Key Insights from
Agriculture and Health: Opportunities at the
Intersection Meeting, November 13, 2012
Prepared by Ronda Zakocs of Insight Evaluation, LLC
December 6, 2012
On November 13,2012, the Regional Convergence Partners – Kaiser Permanente, Meyer Memorial Trust,
Northwest Health Foundation and Oregon Public Health Institute – convened nearly 100 of their partners to:
1. Identify policy priorities that allow our grantees to achieve our shared vision of a healthier, more equitable,
sustainable and economically robust food system, and build support for advocacy on those priorities;
2. Identify new opportunities for collaboration within and across our respective grantee cohorts by expanding
networks and building new relationships; and
3. Increase knowledge and understanding of sustainable agriculture and health frameworks and language.
The purposes of this memo are to: (1) highlight what we learned from the November 13th meeting; and (2) assist in
strategizing our next steps for advancing a regional food system. Key insights came from several sources: tear sheets
listing policy options brainstormed and prioritized by participants during the meeting; a post-meeting survey for which
82% (77/94) of participants responded; notes taken during six breakout sessions; and postcards returned by participants
during six breakout sessions. More details can be found in the accompanying five appendices.
Were the meeting's objectives met? Yes.
Potential policy solutions identified: Participants brainstormed 110 policy solutions and prioritized 21.
The following 5 policy options received the most votes. (Refer to Appendix 1 for a list of brainstormed solutions.)
1. Restore access to driver’s licenses for undocumented workers by repealing SB 1080.
2. Institute state government food procurement policies that integrate values other than price (e.g., local sourcing,
health, sustainability).
3. Expand local facilities for processing meat and produce.
4. Incorporate local food access and production into all levels of planning (i.e., local comprehensive plans).
5. Increase funding for OSU Extension to help small/medium-sized farmers implement sustainable practices.
Collaborations: Most participants identified new opportunities for collaboration according to postmeeting survey. (Refer to Appendices 2 & 3 for quantitative and qualitative survey results.)
 100% met someone new.
 95% met someone whom they
would like to work in the future.
 92% exchanged contact information
with someone.
 82% learned about other
organizations doing food system
work that they did not know before.
 81% reported the right people were
brought to the meeting.
"I met a lot of people who will help me along in the food
system in the future."
I met "...people I wouldn't normally encounter."
"I've been involved in community food system work both
regionally and at the state level for the past 5 years, and there
were a lot of new faces on the table on Tuesday."
"It was evident that all of these different food system actors
had not connected in this way before and that they learned a
great deal from one another during the day."
1
Knowledge: A majority of participants reported an increase in knowledge about food system issues
according to post-meeting survey. (Refer to Appendices 2 & 3 for quantitative and qualitative survey results.)






88% reported that one or more LIGHT BULBS went off about food system work while attending the meeting.
84% learned something NEW and about policy solutions that they did not know before.
80% learned about CHALLENGES faced by others working in the food system.
68% experienced a SHIFT IN MIND SET -- seeing an issue or problem from a different view point.
67% heard about DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES about the food system that they had not heard before.
60% gained a better UNDERSTANDING of the intersection between agriculture and health.
During the breakout sessions, participants reported over 100 "aha" MOMENTS or key insights about the food
system that were triggered while listening to the discussions. (Refer to Appendix 5 for summary of "aha" moments.)
Participants learned ...
"Changing policy is an important part of the work to improve food systems."
"Simple lessons, processes, and rules working with legislators."
"The private sector role in contrast to the non-profit role and how they work together to bring about the
change we all desire."
"I knew about SB 1080 and was appalled when it happened, but honestly didn't make the connection with
the food system. That was a ... light bulb moment."
"The idea of "interrogating" our food: what all it does for us and what we owe its creation."
I uncovered "connections between seemingly unconnected issues."
Did participants value the meeting? Yes.
A majority of participants found the meeting valuable according to post-meeting survey. (Refer to Appendices
2 & 3 for quantitative and qualitative survey results.)





87% took ideas or resources HOME that they can use in their work.
72% believe the meeting was VERY WORTHWHILE of their time.
50% believe the meeting was MORE USEFUL than other food-related meetings they've attended.
34% were ENERGIZED A LOT by the meeting.
Participants commonly reported four reasons that made this meeting worthwhile, useful , and energizing.
1. Connecting, interacting, and
networking with people doing similar
and different food system work.
2. Learning from others about their
work, perspectives, and ideas.
3. Envisioning opportunities to work
together to change the regional food
system.
4. Generating policy priorities that could
be pursued.
"...the potential to make change if we all work together."
"The opportunity to build upon a collective movement."
"The chance do to "movement level" thinking and strategizing."
"I was already pretty energized, but the convening gave me a
sense of the future possibilities for this work. The way it could
unfold if it continues to have nurturing leadership."
"Meeting folks with a different lens on the work than I have,
and the chance to strategize together with them about policy
priorities for the movement."
"What was most elucidating was the commonalities we shared
despite our roles, some of which were disparate at first."
2
What challenges and solutions for our regional food system were identified by participants?
(Refer to Appendix 4 for documents prepared by panelists and notes taken during six breakout sessions.)
Issue
Producers/
Farmers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Work force/
Laborers
•
•
•
•
•
Processing
Distribution
•
•
•
Institutional
buyers
•
•
Retailers:
•
corner
stores
•
•
Independent
Challenges
Credit: Traditional credit unavailable to farmers. Oregon
has no farmer financing programs at state level.
Health insurance: High costs of health insurance hinders
those who want to go into or stay in farming.
Land: Limited availability and high cost of land, especially
in/near UGB
Crop coordination: Limited coordination among producers
to ensure adequate supply meets eaters' demands
Regulations: One size regulations does not work,
especially for small farmers
Certification & training: GAP certification and other
training/certification is expensive and time consuming
Profitability: Consumers want cheap food. Yet healthy,
local food takes considerable effort and cost.
Human rights/equity: Immigrant farmer workers subjected
to unfair practices
Food: Latino immigrants highest food insecure, yet 58% of
Oregon's farm work force are Latino immigrants
Housing: Farm worker families pay 30-40% of their income
for sub-standard housing
Driver's licenses: SB 1080 requires citizenship
documentation for obtaining a license
Quality workforce: Producers have trouble finding,
training, and keeping good employees
Facilities: Limited infrastructure for local/regional
processing of produce and meat. E. Oregon grows grain &
beef, but Oregon has few USDA processors
Market access: Smaller producers locked out of
conventional distribution systems
Aggregation: Insufficient infrastructure to support
aggregation and storage of regional produced food.
Complexity: Volume, consistency, locating, and price
hinder direct sourcing
Availability of supply: For many product categories, there
isn't adequate supply for regionally produced foods (i.e.,
organic chicken)
Business case: Must demonstrate how selling healthy
food improves bottom line, but do not have good data
Distribution: Finding distributors for small produce orders
Price: Offering healthier food at a competitive price
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Repeal SB 1080
Advocate for immigration reform
Outreach by food banks
Offer financial/ed literacy programs
Cultivate equitable partnerships
Assist workers to become farm owners
Establish food/farm-related vocational
training at community colleges
•
Support minimal processing for regionally
produced foods
Institute state meat inspection w/out USDA
inspection
Create regional physical food hubs and
more cold storage facilities
Build public/private food hubs or
aggregation facilities
Ecotrust's FoodHub East Coast on-line pilot
project with FoodX to make sourcing from
hundreds of suppliers feasible
Funding for direct purchase programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eaters
•
•
•
Costs: "Healthier" food costs more (compared to
conventional food); difficult for low income purchasers
Culture of Convenience: Whole foods take more time to
prepare. American food culture values speed.
Materials: Limited availability of marketing and
educational materials for purchasing healthier, locally
produced food
Possible Solutions
Pass 2013 Aggie Bond bill
Enact scalable regulations
Develop Oregon State Bank
Fund/expand OSU Extension and Small
Farms program
Allow transfer of farms to family or future
farmers without tax
Direct Economic Development Districts to
work with small farmers
Tailor GAP training for smaller producer
Establish farmer's cooperatives
Encourage farmers to experiment growing
different types of food
•
•
•
Implement statewide Healthy Food
Financing Initiative
Establish buying cooperatives among stores
Allow stores to make building
improvements w/out a cond use review
Require retailers receiving econ develop
incentives to offer X% of healthy foods
Expand SNAP incentives for farmer's
markets, CSA's, and other retail settings
using electronic technology
Implement education/awareness
campaigns (i.e., Michelle Obama)
Promote traditional diets; other than
dominant American diet
3
Is there momentum for joining together to work toward a healthier and more equitable,
sustainable, and economically robust regional food system? Yes.
Most participants are eager to work collectively according to post-meeting survey. (Refer to Appendices 2 & 3.)
 93% believe it is VERY IMPORTANT to cultivate an inclusive regional food system movement.
 83% report their organizations ASPIRE VERY MUCH to create a regional food system movement.
 70% report their organizations are VERY WILLING to join with others to advocate for regional food movement.
Participants also reported over 50 ACTIONS they or their organizations may consider taking around food system work
that were identified during the six breakout sessions. (Refer to Appendix 5 for list of actions by session.)
What next steps did participants suggest for advancing the regional food system?
Participants identified five categories of actions steps for advancing the regional food system according the postmeeting survey. Convening -- bringing interested parties together around food system issues -- and advocating for
policy were the two most common types of action steps. (Refer to Appendix 3 for details on qualitative survey results.)
Convening
(30)
Funding
(6)
Category
CONVENING
(n=30)
POLICY
(n=27)
Research
(3)
Policy
(27)
Public
education (3)
(Number in parentheses
indicate number of
actions identified within
category. )
Suggested Action Steps
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create platforms for regular communication (6)
Facilitate additional meetings (5)
Articulate common goals, values, roadmap, strategic plan (5)
Generic: "continue conversations" (4)
Establish work groups on various issues (2)
Create a network of people working on food issues (2)
Engage institutional purchasers (1)
Recruit under-represented individuals (1)
Form community of practice (1)
Offer technical assistance (1)
Offer training/workshop (re: social determinants of health) (1)
Develop plain language description of food system (1)
Establish/coordinate policy agenda by bringing people together and/or coalition (9)
Act upon policy priorities established at Nov 13th meeting (7)
Establish food policy council (4)
Educate about policy process (1)
Connect with Oregon Grows Partnership (1)
Foster local or regional coalitions around food system (1)
Get more politicians at table (1)
Employ collective impact model (1)
Advocate for farm workers rights (1)
Advocate for land transition & access (1)
4