Eat Smart—Farm Fresh! 

A Guide to Buying and Serving Locally-Grown Produce in School Meals 

Food and Nutrition Service

 December 2005
Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following for their help in developing this Handbook: 

Marion Kalb 

Director 

Community Food Security Coalition Nation Farm-to-School Program 

Sarah Borron 

Policy Associate 

Community Food Security Coalition

Debra Tropp 

Team Leader, Market Channel and Postharvest Research and Development 

Marketing Services Branch 

USDA Agriculture Marketing Service 

Laura Walter 

Nutritionist 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Western Regional Office 

Todd Barrett 

 Senior Program Analyst —National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

 USDA FNS HQ 

Debby Shore 

 Management Analyst—Financial Management 

 USDA FNS HQ

Many thanks to Ron Vogel for supporting this project and to Denise Londos, NSLP 

 Program Specialist, FNS HQ, for her help, and to Ken Wilmoth, DoD, for his time and 

 suggestions. 

In accordance with Federal law and U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) policy, this institution is 

prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, and disability. 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W Whitten 

Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 

720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity provider and employer. 

2
Table of Contents 

Introduction 4 

Distribution Models for Farm to School 5 

Building Support for Local Purchasing 11 

How to Find Locally Produced Foods 12 

Strategies for Success 15 

Procurement of Food for a Farm to School Project 16 

Meeting School Meals Initiative Requirements with Farm to School 22 

Additional Resources on Farm to School Programs 27 

Appendix A: Memo Regarding "Purchases of Locally Grown Foods" in 2002 Farm Bill 35 

Appendix B: Success Stories 36 

3
Introduction 

Farm-to-school encompasses many types of programs and school experiences such as planting and 

tending school gardens, educating children about nutrition, and of course, purchasing fresh, locally-grown 

farm products. While we believe all aspects of the farm-to-school experience should be encouraged, the 

handbook is written to address the needs of farm-to-school programs that involve schools’ purchase of 

produce from local farmers for use in school meals. 

Many federal and private organizations are working to promote farm-to-school programs. However, many 

existing farm-to-school publications do not address the specific considerations and challenges faced by 

schools in buying local produce, particularly in the procurement area. 

This handbook is written for school food service personnel. Rather than cover all areas of farm-to-school 

issues, we have chosen to focus on those areas we believe are of most interest to schools: procurement, 

types and examples of farm-to-school distribution models, how to find locally-grown food and farmers, 

menu planning considerations, and strategies for success. The handbook also contains a comprehensive, 

annotated bibliography of additional farm to school resources that may be accessed online or by contacting 

the organization. Whether your school is considering a farm-to-school program, or looking for resource 

information to assist you in your current program, we hope this handbook will be of help. 

Good luck with your program! 

USDA Food and Nutrition Service 

4
Distribution Models for Farm to School 

With farm to school programs, the transport of farm products to the schools is in many cases the 

most challenging issue to be addressed. There is no “one size fits all”, as individual circumstances differ 

greatly. Some of the issues to consider are: school district size and the existence of central kitchens or 

satellite kitchens; the storage capacity of the schools; the existence of farmer cooperatives or networks; the 

capacity of these networks to deliver; the distance involved with deliveries; the volume and type of products 

desired; and the amount of staff time needed to research and develop the distribution method. Below are 

descriptions of four distribution methods, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Whatever 

method is chosen, it should address the needs of both farmers and food service, in order to be successful 

over time. 

Food service staff buys direct 

from individual farmers. Example 1: Olympia School District's "Organic 

Choices Salad Bar" 

The Olympia School District in Washington State piloted the 

"Organic Choices Salad Bar" in October 2002 at Lincoln 

Elementary. It features organic fruit and vegetable choices, 

whole grain breads, and a protein selection. Organic fruit and 

vegetable choices include greens, apples, grapes, cherry 

tomatoes, green peppers, potatoes, squash, and cucumbers. 

At the first two pilot schools, fruit and vegetable servings 

increased an average of 27%, and participation rates in school 

lunch increased by 16%. 

School food service personnel first worked with two local 

farmers. The food service department reached an agreement 

with one local farmer to provide organic potatoes and squash. 

Another farmer started providing organic salad greens in the 

spring of 2003. The school food service has since expanded 

purchasing of local foods through a distributor and DoD Fresh. 

The district's central kitchen helps facilitate delivery for the 

school and the farmers. Farmers can bring their produce to 

one place, and the infrastructure is already established to 

distribute the food to other schools. 

By eliminating desserts from the elementary menu (by request 

of teachers and parents), and reducing waste, the program has 

been financially sustainable. In fact, the program has not 

received any outside funding to date. The school district is now 

determining how to institutionalize the program.

 Many school food service directors 

from around the country have initiated 

purchasing relationships with farmers, and 

buy directly from those farmers. There are 

many benefits to this procurement method, 

as food service staff can: request specific 

products in the form they need them; work 

out details and issues without a middle 

man; become familiar with what the farmer 

grows, and even request that farmers plant 

specific items for them. One additional 

advantage is that buying from individual 

farmers may exempt the purchase from 

bidding requirements as the total amount 

may be below the required bid minimum. 

(Food service directors are required to put 

out to bid any order greater than a specific 

dollar amount. For example, a school 

district may require that any purchase over 

$15,000 must go out for at least three bids. 

However, if the purchase is less than 

$15,000, the school is not required to 

obtain bids. The amount of the bid 

requirement can be defined at the school, 

school district or state level.) 

 The disadvantages of this 

procurement method become apparent if food service staff is buying from a number of farmers. Buying 

from individual farmers entails increased administration and paperwork. This can be quite overwhelming 

for a food service director who has been ordering all or most of their produce from one broker. There would 

be a transition from making one phone call to order product, to multiple calls, multiple invoices, and 

5
coordinating multiple deliveries. In addition, a broker is generally able to provide a greater variety of 

produce than farmers, who are selling only what is in season and what they grow. 

School food service works with a 

farmer cooperative. 

In this model, farmers in a cooperative, 

or informal network, pool their resources to 

develop a group distribution strategy. While 

some farmer coops are focused solely on 

production, others are also involved in the 

marketing and distribution of farm products. 

Buying from a farmers' cooperative helps the 

school food service director reduce the time 

spent on the administrative tasks involved in 

ordering, receiving orders, invoicing and 

payment. In this way, ordering is done through 

one person representing multiple farmers and in some cases, one delivery is made for multiple farmers. 

Another advantage is that cooperatives, or informal networks, can generally offer a wider variety of produce 

and a more consistent supply than one individual farmer. 

Some farmer cooperatives have also been able to purchase cold storage facilities, a truck for 

delivery, and processing facilities to produce value-added products. This is a particularly helpful strategy in 

colder climates with a limited growing season, and is a benefit for food service staff, as they greatly 

appreciate receiving a bag of broccoli florets instead of a whole head of broccoli. Many school district food 

services do not have the labor or equipment necessary to do this kind of minimal processing. 

The biggest disadvantage is that farmer networks, cooperatives or otherwise, do not exist in all 

regions of the country. Some new farmer networks and cooperatives have been formed as a result of the 

demand from institutional sales, but their numbers are limited. This model also limits contact with the 

individual farmers growing for the schools. 

 One alternative to buying from an organized farmer network is to have one farmer, or a staff person 

from a non-profit organization, handle some of the administrative tasks. One person could act on behalf of 

farmers, taking orders from food service and then contacting farmers to fill them. The school district would 

send one invoice to the intermediary person who would then handle the paperwork. 

6

Example 2: GROWN Locally Cooperative 

In Iowa, the local farm products that are the most popular with students include salad bar items as well as 

apples and applesauce, cucumbers, lettuces, carrots, broccoli, cabbage and cauliflower. The Iowa Farm to 

School project is the result of a collaborative effort of GROWN Locally (Grown Only With Nature), a small, 

local farmer cooperative, and the school food service staff at Decorah Community Schools. Their 

collaboration grew out of a Farm to School forum held in Ames, Iowa and sponsored by the USDA Small 

Farms/School Meals Initiative. The Food Service Director uses locally grown products for a salad bar and as 

a la carte items in four schools—two elementary, one middle school, and one high school. Farm-fresh items 

are particularly popular with students in the middle school and high school, which can be a challenging 

audience. 

The GROWN Locally Cooperative provides much of the produce already washed to help reduce labor costs. 

However, some food preparation is needed to cut and chop the raw produce and the price of labor in the 

school kitchen has been the prohibiting factor in expanding this program. In response, GROWN Locally has 

built a small processing center licensed with the state of Iowa allowing them to provide their products in 

forms more accessible to school food service personnel and to extend the times products are available. 
School food service purchases regional products at the farmers' market.

 This strategy relies on farmers' markets for purchasing locally grown products. In this scenario, the 

food service staff contact the farmer one or two days in advance of the farmers' market, placing their order 

by fax or phone. The farmer then brings that order to the farmers' market, in addition to what he or she 

plans to sell that day through the market. In most cases, schools use their own truck and driver, and a 

buyer from the school or district goes to the local farmers' market to pick up the pre-ordered product. This 

option is only feasible where the farmers' market season and the school calendar coincide - in places with 

year-round school, or moderate climates with year-round farmers' markets. 

 Buying directly from a farmer at a farmers' market has the advantage of working face-to-face with 

growers, who know their competition is at the market as well. It also gives food service staff the opportunity 

to inspect the product quality, and see first-hand what other products are available. Farmers benefit from 

this arrangement since they can make two farm deliveries in one location - one to the farmers' market, and 

one to the school. This can also help to lower the price for the product, as only one trip is needed for both 

deliveries. However, buying at farmers’ markets can also be time consuming, as this kind of shopping 

involves much more labor than a phone call to a distributor. 

Example 3: Santa Monica Farmers' Market Salad Bar 

When a parent suggested purchasing produce from the farmers market for a school salad bar, school food 

service personnel Tracie Thomas and Rodney Taylor at the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District were 

reluctant. After discussions with other parents and students about their food preferences, Thomas and Taylor 

decided to run a trial "farmers' market salad bar." Participation was overwhelming, and the program has been 

expanded to other schools. Grant funding helped cover the infrastructure costs, but increased participation in 

the school lunch program thanks to the salad bars has made the program economically sustainable. 

Twice a week, school food service personnel place orders with farmers for produce, which they pick up at the 

Santa Monica Farmers Market. A site coordinator, assisted by parent volunteers, prepares the fruit and 

vegetables for the salad bar. Protein and bread items supplement the farmers' market produce to make a 

complete meal. Cafeteria monitors help ensure that students choose a variety of items. 

The salad bar would not have been as successful without communication among school food service staff, 

teachers, parents, students, farmers' market staff, and farmers. Students and parents were involved in the 

initial design of the project and still inform decisions about what foods will be selected. Before the salad bars 

began, presentations were held to teach students how to properly use the salad bar, use appropriate portion 

sizes, and eat a balance of nutrients. Farmers come to the classroom and also host field trips so students 

learn where their food comes from and get more excited about eating local. Field trips to the farmers market 

have resulted in students asking their parents to return. Many of the schools are also developing school 

gardens, so children learn how to grow and harvest their own food. While not a primary source of food, school 

garden harvest is occasionally served in the salad bars. 

During last year's National School Lunch Week, the Santa Monica-Malibu School District received a special 

visit from Eric Bost, Undersecretary for Food and Nutrition Services, in recognition of their work. The Farmers 

Market Salad Bar Program has proved a model for other schools in California. 

7
School food service orders locally grown 

food through a traditional wholesaler. 

In this scenario, food service works with a 

distributor who purchases from local farms. Since food 

service directors already purchase from brokers or 

distributors, this allows them to maintain an existing 

relationship, as well as purchase other items that 

farmers are not able to provide. This method also 

allows for centralized billing, delivery and payment - but 

cuts farmers out of the communication loop with the 

food service director. 

The major disadvantage of buying through a distributor is that it is difficult to know how diligent the 

distributor is being in attempting to source local product. Buying from local farmers may or may not be a 

top priority for a distributor who tries to fill an order with the least expensive product available. Unless the 

distributor is already aware of local farms, he or she may not be willing to make the additional effort to find 

them. 

In some instances, wholesalers have worked very well with local farmers. One step food service can take 

is to request access to the buying records of the broker, showing the origins of the product. This can also 

be a requirement written into an agreement with the broker. In this model it is still important that food 

service staff familiarize themselves with the availability and seasonality of the products in their region in 

order to make reasonable requests of the wholesaler who may be responsible for sourcing the products. 

School food service purchases through DoD Fresh Program.

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) Produce Business Unit provides fresh 

fruits and vegetables worldwide to federal and military institutions. To capitalize on DoD’s large-scale 

buying power, FNS entered into an agreement with DoD in 1994 to buy and distribute fresh fruits and 

vegetables to schools in eight states. The produce was paid for with commodity entitlement funds, and 

enabled schools to take advantage of DoD’s expertise in food procurement and distribution at a nominal 

cost. This was the start of DoD’s Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, otherwise known as DoD Fresh. 

 A huge success, DoD Fresh now operates in 45 states, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. In 

addition to commodity entitlement funds, schools may now use 

Section 4, 11, and general school funds to purchase fresh fruits and 

vegetables from DoD. At present, $50 million of commodity 

entitlement funds are allocated to states annually to procure fresh 

fruits and vegetables through DoD Fresh. 

 In recent years, DoD has worked with states to establish 

farm-to-school programs. Utilizing existing DoD Fresh networks, 

DoD establishes farm-to-school partnerships between local 

producers/producer organizations, state Departments of Agriculture 

and Education, and school food service personnel, as appropriate. 

Some states budget, for planning purposes, a percentage of their 

funds to establish a farm-to-school initiative in their state. 

At present, twelve states and one territory are working with 

DoD in varying degrees to procure local produce for school meals. 

They are: AL, MS, NC, NM, TX, WV, KY, MI, CA, NY, NJ, OK, and 

8
Puerto Rico. DoD farm to school programs 

work differently in each state/territory and, 

unlike many distribution models, DoD 

programs require coordination and good 

working relationships among many federal, 

state, and local organizations. DoD often 

relies on state agriculture personnel or o

knowledgeable agriculture organi

facilitate these partnerships beca

are familiar with growers and their 

capabilities. 

ther 

zations to 

use they 

 In most DoD farm-to-school 

programs, the state departments of 

agriculture are involved in identifying 

farmers and farmer organizations because DoD brokers may not have connections with local farms. 

However, in other instances, this work has been done by non-profit organizations working on food, farming, 

and agricultural issues. Since this is a crucial part of the program, the department or organization taking on 

this task should be well connected to farmers within the region.

 North Carolina exemplifies what can be accomplished when DoD and state partnerships work 

effectively. The program began in 1989 when the state provided 50 schools with $1,000 grants to purchase 

produce from local farmers. As of April 2004, North Carolina schools have purchased over $1.6 million 

dollars in produce from local farmers. The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services administers the program with DoD’s assistance and provides the warehouses and trucks needed 

for product storage and delivery. In New Mexico, partnering with DoD has allowed schools to add local 

flavor to the menu in the form of green chilies, a favorite with New Mexico schoolchildren. Begun in the 

2003 school year, New Mexico’s farm to school program has purchased approximately $75,000 worth of 

watermelons, russet potatoes, and green chilies from local farmers to date. New Mexico relies on DoD’s 

existing distribution system to deliver the produce to schools and school districts. 

 DoD farm-to-school partnerships typically begin with a planning meeting. DoD coordinates a 

meeting between state agriculture and school food service personnel to determine items that could be used 

in the school menus. Other potential participants include farmers, food service staff from the district level, 

direct marketing groups that work directly with farmers, and state nutrition staff. The participants then 

determine, based on product availability and menu planning needs, the local produce items that will be 

grown for use in school meals. 

 Once a farm-to-school partnership is established, DoD works with the parties to ensure a 

successful program. DoD negotiates the actual price of product with growers or co-ops to assure that, 

based on current market prices, the prices are fair and reasonable. DoD is committed to paying farmers a 

fair price and DoD negotiations are not based on finding a “lowest cost deal.” DoD also works with growers 

and grower organizations to assure that all required certification, such as Blank Purchase Agreements, are 

in place and quality standards and post-harvest requirements are established. Standards and 

requirements may be set for pre-cooling of product, size, grade, and packaging. In some cases, DoD can 

work with processors to supply value-added produce to schools’ specifications, such as pre-bagged or precut vegetables. For example, Texas is purchasing cut carrots, New York is buying sliced apples, and 

blueberry and strawberry cups are a big hit with North Carolina schoolchildren. Since DoD buys only 

Grade A produce, the quality is generally excellent. 

 After product specifications have been determined, DoD assists states in monitoring the crops to 

ensure product quality. DoD will also establish a timetable with all parties to ensure product quality and 

9
availability meet schools’ needs. DoD often partners with states and schools to promote the benefits of 

buying fresh produce from local farmers. 

 Distribution of the produce, once harvested, varies according to farmers, schools, and states’ 

delivery methods and warehousing capabilities. DoD assists states and growers during the distribution 

process to ensure product quality and freshness are maintained. Schools are encouraged to start with a 

few items the first year in order to work out distribution and quality standards. As logistical and distribution 

issues are resolved, more produce items can be added in successive years. DoD relies on existing 

distribution systems to transport the farm products to the schools. In states where there is one system, the 

distribution can work quite smoothly. However, some states rely on multiple methods to receive product, 

including private food service coops and private brokers. In these situations, transportation would need to 

be coordinated with all parties. 

 Once initial start-up issues are resolved, DoD recommends that all parties meet to discuss the 

program’s performance. For planning in successive years, a farm-to-school “calendar” can be established, 

showing what local produce items can be purchased for the upcoming school year and when. Use of the 

calendar enables growers to make adequate plans to meet schools’ needs and allows schools to plan 

menus to include the local produce. 

 The grower or grower organization is paid directly by DoD when the produce is purchased. DoD 

will then bill the state, county, or school district directly if Section 4 or 11 funds are used to pay for the 

purchase. A school district can still purchase from DoD directly using Section 4 or 11 funds even if the 

state does not participate in the DoD Fresh Program. If commodity entitlement funds are used to pay for 

the purchase, FNS will reimburse DoD directly. DoD currently charges a flat fee for its services (currently 

5.8% of the order amount). The fee is adjusted annually and reflects DoD’s actual cost of administering the 

program. 

 

10
Building Support for Local Purchasing 

When developing a local purchasing program, additional support may be helpful, and can generally 

be found from folks in the following three groups: within the school or school district, through farmers and 

farm organizations; and community and government agencies. In some instances, food service directors 

have met in a group with potential supporters, to determine the best way to move forward. In other 

situations, it may make more sense to connect at a one-on-one meeting, or in a small group meeting. In 

either case, here are some potential supporters of farm to school work: 

Schools Farmers and Places to Find Them

School food service staff Farmers’ Markets, Internet 

Nutritionist 4-H groups, feed supply stores 

Principals U.S. and State Departments of Ag. 

Teachers Roadside Stands/U-Pick/CSAs 

Students Commodity boards and commissions 

Parents, PTA Farm Bureau, Cooperatives 

Nurse Cooperative Extension, Small Farm 

School Board members County fairs, farm equipment shows 

Community and Government Agencies

Environmental organizations U.S. and State Departments of Agriculture 

Sustainable agriculture groups County Agriculture Commissioner 

Anti-hunger, food security organizations City Council members 

County health and nutrition staff Representatives from local congressional and state 

representative offices 

When incorporating local foods into meal programs, here are some issues to consider: 

Operational Issues crops and their seasons, value-added processing, transportation and delivery, 

ability to meet demand, storage and food preparation capacity, menu adaptability, 

food safety 

Budgetary Issues equipment and labor necessary for food preparation, the cost of food, staff time to 

develop the purchasing arrangements 

Potential Partners potential partners may be involved in other components of a farm to school 

program such as a school garden, cooking classes, or nutrition education 

11
How to Find Locally Grown Foods 

Connect with local agricultural organizations and express interest in developing relationships 

with local farmers. Many State Departments of Agriculture routinely make lists of local farmers available to 

the public, and will be happy to provide a list upon request. Other potential sources of information about 

local suppliers of farm products include county extension offices, the cooperative extension department at 

land-grant universities, State Farm Bureaus and other State-based producer organizations. 

The U.S. agricultural extension system provides an 

especially efficient way for school food service 

personnel to find out about agricultural producers in 

their local communities. More than 100 land-grant 

colleges and universities throughout the nation work 

with approximately 2,900 county and regional 

extension offices to offer specialized information and 

educational services to the public on 

agriculture/natural resource management and 

family/consumer sciences. Agents working at these 

regional and county extension offices are typically well 

informed about farm operations in their specific 

geographic area. To find the extension office nearest to you, you may consult a national list of county and 

regional extension offices maintained by USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension 

Service, located at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/index.html, or a list of land-grant college and 

university extension offices, located at http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/partners/state_partners.html

Connect with local distributors and ask them to source foods from local farms. The more demand 

that local wholesale distributors have for local foods, the greater effort they will make in sourcing this 

product. In addition, food services personnel can ask local distributors to provide sourcing information 

about the grower/producer of local foods at the time of purchase/delivery. 

Connect with institutions that purchase locally produced foods. Food service managers 

that are currently purchasing from local farmers are good resources for others interested in making 

connections. These individuals may be able to help make connections with farmers and/or distributors that 

supply high quality, locally produced foods, and may also be able to provide ideas for ways to best 

incorporate local foods into existing food service operations. (If you don’t know any food service director in 

your area that is managing a local procurement program, you may find it helpful to contact one of the 

school food service directors featured in chapter xx for tips on how to start your own local food purchases.) 

Visit local farmers' markets and talk with the market managers. Market managers may be able to 

assist food service professionals in find farms that can supply desired quantity and quality of desired 

products. A comprehensive list of farmers markets across the country, along with a list of farmers market 

program representatives in each State, are available from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s 

Farmers Market website, accessible at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm. 

12
Make connections with local community food cooperatives. Local food cooperatives often 

have established relationships with local producers and may be able to connect food service professionals 

with their farmer suppliers. 

Connect with a "Buy Local" campaign. Organizations that promote locally produced foods are 

knowledgeable about local farms in the area and may be able to connect food service managers with 

interested producers. These campaigns are run by local and state government organizations. You may 

wish to refer to Food Routes, www.foodroutes.org, for sources of local foods in your area. 

Connect with local food advocate organizations. Organizations such as Chefs Collaborative, 

Slow Food and sustainable agriculture organizations are great places to learn about what other culinary 

and food service professionals are doing with locally produced foods. Members of these organizations 

know which farms are currently selling to restaurants and institutions. They are familiar with local products 

and know how to utilize them in food service menus. The contact information for the national headquarters 

of these organizations is as follows:

Chefs Collaborative 

262 Beacon Street 

Boston, MA 02116 

Phone (617) 236-5200 

Fax (617) 236-5272 

info@chefscollaborative.org

Slow Food U.S.A. 

434 Broadway, 6th Floor 

New York, NY 10013 

Phone (212) 965-5640 

Fax: 212-966-8652 

info@slowfoodusa.org

The Slow Food U.S.A. website also features a national directory of local chapter representatives, listed by 

State. This directory may be retrieved at http://www.slowfoodusa.org/contact/index.html. 

Connect with nutrition education organizations. Farm to School provides a framework for 

schools to make a direct impact on students’ health and the agricultural community by offering more fruits 

and vegetables in school meals and throughout the campus. Many organizations are working with schools 

to prevent overweight and obesity and improve children’s health. Others promote sustainable agricultural 

systems and environmental education. The organizations listed below can provide ideas and resources to 

help you successfully implement Farm to School from a nutrition education, health or agricultural 

perspective:

 

• National 5 A Day Partnership: The National 5 A Day Partnership is an alliance of Federal 

agencies, private industry, and health organizations which have joined forces to help all Americans 

meet the Dietary Guidelines recommendations to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. The 

partnership guides the 5 A Day for Better Health Program— the Nation’s largest public/private 

nutrition education initiative with 5 A Day coordinators in each State and territory, and in the military. 

Its goal is to increase fruit and vegetable consumption to at least 5 servings per day for 75 percent 

of Americans by 2010. You can visit the 5 A Day Web site at www.5aday.gov. Member 

organizations include: American Cancer Society, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity, Association of State and Territorial Directors of Health 

Promotion and Public Health Education, National Cancer Institute, Produce for Better Health 

Foundation, Produce Marketing Association, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and the 

United States Department of Agriculture. 

13
• Team Nutrition: Team Nutrition is USDA’s nutrition education initiative to promote healthy food 

choices and physical activity for school age children. Team Nutrition schools make a commitment 

to offer healthy school meals, encourage student to be more physically active, and build community 

support for a healthy school environment. USDA provides free or low cost nutrition education 

materials for teachers and students, and technical assistance manuals for food service staff. Check 

out Fruit and Vegetables Galore, USDA’s newest, colorful resource manual with useful tips to boost 

the nutritive value, taste, and eye appeal of school meals, and entice students to try appealing and 

nutritious fruits and vegetables. www.fns.usda.gov/tn You can gain community support by 

showcasing the benefits of Farm to School and improved school meal programs. USDA offers a kit, 

“Changing the Scene: Improving the School Nutrition Environment,” with scripts, parent newsletters, 

and media tips to get the word out about your efforts. USDA collaborated with 16 organizations to 

develop this action kit for state and local level partners to educate decision makers about the role 

school environments play in helping students meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The kit is 

available at no charge at FNS’ website: www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Healthy/changing.html

• Eat Smart Play Hard: Let Power Panther promote Farm to School by guiding your students to eat 

more fruits and vegetables! This USDA initiative encourages children to eat breakfast, choose 

healthy snacks, and be more active. You can order free nutrition education materials in English and 

Spanish through the FNS website: www.fns.usda.gov/eatsmartplayhard/

• Healthier US School Challenge: The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human 

Services, and Education are working together to build healthier communities that promote healthy 

lifestyle choices, including good nutrition and physical activity. Take the Healthier US School 

Challenge, and strive for Gold! Find out more about Healthier US, visit FNS’ website: 

www.fns.usda.gov/tn/HealthierUS/index.htm

• Ag in the Classroom: Each state, U.S. territory, and the District of Columbia has an Agriculture in 

the Classroom Program to promote awareness about the agriculture industry. AITC also develops 

curriculum for classroom activities which could link with Farm to School promotions in the cafeteria. 

www.agclassroom.org/

14
Strategies for Success

Farm to School projects vary greatly by region, by community, even by school district. However, a variety 

of key components are inherent in most farm-to-school initiatives. Using a combination of strategies may 

help you develop a strong and sustainable foundation for farm-to-school in your area. 

• Assess need for additional resources, adequate funding, and support from the school 

administrators, parents, and teachers. 

• Commit to a cooperative approach with key partners including farmers, food service managers, 

school administrators, teachers, parents, and students in early planning discussions. 

• Start small, build on success, and encourage project partners to join at their pace. 

• Organize product supply; develop contact with farmer organizations, grower networks, cooperatives 

and/or distributors. 

• Work to develop a strong educational component aimed at increasing children’s understanding and 

acceptance of new foods and menu formats in the lunchroom. 

• Commit to healthful foods for students that model positive choices and reflect the sound nutritional 

advice they receive in the classroom. Don't focus exclusively on controlling costs or increasing 

participation. 

• Build policy support at the state, local or district level for ongoing farm-to-school programming. 

• Be patient and solve problems creatively; be willing to experiment. 

• Communicate thoroughly, honestly, and as frequently as needed. Be sure to include all relevant 

partners and collaborators in important decisions. 

• Promote your project through appropriate avenues such as the local media to build community 

awareness and support over time. 

• Learn from the experiences of established programs. Share these examples with 

your key partners. 

15
Procurement of Food in a Farm-to-School Project 

Many school food authorities (SFAs) would like to purchase food from local farmers but are not sure of the 

rules for purchasing and procuring food products in a “farm-to-school” arrangement. This section will 

provide information on the federal procurement requirements and identify areas where the state rules must 

be consulted. The information is provided in a Q & A format. Areas that need individual state clarification 

are identified by the initials “SA” in parenthesis. 

Can a SFA purchase food directly from a farmer? 

Yes, as long as the SFA observes the procurement rules that apply when purchasing food with the school 

food service account money. 

What are the available procurement methods? 

Several procurement methods are available to purchase food products. All are designed to provide open 

and free competition. SFAs should identify which method best meets the needs of the farm-to-school 

project that is in place. The three most frequently used procurement methods are: 

Competitive Sealed Bids – A method of procurement whereby sealed bids are publicly solicited 

and a fixed-price contract is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the 

material terms and conditions of the invitation for bid, is lowest in price. 

Competitive Proposals – A method of procurement whereby proposals are requested from a 

number of sources and the request for proposal is publicized, negotiations are conducted with 

more than one of the sources submitting offers, and either a fixed-price or cost-reimbursable type 

contract is awarded, as appropriate. Competitive negotiation may be used if conditions are not 

appropriate for the use of competitive sealed bids. 

Small Purchase – A relatively simple and informal procurement method that is appropriate for a 

procurement of food, services or supplies costing not more than $100,000 (the current federal 

small purchase threshold), or a lesser amount specified by State law or local requirements. 

SFAs must check with their administering State agency and local officials to determine whether the 

State/local small purchase threshold is less then the federal threshold and the State or local small 

purchase procedures that must be followed. 

Contact your state agency for additional information on these procurement methods in your state 

Which method(s) should be used for farm-to-school purchasing? 

When using nonprofit food service account funds, public SFAs must follow their own state and local rules 

except where those rules are inconsistent (less restrictive) with the federal requirements. In those cases, 

the SFA must substitute the more restrictive federal requirement. Nonprofit SFAs may use their own 

organizational rules as long as those rules are consistent with federal requirements or a nonprofit SFA may 

chose to follow the federal rules in their entirety. Depending on the annual expected purchases of the 

16
product and the applicable state and local small purchase thresholds, SFAs may be able to use small 

purchase procedures. SFAs should never subdivide purchases to avoid conducting a formal procurement. 

What is “Open and Free Competition”? 

The underlying foundation of all procurement, without regard to dollar value, is that regardless of the 

method used, the procurement must be conducted in a manner that provides maximum open and free 

competition. Free and open competition basically means that all suppliers are “playing on a level playing 

field” with the same opportunity to compete. Procurement procedures must not restrict or eliminate 

competition. 

How could a SFA restrict competition? 

Subdividing its purchases to avoid conducting a formal procurement:

Unreasonable requirements – placing unreasonable requirements on suppliers in order for them 

to qualify to do business, e.g., requiring unnecessary experience and bonding requirements. 

Noncompetitive practices – encouraging or fostering noncompetitive practices, e.g., collusion 

between farmers. Failing to adequately advertise and solicit prices could encourage potential 

suppliers to manipulate their bid prices. 

Conflicts of interest – allowing conflicts of interest to occur. Conflicts of interest can occur when 

the individual(s) responsible for determining bid/proposal responsiveness can be overruled by 

other individuals within the organization or if the individual responsible for determining 

responsiveness (or any member of his/her family) has any personal or financial interest in any of 

the offering firms. 

Writing bid specifications – using bid specifications or contract terms written by a potential 

contractor. 

Insufficient time – not allowing bidders/offerers sufficient submission time when 

advertising/soliciting the invitation for bid or request for proposal. 

Geographic preferences – Using in-State or local geographic preferences in awarding a contract 

How can an SFA purchase from a local farmer, and follow the USDA policy on 

purchasing local products, when geographic preferences are not allowed? 

Frequently, local officials are encouraged to purchase in-State products. In SFAs that border State or other 

geographic boundaries, there may be local farmers in the nearby State that could supply the SFA with food 

products through a farm to school project. Encouraging partnerships between local farmers and SFAs 

does not require the use of an in-State or local preference. The use of such preferences could prevent a 

qualified local farmer from competing simply because the farmer is located outside of a specific geographic 

area. 

17
If the SFAs anticipated annual purchase of a particular product will be less than the applicable small 

purchase threshold, the SFA can use these simplified procedures and contact a number of local farmers. 

While the Federal small purchase threshold is currently set a $100,000, SFAs must always check with their 

state and local officials since many states and municipalities have LOWER small purchase thresholds. 

To facilitate purchase of locally-grown produce, SFAs can: identify and encourage local farmers to submit 

bids; look into alternative pack sizes and distribution methods that reflect product availability, using pricing 

structures such as fixed delivery charges with product prices that respond to the current market price; and 

explore new and different products that are available through local farms. 

SFAs also need to develop specifications that reflect the characteristics of the products they seek. For 

example, local farmers grow a specific lettuce variety that students prefer, but that the SFA cannot get 

through their broker or distributor. The SFA can write its specification requiring this lettuce variety. 

However, just writing the specification alone will not be adequate to ensure local farm participation. The 

SFA must have “laid the groundwork”, i.e., identifying and encouraging local farm participation for the 

procurement to be successful. 

Can SFAs split up large purchases into smaller amounts and thereby fall under the 

small purchase threshold? 

SFAs cannot intentionally split purchases in order to fall below the federal small purchase threshold. For 

example, if a SFA will be purchasing $150,000 worth of lettuce for the salad bar they cannot split the 

purchase into two purchases of $75,000 each. However, the SFA can specify different varieties of lettuce 

that must be provided and be willing to award its lettuce bid to more than one supplier. 

Another approach, when an adequate number of suppliers exist, is for the SFA to conduct a procurement 

action for a specific item, for example, apples, instead of conducting a procurement to obtain a single 

supplier for all of its fruits and vegetables for the school year. This approach could allow local apple 

growers to compete for the SFA’s apple contract. 

Can SFAs set aside a portion of their school food service funds or other funds to 

purchase only local product? 

SFA’s may not technically “set aside” a portion of food service funds, and then use such funds to purchase 

only local product without regard to price or fairness of the purchasing process. Such a set-aside is not 

allowable using the nonprofit school food service account. However, SFAs may provide a line-item in the 

school food service budget as designated for farm to school initiatives. 

For example, a SFA may budget $5,000 for a nutrition education and farm-to-school project. In this 

example the SFA will use visits to local farms and the purchase of produce to teach students the value of 

consuming healthy foods and how those foods were produced. 

If the local education agency chooses to set aside non-school food service account funds specifically for 

purchase of local product, they are not bound by National School Lunch Program rules but should check on 

the rules governing that funding source. 

18
Do federal procurement rules apply when schools do not use money from the food 

service account, i.e., the school uses general fund monies? 

No. Federal rules only apply to using nonprofit food service funds. However, State and local rules may 

apply to other school funds. 

What are the Federal procurement requirements for the NSLP? 

The NSLP regulations address the procurement in 7 CFR 210.21.1 The regulations address four main 

areas of procurement: 

General – requires local school food authorities to comply with the requirements of 7 CFR 3015 

(replaced in August 2000 by 7 CFR Part 3016 for public SFAs and 7 CFR Part 3019, for nonprofit 

SFAs) for the procurement of food, and other goods and services, when using the school food 

service funds. 

Contractual responsibilities – confirm that the local school food authority is responsible for its 

own contracts. 

Procurement procedures – requires that SFAs may use their own procurement procedures which 

reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations as long as those procedures meet the 

requirements of 7 CFR Parts 3016 and 3019. 

Buy American - requires that SFAs purchase, to the maximum extent practicable, domestic 

commodities or products. Buy American applies to the 48 contiguous states, Hawaii and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Buy American does not create the right to use an in-state or local 

geographic preference. 

 

What are the requirements of 7 CFR 3016 and 3019? 

The regulations at 3016 for public SFAs and 3019 for nonprofit SFAs have similar requirements. The 

following is an example from Part 3019: 

§ 3019.44 Procurement procedures. 

(a) All recipients shall establish written procurement procedures. These procedures shall provide for, at a 

minimum, that paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of this section apply. 

(1) Recipients avoid purchasing unnecessary items. 

(2) Where appropriate, an analysis is made of lease and purchase alternatives to determine which 

would be the most economical and practical procurement for the Federal Government. 

(3) Solicitations for goods and services provide for all of the following: 

 

1 The full text of 7 CFR 210.21 is found in Appendix A. 

19
(i) A clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product 

or service to be procured. In competitive procurements, such a description shall not 

contain features which unduly restrict competition. 

(ii) Requirements which the bidder/offeror must fulfill and all other factors to be used in 

evaluating bids or proposals. 

(iii) A description, whenever practicable, of technical requirements in terms of functions to 

be performed or performance required, including the range of acceptable characteristics or 

minimum acceptable standards. 

(iv) The specific features of “brand name or equal” descriptions that bidders are required to 

meet when such items are included in the solicitation. 

(v) The acceptance, to the extent practicable and economically feasible, of products and 

services dimensioned in the metric system of measurement. 

(vi) Preference, to the extent practicable and economically feasible, for products and 

services that conserve natural resources and protect the environment and are energy 

efficient. 

(b) Positive efforts shall be made by recipients to utilize small businesses, minority-owned firms, and 

women's business enterprises, whenever possible. Recipients of Federal awards shall take all of the 

following steps to further this goal. 

(1) Ensure that small businesses, minority-owned firms, and women's business enterprises are 

used to the fullest extent practicable. 

(2) Make information on forthcoming opportunities available and arrange time frames for purchases 

and contracts to encourage and facilitate participation by small businesses, minority-owned firms, 

and women's business enterprises. 

(3) Consider in the contract process whether firms competing for larger contracts intend to 

subcontract with small businesses, minority-owned firms, and women's business enterprises. 

(4) Encourage contracting with consortiums of small businesses, minority-owned firms and 

women's business enterprises when a contract is too large for one of these firms to handle 

individually. 

(5) Use the services and assistance, as appropriate, of such organizations as the Small Business 

Administration and the Department of Commerce's Minority Business Development Agency in the 

solicitation and utilization of small businesses, minority-owned firms and women's business 

enterprises. 

(c) The type of procuring instruments used (e.g., fixed price contracts, cost reimbursable contracts, 

purchase orders, and incentive contracts) shall be determined by the recipient but shall be appropriate for 

20
the particular procurement and for promoting the best interest of the program or project involved. The “costplus-a-percentage-of-cost” or “percentage of construction cost” methods of contracting shall not be used. 

(d) Contracts shall be made only with responsible contractors who possess the potential ability to perform 

successfully under the term and conditions of the proposed procurement. Consideration shall be given to 

such matters as contractor integrity, record of past performance, financial and technical resources or 

accessibility to other necessary resources. In certain circumstances, contracts with certain parties are 

restricted by agencies' implementation of E.O.s 12549 and 12689, “Debarment and Suspension.” 

(e) Recipients shall, on request, make available for the Federal awarding agency, pre-award review and 

procurement documents, such as request for proposals or invitations for bids, independent cost estimates, 

etc., when any of the following conditions apply. 

(1) A recipient's procurement procedures or operation fails to comply with the procurement 

standards in the Federal awarding agency's implementation of this part. 

(2) The procurement is expected to exceed the small purchase threshold fixed at 41 U.S.C. 

403(11) (currently set at $100,000) and is to be awarded without competition or only one bid or 

offer is received in response to a solicitation. 

(3) The procurement, which is expected to exceed the small purchase threshold, specifies a “brand 

name” product. 

(4) The proposed award over the small purchase threshold is to be awarded to other than the 

apparent low bidder under a sealed bid procurement. 

(5) A proposed contract modification changes the scope of a contract or increases the contract 

amount by more than the amount of the small purchase threshold. 

21
Meeting School Meals Initiative Requirements with Farm to School 

Introduction 

What is the School Meals Initiative? 

 Since 1995, the School Meals Initiative has helped foodservice directors and staff offer 

healthier meals and promote nutrition education to support healthy lifestyle behaviors. It 

establishes a framework to plan and evaluate school meals using nutrition standards (based on 

Recommended Dietary Allowances for key nutrients), appropriate calorie levels, and 

recommendations from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. NSLP regulations require that 

breakfast and/or lunch menus, 

when averaged over a school 

week, meet the nutrient 

standards for the appropriate age 

or grade group. Meeting these 

standards is the goal for all 

menu-planning options. For 

more information about SMI 

requirements, refer to FNS 303- 

A Menu Planner for Healthy 

School Meals, and the Road to 

SMI Success: A Guide for Local 

School Foodservice Directors

(this is still in draft). 

 

What are the nutrition standards? 

 

 

USDA School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children 

Nutrition Standards 

• Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) 

o 1/4 RDA for age/grade group for breakfast for protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamins A and C

o 1/3 RDA for age/grade group for lunch for protein, calcium, iron, 

vitamins A and C

• Recommended Energy Allowances (calories) 

o Appropriate for age/grade group

• Dietary Guidelines for Americans 

o Eat a variety of foods.

o Limit total fat to ≤ 30% of calories.

o Limit saturated fat to <10% of calories.

o Choose a diet low in cholesterol. 

o Choose a diet with plenty of vegetables, fruits and grain products. 

o Choose a diet moderate in salt and sodium. 

22
How can Farm to School help schools meet the nutrition goals? 

Farm to School links schools with local growers to supply more fruits and vegetables for children to enjoy 

as part of school meals. 

USDA recommends that meals include: 

• a vitamin A-rich vegetable or fruit at least 2-3 times a week; 

• a vitamin C-rich vegetable or fruit 3-4 times a week, and breakfasts include them frequently; 

• a variety of vegetables and fruits; 

• foods that are good sources of fiber, such as fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grain products. 

Iron, Vitamins A and C, fiber, and phytochemicals found in fruits and vegetables play an important role in 

optimal health, and protection against chronic diseases. Offering a wide variety of fruits and vegetables 

also supports the DGA recommendations. 

Planning menus that offer more fresh fruits and vegetables 

Planning menus involves much more than listing which foods you offer each day. As you evaluate your 

current menus, keep in mind these basic principles: (see Menu Planner for Healthy School meals, Chapter 

4.) 

• Balance: Flavors, textures, colors 

• Variety: Cooked vs. raw, different shapes and textures, familiar and new foods 

• Choices: Include regional and cultural preferences; let students choose. 

• Contrast: Strive for contrasts of texture, flavor, and methods of preparation. 

• Color: Use fruits and vegetables to add natural color to entrees, side dishes 

• Eye Appeal: Offer fruits and vegetables in an attractive way on the serving line or salad bar. Use 

garnishes. 

Which menu planning system do you use? 

The requirements for meeting the nutrition standards will depend on whether you use a Food- based menu 

planning or nutrient-based menu planning system. At lunch, schools using food-based systems must offer 

at least 2 servings of different fruits or vegetables, with a total volume of at least 3⁄4 cup, and a minimum 1/8 

cup portion size. 

For schools using nutrient-standard menu planning, there is no minimum requirement; however, in order to 

meet the Dietary Guidelines goals, it is recommend to offer at least 2 different fruits/vegetables totaling at 

least 3⁄4 cup. Remember, the goal is to increase the variety and amount of fruits and vegetables offered 

through school meals. 

23
Other points to consider when offering more fruits and vegetables: 

• Product availability: Use foods in season, at the peak of flavor and lowest cost. Offer fresh 

whenever possible. 

• Staffing and equipment: Is there adequate refrigeration/freezer space? Do you have sufficient 

counter space, sinks and preparation equipment? What about serving tools and dishes or 

compartments in a compartment tray needed to serve each meal? Can employees prepare in the 

time available? How much hand preparation is required for each menu? Schedule employees’ 

time so their particular skills can be used to best advantage. Balance the workload — food 

preparation and clean-up — from day to day and from week to week. 

• Use the Food Buying Guide to plan adequate portion sizes – remember that the “as purchased” 

weight or volume is greater than the “as consumed” volume. 

• Know your customers: Be sure to get input from students and staff when designing cycle menus. 

Purchasing and Preparing Fruits and Vegetables2 

Foods you serve can only be as good as the quality of the foods you purchase. Careful use of competitive 

buying will not only help control food costs but will also help upgrade the quality of your meals. Here are 

some additional tips... 

• Be familiar with sources of supply. Buy from growers who provide the best quality food at the 

most reasonable prices. Seek out potential new suppliers. Put them on your mailing list for bids 

and requests for proposals. Also look for opportunities to buy through cooperative purchasing 

groups (co-ops). 

• Buy according to how you will use a product. Consider grade, style, type, size, count, 

container, and packing medium. Develop clear, concise purchase specifications and food product 

descriptions. To ensure the purchase of quality foods at competitive prices, write specifications 

and descriptions that will make clear what you want and what you will accept. (Refer to First 

Choice and Choice Plus, NFSMI). 

• Inspect upon delivery. Make sure what is delivered meets your specifications. 

• Remember storage facilities. Decide when to buy each type of food, keeping in mind 

perishability and storage space. 

• Keep records of food purchases. 

• Use standardized recipes, even for salad bars.

• Determine equipment needs. 

• Balance workload and delivery schedules. 

 

2 See Fruits and Vegetables Galore and NFSMI resources. 

24
Marketing Fruits and Vegetables3 

A promotion provides an excellent opportunity to introduce new menu items. But don’t 

overdo it — show only one new fruit or vegetable item at a time. A total of two or three in a month is plenty! 

To make sure students notice: 

• Make the new food item sound appealing on the printed menu. 

• Offer an incentive — a reward for choosing the new food. 

• Display a poster that lists the food’s nutritive value. Look for resources from commodity groups 

such as Peach Growers, etc. 

• Introduce new foods in the classroom or plan small portions when first offering a new food. 

Strategies to Incorporate Farm to Cafeteria Programs 

• Salad Bars: Showcase local foods in a salad bar as an alternative entrée choice or in combination 

with other entrees. One advantage of a salad bar is that local foods can be incorporated when 

available. Use colorful signs to help children choose enough. 

• Teacher Nutrition Education: Serve local foods in the cafeteria that are featured in nutrition 

education curriculum in the classroom or school garden.

• Main Dish Items: Incorporate local foods in your favorite lunch entrees; and offer more vegetarian 

choices. For example, add color and crunch to pizza using green peppers, zucchini, etc. 

• Side Fruit/Vegetables: Serve locally produced fruits or vegetables as a side dish for lunch. 

Locally produced fruits, such as apples, pears, berries or melons, can be served with cereal as a 

breakfast option.

• Special Events: Host a "Harvest Festival" in the cafeteria, showcasing many different locally 

produced foods at one event, or showcase one locally grown product each month. Introduce 

different foods to students and educate them about what foods are produced locally. Partner with 

teachers, health or agriculture groups which can provide resources and assist with marketing the 

event. Make the cafeteria the fun, “in” place to have lunch! 

 

3 See Fruits and Vegetables Galore and Chapter 8 in Menu Planner. 

25
Maximize your Nutritional Impact! 

Vegetables High in Recommended Nutrients

Iron Vitamin A Vitamin C 

Best 

Sources 

Beet greens, carrots, Swiss 

chard, red chili peppers, 

collards, dandelion 

greens, kale, mustard greens, 

peas and carrots, sweet red 

peppers, spinach, winter 

squash (acorn, butternut, 

Hubbard), pumpkin, sweet 

potatoes, turnip greens 

Beet greens, carrots, Swiss 

chard, red chili peppers, 

collards, dandelion 

greens, kale, mustard 

greens, peas and carrots, 

sweet red peppers, spinach, 

winter squash (acorn, 

butternut, Hubbard), 

pumpkin, sweet potatoes, 

turnip greens 

Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, 

sweet red and green 

peppers, red and green 

chili peppers

Good 

Sources 

Broccoli, chicory greens Broccoli, chicory greens Cauliflower, collards, kale, 

kohlrabi, mustard greens, 

watercress

Other 

Sources 

Green asparagus, green chili 

peppers (fresh), endive, 

escarole, tomatoes, tomato 

juice or reconstituted paste or 

puree 

Green asparagus, green 

chili peppers (fresh), endive, 

escarole, tomatoes, 

tomato juice or reconstituted 

paste or puree

Asparagus, cabbage, 

dandelion greens, okra, 

potatoes (baked, boiled, or 

steamed), potatoes 

(reconstituted instant 

mashed/vitamin C restored), 

sauerkraut, spinach, sweet 

potatoes (not canned in 

syrup), tomatoes, tomato 

juice or reconstituted paste or 

puree, turnip greens, turnips 

Fruits High in Recommended Nutrients

Iron Vitamin A Vitamin C 

Best Sources Mangoes Mangoes Oranges, orange juice, 

papayas, guavas, kiwi

Good Sources Apricots, cantaloupe, 

papayas, purple plums 

(canned).

Apricots, cantaloupe, 

papayas, purple plums 

(canned)

Grapefruit, grapefruit juice, 

grapefruit/orange juice, 

kumquats, mangoes, 

pineapple juice 

(canned/vitamin C restored), 

strawberries, tangerine juice, 

tangerines

Other Sources Red sour cherries, 

nectarines, peaches (not 

canned), prunes.

Red sour cherries, 

nectarines, peaches (not 

canned), prunes

Cantaloupe, honeydew melon, 

raspberries, tangelos

26
Additional Resources on Farm-to-School Programs 

Information Clearinghouses 

 

The Center for Food and Justice, a division of the Urban and Environmental Policy Institute at Occidental 

College in Los Angeles, CA, maintains links to topical press articles and timely research on national farmto-school activities on its “Farm to School” website, located at www.farmtoschool.org. The mission of the 

Center for Food and Justice is to promote sustainable and socially just food systems by engaging in 

collaborative action strategies, community capacity-building, research and education. 

The Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC), a non-profit organization based in Venice, CA 

committed to building strong, sustainable, local and regional food systems, maintains an extensive array of 

resources on farm-to-school programs, including publications, case study examples, and information on 

funding possibilities, on its “Farm to School” program website, accessible at 

http://www.foodsecurity.org/farm_to_school.html. Through the leadership of its National Farm-to-School 

Program Director, Marion Kalb, the Coalition also offers direct technical assistance to individuals and 

groups interested in starting farm-to-school projects in their communities. For further information, please 

contact Marion Kalb, CFSC's Farm to School Program Director by e-mail at Marion@foodsecurity.org or by 

telephone at 530-756-8518, ext. 32. 

The Cornell University Farm to School Program develops strategies and disseminates information to 

increase the amount of locally grown food served in New York's schools, colleges and universities. 

Information featured on Cornell’s Farm to School Program website includes practical tips about initiating 

connections with local farmers and schools, examples of successful farm-to-school marketing and 

educational programs at the elementary, middle and secondary school level in New York State, an 

overview of regulatory and legislative requirements affecting school meal preparation, and a directory of 

available local foods. The website may be accessed at http://www.cce.cornell.edu/farmtoschool/index.htm. 

FoodRoutes is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to reintroducing Americans to the origin of their food—the 

seeds it grows from, the farmers who produce it, and the routes that carry it from the fields to our tables. As part of its 

ongoing effort to build local, community-based food systems, FoodRoutes has dedicated a section of its 

website to the growing farm-to-school movement. This portal offers instant access to an extensive library 

of published reports on farm-to-school activities, and may be found at 

www.foodroutes.org/farmtoschool.jsp. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA/AMS) maintains a website 

devoted to marketing channel research and development, which features several publications that examine 

the growing importance of schools as a market outlet for local agricultural products, and offer tips and 

strategies to producers and school foodservice personnel alike to enhance the success of farm-to-school 

marketing and procurement. The website may be accessed at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/MarketingChannels.htm. 

For further information about USDA/AMS farm-to-school resources, please contact Debra Tropp, Team 

Leader, Market Channel and Postharvest Research and Development, Marketing Service Branch, USDA 

Agricultural Marketing Service by e-mail at Debra.Tropp@usda.gov or by telephone at 202-720-8317. 

27
Research Reports and Planning Guides 

Bringing Local Food to Local People: A Resource Guide for Farm-to-School and Farm-to-Institution 

Programs, Barbara C. Bellows, Rex Dufour and Janet Bachmann, Appropriate Technology Transfer for 

Rural Areas (ATTRA), Fayetteville, AR, October 2003, 28 pages. 

This handy reference tool identifies potential sources of funding and technical assistance for farm-to-school 

marketing from government and non-government sources, examines the impact of 2002 Farm Bill 

legislation on the development of farm-to-school programs, recommends strategies to enhance the 

likelihood of successful project implementation, and provides a comprehensive list of contacts and 

information about ongoing farm-to-school marketing activities across the country. The free guide may be 

retrieved electronically at http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/farmtoschool.pdf or may be obtained by calling 

the following toll-free number, 1-800-346-9140. 

Farm-to-Cafeteria Connections: Marketing Opportunities for Small Farms in Washington State, Kelli 

Sanger and Leslie Zenz, Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program, Washington State Department of 

Agriculture (WSDA), November 2003, 86 pages. 

Developed for use in the State of Washington, this handbook provides customized guidance to farmers, 

food service buyers and community organizers alike on how to enhance procurement of locally grown farm 

products by schools and other food service institutions. Among other issues, the handbook evaluates the 

comparative cost of serving locally produced foods versus alternative food sources, provides 

recommendations on how to identify sources of locally grown farm products, discusses legal requirements 

involved in sourcing food products directly from farms, and offers insights about how to incorporate local 

foods in school menus. The handbook also includes case studies of several successful farm-to-school and 

farm-to-cafeteria programs in Washington State, Iowa and Wisconsin. Copies of the free handbook may be 

downloaded from the WSDA Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program website at 

http://agr.wa.gov/Marketing/SmallFarm/102-FarmToCafeteriaConnections-Web.pdf

or may be obtained by contacting Kelli Sanger, Coordinator of WSDA's Small Farm and Direct Marketing 

Program, at (360) 902-2057, or at smallfarms@agr.wa.gov. 

Farm to School: An Introduction for Food Service Professionals, Food Educators, Parents and 

Community Leaders, Alison Harmon, et al., 2003, 73 pages. 

This manual is designed to introduce school food service professionals and other interested community 

members to the benefits of using regional and seasonal foods in school meal programs. It addresses the 

contribution of farm-to-school programs to the development of sustainable local food systems and the 

achievement of nutritional goals, provides technical guidance on establishing direct procurement programs 

between schools and local farmers, and shares valuable insights from participants in farm-to-school 

projects from California, Florida, Kentucky, Iowa, New Mexico, New York and Pennsylvania. Copies of the 

manual may be retrieved electronically from the Center for Ecoliteracy website at 

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/pages/rethinking/downloads/FarmtoSchoolGuide1.pdf, while published copies of 

the manual may be obtained for $12.00, plus $4.00 for shipping and handling, from the Community Food 

Security Coalition. Checks and money orders should be made payable to the Urban and Environmental 

Policy Institute (UEPI) at Occidental College, and should be sent to Sandra Ramirez, UEPI, Occidental 

College, 1600 Campus Road, Los Angeles, CA, 90041. 

28
Fresh From the Farm. . .And Into the Classroom: A Los Angeles Unified School District Pilot 

Project, Margaret Haase, Andrea Azuma, Robert Gottlieb, and Mark Vallianatos, Center for Food and 

Justice, Urban and Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College, January 2004, 26 pages. 

The report evaluates the impact of an educational program carried out at more than 40 school sites within 

the Los Angeles Unified School District during the 2002-2003 school year, which attempted to create a 

unique hands-on learning experience for schoolchildren through a direct connection between classrooms 

and an organic farm in Southern California. Activities sponsored through the program included class 

lectures by farmers and/or field trips that provided information about how food is grown, along with 

classroom tasting and sample programs that introduced schoolchildren to unfamiliar fruits and vegetable 

items/varieties. These programs were incorporated into lesson plans on health, nutrition, cooking/food 

preparation, agriculture, and environmental education. The report contains extensive feedback from 

educators about their level of satisfaction with the pilot project, along with an analysis of the challenges 

involved in establishing permanent funding for this type of educational endeavor. Electronic copies of the 

report are available for free from the Center for Food and Justice website at 

http://departments.oxy.edu/uepi/cfj/ReportFINAL.pdf. 

From Asparagus to Zucchini: A Guide to Farm-Fresh, Seasonal Produce, Madison Area Community 

Supported Agriculture Coalition (MADSAC), Madison, WI 

Although this guide originally was developed to provide information to participants in Community Supported 

Agriculture projects, it includes 135 pages of vegetable information and seasonal recipes of practical 

interest to school food service personnel. Published copies of the guide may be purchased for $19.00 from 

the Wisconsin Rural Development Center, 4915 Monona Dr., Suite 304, Monona, WI 53716, Phone 608-

226-0300, Fax 608-226-0301. 

Get Fresh Get Local, Kelly Erwin (consultant to the Massachusetts School Food Service Association), 

June 2004, 15 pages. 

This report, funded by a grant from the Massachusetts School Food Service Association (MSFSA), 

analyzes the results of pilot farm-to-school programs carried out between September 2003 and June 2004 

by MSFSA at five separate school districts throughout the state of Massachusetts (Belchertown, Hudson, 

Maynard, Middleboro and Worcester), representing a diverse range of rural, suburban and urban 

communities. The report examines the current status of local food procurement initiatives at each school 

district, provides an overview of next step strategies being considered by these school districts, offers 

examples of educational programming and foodservice training that can be used to successfully 

complement local purchasing activities, and shares recommendations for encouraging greater school food 

service and farmer participation in local farm-to-school marketing campaigns. Copies of the report may be 

obtained for $6.00 apiece by contacting Kelly Erwin in Amherst, MA by phone at (413) 253-3844 or by email at kelerwin@localnet.com. 

Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities for Farm-to-School 

Programs, Andrea Misako Azuma and Andrew Fisher, Community Food Security Coalition, Venice, CA, 

January 2001, 62 pages. 

29
This detailed policy backgrounder explores the impact of commercial/branded foods on the state of child 

nutrition, and discusses how farm-to-school programs have the potential to foster healthier dietary habits 

among schoolchildren and enhance community access to affordable food supplies. The document includes 

case studies and lessons learned from several farm-to-school marketing projects in California, Connecticut, 

Florida, Kentucky, New York and North Carolina. Published copies of the document may be ordered online for $12.00 (plus $4.00 for shipping and handling) from the Community Food Security Coalition web site 

at http://www.foodsecurity.org/memberinfo.html. 

How Local Farmers and School Food Service Buyers Are Building Alliances; Lessons Learned from 

the USDA Small Farm/School Meals Workshop, May 1, 2000, Debra Tropp and Surajadeen 

Olowolayemo, Transportation and Marketing Programs, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, December 

2000, 30 pages. 

This report summarizes the educational highlights of a technical workshop on farm-to-school marketing 

held in Georgetown, KY with the support of the Kentucky Department of Agriculture, the University of 

Kentucky’s Cooperative Extension Service, and USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service and Food and 

Nutrition Service. Topics addressed in the report, based on presentations made at the conference, include 

the importance and benefits of farm-to-school marketing, product preferences in school food service, 

factors that influence vendor selection by school food service buyers, and case studies of successful farmto-school marketing programs in California, Florida, Kentucky and North Carolina. Supplemental 

information offered in the report includes a section on available government assistance for farm-to-school 

programs, and a marketing checklist for farmers and school food service directors interested in getting 

involved in farm-to-school activities. Electronic copies of this free report may be retrieved from the USDA 

Agricultural Marketing Service’s Marketing Service Branch website at 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/PDFpubList/localfarmsandschool.pdf, and published copies of the 

report may be requested by contacting Debra Tropp, Team Leader, Market Channel and Postharvest 

Research and Development, Marketing Service Branch, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service by e-mail at 

Debra.Tropp@usda.gov or by telephone at 202-720-8317. 

Innovative Marketing Opportunities for Small Farmers: Local Schools as Customers, Daniel P. 

Schofer, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Glyen Holmes, USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Vonda Richardson, Florida A&M University, and Charles Connerly, West Florida Resource, 

Conservation and Development Council, February 2000, 51 pages. 

This report documents the successful efforts of a small minority-owned farm cooperative in northern Florida 

to create new markets for its agricultural production between 1997 and 1999 by delivering fresh-cut leafy 

green vegetables, fresh berries, and fresh melons to local school districts. Information supplied in the 

report includes valuable step by step insights as to how this cooperative was able to bring its strategic 

business plan to fruition by working collaboratively with individual school food service directors and local 

representatives of the Department of Defense’s Defense Subsistence Office. Electronic copies of this free 

report may be retrieved from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service’s Marketing Service Branch website 

at http://www.ams.usda.gov/tmd/MSB/PDFpubList/localfarmsandschool.pdf, while published copies of the 

report may be requested by contacting Debra Tropp, Team Leader, Market Channel and Postharvest 

Research and Development, Marketing Service Branch, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service by e-mail at 

Debra.Tropp@usda.gov or by telephone at 202-720-8317. 

30
Linking Farms with Schools: A Guide to Understanding Farm-to-School Programs for Schools, 

Farmers and Organizers, Marion Kalb, Kristen Markley and Sara Tedeschi, 2004 

This guide details the benefits, challenges, and strategies for success for building successful farm-to-school 

projects and includes case studies of innovative projects and an extensive resource list. A useful guide for

farmers, food service, and organizers, it addresses both purchasing and supply issues, as well as food 

safety, product cost, and developing programs in colder climates. Sample surveys for both food service 

directors and farmers are also included. Published copies may be ordered on-line for $7.00 (plus $4.00 for 

shipping and handling) from the Community Food Security Coalition web site at 

http://www.foodsecurity.org/memberinfo.html.

Local Food Connections from Farms to Schools, Mary Gregoire, Catherine A. Strohbehn and Jim Huss, 

Iowa State University Extension, 2000, 4 pages. 

This pamphlet provides an overview of marketing and procurement considerations that often emerge when 

farmers attempt to market their farm products directly to local schools and offers recommendations for 

addressing these issues. Electronic copies of the pamphlet may be obtained for free from the website of 

Iowa State University’s Extension program at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1853A.pdf 

Lunch Matters, by Dona Richwine, Nutrition Specialist, Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, Santa 

Monica, CA 

This video and companion booklet, showcasing the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s award 

winning lunch program, provides step by step instruction on how to start a farmers market salad bar in a 

school cafeteria. Addressed in the video and booklet are specific recommendations on how to successfully 

promote the concept of a farmers market salad bar with key school and community leaders, how to develop 

appropriate food purchasing and delivery procedures in cooperation with local farmers market managers, 

and how to calculate the amount of labor needed to operate an individual salad bar program. The booklet 

also includes several attachments that can be used as reference material by school food service personnel, 

including sample menus, a prospective equipment list, and examples of operational cost analyses, 

participation rate records and production records. 

The video and booklet are available for a handling fee of $5.00 to school districts and organizations that 

wish to start a farmers market salad bar. To place an order, please contact Dona Richwine at 

richwined@smmusd.org. 

Oklahoma Farm-to-School Report, Oklahoma Food Policy Council (joint project of the Kerr Center for 

Sustainable Agriculture, the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, and Drake 

University), January 2004, 36 pages. 

The content of this report focuses on the results of a survey sent to foodservice buyers at 638 public 

institutions in Oklahoma (such as public elementary, middle and secondary schools, colleges, universities 

and correctional facilities) to ascertain their level of interest in purchasing locally-produced foods. Survey 

questions examined the contractual arrangements most typically used to procure foods at Oklahoma’s 

public institutions, and the types of food commodities (produce, meat and dairy) most commonly purchased 

from both local and non-local sources. Researchers also sought to identify the primary issues that either 

encouraged or discouraged procurement of locally-produced foods by this foodservice segment, and 

31
analyzed differences in purchasing behavior and preferences between larger and smaller institutions. 

Aside from containing an analysis of survey results, the report also contains background information on 

several successful farm-to-school marketing models, a nutritional profile of Oklahoma residents/households 

compared to the U.S. average, and a list of food items produced in Oklahoma. Electronic copies of the 

report may be downloaded for free from the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture website at 

http://www.kerrcenter.com/ofpc/farmtoschool.htm, while published copies of the report may be ordered online from the Kerr Center at http://www.kerrcenter.com/HTML/pubform_farm_ranch.html for a $2.00 

shipping and handling fee for the first copy, and a $1.00 shipping and handling fee for each additional copy. 

Rethinking School Lunch, Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, CA, 2004, 165 pages (includes 10 chapters, 

introductory sections, concluding section, and downloadable financial calculator tool). 

This comprehensive web-based guide to enhancing school nutrition in school districts is the culmination of 

five years of research by the Center for Ecoliteracy and their project partners aimed at identifying the 

elements necessary to create integrated farm-to-school programs that incorporate nutritional, educational, 

community development, and environmental goals. Essays, interviews, tools and resources, divided into 

ten thematic chapters, are offered together to help a diverse array of stakeholders begin the process of 

envisioning and planning innovative school feeding programs that are designed to enhance the social and 

mental well-being of students, help improve student performance, and enable students and teachers to 

reconnect with their local communities in meaningful ways. Topics addressed by each of the guide’s 

individual training modules include: 

• Leadership, Policy and Change 

• Curriculum Integration 

• Nutrition and Health 

• Finances 

• Facilities Design 

• Dining Environment and Experience 

• Professional Development 

• New Models of Procurement 

• Waste Management 

• Marketing and Communications 

One of the unique tools found in the guide’s Finances module is a downloadable financial calculator, which 

is designed to help food service directors obtain a clearer understanding of their expenses and revenue 

sources, and more accurately evaluate the financial impacts of incorporating fresh food and onsite meal 

preparation into school foodservice. The guide may be accessed electronically for free from the Center for 

Ecoliteracy website at http://www.ecoliteracy.org/pages/rethinking/rethinking-home.html. 

School Foods Tool Kit: A Guide to Improving School Foods and Beverages, Claudia Malloy, Director 

of Grassroots Advocacy, Joy Johanson, MPH, Nutrition Policy Associate, and Dr. Margo Wootan, Director 

of Nutrition Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Washington, D.C., September 2003. 

This toolkit is designed to help parents, teachers, school administrators, elected officials and others 

improve the nutritional quality of foods and beverages in their local schools through grassroots advocacy. 

While the themes addressed in the toolkit encompass a far broader range of nutritional issues than farm-to32
school activities, most notably the issue of competitive foods (those sold or served outside school meal 

programs), it contains an abundant quantity of reference material of interest to individuals looking to 

establish farm-to-school programs in their communities. The toolkit is comprised of three sections: 

• How to Improve School Foods and Beverages, which provides guidance on how to 

communicate messages related to improving child nutrition to decision-makers, and offers 

background information to illustrate how the growing influence of competitive foods in schools 

undermine the national investment in child nutrition programs 

• Model Materials and Policies, which features examples of model legislation, sample letters, and 

other reference materials that can be adapted for use by individual communities 

• Case Studies, which offers a comprehensive list of legislative and programmatic efforts to 

eliminate or reduce the presence of competitive foods in schools throughout the country 

The School Foods Tool Kit may be downloaded at no cost from the CSPI website at 

http://www.cspinet.org/schoolfood, or may be ordered on-line via credit card for $10.00 US or $15 

Canadian. To order a published copy of the toolkit by check or money order, interested buyers should 

download the publication order form from http://www.cspinet.org/schoolfood/orderform_toolkit.pdf, and send 

the form plus check or money order for $10.00 US or $15 Canadian to 

CSPI’s School Foods Tool Kit 

1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300, 

Washington, DC 20009 

“Taking it to the next level: Success of small Florida vegetable co-op leads to a network of similar 

cooperatives,” Rural Cooperatives magazine, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September-October 2002, 7 

pages. 

The article documents the recent business expansion strategies of the New North Florida cooperative, a 

small minority-owned cooperative based in Marianna, FL that received seed money from USDA in the late 

1990’s to initiate and carry out farm-to-school marketing activities in value-added produce. By 

piggybacking on the distribution network of other cooperatives, the New North Florida cooperative has been 

able to develop new markets for its products in nearby States, as well as expand the customer base for 

other small farm cooperatives operating in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi. 

Electronic copies of the article may be retrieved for free from the USDA Rural Development website, 

located at www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/sep02/sep02.pdf. 

The Crunch Lunch Manual: A Case Study of the Davis Joint Unified School District Farmers Market 

Salad Bar Pilot Program and a Fiscal Analysis Model, Renata Brillinger, Jeri Ohmart and Gail Feenstra, 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SAREP), University of California at Davis, 

March 2003, 61 pages. 

This manual provides an overview of the lessons learned during the operation of a “Farmers Market” salad 

bar program, featuring locally-sourced, seasonal fruits and vegetables, option, at selected schools in the 

Davis, CA Joint Unified School District over a two-year period. Designed to help school foodservice 

personnel and other key community stakeholders develop their own school-based “Farmers Market” salad 

bar programs, the manual focuses on the incremental steps involved in incorporating locally grown fresh 

fruits and vegetables into school foodservice menus. The first three chapters of the manual examine the 

33
specific requirements of salad bar programs at each stage of development, including the start-up phase of 

program planning, fundraising and organization, the intermediate phase of program implementation, and 

the final phase of program expansion/institutionalization. Readers are also offered tools for assessing the 

“readiness” of school district participation in a farm-to-school program, and detailed guidance on how to 

assess the financial viability of a planned or ongoing salad bar program by generating profit/loss statements 

and calculating “breakeven” points for program operations. The manual concludes with a listing of 

resources for farm-to-school programs and food policy. Copies of the manual can be retrieved 

electronically from the SAREP website at 

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/cdpp/farmtoschool/crunchlunch32003.pdf

The Farmers’ Market Salad Bar: Assessing the First Three Years of the Santa Monica-Malibu United 

School District Program, Michelle Mascarenhas and Robert Gottlieb, Community Food Security Coalition, 

2000, 24 pages. 

This booklet describes the results of a pilot salad bar program initiated by Occidental College’s Community 

Food Security Project in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. It evaluates student participation 

rates in the Farmers’ Market salad bar program (featuring locally-grown farm products) versus alternative 

meal options at several elementary schools, analyzes the cost of implementing the program, examines 

various ways of boosting interest in salad bar programs from students, school personnel and community 

members, and discusses some of the budgetary and logistical challenges involved in maintaining a 

successful Farmers Market salad bar program. 

34
Appendix A: Memo Regarding "Purchases of Locally Produced Foods" in 

2002 Farm Bill

May 16, 2002 

SUBJECT: Purchases of Locally Produced Foods in the School Nutrition Programs 

TO: Regional Directors 

 All Regions 

 Special Nutrition Programs 

Section 4303 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 adds a new paragraph (j) at the end of 

section 9 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act pertaining to purchases of locally produced 

products. The provision requires the Secretary to encourage institutions participating in the school lunch 

and breakfast programs to purchase locally produced foods, to the maximum extent practicable. 

We are asking you and your State agencies to encourage school food authorities participating in the 

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs to purchase locally produced foods, to the 

maximum extent practicable, along with other foods. This provision does not absolve school food 

authorities of their obligation to adhere to all applicable procurement requirements. School food authorities 

should be reminded that all purchases must be made competitively, consistent with Federal and State 

procurement laws and regulations. Purchases of this type would generally qualify as small purchases 

under procurement requirements and therefore may be procured using informal procedures. School food 

authorities should check with their administering State agency to determine appropriate small purchase 

requirements and with their State Department of Agriculture for more information on locally produced foods. 

This is a good time of year to encourage the purchase of locally produced products and to encourage the 

planning for next school year’s purchase of such products. Most regions in the country have an abundance 

of locally produced fruits, vegetables, herbs and nuts to enhance the meals served to children. 

Additionally, studies by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), and the National Academy of Sciences suggest that due to the phytochemical content 

of fruits and vegetables, as part of a diet that is low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol and that contains 

plenty of whole-grain breads and cereals, may decrease the risk of heart disease and cancer. Since a 

variety of fruits and vegetable can be purchased locally, this fits into our overall goal of providing nutritious, 

well-balanced meals to children. 

In the summer of 1997, USDA began a comprehensive effort to connect small farms to the school meal 

programs. The “farm to school” initiative encourages small farmers to sell fresh fruits and vegetables to 

schools and encourages schools to buy this wholesome 

35
Page 2 

produce from small farmers. A copy of “Small Farms/School Meals Initiative”, a step by step guide on how 

to bring small farms and local schools together, is available to assist you in your efforts to purchase locally 

produced foods at www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/SmallFarms/small.pdf. 

If you have any question, please contact Mary Jane Whitney at (703) 305-2590. 

STANLEY C. GARNETT 

Director 

Child Nutrition Division 

36
Appendix B: Success Stories 

Farm to School programs incorporate healthy, nutritious, farm products into school lunches, snacks and 

salad bars. According to established farm to school projects, farm fresh fruits and vegetables rank among 

students' favorite meal options, especially in elementary and middle schools. When combined with nutrition 

education, farm visits, school gardens, and education in the classroom, children can develop healthy 

eating habits that will last a lifetime. In doing so, they can decrease the risk of experiencing food related 

diseases such as obesity, diabetes, hypertension and heart disease. Farm to School also enhances the 

local economy by providing a new outlet for locally-produced foods. 

Here are some examples to generate ideas as you begin exploring Farm to School possibilities in your 

area: 

California 

A UCLA study conducted on a sample of 195 children from three elementary schools in the LA Unified 

School District revealed that the average fruit and vegetable consumption by children increased by one 

serving /day over a period of two years, a change attributed to the "Farmers Market Salad Bar" in the 

school cafeteria. The salad bar served fresh fruits and vegetables sourced from a local farmer's market. 

Other significant nutritional benefits included a reduction in average calorie intake by 200 calories/day and 

fat intake by 11gm/day after the salad bar was introduced. Students enjoyed the fresh, healthy and tasty 

salads, increasing participation in the free and reduced meals offered through the National School Lunch 

Program. The project was facilitated by the Center for Food and Justice, Occidental College (then called 

Community Food Security Project) which also conducted farm tours, taste testings, and nutrition education 

sessions for students, teachers, and parents. 

New Mexico 

In New Mexico, local farms' foods are featured throughout the menus in Santa Fe Public Schools. With the 

help of the project’s coordinator, who is a chef, the director of Student Nutrition Services was inspired to 

develop a farm to school program to help kids enjoy the flavor and quality of locally grown fresh fruits and 

vegetables. Starting in three schools, the program has now expanded to six elementary schools and one 

high school. 

The state Department of Agriculture and the state Farmers Marketing Association located interested 

farmers. Approximately forty farmers sell to the school district, primarily through a farmers coop. Farm 

crops include salad greens, sunflower sprouts, apples, watermelons, cantaloupes, tomatoes, potatoes, 

onions, carrots, broccoli, corn, cucumbers, peppers, squash, sweet potatoes, pears and radishes. Most 

products are available only during spring and fall. However, salad greens grown under cover are now 

available throughout most of the winter. Sunflower sprouts are a big hit with the kids and are used districtwide, as are locally grown watermelons, apples, and sweet potatoes. Deliveries are made directly to the 

school sites or to the central warehouse. 

Two of the elementary schools have a salad bar every day. Lunches at these sites include a meat entree 

three times a week and a vegetarian item twice a week. The other elementary schools offer a side salad of 

37
mixed greens, sunflower sprouts, and other seasonal items with lunch. The high school has a separate 

salad bar; students have the choice of the salad bar or a hot lunch. 

Nutrition education in the classroom has had a positive impact on participation in the salad bar line. The 

Farms to Schools Coordinator facilitated discussions about proper salad bar etiquette as well as what is 

required for a reimbursable meal under the National School Lunch Program. Food service staff brought the 

salad bar into the classroom for a hands-on lesson about food groups and portion sizes. The students were 

then able to prepare a lunch from the salad bar, practicing what they learned. 

New York 

In New York State, the Cornell Farm to School Program supports and monitors pilot projects in two school 

districts and works with many other constituencies to further farm to school efforts and increase awareness 

of and support for farm to school activities in New York. A prime focus has been on building statewide 

coalitions and increasing awareness through communication about farm to school and providing resources 

to enable the initiation of additional projects. In Hannibal and Johnson City, the two pilot project school 

districts, food service directors have purchased greater amounts of local produce in each succeeding 

project year. During school year 2001-02, Hannibal purchased $3,724 worth of 12 different NY-grown 

produce items. In school year 2002-03, Hannibal purchases increased to $3,912.45 worth of 21 different 

items. Johnson City purchased $1,522.45 worth of six different produce items during school year 2001-02, 

and $1,6,37.25 worth of eight different items during school year 2002-03. 

Food service directors and staff members emphasize that the produce from local farmers is of excellent 

quality and taste, and competitive in price. In Johnson City, the director buys directly from one farmer; in 

both districts, directors are also able to obtain local items through their produce brokers. During the fall 

months, apples, pears, plums, watermelon, tomatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, onions, peppers, cucumbers, 

cabbage, carrots, potatoes, and lettuce are served to students. Although vegetables were previously 

bought chopped and bagged, the directors agreed to buy whole New York grown cauliflower and broccoli 

and chop them in-house. New York cabbage, onions, apples, and dried kidney or black beans are also 

purchased during the winter months. 

A New York State Farm to School Law, is making it easier for schools to purchase local products. The law 

established an annual NY Harvest for NY Kids week which takes place every fall and connects students to 

farms through visits to farms and farmers' markets, meals featuring NY foods, and other farm-school 

activities. The Johnson City and Hannibal schools, as well as many other schools throughout the state, 

participate in NY Harvest for NY Kids week. 

A Statewide Farm to School Coordinating Committee, established in 2003, provides statewide leadership 

for farm to school initiatives, established and implements short- and long-term goals, identifies needs, and 

develops strategies for making sustainable farm-school connections. The committee includes wide 

representation from commodity organizations, state departments of health, education, and agriculture, 

community food and agriculture organizations, food service associations at K-12 and college levels, and 

cooperative extension associations. An active NY Farm to School Listserv enables members to share 

experiences, ideas for programs and activities, recipes, sources for NY products and much more. See the 

Cornell Farm to School Program website (www.cce.cornell.edu/farmtoschool) for many more details about 

these efforts. 

38
Wisconsin 

Madison Metropolitan School District is in its second year of offering a farm to school program in three of its 

elementary schools. Thanks to the food service coordinator’s determination, the program continues in spite 

of the challenges implementing farm to school in a large school district. Wisconsin’s program began as a 

pilot project initiated through the University of Wisconsin-Madison, integrating classroom education, farm 

visits, Wisconsin-grown products offered in the cafeterias, parent newsletters, and special festival dinners 

involving the whole school. 

In addition to working with farm co-ops, the child nutrition director has encouraged more farmers to 

participate in the DoD fresh produce program. Because the district needs produce that is pre-washed, precleaned, pre-cut, etc, the biggest challenge is finding processors who can provide produce in that form. In 

spite of the challenges, the director wants to expand the program, hopefully by extending the grant for 

another two years. She has noticed that students who are reluctant to taste vegetables are more willing to 

accept them in the schools that feature the education program. 

39