The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
The Role of Local Food Systems in
U.S. Farm Policy
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
July 17, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42155
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Summary
Sales of locally produced foods comprise a small but growing part of U.S. agricultural sales.
USDA estimates that farm-level value of local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, or
about 1.6% of the U.S. market for agricultural products. An estimated total of 107,000 farms are
engaged in local food systems, or about 5% of all U.S. farms.
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.
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, and 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.
Many existing federal programs benefiting U.S. agricultural producers may also provide support
and assistance for local food systems. These include farm support and grant programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and may be grouped into several
broad program categories: marketing and promotion; business assistance; rural and community
development; nutrition and education; agricultural research and cooperative extension; and
farmland conservation. Examples include USDA’s farmers’ market programs, rural cooperative
grants, and selected child nutrition programs, among myriad other grant and loan programs, as
well as USDA’s research and cooperative extension service. In addition, the 2008 farm bill (P.L.
110-246, Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) contained a few program provisions that
directly support local and regional food systems. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, Agricultural
Act of 2014) reauthorized and expanded many of these provisions. Although the 2008 and 2014
farm bills contained some specific programs that directly support local and regional food systems,
many community and farm advocacy groups have argued that such food systems should play a
larger policy role within the next farm bill, and that laws should be modified to reflect broader,
more equitable policies across a range of production systems, including local food systems. The
local impact of new and existing programs may depend on appropriated funding and the nature of
implementation.
Congressional Research Service
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Local Food Markets ......................................................................................................................... 2
Estimated Market Size ............................................................................................................... 2
Definitions of Local Foods ........................................................................................................ 3
“Local” Based on Distance Traveled .................................................................................. 4
“Local” Based on Marketing Outlet .................................................................................... 5
“Local” Based on Perceived Attributes ............................................................................... 7
Estimated Number of Urban and Metropolitan Farms ............................................................ 12
Types of Businesses and Operations ....................................................................................... 14
Farmers’ Markets ............................................................................................................... 14
Farm-to-School Programs ................................................................................................. 16
Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) ....................................................................... 18
Community Gardens and School Gardens ........................................................................ 18
Food Hubs and Market Aggregators ................................................................................. 20
Kitchen Incubators ............................................................................................................ 22
Mobile Slaughter Units ..................................................................................................... 22
Federal Programs and Initiatives ................................................................................................... 23
Selected USDA Programs ........................................................................................................ 23
Loans for Local Food Producers ....................................................................................... 25
Local Food Purchases in Child Nutrition Programs .......................................................... 26
Grants for Farm-to-School Programs ................................................................................ 27
Other USDA Actions ......................................................................................................... 27
Examples of Non-USDA Programs ......................................................................................... 27
Administration Initiatives ........................................................................................................ 28
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative............................................................ 28
Regional Innovation Initiative ........................................................................................... 31
Healthy Food Financing Initiative ..................................................................................... 32
People’s Garden Initiative ................................................................................................. 33
Congressional Actions ................................................................................................................... 34
Legislative Options .................................................................................................................. 34
Farm Bill Reauthorization ................................................................................................. 35
Child Nutrition Reauthorization ........................................................................................ 36
Other Proposed Legislation ............................................................................................... 36
Considerations for Congress .................................................................................................... 38
Figures
Figure 1. USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales .............................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Value of Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing, by Region (1997-2007) ......................... 7
Figure 3. Percent of Farms with Direct Sales, 2007 ........................................................................ 9
Figure 4. Reliance on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing .................................................................. 10
Figure 5. National Count of U.S. Farmers’ Markets Directory Listings ........................................ 15
Figure 6. Number of Farmers’ Markets, by County, 2010 ............................................................. 15
Congressional Research Service
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Figure 7. Number of Farm-to-School Programs, 2009 .................................................................. 17
Figure 8. Farms with CSAs, by State, 2007 ................................................................................... 19
Tables
Table 1. Marketing Channels Used by Local Food Sales Farms, by Farm Size .............................. 6
Table 2. Selected USDA Programs that Potentially Support Local and Regional Food
Systems ....................................................................................................................................... 40
Appendixes
Appendix. Overview of Selected Federal Programs ...................................................................... 43
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 62
Congressional Research Service
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Introduction
Sales of locally produced foods comprise a small, but growing, part of U.S. agricultural sales. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that farm-level value of local food sales
totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, about 1.6% of the U.S. market for agricultural products. An
estimated total of 107,000 farms were engaged in local food systems, about 5% of all U.S. farms.
Examples of the types of farming businesses that are engaged in local foods are direct-to-
consumer marketing, farmers’ markets, farm-to-school programs, community-supported
agriculture, community gardens, school gardens, food hubs and market aggregators, and kitchen
incubators and mobile slaughter units, among myriad other types of operations.
Many existing federal programs benefiting U.S. agricultural producers provide support and
assistance for local and regional food systems.1 These include USDA farm support and grant
programs that may be grouped into the following broad program categories: marketing and
promotion; business assistance; rural and community development; nutrition and education;
agricultural research and cooperative extension; and farmland conservation. In addition, both the
2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, Agricultural Act of 2014) and the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) contained provisions that directly support local and
regional food systems. Other introduced legislation in the 112th and 113th Congress would further
expand upon these types of existing programs to create additional opportunities for local and
regional food systems.
Many community and farm advocacy groups have argued that such food systems should play a
larger policy role within the farm bill, and that the laws should be reformed to reflect broader,
more equitable policies across a range of production systems, including local and regional food
systems. Supporters of local foods cite the increasing popularity of local foods, given perceived
higher product quality and freshness, and a general belief that purchasing local foods helps
support local farm economies and/or farmers that use certain production practices that may be
more environmentally sustainable. They also contend that subsidizing the more traditional
agriculture producers creates a competitive disadvantage to other producers who do not receive
such support. Those opposed to extending farm bill benefits to local food systems cite concerns
about limited financial resources to support U.S. agriculture and the perceived need to support the
most efficient and productive farms. Other criticisms highlight the perception that USDA’s
support of local foods is mostly targeted to affluent consumers in urban areas, rather than farmers.
This report is organized into three parts. First, it provides background on local and regional food
systems, focusing on available data on direct-to-consumer sales, farmers’ markets, farm-to-school
programs, community-supported agriculture (CSA),2 and community gardens. Second, it
highlights available resources within existing federal programs administered by USDA and other
1 For the purposes of this report, “local and regional food systems” refers to systems in which foods are marketed
directly to the consumer, or in which the identity of the farm where the food is produced is preserved in some way
(often referred to “farm identity-preserved marketing”). USDA definitions of “direct-to-consumer” sales and “direct”
sales to consumers are not strictly equivalent: direct-to-consumer sales are defined as the value of agricultural products
sold directly to individuals for human consumption (e.g., from roadside stands, farmers’ markets, and U-pick sites), but
exclude agricultural products sold through their own processing and marketing operations (e.g., catalog or internet
sales) and nonedible products, which may be included as part of “direct” sales.
2 As is discussed later in this report, a CSA provides a way for consumers to buy local, seasonal food directly from a
farm by pledging to support that farm’s costs and risks at the beginning of each year in return for a share of that farm’s
annual production.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
agencies that may be applied to support local food systems. It also describes some of the Obama
Administration’s initiatives that leverage existing USDA programs to support local food systems.
(A more comprehensive table and description of existing programs is included in the Appendix.)
Finally, this report discusses some of the legislative options that have been proposed by Congress
and intended to broaden support for local and regional food systems. Some aspects of these
proposals have been included as part of the reauthorization of the periodic farm bill.
Local Food Markets
Estimated Market Size
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. USDA estimated
that the farm-level value of local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008, from both direct-
to-consumer sales and intermediated sales (Figure 1). Of this total, direct-to-consumer sales
accounted for $0.9 billion, and intermediated sales (through local grocers, restaurants, and
regional distributors) accounted for $2.7 billion in local food sales.3 Farms using both direct and
intermediated marketing channels accounted for another $1.2 billion in sales. Compared to a total
farm-level value of all U.S. agricultural production estimated at about $300 billion, the local
foods segment of the market accounted for about 1.6% of the U.S. market for agricultural
products.4 An estimated total of 107,000 farms were engaged in local food systems, about 5% of
all U.S. farms.5
The popularity of and demand for local foods continues to grow. Survey results reported by the
National Restaurant Association indicate that locally sourced meats and seafood and locally
grown produce are among the top menu trends for 2012, followed by healthful kids’ meals and
locally sourced foods and ingredients.6 Locally grown and organic foods are also expected to be
among the trends with the greatest growth potential in the produce industry.7 Some major food
retailers, such as Walmart, also have stated their intentions to increases their purchases of locally
sourced produce and food from small and medium farmers, along with other steps intended to
increase the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to consumers.8
3 S. Low and S. Vogel, Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States, ERR-128, USDA
Economic Research Service (ERS), November 2011; and “Local Foods Marketing Channels Encompass a Wide Range
of Producers,” Amber Waves, December 2011.
4 USDA, Census of Agriculture, 2007, Table 2. Data are for 2007.
5 Ibid. There were an estimated total of 2.2 million U.S. farms in 2007.
6 “Children’s Nutrition, Local Foods to Top Menu Trends,” Food Business News, December 8, 2011. Based on a
survey of 1,800 professional chefs who are members of the American Culinary Federation. Also, “Locally Sourced
Meats among Top Menu Trends for 2011,” Meatingplace, November 2, 2010.
7 Informal feedback to Fresh Produce Industry discussion group, November 14, 2011.
8 “Walmart Unveils Global Sustainable Agriculture Goals,” October 14, 2010, press release; “Walmart ramping up
fresh food marketing push next year” Agri-Pulse, December 2011.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Figure 1. USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales
(farm value, 2008)
Source: S. Low and S. Vogel, “Local Foods Marketing Channels Encompass a Wide Range of Producers,” Amber
Waves, December 2011.
Definitions of Local Foods
The focus on locally sourced foods and efforts to convince consumers to “buy local” are not new
concepts. “State grown” or “locally grown” programs were introduced in the 1930s, and such
programs now exist in most U.S. states.9 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.10 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.”11 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.”
9 Wuyang Hu, et al., “What Is Local and For What Foods Does It Matter,” paper presented at the Southern Agricultural
Economics Association annual Meeting in Orlando Florida, February 6-9, 2010.
10 USDA, “A Time to Act,” National Commission on Small Farms report and recommendations, July 2009.
11 See S. Martinez et al., Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR-97, USDA, ERS, May 2010, and R.
King, “Theme Overview: Local Food—Perceptions, Prospects, and Policies,” Choices magazine, Quarter 1, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
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
consumer. 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.12 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 is a local food”
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.13
“Local” Based on Distance Traveled
Though “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.14 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.15 In Canada, fresh fruits and vegetables cannot be labeled as
“local” unless produced within about 31 miles (50 kilometers) of where they are sold.16 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.17
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.18 Generally, consumers believe
that locally marketed foods are produced on nearby small farms.
Two recently enacted U.S. federal laws provide different definitions of “local” 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
12 As discussed later in this report, USDA has identified three pillars of sustainability: profit over the long term;
stewardship of our nation’s land, air and water; and quality of life for farmers, ranchers, and their communities. USDA
SARE, “What Is Sustainable Agriculture?” http://www.sare.org/.
13 See, for example: “States on Lookout for Local Produce That Isn’t,” The Packer, June 29, 2010.
14 M. Hand, “Local Food Systems: Emerging Research and Policy Issues,” USDA conference, June 26, 2009.
15 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246, §6015. This definition applies to eligibility under a
USDA’s Business and Industry loan program, but has also been applied by USDA to other programs in cases where a
specific statutory definition has not been defined.
16 Canadian Food Inspection Agency, “ ‘Local’ Claim on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,” http://www.inspection.gc.ca.
17 C. Durham, et al., “Consumer Definitions of ‘Locally Grown’ for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables,” Journal of Food
Distribution Research, vol. 40, no. 1, March 2009.
18 Wuyang Hu, et al., “What Is Local and For What Foods Does It Matter.”
Congressional Research Service
4
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
“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.”19 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.”20
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.21
Elsewhere within USDA and other federal agencies, there are many examples of very specific
statutory definitions for “farms” and “food facilities” that govern a range of programs and
policies.22 These definitions generally do not differentiate between the types of farms and food
facilities based on the operation’s various production practices, size, locality, or distance between
production area and markets, among other types of producer- or consumer-driven attributes.
“Local” Based on Marketing Outlet
Another measure of “local food” is based on the types of marketing channels used by farmers to
distribute food from the farm to the consumer.23 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 CSAs. Intermediated outlets include grocers, restaurants, and
regional distributors.24 By value, the leading products that are directly marketed to consumers are
nursery and greenhouse products, fruits and vegetables, and livestock and dairy products.25
Across all farms, local foods marketed through all channels totaled about $4.8 billion in 2008. Of
this total, 18% (about $0.9 billion) was marketed through direct-to-consumer marketing outlets
only, 57% (about $2.7 billion) was marketed through intermediated marketing outlets only, and
another 25% (about $1.2 billion) was marketed through both types (Figure 1; Table 1). Farms
with local food sales reported using 160,800 marketing channels to sell local food. The majority
(75%) of these outlets were comprised of direct-to-consumer marketing outlets (such as farmers’
markets, roadside stands, on-farm stores, and CSAs). Intermediated outlets (such as grocers,
restaurants, and regional distributors) accounted for about 25% of all marketing channels used to
sell local food (Table 1). Some differences reflect operation size based on the farm’s annual sales.
19 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246, §6015. Italics added for emphasis.
20 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, P.L. 111-353, §105. Italics added for emphasis.
21 A. T. Kearney, “Buying into the Local Food Movement,” 2013. Online survey of 1,300 U.S. respondents.
22 See, for example, CRS Report RL34612, Food Safety on the Farm.
23 M. Hand and S. Martinez, “Just What Does Local Mean?” Choices magazine, Quarter 1, 2010; and S. Low and S.
Vogel, Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States.
24 Despite common perception, farmers’ markets do not dominate direct farms sales (L. Lev and L. Gwin, “Filling in
the Gaps: Eight Things to Recognize about Farm-Direct Marketing,” Choices magazine, Quarter 1, 2010).
25 USDA, “Direct Marketing Survey 2009,” October 2010.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Most farms (81%) engaged in direct-to-consumer sales are “small” farms, with annual farm sales
under $50,000, totaling an estimated 86,700 farms in 2008. Other USDA data indicate that among
smaller farms (annual farm sales under $50,000) selling direct-to-consumer, the majority (80%)
of these farms have gross sales under $5,000 per year.26
Table 1. Marketing Channels Used by Local Food Sales Farms, by Farm Size
Small
Medium
Large
(sales less
(sales of
(sales of
than
$50,000-
$250,000 or
Sales Channels
$50,000)
$249,999)
more) Total
Number of Farms with Local Food Sales
86,728
15,202
5,301
107,229
Share of Farms, by size category
5.3%
5.1%
2.5%
5.0%
Share of Al Farms, with local sales
80.9%
14.2%
4.9%
100%
Local Food Sales:
Marketed Through All Channels
11.1%
19.1%
69.8%
$4.8 billion
Direct-to-Consumer Outlets Only
33.7%
38.9%
27.4%
$0.9 billion
Intermediated Marketing Channels Only
3.5%
3.6%
92.9%
$2.7 billion
Both Marketing Channels
11.7%
39.5%
48.8%
$1.2 billion
Number of Local Food Sales Outlets Used
121,198
15,202
5,301
160,795
By Marketing Outlet (percent):
100%
100%
100%
100%
Direct-to-Consumer Outlets
78.0%
70.7%
55.5%
75.3%
Roadside Stands
34.1%
24.9%
23.7%
31.8%
Farmers’ Markets
34.6%
25.9%
14.7%
31.8%
On-Farm Stores
8.3%
17.4%
15.7%
10.4%
CSAs 1.1%
2.5%
1.4%
1.3%
Intermediated Outlets
22.0%
29.3%
45.0%
24.7%
Grocers and Restaurants
17.2%
26.0%
23.7%
19.2%
Regional Distributors
4.8%
3.4%
21.4%
5.5%
Source: S. Low and S. Vogel, Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States. 2008 data.
Data are as reported by USDA, although subtotals may not add up in all cases.
Notes: USDA definitions of “direct-to-consumer” marketing and “direct sales” to consumers are not strictly
equivalent: direct-to-consumer sales are defined as the value of agricultural products sold directly to individuals
for human consumption (for example, from roadside stands, farmers’ markets, and U-pick sites), but exclude
agricultural products sold through their own processing and marketing operations (such as catalog or internet
sales) and nonedible products (which may be included as part of “direct” sales).
26 USDA, AMS, Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing, May 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
The leading states with direct-to-consumer marketing sales in 2007 were California, New York,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Ohio, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Texas.27
States where direct-to-consumer marketing comprised a 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. USDA reports that the value of direct-to-consumer food
marketing increased in all U.S. producing regions from 1997 to 2007 (Figure 2).28 Figure 3
provides a county-level map showing the percentage of U.S. farms with direct sales in 2007.
Figure 2. Value of Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing, by Region (1997-2007)
Source: USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Facts on Direct-to-Consumer Food Marketing, May 2009.
“Local” Based on Perceived Attributes
Myriad other factors influence consumer interest in local food systems. These are mostly based
on consumer perceptions of certain desired social or supply-chain characteristics in producing
“local” foods, such as production by a small family farm, an urban farm or garden, or a farm
using sustainable agriculture practices. Many of these factors dovetail into some of the other
reasons influencing growing demand for local foods. (As discussed in the text box below,
marketing of local foods differs from so-called geographical indications, which are also used to
market agricultural products.)
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid. Other resources are at Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (AgMRC), “Direct Marketing”
(www.agmrc.org)
Congressional Research Service
7
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Geographical Indications
Demand for local foods is general y driven by a product’s perceived quality and reputation, among other desired
attributes, often associated with where or how the product is produced. In this way local foods may be viewed as
similar to foods carrying geographical indications (GIs); however, GIs are often more strictly defined and also may be
registered under administrative trademark structures governed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
“Geographical indications" (GI) are place names (or, in some countries, words associated with a place) used to
identify the origin and quality, reputation, or other characteristics of products. Like trademarks, GIs are source-
identifiers; guarantees of quality; and valuable business interests. Specific examples of geographical indications from
the United States include Florida oranges; Idaho potatoes; Napa Val ey wines; Missouri Pecans; and Washington State
apples. Other GI examples in European markets include Champagne; Parma ham; and Roquefort cheese.
Within the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO), GIs are defined in Article 22(1) of the WTO’s Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement as “indications which identify a good as originating
in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other
characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographic origin.” GIs were first negotiated in the WTO as
part of the 1994 Uruguay Round, which introduced intellectual property rules into the multilateral trading system.
GIs protect consumers from deceptive or misleading labels, and provide consumers with choices among products and
with information on which to base their choices. Producers benefit because GIs give them recognition for the
distinctiveness of their products in the market. Agricultural producers are increasingly recognizing that GIs serve as
commercially valuable marketing tools within the global economy, similar to other forms of intellectual property. As
intellectual property, GIs are eligible for relief from acts of infringement and/or unfair competition. The use of
geographical indications for wines and cheese products particularly—which some countries consider to be protected
intel ectual property, and others consider to be generic or semi-generic terms—has become a contentious
international trade issue.
In some local and regional markets, however, some producers are developing an interest in cultivating labels of origin
unique to a particular geographic area, and are organizing their efforts under the American Origin Product
Association (for more information, see: http://aopcentral.us/).
For more background information, see the USPTO’s website (http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/geographical/) and also
CRS InFocus IF00016, Geographical Indications in U.S.-EU Trade Negotiations.
Among the reasons cited for the increasing popularity of local foods are 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
and 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.29 Important features include knowledge that production and distribution
occur within a specific region, and 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.” A
desire to support farms using sustainable agriculture practices is often claimed as a motivation
driving demand for local foods. However, just as there exists no definitive definition of “local”
29 For example, S. Martinez, “Varied Interests Drive Growing Popularity of Local Foods,” Amber Waves, USDA ERS,
December 2010; S. Martinez et al., Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; Jennifer Jensen, “Local and
Regional Food Systems for Rural Futures,” Rural Policy Research Institute, November 2010; and Marne Coit,
“Jumping on the Next Bandwagon: An Overview of the Policy and Legal Aspects of the Local Food Movement,”
National Agricultural Law Center, University of Arkansas School of Law, February 2009.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
foods, much debate exists about what constitutes “sustainable agriculture.” USDA’s Sustainable
Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program has identified three pillars of sustainability:
profit over the long term; stewardship of our nation’s land, air, and water; and quality of life for
farmers, ranchers, and their communities.30 Another widely used definition also integrates three
main goals—environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity.31
Figure 3. Percent of Farms with Direct Sales, 2007
Source: CRS using USDA 2007 Census data.
A 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. At small-sized
farms (defined as farms with sales of less than $50,000), 88% of all sales are through direct-to-
consumer channels, with 22% of sales made through intermediated market channels, including
grocers, restaurants, and regional distributors (Figure 4). This compares with larger farms (sales
of more than $250,000), where 40% of all sales were through intermediated channels. Consumer
support could potentially help small businesses address some of the perceived challenges for
marketing locally sourced foods. For example, 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
30 USDA SARE, “What Is Sustainable Agriculture?” http://www.sare.org/.
31 University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (UC-SAREP), “What is
Sustainable Agriculture?”
Congressional Research Service
9
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
capital and infrastructure investments; and limited research, education, and training for marketing
local food.32 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 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.33
Figure 4. Reliance on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing
(smal versus larger farms, share of annual sales)
Source: : S. Low and S. Vogel, “Local Foods Marketing Channels Encompass a Wide Range of Producers,”
Amber Waves, December 2011.
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%).34 Among other study findings: about 30% of those surveyed said
they would switch stores if their preferred store does not carry local foods, and indicated that their
main source for local food is local farmers’ markets and farm stores.
32 See, for example: S. Martinez, et al., Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues; American Farmland Trust,
Think Globally, Eat Locally: San Francisco Foodshed Assessment, 2008; L. Day-Farnsworth, et al., “Scaling Up:
Meeting the Demand for Local Food,” December 2009; and R. King, “Can Local Go Mainstream?” C-FARE webinar,
April 12, 2011.
33 National Young Farmer’s Coalition, Building a Future With Farmers: Challenges Faced by Young, American
Farmers and a National Strategy to Help Them Succeed, November 2011.
34 A. T. Kearney, “Buying into the Local Food Movement,” 2013. Online survey of 1,300 U.S. respondents.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Option for Increasing Access to Fresh Foods in “Food Deserts”
Some groups advocate an increased role for local food systems to help address concerns about lack of consumer
access to healthy, nutritious foods within certain low-income or underserved communities, such as in “food deserts.”
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, Title VI, §7527). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further
clarified these areas as lacking “access to affordable fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat milk, and other foods that
make up the ful range of a healthy diet.”
A 2009 USDA report to Congress reported that of al U.S. households, 2.3 million households (2%) live more than 1
mile from a supermarket and do not have access to a vehicle; and an additional 3.4 mil ion households (3%) live
between one-half and 1 mile away and do not have access to a vehicle.
Other USDA data show where food deserts are located in the United States based on indicators of access and
proximity to grocery stores, such as the share of residents that are low-income households without a car that live a
certain distance from a supermarket or large grocery store. For mapping purposes, USDA defines a food desert as a
low-income census tract where a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large
grocery store. A “low-income community” has either (1) a poverty rate of 20% or higher, or (2) a median family
income at or below 80% of the area’s median family income. A “low-access community” has at least 500 people
and/or at least 33% of the census tract’s population must reside more than one mile from a supermarket or large
grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).
Policy options identified to address food deserts 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; and encouraging growing food locally through backyard and community
gardens, as wel as urban farms.
Additional information: CDC, “A Look Inside Food Deserts,” http://www.cdc.gov/features/fooddeserts/. Also
USDA, “Food Access Research Atlas” (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/fooddesert) and USDA, ERS, Access to Affordable
and Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences, Report to Congress, April 2009.
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.35 Some of these claimed benefits have been disputed. In
addition to raising questions about the general assumption that “local” is inherently good, other
criticisms leveled against “local” include lowered productivity and inefficient use of resources in
food production; questions about ecological sustainability and community effects; and concerns
about food quality and food safety.36 USDA reported that few academic studies demonstrate how
local food markets may affect the economic development, health, or environmental quality of
communities. Results from these limited available studies have indicated 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
35 See, for example, M. Anderson, “The Case for Local and Regional Food Marketing. Issue Brief for Farm & Food
Policy Project,” 2007, http://www.farmandfoodproject.org.
36 See, for example, Brandon Born and Mark Purcell, “Avoiding the Local Trap,” Journal of Planning Education and
Research, 26: 195-207, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
security or whether localized production results in a reduction of overall energy use or in
greenhouse gas emissions.37
Estimated Number of Urban and Metropolitan Farms
An estimated 15% to 30% of the world’s food supply is grown in urban areas.38 Urban agriculture
may include crops grown in backyards, city lots, or community gardens, or crops grown using
hydroponic (or soil-less) systems, as well as livestock grazing in parks and feedlots. 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.”39 Urban agriculture is characterized as being
produced in close proximity to where it is sold and consumed. Some noted objectives of urban
agriculture include community and economic development; improved access to fresh, locally
produced food; transformation of vacant urban property and 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.40
“Urban farms” are generally larger-scale, more intensive operations managed by an organization
or private enterprise to grow food for sale at retail stores, farmers’ markets, and food fairs, or for
field-to-direct-sales to consumers, food processors, and cottage food makers (home kitchens).41
There are no compiled USDA data specific to farms located in urbanized areas in the United
States. (For USDA data collection purposes, a “farm” is any place from which $1,000 or more of
agricultural products were produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the
year.) 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.42 (The U.S. Census
Bureau defines an urbanized area (UA) as having 50,000 or more people.43 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.)44
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.45 Metropolitan farms are reported to have a different product mix
37 S. Martinez, et al., Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues.
38 J. Smit, A. Ratta, and J. Nasr (Eds.), Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities, Habitat II Series, United
Nations Development Programme, 2001 edition; and USDA, “Urban Agriculture,” http://afsic.nal.usda.gov/.
39 PolicyLink, “Urban Agriculture and Community Gardens, Why Use It?
40 See http://justfood.org/farmschoolnyc (New York); http://www.growingpower.org/youth_education.htm and
http://start2farm.gov/programs/training-beginner-farmers-chicagos-urban-agriculture-community (Chicago,
Milwaukee); and http://www.ecoffshoots.org/farmers/pgcc/ (Washington DC, Marlyand).
41 See Maryland Department of Planning, Planning for the Food System, September 2012; USDA, “Urban Agriculture:
List of References and Resource Guide 2000;” and PolicyLink, “Urban Agriculture and Community Gardens.”
42 U.S. Census Bureau maps comparing metropolitan and urbanized areas: “Combined Statistical Areas of the United
States and Puerto Rico, December 2009” and “Urbanized Areas and also Urban Clusters: 2010”
(http://www.census.gov).
43 U.S. Census Bureau, “Urban and Rural Classification.” Urban Clusters (UCs) are defined as having at least 2,500
and less than 50,000 people. “Rural” encompasses all population, housing, and territory not within an urban area.
44 U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria.”
45 R. Hoppe and D. E. Banker, Structure and Finances of U.S. Farms: Family Farm Report, 2010 Edition, July 2010.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a “rural area” as open countryside with settlements and fewer than 2,500 inhabitants.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
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.
Information specific to farms in U.S. urbanized areas is more limited and available only to the
extent that it is compiled by some states and localities.46 The research institute PolicyLink
highlights selected urban farms and projects in California, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Louisiana, New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin, among other states,
and also Puerto Rico.47 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.48
To date, no comprehensive nationwide study exists of the number of urban agriculture sites in the
United States. However, some studies provide estimates of the number of all urban agriculture
sites—including urban farms—in certain cities 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 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.49 Of the 1,236
community gardens in Chicago, the study estimated that only 13% were producing food.
Studies of urban agriculture in New York indicate that there are more than 700 farms and gardens
throughout the city’s five boroughs that grow food (including urban farms, schoolyards, grounds
of public housing developments, community gardens, and public parks).50 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.51 Other inventories indicate about 500 urban agriculture sites in Oakland, California, and
about 300 sites in Portland, OR.52 One county in Cleveland 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 produce.53
Other data compiled by USDA provide information on beginning farmers and ranchers, and cover
all U.S. farms and not only farms in urban or metro areas, or farms that participate in local or
46 In 2013, New York University, Pennsylvania State University, and the National Center for Appropriate Technology
announced efforts to conduct a nationwide survey of urban and peri-urban farms.
47 PolicyLink, “Urban Agriculture and Community Gardens, Why Use It?”
48 K. Hodgson, et al., Urban Agriculture, Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places, APA Planning Advisory Service, 2011.
49 “Finding Chicago's Food Gardens With Google Earth,” ScienceDaily, January 3, 2013. The original study: J. R.
Taylor and S. Taylor Lovell, “Mapping public and private spaces of urban agriculture in Chicago through the analysis
of high-resolution aerial images in Google Earth,” Landscape and Urban Planning, 108(1): 57.
50 For example, K. Ackerman, et al., The Potential for Urban Agriculture in New York City, Earth Institute/Columbia
University, [no date]. Jerome Chou, et al., Five Borough Farm: Seeding the Future of Urban Agriculture in New York
City, Design Trust for Public Space/Added Value, [no date].
51 Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, “Fact Sheet: Philadelphia's Food System,” June 13, 2010.
52 K. Hodgson, et al., Urban Agriculture, Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places, APA Planning Advisory Service, 2011.
53 “Urban Agriculture Movement Blossoms in Cleveland,” NextGeneration, Fall 2011.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
regional food systems.54 These data indicate that beginning farmers and ranchers accounted for
about 22% of all U.S farms and ranches, and about 10% of all production in 2011. Compared to
established farms, beginning farms and ranches tend to have lower average farm income and
work more off-farm, and are also less likely to specialize in grain and row crop production, or
participate in federal direct payment programs.
Types of Businesses and Operations
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.55 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. 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
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 5).56 Figure 6 shows the number of farmers’ markets, by county, in
2010.57 In 2010, states with the most farmers’ markets were California, New York, Illinois,
Michigan, Iowa, Massachusetts, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.58 An
estimated 1,225 farmers’ markets operate during winter, mostly in New York, California,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Maryland, and Florida.59
54 M. Ahearn, “Beginning Farmers and Ranchers at a Glance,” Economic Brief No. (EB-22), January 2013, USDA.
55 Ibid. Also: Cornell University, “Discovering the Food System, A Primer on Community Food Systems: Linking
Food, Nutrition and Agriculture.” For information on agritourism, see D. Brown and R. Reeder, “Agritourism Offers
Opportunities for Farm Operators,” Amber Waves, February 2008; and USDA’s fact sheet, “Agricultural
Diversification,” http://www.agcensus.usda.gov.
56 USDA, AMS, “Farmers’ Market Growth: 1994-2011.” Reflects updated USDA data.
57 Original data are at USDA, http://ers.usda.gov/foodatlas/downloadData.htm.
58 USDA National Farmers’ Market Directory is at http://apps.ams.usda.gov/FarmersMarkets.
59 “Winter Farmers’ Markets Expand to More than 1,200 Locations,” Agri-Pulse, December 16, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
14
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Figure 5. National Count of U.S. Farmers’ Markets Directory Listings
Source: USDA/AMS, “Farmers’ Markets and Local Food Marketing,” http://www.ams.usda.gov.
Figure 6. Number of Farmers’ Markets, by County, 2010
Source: CRS using USDA data for 2010.
Congressional Research Service
15
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
USDA reported that total farmers’ market sales were estimated to have exceeded $1 billion in
2009.60 Products sold at farmers’ markets include conventionally produced farm products and so-
called natural and locally labeled products, as well as organically certified products61 and other
specially labeled products such as hormone- or antibiotic-free and free-range animal products.
USDA reported an average of about 30 vendors per market, suggesting that perhaps more than
120,000 farmers were selling at farmers’ markets.62 Previous estimates from USDA reported that
66,700 farmers were selling at farmers’ markets, many of whom relied on such markets as their
sole outlet.63 USDA programs supporting farmers’ markets are highlighted in Table 2 and
discussed in more detail in the Appendix of this report.
Farm-to-School Programs
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.64 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.65 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 agriculture, health and nutrition
education opportunities, and supporting local and regional farmers.66 USDA’s broader agency
activities may also include other farm-to-institution activities involving hospitals or correctional
facilities. USDA programs supporting farm-to-school programs are highlighted in Table 2 and are
discussed in more detail in the Appendix of this report.
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.67 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).68
During the 2011-2012 school year, the National Farm to School Network reports that more than
38,600 school (about 43% of all U.S. school) participated in more than 2,000 farm-to-school
60 AMS, “Farmers Market Program Fact Sheet;” and AMS, National Farmers’ Market Manager Survey, May 2009.
61 Only a small percentage of certified organic products are direct marketed, according to studies cited by L. Lev and L.
Gwin, “Filling in the Gaps: Eight Things to Recognize about Farm-Direct Marketing.”
62 USDA, AMS, National Farmers’ Market Manager Survey, May 2009.
63 USDA, AMS, U.S. Farmers’ Markets 2000: A Study of Emerging Trends, May 2002.
64 USDA, National Agriculture Library’s (NAL) Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC), “Farm to
School,” http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/. Child nutrition programs include the National School Lunch Program, School
Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Program, Special Milk Program, and
the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
65 USDA, FNS, “Farm to School,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/farmtoschool/fact-sheets.
66 National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org. See also B. Bellows, et al., “Bringing Local Food to
Local Institutions,” NCAT publication, October 2003; and UC-SAREP, “Direct Marketing to Schools,” July 2002.
67 AFSIC, “Farm to School;” and National Farm to School Network, “Farm to School Chronology.”
68 For more information on this law, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
programs across all 50 states, using local farms as food suppliers for school meals programs.69
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 $355 million was spent on local food purchases through
these programs.70 Nearly 20% of school districts have guidelines for purchasing locally grown
produce.71 USDA’s website provides information on national and regional farm-to-school
programs and other resource guides.72
Figure 7 shows the number of farm-to-school program, by county, in 2009. According to the
National Farm to School Network, states with the greatest number of schools participating in
farm-to-school programs are North Carolina, Kentucky, Texas, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
California, Florida, and Vermont. (Farm-to-school programs may provide a model for other
related types of programs, such as farm-to-institution and farm-to-WIC73 programs.)74
Figure 7. Number of Farm-to-School Programs, 2009
Source: CRS using 2009 USDA data. Original data are at USDA, http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-
access-research-atlas.aspx.
69 National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org.
70 Ibid.
71 Information from the National Farm to School Network data and USDA-sponsored School Nutrition and Dietary
Assessment Survey, as cited in S. Martinez, et al., Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues.
72 AFSIC, “Farm to School,” and Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/files/publications_277.pdf.
73 WIC refers to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). L. Kaiser et al.,
“UC Cooperative Extension explores a farm-to-WIC program,” California Agriculture, January-March 2012.
74 The Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) and National Farm to School Network (NFSN), State Farm to
School Legislative Survey, http://www.farmtoschool.org/policy.
Congressional Research Service
17
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA)
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.”75 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.76
More than 1,400 CSAs were in operation in the United States in 2010.77 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 12,549 farms marketed products
through a CSA in 2007.78 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. California, Texas, and
Kentucky were the leading states with farms that sold through a CSA in 2007. Other states with
more than 400 farms selling through CSAs were Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Ohio,
Wisconsin, and North Carolina. USDA’s website provides a listing of national, state, and regional
organizations related to CSAs.79 Figure 8 shows the farms with CSA sales, by state, in 2007.
Community Gardens and School Gardens
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, or
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.80 There are
an estimated 18,000 community gardens throughout the United States.81 Of these, about 1,600
gardens are recognized as People’s Gardens under USDA’s initiative and related programs (see
“People’s Garden Initiative,” below).82A precise count of the number of school gardens in the
75 USDA, Rural Development, “Community Supported Agriculture,” http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/CDP-TN20.PDF.
76 AFSIC (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/) and USDA, Rural Development, “Community Supported Agriculture.”
77 Information from the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), cited in S. Martinez, et al., Local Food
Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues.
78 USDA, 2007 Agriculture Census, Table 44 (“Selected Practices”). Data on marketed volumes is not available.
79 See USDA (http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csaorgs.shtml) and Agricultural Marketing Resource Center.
80 ACGA, “What Is a Community Garden?” http://www.communitygarden.org/learn/. Web-based locators are available
at the NGA, http://www.garden.org/public_gardens; also http://acga.localharvest.org/. Also see AFSIC, “Community
Gardening,” http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/; NCAT Sustainable Agriculture Project, “Urban and Community
Agriculture,” http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/local_food/urban_ag.html; and K. Adam, “Community Garden,” NCAT
publication, IP376, January 2011.
81 ACGA, “FAQs,” http://communitygarden.org/learn/faq.php. A map of locations is at ACGA,
http://acga.localharvest.org/. Data not available for Alaska and Hawaii.
82 USDA, “Find a Garden in Your Area,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=
PEOPLES_GARDEN.
Congressional Research Service
18
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
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).83 Other reports indicate that California alone had more than 2,000 school
gardens in 2007.84
Figure 8. Farms with CSAs, by State, 2007
Source: CRS using USDA 2007 Census data.
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 2008.85 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 lawns
and gardens last year, average 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
83 NGA, “School Garden Search,” http://www.kidsgardening.org/groups/school-garden-search.
84 E. Ozer, “The Effects of School Gardens on Students and School: Conceptualization and Considerations for
Maximizing Healthy Development,” Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 34 (6): 846-863), December 2007.
85 NGA, Garden to Table: A 5-Year Look at Food Gardening in America, March 2014 (as reported in “Food Gardening
In The U.S. At The Highest Levels In More Than A Decade According To New Report By The National Gardening
Association,” PR Newswire, April 2, 2014); and NGA, “The Impact of Home and Community Gardening In America,”
2009. Food gardening includes growing vegetables, fruit, berries, and herbs.
Congressional Research Service
19
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
“Liberty Gardens” and “Victory Gardens” during the first and second World Wars, among other
urban gardening movements over the period.86 Despite initial concerns by USDA that Victory
Gardens were an inefficient use of available resources, during WWII the agency encouraged
nearly 20 million home gardeners to plant food. By the end of the war, home gardeners were
producing a reported 40% of the nations’ 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.”87
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.88 School gardens are now being integrated into some educational curricula to
provide nutrition and science education while teaching children about plants and nature, and the
importance of eating healthy, nutritious foods. A number of nonprofit organizations support
school gardens and provide resources for classrooms.89 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.90 USDA also
recently funded a pilot program to support school gardens in high-poverty schools. (For more
information see the Appendix of this report.)
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.91 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.92
Food Hubs and Market Aggregators
A food hub refers to a warehouse or similar facility that aggregates food and facilitates sales to
wholesale customers or directly to consumers.93 A produce packing house may also act as an
aggregation facility that prepares and receives raw fruits and vegetables from farmers. Such
86 “History of Urban Agriculture,” http://sidewalksprouts.wordpress.com/history/; USDA, “Victory Garden Leader’s
Handbook,” 1943; and Pennsylvania State Council of Defense, “Handbook of the Victory Garden Committee War
Services,” April 1944.
87 USDA, “SNAP: Eligible Food Items,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm. Congress added this
provision in the 1970s. See SNAPgardens.org, “History,” http://www.snapgardens.org/history/.
88 See Edible Schoolyard Project, http://edibleschoolyard.org/.
89 A list of resources and organizations is available from Civil Eats (see “School Gardens Across the Nation, and a
Resource List for Starting Your Own,” at http://civileats.com/2010/01/19/school-gardens-across-the-nation/).
90 FoodCorps, “FoodCorps Launches National Service Program,” August 2011, http://www.foodcorps.org. Host sites
include Arkansas, Arizona, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon.
91 See, for example, Policy Link, “Equitable Strategies for Growing Urban Agriculture” webinar.
92 N. Shute, “Big-City Mayors Dig In to Food Policy,” The Salt, National Public Radio, January 19, 2012.
93 National Good Food Network, “The Business of Food Hubs: Planning Successful Regional Produce Aggregation
Facilities,” September 30, 2010, webinar (http://www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-cluster-calls/the-business-of-food-hubs).
Congressional Research Service
20
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
aggregation points allow for “scaling up” of agricultural production from the farm to the
marketplace, linking farmers to consumers.94 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.95
USDA estimates that more than 170 food hubs operate in the United States, with large clusters
located in the Midwest and Northeast.96 One example is MarketMaker, an interactive database of
food industry marketing and business data, which is intended to link food-producing farmers with
buyers in the marketplace. The database contains more than half a million businesses, including
more than 2,500 farmers’ markets and nearly 1,000 agritourism businesses, as well as farmers,
processors, wholesalers, buyers, and retailers. It spans 18 participating states97 and the District of
Columbia and covers nearly 900 general product categories. Based on information from the
directory’s expanded user profiles, up to 47% of those participating are farmers. A large share of
those are fruit and vegetable growers. Other product categories include meat, fish, seafood, dairy
products, wineries, and a range of specialty products. MarketMaker started in 2004 as a national
partnership of land grant institutions and state departments of agriculture, and is maintained by
University of Illinois.98 It was initially funded through grants from the Illinois Council on Food
and Agricultural Research (CFAR), a state-based grant program, and continues to be maintained
through appropriated USDA research funding and various state-level resources.
Another regional aggregator is FoodHub, an online directory linking food buyers and sellers for a
range of food products.99 It also provides a forum for users to post food products and/or services
that they wish to sell or buy, and covers more than 3,000 products. It currently has more than
2,500 members and operates in six states: Alaska, California, Idaho, and Montana, but mostly in
Oregon and Washington State. Its membership consists of buyers (40%), sellers (38%), associates
(19%), and distributors (3%). The site is intended to be both scale and production system-neutral,
and is open to commercial buyers, independent producers, regional distributors, industry
suppliers, farmers’ markets, trade associations, nonprofits, and the media. FoodHub was initially
started with funding from two USDA programs, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and the
94 See, for example, hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Healthy Food
Initiatives, Local Production, and Nutrition,” March 7, 2012. Comments by Jody Hardin, Hardin Farms.
95 CRS communication with University of Illinois staff, September 15, 2011. An example includes the University of
Kentucky’s “MarketReady” training program, which helps small farmers and ranchers address the market development
risks and relationship management as they develop relationships with buyers (http://www.uky.edu/fsic/marketready/).
96 USDA, “USDA Identifies Infrastructure and Economic Opportunities for Regional Producers,” Release No. 0170.11,
April 19, 2011; and USDA blog, “USDA 2012 Agricultural Outlook Forum: Making Locally Grown Food More
Available,” January 25, 2012.
97 Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
98 MarketMaker, http://national.marketmaker.uiuc.edu/.
99 FoodHub is a project of the nonprofit Ecotrust (http://food-hub.org/).
Congressional Research Service
21
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Rural Business Enterprise Grant, and is supported by member fees. FoodHub provides additional
resources and support for farm-to-school and farm-to-hospital programs as well as for school
gardens and food banks, including guidance on getting started, finding funding, developing
menus, and applying for grants. In 2010, FoodHub had more than 20 K-12 schools participating,
including the Portland public school system, serving 20,000 meals per day.
Kitchen Incubators
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.100 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).101 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.
There are reportedly more than 100 kitchen incubators nationwide.102 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.
Mobile Slaughter Units
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. MSUs 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.”103 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.104
100 Culinary Incubator, “8 Things to Consider when Considering a Culinary Incubator,”
http://www.culinaryincubator.com/tenant_information_kitchen_rental.php. Also USDA, “Agriculture Deputy Secretary
Celebrates Opening of a Non-Profit Pennsylvania Kitchen for Use by Food Entrepreneurs,” June 17, 2011; National
Business Incubation Association (http://www.nbia.org/). Includes early-stage catering, retail and wholesale food
businesses. Differs from a community kitchen, where people share a common kitchen to prepare one food to share.
101 USDA, “Urban Agriculture: An Abbreviated List of References and Resource Guide 2000,” September 2000; and
PolicyLink, “Urban Agriculture and Community Gardens,” http://www.policylink.org/. Several states do have cottage
food laws in place that allow for home processing (see “Cottage Food Law by States,” http://cottagefoods.org/laws/).
102 See databases at http://www.culinaryincubator.com/maps.php.
103 USDA, “Mobile Slaughter Unit Compliance Guide,” and USDA, “Slaughter Availability to Small Livestock and
Poultry Producers—Maps,” May 4, 2010.
104 MSU, “State of the Art Mobile Processing Unit for Small Scale Producers,” http://www.mobileslaughter.com/.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Federal Programs and Initiatives
Following is a discussion of existing federal programs administered by USDA and other agencies
that potentially can support local food systems, as well as some of the Obama Administration’s
initiatives intended to support local food systems. Data are not available to determine the extent
to which local producers and local food system providers are actively participating in these
programs. A more comprehensive table and description of existing programs is included in the
Appendix at the end of this report.
Selected USDA Programs
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).105
In the farm bill, an array of farm assistance programs that might be considered to support local
food systems are contained within several titles: conservation (Title II); nutrition (Title IV); farm
credit (Title V); research (Title VI); rural development (Title VII); horticulture (Title X); and
disaster assistance (Title XI). (See selected farm bill titles in text box.) The 2010 child nutrition
reauthorization includes additional food nutrition programs that might also be considered to
support local food systems.
Within each farm bill title are many individual programs. Many of these are also highlighted by
the Obama Administration as part of its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative
(discussed later). Among the USDA programs available for leveraging local and regional food
production systems are:
• Marketing and promotion programs, such as the Specialty Crop Block Grant
Program; Farmers’ Market and Local Food Promotion Program; and Federal
State Marketing Improvement Program.
• Business assistance programs, such as Value-Added Agricultural Product Market
Development Grants; Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program;
USDA’s Microloan Program; Small Business Innovation Research; Agricultural
Management Assistance; Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership
Program; and Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers.
• Rural and community development programs, such as Rural Cooperative
Development Grants; Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loans;
Community Facilities Program; Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG); Rural
Business Opportunity Grant (RBOG); and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance
Program.
105 For information on the omnibus farm bill, see CRS Report R43076, The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary
and Side-by-Side. For information on the child nutrition reauthorization, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and
WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296.
Congressional Research Service
23
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
• Research and cooperative extension programs, such as Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education programs.
• Nutrition and school-based programs, such as Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Programs; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Farmers’
Markets; USDA’s Farm to School grant Program; School Gardens; commodity
procurement through “DoD Fresh”; Healthy Food Financing Initiative;
Community Food Projects. 2014 farm bill added new authorizations, including a
pilot for schools purchases of fruits and vegetables in place of USDA purchases
and the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grant program.
The 2014 Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Functions and Major Issues, by Title
•
Title I, Commodity Programs: Provides support for major commodity crops, including wheat,
corn, soybeans, peanuts, rice, dairy, and sugar, as well as disaster assistance.
•
Title II, Conservation: Encourages environmental stewardship of farmlands and improved
management through land retirement and/or working lands programs.
•
Title III, Trade: Provides support for U.S. agricultural export programs and international food
assistance programs.
•
Title IV, Nutrition: Provides nutrition assistance for low-income households through programs
including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
•
Title V, Credit: Supports federal direct and guaranteed loans to farmers and ranchers.
•
Title VI, Rural Development: Supports business and community programs and coordination
activities with other local, state, and federal programs.
•
Title VII, Research, Extension, and Related Matters: Supports agricultural research and
extension programs.
•
Title VIII, Forestry: Supports forestry management programs run by USDA’s Forest Service.
•
Title IX, Energy: Supports the development of farm and community renewable energy systems
through various programs, including grants and loan guarantees.
•
Title X, Horticulture: Supports the production of specialty crops—fruits, vegetables, tree nuts,
and floriculture and ornamental products—through a range of initiatives.
•
Title XI, Crop Insurance: Enhances coverage of the permanently authorized federal crop
insurance program.
•
Title XII, Miscellaneous: Other types of programs and assistance not covered in other bill titles,
including provisions affecting livestock and poultry production.
Other types of USDA programs not listed here include selected USDA research and cooperative
extension programs, as well as USDA conservation programs, among others (see Table 2). Many
of these programs have been identified by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)
in its Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems.106 These selected programs
are administered by various USDA agencies, including the Agricultural Marketing Service
106 NSAC, Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems, April 2010.
Congressional Research Service
24
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
(AMS), Rural Development (RD), Risk Management Agency (RMA), National Institute of Food
and Agriculture (NIFA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
Many community and rural development groups and small-farm advocacy organizations have
promoted initiatives intended to support the development of local food markets by building on the
existing USDA programs to create new market opportunities for small and medium-sized
farms.107
The Appendix to this report provides a brief summary of selected federal programs that may be
considered to provide support to local food systems. This is not a comprehensive listing of all the
possible programs that are administered by each USDA agency, particularly of research and
conservation programs that generally support all U.S. farmers, including producers of local food.
In addition to various federal efforts, a number of states, communities, and other entities have
spearheaded initiatives that support local food systems. This report does not cover these efforts,
since there is limited aggregate information on them.
Data are not available to determine the share of available funding for the programs in the
Appendix used to support local and regional food systems, compared to all other types of
farming systems. For many of the programs highlighted, most indications suggest that the share
used to support local food systems is likely very small. Among USDA’s farm support programs,
only a few target direct support to local food systems, as discussed in the following section.
Loans for Local Food Producers
The 2008 farm bill amended an existing USDA Rural Development agency loan program—the
Business and Industry (B&I) loan and loan guarantee program—to provide that 5% of the
available funding support local and regional food production. Eligible recipients under the
provision include “individuals, cooperatives, cooperative organizations, businesses, and other
entities to establish and facilitate enterprises that process, distribute, aggregate, store, and market
locally or regionally produced agricultural food products to support community development and
farm and ranch income.”108 The 2008 farm bill defined an eligible “locally or regionally produced
agricultural food product” as “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.” With obligations for the B&I loan program averaging more than $1 billion
annually, this means that available funding for loans directed to local and regional food producers
is more than $50 million each year. Additional information is in the Appendix.
In addition, in 2013, USDA announced it had created a new microloan program within the
existing direct farm operating loan program, using its regulatory prerogative, to “better serve the
unique financial operating needs of beginning, niche and the smallest of family farm
operations.”109 The microloan program simplifies and expedites the application process, and adds
107 See, for example, NSAC, “Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems,” April 2010.
108 P.L. 110-246, §6015 (Locally or Regionally Produced Agricultural Food Products).
109 FSA, “Microloan Fact Sheet,” January 2013, http://fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/microloans_eng_jan2013.pdf.
Also see 78 Federal Register 12, 3828-3836, January 17, 2013. The program is administered through FSA’s Operating
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
flexibility for meeting loan eligibility and security requirements. The maximum microloan size is
$35,000, and the loans can be used for all approved operating expenses as authorized by the FSA
Operating Loan Program. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 5106) authorized a similar program
to allow USDA to make or guarantee loans or to provide related services. Additional information
is in the Appendix.
Local Food Purchases in Child Nutrition Programs
While specific grant programs may support farm-to-school work, it is possible—within the
framework of procurement law—for schools and child-care institutions to use per-meal cash
reimbursements (from participating in the USDA FNS child nutrition programs) to purchase
foods from local and regional food systems. The 2008 farm bill amended existing child nutrition
programs to include language that would encourage school food authorities to purchase fresh
produce and would require USDA to allow school food authorities receiving child nutrition funds
under programs to use a geographic preference.110 The law required USDA “to encourage
institutions receiving funds under the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act to
purchase unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown and locally raised, to the
maximum extent practicable and appropriate.”111 This provision is structured as a preference and
does not require states and school food authorities to include geographic preference in their
procurement. Because geographic preference still operates within the framework of existing
procurement law, schools can face barriers to purchasing when a local product is not the lowest-
cost bid. USDA has provided guidance, suggesting that applying geographic preference points
may enable a local product to still win a contract.112
In addition to the cash reimbursements that states and schools receive, they also receive federal
assistance in the form of USDA commodity foods.113 The 2008 farm bill revised but retained a
requirement that $50 million per year of commodity procurement funds be used to purchase fresh
fruits and vegetables for schools.114 USDA uses a partnership with the Department of Defense
(DOD) to procure and distribute fresh produce to schools; this program offers fruits and
vegetables labeled as “local” for schools to select.115 The 2014 farm bill this funding requirement
and added a requirement for USDA to carry out a pilot project that would allow up to eight states
(...continued)
Loan Program (Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, P.L. 92-419, 7 U.S.C. 1942 (CFDA# 10.406)). For
other information see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
110 P.L. 110-246, §4302 (Purchases of Locally Produced Foods), amending §9(j) of the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)).
111 Ibid.
112 See http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/Policy-Memos/2011/SP18-2011_os.pdf (questions 5, 6, and 7).
113 For more information on the purchase of USDA Commodity Foods, see CRS Report RL34081, Farm and Food
Support Under USDA’s Section 32 Program. For information on food distribution to schools, see USDA, FNS
“Frequently Asked Questions” http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/schcnp/schcnp_faqs.htm/.
114 P.L. 110-246, §4404(c).
115 USDA and DoD websites communicate that the procurement program’s advantages include “greater buying power,
consistent deliveries, emphasis on high quality, a large variety of produce items including pre-cuts and locally grown,
and an easy-to-use ordering website with funds tracking.” USDA-FNS, “DoD Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program,”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/dod/DOD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram2011.pdf (emphasis added).
Congressional Research Service
26
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
to use this funding for their own local sourcing of fresh fruits and vegetables to schools.116 More
information is in the Appendix.
Grants for Farm-to-School Programs
The 2010 child nutrition reauthorization (P.L. 111-296) amended existing child nutrition
programs to establish mandatory funding of $5 million per year for competitive grants that would
assist schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs that improve a
school’s access to locally produced foods.117 Grants are not to exceed $100,000 and will require
75% matching funds. Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning,
purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing
farm-to-school programs. The 2014 farm bill also created a Food and Agriculture Service
Learning Program to increase capacity for food, garden, and nutrition education and to
complement the work of the farm-to-school grants; $25 million in funding is authorized to be
appropriated. Additional information is provided in the Appendix.
Other USDA Actions
For FY2010, USDA established by administrative notice that each state must fund at least one
project that supports the USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative (discussed
below), as part of the agency’s Rural Housing Service Strategic Plan.118 This notice applied to
available funding for USDA’s Community Facilities programs, which include loans and grants for
water and environmental projects, and community facilities projects.119 The types of eligible
projects include food banks (e.g., certain building purchase, construction, and renovations,
equipment and vehicle purchases); school cafeterias (e.g., certain equipment, renovations, central
processing/distribution centers); farmers’ markets that primarily sell fruits and vegetables (e.g.,
certain new construction, building purchases, and renovations); community gardens (e.g., real
estate purchases, water source access and infrastructure); and community kitchens that provide
classes for families to learn how to prepare healthy meals (e.g., certain renovations, equipment,
and new construction).
Examples of Non-USDA Programs
Aside from USDA, resources that can be used to support local and regional food systems exist at
other U.S. federal agencies.
For example, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) is a non-
refundable tax credit intended to encourage private capital investment in eligible, impoverished,
low-income communities. These include communities that have limited access to fresh and
116 P.L. 113-79, §4202.
117 P.L. 111-296, §243 (Access to Local Foods: Farm to School Program), amending §18 of the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(j)). In addition, appropriations are authorized “such sums as are necessary
for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015.”
118 Letter to State Directors, Rural Development, from Tammye Treviño, Administrator, Housing and Community
Facilities Programs, regarding the Community Facilities Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems Projects and
Know Your Farmer Know Your Food Initiative, June 2010.
119 USDA, “Community Facilities Loans and Grants,” http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HCF_CF.html.
Congressional Research Service
27
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
nutritious foods (“food deserts”). The program was authorized by the Community Renewal Tax
Relief Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-554) to stimulate investment in low-income communities. NMTCs
are allocated by the Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) fund, a bureau within
U.S. Treasury, under a competitive application process.120
Treasury’s CDFI Fund is also part of what has been a multi-agency Administration initiative to
support the development of healthy, fresh food retail in areas lacking such options, the Healthy
Food Financing Initiative (HFFI). Since FY2011, the Administration has pursued food retail
development through pre-existing authorities and programs at Treasury, HHS, and USDA, but
focused these authorities on increasing access to healthy, affordable food in “food deserts.”
These programs are discussed in the next section.
Potentially helpful programs also are available in other federal agencies, including the
Department of Housing and Urban Development; the Commerce Department’s Economic
Development Administration; and the Small Business Administration. In addition, most states are
active in direct marketing and farmers’ market activities, usually through their state departments
of agriculture.121
Administration Initiatives
USDA’s Strategic Plan FY2010-2015 outlines the core strategic goals and the primary objectives
for the department.122 Enhancing rural prosperity, supporting sustainable and competitive
agricultural systems, and increasing access to nutritious food are among these goals and
objectives. Many of these same priorities are reflected in the department’s various initiatives,
such as the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative, the Regional Innovation Initiative,
and the Healthy Food Financing Initiative.
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative
“Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” is a USDA-wide management initiative that was
launched by USDA in September 2009 to “begin a national conversation to help develop local
and regional food systems and spur economic opportunity.”123 The initiative was designed to
eliminate organizational barriers between existing USDA programs and promote enhanced
collaboration among staff, leveraging existing USDA activities and programs, and thereby
“marshalling resources from across USDA to help create the link between local production and
local consumption.”124 It is not a stand-alone program and does not have its own budget;125
instead, it is a departmental initiative, and not connected to a specific office or subagency. This is
120 For more information, CDFI’s website (http://www.cdfifund.gov/what_we_do/programs_id.asp?programID=5). See
also CRS Report RL34402, New Markets Tax Credit: An Introduction.
121 USDA and farmers’ market websites provide state contacts (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FMPP). Other
information is available from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (http://www.nasda.org/).
122 USDA, Strategic Plan FY2010-2015.
123 USDA, “USDA Launches ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ Initiative to Connect Consumers with Local
Producers to Create New Economic Opportunities for Communities,” September 15, 2009.
124 USDA, “Our Mission,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=
KYF_MISSION; and USDA, AMS, “Regional Food Hubs: Linking Producers to New Markets,” May 2011.
125 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
28
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
done by highlighting various existing programs within USDA that are available to support local
farmers; strengthen rural communities; promote healthy eating; protect natural resources; and
provide grants, loans, and support.126 Linking local production with local consumption of farm
products also is one of the primary goals of USDA’s Regional Innovation Initiative (see below).
Among the programs mentioned for leveraging local and regional food production systems are
marketing and promotion programs; rural business and community development programs; and
selected USDA research and cooperative extension programs.127 In response to demand for farm-
to-school activities, certain USDA nutrition and domestic food programs, such as the farm-to-
school and some fresh fruit and vegetable programs, also have been associated with the initiative.
Since its launch, USDA has announced funding for various projects under these and other
programs identified as promoting local-scale sustainable operations.128
USDA’s website lists many other existing agency programs that might be available to provide
assistance to eligible farming businesses. Accordingly, the initiative spans existing, mostly long-
standing programs within most USDA’s agencies, including Rural Development (RD), Research,
Education and Economics (REE), Farm Service Agency (FSA), and Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS).129
USDA’s websites provide additional information on the initiative, including (1) information on
financial and technical assistance resources from USDA for local food enterprises
(http://www.usda.gov/knowyourfarmer); and (2) information on USDA resources for community-
level projects and a mapping of funded projects (http://www.usda.gov/kyfcompass).
In April 2013, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the agency’s intentions to institutionalize
its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” Initiative by making it a permanent part of activities
throughout USDA.130
Criticism of USDA’s Initiative
Previously, some in Congress have challenged USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food”
initiative. In April 2010, three Senators wrote a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack expressing
concerns about the initiative. The letter stated: “This spending doesn't appear geared toward
126 USDA, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER; see also USDA
memos at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=KYF_GRANTS.
127 See USDA, “Our Mission”; and NSAC, “Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional Food Systems.”
128 For example, USDA’s initial press release announced the following efforts under this initiative: collaborative
outreach and assistance programs to socially disadvantaged and underserved farmers; implementation of a new
voluntary cooperative program for state-inspected establishments to ship meat and poultry in interstate commerce; and
grants to help local business cooperatives, and also the Northwest Food Processors Association.
129 See “USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan’s Memos,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/
usda/knowyourfarmer?navtype=KYF&navid=KYF_GRANTS. These include “Memo on Rural Development
Programs,” August 26, 2009; “Memo on Research, Education and Economics,” October 29, 2009; “Memo on Farm
Service Agency,” June 17, 2010; and “Memo on Agricultural Marketing Service,” July 20, 2010. USDA’s Regional
Innovation Initiative also spans several USDA agencies, including agencies from USDA’s Rural Development,
Marketing and Regulatory Programs, and Natural Resources and Environment mission areas. USDA, “USDA Launches
‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food’ Initiative to Connect Consumers with Local Producers to Create New
Economic Opportunities for Communities,” September 15, 2011, Release No. 0440.09.
130 “Vilsack: USDA to ‘institutionalize’ Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” The Hagstrom Report, April 19, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
29
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
conventional farmers who produce the vast majority of our nation’s food supply, but is instead
aimed at small, hobbyist and organic producers whose customers generally consist of affluent
patrons at urban farmers’ markets,” among other concerns regarding USDA’s promotion and
prioritization of local food systems. The letter also requested evidence of USDA’s congressional
authority to spend money for “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” and a full itemized
accounting of all spending under the initiative.131 In response, USDA clarified that the initiative
does not have any budgetary or programmatic authority.... Rather, it is a communications
mechanism to further enable our existing programs to better meet their goals and serve
constituents as defined in the respective authorizing legislation and regulations. While there are
no programs under the initiative, since September 2009 a number of our program funding
announcements have included a reference to ‘Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.’132
USDA also asserts that “none of these programs are providing preference to local and regional
food system projects, except as provided for in their existing regulatory rules or legislative
authority.”133 According to USDA, there are only two such statutory cases—a 5% set-aside
established in the 2008 farm bill for rural development Business and Industry (B&I) loans and an
allowance for schools to make local purchases under the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program (DoD Fresh).134 In addition, USDA issues an administrative notice requiring
that the agency’s Rural Housing and Community Facilities Program provide “that each state must
fund at least one project” supporting the initiative in FY2010 only. (See “Other USDA Actions.”)
The initiative remains controversial. Following extensive House floor debate on the FY2012
Agriculture appropriations bill, the House-passed bill included a number of provisions restricting
funding for selected USDA programs that fund this initiative and also other local and regional
food production projects.135 The Senate bill did not put restrictions on the use of USDA funds to
support USDA’s initiative. The enacted FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55) did
not specifically address this initiative, but the joint explanatory statement required USDA to
report any travel related to the initiative, including the agenda and the cost of such travel, and to
include justification for this initiative in its FY2013 budget request.136 USDA was also required to
submit a report to Congress on the impacts of the initiative during the previous two years (within
90 days of enactment).
Following USDA’s submission of its report, Senator Pat Roberts, ranking Member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, expressed concerns about the department’s initiative, since most food
consumed in the United States is not locally grown, and questioned whether it might result in
redundancy, given the number of USDA agencies involved in this initiative. He also raised
concerns about “where do we get the most bang for the taxpayer buck?”137 Later, at a March 2012
131 Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack from Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss, April 27, 2010.
132 Letter to Senators McCain, Roberts, and Chambliss from USDA Secretary Vilsack, April 30, 2010.
133 Ibid.
134 CRS communication with USDA staff, June 14, 2011. It is not known how much schools spent on local purchases
under USDA’s farm to school programs in recent years.
135 H.R. 2112, House-reported version, §750. For more information, see CRS Report R41964, Agriculture and Related
Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations.
136 H.Rept. 112-284, p. 190 (Congressional Record, November 14, 2011, pp. H7433-7576).
137 Senator Roberts press release, “Senator Roberts: USDA Report Shows Misuse of Taxpayer Dollars,” February 29,
2012. Also see S. Wyant, “Sen. Roberts: USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” isn't ‘steeped in reality,”
Agri-Pulse, February 29, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
30
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
hearing before the committee, Ranking Member Roberts questioned whether locally produced
foods should be considered better than conventionally produced foods, and whether this pits
farmers against each other.138 He also questioned whether local markets should receive public
assistance, given growing consumer demand for locally produced products in the marketplace.
USDA’s Report to Congress
As required by the FY2102 enacted appropriations, in February 2012, USDA released its report to
Congress along with the so-called Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food “Compass,” an
interactive web-based document and map highlighting USDA support for local and regional food
projects.139 The Compass’s map shows USDA-supported projects and programs related to local
and regional food systems from 2009 to 2012, mapped by selected theme (e.g., Local Meat; Farm
to Institution; Infrastructure; Stewardship; Healthy Food Access; Marketing/Promotion, etc.).140
The report provides a compilation of available information, highlighting different types of local
and regional food system projects, along with case studies. The report highlights that USDA has
identified at least 27 programs—mostly grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs—administered
by nine different USDA agencies supporting local and regional food producers and businesses.141
The report also claims that operations with local sales result in additional farm employment,
citing previous estimates from USDA based on fruit and vegetable farms. These estimates show
that operations with local food sales generate, on average, 13 operator full-time equivalents
(FTEs) per $1 million in sales, compared to operations without local sales that generate 3 FTEs
per $1 million in sales.142 The report claims that nearly all U.S. states and congressional districts
benefit from local and regional food systems in some way. The initial USDA launch of the report
was followed by a webinar further explaining the Compass and how USDA believes that local
and regional food systems benefit the U.S. economy.143 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.144
Regional Innovation Initiative
The “Regional Innovation Initiative” (RII) was launched in 2010 and funding was requested as
part of the Administration’s FY2011 and FY2012 funding requests to “focus on the planning and
coordination of USDA and other sources of assistance for rural communities.”145 These five rural
138 Comments from Senator Pat Roberts, hearing before the Senate Committee Agriculture on Agriculture, Nutrition,
and Forestry, “Healthy Food Initiatives, Local Production, and Nutrition,” March 7, 2012.
139 “USDA Unveils the Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass,” Release No. 0072.12, February 29, 2012.
140 “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Compass Map,” http://www.usda.gov/maps/maps/kyfcompassmap.htm.
141 USDA, “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” page 27, http://www.usda.gov/documents/KYFCompass.pdf.
142 S. Low and S. Vogel, Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States, ERR-128, USDA
Economic Research Service (ERS), November 2011, p. 12.
143 USDA, “Media Advisory: USDA to Continue National Conversation on Local and Regional Food Systems,” Media
Advisory No. 5060.12, March 5, 2012.
144 USDA, AMS, “Moving Food Along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food Distribution,” March 2012.
Also see USDA, “New Study Explores Innovation and Opportunities for Diverse Local Food Distributors,” Release
No. 0096.12, March 16, 2012.
145 USDA, “FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan,” http://www.obpa.usda.gov/.
Congressional Research Service
31
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
development pillars are also outlined in USDA’s Strategic Plan FY2010-2015.146 The initiative is
intended as the agency’s “different direction as it relates to rural development,” and spans five
rural development pillars: rural broadband; biofuels and biobased products; linking local
production and consumption of farm products; ecosystem markets to pay producers for
sequestering carbon; and forest restoration and private land conservation.147 The Administration’s
FY2012 budget proposal endorsed “strategic leveraging of existing resources to strengthen rural
communities” through the initiative. However, Congress provided no funding to USDA for the
initiative in the enacted FY2012 Agriculture appropriations.148
Although funding was not provided, Congress did address this initiative during the appropriations
debate. The House-passed Agriculture appropriations report stated that the committee is “unable
to provide any funding or authorization for the initiative as requests for additional information on
the specific purpose, need, and plans for the initiative have gone unanswered” and directed USDA
not to spend any of its funding for the Rural Community Development Initiative (RCDI) on the
initiative without Congress’s approval.149 The Senate bill did not put restrictions on the use of
USDA funds to support USDA’s initiative. The enacted FY2012 appropriations law also did not
specifically address this initiative.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative
The “Healthy Food Financing Initiative” (HFFI) was launched in 2010 and funding has requested
as part of the Administration’s FY2011-FY2015 funding requests to “support local and regional
efforts to increase access to healthy foods, particularly for the development of grocery stores and
other healthy food retailers in urban and rural food deserts and other underserved areas.”150 HFFI
is based on the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative and similar efforts in other states to
attract fresh-food retail investment in underserved communities through one-time grants and loan
financing.151
Since the beginning of HFFI, it has included programs at USDA, HHS, and/or the Treasury, ;
funding amounts and agencies have varied depending on annual appropriations. Programs
making up the HFFI have been:
• Treasury’s CDFI Fund allocates the New Market Tax Credits (discussed earlier)
and also administers related Healthy Food Financing Initiative grants. The Fund
reported that it awarded 10 HFFI awards (totaling $22 million) in FY2013, on top
146 USDA, Strategic Plan FY2010-2015, http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2010/sp2010.pdf.
147 Jon Harsch, “Sec. Vilsack proposes ‘Regional Innovation Initiative’ for rural America,” Agri-Pulse, March 3, 2010.
For more about rural development programs generally, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural
Development Programs.
148 See CRS Report R41964, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012 Appropriations.
149 H.Rept. 112-101.
150 USDA, “FY2011 Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan,” http://www.obpa.usda.gov/.
151 CDFI Fund, Healthy Food Retail Financing At Work: Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, September 30,
2011, http://www.cdfifund.gov/. Illinois and New York have similar policies, along with Detroit, New York City, New
Orleans, and Washington, DC. For other information, see comments from John Weidman, The Food Trust, at a hearing
before the Senate Committee Agriculture on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Healthy Food Initiatives, Local
Production, and Nutrition,” March 7, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
32
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
of the more than $172 million in Financial Assistance and Technical Assistance
awards through its core CDFI program.152
• HHS’s Community and Economic Development (CED) program provides
competitive discretionary grants authorized by the Community Services Block
Grant Act (P.L. 105-285).153 An existing program that predated the
Administration’s HFFI, the portion of the CED program dedicated to HFFI since
FY2011. The CED program support projects that finance grocery stores, farmers’
markets, and other retail outlets for fresh nutritious food.154 The program
provides funding for projects designed to address the healthy food access needs
of low-income individuals and families through the creation of employment and
business opportunities. Among its goals are to revitalize communities and to
eliminate food deserts. Eligible uses include startup or expansion of businesses or
physical or commercial activities; capital expenditures such as purchases of
equipment or real property; allowable operating expenses; and loans or equity
investments. Eligible applicants include private, nonprofit organizations that are
community development corporations (CDCs), including faith-based
organizations and tribal organizations.
• USDA’s Rural Business Services had supported businesses through its existing
loan, grant, and technical assistance programs. This HFFI-related authority was
last funded in FY2011.155
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 4206) has the potential to change the administration of HFFI in
FY2015 or subsequent years, depending in part on appropriations action. This provision
authorizes up to $125 million to be appropriated for HFFI at USDA, to remain available until
expended. Under this provision, USDA is authorized to approve a community development
financial institution as "national fund manager" that would administer these funds by supporting
food retail projects that "expand or preserve access” to staple foods listed in the law and accept
SNAP benefits. The FY2015 President’s Budget requests funding for USDA – citing the 2014
farm bill’s authority – and CDFI, but none for HHS.156
People’s Garden Initiative
In February 2009, USDA announced its plans to develop a People’s Garden at USDA facilities.157
Since then, USDA has funded a number of other initiatives and programs to help communities
152 Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, "Treasury Awards Over $172 Million To Organizations
Serving Low-Income Communities," September 24, 2013, at http://www.cdfifund.gov/news_events/CDFI-2013-40-
TREASURY_AWARDS_OVER_$172_MILLION_TO_ORGANIZATIONS_SERVING_LOW-
INCOME_COMMUNITIES.asp.
153 For more information, CED’s website (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/programs/ced).
154 Ibid. Also, Debra Tropp, “Support of Local Food Initiatives,” USDA AMS, October 2010.
155 Among the stated reasons for not funding USDA’s HFFI program was that HFFI “has yet to prove that any
expenditures made for this initiative have been effective” in meeting the goal of ensuring that more people have access
to nutritious foods. H.Rept. 112-284. See also CRS Report R41964, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2012
Appropriations.
156 FY2015 President’s Budget requested $13 million for USDA loans and grants under the authority of P.L. 113-79,
Section 4206, along with $35 million for CDFI Fund technical assistance and financial assistance. No funds were
requested for HHS. See Office of Management, The Appendix, FY2015 Budget for selected agencies.
157 USDA, “Vilsack Establishes The People’s Garden Project on Bicentennial of Lincoln’s Birth,” February 12, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
33
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
establish community and school gardens nationwide “through collaborative efforts.”158 To date,
USDA claims that more than 1,600 gardens are recognized as People’s Gardens, involving more
than 750 partnering organization.159 These efforts often mirror similar activities promoted through
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! initiative.160
In FY2010, USDA provided $1 million in funding for the People’s Garden School Pilot
Program.161 This pilot program was authorized by Congress in the 2008 farm bill, which provided
for grants to high-poverty schools to promote healthy food education and hands-on gardening in
the school curriculum. The program is administered by FNS. The FY2010 funding was awarded
to Washington State University, which is expected to serve an estimated 2,800 students attending
70 elementary schools in Washington, New York, Iowa, and Arkansas.162
In FY2011, USDA provided approximately $725,000 in grants for its People’s Garden Grant
Program, administered by NIFA.163 Activities under this program were authorized in the National
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act (P.L. 95-113) to facilitate the initial
investment needed to create produce, recreation, and/or wildlife gardens in urban and rural areas,
and provide opportunities for science-based non-formal education. In 2011, projects were funded
in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio.164
Reports from USDA indicate other People’s Garden efforts and volunteerism within other USDA
agencies, including NRCS and FSA.165 For FY2015, funding for “Visitor Center/People’s
Garden” is reported at $0.9 million.166 For additional information, see “School Gardens” in the
Appendix.
Congressional Actions
Legislative Options
Authorization for many of the selected programs highlighted in this report are contained within
periodic farm bills or within the most recent reauthorization of the child nutrition programs.
158 USDA, People’s Garden Initiative FAQ, http://www.usda.gov/documents/Common_Questions_feb2012.pdf.
159 To qualify, gardens must (1) benefit the community, (2) be collaborative, and (3) incorporate sustainable practices.
USDA, “Find a Garden in Your Area,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=PEOPLES_GARDEN.
160 See, for example, Let’s Move! press releases: “School Garden Concept Plan Revealed to Students at Powell
Elementary School,” March 14, 2011; and “Let’s Move! to grow more Community Gardens,” April 28, 2011,
http://www.letsmove.gov/blog/.
161 USDA’s budget justification for FY2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/30fns2011notes.pdf. See p. 30-10.
162 USDA, “USDA Announces Funding to Expand School Community Gardens and Garden-Based Learning
Opportunities,” August 25, 2010.
163 NIFA, “People’s Garden Grant Program,” http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/peoplesgardengrantprogram.cfm.
164 NIFA, “Abstracts of Funded Projects,” http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/peoplesgardengrantprogram.cfm.
165 USDA blog, “The People’s Garden Initiative Celebrates 3 Years of Growth,” February 17, 2012.
166 USDA’s budget justification for FY2015, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/04da2015notes.pdf. See p. 4-3.
Congressional Research Service
34
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Farm Bill Reauthorization
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, and was enacted into law in February
2014. It succeeded the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246, (2014 farm
bill”) is the most recent omnibus farm bill, and replaces the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, The
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008).167
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.168 Other groups advocating for an increased role for local food systems in the farm
bill are the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP),169 Food & Water Watch,170 and the
Union for Concerned Scientists,171 as well as several anti-hunger and community advocacy
groups such as Feeding America,172 the Community Food Security Coalition,173 The Food
Trust,174 and Green for All,175 among others.
In addition, some states, including California, submitted farm bill recommendations, seeking to
promote specialty crop production to enhance fruit and vegetable production and to improve
public health and nutrition, and also to revitalize local communities, support organic agriculture,
and enhance the natural environment, among other goals.176 Meanwhile some state and local
groups, such as the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit organization The Food Trust, were promoting
167 See CRS Report RS22131, What Is the Farm Bill? More detailed information see CRS Report R43076, The 2014
Farm Bill (P.L. 113-79): Summary and Side-by-Side.
168 NSAC, Farming for the Future: National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Releases its 2012 Farm Bill Platform,
March 19, 2012, and “NSAC Releases Letter to the Super Committee and Farm Bill Budget Views,” September 20.
Also see NSAC’s 2012 “Farm Bill Platform: Budget Chapter Background.”
169 IATP, “Everyone at the Table: Local Foods and the Farm Bill,” March 28, 2012.
170 Food & Water Watch, Farm Bill 101, January 2012, and “Rebuilding Local Food Systems,” February, 2011.
171 Union for Concerned Scientists, “Toward Healthy Food and Farms,” February 2012.
172 Feeding America, “Food Policy Forum: Opportunities to Combat Hunger and Improve Nutrition in the 2012 Farm
Bill,” February 14, 2012 (series of farm bill program presentations for congressional staff).
173 Community Food Security Coalition, “Federal Policy Program,” http://www.foodsecurity.org/policy.html.
174 The Food Trust, “The Food Trust Mission,” http://www.thefoodtrust.org/php/about/OurMission.php.
175 Green For All, Green Jobs in a Sustainable Food System, April 2011.
176 California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), “California and the Farm Bill: A Vision for Farming in the
21st Century.”
Congressional Research Service
35
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
expanded farmers’ market programs and farm-to-school programs, as well as initiatives to reduce
the number of food deserts nationwide.177 These types of recommendations were proposed by a
variety of other groups and think tanks.178
Child Nutrition Reauthorization
Child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) provide cash, commodity, and other assistance under three major federal
laws: the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (originally enacted as the National
School Lunch Act in 1946), the Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32
of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. §612c). Congress periodically reviews and reauthorizes
expiring authorities under these laws. The most recent reauthorization of the child nutrition
programs was in 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296).179 In the 2008
farm bill, Congress expanded the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable (Snack) Program, amending the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.180
Other Proposed Legislation
Several bills were introduced in the 112th and 113th Congress 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.181 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.182
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held a hearing, “Healthy Food
Initiatives, Local Production, and Nutrition,” in March 2012 addressing some of these issues.183
Other House and Senate farm bill briefings were conducted on a variety of topics related to local
and regional food systems.184
One of the more comprehensive marker bills introduced in the 112th and 113th Congress was the
Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Acts of 2011 and 2013 (H.R. 3286/S. 1773 (112th Congress) and
H.R. 1414/S. 679 (113th Congress); Pingree/Brown). These bills proposed comprehensive
177 The Food Trust, “Farmers’ Market Alliance” and “Bipartisan ‘Healthy Food Financing’ Bills Would Create Jobs
and Cut Dietary Diseases,” http://www.thefoodtrust.org.
178 See, e.g., Harry A. Wallace Center, “Making Changes: Turning Local Visions into National Solutions,” 2003.
179 P.L. 111-296. For information, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296.
180 P.L. 110-246, §4304.
181 A “marker bill” is used to introduce specific measures or issues into a larger legislative debate. Such legislation is
generally proposed as a “placeholder” for specific aspects of a larger bill, such as the farm bill, and allows legislators to
include key provisions in the larger bill debate while it is still at the committee or subcommittee level.
182 See, for example, Representative Earl Blumenauer’s report, “Growing Opportunities: Family Farm Values for
Reforming the Farm Bill.”
183 Hearing before the Senate Committee Agriculture on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Healthy Food Initiatives,
Local Production, and Nutrition,” March 7, 2012, http://www.ag.senate.gov/hearings/.
184 See Senate briefing “Path to the 2012 Farm Bill: Senate Briefing on Local Food and Nutrition,” March 2, 2012;
House briefing “Investing in the Next Generation of Farmers,” March 5, 2012; and House briefing “How Smart Food
Systems Promote Economic Security for our Farmers and Food Security for All Americans,” March 28, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
36
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
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. The proposed changes would have expanded support for local and regional
food production and farming systems. Other bills, including the Fresh Regional Eating for
Schools and Health Act of 2011 (S. 2016; Wyden) and the Growing Opportunities for Agriculture
and Responding to Markets Acts of 2011 and 2013 (S. 1888 (112th Congress) and S. 678 (113th
Congress); Casey) also proposed to increase access to loans for small and beginning farmers, and
other groups.185
The Community Agriculture Development and Jobs Act (H.R. 3225; Kaptur) also targeted
enhanced support for non-traditional agricultural producers, and had been re-introduced from the
111th Congress. The bill identified specific changes to the farm bill and proposed to create a new
USDA Office of Community Agriculture to ensure support for rural and non-rural food programs,
provide grants and outreach for local food initiatives, promote consumption of fruits and
vegetables, and eliminate food deserts. Another bill, the Healthy Food for Healthy Living Act
(H.R. 3291; Velazquez) proposed providing grants to organizations operating in low-income
communities to promote access to fresh fruits and vegetables and other foods. The Local Food for
Healthy Families Act of 2013 (H.R. 3072; Kildee) would also provide grants for projects to
provide incentives to low-income families receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) benefits (formerly food stamps) to purchase fruits and vegetables.
Other 112th Congress bills focused at the farm production level included the Beginning Farmer
and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 (H.R. 3236/S. 1850; Walz/Harkin), which proposed to
expand opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers through changes to several USDA
programs covering conservation; rural development; research, education, and extension; and farm
credit and crop insurance. Separately, the Community-Supported Agriculture Promotion Act
(H.R. 4012/S. 1414; Welch/Sanders) proposed to establish a community-supported agriculture
promotion program, similar to USDA farmers’ market program, to expand and develop CSAs,
among other goals. The Veterans Gardens Employment and Opportunity Act (H.R. 3905; Baca)
proposed to use gardens as a means to employ veterans.
Other bills actively addressed concerns about food deserts. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative
(H.R. 3525/S. 1926 (112th Congress) and H.R. 2343/S. 821 (113th Congress);
Schwartz/Gillibrand), re-introduced from the 111th Congress, proposed to increase investments in
food financing to reduce the number of food deserts nationwide, as well as address childhood
obesity. Representative Fudge also introduced two comprehensive bills—the Let’s Grow Acts of
2011 and 2013 (H.R. 4351 (112th Congress) and H.R. 1933 (113th Congress)) and the Fit for Life
Act of 2011 and 2014 (H.R. 2795 (112th Congress) and H.R. 4765 (113th Congress))—that
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.
Other bills focused on nutrition while proposing also to expand markets for local producers. The
Local School Foods Act (H.R. 3092; Welch) proposed a pilot program to increase the amount of
purchases of local fresh fruits and vegetables for schools and service institutions by giving certain
states the option of receiving a USDA grant instead of receiving commodities under the agency’s
commodity procurement programs. The Eat Local Foods Act (H.R. 1722; Pingree) proposed a
grant to states to provide schools with local food credits equal to a portion of the total value of the
185 For more information, see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
Congressional Research Service
37
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
commodity assistance (or cash payments in lieu thereof). Two bills, S. 1593 (Gillibrand) and H.R.
1722 (Pingree), would have made it easier for farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and other farm-
to-consumer venues to participate as licensed retailers in SNAP.186
Considerations for Congress
Farm bill legislation 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. For example, it may be argued
that other proposals introduced in the 112th Congress to address existing restrictions on planting
fruits, vegetables, and wild rice on program crop base acreage (H.R. 2675/S. 1427; Ribble/Lugar)
also had a “local” component, in that if these restrictions were removed the ability to grow fruits
and vegetables on base acres could potentially provide benefits to producers in some regions.187
Supporters of an increased role for local food systems within the farm bill cite the increasing
popularity of local foods, given perceived higher product quality and freshness, and a general
belief that purchasing local foods helps support local farm economies and/or farmers that use
certain production practices that may be 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.
186 Under current law, states receive a 50% federal match for electronic benefit transfer machines which are provided to
approved retailers. These bills seek to make these matching funds available for farm-to-consumer retailers who need a
wireless machine – currently not eligible for government financing. H.R. 1722 includes a pilot project that would
include the pursuit of mobile smartphone technology for this purpose.
187 Comments from Doug Sombke, South Dakota Farmers Union, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies
(OIM-NAS), “Farm and Food Policy: Relationship to Obesity Prevention,” May 19, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
38
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
However, 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, there are concerns 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” (see discussion in ““Know Your Farmer, Know Your
Food” Initiative”). 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.
Congressional Research Service
39
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Table 2. Selected USDA Programs that Potentially Support Local and Regional Food Systems
USDA
Program Name /
Program
agency
CFDA#
Type
Eligible Applicants
Assistance Amount
Total Funding Type/Amount
AMS
Specialty Crop Block
Formula
State departments of
Varies by state. Base grant (about $180,000
Mandatory, totaling $72.5 million annually
Grant Program (SCBGP), grants.
agriculture, in partnership with
per state), plus additional funds based on the
(FY2014-2017) and $85 million for
10.170.
organizations.
state’s share of the total value and acreage of
FY2018 and each year thereafter. Funding
U.S. specialty crop production. In FY2013,
for multistate project grants shall rise
grants ranged from $180,000 to $18 million.
from $1 million (FY2014) to $5 million
Also provides multistate project grants.
(FY2018). Local share: Unknown.
AMS
Farmers’ Market and
Project
Farmer coops, associations,
Limited to $100,000, with a minimum award
Mandatory, $30 million annually (FY2014-
Local Food Promotion
grants.
nonprofit/public benefit
of $5,000. Individual grants have averaged
FY2018), plus authorized appropriations
Program, 10.168.
corporations, local authorities,
about $50,000.
of $10 million each year. Local share:
regional farmers’ markets.
Unknown.
AMS
Federal State Marketing
Project
State agriculture departments
Grants have ranged from $21,000 to
Discretionary, about $1.3 million
Improvement Program
grants.
and experiment stations, other
$135,000, averaging $51,385. Matching funds
appropriated annually. Local share:
(FSMIP), 10.156.
state agencies.
required.
Unknown.
RD Value-Added
Agricultural
Project
Individual farmers, agriculture
Maximum grant amounts: $100,000 (planning
Mandatory, $63 million, available until
Product Market
grants.
producer groups, farmer and
grant) and $300,000 (working capital grant).
expended, plus authorized annual
Development Grants,
rancher cooperatives, and
Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50% of
appropriations of $40 million (FY2012-
10.352.
majority-controlled producer-
a project’s costs. Applicant must contribute
2018). Local share: Unknown.
based businesses, and veterans. at least 50% in cash or in-kind contributions.
NIFA
Beginning Farmer and
Project
State, tribal, local, or regionally Up to $250,000 per year for up to 3 years.
Mandatory, $20 million annual (FY2014-
Rancher Development
grants.
based networks/partnerships
Matching funds are required.
FY2018), plus authorized annual
Program (BFRDP),
of public and private entities.
appropriations of $40 million through
10.311.
At least 5% funds for veterans.
FY2018). Local share: Unknown.
FSA
Microloan Program
Loans
Beginning, niche, and smal er
Up to $35,000. Repayment term may vary
Administered through FSA’s Operating
family farm operations
and may not exceed seven years.
Loan Program (CFDA# 10.406).
NIFA
Small Business Innovation Project
Small businesses (fewer than
Grant limited to $100,000 and $500,000, and
Discretionary; appropriated funding has
Research (SBIR), 10.212.
grants.
500 employees).
limited to 8 months and 2 years, depending
ranged from $17 million to $19 million
on the type and phase of the project.
(FY2010-FY2012). Local share: Unknown.
RMA, NRCS, Agricultural Management
Direct
Agricultural producers who
Provides technical and financial assistance of
Mandatory, $15 million annually (FY2008-
AMS
Assistance (AMA),
payments
voluntarily address certain
up to 75% of the cost of installing certain
FY2012), al ocated to NRCS (50%), RMA
10.917.
for specified farmland conservation issues.
practices. Total AMA payments shall not
(40%), and AMS (10%). Local share:
use.
exceed $50,000 per participant per year.
Unknown.
RMA Community
Outreach
Disseminate Educational institutions, state
Assistance is through a cooperative
In 2013, RMA awards totaled nearly $10
and Assistance
technical
ag departments, community
agreement, ranging from $20,000 to $100,000 million through two RMA programs. Local
Partnership Program
information; organizations, farmer/rancher
per agreement. No matching funds are
share: Unknown.
(COAPP), 10.455
training
associations, nonprofits.
required.
CRS-40
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
USDA
Program Name /
Program
agency
CFDA#
Type
Eligible Applicants
Assistance Amount
Total Funding Type/Amount
USDA,
Outreach and Assistance
Project
Land grant institutions, state-
Grants range from $100,000 to $400,000 per
Mandatory/discretionary. Mandatory funds
Office of
to Social y Disadvantaged grants.
controlled institutions, Indian
year for up to 3 years, with no matching
of $10 million per year (FY2014-FY2018),
Outreach
Farmers and Ranchers
tribes, veterans, Latino-serving
requirements.
authorized appropriations of $20 million
and
(OASDFR), 10.443.
institutions, nonprofits,
annual y through FY2018. Local share:
Advocacy
community organizations.
Unknown.
RD Rural
Cooperative
Project
Nonprofit corporations
1-year grants up to $225,000, with matching
Discretionary. Appropriations authorized
Development Grant
grants.
including universities.
requirements. Maximum award amount per
$40 million annually (FY2014-FY2018).
(RCDG), 10.771.
Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grant
Local share: Unknown.
is $200,000.
RD Business
and
Industry
Direct and
Individual, nonprofits, business, Guaranteed loans up to $10 million, with
Obligations were $1.3 billion in FY2010,
(B&I) Guaranteed Loans,
guaranteed
special exceptions for loans up to $25 million. and $1.2 billion in FY2011. Local share: At
10.768.
loans.
The Secretary may approve guaranteed loans
least 5% by law.
up to $40 million, for rural cooperative
organizations that process value-added
agricultural commodities.
RD Community
Facilities
Direct and
Public and nonprofit
Direct loans range from $5,000 to $9 million
Direct loans: $290 million (FY2011);
(CF), 10.766.
guaranteed
organizations, and Indian
(average: $828,407); guaranteed loans range
guaranteed loans: $196 million (FY2011);
loans;
tribes.
from $26,000 to $20 million (average: $2.8
project grants: $28 million (FY2011). Local
project
mil ion); and project grants range from $300
share: Unknown.
grants.
to $0.4 million. No matching requirements.
RD Rural
Business Project
Rural public entities (towns,
Details of new consolidated program subject
Authorized appropriations of $65 million
Development Grants
grants.
communities, state agencies,
to USDA rulemaking. Previously grants
annual y (FY2014-FY2018) to remain
program (consolidating
and authorities), rural
general y ranged from $10,000 up to
available until expended. Local share:
Rural Business Enterprise
nonprofit corporations, rural
$150,000, with no matching requirements.
Unknown.
Grants & Rural Business
Indian tribes, and cooperatives.
Opportunity Grants)
RD Rural
Microentrepreneur
Loans and
Microenterprise Development
Loans range from a minimum of $50,000 to a
Mandatory. $3 million annually (FY2014-
Assistance Program
technical
Organizations (MDOs), or
maximum of $500,000 for a single loan in any
FY2018), plus authorized appropriations
(RMAP), 10-870.
assistance
other nonprofit, Indian tribe or given fiscal year. Grants are awarded up to
of $40 million annually (FY2014-FY2018).
grants.
public institution of higher
$130,000, with matching requirements.
Local share: Unknown.
education serving rural areas.
NIFA Sustainable
Agriculture
Project
Individual farmers/ranchers,
Varies depending on the type of grant and the Discretionary. Appropriated funding
Research and Education
grants.
extension agents and university region, ranging from $1,000 for a producer
averaging $13 million to $14 million
(SARE), 10.215.
educators, researchers,
grant or $350 for a research grant.
annual y (FY2010-FY2012). Local share:
nonprofits, and communities.
Unknown.
FNS
WIC Farmers’ Market
Formula
State health, agriculture and
Varies by state. In FY2013, grants ranged
Discretionary, $16.5 million appropriated
Nutrition Program
grants.
other agencies and Indian
from $6,300 to $3.1 million.
in FY2014. Local share: Unknown.
(WIC-FMNP), 10.572.
tribes.
CRS-41
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
USDA
Program Name /
Program
agency
CFDA#
Type
Eligible Applicants
Assistance Amount
Total Funding Type/Amount
FNS
Senior Farmers' Market
Project
State health, agriculture and
Varies by state. In FY2013, grants ranged
Mandatory, $20.6 million annually through
Nutrition Program
grants.
other agencies and Indian
from $9,900 to $1.8 million.
FY2018. Local share: Unknown.
(SFMNP), 10.576.
tribes.
FNS Food
Insecurity Project
State health, agriculture and
TBD.
Mandatory, $100 million (FY2014-2018),
Nutrition Incentive
grants.
other agencies and Indian
plus discretionary authority of $5 million
tribes.
per year. Local share: Unknown.
FNS
Farm to School, 10.579.
Project
Eligible schools, state and local
Maximum grant amount shal not exceed
Mandatory funding set at $5 million
grants.
agencies, Indian tribes,
$100,000, and the federal share may not
starting on October 1, 2012, and each
agricultural producers/groups,
exceed 75% of the total project cost.
October 1 thereafter, plus appropriations
nonprofits organizations.
“such sums as necessary” (FY2011-
FY2015). Local share: Unknown.
FNS
School Gardens, 10.579.
Project
The pilot shall target not more
USDA's People's Garden School Pilot
The 2008 farm bill did not authorize
grants.
than five states (either a
Program was awarded to Washington State
appropriations to carry out the provision,
school-based or a community-
University and will serve students attending
but USDA allocated $1 million to the
based summer program).
70 elementary schools (WA, NY, IA, AR).
Peoples' Garden School Pilot Program.
FNS
Provision within
Allows
Eligible schools, state and local
Provision is structured as a preference and
The 2008 farm bill did not authorize
commodity procurement
geographic
agencies.
does not require states and school food
appropriations or designate how much
through “DoD Fresh”
preference
authorities to include geographic preference
participating states should spend in
program.
regarding
in their procurement.
carrying out this provision. 2014 farm bill
purchases.
also requires USDA to pilot up to 8 states
using local sourcing instead of DoD Fresh.
(TBD)
Healthy Food Financing
Loans,
Partnerships involving regional,
TBD.
The 2014 farm bill authorizes
Initiative (as authorized
grants, tech. state, or local public-private
appropriations up to $125 million, to
in the 2014 farm bill)
assistance.
partnership.
remain available until expended.
NIFA
Food and Agriculture
Project
Eligible entities that carry out
TBD.
Appropriations up to $25 million to
Service Learning Program grants.
statutory purposes.
remain available until expended.
NIFA Community
Food Project
Private non-profit entities.
Amount and duration vary depending on type
Mandatory, $9 million in FY2015 and each
Projects (CFP), 10.225.
grants.
of grant all require a match in resources.
year thereafter.
(Separate grant for a healthy urban food
enterprise development center.)
Source: Complied by CRS. Funding levels shown are those available for all U.S. farming operations and food distribution systems, regardless of size and distance from
market. Data are not available to determine share of available funding for the highlighted program used to support local and regional food systems. Programs are grouped
according to their listing in the Appendix; groupings are not intended to indicate any rank or importance.
Notes: “Mandatory” means funding is available without an annual appropriation, and usual y funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). “Discretionary”
requires an annual appropriation by Congress. Where the funding source could not be readily determined, available data on obligations/awards are provided. USDA
agencies include Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), Rural Development (RD), Risk Management Agency (RMA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), Farm
Service Agency (FSA), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
CRS-42
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Appendix. Overview of Selected Federal Programs
Following is a listing of generally available federal farm support and grant programs that may
provide support and assistance to local and regional food production systems. However, except as
noted, these programs are not limited or targeted to local or regional food systems. These federal
programs are grouped into the following broad program categories (grouped by type of support
and not intended to indicate any rank or importance):
• marketing and promotion;
• business assistance;
• rural and community development;188 and
• nutrition and education.
These programs are summarized in Table 2 above. Many of the programs reviewed below are
highlighted as part of the Administration’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative,
among other USDA documentation.189 Other programs have been identified by the National
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) in its Guide to USDA Funding for Local and Regional
Food Systems, as well as various state or regional initiatives that are listed in the appendix of
NSAC’s report.190 A primary source of information on these selected programs is from the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.191
This appendix does not provide a comprehensive listing of all possible USDA programs that
might benefit local and regional food systems. Instead, it focuses on selected USDA grant and
loan programs administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Rural
Development (RD) agencies, and the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).
Although this appendix provides some information on a few programs administered by other
USDA agencies, it does not review many of the broad-based conservation and research programs
that provide benefits to a range of agricultural producers, including producers engaged in local
and regional food production systems, either directly or indirectly.192 These programs are
188 For more information, see CRS Report RL31837, An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs. USDA
links to state or local office information is at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/recd_map.html. For most programs, “rural
areas” are defined as any area except a city or town where the population exceeds 50,000, or any urbanized area
contiguous or adjacent to a town with more than 50,000 people (7 U.S.C. §1991(a)(13)(A)).
189 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” (http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS);
“Family and Small Farms” (http://www.nifa.usda.gov/familysmallfarms.cfm); and “USDA Resources for Local Food
Systems” (http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/in_focus/health_if_usda_local_food.html).
190 Including partnerships and university programs located in Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and other states. Also, presentations from Drake University Law
School conference, “America’s New Farmers: Policy Innovations and Opportunities,” Washington DC, March 2010.
191 CFDA has detailed program descriptions for more than 2,000 federal assistance programs (https://www.cfda.gov).
192 For more information, see CRS Report R40763, Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs and CRS Report
R40819, USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area: Issues and Background. Information on
how these programs contribute to local and regional food systems are outlined in memos from USDA Deputy Secretary
Kathleen A. Merrigan “Harnessing USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Programs to Support Local and
Regional Food Systems,” January 21, 2011, http://www.usda.gov/documents/nrcs-memo.pdf, and “USDA Research,
Education, and Economics Support for Local and Regional Food Systems,” October 27, 2009,
http://www.usda.gov/documents/ KnowYourFarmerandREE.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
43
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
authorized by the periodic omnibus farm bill. USDA’s conservation programs are administered by
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and
provide financial and technical assistance, as well as competitive grants, as part of a range of
programs administered by these USDA agencies. USDA’s research and extension programs are
administered by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) or the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), and provide funding to states and local partners through various mechanisms,
such as formula funds, competitive grants, and other programs.193
The funding levels reported for these selected programs are those available, in some cases, for all
U.S. farming operations and food distribution systems, regardless of size and location from
market. Data are not available to determine share of available funding for these programs used to
support local and regional food systems, compared to all other types of farming systems. Only a
few cases exist where there is a statutory requirement supporting local production, such as in the
5% set-aside of total Business and Industry (B&I) loans, or the option to make local purchases
under USDA’s Farm to School program. For many of these programs, most indications are that
the share used to support local food systems is likely very small.
Marketing and Promotion
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program
The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP), administered by AMS, was authorized in the
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-465), and further amended by the 2008
farm bill.194 Under the program, USDA provides block grants to the state departments of
agriculture within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops. The program is funded through USDA’s Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC),195 and is therefore mandatory, available without an annual (or discretionary)
appropriation. Program funding will have totaled $375 million over the FY2014-FY2018 period:
$72.5 million annually (FY2014-2017) and $85 million for FY2018 and each year thereafter.
Funding for multistate project grants shall rise from $1 million (FY2014) to $5 million (FY2018)
and be available until expended.
Under the program, each state receives a base grant plus additional funds based on the state’s
share of the total value of U.S. specialty crop production.196 California, Florida, and Washington
have been the three largest recipients under this program, accounting for nearly one-half of all
available funds. How each state spends its allocation depends on its priorities. In FY2013, a total
of 694 projects were funded covering marketing and promotion (26% of projects), education
193 USDA’s Current Research Information System (CRIS) is the agency’s documentation and reporting system for
ongoing and recently completed research and education projects. See http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/.
194 P.L. 110-246, §10109; 7 U.S.C. §1621 note (CFDA# 10.170). “Specialty crop” is defined as: “fruits and vegetables,
tree nuts, dried fruits, and horticulture and nursery crops (including floriculture).” See also “USDA Definition of
Specialty Crop” (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5082113).
195 USDA’s Commodity Credit Corporation is a government-owned corporation that is authorized to borrow up to $30
billion at any one time from the U.S. Treasury. The CCC mainly is a financing mechanism for farm bill programs such
as commodity price and income supports, agricultural conservation, export assistance, and other authorizations.
196 The minimum base grant each state is eligible to receive is equal to the higher of $100,000 or 1/3 of 1% of the total
amount of funding made available for that year. The base grant portion is about $180,000 per state. The additional
allocation is based on the value and acreage of specialty crop production in each state relative to national production.
Congressional Research Service
44
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
(23%), research (15%), pest and plant health (16%), food safety (8%), and production (6%),
among other types of projects (6%).197 USDA’s annual report describes the funded projects across
all states.198 Among the types of projects funded by the program are school and community
gardens; farm-to-school programs; certification and training for farmers; facilities that support the
processing, aggregation, and distribution of locally grown specialty crops; and improved access to
specialty crops in underserved communities.199 A report by the National Farm to School Network
indicates that many states have funded farm-to-school programs using these program funds.200
Farmers’ Market and Local Food Promotion Program
USDA’s farmers’ market and various other direct-to-consumer marketing programs provide for
market access and assistance to small and medium-size farmers, including fruit and vegetable
growers. The intent of the Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-463) was
to promote the “development and expansion of direct marketing of agricultural commodities from
farmers to consumers” through a range of marketing channels including farmers’ markets, farm
stands, and roadside stands, community-supported agriculture (CSA), “pick-your-own” farms,
Internet marketing, and other types of niche markets. The act originally authorized the Farmers’
Market Promotion Program (FMPP), administered by AMS, which was amended in subsequent
farm bills.201 The 2014 farm bill reauthorized and expanded the program to include local and
regional food enterprises that process, distribute, aggregate, store, and market locally or
regionally produced food products, also renaming it the Farmers’ Market and Local Food
Promotion Program. Under the reauthorized program, two competitive grant programs are
available: FMPP and the Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP).
The 2014 farm bill increased mandatory funding from previous funding levels of about $10
million annually to $30 million annually (FY2014-FY2018), and separately authorized
appropriations of $10 million each year. Each program is designated 50% of available funding.
Other USDA-administered farmer’s markets programs geared more toward nutrition assistance
are highlighted in the section of the report titled “Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs” and also
“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Farmers’ Markets.”
Farmers’ Market Promotion Program (FMPP)
FMPP provides $15 million in annual mandatory funding available for marketing support for
farmers markets and other direct to consumer outlets.202 Under FMPP, USDA provides grants to
establish, improve, and promote farmers’ markets and other direct marketing activities such as
roadside stands, community supported agriculture (CSAs), pick-your-own farms, agritourism,
direct sales to schools, and other direct marketing activities. Activities may include promotion,
197 AMS, “Funded Projects,” http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5093992.
198 Ibid. USDA’s report provides a full listing of all program recipients by state, applicant name, and grant amount.
199 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
200 Farm to School Network, “Specialty Crop Block Grant Program Funded Projects Project SubType - Farm to
School,” http://www.farmtoschool.org/files/publications_267.pdf. The summary covers the FY2006-2009 period.
201 P.L. 94-463, as amended; 7 U.S.C. § 3005 (CFDA# 10.168).
202 AMS, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp.
Congressional Research Service
45
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
outreach, and advertising; education for farmers and growers in marketing and business planning;
and infrastructure purchases, such as refrigerated trucks, or equipment for a commercial kitchen
for value-added products.203 Grants are also available to bring local farm products into federal
nutrition programs through electronic benefits transfer (EBT) technology at direct-market outlets
in order to accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the food stamp
program) benefits. In addition to SNAP, FNS administers two other related programs: the WIC
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (WIC-FMNP)204 and the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition
Program (SFMNP).205 These two programs allow for farmers’ market purchases by low-income
WIC applicants and recipients and also low-income seniors, usually through the use of
redeemable coupons.
Eligible entities include farmer cooperatives, grower associations, nonprofit/public benefit
corporations, local governments, economic development corporations, and regional farmers’
market authorities, among others. Grant awards are limited to $100,000, with a minimum award
of $15,000. Matching funds are not required. A listing of previous awards is at USDA’s website.
Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP)
LFPP provides $15 million in annual mandatory funding available for marketing and promotional
support specifically for local food businesses, including food hubs, delivery and aggregation
businesses, and processing and storage facilities along the local food supply chain. Two types of
project applications are accepted under LFPP: planning grants and implementation grants.
Applicants can apply for either project but will receive only one type of grant per grant cycle.
• LFPP Planning Grants for planning stages of establishing or expanding a local
and regional food business enterprise. Activities may include market research,
feasibility studies, and business planning. A minimum of $5,000 and a maximum
of $25,000 may be awarded per proposal, and the grants must be completed
within a 12 month period; extension will not exceed an additional 6 months.
• LFPP Implementation Grants for establishing a new local and regional food
business enterprise, or to improve or expand an existing local or regional food
business enterprise. Activities may include training and technical assistance for
the business enterprise and/or for producers working with the business enterprise;
outreach and marketing to buyers and consumers; working capital; and non-
construction infrastructure improvements to business enterprise facilities or
information technology systems. A minimum of $25,000 and a maximum of
$100,000 will be awarded per proposal, and the grants must be completed within
a 24 month grant period; extension will not exceed an additional 6 months.
Eligible entities include entities that “support local and regional food business enterprises that
process, distribute, aggregate, or store locally or regionally produced food products.”206 Such
entities may include agricultural businesses, agricultural cooperatives, producer networks,
producer associations, community supported agriculture networks, community supported
203 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
204 FNS, “Grant Levels by State, FY 2006-2011,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/FMNP/FMNPgrantlevels.htm.
205 FNS, “SFMNP Grant Levels, FY 2006-2011,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/SFMNPgrantlevels.htm.
206 AMS, http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/lfpp.
Congressional Research Service
46
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
agriculture associations, and other agricultural business entities (for-profit groups); nonprofit
corporations; public benefit corporations; economic development corporations; regional farmers’
market authorities; and local and tribal governments. Grant funds require a 25% match.
Federal State Marketing Improvement Program
The Federal State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) was authorized in the Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1946.207 Administered by AMS, the program provides matching funds to state
departments of agriculture, state agricultural experiment stations, and other appropriate state
agencies to provide new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products and to
encourage research and innovation to improve the efficiency and performance of the marketing
system. Matching funds are required. In addition to the projects that are geared toward developing
and improving production and marketing of agricultural products, FSMIP specifically encourages
state agencies to submit proposals to enhance rural communities by developing local and regional
food systems and value-added agriculture, as well as direct marketing opportunities for producers,
or producer groups. Eligible projects may include determining market demand for local products;
building online marketing tools such MarketMaker; developing protocols for harvesting excess
crops for local food banks; and developing business plans for food hubs.208 A list of previously
funded projects is at USDA’s website.209 In recent years, FSMIP grants have ranged from $21,000
to $135,000 each. USDA has received about $1.3 million annually in appropriated funding for the
program, which has been used to fund 20-25 projects, averaging about $50,000 each.
Business Assistance
Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants
The Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants was originally authorized as
the Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) program in the Agricultural Risk Act of 2000, and
amended by subsequent farm bills.210 The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 6203) renamed the
program and expanded its scope and available funding.
The program, administered by USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service, provides grants to
eligible entities, such as independent agricultural commodity producers, agricultural producer
groups, farmer and rancher cooperatives, and majority-controlled producer-based businesses, to
develop strategies and business plans to further refine, enhance, or otherwise add value to their
products. Grants may be used for planning activities (such as development of feasibility studies,
business plans, and marketing strategies) and for working capital to implement a marketing
strategy for value-added agricultural products and for farm-based renewable energy. The
maximum grant amount of a planning grant is $100,000 and of a working capital grant is
$300,000. Grant funds may be used to pay up to 50% of a project’s costs, with the applicant
207 7 U.S.C. §1621-1627 (CFDA# 10.156). See USDA, AMS, “FY2011 FSMIP Guidelines”, http://www.ams.usda.gov/
AMSv1.0/FSMIP.
208 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
Also see AMS, “FY2011 FSMIP Guidelines,” http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FSMIP.
209 USDA AMS, “FSMIP Projects: 1990-Present,” http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/FSMIP.
210 P.L. 106-224, §6202; 7 U.S.C. §1621 note (CFDA# 10.352).
Congressional Research Service
47
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
contributing at least 50% in cash or in-kind contributions.211 Value-added producer grants offer
another potential resource for local and regional food production systems to engage in market and
product development, as well as to finance various value-added activities, such as further
processing and packaging of raw agricultural commodities. In addition, the program provides
priority funding for projects that contribute to opportunities for beginning farmers or ranchers,
socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers, and operators of small- and medium-sized family
farms and ranches. The 2014 farm bill expanded eligibility to include to veteran farmers and
ranchers veteran farmers or ranchers.
Available funding is both mandatory and subject to annual appropriations. The 2014 farm bill
provided mandatory funding levels of $63 million, which is available until expended.
Discretionary funding is authorized at $40 million annually from FY2012 to FY2018. Since the
program began in 2001 the total amount of grant funding provided has ranged from about $15
million to more than $20 million annually. A full listing of previous program recipients by state,
applicant name, and grant amount is available at USDA’s website.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP), administered by NIFA,
was authorized in the 2002 farm bill.212 The program provides competitive grants to new and
established local and regional training, education, outreach, and technical assistance initiatives
that address the needs of beginning farmers and ranchers. Grants are awarded to state, tribal,
local, or regional networks or partnerships of public and private entities. Eligible project areas
include production and land management strategies that enhance land stewardship; business
management and decision support strategies that improve financial viability; marketing strategies
for increased competitiveness; and legal strategies that assist with farm or land acquisition and
transfer. The maximum amount of a grant is $250,000 per year and is limited to three years, with
a 25% match in resources.
The program provides three types of grants, including (1) standard grants, which directly serve
beginning farmers and ranchers, each up to $250,000 per year for a maximum of three years; (2)
educational enhancements grants, which develop resources and provide coordination and support
to standard grants for a particular topic or region;213 and (3) clearinghouse grant, which provides
one grant for a national site to house curricula, training materials, and other information for new
farmers and ranchers and organizations that work with them. The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, §
7409) expanded available mandatory funding to $20 million per year (FY2014-FY2018), to be
available until expended, and extends authority to appropriate $30 million annually through
FY2018. Not less than 5% of available funds are to be used to support beginning farmers who are
military veterans.
211 USDA’s website, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_VAPG.html.
212 P.L. 107-171, §7405; 7 U.S.C. §3319f (CFDA# 10.311). See USDA, “”Plan for Beginning Farmer and Rancher
Development Program,” March 6, 2014; and USDA’s website: http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/bfrdp/bfrdp.html.
213 Previous topics have included environmental stewardship, financial management, farm safety, “farm beginnings”
curriculum, individual development accounts.
Congressional Research Service
48
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
USDA Microloan Program
In January 2013, USDA created a new microloan program within the existing direct farm
operating loan program, using its regulatory prerogative, to “better serve the unique financial
operating needs of beginning, niche and the smallest of family farm operations.”214 The program
is administered through FSA’s Operating Loan Program.215
FSA had found that small farm operations—including nontraditional farms, specialty crop
producers, and operators of community-supported agriculture—had unique needs and limited
financing options. FSA found these farms could face unintended barriers when applying for
USDA operating loans, often because of experience requirements and pledging collateral. The
microloan program simplifies and expedites the application process, and adds flexibility for
meeting loan eligibility and security requirements. Microloans can be used for all approved
operating expenses as authorized by the FSA Operating Loan Program, including initial start-up
expenses; annual expenses (seed, fertilizer, utilities, land rents); marketing and distribution
expenses; family living expenses; purchase of livestock, equipment, and other materials essential
to farm operations; minor farm improvements such as wells and coolers; hoop houses to extend
the growing season; essential tools; irrigation; and delivery vehicles. The maximum microloan
size is $35,000. As of March 2014, USDA has issued more than 4,900 microloans totaling $97
million.216
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 5106) authorized a similar program to allow USDA to contract
with community-based, state entities or other intermediaries to make or guarantee loans or to
provide related services.
Small Business Innovation Research
The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program originated as part of the Small
Business Innovation Development Act of 1982, as amended.217 The program, administered by
NIFA, provides grants to qualified small businesses to stimulate technological innovations in the
private sector; strengthen the role of small businesses in meeting federal research and
development needs; increase private sector commercialization of innovations derived from
USDA-supported research and development efforts; and foster and encourage participation by
women-owned and socially and economically disadvantaged small business firms in
technological innovations. Eligible applicants include small businesses with fewer than 500
employees. Grant amounts are limited to $100,000 and $500,000 per project, and limited to eight
months and to two years, respectively, depending on the type and phase of the project. Previously,
grants have been awarded to small and mid-size farms and ranches that sells to local markets and
to implement a CSA model to bring their locally grown food to inner city households and schools,
among other types of projects.218 A summary of funded projects is at USDA’s website.219 In
214 FSA, “Microloan Fact Sheet,” January 2013, http://fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/microloans_eng_jan2013.pdf.
Also see 78 Federal Register 12, 3828-3836, January 17, 2013. A proposed rule was issued in May 2012. For other
information see CRS Report RS21977, Agricultural Credit: Institutions and Issues.
215 Farm and Rural Development Act, as amended, P.L. 92-419, 7 U.S.C. 1942 (CFDA# 10.406).
216 USDA, “Microloan Gets Getting Growing,” March 25, 2014.
217 P.L. 97-219; 15 U.S.C. §638 (CFDA# 10.212). Also: http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/sbir/sbir_synopsis.html.
218 USDA, “SBIR,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=kyf_grants_nifa5_content.html.
219 NIFA, “Abstracts of Funded SBIR Projects,” http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/sbir/sbir_abstracts.html.
Congressional Research Service
49
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
previous years, appropriated program funding has ranged from about $17 million to $19 million
(FY2010-FY2012).
Agricultural Management Assistance
The Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program was authorized in the Agricultural
Risk Protection Act of 2000,220 and amended by subsequent farm bills. AMA is managed by three
USDA agencies—NRCS, AMS, and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). The program
provides assistance for producers in states traditionally underserved by federal crop insurance221
to mitigate financial risk through production or marketing diversification or resource conservation
practices. AMA is funded through the CCC at $15 million annually from FY2008 to FY2014, and
the funding is allocated in statute as follows: NRCS (50%), RMA (40%), and AMS (10%).222 The
NRCS portion provides financial and technical assistance to farmers to voluntarily address issues
such as water management, water quality, and erosion control by incorporating conservation into
their farming operations.223 The program provides technical and financial assistance of up to 75%
of the cost of installing certain conservation practices. The RMA portion provides assistance to
farmers to mitigate financial risk through production or marketing diversification, including
support for direct marketing and value-added processing, and the development of new risk
management approaches. RMA historically used AMA to provide assistance to producers for the
purchase of Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) insurance but has recently been used to increase
participation for buy-up insurance coverage.224 The AMS portion provides support for transition
to organic farming through organic certification cost share assistance. Total AMA payments from
all three agencies cannot exceed $50,000 per participant for any fiscal year.
Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership Program
The Community Outreach and Assistance Partnership Program (COAPP), administered by RMA,
is intended to ensure that women, limited resource, socially disadvantaged and other traditionally
underserved producers of priority commodities are provided information and training necessary
to use financial management, crop insurance, marketing contracts, and other existing and
emerging risk management tools.225 The program provides education, community outreach, and
assistance in 47 states to help small and underserved producers get crop insurance education to
effectively manage their risk and remain productive. Eligible applicants include educational
institutions, community based organizations, associations of farmers and ranchers, state
departments of agriculture, and other non-profit organizations. Assistance is through a
cooperative agreement, ranging from $20,000 to $100,000 per agreement. No matching funds are
required. In 2013, RMA awarded cooperative agreements totaling nearly $10 million from two
220 P.L. 106-224, §524b; 7 U.S.C. §1524 (CFDA# 10.917).
221 States include Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
222 P.L. 110-246, §2801.
223 USDA, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/ama.
224 The AGR provides a guaranteed revenue level for the whole farm and rewards more diversified farmers with higher
coverage levels and smaller insurance premiums. Buy-up insurance provides higher coverage on crops and lower
deductibles (referred to as the Financial Assistance Program); http://www.rma.usda.gov/bulletins/managers/2011/mgr-
11-008.pdf. For more information, see CRS Report R40532, Federal Crop Insurance: Background .
225 Federal Crop Insurance Act (P.L. 96-365), as amended; 7 U.S.C. §1522(d) (CFDA# 10.455). USDA,
http://www.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/civilrights/outreach.html.
Congressional Research Service
50
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
RMA programs, the Targeted States Program and the Risk Management Education Partnership
Program.226
Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers
The Outreach and Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (OASDFR)
program was first authorized in the 1990 farm bill, as amended.227 Also referred to as the “Section
2501 program,” it requires USDA to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially
disadvantaged producers, defined as members of a group that has been subjected to racial or
ethnic prejudice. The program provides competitive grants to land grant institutions (1862, 1890,
or 1994), tribal governments and organizations, Latino-serving institutions, veterans, state-
controlled institutions, and community-based organizations and nonprofits to provide outreach,
training, education, financial assistance, and technical assistance, in order to encourage and assist
socially disadvantaged farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in owning and operating farms,
ranches and non-industrial forest lands. OASDFR supports a range of outreach and assistance
activities, including farm and financial management, marketing, and application and bidding
procedures. Grants range from $100,000 to $400,000 per year for up to three years, and there are
no matching requirements. The program is administered by USDA’s new Office of Outreach and
Advocacy.
Section 2501 was authorized at $25 million a year in the 2002 farm bill; however, the program
has not received a congressional appropriation of more than $6 million in any year since. The
2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 12001) expanded funding for the program to provide $10 million
per year in mandatory funding (FY2014-FY2018), plus authorized appropriations of $20 million
annually through FY2018.
Rural and Community Development Programs
Rural Cooperative Development Grant
The Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program was originally authorized in the
1990 farm bill, amending the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct);228 it was
further amended in the 1996 and 2002 farm bills, and extended in subsequent farm bills.
Administered by RD, the program provides project grants to nonprofit institutions, including
universities, to establish and operate new or existing centers for rural cooperative development,
value-added processing, and rural businesses, especially cooperatives.229 Some eligible uses of
funds include providing technical assistance, training and educating existing cooperatives;
conducting feasibility studies and providing organizational guidance to new cooperatives; and
226 “USDA Invests to Help Small and Underserved Producers Manage Risk and Remain Productive,” October 2013.
227 P.L. 101-624, §2501; 7 U.S.C. 2279 (CFDA# 10.443), as amended in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, §14004).
USDA, http://www.outreach.usda.gov/sdfr/index.htm. See also CRS Report RS20430, The Pigford Cases: USDA
Settlement of Discrimination Suits by Black Farmers.
228 P.L. 101-624, §2347; ConAct §310B(e), 7 U.S.C. §1932 (CFDA# 10.771), P.L. 110-246, §6013. Formerly known as
the Rural Technology and Cooperative Development Grant Program (RTCDG). USDA,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_RCDG.html.
229 Cooperative development centers must primarily serve “rural areas” defined as any area except a city or town where
the population exceeds 50,000, or any urbanized area contiguous or adjacent to a town with more than 50,000 people.
Congressional Research Service
51
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
assessing the need and evaluating the potential support base for newly developing cooperatives.230
The RCDG program has been used to support local food systems by establishing linkages with
local food hubs, through the development and distribution of best practices and through training
and technical assistance to farmer coperatives or any enterprises where multiple farmers
collaborate thus providing for “scaling up” opportunities.231
Matching fund requirement are 25% of the total project cost for most eligible entities, but vary in
some cases. Funding is discretionary, with authorized appropriations of $40 million annually
(FY2014-FY2018); however, actual appropriated amounts have been lower than authorized
levels. For FY2010, total funding for grants was $7.9 million, covering about 35 awards up to
$225,000 each for a period of one year. FY2011 funds were an estimated $7.4 million.
Under the RCDG program, funds may be used for applications that focus on assistance to small,
minority producers through their cooperative businesses. The Small Socially-Disadvantaged
Producer Grant (SSDPG) is administered under the RCDG program.232 SSDPG provides
technical assistance to small, socially disadvantaged agricultural producers through eligible
cooperatives and associations of cooperatives. Total program funding is estimated at about $3.5
million. The maximum award amount per grant is $200,000. No matching funds are required.
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program
The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program was authorized as part of the
ConAct, as amended in the 1996 and 2002 farm bills.233 Administered by RD, the program
provides guaranteed loans to help new and existing businesses in rural areas gain access to
affordable capital. By issuing a guarantee to a private lender, USDA essentially co-signs the loan
to a business owner, promising to pay a portion of any loss that might result if the business owner
is unable to repay the loan. Having the guarantee reduces the lender’s risk, allowing more
favorable interest rates and terms. An eligible borrower may be an individual, a cooperative
organization, corporation, partnership, or other legal entity (both for profit or nonprofit), or a
federally recognized tribal group. Loans may be used to cover business and industrial acquisitions
to prevent the business from closing; prevent the loss of employment opportunities, or provide
expanded job opportunities; provide for business conversion, enlargement, repair, modernization,
or development; purchase and develop land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, or facilities; and
purchase equipment, leasehold improvements, machinery, supplies, or inventory.
Guaranteed loans go up to $10 million with some special exceptions for loans up to $25 million.
USDA may approve guaranteed loans up to $40 million for rural cooperative organizations that
process value-added agricultural commodities. The maximum repayment for loans on real estate
are not to exceed 30 years; machinery and equipment repayment are not to exceed the useful life
of the machinery and equipment purchased with loan funds or 15 years, whichever is less; and
working capital repayment are not to exceed 7 years. Program obligations were $1.3 billion in
230 USDA, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_RCDG.html.
231 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
Also, CRS communication with University of Illinois staff, September 15, 2011.
232 USDA, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_SSDPG.html. Formerly the Small, Minority Producer Grant Program.
233 7 U.S.C §1932(g). §310B of the ConAct, as amended by P.L. 104-127 (§747) and P.L. 107-171 (§6017) (CFDA#
10.768). USDA, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/b&i_gar.htm.
Congressional Research Service
52
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
FY2010, and $1.2 billion in FY2011. Funds are allocated to states based on the proportion of their
rural population, and funding for any local food initiatives would occur at the state level.
The 2008 farm bill further amended the B&I program to provide that at least 5% of available B&I
program funding from FY2008 to FY2012 be used to support local and regional food production.
This allocation of available funding is to be used to:
make or guarantee loans to individuals, cooperatives, cooperative organizations, businesses, and
other entities to establish and facilitate enterprises that process, distribute, aggregate, store, and
market locally or regionally produced agricultural food products to support community
development and farm and ranch income. [emphasis added]
An eligible “locally or regionally produced agricultural food product” is “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 ... the State in which the product is produced.”234 For FY2011,
nearly $50 million was made available for local and regional food enterprises, with an estimated
$41 million for FY2012.235 An example of a local enterprise using B&I funds is Prairieland Foods
in Nebraska, which received a $650,000 loan to purchase a new dairy processing facility to
produce dairy products using locally sourced milk.236
Community Facilities
Community Facilities (CF) loans and grants were authorized in the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act, as amended.237 Administered by RD, the program provides direct loans,
guaranteed/insured loans, and project grants for the construction, acquisition, or renovation of
community facilities or for the purchase of equipment for community facilities for public use in
rural areas. Examples include, but are not limited to water and environmental projects, including
water systems, waste systems, solid waste, and storm drainage facilities, as well as hospitals, fire
protection, safety, and other community-based initiatives. Matching funds are not required. The
size of the award varies by project, applicant’s financial feasibility, and community size. Direct
loans range from $5,000 to $9 million (average: $828,407); guaranteed loans range from $26,000
to $20 million (average: $2.8 million); and project grants range from $300 to $0.4 million
(average $37,266). Eligible applicants include public and nonprofit organizations, and federally
recognized Indian tribes. The proposed community facilities must be in rural areas, defined as
areas with no more than 20,000 residents. In recent years, total funding for direct loans was $681
million (FY2010) and $290 million (FY2011). Funding for guaranteed loans was $292 million
(FY2010) and $196 million (FY2011). Funding for project grants was $61 million (FY2010) and
$28 million (FY2011).
An example of a project financed under the program is a $100,000 grant that was awarded to a
medical center within an island community in Alaska to purchase two greenhouses for a
community garden. Other types of local and regional projects that may qualify for CF funding
include farmers’ markets (e.g., structures); school and community kitchens; food banks, including
234 P.L. 110-246, §6015.
235 NSAC, “Local and Regional Food Enterprise Guaranteed Loans.”
236 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
237 P.L. 92-419, §306; 7 U.S.C. §1926 (CFDA#10.766). USDA, http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/HCF_CF.html.
Congressional Research Service
53
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
refrigerators; community gardens (e.g., purchase land; water source access) and noncommercial
greenhouses; and refrigerated trucks.238
Rural Business Development Grants
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 6012) consolidated two previous USDA grant programs: the
Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG)239 and the Rural Business Opportunity Grants
(RBOG)240 programs, renaming the new program Rural Business Development Grants program.
Both programs were authorized under the ConAct, as amended, and reauthorized in the 2008 farm
bill and administered by USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service. Both provided competitive
grants to finance and facilitate a broad range of rural projects and promote sustainable economic
development in rural communities. Eligible entities include rural public bodies, rural nonprofit
corporations, rural Indian tribes, and cooperatives. The 2014 farm bill authorized appropriations
of $65 million annually (FY2014-FY2018) to remain available until expended.
Details of new consolidated program will likely be subject to USDA rulemaking. Previously
grants generally ranged from $10,000 up to $150,000, with no matching requirements. Examples
of past funding under the two previous programs are as follows. RBEG provided funding for the
development of small and emerging rural businesses, and employment-related adult education
programs, and also provided funding to acquire and develop land and construct buildings, plants,
equipment, access, parking areas, and utility and service extensions, among other activities. An
specific example of RBEG funds supporting local food systems include a project grant to develop
a mobile livestock unit in New York to provide local ranchers access to slaughter and processing
equipment and local markets.241 RBOG funding has covered regional economic planning focused
on food system development; market development and feasibility studies; business training,
including leadership development and technical assistance for entrepreneurs; and establishing
business incubators, including commercial kitchens.242 An example of RBOG funds supporting
local food systems include a project grant to create FoodHub, an online marketplace based in
Oregon that allows large-scale purchasers of food to connect with nearby growers.243
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program
The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) was authorized in the 2008 farm
bill.244 Administered by RD, the program provides direct loans and project grants to a
Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDO), which may be a nonprofit organization,
Indian tribe, or public institution of higher education that serves rural areas. An MDO may
borrow $50,000 to $500,000 for a single loan in any given fiscal year. Loans can be used to
provide working capital, equipment purchases, debt refinancing, business acquisitions, and
238 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
239 7 U.S.C. §1932(c)(2). §306 of the ConAct, as amended (CFDA#10.769).
240 P.L. 104-127, §741, amending §306 of the ConAct, as amended; 7 U.S.C. §1926(a)(19)(C)(ii) (CFDA#10.773).
241 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
242 A kitchen incubator refers to a business that provides for early-stage catering, retail and wholesale food businesses
to a new small business where it can produce a food product. See databases at culinaryIncubator.com.
243 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
244 P.L. 110-246, §6022, amending §306 of the ConAct; 7 U.S.C. §1926(a)(19)(C)(ii) (CFDA#10.870). USDA,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_rmap.html.
Congressional Research Service
54
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
purchase or lease of real estate that is already improved (construction of any type is strictly
prohibited). Grants are awarded up to $130,000, with matching requirements. Technical
assistance grants can be used to provide training, education, operational support, business
planning, market development assistance, and other related services to rural microentrepreneurs.
Funding can cover financing a facility or equipment, business planning, and marketing, including
coordinating and training necessary for a food hub or commercial kitchen incubator.245 Mandatory
funding through the CCC, which remains available until expended, is $3 million annually
(FY2014-FY2018). In addition, appropriations are authorized at $40 million annually (FY2014-
FY2018). However, in recent years no funds have been appropriated and the program received
mandatory funding for some years only.
Research and Cooperative Extension
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), managed by NIFA, originated in the
research provisions in the 1985 farm bill, aimed at enhancing low-input farming systems, and was
expanded and renamed in the 1990 farm bill.246 SARE provides a range of research and education
grants in the areas of renewable energy, pest and weed management, pastured livestock and
rotational grazing, no-till and conservation tillage, nutrient management, agroforestry, marketing,
sustainable communities, systems research, and crop and livestock diversity, among other areas.
Since 1988, SARE has funded nearly 5,000 projects with grants for farmers, ranchers, extension
agents and university educators, researchers, nonprofits, students, and communities. Research and
education grants, generally ranging from $60,000 to $150,000, fund projects that usually are
interdisciplinary and involve scientists, producers, and others. Professional development grants,
generally ranging from $20,000 to $90,000, offer educational opportunities for extension and
NRCS, and for other agricultural professionals. Producer grants, typically between $1,000 and
$15,000, go to farmers and ranchers who “test innovative ideas and share the results with their
neighbors.”247 No individual organization matching funds are required. Program funds also
support the dissemination of information on sustainable agriculture through clearinghouses such
as the Alternative Farming Systems Information Center at USDA’s National Agricultural Library,
and the Sustainable Agriculture Network.
The program originated with a $3.9 million appropriation in FY1988. In recent years, funding for
project grants has totaled $14.5 million (FY2010); and $13.5 million (FY2011 and also FY2012).
State-by-state summaries and profiles of the SARE grants portfolio are available at SARE’s
website.248
245 USDA, “Grants, Loans, and Support,” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=KYF_GRANTS.
246 P.L. 101-624, §§1619-1624; 7 U.S.C. §5801 and 7 U.S.C §5812 (CFDA# 10.215). Originally part of P.L. 99-198,
Subtitle C (Agricultural Productivity Research). Often referred to as “Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture” (LISA).
247 USDA, http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1130 and http://www.sare.org/Grants.
248 SARE, “Grant Summaries by State,” http://www.sare.org/Grants/Grant-Summaries-by-State. SARE’s searchable
database is at http://www.sare.org/Project-Reports/Search-the-Database.
Congressional Research Service
55
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Nutrition Assistance Programs
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Programs
FNS administers two programs that provide benefits redeemable only at farmers’ markets—the
WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (WIC-FMNP), and the Senior Farmers’ Market
Nutrition Program (SFMNP). FNS provides grants to state agencies, such as state health,
agriculture, and other agencies and Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs), in nearly all states.249
Participating state agencies must submit a plan describing how the agency intends to implement,
operate, and administer the program. Grant payments are made by a letter of credit, and state
agencies may withdraw funds only as needed.
The WIC-FMNP was first established in 1992 under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to provide fresh, locally grown produce to low-income
WIC applicants and recipients and to expand their use of farmers’ markets. The program allows
farmers’ markets and roadside stands to accept WIC-FMNP benefits (usually through coupons).250
Participating state agencies must provide program income or state, local, or private funds for the
program in an amount that is equal to at least 30% of the administrative cost of the program, with
some exceptions for tribal agencies. In FY2013, the program covered an estimated 1.56 million
recipients, and about 17,700 farmers, 3,300 farmers’ markets, and 2,800 roadside stands. Coupons
redeemed through the program resulted in an estimated $13.2 million in revenue to farmers for
FY2013. Total WIC-FMNP grant funding ranged from $19 million to $23 million per year
between FY2010 and FY2013; grant amounts for individual states are at USDA’s website.251
Appropriated funding for the WIC FMNP totaled about $16.5 million in FY2014.
The SFMNP was authorized in the 2002 farm bill, and reauthorized in the 2008 farm bill, to
provide fruits, vegetables, herbs, and honey from farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and CSA
programs to low-income seniors, by allowing farmers’ markets and roadside stands to accept
FMNP coupons.252 The SFMNP awards grants to states, territories, and ITOs to provide low-
income seniors with coupons that can be exchanged for eligible foods at farmers’ markets,
roadside stands, and CSAs. Funding in FY2013 covered an estimated 836,000 participants and
about 20,600 farmers, 4,200 farmers’ markets, 3,100 roadside stands, and 190 CSAs. The 2014
farm bill extended the annual mandatory funding, provided by a transfer from the CCC, of $20.6
million annually through FY2018. State-by-state allocations of funds are at USDA’s website.253
249 A map of participating states is at http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SFMNP-FMNP-Map.pdf.
250 P.L. 111-296, §424; 42 U.S.C. 1786, amending the Child Nutrition Act (CFDA# 10.572). FNS,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/fmnp/fmnpfaqs.htm.
251 FNS, “WIC FMNP Profiles – Grants and Participation,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-fmnp-profiles-grants-and-
participation.
252 P.L. 107-171; §4402; 7 U.S.C. 3007 (CFDA# 10.576). USDA, http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/SeniorFMNP/
SFMNPmenu.htm.
253 FNS, “SFMNP Profiles – Grants and Participation,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/sfmnp/sfmnp-profiles-grants-and-
participation.
Congressional Research Service
56
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at Farmers’ Markets
In addition, benefits under the FNS-administered Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP, formerly food stamps) provide additional available resources to patronize and support
farmers markets. SNAP participants receive benefits on an electronic benefit transfer card that
they may redeem at an authorized retailer for most foods. SNAP benefits may also be used to
purchase seeds or plants to grow food.254 Farmers’ markets may become SNAP-licensed
retailers.255 USDA reported that 4,057 farmers’ markets or individual farmers were authorized to
accept SNAP benefits in FY2013, and they redeemed a total of $21.2 million in SNAP benefits.256
Compared to FY2012, this is an increase of over 26% in authorizations and almost 28% in
benefits redeemed. In FY2013, 49% of the direct-from-farm authorized retailers are in 10 states
(California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, and
Pennsylvania). The 2014 farm bill also added language that “allows SNAP to be accepted in
advance of food delivery by agricultural producers who market directly to consumers.”257
SNAP law, however, does not require that benefits be redeemed at local establishments or in
farm-to-consumer settings; however, certain policies are related.
The 2014 farm bill provided for SNAP Bonus Incentive Projects and other related grants. States,
localities, and farmers’ market networks have created SNAP bonus incentive programs to target
the redemption of benefits at farmers’ markets. These allow SNAP participants to redeem their
benefits for more than “money on the dollar.” For example, a participant may exchange $3 of
benefits for a $6 voucher to redeem at the market. In the past, USDA-FNS, however, required
that the bonus funds be non-federal dollars; although, the 2014 farm bill creates a competitive
grant program that will provide limited funding for bonus incentives (Food Insecurity Nutrition
Incentive grants). Prior to 2010, markets had to apply to FNS for a waiver of the rules through
the state SNAP agency. Beginning early in 2010, FNS allowed farmers’ markets that secured non-
federal bonus incentive funding to be eligible through a blanket waiver, so markets now just
report to an FNS field office that they are conducting a bonus incentive program.
Farm to School Program
USDA’s Farm to School program was authorized in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,
which amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA).258 The 2010 law
included $5 million annually in mandatory funding for the program and also allows for additional
discretionary funding. Its goals are geared toward increasing fruit and vegetable consumption
254 The 1973 farm bill (Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973, P.L. 93-86, 7 U.S.C. §2012(b)) included an
amendment to the Food Stamp Act stating that “the term ‘food’... shall also include seeds and plants for use in gardens
to produce food for the personal consumption of the eligible household.” For information see FNS, “SNAP: Eligible
Foods,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm and SNAPGardens.org, http://www.snapgardens.org/.
255 For information see USDA, FNS, “SNAP: Learn How You Can Accept SNAP Benefits at Farmers’ Markets,”
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ebt/fm.htm.
256 USDA FNS, “SNAP’s Benefit Redemption Division (BRD) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2011,” December 2011,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/pdfs/2011-annual-report.pdf.
257 Quotation from FNS implementation memorandum dated March 21, 2014,
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap, refers to P.L. 113-79, Section 4012.
258 P.L. 111-296, §243, 42 U.S.C. §1769 (CFDA# 10.579). See, also, USDA, “Legislative History Related to Farm to
School,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/F2S/pdf/F2Sleg_history.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
57
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
among students, supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and
agriculture education to school districts and farmers. The program is administered by FNS.
The Farm to School program provides competitive grants and technical assistance to eligible
schools,259 state and local agencies, ITOs, agricultural producers or groups of agricultural
producers, and nonprofit entities to implement farm-to-school programs that improve access to
local foods in eligible schools. Grants may be used for training, supporting operations, planning,
purchasing equipment, developing school gardens, developing partnerships, and implementing
farm-to-school programs. Schools and communities may initiate and support a variety of eligible
activities, including nutrition education, agriculture-related lessons and curriculum, school or
community gardens, farm tours, taste testing, and parent/community educational sessions.260 The
enacting language further ensured that “geographical diversity” and “equitable treatment of
urban, rural, and tribal communities” be considered when USDA awards grants under the
program. The statute also includes criteria for selection, including making local food products
available on the menu, serving a high proportion of students who receive free and reduced-price
meals, incorporating nutrition education, demonstrating collaboration between schools and other
community partners, and evaluating the results. Grant amounts are not to exceed $100,000 per
recipient, and the federal share is not to exceed 75% of the total project cost.
FNS awarded FY2013 funding261 and has released a request for applications for FY2014.262
USDA’s Farm to School summary report highlights the department’s findings from its review in
2010 of 15 school districts nationwide that were involved in farm-to-school-related activities.263
Other information on farm-to-school programs is available through the National Farm to School
Network, highlighting activities in each state.264
School Gardens
The 2008 farm bill also amended the Richard B. Russell NSLA by authorizing a pilot program of
grants for high-poverty schools to promote healthy food education and hands-on gardening in the
school curriculum.265 The pilot program is part of USDA’s child nutrition discretionary grants and
its goals are geared toward increasing fruit and vegetable consumption among students,
supporting local farmers and rural communities, and providing nutrition and agriculture education
to school districts and farmers. The program is administered by FNS.
259 An “eligible school” means a school or institution that participates in a program under this act or the school
breakfast program established under §4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773).
260 USDA, FNS, “Farm to School,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/about.htm#Initiative; also USDA, “USDA Farm
to School Initiative Fact Sheet,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/pdf/F2S_initiative_fact_sheet_040110.pdf.
261 USDA, FNS, “USDA Farm to School FY 2013 Grant Awards,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/pdf/F2S_Grants-
FY2013.pdf.
262 USDA, FNS, “Farm to School Grant Program,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/f2_2013_grant_program.htm.
263 FNS, USDA Farm to School Team 2010 Summary Report, July 2011, http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/f2s/pdf/
2010_summary-report.pdf.
264 National Farm to School Network, http://www.farmtoschool.org/aboutus.php.
265 P.L. 110-246, §4303, 42 U.S.C. §1769 (CFDA# 10.579). The term “eligible school” means a public school where at
least 50% of the students are eligible for free or reduced price meals.
Congressional Research Service
58
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
The pilot program is to target not more than five states and may be used through either a school-
based program or a community-based summer program that is part of, or coordinated with, a
summer enrichment program at two or more eligible schools. The farm bill created discretionary
funding authority to carry out the program. The pilot program provides for applications to enter
into a:
cooperative agreement for the purposes of developing and running community gardens at eligible
high-poverty schools; teaching students involved in the gardens about agriculture production
practices, diet, and nutrition; contributing produce to supplement food provided at eligible
schools, student households, local food banks, or senior center nutrition programs; and
conducting an evaluation of funded projects to learn more about the impacts of school gardens.266
USDA has awarded a single grant to Washington State University (WSU), which is expected to
serve an estimated 2,800 students attending 70 elementary schools in Washington, New York,
Iowa, and Arkansas.267 WSU extension is the lead institution on the project—called the “Healthy
Gardens, Healthy Youth” pilot project—along with the cooperative extension services of Iowa
State University, Cornell University, and the University of Arkansas.268 The project was funded at
$1 million in FY2010 under the agency’s People’s Garden School Pilot Program as part of the
USDA People’s Garden Initiative to establish community and school gardens nationwide.269
Annual appropriations have not provided further funding for these efforts, but FNS has utilized
other funding to continue these types of efforts. For example, in FY2011, USDA provided
approximately $725,000 in grants for its People’s Garden Grant Program, administered by
NIFA.270 This was a new program in 2011, authorized in the National Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Teaching Policy Act to facilitate the initial investment needed to create produce,
recreation, and/or wildlife gardens in urban and rural areas, and to provide opportunities for
science-based non-formal education.271 In 2011, the program funded 10 projects in Alaska,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, and Ohio.272 Many of
these projects include school gardens, among other types of projects.
For FY2015, funding for “Visitor Center/People’s Garden” is reported at $0.9 million.273 In
addition, the 2010 reauthorization of the child nutrition programs (P.L. 111-296) further amended
this section of the Russell School Lunch Act and extended the authority for appropriations to
FY2015. The 2008 farm bill had only authorized activities through FY2012.
266 FNS “People’s Garden School Pilot Overview,” October 14, 2010, webinar.
267 USDA, “USDA Announces Funding to Expand School Community Gardens and Garden-Based Learning
Opportunities,” August 25, 2010; and USDA, “USDA Announces People’s Garden School Pilot Program to Promote
Garden-Based Learning Opportunities,” April 7, 2011.
268 WSU, “$1 Million Grant Funds WSU Extension ‘Healthy Gardens, Healthy Youth’ Project,” April 7, 2011.
269 USDA’s budget justification for FY2011, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/30fns2011notes.pdf. See page 30-10.
270 NIFA, “People’s Garden Grant Program,” http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/peoplesgardengrantprogram.cfm. See also
USDA, “USDA Expands People’s Garden Initiative to Sow Seeds for Community-Based Agriculture across the
Country,” November 10, 2011.
271 P.L. 95-113, 7 U.S.C 3318 (b); CFDA# 10.325.
272 NIFA, “Abstracts of Funded Projects,” http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/peoplesgardengrantprogram.cfm.
273 USDA’s budget justification for FY2015, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/04da2015notes.pdf. See p. 4-3.
Congressional Research Service
59
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Commodity Procurement Through “DoD Fresh”
The Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (DoD Fresh) is a mechanism
created by USDA to increase fresh produce offerings to schools. DoD Fresh, which utilizes the
logistical capacity of the United States military to deliver food to U.S. military bases across the
country and world, began as a USDA pilot project in 1996. States are able to allocate a portion of
their commodity entitlement funds for school meals toward procurement of fresh produce through
the DOD Fresh program. The DoD Fresh program began as a USDA pilot project in 1996, with
eight states participating by allocating a portion of their commodity entitlement funds toward the
program. In 1996-1997, DoD Fresh delivered produce valued at about $3.2 million to schools in
eight states. By 2010, the DoD Fresh delivered produce valued at $66 million to schools in all 50
states.
The 2008 farm bill amended policies governing USDA’s purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables
through DoD Fresh.274 Specifically, the 2008 farm bill amended the National School Lunch Act to
“allow institutions ..., including the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, to
use a geographic preference for the procurement of unprocessed agricultural products, both
locally grown and locally raised” (emphasis added) and “encourage institutions ... to purchase
unprocessed agricultural products, both locally grown and locally raised, to the maximum extent
practicable and appropriate.”275 While the 2008 farm bill provision did not specifically define
“locally grown and locally raised,” FNS and DOD have generally applied the definition of
“locally or regionally produced agricultural food products” established elsewhere in the farm
bill,276 specifically, “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 ... the state in
which the product is produced.”277 As a provision allowing for a preference, DoD Fresh does not
require states and school food authorities to purchase local products.
Section 4202 of the 2014 farm bill established a new pilot program for up to eight states to
explore procurement alternatives – including local procurement – for unprocessed fruits and
vegetables, in place of those commodity purchases offered through DOD.
Healthy Food Financing Initiative
Prior to the 2014 farm bill, the Administration administered a Healthy Food Financing Initiative
(HFFI) by requesting appropriations for several existing statutory authorities in order to provide
grants and tax credits to support development of food retailers in underserved communities. Since
2010, the Administration has operated related programs at USDA, Health and Human Services
(HHS), and/or the U.S. Treasury. See “Healthy Food Financing Initiative”
The 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, § 4206) established a new authority by the same name, Healthy
Food Financing Initiative, to “support efforts to provide access to healthy food by establishing an
initiative to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to create and preserve quality
274 USDA, http://www.fns.usda.gov/fdd/programs/dod/DOD_FreshFruitandVegetableProgram2011.pdf.
275 NSLA, §9(j); 42 U.S.C. 1758(j)) amended in 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246, §4302). Covers also non-DoD schools.
276 CRS communication with FNS staff, September 12, 2011.
277 P.L. 110-246, §6015.
Congressional Research Service
60
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
jobs, and to revitalize low-income communities by providing loans and grants to eligible fresh,
healthy food retailers to overcome the higher costs and initial barriers to entry in underserved
areas.”278 USDA is authorized to approve a community development financial institution as
“national fund manager” that would administer these funds by supporting food retail projects that
would “expand or preserve access to staple foods” (as defined within this section) and accept
SNAP benefits.
The law authorizes up to $125 million to be appropriated for a “Healthy Food Financing
Initiative” to remain available until expended.
Community Food Projects
The Community Food Projects (CFP) program (formerly the Community Food Projects
Competitive Grants Program) was created in the 1996 and further amended in the 2008 and 2014
farm bills.279 Administered by NIFA, the program provides grants to support projects that meet
the food needs of low-income people, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for
their own needs, and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues.
For example, projects linking low-income populations to fresher foods through farmers’ markets
have previously qualified as activities. The 2008 farm bill reauthorized the competitive grants and
funded them at $5 million for FY2008 and each fiscal year thereafter. Activities supported by this
program are a wide range of community-based projects and initiatives, including urban
agriculture and targeted markets to address food desert communities. Grants are awarded for
community food projects, planning projects, and training and technical assistance projects. The
range of grant awards and their duration depend on the type of project, but all three types require
a match in resources.280 The 2014 farm bill increased funds for this program by $4 million to a
total of $9 million in FY2015 and each fiscal year thereafter. The 2014 law also included new
types of eligible grantees, for example “gleaners.”
Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grants
The 2014 farm bill significantly amended what had been the “hunger-free community grants” to
“incentive grants” for projects that incentivize SNAP participants to buy fruits and vegetables,
and renamed the incentive grant program the “Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive.”281 The
federal cost share under the program is limited to 50%. The 2014 farm bill provided $100 million
in mandatory funding (FY2014-FY2018), plus discretionary authority of $5 million per year.
278 P.L. 113-79, §4206. Amended Title II, Subtitle D of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7
U.S.C. §§ 6951 et seq.).
279 P.L. 110-246, §4402, 7 U.S.C 2034 (CFDA# 10.225), amending the Food Stamp Act of 1977. See NIFA,
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/cfp/cfp_synopsis.html and http://www.nifa.usda.gov/fo/
communityfoodprojects.cfm; and USDA, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=
kyf_grants_nifa4_content.html.
280 FY2012 Request for Applications: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/12_community_food.pdf.
281 P.L. 113-79, § 4208.
Congressional Research Service
61
The Role of Local Food Systems in U.S. Farm Policy
Author Contact Information
Renée Johnson
Tadlock Cowan
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
Development
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Congressional Research Service
62