choices,” Nutrition and Dietetics, Vol. 62, pp. 21-25.

Lea, E., et al. 2006. “Farmers’ and Consumers’ Beliefs About CommunitySupported Agriculture in Australia: A Qualitative Study,” Ecology of Food 

and Nutrition, Vol. 45, pp. 61-86.

Lee, S.K., and A.A. Kader. 2000. “Preharvest and Postharvest Factors 

Infl uencing Vitamin C Content of Horticultural Crops,” Postharvest Biology 

and Technology, Vol. 20, pp. 207-220.

Lehman, J., et al. 1998. “An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Delaware 

Farmer Direct Markets.” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 29, pp. 

84-90.

Lehuger, S., B. Gabrielle, and N. Gagnaire. 2009. “Environmental Impact of 

the Substitution of Imported Soybean Mean with Locally Produced Rapeseed 

Meal in Dairy Cow Feed,” Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, pp. 

616-624.

LeRoux, M.N., et al. 2009. Evaluating Marketing Channel Options for 

Small-Scale Fruit and Vegetable Producers, Working Paper WP2009-14, 

Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University, 

Ithaca, NY.

Lev, L., L. Brewer, and G. Stephenson. 2003. How Do Farmers’ Markets 

Affect Neighboring Businesses? Oregon Small Farms Technical Report No. 

16, Small Farms Extension Program, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Lloyd, R.M., D.S. Tilley, and J. R. Nelson. 1995. “Pick-Your-Own Markets: 

Should I Grow Fruits and Vegetables?” Direct Farm Marketing and Tourism 
62

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Handbook. Eds.: Russell Tronstad and Julie Leones. Tuscon, AZ: Arizona 

Cooperative Extension.

Local Harvest. 2010. Community Supported Agriculture. Accessed February 

2010 at: http://www.localharvest.org/csa

Loureiro, M.L., and S. Hine. 2002. “Discovering Niche Markets: A 

Comparison of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), 

Organic, and GMO-Free Products,” Journal of Agricultural and Applied 

Economics, Vol. 34, pp. 477-487. 

MacDonald, J.M., et al. 2007. Profi ts, Costs, and the Changing Structure of 

Dairy Farming, USDA, Economic Research Service, ERR-47.

Macleod, M., and J. Scott. 2007. Local Food Procurement Policies: A 

Literature Review, prepared for Nova Scotia Department of Energy, Halifax, 

Canada.

Mariola, Matthew J. 2008. “The Local Industrial Complex? Questioning 

the Link Between Local Foods and Energy Use,” Agriculture and Human 

Values, Vol. 25, pp. 193-96.

Marketumbrella.org. 1999. Catalysts for Growth: Farmers’ Markets as a 

Stimulus for Economic Development, 1999 Greenpaper. Accessed September 

2009 at: http://www.marketumbrella.org/uploads/fi le/gpCataylsts_1999.pdf

Marsden, T., J. Banks, and G. Bristow. 2000. “Food Supply Chain 

Approaches: Exploring their Role in Rural Development,” Sociologia 

Ruralis, Vol. 40, pp. 424-38.

Matteson, G., and R. Heuer. February 18, 2008. “Growing Opportunity: The 

Outlook for Local Food Systems,” Farm Credit Council Report.

McAleese, J.D., and L.L. Rankin. 2007. “Garden-Based Nutrition Education 

Affects Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Sixth-Grade Adolescents,” 

Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 107, pp. 662-665.

McCullum, C., et al. 2005. “Evidence-Based Strategies to Build Community 

Food Security,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 105, pp. 

278-283.

Moore, L.V., et al. 2008. “Associations of the Local Food Environment 

with Diet Quality: A Comparison of Assessments Based on Surveys and 

Geographic Information Systems,” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 

167, pp. 917-924.

Morland, K., S. Wing, and A.D. Roux. 2002. “The Contextual Effect of the 

Local Food Environment on Residents’ Diets: The Atherosclerosis Risk 

in Communities Study,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92, pp. 

1761-1767.

National Conference of State Legislatures. 2010. Healthy Community Design 

and Access to Healthy Food Legislation Database. Accessed April 2010 
63

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

at: http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/EnvironmentandNaturalResources/

HealthyCommunityDesignandAccesstoHealthyFoo/tabid/13227/Default.aspx

National Gardening Association. 2009. “The Impact of Home and 

Community Gardening In America.” South Burlington, VT. Accessed 

February 25, 2009 at: http://www.gardenresearch.com/fi les/2009-Impact-ofGardening-in-America-White-Paper.pdf

National Restaurant Association. 2009. Food and Healthy Living: Strategy 

for Winning Stomach Share, 2009 Restaurant Industry Forecast, National 

Restaurant Association, Washington, DC.

Nord, M., and M. Andrews. 2002. Reducing Food Insecurity in the United 

States: Assessing Progress Toward a National Objective, USDA, Economic 

Research Service, FANRR-26-2.

Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson. 2009. Household Food Security in 

the United States, 2008, USDA, Economic Research Service, ERR-83. 

Oklahoma Food Policy Council. 2003. The Oklahoma Farm-to-School 

Report. The Kerr Center, Poteau, OK. Accessed August 2009 at: http://www.

kerrcenter.com/resources/farmtoschool-report.htm

Oberholtzer, L. 2004. Community Supported Agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic 

Region: Results of a Shareholder Survey and Farmer Interviews. Small Farm 

Success Project, Stevensville, MD. Accessed August 2009, at: http://www.

smallfarmsuccess.info/publications.cfm

Ostrom, M. 2006. “Everyday Meanings of ‘Local Food’: Views from Home 

and Field,” Journal of the Community Development Society, Spring 2006.

Otto, D., and T. Varner. 2005. Consumers, Vendors, and the Economic 

Importance of Iowa Farmers’ Markets: An Economic Impact Survey 

Analysis, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA. Accessed 

April 2009 at: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_fi les/

markets_rfswg.pdf

Packaged Facts. May 2007. Fresh and Local Food in the U.S., 

MarketResearch.com, New York, NY.

Painter, Kathleen. 2008. An Analysis of Food-Chain Demand for 

Differentiated Farm Commodities: Implications for Farm Sector. USDA, 

Rural Development, Rural Business and Cooperative Programs Research 

Report 215. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RBS/

pub/Painter_Report_Small.pdf

Park, S-A., C.A. Shoemaker, and M.D. Haub. 2009. “Physical and 

Psychological Health Conditions of Older Adults Classifi ed as Gardeners or 

Nongardeners,” HortScience. Vol. 44:206-210.

Perez, J., P. Allen, and M. Brown. 2003. Community Supported Agriculture 

on the Central Coast: The CSA Member Experience. Center for Agroecology 

and Sustainable Food Systems, University of California, Santa Cruz, 
64

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Research Brief No. 1 (Winter). Accessed August 2009, at: http://casfs.ucsc.

edu/publications/briefs/index.html

Peters, C.J., et al. 2008. “Foodshed Analysis and Its Relevance to 

Sustainability,” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 24, pp. 1-7.

Pirog, R. 2009. Local Foods: Farm Fresh and Environmentally Friendly. 

Accessed June 2009 at: http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_

fi les/WorldBook.pdf

Pirog, R., and N. McCann. December 2009. Is Local Food More Expensive? 

A Consumer Price Perspective on Local and Non-Local Foods Purchased in 

Iowa, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA.

Pirog, R., and R. Rasmussen. June 2009. Understanding Common Terms 

Used in Discussions about Climate Change and Agriculture, Leopold Center 

for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA.

Pirog, R., and R. Rasmussen. September 2008. Food, Fuel, and the Future: 

Consumer Perceptions of Local Food, Food Safety and Climate Change in 

the Context of Rising Prices, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 

Ames, IA.

Pirog, R., et al. June 2001. Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa Perspective 

on How Far Food Travels, Fuel Usage, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 

Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Ames, IA.

Pretty, J.N., et al. 2005. “Farm Costs and Food Miles: An Assessment of the 

Full Cost of the UK Weekly Food Basket,” Food Policy, Vol. 30, pp. 1-19. 

Public Health Law and Policy. October 2009. “Healthy Mobile Vending 

Policies: A Win-Win for Vendors and Childhood Obesity Prevention 

Advocates.” Factsheet. The National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to 

Prevent Childhood Obesity.

Ragland, E., and D. Tropp. 2009. USDA National Farmers’ Market Manager 

Survey 2006, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Reap, J., et al. 2008. “A Survey of Unresolved Problems in Life-Cycle 

Assessment,” International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 13, pp. 

374-388.

Roininen, K., A. Arvola, and L. Lähteenmäki. 2006. “Exploring Consumers’ 

Perceptions of Local Food with Two Different Qualitative Techniques: 

Laddering and Word Association,” Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 17, 

pp. 20-30.

Ross, N.J., et al. 1999. “Trying and Buying Locally Grown Produce at the 

Workplace: Results of a Marketing Intervention,” American Journal of 

Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 14, pp. 171-179.

Sachs, Elizabeth, and Gail Feenstra. Undated. Emerging Local Food 

Purchasing Initiatives in Northern California Hospitals, Agricultural 
65

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis. Accessed September 

2009 at: http://sarep.ucdavis.edu/cdpp/fti

Sage, C. 2003. “Social Embeddedness and Relations of Regard: Alternative 

‘Good Food’ Networks in South-West Ireland,” Journal of Rural Studies, 

Vol. 19, pp. 47-60.

Saunders, C., A. Barber, and L. Sorenson. 2009. Food Miles, Carbon 

Footprinting and Their Potential Impact on Trade, presentation at the 

Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics annual conference, Cairns, 

Queensland, Australia. February 2009. 

Saunders, C., A. Barber, and G. Taylor. 2006. Food Miles—Comparative 

Energy/Emissions Performance of New Zealand’s Agriculture Industry, 

Research Report No. 285, Agribusiness and Economist Research Unit, 

Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

Saunders, C., and P. Hayes. 2007. Air Freight Transport of Fresh Fruit and 

Vegetables, Research Report No. 299, Agribusiness and Economist Research 

Unit, Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand. 

School Nutrition Association. 2009. School Nutrition Operations Report: 

The State of School Nutrition 2009. 

Schneider, M.L., and C.A. Francis. 2005. “Marketing Locally Produced 

Foods: Consumer and Farmer Opinions in Washington County, Nebraska,” 

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 20, pp. 252-60. 

Schumacher, August, Suzanne Briggs, and George Krumbhaar. 2009. 

Wireless Card Services Supporting SNAP (Food Stamp), WIC and Senior 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs, and Farmers’ Market EBT Program. 

Farmers Market Coalition website. Revised May 2009 Accessed August 

2009 at: http://www.farmersmarketcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/rlib/

EBT_Report_Suzanne_Briggs_5.30.2009%5B1%5D.pdf

Selfa, T., and J. Qazi. 2005. “Place, Taste, or Face-to-Face? Understanding 

Producer-Consumer Networks in ‘Local’ Food Systems in Washington 

State,” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 22, pp. 451-464.

Shipman, D. 2009. Setting the Stage: Local Foods Issues and Policies, 

presentation at Local Food Systems: Emerging Research and Policy Issues 

Conference at USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, June 

26, 2009. 

Shulman, P. “Seattle Local Food Action Initiative: From Governance to 

Convergence,” presented for West Coast Direct Marketing Summit. July 

2009.

Smith, R. “Producers Should Help Consumers Out of ‘Rut’,” Feedstuffs, 

April 13, 2009.

Soto, R., and A. Diamond. May 2009. Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food 

Marketing, USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. Accessed February 2010 
66

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

at: www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=STELPRDC5076729&

acct=wdmgeninfo

Starr, A., et al. 2003. “Sustaining Local Agriculture: Barriers and 

Opportunities to Direct Marketing Between Farms and Restaurants in 

Colorado,” Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 20, pp. 301-321.

Stephenson, G. and L. Lev. 2004. “Common Support for Local Agriculture 

in Two Contrasting Oregon Communities,” Renewable Agriculture and Food 

Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 210-217. 

Swenson, D. February 2008. Estimating the Production and Market-Value 

Based Impacts of Nutritional Goals in NE Iowa. Ames, IA: Leopold Center 

for Sustainable Agriculture. 

Swenson, D. 2009. Investigating the Potential Economic Impacts of Local 

Foods for Southeast Iowa. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable 

Agriculture.

Tarasuk, V. 2001. “A Critical Examination of Community-Based Responses 

to Household Food Insecurity in Canada,” Health Education and Behavior, 

Vol. 28, pp. 487-499.

The Economist. “Good Food?” December 7, 2006. 

Thilmany, D., and P. Watson. 2004. “The Increasing Role of Direct 

Marketing and Farmers’ markets for Western U.S. Producers,” Western 

Economics Forum, Vol. 3, pp. 19-25.

Thompson, E., Jr., A.M. Harper, and S. Kraus. 2008. Think Globally—Eat 

Locally: San Francisco Foodshed Assessment, American Farmland Trust. 

Accessed June 23, 2009 at: http://www.farmland.org/programs/states/ca/

Feature%20Stories/San-Francisco-Foodshed-Report.asp

Tronstad, R., and J. Leones. 1995. Direct Farm Marketing and Tourism 

Handbook, Tucson: Arizona Cooperative Extension. Accessed June 5, 2009 

at: http://ag.arizona.edu/arec/pubs/dmkt/dmkt.html

Tropp, D., and J. Barham. March 2008. National Famers Market Summit 

Proceedings Report. USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. Accessed April 

2010 at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=STEL

PRDC5066926

Tropp, D., and S. Olowolayemo. 2000. How Local Farmers and School 

Food Service Buyers are Building Alliances. Report from the USDA Small 

Farm/School Meals Workshop, May 1, 2000. USDA, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. Accessed August 31, 2009, at: www.ams.usda.gov

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2004. Report to Congress on the Economic 

Effects of U.S. Dairy Policy and Alternative Approaches to Milk Pricing. 

Accessed March 2010 at: www.usda.gov/documents/NewsReleases/

dairyreport1.pdf
67

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2009. 

Farmers’ Market Growth: 1994-2009. Accessed February 2010 at: http://

www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=Templ

ateS&navID=WholesaleandFarmersMarkets&leftNav=WholesaleandFarm

ersMarkets&page=WFMFarmersMarketGrowth&description=Farmers%20

Market%20Growth&acct=frmrdirmkt

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 2008. 

National Farmers’ Market Summit proceedings report, March 2008. 

Accessed March 2010 at: www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfi le?dDocName=

STELPRDC5066926

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. October 

2009. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook Yearbook Data Archive. Accessed April 

2010 at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.

do?documentID=1377

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Fruit and 

Tree Nut briefi ng room. Accessed March 2010 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/

briefi ng/fruitandtreenuts

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2010a. Farm 

to School. Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/F2S/

Default.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2010b. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Frequently Asked Questions. 

Accessed April 2010 at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/faqs.htm#18

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 2010c. School 

Meals: Policy Memos. Accessed April 2010 at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/

governance/policy.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

2009. Trends in U.S. Agriculture. Accessed August 2009 at: http://www.nass.

usda.gov/Publications/Trends_in_U.S._Agriculture/index.asp

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics 

Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture: Organic Production Survey 

(2008). Accessed February 2010 at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Organics/index.asp

U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. County Business 

Patterns. Accessed April 2010 at: http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.

html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, EPA 430-R-09-004, April 15, 2009.

Urban, T.N. 1991. “Agricultural Industrialization: It’s Inevitable,” Choices, 

Fourth Quarter.
68

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Uva, W.L. 2002. “An Analysis of Vegetable Farms’ Direct Marketing 

Activities in New York State,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 

33, pp. 186-189.

Ver Ploeg, Michele, et al. 2009. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food: 

Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences. 

Report to the U.S. Congress. USDA, Economic Research Service, AP-036. 

Accessed August 2009 at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036

Vogt, R.A., and L.L. Kaiser. 2008. “Still a Time to Act: A Review of 

Institutional Marketing of Regionally-Grown Food,” Agriculture and Human 

Values, Vol. 25, pp. 241-55.

Weber, C.L., and H.S. Matthews. 2008. “Food-Miles and the Relative 

Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States,” Environmental 

Science and Technology, Vol. 42, pp. 3508-3513.

Wilkins, J.L., E. Bowdish, and J. Sobal. 2002. “Consumer perceptions of 

Seasonal and Local Foods: A Study in a U.S. Community,” Ecology of Food 

and Nutrition, Vol. 41, pp. 415-439.

Wolf, M.M. 1997. “A Target Consumer Profi le and Positioning for 

Promotion of the Direct Marketing of Fresh Produce: A Case Study.” Journal 

of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 28, pp. 11-17.

Wolf, M.M., A. Spittler, and J. Ahern. 2005. “A Profi le of Farmers’ Market 

Consumers and the Perceived Advantages of Produce Sold at Farmers’ 

Markets,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 36, pp. 192-201.

Woods, T., et al. 2009. Survey of Community Supported Agriculture 

Producers, Agricultural Economics Extension Series 2009-11, Cooperative 

Extension Service, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY.

Zepeda, L., and C. Leviten-Reid. 2004. “Consumers’ Views on Local 

Foods,” Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 35, pp. 1-6. 

Zepeda, L., and J. Li. 2006. “Who Buys Local Food?” Journal of Food 

Distribution Research, Vol. 37, pp. 1-11.
69

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 1

Characteristics and attitudes associated with local food purchase and willingness to purchase

Author, year 

Location

Food type

~ Market 

† Methods Findings

Best and Wolfe, 2009

Georgia and Tennessee

Dairy

~ State

† Probit

Those willing to buy dairy products produced within their States consider 

themselves value-oriented or generic-label shoppers, feel there is no difference in the way milk is produced, have at least some college education.

Brooker and Eastwood, 

1989

Tennessee

Fresh produce

~ State 

† Probit

Tenn. grown logo more desirable on fresh than processed produce. Two- or 

three-person households, those over 35 years old, and with income over 

$40,000 had positive response to Tenn. grown logo. Many consumers are not 

willing to pay a premium for local food.

Brown, 2003

Missouri

Fresh produce

~ Local

† Descriptive

Quality and freshness were most important when purchasing produce, and 

most consumers perceived local produce at farmers’ markets to be of higher 

quality and lower price. Households in which someone was raised on a farm, 

or had a parent raised on a farm, were more likely to purchase local foods and 

were willing to pay a premium. 

Eastwood, 1996

Tennessee

All food

~ Farmers’ 

market

† Descriptive

Patrons older than 35 and with at least a college degree made more frequent 

trips. Reasons for not shopping regularly at a farmers’ market: too far to drive, 

comparable quality at more convenient locations, prices too high (beginning of 

season). Patrons expressed an interest in wanting more farmers selling their 

products at a farmers’ market, lower prices, and more produce.

Eastwood et al., 1999

Tennessee

All food

~ Farmers’ 

market 

† Descriptive

Typical farmers’ market patron is white and over 45 years old with at least 

some college education and above-average income. Reasons for shopping 

regularly at farmers’ market: help local farmers, freshness, locally grown, 

value, quality, and nutrition. Reasons for not shopping regularly: inconvenient 

location and too far to drive.

Gallons et al., 1997

Delaware

Fresh produce

~ Farmers’ 

market 

† Descriptive

Consumers prefer farmers’ markets for their selection, because they “like to 

help farmers” and the fact that produce is locally grown.

Govindasamy et al., 1998

New Jersey

Fresh produce

~ Farmers’ 

market 

† Descriptive

Majority of patrons were white females, aged 51 years or older with a college 

degree and an income of $60,000 or more. Reasons not to visit: not close by, 

lack of knowledge pertaining to location, and inconvenience. Consumers expect quality to be better, fi nd a variety with lower prices. Quality and freshness 

affected consumer purchasing decisions the most.

--continued

Appendix A

Literature Review of Local Food Marketing Perceptions 

at Various Stages of the Food System
70

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 1

Characteristics and attitudes associated with local food purchase and willingness to purchase (continued)

Author, year 

Location

Food type

~ Market 

† Methods Findings

Jekanowski et al., 2000

Indiana

All foods

~ State

† Ordered logit

Household income, quality perception of Indiana agricultural products, gender 

(female), and length of time living in Indiana are all positively related to the 

likelihood of purchasing “within State” food. Education is negatively related, 

while price is insignifi cant.

Keeling Bond et al., 2009

National

Fresh produce

~ Direct 

† Ordered logit

Overall demographics are weak predictors. Current direct-market patrons 

place high value on availability of fresh, unprocessed produce and locally 

grown produce, as well as on nutrition.

Kezis et al, 1984

Delaware, Maine, West 

Virginia

Fresh produce

~ Direct 

† Probit

Consumers considered quality the primary factor in purchasing produce. 

Consumers considered direct-market produce to be superior to grocery store 

offerings in quality and to have lower prices than grocery stores.

Kolondinsky and Pelch, 

1997

Vermont

All food

~ CSA 

† Probit

Income unrelated to the decision to join a CSA. Increasing cost of membership 

and the presence of children under age 18 decreases probability of joining. 

Consumer with higher education, awareness of CSA through word of mouth, 

who buys organic foods, and who considers political/economic/social factors in 

choosing their off-season (winter) produce venue is more likely to join a CSA. 

Kuches et al., 2000

Delaware

Fresh produce

~ Local 

† Tobit

Males, urban consumers, and age were positively correlated with a preference 

for locally grown produce.

Lehman et al., 1998

Delaware

Fresh produce

~ Direct 

† Probit

Direct sales of produce could be increased if: product quality remained comparable or better than supermarkets, locations were in highly traveled areas, and 

prices were 10 percent below supermarket levels.

Stephenson and Lev, 2004

Oregon

All food

~ Farmers’ 

market

† Descriptive

Farmers’ market customers buy local because they: want to keep farmers 

in the area, support the local economy, and enjoy the shopping experience. 

Consumers also believe local products are better in terms of quality and safety. 

Income and education not associated with support for local agriculture. Age, 

however, was (above 30).

Wolf, 1997

California

Fresh produce

~ Farmers’ 

market 

† Descriptive

Freshness, quality, value (price), convenience to buy, and ease of access to 

the product are more important than locally grown produce. Farmers’ markets 

produce look and taste fresher, are of higher quality, and are a better value for 

the money than supermarket produce.

Wolf et al., 2005

California

Fresh produce

~ Farmers’ 

market

† Descriptive

Similar to the 1997 Wolf study, consumers cite quality and value as most important when purchasing produce. Farmers’ markets are perceived as having 

fresher looking and tasting products of higher quality, for better value, that are 

better for the environment and easier to trace to producer than supermarkets.

--continued
71

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 1

Characteristics and attitudes associated with local food purchase and willingness to purchase (continued)

Author, year 

Location

Food type

~ Market 

† Methods Findings

Zepeda and Leviten-Reid, 

2004

Wisconsin

All food

~ CSA

† Focus group

Observed only positive attitudes toward local foods including: benefi ts to the 

environment, local community, farmers, and personal health. Limiting factors to 

joining a CSA were lack of choice in mix and amount of produce provided, as 

well as inconvenience in terms of pickup place or time.

Zepeda and Li, 2006

National

All food

~ Local 

† Probit

Income and demographic characteristics are not dominant factors, nor are 

environmental or heath attitudes/behaviors. Attitudes and behaviors related to 

food and shopping signifi cantly increase the probability of buying local.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compilation of various studies.
72

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 2

Characteristics associated with willingness to pay more for local foods

Author, year 

Location

Food type Methods Findings

Brown, 2003

Southeast Missouri

All food

Mail survey

Asked if respondent would pay a price 

that was lower, the same, or higher 

for products labeled “locally grown” 

vs. unlabeled products of the same 

quality 

N = 544

Female respondents more likely to pay higher or lower price 

than the same price

Signifi cant, positive:

Farm background

Member of an environmental group

“Quality is my most important concern” 

“Not signifi cant”:

Age, income, education, rural

Carpio and 

Isengildina-Massa, 

2009

South Carolina

Produce and animal 

products

Telephone survey

Contingent valuation1 with 

dichotomous choice, initial and 

followup bids expressed as a 

percentage premium

N=500

Signifi cant, positive:

Female buyers of animal products

Income (signifi cant and positive but small) for produce, not 

signifi cant for animal products

Working in agriculture for produce and animal products

Motivated by desire to help their State economically rather 

than concern with price or quality for produce and animal 

products 

Perceive local foods to be of higher quality for produce and 

animal products

Signifi cant, negative:

Perceive local foods to be of lower quality for produce and 

animal products 

Darby et al., 2008

Ohio

Strawberries

Shopper intercept surveys, Face-toface interview 

Conjoint analysis2

N = 477

Signifi cant, positive:

Male 

“Not signifi cant”:

Age, ethnicity, income, education, household composition, 

rurality

Eastwood et al., 1987

Tennessee

Apples, broccoli, 

cabbages, peaches, 

tomatoes

Survey (mail or telephone not 

specifi ed)

Probit regression for willing-to-pay 

premium or not

N = 231

Signifi cant, negative:

Income for locally produced broccoli and cabbages. 

College for locally produced broccoli, cabbages, and peaches. 

Giraud et al., 2005

Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont 

Syrup, salsa, etc.

Mail survey

Contingent valuation,

Single bids

N = 696

Signifi cant, positive:

“Pro-local” for both $5 and $20 items

Education for $20 items in Maine/Vermont pooled, but signifi -

cant, negative for $5 items

Signifi cant, negative:

Number of household members under 18 for $20 items in 

New Hampshire

“Local items hard to fi nd” for $5 items and $20 items in New 

Hampshire

--continued
73

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 2

Characteristics associated with willingness to pay more for local foods (continued)

Author, year 

Location

Food type Methods Findings

Grannis and Thilmany 

2002.

Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah

Natural pork 

Mail survey 

Contingent valuation—series of 

prices to be marked as “reasonable to 

pay”, “begin to be expensive”, or “too 

expensive”.

N = 1,400

Signifi cant, positive:

Income for ham

Previous purchase of local beef 

Importance of no antibiotics in meat

Hinson and 

Bruchhaus 2005

Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Alabama

Strawberries

Mail survey

Conjoint analysis

Sample size not given

Signifi cant, positive:

Importance of origin for households earning $60,000–$99,000

James et al., 2009

Rural Pennsylvania

Applesauce

Mail survey

Choice experiment /conjoint analysis

N = 1,500

Signifi cant, negative:

Knowledge of agriculture, environment, and nutrition

Loureiro and Hine 

2002

Colorado

Potatoes

Supermarket intercept survey

Contingent valuation, single bids; 

respondents asked to choose one of 

5 intervals 

N = 437

Signifi cant, positive:

Importance of nutrition 

“Not signifi cant”:

Gender and age

Presence of children under 18 in household

1A survey-based economic technique for the valuation of nonmarket resources, such as environmental issues.

2A statistical technique used in market research to determine how people value different features that make up an individual 

product or service.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compilation of various studies.
74

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 3

Farmer perceptions of local food procurement1

Author, year 

Location

Food type

~Market

†Methods Findings

Lawless et al., 1999

Wisconsin

All foods

~Retailers, restaurants, institutions

†Interviews, surveys, and meetings

• Farmers expressed interest in expanding local markets to 

increase incomes.

• Cooperation between farmers is important for successful 

direct-marketing ventures, including sales to local restaurants.

• Obstacles include onfarm processing, costs related to time 

and labor, market saturation, and lack of skills for direct 

marketing to retailers or foodservice.

• Farmers believed that their best marketing option was one 

that resulted in direct exchange with the ultimate food consumer to eliminate the “middlemen” and increase profi ts.

• Restaurant chefs revealed that “freshness” was emphasized 

as a factor in creating market value of the “local” label. 

• For midscale restaurants, price is more of a limiting factor 

in local food purchasing than it is for their upscale counterparts. 

Ostrom, 2006

Washington State

All foods

~Local

†Mail survey

• Over a quarter of farmers and over half of vegetable farmers would like to increase their use of direct marketing.

• Farmers favored local market development (e.g., “grown in 

Washington” label) over international (e.g., free trade agreements).

• Most farmers believed that consumers should have access 

to more local foods.

• A majority of farmers believed that direct marketing could 

help keep farms viable in their counties.

• Producers of undifferentiated commodities (e.g., wheat) 

expressed less interest in direct marketing.

Obstacles included:

• Regulatory and processing barriers to meat and valueadded products.

• Limitations imposed by marketing contracts.

• Oversupply of certain crops, especially apples, in relation to 

local demand.

Hunt, 2007

Maine

All foods

~Farmers’ market 

†Survey

Compared with all Maine farmers, farmers’ market vendors 

were younger and had higher levels of education. 

Vendor motives for selling at farmers’ markets:

• Direct relationships with consumers

• Higher profi ts

• Independence

Gregoire et al., 2005

Iowa

Produce and meat

~Restaurants, institutions

†Survey

Main perceived benefi ts of direct marketing to foodservice: 

Support for local farmers, fresher food, food traveling shorter 

distances, better quality food, knowledge of food source.

Obstacles: year-round availability, lack of dependable market, 

inability to change pricing. 

--continued
75

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 3

Farmer perceptions of local food procurement (continued)

Author, year 

Location

Food type

~Market

†Methods Findings

Starr et al., 2003

Colorado

Produce

~Restaurant and institutions

†Phone interviews, Logistic 

Those farmers who were marketing locally were interested in 

organizing a farmers’ cooperative for large-scale buying and 

distribution, while eliminating money going to the middlemen.

Likelihood of direct marketing by farmers increases as:

• Farm size falls.

• Variety of products grown increases.

• Importance placed on environmentally friendly production 

practices increases.

For all buyers, those that purchase local food products are 

more likely to report that supporting local business is important.

For local restaurants, emphasis placed on minimizing the 

impact on the environment, and location in an agricultural 

region increase the likelihood of buying local. For institutions, 

emphasis on buying food that is free of pesticides increases 

the likelihood of buying local.

Schneider and 

Francis, 2005

Washington County, 

Nebraska

All foods

~Local

†Survey

A limited number of farmers interested in direct sales may be 

a factor inhibiting growth of local foods. 

Biermacher et al., 

2007 

South-central 

Oklahoma

Fresh produce

~On farm store

†Case study 

Net returns from fresh produce sales were negative due to:

• Poor weather conditions in the region.

• Insuffi cient number of customers willing to pay premium.

• Labor constraints.

• Use of single retail outlet. 

Feenstra et al., 2003

New York, Iowa, 

California

All foods

~Farmers’ markets

†Survey

Vendors are primarily interested in more information on advertising, and promotion and community outreach.

Vogt and Kaiser, 2008

Various States

All foods

~Farm to school

†Literature review 

Obstacles include lack of fi nancial support and infrastructure 

for delivering produce to schools in a systematic, predictable 

way.

1While local food appears to be increasingly popular, few studies have explored reasons for producer interest in providing local foods for sale 

compared with consumer interest in buying local. These studies provide perspectives from producers located in different States, and across 

different types of local food markets.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compilation of various studies.
76

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix Table 4

Surveys of foodservice directors

Author, year Location and year of survey Findings

Gregoire and 

Strohbehn, 2002

Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and 

Minnesota, 2000

Top motivations: good public relations (4.3 on scale of 5), aid 

to local economy (4.2), ability to purchase small quantities 

(4.0), fresher food (4.0)

Oklahoma Food 

Policy Council, 2003

Oklahoma, 2002 Top motivations: support local economy and community (42 

percent), access to fresher food (42 percent), purchase small 

quantities (38 percent)

Top concerns and barriers: food safety (49 percent), cost (47 

percent), supply reliability (46 percent), lack of local producers 

(44 percent)

Izumi et al., 2006 Michigan, 2004 Top motivations: support local economy and community (77 

percent), access to fresher food (70 percent), higher consumption for fruits and vegetables (49 percent)

Top concerns and barriers: Cost (76 percent), procurement 

regulations (71 percent), seasonality (69 percent), food safety 

(66 percent)

Berkenkamp and 

Burtness, 2008

Minnesota, 2008 Top motivations: support the local economy (91 percent), 

good public relations (86 percent), increase consumption/

awareness of fresh fruits and vegetables (83 percent)

Top barriers: fi nding farmers (5.4 on scale of 7) liability/food 

safety (4.8), delivery logistics (4.5), extra preparation time 

(4.1)

Berkenkamp, 2006 Western Minnesota, 2005 Top motivations: raising awareness and consumption of fresh 

fruits and vegetables (percent not reported), improving eating 

habits, agricultural education, support local economy

Top barriers: administrative time required to handle more vendors (negotiate terms, coordinate deliveries, placing orders, 

handling invoices)

Solutions: grant support for coordinator, purchasing local 

through distributor

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service compilation of various studies.
77

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix B

2008 Farm Act Policies, Programs, and Grants That 

Support Local Food Producers1

Provisions in the 2008 Farm Act include programs, policies, grants, and loans 

that support local food. These include: 

PROGRAMS

Farmers’ Market Promotion Program

USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service

Funding: $5 million annually for FY 2009 and FY 2010 and then $10 

million for 2011 and 2012, for a total of $33 million over 5 years

Target: Nonprofi ts, farmers’ markets, producer networks, local governments, tribal governments, economic development corporations, and 

others

Purpose: To help improve and expand domestic farmers’ markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism 

activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities

Details: Provides 1-year, competitively awarded grants of up to $75,000 

to promote farmers’ markets through such projects related to market 

development, modernizing food stamp implementation through the use of 

electronic benefi t transfer (EBT) cards, and startup funding. A minimum 

of 10 percent of funding must be used for EBT implementation projects.

WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

Funding: For FY 2009, $19.8 million (latest available fi gure)

Target: Low-income pregnant, breastfeeding and nonbreastfeeding postpartum women, and infants and children up to 5 years of age

Purpose: To provide coupons to women, infants (over 4 months old) 

and children that have been certifi ed to receive Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) benefi ts 

(or who are on a waiting list for WIC certifi cation), in addition to their 

regular WIC benefi ts, to buy eligible foods from farmers, farmers’ 

markets or roadside stands. 

Details: Program is administered by State agencies such as State agriculture departments or health departments. In addition to coupons, nutrition 

education is provided to recipients by the State agency, often through an 

arrangement with the local WIC agency. Other program partners may 

provide nutrition education and/or educational information to recipients.

 1According to the 2008 Farm Act, 

for certain Federal rural development 

loan programs, the total distance that a 

product can be transported and still be 

eligible for marketing as a “locally or 

regionally produced agricultural food 

product” is less than 400 miles from 

its origin, or the State in which it is 

produced.
78

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

Funding: Over $20 million annually

Target: Low-income seniors

Purpose: To provide vouchers for low-income seniors to buy fresh fruit 

and vegetables at farmer’s markets, roadside stands and through community supported agriculture

Details: The 2008 Farm Act expanded funding by $5.6 annually to allow 

underfunded States and tribes to participate, as well as increase benefi ts 

to participating States and tribes.

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

Funding: Authorizes $5 million annually, FY 2008-12

Target: Indian tribes

Purpose: Establishes a “traditional and locally grown food fund” where 

50 percent of food provided through the FDPIR program should be 

produced by Native Americans.

LOANS AND GRANTS

Business and Industry Guarantee Loan Program

USDA, Rural Development

Funding: Through FY 2012, USDA will reserve at least 5 percent of 

B&I funds for initiatives to support local and regional agriculture until 

April 1 of that year. This is likely to yield over $100 million in available 

loan guarantee program levels in FY 2010 alone.

Target: Businesses, agricultural producers, nonprofi ts and others. 

Priority is given projects with components benefi ting underserved 

communities.2

Purpose: To help new and existing business in rural areas gain access 

to affordable capital. The 2008 Farm Act placed a special emphasis 

on supporting locally and regionally produced agricultural food products and establishing processing, distribution, aggregation, storing and 

marketing of locally or regionally produced foods.

Details: Recipients of these loans require the grower or business to have 

an agreement with the facility to which they sell locally or regionally 

produced products. The agreement requires retail or institutional facilities to inform their customers they are consuming locally or regionally 

produced food products.

 2An underserved community is 

defi ned as an urban, rural or Indian 

tribal area, with limited access to affordable healthy foods, including fresh 

fruits and vegetables, in grocery stores 

or direct markets, as well as a high rate 

of hunger, food insecurity, or poverty.
79

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Value-Added Agricultural Market Development Program Grants 

USDA, Rural Development

Funding: Mandated funding of $15 million over 5 years

Target: Agricultural producers and cooperatives

Purpose: To provide technical assistance, business and marketing planning and other nonfi nancial assistance to value-added businesses. The 

2008 Farm Act allows producers of food that is marketed as locally 

produced to be eligible for funding.

Details: Through FY 2012, 10 percent of the funds made available until 

June 30 of each year will fund applications proposing to develop “midtier value chains.” Mid-tier value chains are local and regional supply 

networks that connect producers to markets in ways that strengthen 

competiveness and profi tability of small- and medium-sized farms. 

Community Facilities Grant Program 

USDA, Rural Development

Funding: $5 million in grants as stipulated by the 2008 Farm Act. 

As of August 26, 2009, over $930 million in American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 loan funds and $31 million in Recovery Act 

grant funds were added to the program to be awarded on a project-byproject basis and spent by August 31, 2010.

Target: Local governments, nonprofi ts, federally recognized Indian 

tribes

Purpose: To support rural communities by providing loans and grants 

for construction, acquisition, and renovation of community facilities 

or for the purchase of equipment for community projects including 

providing opportunities for local food producers in those communities to 

grow their business. 

Details: The CF Program fi nances many types of facilities and equipment for the production, distribution, and marketing of local foods. 

Projects that qualify for funding include, but are not limited to, farmers’ 

markets, community kitchens and food processing centers, community food banks, cooking schools, and facilities used by nonprofi t food 

distributors. 

Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center 

USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Funding: $3 million over 3 years

Target: Nonprofi ts 

Purpose: Establishes a Center within NIFA to provide outreach, technical assistance, and feasibility study grants to support the development 

of enterprises that distribute and market locally produced foods to underserved urban, rural, and tribal communities.
80

Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues / ERR-97

Economic Research Service/USDA

Details: This is a competitive bid process by nonprofi ts to receive grants.

POLICY

Local Preference Reform for School Meal Purchases

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

Purpose: Gives public schools nationwide the fl exibility of specifying 

“local” as a bid requirement when purchasing foods with school meal 

program funds