S ales of locally produced foods comprise a small but growing part of U.S. agricultural sales. Estimates vary, but they indicate that local food sales total between $4 billion and $12 billion annually. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that local food sales totaled $6.1 billion in 2012, reflecting sales from nearly 164,000 farmers selling locally marketed foods. This represents 8% of U.S. farms and an estimated 1.5% of the value of total U.S. agricultural production. Most (85%) of all local food farms are smaller in size, with gross annual revenues under $75,000. Local and regional food systems generally refer to agricultural production and marketing that occurs within a certain geographic proximity (between farmer and consumer) or that involves certain social or supply chain characteristics in producing food (such as small family farms, urban gardens, or farms using sustainable agriculture practices). Some perceive locally sourced foods as fresher and higher in quality compared to some other readily available foods and also believe that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that are perceived to be more environmentally sustainable. However, no such standards or practices are required under federal programs that support local foods. Many of the federal programs that support local foods generally define "local" based on the geographic distance between food production and/or sales based on the number of miles the food may be transported and require that food be sold within the state where it is produced to be considered local. The most widely used definition is from the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 , Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008), which defined a "locally or regionally produced agricultural food product" as it pertains to eligibility under the Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program, a USDA loan program. Under the definition, "locally or regionally produced agricultural food product" means "any agricultural food product that is raised, produced, and distributed in ... the locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product "; or "any agricultural food product that is raised, produced, and distributed in ... the State in which the product is produced ." This report provides background information on many of the types of operations engaged in the U.S. local and regional food system. A wide range of farm businesses may be considered to be engaged in local foods. These include direct-to-consumer marketing, farmers' markets, farm-to-school programs, community-supported agriculture, community gardens, school gardens, food hubs and market aggregators, kitchen incubators, and mobile slaughter units. Other types of operations include on-farm sales/stores, Internet marketing, food cooperatives and buying clubs, pick-your-own or "U-Pick" operations, roadside farm stands, urban farms (and rooftop farms and gardens), community kitchens, small-scale food processing and decentralized root cellars, and some agritourism or other types of on-farm recreational activities. This report also highlights some of the available resources within existing federal programs administered by USDA and other agencies. A number of existing federal programs benefiting all U.S. agricultural producers also provide support and assistance for local food systems. These and other USDA programs were authorized in the 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 , Agricultural Act of 2014). Other programs were authorized in 2010 as part of the most recent child nutrition reauthorization (Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, P.L. 111-296 ). In addition, some Administration initiatives have been created to leverage existing USDA programs to support local food systems. A more comprehensive description of existing programs supporting local and regional food systems in the United States is available in CRS Report R43950, Local Food Systems: Selected Farm Bill and Other Federal Programs . Finally, this report discusses some of the legislative options that have been previously proposed by Congress and intended to broaden support for local and regional food systems. Some aspects of these proposals were included as part of the omnibus farm bill in 2014 and may be included in future farm bill reauthorizations. Despite gains in federal support for local food systems in recent years, some Members of Congress, as well as many community and farm advocacy groups, continue to argue that such food systems should play a larger role in U.S. farm policy and that the laws supporting agriculture should be revised to reflect broader, more equitable policies across a range of production systems, including local food systems. Those supporting the expansion of such policies often advocate for the creation of programs specifically targeting support for local food systems, as well as increasing funding for federal farm programs that support local foods. However, others in Congress oppose extending farm support programs to local food systems, which traditionally have not been a major constituency among other long-standing U.S. agricultural interests. Those supporting an increased role for local food systems within U.S. farm policy cite the increasing popularity of local foods and a general belief that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that may be considered more environmentally sustainable. Those opposed to extending farm bill benefits to local food systems cite concerns about overall limited financial resources to support U.S. farmers as well as concerns that the local food systems might not provide for the most efficient and productive use of natural resources for producing food, among other criticisms. The focus on locally sourced foods and efforts to convince consumers to "buy local" are not new concepts. "State grown" or "locally grown" branding programs were introduced in the 1930s (e.g., " Pride of New York ," " Pick Tennessee Products ," or " Ohio Proud "), and such programs now exist in most U.S. states. (For more information, see text box below.) In the late 1990s, the USDA-appointed National Commission on Small Farms, among other recommendations, emphasized the need to strengthen the "local farm economy" through policy changes within the department's federal programs as a way to better meet the needs of small farmers and ranchers. Although consumer interest in local foods has some of its roots in the late 1960s and concerns about the environment, growth in mainstream consumer demand has increased sharply in the past decade, along with consumer willingness to pay more for such products. Despite the growing popularity of the local foods market, there is no established definition of what constitutes a "local food." There is also no consensus about what primary factors would need to be considered if one were to construct a definition of what constitutes a "local food." In most cases, local foods refer to foods produced near where they are consumed, based on a certain geographic proximity (between farmer and consumer) or the number of miles the food travels from where it is grown to where it is ultimately purchased or consumed by the end user. Local foods may also refer to the types of marketing channels used between farmers and consumers. In other cases, however, local foods may invoke certain attributes desired by the consumers who purchase them, involving certain social or supply-chain characteristics in producing food, such as supporting small family farms, urban gardens, or farms using sustainable agriculture practices. The latter case also raises questions about how the local food movement may be used to address a perceived need, such as increasing access to fresh, nutritious foods for underserved communities or contributing to rural economic development. The lack of a universally agreed-upon definition, however, does raise questions about what a local food is and may also provide opportunities for fraud in the marketplace with the sale of foods that are marketed as "local" when they cannot be determined to be local. Studies show that consumers continue to confuse "local" and "organic" foods, even though only a small percentage of certified organic products are direct marketed, according to studies. One measure of local agricultural products is based on distance between where a product is produced and where it is ultimately purchased or consumed. However, although "local" has a geographic connotation, there is no consensus on the distance or number of miles between production and consumption. USDA reports that, depending on the definition, distances can vary widely, from 25 miles up to 350 miles from where the "local" food is produced. The single statutory definition for "locally or regionally produced agricultural food product" in the United States applies to products transported less than 400 miles or within the state in which they are produced. In Canada, fresh fruits and vegetables cannot be labeled as "local" unless produced within about 31 miles (50 kilometers) of where they are sold. Most state definitions view "local" to mean grown within state borders; however, in some cases "local" may be defined as food grown within a certain geographic region that might cross state lines. Definitions based on geographic distance vary depending on the state or region and on whether the food is fresh or processed, among other factors. Most consumers, when they purchase local foods, have been shown to generally believe that their local purchases are sourced within a much smaller distance from where it is produced—generally under 100 miles—even though this may not actually be the case. Generally, consumers believe that locally marketed foods are produced on nearby small farms. Two existing U.S. federal laws provide different definitions of local food production based on the geographic distance between food production and sales. These definitions differ in terms of the number of miles the food may be transported, but both require that food be sold within the state where it is produced to be considered local. The 2008 farm bill (as noted above) defined the term "locally or regionally produced agricultural food product," as it pertains to eligibility under a USDA loan program, to mean "any agricultural food product that is raised, produced, and distributed in ... the locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product "; or "any agricultural food product that is raised, produced, and distributed in ... the State in which the product is produced ." Alternatively, food safety legislation enacted in 2010 defined a "qualified enduser"—for the purposes of exempting smaller, local producers from regulation—as ''the consumer of the food; or ... a restaurant or retail food establishment ... that is located ... in the same State as the farm that produced the food; or ... not more than 275 miles from such farm. " A 2013 European Commission report defines "local farming" as "the production of agricultural products and foodstuffs with the aim of selling them in an area reasonably close to the farm of production" and defines "local food systems" to mean "production, processing, trading and consumption of food occur in a relatively small geographical area," but acknowledges that there is no uniform definition of the term "local area." The report confirms that the term "local area" is intended to refer to a "relatively small geographical area, there is no agreement on the distance, varying between 20 and 100 km [12 and 62 miles] from the point of production" and that "it is essentially the consumer who decides whether a product comes from a 'local area' or not." A 2013 survey of buyers of local foods indicates that most consumers (64%) consider food "local" if produced within a 100-mile radius of the store, while other consumers (37%) consider products from the same state to be local. Other information indicates that most consumers (more than 75%) consider "local" as produced within 50 miles, while more than 20% consider "local" as produced within 100 miles (with the remainder willing to consider distances of more than 100 miles as "local"). Elsewhere within USDA and other federal agencies, many examples exist of very specific statutory definitions for "farms" and "food facilities" that govern a range of programs and policies. These definitions generally do not differentiate between the types of farms and food facilities based on an operation's various production practices, size, locality, or distance between production area and markets, among other types of producer- or consumer-driven attributes. Specific federal guidelines are lacking for labeling food as "locally grown," and different states have opted to address local food labeling within the state. Another measure of local agricultural products is based on the types of marketing channels used by farmers to distribute food from the farm to the consumer. USDA data are based on surveyed farm information of sales by selected marketing channels, including direct-to-consumer outlets and intermediated outlets. Direct-to-consumer marketing outlets include roadside stands, on-farm stores, farmers' markets, and community-supported agriculture (CSAs). Intermediated outlets include grocers, restaurants, and regional distributors. USDA reports that 144,530 farms sold $1.3 billion in agricultural products directly to consumers in 2012. Farms with direct sales to consumers were 6.9% of all U.S. farms; direct-to-consumer sales accounted for less than one-half of one percent of total U.S. agriculture sales. Compared to 2007, the number of farms selling directly to consumers increased 6%, and total direct sales to consumers increased 8%. The average value of direct consumer sales per farm was $9,063. Four states—California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—accounted for one-third of all direct consumer sales. However, farms in all U.S. states reported direct-to-consumer foods sales in 2012. Figure 1 provides a county-level map showing average value of sales for U.S. farms with direct sales to consumers in 2012. The leading states with direct-to-consumer marketing sales are California, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Texas. States where direct-to-consumer marketing comprised a relatively large share of the state's total agricultural sales were Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, New Jersey, Maine, Alaska, New York, and Hawaii. By value, leading products that are directly marketed to consumers include nursery and greenhouse products, fruits and vegetables, and livestock and dairy products. Sales of value-added products such as beef jerky, fruit jams and jelly, floral arrangements, cider, and wine have also increased. In 2012, a reported nearly 95,000 farms produced and sold value-added products, mostly from farms located in Texas, California, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Direct-to-consumer sales accounted for less than one-fifth of the value of all local agricultural products marketed in 2012 across all farms and all marketing channels. The remaining products are marketed through intermediated marketing outlets only or through both direct-to-consumer and intermediate marketing outlets ( Table 1 ). The majority of farms selling food products directly to consumers are considered small farms. USDA reports that three-fourth of farms selling directly to consumers had annual sales of less than $5,000 in 2012, accounting for 11% of total sales. Farms with annual sales of more than $50,000 accounted for only 3% of farms but the majority of total sales (58%). Previous analysis by USDA using 2007 Census data provides additional information. At small-sized farms (defined as farms with sales of less than $50,000), 78% of all local sales were through direct-to-consumer channels, with 22% of sales made through intermediated market channels, including grocers, restaurants, and regional distributors ( Figure 2 ). This compared with larger farms (sales of more than $250,000), where 40% of all sales were through intermediated channels. Most indications are that support for agriculture and the local economy appear to be perhaps the most important motivator to consumers for buying local food products, although other factors also rank highly ( Figure 3 ). Among the types of attributes consumers are willing to pay a premium for when purchasing fresh produce directly from a producer are providing economic support for agriculture and the community (30%); perceived produce quality and safety (27%); relationship with land and environmental benefits from local farms (22%); and minimizing food miles and energy dependency (21%). Other information indicates that the types of attributes regarding fresh produce practices that consumers are willing to pay more for include support for local farms (36%), perceived nutritional benefits (26%), perceived food safety benefits (22%), and support for organic production practices (16%). A study released in 2013 indicates that surveyed consumers believe purchasing locally sourced foods helps local economies (66%); delivers a broader and better assortment of products (60%); provides healthier alternatives (45%); improves the carbon footprint (19%); and increases natural or organic production (19%). Among other study findings: about 30% of those surveyed said they would switch stores if their preferred store did not carry local foods and indicated that their main source for local food is local farmers' markets and farm stores. Consumer support could potentially help small businesses address some of the perceived challenges for marketing locally sourced foods. USDA and others report that business barriers to market entry and expansion in local food markets include capacity constraints for small farms; lack of distribution systems for moving local food into mainstream markets; lack of resources for capital and infrastructure investments; and limited research, education, and training for marketing local food. Other challenges facing producers include access to processing and packaging services; delivery procedures; consistency (volume and quality); uncertainties related to regulations that may affect local food production, such as food safety requirements; and the need for traceback of foods to their origin. A 2011 study focused on beginning farmers cites challenges, including lack of capital and access to credit and land, and cites as "valuable" programs such as apprenticeships, local partnerships, and CSAs. Yet another measure of local agricultural products may be based on the desire by consumers to support local farmers and/or encourage the use of certain social or supply-chain characteristics in producing such local products. Such attributes may include production by a small family farm, an urban farm or garden, or a farm using sustainable agriculture practices. Other attributes may include perceived higher product quality and freshness of local food; a desire to provide social and political support for local farmers and the local economy; farmland preservation; concerns about environmental impacts, energy use, and the perception that local foods are more environmentally friendly (limited use of chemicals, energy-based fertilizers, and pesticides); perceived better food safety given shorter supply chains; sense of social justice (perceived fairer labor prices and fair price for farmers); knowing the source of the product; a commitment to establishing closer connections between consumers and agricultural producers; and, generally, a response to concerns about industrialized commercial agriculture. A 2015 national survey by the American Farmland Trust and the Farmers Market Coalition reports that, among producers who sell at farmers' markets, 48% use integrated pest management (IPM) practices, 78% use practices that are consistent with organic standards (although less than 20% have completed organic certification), and 81% use practices intended to improve soil health. Often it is important to consumers that they know that production and distribution occur within a specific region, or that consumers are informed about the local nature of products, in some cases through personal communication with the farmers. Regardless of the distance the food travels from the production area to the consumer, many of these factors inherently influence consumer demand for products marketed and perceived to be "local." The desire to support nearby small and medium-sized farms is also a motivation for consumers. USDA reports that small farms rely more on direct-to-consumer marketing channels (farmers' markets, on-farm sales, roadside stands, CSAs, etc.) as compared to larger farms. Support for farms using sustainable agriculture practices is often claimed as a motivation driving demand for local foods. However, just as there is no single definition of "local" foods, much debate exists about what constitutes "sustainable agriculture." USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program has identified three pillars of sustainability. These include profit over the long term; stewardship of the nation's land, air, and water; and quality of life for farmers, ranchers, and their communities. Another widely used definition also integrates three main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. Alternatively, other definitions may apply according to laws governing some USDA activities. Reportedly, U.S. food companies are increasingly incorporating sustainability initiatives into their global supply chains. Some groups advocate for an increased role for local food systems as a way to help address concerns about lack of consumer access to healthy foods within certain low-income or underserved communities ("food deserts"). Although there is no standard definition of a food desert, the term generally refers to areas where consumers lack access to grocery stores that provide a variety of affordably priced nutritious foods. The 2008 farm bill defined a "food desert" as an "area in the United States with limited access to affordable and nutritious food, particularly such an area composed of predominantly lower-income neighborhoods and communities" ( P.L. 110-246 , §7527). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further classifies these areas as lacking access to affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that make up the full range of a healthy diet, and focuses on the potentially negative health outcomes, including obesity and chronic disease. CDC notes, however, that "more research is needed to determine how access influences the types of foods consumers purchase and eat." Other information on food deserts is provided in the text box below. Various policy options have been identified to address food deserts. These include offering incentives (such as tax credits) to attract grocery stores to urban and rural communities; developing other retail outlets, such as farmers' markets, public markets, cooperatives, farm stands, CSAs, and mobile vendors; improving transportation and distribution networks; increasing stocks of fresh foods at neighborhood stores; reducing food waste and encouraging food donations; and promoting growing food locally in backyards and community gardens, as well as urban farms. Some studies, however, have raised questions about whether increasing access to food by siting markets within food deserts actually alters dietary habits or obesity levels. In recent years, growing demand for "local" foods has raised the importance of direct farm sales and the marketing of locally grown foods within the U.S. agricultural sector. Although local food sales still comprise a small share of overall sales, demand continues to grow. Estimates reported by USDA show the extent to which local food sales have increased in recent years. As noted earlier, USDA's most recent estimates put U.S. local food sales at $6.1 billion in 2012, reflecting sales from nearly 164,000 farmers selling locally marketed foods. This represents 8% of U.S. farms, and an estimated 1.5% of the value of total U.S. agricultural production. Previously, USDA estimated that the farm-level value of U.S. local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, from both direct-to-consumer sales and intermediated sales ( Figure 4 ). An estimated 107,200 farms were engaged in local food systems in 2008, about 5% of all U.S. farms. Of total local sales in 2012, direct-to-consumer sales accounted for 19% (about $1.2 billion), and were marketed through direct-to-consumer marketing outlets only, such as roadside stands, on-farm stores, farmers' markets, and CSAs. Another 55% (about $3.4 billion) was marketed through intermediated marketing outlets only (local grocers, restaurants, and regional distributors). Another 26% (about $1.6 billion) was marketed through both types ( Table 1 ). Comparing results from USDA's 2008 and 2012 reports indicates that local food markets continue to grow. USDA further reports that small farms rely more on direct-to-consumer marketing channels (such as farmers' markets, roadside stands, on-farm stores, and CSAs) as compared to larger farms. Most local food farms (85%) make less than $75,000 in gross income per year ( Figure 5 ). USDA's published estimates of market size utilize available data from the agency's Census of Agriculture . However, there are currently no national estimates of local food production. Limited information is available on local and regional food markets from USDA's Market News for some states only. To supplement USDA's Census data, the agency is planning to survey 28,000 U.S. farmers and ranchers regarding local foods. Depending on available funding, the agency's "Local Foods Survey" would be a Census follow-on survey and sampled from respondents to USDA's 2012 Census who reported product sales directly to consumers or to retail outlets that in turn sell directly to consumers. Response to USDA's follow-on survey would be voluntary. USDA claims this effort is in response to community and farm advocacy groups who are requesting changes in U.S. farm policy to provide more direct support for local foods producers, consumers, and markets as part of the next omnibus farm bill. Previously USDA expanded its data collection of direct-to-market sales, on-farm sales, and CSAs as part of its National Farmers' Market Manage r Survey . USDA's 2012 report, Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food ("Compass"), further highlights the agency's support for local and regional food projects. Other recent and related USDA publications include a report on the distribution practices of eight producer networks and their partners distributing locally or regionally grown food to retail and food-service customers. USDA claims that "interest is growing in support of local agricultural economies through the purchase of foods from sources that are geographically close to the consuming areas, via channels that are direct from farm to consumer or at most one step removed." The popularity of and demand for local foods continues to grow. One reported survey suggests that nearly 80% of all consumers would like to buy more local food, and almost 60% of consumers say it is important when buying food that it be locally sourced, grown, and made; more than one-half of consumers surveyed said they would be willing to pay a premium for local food. Another survey suggests that 70% of consumers are willing to pay a premium for local food. Other survey results reported by the National Restaurant Association indicate that locally sourced meats and seafood and locally grown produce, as well as "hyper-local sourcing," are among the top menu trends for 2016, followed by environmental sustainability, healthful kids' meals, a range of "artisan" food products, and also natural ingredients and minimally processed foods. The National Grocers Association further reports that demand for local foods may now exceed that for organic foods. Most researchers recognize that innovation and expansion of local foods in mainstream channels will mostly be driven by growing demand in the marketplace. Some large-scale food retailers, such as Walmart, claim locally sourced fruits and vegetables account for more than 10% of all produce sold in their stores nationwide. Other retailers, such as Whole Foods, claim that as much as 25% of their offerings are locally sourced. The retailer further supports local food production by providing about $10 million in low-interest loans to its independent food growers. Whole Foods also has established a rating system for fresh fruits and vegetables and flowers based on the growing practices used in production. Among the types of benefits cited by advocates of local food systems are increased and more stable farm incomes; increased jobs and wealth retention in local economies; improved access to fresh produce; enhanced accountability and choice; reduced vulnerability to contamination and food safety concerns, given the smaller distribution range of foods; diversified and sustainable production; and reduced energy use from reduced transportation (fewer "food miles") and reduced contributions to climate change. Other reported benefits claim that buying directly from farmers allows producers to retain a greater portion of the value-added costs often captured by other businesses in the supply chain or middlemen, and also increases the likelihood that money spent remains in the local community; also, eating locally grown foods is correlated with improved nutrition and the increased likelihood of making healthier food choices. Some of these claimed benefits have been disputed. In addition to raising questions about the general assumption that "local" is inherently good, other criticisms cite reduced productivity and inefficient use of resources in food production; questions about ecological sustainability and community effects; and concerns about food quality and food safety. USDA claims that nearly all U.S. states and congressional districts benefit from local and regional food systems in some way. However, few academic studies have quantified how local food markets may affect the economic development, health, or environmental quality of communities. USDA also claims there are economic gains to the U.S. farm economy from programs that support increasing the number of farmers' markets nationwide and programs promoting the use of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) at farmers' markets, as well as programs to increase purchases of local foods by school districts and institutions. Results from the limited number of available economic studies suggest that expanding local food systems in a community can increase employment and income in that community; however, evidence is insufficient to determine whether local food availability improves diet quality or food security and whether localized production results in a reduction of overall energy use or in greenhouse gas emissions. Most available economic studies rely on input-output analysis to generate "economic multipliers" that estimate changes in the economy (e.g., number of jobs) from a change in economic activity. For example, USDA reports that operators of fruit and vegetable farms with local food sales generate an estimated 13 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs per $1 million in sales (which is estimated as greater than the number of jobs created by fruit and vegetable farms not engaged in local food sales). Other studies have shown estimated gains in both farm sector output and gross state product from farmers' markets and also gains in output and employment from food hub development. A limited number of regional studies have been conducted. One such study of the broader economic impacts of Iowa's regional food systems found that local food sales resulted in additional jobs both on-farm and elsewhere in the economy. Data and information are available on the types of businesses engaged in local food systems, including farms that sell direct-to-consumer through farmers' markets, roadside stands, on-farm stores, CSAs, or other types of on-farm sales such as Internet or mail order sales, pick-your-own or "U-Pick" operations, cottage food makers, mobile markets, and also agritourism or other types of on-farm recreational activities. Other forms of local food markets may include foods produced in community gardens or school gardens, urban farms (and rooftop farms and gardens), community kitchens, or small-scale food processing and decentralized root cellars. The following is a review of some of these types of direct-to-consumer marketing and other forms of local operations. Products sold through these outlets may include fresh foods; processed foods (such as honey; syrups; beef jerky; and homemade jellies, jams, and pickled products); and certain non-edible products such as nursery crops, cut flowers, and wool and other fiber products. Locally produced foods may also pass through an intermediary, such as a restaurant, government institution, grocery store, or other retail channel. Food sales to farm-to-school programs may be direct from the farm or through an intermediary. Food hubs and market aggregators, along with kitchen incubators and mobile slaughter units, may be employed in distribution and/or processing within these marketing channels. Some of these types of food outlets are also reviewed. Farmers' markets are among several forms of direct farmer marketing, which also include farm and roadside stands, CSAs, pick-your-own farms, and direct sales to schools. More than 8,100 farmers' markets operated in 2014, up from about 6,100 in 2010, 2,700 in 1998, and 1,800 markets in 1994 ( Figure 6 ). Figure 7 shows the number of farmers' markets, by county, in 2010. States with the most farmers' markets were California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. Farmers' markets also operate during winter, mostly in New York, California, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Maryland, and Florida. Previous estimates by USDA indicate that total farmers' market sales exceed $1 billion per year. Products sold at farmers' markets include conventionally produced farm products and so-called natural and locally labeled products, as well as certified organic products and other specially labeled products such as hormone- or antibiotic-free and free-range animal products. A 2015 national survey by the American Farmland Trust and the Farmers Market Coalition reports that food and food products sold at farmers' markets include vegetables (69% of all markets) and fruit and nuts (47%), but also include meat, poultry, and eggs (53%) and value-added products (31%). Figure 8 shows increases over the past decade in the number of farmers' markets that are authorized to accept benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). Many farmers markets now accept payment in the form of SNAP's electronic benefit transfer (EBT) debit card system. According to USDA, in 2008, SNAP participants redeemed under $2.6 million in food stamps at about 753 farmers' markets; by 2014, SNAP participants redeemed nearly $18.8 million in food stamps at 5,175 farmers' markets. To increase participation of low-income consumers at farmers' markets as well as to incentivize fruit and vegetable consumption, a number of projects have been initiated regarding SNAP that provide matching purchases by SNAP users at participating farmers' markets. Examples include "Double Up Food Bucks" in Michigan; "Boston Bounty Bucks funds"; "Health Bucks" in New York City; "Fresh Exchange" in Portland, Oregon; and a dollar-for-dollar match at Evanston, Illinois, farmers' markets. A study of SNAP-authorized farmers' market participants in Michigan reported that more than one-third of "Double Up" farmers' markets are in rural areas (communities with fewer than 50,000 people); also, rural residents were found to be more likely to use "Double Up" benefits than urban residents. Farm-to-school programs broadly refer to "efforts to serve regionally and locally produced food in school cafeterias," with a focus on enhancing child nutrition and providing healthier meals as part of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and other child nutrition programs. The goals of these efforts include increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education to school districts and farmers. School garden programs also build on this concept. Among the other goals of farm-to-school programs are those highlighted by the National Farm to School Network, connecting schools (K-12) and local farms with the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias, improving student nutrition, providing education opportunities (regarding agriculture, health, and nutrition), and supporting local and regional farmers. USDA's broader agency activities may also include other farm-to-institution activities involving hospitals or correctional facilities. USDA began its efforts "to connect farms to the school meal programs" in the late 1990s, as part of pilot projects in California and Florida, followed by other agency-wide initiatives in the early 2000s. These efforts were reinforced by Congress as part of subsequent reauthorizations of child nutrition legislation, including the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-296 ). USDA's Farm-to-School Census reports that during the 2011-2012 school year more than 40,000 schools (about 44% of all U.S. schools) participated in farm-to-school activities, reaching an estimated 23.5 million school children. This compares to an initial two programs in the 1996-1997 school year, and an estimated 400 in 2004 and 1,000 in 2007. An estimated $385.8 million was spent on local food purchases through these programs. Nearly 20% of school districts have guidelines for purchasing locally grown produce. USDA's website provides information on national and regional farm-to-school programs and other resource guides. According to the National Farm to School Network, 40 states have supportive policies in place. States with the greatest number of schools participating in farm-to-school programs are North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, Florida, and Vermont. CSAs provide a way for consumers to buy local, seasonal food directly from a farmer. CSAs "directly link local residents and nearby farmers, eliminating 'the middleman' and increasing the benefits to both the farmer and the consumer." In a CSA, a farmer or community garden grows food for a group of local residents—members, shareholders, or subscribers—who pledge support to a farm at the beginning of each year by agreeing to cover the farm's expected costs and risks. In return, the members receive shares of the farm's production during the growing season. The farmers receive an initial cash investment to finance their operation as well as a higher sales percentage because the crop is marketed and delivered directly to the consumer. The CSA model was first developed in Japan in the 1960s (known as "teikei," or "food with the farmer's face on it"), and was widely adopted in Europe in the 1970s. More than 1,400 CSAs were in operation in the United States in 2010. The first U.S. CSA started in 1985 at Indian Line Farm in Massachusetts. By 2001 an estimated 400 CSAs were in operation, rising to 1,144 CSAs in 2005. USDA estimates that 12,617 farms marketed products through a CSA in 2012. Overall, compared to a total of about 2 million farms, farms that sell through CSAs comprise less than 1% of all U.S. farming operations. Leading states with farms that sold through a CSA were California, Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and New York. USDA's website lists national, state, and regional organizations related to CSAs. The American Community Garden Association (ACGA) defines a community garden as "any piece of land gardened by a group of people," whether it is in an urban, suburban, or rural area and whether it grows food, such as vegetables, or flowers and other horticultural products. It may be composed of a single community plot or can be a collection of many individual plots. These gardens may be located at a school, hospital, or in a neighborhood, or may be dedicated to "urban agriculture" in a city-like setting where the produce is grown, often for sale at market. There are an estimated 18,000 community gardens throughout the United States. Of these, about 2,100 gardens are recognized as People's Gardens under USDA's initiative and related programs, which have donated an estimated 3.9 million pounds of produce to local food banks or other types of charitable organizations. A precise count of the number of school gardens in the United States is not available; however, the National Gardening Association's "School Garden Registry" has information on several thousand school gardens across the nation (searchable by city, state, or name). Other reports indicate that California alone had more than 2,000 school gardens in 2007. The National Gardening Association (NGA) estimates that about 42 million households (35% of all U.S. households) participated in food gardening in 2013, up from an estimated 36 million households in 2008. Much of this increase is attributable to an increase in the number of urban households growing food, as well as the number of food gardeners, aged 18-34 years old, and households with children. An estimated 3 million households were growing food at a community garden, up from 1 million in 2008. In total, U.S. households spent $29.5 billion on their gardens and lawns last year, averaging about $350 per household annually. Community gardens have been establishing linkages with urban farming efforts and with efforts to increase access to fresh foods within some low-income and underserved communities (or "food deserts"). The history of community gardens goes back more than 100 years, starting with subsistence vegetable farming on vacant lots in Detroit in the early 1900s and encompassing "Liberty Gardens" and "Victory Gardens" during the first and second world wars, among other urban gardening movements over the period. Despite initial concerns by USDA that Victory Gardens were an inefficient use of available resources, during World War II the agency encouraged nearly 20 million home gardeners to plant food. By the end of the war, USDA claims home gardeners were producing a reported 40% of the nation's produce. Today, in addition to gardens that grow produce for personal consumption, some "market gardens" also grow produce for sale or for donation, and are part of a growing interest in urban agriculture—both farms and gardens. Resources available to households that want to grow their own food include benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), which lists among eligible food items "seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat." Many school gardens are said to be based on a model developed in the mid-1990s as part of the Edible Schoolyard Project, largely attributed to the efforts of Berkeley, CA, restaurant owner Alice Waters. School gardens are now being integrated into some educational curricula to provide nutrition and science education while teaching children about plants, nature, and the importance of eating healthy, nutritious foods. A number of nonprofit organizations support school gardens and provide resources for classrooms. FoodCorps, an independent nonprofit organization, places young leaders into limited-resource communities for one year of public service to work with local partners teaching kids about food and nutrition, engaging them in school gardens, and supporting local healthy food for public school cafeterias. USDA also has funded a pilot program to support school gardens in high-poverty schools. In addition, various groups support a range of education and youth empowerment/work programs, as well as small-scale urban agriculture initiatives in many cities, including Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and New York. Also, many large cities—including Washington, DC; Baltimore; New York; and San Francisco—are developing their own food policy task forces to address local food initiatives within their cities. USDA defines a regional food hub as "a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source-identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand." Food hubs provide producer services, such as actively linking producers to markets and providing for on-farm pick up, production and post-harvest handling training, business management services and guidance, and also value-added product development. Food hubs also provide for food safety and "good agricultural practices" (GAP) training, as well as liability insurance. Among the types of operational services that hubs provide are aggregation, distribution, brokering, branding and market development, packaging and repackaging, light processing, and product storage. The types of community services offered by food hubs include "Buy Local" campaigns, distribution to "food deserts," food bank donations, health screening, cooking demonstrations, SNAP redemptions, educational programs, and youth and community employment opportunities. USDA estimates that more than 300 food hubs operate in the United States in more than 40 states, with large clusters located in the Midwest and Northeast. Oftentimes food hubs refer to a warehouse or similar facility that aggregates food and facilitates sales to wholesale customers or directly to consumers. A produce packing house may also act as an aggregation facility that prepares and receives raw fruits and vegetables from farmers. Such aggregation points allow for "scaling up" of agricultural production from the farm to the marketplace, linking farmers to consumers. Ideally, they are located near the farms they serve to better help farmers scale up and connect with consumers, wholesalers, retailers and grocery stores, restaurants, and food-service buyers such as schools or hospitals. (In addition, some states also have their own state-branded systems that may be accessible through their own online directory.) Most aggregators provide an online directory or virtual marketplace to link buyers and sellers. Many also provide assistance to participate in farm-to-school programs and other types of services, including agritourism. In some cases, a range of educational services, technical assistance, and outreach are provided, intended to advance agricultural entrepreneurship. Examples include on-the-ground farmer training, aggregation and distribution, capacity-building, curriculum development, and help with food safety certification, usually through linkages with state extension and university staff. A kitchen incubator (also culinary incubator, including shared-use commercial kitchens for rent) is a business that provides food preparation facilities to help a small start-up or home-based business produce a food product. A kitchen incubator is often a fixed-location small food processing facility, serving as a resource for a new business (such as an early-stage catering, retail, or wholesale food business) that may not have the capital to invest in its own full-time licensed commercial kitchen (providing an alternative for cottage food makers and home kitchens). Instead, the new business is able to rent shared space in a fully licensed commercial kitchen, which also helps it comply with federal and state food safety laws and requirements. Reportedly more than 600 kitchen incubators are in service nationwide. The types of businesses that use kitchen incubators include start-up or home-based food producers; caterers; bakers; street vendors; and makers of specialty food items, such as condiments and candies, and also in some cases established food businesses. A mobile (also modular) slaughter unit (MSU) is a self-contained USDA-inspected slaughter and meat processing facility that can travel from site to site and can be used by small-scale meat producers who may not have resources to transport animals to a distant slaughterhouse (often referred to using the French term, abattoir ) or who may want to sell locally raised meat directly to local consumers or restaurants. These mobile operations provide a trained and licensed workforce and are required to comply with necessary food safety, sanitation, hygiene, and waste management requirements. MSUs were also a response to increased consolidation in the meat and poultry industries, resulting in fewer slaughter facilities and a lack of USDA- or state-inspected establishments "available to small producers of livestock and poultry in some remote or sparsely populated areas." MSUs are able to serve multiple small producers in areas where slaughter services might be unaffordable or unavailable. One of the first mobile USDA-inspected slaughter units started operation in the early 2000s in Washington State. Historically, food grown in urban areas may be "planted on private or public property including vacant lots, city parks, churchyards, schoolyards, and rooftops and on land owned individually, by a community group, institution, municipality, land trust, or other entity," as well as in backyards, city lots, or community gardens, or grown using hydroponic (or soil-less) systems. Urban agriculture may include food crops (including medicinal and ornamental plants) and fruit trees, and also grazing of some types of livestock (e.g., honey bees, chickens, goats). In the United States, urban agriculture has evolved over time, starting with vacant lot cultivation, encompassing school gardens and the city beautification movement prior to World War I and Victory gardens during the world wars (or relief gardens during the Great Depression); and now it covers ongoing trends in school and community gardening, city farming, and abandoned property reclamation. Many of these operations are managed by an organization or private enterprise to grow food for sale at retail stores, but smaller-sized operations also grow exclusively for sale at farmers' markets and food fairs, or for field-to-direct-sales to consumers, food processors, and cottage food makers (home kitchens). Increasingly, urban agriculture has grown to include more large-scale innovative systems and capital-intensive operations, including vertical or roof-top farms, hydroponic greenhouses, and aquaponic facilities. Examples of some existing or planned larger-scale operations include Brooklyn's Grange Farm and Gotham Greens; Hantz Farms in Detroit; Growing Power in Milwaukee and Chicago; FarmedHere in Chicago; AeroFarms in New Jersey; and Bright Farms facilities located in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Urban agriculture is often characterized as being produced in close proximity to where it is sold and consumed. Urban farming operations are not only diverse in terms of the types of systems and practices used, but also differ in terms of their underlying motivations and objectives. As noted by other researchers: A broad understanding of urban agriculture must take into account the various activities of households to achieve food security, and to create income. Urban food production is more than food related. Community-based and individual food production in cities meets further needs of the urban population like sustainable urban development and environmental protection. Some noted objectives of urban agriculture include community and economic development; improved access to fresh, locally produced food; transformation of vacant urban property; collection and reuse of organic waste and rainwater; and education, organization, and employment of local residents. Several major cities have educational and apprentice programs geared to urban agriculture. A 2014 study by Portland State University reports that groups engaged in urban agriculture are mostly motivated by an interest in community building, education, food quality, and sustainability. Myriad challenges exist in urban farming, such as city codes, zoning laws, land access and use restrictions, licensing, and permitting, as well as other regulations covering, for example, soil contamination, air and water pollution, site renovation, soil fertility, waste management, access to water, site security, marketing and financing, liability and risk insurance, local nuisance ordinances, pesticide use, pest management, and issues involving raising urban livestock, among other factors. Globally, an estimated 15% to 30% of the world's food supply is grown in urban areas, and an estimated 60% of all irrigated croplands globally are located within 12 miles of an urban area. In the United States, one study estimates that locally-produced foods (within 100 miles from where consumed) have the potential to meet as much as 90% of the national food demand. Others are more skeptical of the contributions from urban agriculture: Some highlight the fact that urban land accounts for only about 2% of available land and question whether urban farming is an efficient use of available resources and whether urban producers have "the skills and the inclination to seriously grow food." Others question whether urban farming can be profitable given the costs of land ownership and other farming inputs and whether urban farms can substantially contribute to U.S. consumption, while recognizing that urban farms provide services other than commodities, such as "instilling a sense of agrarianism" and supporting businesses devoted to food access. In October 2015, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack indicated that USDA was developing resources to provide assistance to urban farmers. No comprehensive nationwide study exists of the number of urban agriculture sites in the United States. Limited USDA data and information are available on farms located in U.S. metropolitan (metro) areas, which cover a larger geographical area than urbanized areas, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as having 50,000 or more people. Metropolitan areas are defined as a county or group of counties with an urban population of at least 50,000 people, plus any outlying counties that are economically connected to the central counties by communities. USDA reports that, in 2007, there were about 859,300 metropolitan farms in the United States, accounting for about 40% of all U.S. farms and about 40% ($115.7 billion) of the total value of U.S. agricultural production. Metropolitan farms are reported to have a different product mix than farms in non-metro areas and consist of mostly high-value crops, such as fruits and vegetables, and also livestock and dairy products. Tracking changes in agricultural production in metro areas over time is complicated by the fact that the number of counties classified as metropolitan has been increasing due to growing urbanization. In 2013, efforts were announced by researchers at New York University, Pennsylvania State University, and the National Center for Appropriate Technology, as well as Portland State University, to conduct a series of surveys geared at urban and peri-urban farms nationwide. Preliminary results of these efforts are still being interpreted. Limited information is available for specific states and localities. For example, a 2012 study of the possible number of urban agriculture sites (including community gardens, vacant lot gardens, urban farms, school gardens, and home food gardens) in Chicago, IL, estimated that there were 4,648 urban agriculture sites with a production area of about 65 acres. Residential gardens and single-plot gardens on vacant lots accounted for about three-fourths of the total. Of the 1,236 community gardens in Chicago, the study estimated that only 13% were producing food. This suggests that some gardening efforts may not be successful at growing food or perhaps may be more focused on providing for other types of services, such as education, community building, or outdoor recreation. Studies of urban agriculture in New York indicate that more than 700 farms and gardens throughout the city's five boroughs grow food (including urban farms, schoolyards, grounds of public housing developments, community gardens, and public parks). A study of the Greater Philadelphia food system reports that there are more than 45,000 farms in the region's foodshed, which encompasses a 100-mile radius that extends from the center city of Philadelphia to 70 counties in five states, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and New York. Other inventories indicate about 500 urban agriculture sites in Oakland, CA, and about 300 sites in Portland, OR. One county encompassing Cleveland, OH, is estimated to have about 225 community gardens, with a combined space of about 56 acres, which is said to provide for about 1.5% of the county's available produce. Other data compiled by USDA provide information on beginning farmers and ranchers and cover all U.S. farms, not only farms in urban or metro areas or farms that participate in local or regional food systems. Other studies provide case studies across operations in selected states. For example, one study highlights selected urban farms and projects in California, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin, among other states, and Puerto Rico. Yet another study provides case studies of urban agriculture communities in Chicago; Cleveland; Detroit; Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; New Orleans; Philadelphia; and Seattle and King County, Washington; as well as cities in Canada. Many existing federal programs benefiting U.S. agricultural producers may provide support and assistance for local food systems. With few exceptions, these programs are not limited or targeted to local or regional food systems, but are generally available to provide support to all U.S. farms and ranchers. These include farm support and grant programs administered by USDA as well as programs within other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Commerce; Health and Human Services; and the Treasury. In addition, the Obama Administration has implemented departmental initiatives intended to support local food systems, such as the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" Initiative, among other activities. Many existing USDA assistance programs are available to all U.S. farmers, regardless of farm size or distance from markets. Federal programs that provide support to all U.S. producers—including local producers—cover a wide range of USDA programs contained within various titles of the 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 , Agricultural Act of 2014) and the most recent reauthorization of the child nutrition programs ( P.L. 111-296 ). Examples include USDA's farmers' market programs, rural cooperative grants, and child nutrition programs, as well as USDA's research and cooperative extension service. (See listing of selected programs in text box below.) This listing does not include broad-based conservation or research and cooperative extension programs that also provide benefits to a range of agricultural producers, including producers engaged in local food production systems, either directly or indirectly. Table 2 at the end of this report provides a summary of many of the individual federal programs that potentially support local and regional food systems. For more detailed information on these and other programs, along with information on available federal funding, see CRS Report R43950, Local Food Systems: Selected Farm Bill and Other Federal Programs . Funding for local and regional foods has increased in recent years. Annual funding for selected grants and loans known to benefit local producers totals $90 million; other additional funding is also available, but information is not available to precisely estimate the total amount of federal funding that support local food systems. Reported total estimates may differ depending on whether estimates include funding for other programs, such as USDA programs that support specialty crops and organic agriculture. Aside from established federal programs, the Obama Administration has implemented departmental initiatives intended to support local food systems. These include the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" (KYF2) Initiative, which was launched by USDA in 2009, along with other USDA activities. In general, these USDA initiatives are intended to leverage existing agency activities and programs by eliminating organizational barriers among existing USDA programs and promoting enhanced collaboration among staff. KYF2, for example, acts to coordinate USDA's support for local and regional food systems. These initiatives are not stand-alone programs, are not connected to a specific office or agency, and do not have separate operating budgets. In general, these initiatives are intended to eliminate organizational barriers among existing USDA programs and promote enhanced collaboration among staff, leveraging existing USDA activities and programs. Nevertheless, some in Congress have challenged USDA's initiative (see discussion in text box). Despite these concerns, Congress provided for expanded support and funding for USDA programs supporting local food systems as part of the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 , Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) and the 2014 farm bill ( P.L. 113-79 , Agricultural Act of 2014). Although recent farm bills have authorized some specific programs that directly support local and regional food systems, the local impact of new and existing programs ultimately depends on the level of appropriated funding and the nature of implementation. In April 2013, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced USDA's intentions to institutionalize some of the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" Initiative, by making it a permanent part of activities throughout the agency. Authorizations for many of the highlighted programs supporting local and regional food systems are contained within periodic farm bills or within child nutrition programs. Other introduced legislation in previous Congresses would further expand upon these types of existing programs to create additional opportunities for local food systems. These include proposals providing targeted support for nontraditional and beginning farmers, focused at the farm production level, as well as proposals focused on nutrition and enhanced access to food. Omnibus farm bills govern U.S. agricultural and food programs, covering a wide range of programs and provisions, and are reviewed and renewed roughly every five years. Although many of these policies can be and sometimes are modified through freestanding authorizing legislation or as part of other laws, the omnibus, multi-year farm bill provides a predictable opportunity for policymakers to address agricultural and food issues more comprehensively. The Agricultural Act of 2014 ( P.L. 113-79 ) is the most recent omnibus farm bill, which was enacted in February 2014. It succeeded the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 ( P.L. 110-246 ). In recent years, a diverse mix of community and rural development groups and small-farm advocacy organizations have actively promoted initiatives intended to support the development of local and regional food systems by reforming the existing farm support framework and building on the concept of direct farm-to-consumer marketing to create new economic opportunities for small and medium-sized farms. Some domestic food-related and public health organizations were promoting initiatives to improve access to healthy, nutritious foods for schools and underserved communities. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) actively advocated to reduce total farm bill spending through payment limits and other reforms, while increasing investments in certain perceived underfunded areas, such as support for new farmers, rural development, conservation, renewable energy, agricultural research, and new market development. Other groups advocating for an increased role for local food systems in the farm bill are the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), Food & Water Watch, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, as well as several anti-hunger and community advocacy groups such as Feeding America, the Community Food Security Coalition, the Food Trust, and Green for All, among others. During the most recent farm bill debates in 2013 and 2014, some states, including California, submitted farm bill recommendations, seeking to promote specialty crop production to enhance fruit and vegetable production; to improve public health and nutrition; and also to revitalize local communities, support organic agriculture, and enhance the natural environment, among other goals. Some state and local groups, such as the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit organization the Food Trust, were promoting expanded farmers' market programs and farm-to-school programs, as well as initiatives to reduce the number of food deserts nationwide. These types of recommendations have been proposed by a variety of other groups and think tanks. Child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provide cash, commodity, and other assistance under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National School Lunch Act in 1946) and the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966). Local foods are sometimes promoted under these programs. Section 32 of the act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. §612c) also provides for additional funding in some cases. In the 2008 farm bill, Congress expanded the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable (Snack) Program, amending the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws. The most recent reauthorization of the child nutrition programs was the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-296 ). Some of the authorities created or extended in the last reauthorization expired in September 2015, and consideration of child nutrition reauthorization may occur in the 114 th Congress. Some in Congress have expressed the need to change farm policies in ways that might also enhance support for local food systems and rural communities. Several bills were introduced in previous Congresses broadly addressing local and regional food systems. Some of the introduced bills represented comprehensive "marker bills" addressing provisions across multiple farm bill titles and recommending changes that would have provided additional directed support for local and regional food systems. These marker bills proposed comprehensive changes to several USDA programs in the farm bill covering commodity support and crop insurance, farm credit, conservation, nutrition, rural development, research, and horticulture and livestock programs. Some of these provisions or aspects of these provisions were incorporated into the most recent omnibus farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79 ). Specifically, the 2014 farm bill included provisions or aspects of provisions contained in bills introduced in the 113 th and/or previous Congresses, including provisions providing targeted support for non-traditional and beginning farmers, including military veterans, as well as to increase access to loans for small and beginning farmers and other groups. The 2014 farm bill also included provisions to support enhanced nutrition and improved access to food. Other legislation introduced in past Congresses has addressed a range of other specific and related issues. Bills have been introduced to provide enhanced support for non-traditional agricultural producers, including creating a new USDA Office of Community Agriculture to ensure support for rural and non-rural food programs, along with grants and outreach for local food initiatives; to establish a community-supported agriculture promotion program, similar to USDA's farmers' market program, to expand and develop CSAs; and to support the creation of community garden projects in both urban and rural areas, including the use of gardens as a means to employ veterans and the promotion of urban agriculture more broadly. Other bills have proposed to improve the nutritional quality of and access to foods in underserved communities and to expand certain child nutrition programs and other domestic feeding programs. Some introduced bills have proposed ways for schools to purchase fruits and vegetables and other locally produced foods, either through grants or loan guarantees, among other options, while others have sought to provide grants to organizations operating in low-income communities and other incentives to low-income families receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly food stamps) to purchase fruits and vegetables. Other bills proposed to support farmers' markets, roadside stands, and other farm-to-consumer venues to participate as licensed retailers in SNAP. Other bills actively addressed concerns about food deserts. In February 2016, two subcommittees of the House Agriculture Committee held a series of related hearings regarding production and access to locally produced foods, including one hearing to examine the opportunities and challenges of direct to market farming (House Subcommittee on Biotechnology, Horticulture and Research) and another hearing to review incentive programs aimed at increasing low-income families' purchasing power for fruits and vegetables (Subcommittee on Nutrition). Previously, in March 2012, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing addressing these and other related issues regarding local food systems. Other House and Senate farm bill briefings have been conducted over the years on a variety of topics related to local and regional food systems. A number of states and cities have enacted a variety of laws and policies affecting local food systems, including requirements regarding licensing, permitting, zoning, and public health, as well as initiatives regarding urban farming, housing of animals, and also nuisance ordinances. A number of cities and localities have convened urban agriculture workgroups that have issued a series of recommendations specific to different regions and production areas, which are available through online searches. A compilation of these state laws, rules, and requirements is beyond the scope of this report that focuses on federal programs, which are designed to support the development of local and regional food systems. In addition, most states have enacted laws regarding "cottage foods" generally regarded as non-potentially hazardous foods (such as baked goods, jams, and jellies). Many states allow producers to make these goods in their homes, rather than in a commercial kitchen, and intend to reduce the barriers to entry for small-scale food producers. Cottage food laws vary among states, with some being more restrictive than others. Omnibus farm bills enacted in both 2008 and 2014 included a few provisions that directly support local and regional food systems, as well as reauthorized several programs that benefit all U.S. agricultural producers, including local and regional food producers. Despite these gains, many community and farm advocacy groups continue to argue that such food systems should play a larger policy role within the farm bill, and that the laws should be revised to reflect broader, more equitable policies across a range of production systems, including local food systems. Many in Congress have historically defended the existing farm support programs as a means to ensure that the United States has continued access to the "most abundant, safest, and most affordable food supplies in the world." However, there are long-standing criticisms of the traditional farm subsidy programs administered by USDA. Some criticize the fact that the core farm bill programs are focused on selected commodities—corn, wheat, cotton, rice, soybeans, dairy, and sugar—and there have been calls from both inside and outside Congress to revamp U.S. farm programs. Among other program criticisms are concerns about the overall effectiveness of farm programs and the cost to taxpayers and consumers, as well as questions about whether continued farm support is even necessary, given that many support programs were established many decades ago and are considered by some to be no longer compatible with current national economic objectives, global trading rules, and federal budgetary or regulatory policies. In addition to calls for increased equity among all U.S. food producers—regardless of farm size, type of food, or how it is produced—various programmatic changes have been proposed, some of which dovetail with efforts by supporters of local food systems. Some researchers recommend that the most appropriate role for public policy is to reduce market barriers to local food production through policies that provide support for supply chain development and marketing, and also assistance with regulatory compliance. Some in Congress continue to express the need to change farm policies in ways that might further enhance support for local food systems and rural communities, arguing that U.S. farm policy should be modified to reflect broader, more equitable treatment across a range of production systems, including local food systems. Supporters often cite the increasing popularity of local foods and a general belief that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that some consider more environmentally sustainable. Rising popularity is attributed to both increasing consumer demand and a desire among agricultural producers to take advantage of market opportunities within local and regional markets. Others contend that subsidizing the more traditional agriculture producers creates a competitive disadvantage to other producers who do not receive such support. Others in Congress oppose extending farm bill support to explicitly support local food producers, who are already eligible for many farm bill programs. Some may be opposed to extending farm bill support to local and regional food systems, which traditionally have not been a major constituency among other long-standing U.S. agricultural interests. Those opposed to extending farm bill benefits to local food systems cite concerns about overall limited financial resources to support U.S. agricultural producers as well as concerns that the most efficient and productive use of natural resources be employed for producing food. As shown by challenges from some in Congress to USDA's "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative, concerns have been expressed about the perceived priorities of USDA and fear that a shift in priorities may result in fewer resources for "conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation's food supply." (For more information, see accompanying discussion in the section titled " Administration Initiatives .") Other criticisms highlight the lack of an established definition of what constitutes a "local food" and also perception that USDA's support of local foods is mostly targeted to affluent consumers in urban areas, rather than farmers in rural communities.

Summary: Sales of locally produced foods comprise a small but growing part of U.S. agricultural sales. Estimates vary but indicate that local food sales total between $4 billion and $12 billion annually. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that local food sales totaled $6.1 billion in 2012, reflecting sales from nearly 164,000 farmers selling locally marketed foods. This represents 8% of U.S. farms and an estimated 1.5% of the value of total U.S. agricultural production. Most (85%) of all local-food farms are smaller in size, with gross revenues under $75,000. A wide range of farm businesses may be considered to be engaged in local foods. These include direct-to-consumer marketing, farmers' markets, farm-to-school programs, community-supported agriculture, community gardens, school gardens, food hubs and market aggregators, kitchen incubators, and mobile slaughter units. Other types of operations include on-farm sales/stores, Internet marketing, food cooperatives and buying clubs, pick-your-own or "U-Pick" operations, roadside farm stands, community kitchens, small-scale food processing and decentralized root cellars, and some agritourism or other types of on-farm recreational activities. There is no established definition of what constitutes a "local food." Local and regional food systems generally refer to agricultural production and marketing that occurs within a certain geographic proximity (between farmer and consumer) or that involves certain social or supply chain characteristics in producing food (such as small family farms, urban gardens, or farms using sustainable agriculture practices). Some perceive locally sourced foods as fresher and higher in quality compared to some other readily available foods and also believe that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that are perceived to be more environmentally sustainable. However, no such standards or practices are required under federal programs that support local foods. Many federal programs that support local foods generally define "local" based on the geographic distance between food production and/or sales such that "the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product"; or "any agricultural food product that is raised, produced, and distributed in ... the State in which the product is produced" (P.L. 110-246, §6015). Authorization for many of the federal programs that support local food farms is contained within periodic farm bills or within the most recent reauthorization of the child nutrition programs. The 2014 farm bill (Agricultural Act of 2014, P.L. 113-79) is the most recent omnibus farm bill. Other programs and program funding were authorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296), which includes programs that sometimes promote local food systems. Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes expiring authorities under these laws. Many existing federal programs benefiting U.S. agricultural producers may also provide support and assistance for local food systems. With few exceptions, these programs are not limited or targeted to local or regional food systems but are generally available to provide support to all U.S. farmers and ranchers. These include farm support and grant programs administered by USDA, among other federal agencies. In addition, USDA has implemented departmental initiatives intended to support local food systems, such as the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" Initiative, among other activities. These initiatives are not stand-alone programs but are intended to eliminate organizational barriers between existing USDA programs and promote enhanced collaboration among staff, leveraging existing federal activities and programs. In recent years funding to support local food systems has increased. For 2015, USDA awarded nearly $40 million in grants to support local food systems across several programs. In addition, nearly $50 million in loans is available exclusively to support local and regional food enterprises. Other USDA programs often also support local food systems; however, the share of total spending attributable to local foods is not known.