Funding for this series is provided by the Healthy Farms, Healthy People Coalition through a CDC cooperative
agreement administered by the National Network of Public Health Institutes. ChangeLab Solutions provided
technical assistance for the series. The views and opinions of these authors and organizations are not
necessarily those of CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
ABSTRACT
New Hampshire’s (NH) local food system exists within a unique social, political, geographic, and
economic context. NH’s food system is complex, adaptive, and exemplifies the notion that all business
is local. Although most food consumed in NH is secured from producers outside of the state,
approximately 12% of foods produced in NH are sold directly from producers to consumers, compared
to less than 1% nationally (Magnusson & Gittell, 2010). A mixed methods design that included
interviews, focus groups, and surveys enabled examination of the intersection of local food producers
and consumers, innovative strategies to promote linkages between producers and consumers, and
identified practices that support a strong local food system in an environment with constrained
resources. The implementation of new ideas, as well as the expansion of existing initiatives, can lead to
the development of practices, programs, and policies that enable producers to be more efficient and
effective, allow consumers greater access to local products, and strengthen the existing food system.
OVERVIEW OF THE FOOD SYSTEM & PUBLIC HEALTH IN NEW HAMPSHIRE
The relationship between food systems and public health is an area of increasing interest, nationally
and within New Hampshire (NH). The existence of food deserts and resulting food insecurity are
recognized as having health implications (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, Andrews, & Carlson, 2011; Gittell,
2007; Gundersen, Kreider, & Pepper, 2011; Stracuzzi & Ward, 2010; Wauchope & Ward, 2012). The
quality of the food system can lead to health implications that include obesity (Ogden, Carroll, Kit, &
Flegal, 2012) and chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and stroke (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2012). These conditions translate into a significant financial burden on
communities. The annual medical costs for obesity alone in the United States (US) are estimated at
$147 billion (Finkelstein, Trogdon, Cohen, & Dietz, 2009). In addition, increasing incidence of severe
weather that interrupts access to and production of food highlights the importance of ensuring a
sustainable and accessible food system. A comprehensive approach to addressing these health issues
requires an ecological perspective that recognizes the nested hierarchy of complex systems
(Jayasinghe, 2011) and includes the local, regional, state, and national food systems (Burke, 2011;
Flournoy, 2011; Hart Research Associates, 2009; Healthy Eating Active Living Convergence Partnership,
2008; Trust for America’s Health, 2009, 2012b).
The recent rise in popularity of purchasing local foods offers promise for promoting the development
of a healthier food system (Hinrichs, 2003; Jackson, Minjares, Naumoff, Shrimali, & Martin, 2009;
Martinez et al., 2010) that offers consumers direct access to producers and distributors, drives
economic development, creates jobs, and preserves open space (USDA, 2012a). This perspective is
reflected in the American Public Health Association (APHA) position statement, which “…encourages
local production and distribution infrastructures and makes nutritious food available, accessible, and
affordable to all…[and that] is humane and just, protecting farmers and other workers, consumers, and
communities” (American Public Health Association, 2007).
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
1
Further, professional organizations representing public health, nursing, dietetics, and community
planning have collaboratively adopted a position on systems-wide food policy change that emphasizes
and strengthens the interdependent relationships between food system sectors (Food Systems and
Public Health Conference Work Team, 2012; Hodgson, 2012).
New Hampshire’s local food system exists within a unique social, political, geographic, and economic
context. For the purposes of this paper, we focus on NH’s food system, understanding that food
systems are not confined to geographic boundaries and that NH’s food system is embedded within the
larger New England food system.1 Geographically, NH is the fourth smallest state (NetState, 2012).
However, transportation within the state is challenged by limited public transportation systems and
geographic constraints such as the White Mountain range, which spans much of the northern half of
the state. This makes both distribution of and access to products more difficult for NH producers and
consumers. On the other hand, NH has the largest state legislature in the United States; each member
of the NH House of Representatives represents only 3,089 constituents compared to the national
average of 53,986 constituents per state representative (National Conference of State Legislatures,
2013). The NH legislature is comprised of citizens from a variety of occupations who receive a salary of
only $100 per year (State of New Hampshire, 1783/2007). This structure provides NH residents
extraordinary access to their legislators. In addition, NH has no sales or income tax, ranking 42nd in
state tax revenue per capita (Federation of Tax Administrators, 2011). The state spends $15.97 per
person annually from state revenue on public health. For fiscal year 2010-2011, NH ranked 39th for
state public health funding per capita (Trust for America’s Health, 2012c). Many state-funded
initiatives, including the public health system, are constrained by lack of funding.
New Hampshire’s public health system is in a state of transition. With only two fully-functioning local
health departments, the local health system across the rest of the state is structured around state
government-determined regions primarily funded to support emergency preparedness (Ascheim et al.,
2011). Most other public health services are provided by community-based organizations through
formal contracts with state government or informal linkages with one another. Regional boundaries
are currently being reconfigured to accommodate a more comprehensive and equitable approach to
providing public health services (Ascheim, et al., 2011). Even without a robust formal public health
infrastructure, NH is one of the healthiest states in the country in terms of behaviors, community and
environment, clinical care, and policy (United Health Foundation, 2011, 2012). However, NH’s current
adult obesity rate has more than doubled since 1995 (12.9% to 26.2%) and will more than double again
by 2030 if it continues on the current course (Trust for America’s Health, 2012a). Meanwhile, food
access challenges have increased dramatically, as indicated by increased participation in the federally
supported Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly Food Stamps), which has
nearly doubled in NH from an average monthly rate of 63,000 in 2008 to over 116,000 in 2012 (USDA,
2012b). Twenty-five percent of NH communities are at risk for food insecurity (Wauchope & Ward,
2012).
1
In this paper we refer to the nested hierarchy of food systems beginning with local systems, which are embedded in
regional systems, which are embedded in turn in the statewide system, which is further embedded in the New England food
system, and so forth. “Regional food system” in this paper refers to sub-state regions.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
2
Farming in NH also has its challenges, including cold winters and rocky soil. The state ranks 48th
nationally for agricultural exports and, compared to other states, has the 5th smallest farms by average
acreage (USDA, 2009). However, NH has strong traditions of agriculture and community engagement
(Dillon & Rogers, 2009; Gittell, 2007), and local food systems are supported by several state, town, and
county agencies, as well as numerous private organizations. The mission of the NH Department of
Agriculture, Markets & Food (NH Department of Agriculture) is “to promote agriculture in the public
interest and to serve farmers and consumers in the marketplace” (NH Department of Agriculture,
2012b). About 10% of NH towns have developed Agricultural Commissions to “recognize, promote, and
encourage farming and agricultural-based economic opportunities, and conserve agricultural land and
resources” (University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 2012). In addition, numerous small
organizations and farmers’ associations provide technical assistance, training, and networking
opportunities to producers.
NH farmers and food producers provide only 6% of the food needed to sustain the state’s population,
yet, the state is a national leader in direct sales. Twelve percent of farm food products produced in NH
are sold directly from producers to consumers, compared to less than 1% nationally (Magnusson &
Gittell, 2010). The benefits of buying local food include reduction of environmental hazards, increased
food safety, increased knowledge of ingredients in your food, access to whole foods, and support of
the local economy (Magnusson & Gittell, 2010). The combination of NH’s relatively healthy population
and high rate of direct sales of locally produced foods, suggests that the intersection of producers and
consumers of locally-produced foods in NH might hold valuable information. We set out to discover
how producers and consumers of local foods intersect by conducting a “grass tops to grassroots”
exploratory study.
The goals of this project were to:
1. Gather information around existing policies, programs, and practices fostering or
hindering access to locally-produced foods;
2. Explore innovative strategies that promote linkages between producers and
consumers of local foods; and
3. Recommend practices that support the well-being of both producers and consumers
of local foods in an environment with constrained resources.
METHODS
A mixed-methods design, including qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses, was used.
Qualitative data analysis allows for a deep understanding of the findings from the perspective of the
participant, while descriptive statistics enable an assessment of response patterns (Driscoll et al.,
2006). The Community Health Institute (CHI) collected and analyzed data using a stepped approach
that included the following four methodologies:
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
3
Literature Review
A literature review was conducted on local food systems and markets, linkages with public health, and
existing programs connecting food producers and consumers in peer-reviewed journals and the
popular media. The literature review was ongoing and recursive throughout the project; it informed
and was informed by key informant interviews, focus groups, and surveys.
Key Informant Interviews
CHI held 19 interviews: 10 with opinion leaders from various fields and nine with food producers. Key
informants were asked to recommend others to interview. Interviews gathered information about
producer-consumer relationships in NH, recent positive changes in the statewide food system, and
changes to policies, practices, or behaviors that could positively impact the intersection of producers
and consumers in NH. Food producers were also asked about their roles in the local food system and
benefits of and barriers to various distribution avenues.
Focus Groups
Four focus groups were held with a total of 17 participants from around the state. Three focus groups
included organizers of programs and projects that facilitate interaction between producers and
consumers and the distribution of local food. The fourth focus group was comprised of representatives
of institutions in various stages of incorporating local foods into their existing food infrastructure. The
focus groups were designed to gather more information about existing projects throughout the state
and deepen our understanding of barriers to stronger connections between producers and consumers.
Surveys
Two surveys were conducted, one of local food producers and one of local food consumers. A drawing
for one $50 gift card per survey was used as an incentive for completing the surveys.
Survey of Food Producers
To capture the producer perspective, CHI developed a survey of NH food producers, which was
distributed through existing networks of producers. In addition, the survey was directly e-mailed to
approximately 300 farms using publicly available e-mail addresses. Producers were also asked to pass
the survey on to others. Due to collection methods used, the sample may not be representative of all
producers in NH. The 31-question survey was jointly developed and administered with the
International Institute of NH, which had planned to survey the same population within the same
timeframe as part of a feasibility study for the development of a food hub, so the survey also
contained several questions on this topic. Questions focused on farm demographics, product
distribution methods, factors affecting productivity, initiatives implemented to increase business,
and changes to the food system that could enhance their connection with consumers and the local
food system. An electronic version was administered through SurveyMonkey. Paper versions and
telephone surveys were offered, but no producers used these methods. In total, 90 producers
completed the survey.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
4
Survey of Food Consumers
CHI developed and distributed a 13–question survey to local food consumers to gather information
on consumer access to local foods, buying habits, involvement in the food system, and strategies to
more easily access local foods. The survey was distributed through existing networks of food
consumers, such as co-op and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) memberships, and by wordof-mouth. An electronic version of the survey was conducted through SurveyMonkey. Paper and
telephone versions were also offered, but no consumers used these methods. Despite numerous
attempts to survey in person at food retail locations, we were unable to gain access. A total of 412
consumers completed the survey. The resulting responses represent the views of consumers of local
food rather than consumers in general.
SURVEY RESULTS
Producer Survey
Respondents to the producer survey (n=90) provided a
fairly representative sample of local food producers in
NH by county. Out of the 10 counties, one (Carroll) was
over-represented and one (Grafton) was
under-represented. Respondents represented diverse
farm products, including vegetables, fruits, eggs, meat,
dairy, maple, syrup, and value added products. Table 1
provides a summary of results.
Consumer Survey
This convenience sample (n=412) included consumers of
local foods from all 10 counties. Strafford and
Rockingham Counties were underrepresented and
Carroll, Coös, and Grafton Counties were
over-represented. The remaining five counties were
appropriately represented in the sample. The two
largest food co-ops in the state, which are located in
Grafton and Coös Counties, distributed the survey to
their members, which may account for the large
response from this region. See Table 1 for a summary of
consumer survey results.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
5
Table 1. Summarized Results from Producer and Consumer Surveys
PRODUCER Survey Summary Results (n=90)
CONSUMER Survey Summary Results (n=412)
How many acres is your farm? (n=83)
0-14 acres
41.0%
50+ acres
36.1%
15-49 acres
22.9%
How long have you been a producer? (n=83)
0-9 years
44.6%
20-29 years
14.5%
10-19 years
19.3%
30+ years
21.7%
Please select the top 3 food products that you market.
(n=83)
Vegetables
49.4%
Fruits
16.9%
Eggs
48.2%
Maple Syrup
13.3%
Meat
43.4%
Fish
0.0%
Dairy
26.5%
Other
2.4%
Value-Added
24.1%
Is your farm organic? (n=79)
Organic
35.4%
Certified Organic
15.2%
What is your top method for distributing your products?
(n=77)
Farmers’ markets, farm stand, pick your
61.0%
own, at the farm
CSAs
14.1%
Grocery stores (including co-ops)
7.7%
Distributors
6.4%
Restaurants
3.8%
Through other farmers
1.3%
Institutions
0.0%
Other
6.4%
What are the top 3 factors affecting your farm’s
productivity? (Top 5 listed) (n=77)
Personal time and energy
61.0%
Annual overhead costs
46.8%
Regulation
24.7%
Production limitations of land
23.4%
Size of farm
20.8%
In the last 5 years, which initiatives have you engaged in to
increase business? (Top 5 listed) (n=77)
Increased production of existing products
71.4%
Increased marketing efforts
61.0%
Extended the season
51.9%
Tested other markets or sales methods
48.1%
Diversified variety of crops/products
48.1%
How important is it to you to have access to local foods?
(n=410)
Very important
79.3%
Somewhat important
20.2%
Not at all important
0.5%
Do you have enough opportunities to buy local foods?
(n=410)
Yes, I have enough opportunities
41.0%
I have opportunities, but not enough
56.3%
No, I do not have enough opportunities
2.7%
How often do you buy local foods? (n=410)
At least weekly, all year
34.4%
At least weekly, in season
45.9%
Monthly
10.2%
On occasion
8.5%
Never
1.0%
If you purchase local items, which of the following items do
you regularly purchase from local producers? (n=411)
Vegetables
93.9%
Dairy
41.3%
Fruits
74.3%
Meat
38.6%
Maple syrup
65.8%
Fish
6.8%
Eggs
62.2%
Other
2.7%
Value-Added
45.5%
What is your primary method of purchasing local products?
(n=398)
Farmers’ markets, farm stand, pick your own,
49.2%
at the farm
Grocery stores (including co-ops)
40.2%
CSAs
7.0%
Restaurants
1.3%
Institutions
0.8%
Other
1.5%
Why do you purchase local food products?
Select up to 3 reasons. (Top 4 listed) (n=401)
To support the local economy
73.3%
Freshness
62.8%
To support chemical-free processing
53.9%
Taste
42.6%
Are you involved with your community’s food system?
(n=401)
Yes
60.6%
What limits your purchases of locally made products?
(n=399)
Seasonal availability
67.4%
Cost
56.1%
Distance and time
32.8%
Limited product availability
31.3%
Personal choice
3.8%
Other
4.0%
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
6
FINDINGS
This section incorporates findings from all phases of the project and is organized by factors that
emerged from our analyses related to producers and consumers, as well as factors that cut across the
food system. In the following section, we report findings from our literature review, interviews, focus
groups, and surveys.
Producer Related Factors
Farmer Education and Labor Pool
Twenty-percent of producer survey respondents identified the lack of an affordable, skilled labor
pool as one of the top three factors affecting their farm’s productivity. Nearly half (44.6%) reported
that they have been farming for less than 10 years. These data indicate a need for training for both
potential farm labor and new producers. Novice farmers in NH are a diverse group; many are young,
but there is also a cadre of older individuals entering farming as a career change. A recent survey
and roundtable discussion in central NH also identified the need for skilled labor as well as specific
training for developing marketing, business, and social media skills (Dole, Luke, Smith, Young, &
Yazzie-Whitcomb, 2010).
Numerous organizations provide farmer education and support, including the NH Coalition for
Sustaining Agriculture (Lougee, 2009), the Northeast Organic Farmers Association (NOFA) (Northeast
Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, 2012), the Small and Beginner Farmers Association
of NH (Small and Beginner Farmers of New Hampshire, n.d.), and the NH Institute of Agriculture and
Forestry (The New Hampshire Institute of Agriculture and Forestry, n.d.). The US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program offers grants to build
economic, ecologic, and socially sustainable agriculture with technical assistance provided by the
University of NH (UNH) Cooperative Extension (Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education, 2012; University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 2013).
Several institutions of higher education have developed or expanded programs focusing on
community development, environmental science, and sustainability that raise awareness and provide
a stream of educated young people into the agricultural workforce. For example, UNH provides
training to students on a wide variety of related topics through the first Land Grant College Organic
Dairy Teaching and Research facility (University of New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station,
2011), a new Sustaining Agriculture and Food Systems major (University of New Hampshire
Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems, 2011), a student-run dairy cooperative (University of New
Hampshire Cooperative Real Education in Agricultural Management, 2011), and the UNH School of
Law (University of New Hampshire School of Law, 2013), which trains students on policies and
regulations that impact food system viability and sustainability. Through the UNH Sustainability
Institute, the University also leads numerous initiatives dedicated to promoting food system
networking at the local, regional, state, and New England-levels (University of New Hampshire
Sustainability Institute, 2012). In addition, the Center for Rural Partnerships at Plymouth State
University aims to connect the needs and goals of rural communities with insightful research and
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
7
productive partnerships, focusing on community development including agritourism (Plymouth State
University, 2012).
Seasonality
Winter production and marketing is an area for growth throughout the state. Many producers and
consumers feel limited by NH’s cold winters and short growing season and consumers identified
seasonal unavailability as the primary barrier to accessing locally produced foods. Fifty-two percent
of producers have engaged in initiatives to extend the growing season (e.g., building hoop houses2)
during the last five years in order to increase business. A recent boom in the building of hoop houses
in NH was supported through funding by the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) of
the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services
and technical assistance provided by the UNH
Cooperative Extension. In addition, 31 winter
farmers’ markets are operating in NH in the 20122013 winter season (NH Department of Agriculture,
2012c). Nationally, the number of winter markets
listed in USDA’s National Farmers Market Directory
increased 52% from 2011 to 2012 (Sparks, 2012).
Winter farmers’ markets were widely cited by producers and consumers as a model to be expanded.
Additionally, producers identified a need to plan ahead to ensure increased availability of local foods
throughout the year (Dole, et al., 2010). Producers also make the most of the off-season through the
planning and implementation of agritourism features, such as sleigh rides, corn mazes, and
workshops.
Processing
Many producers identified the lack of meat processing infrastructure as a barrier, which was
consistent with recent findings from other NH surveys (Dole, et al., 2010). In order to be sold,
individual cuts of meat must be processed at a federally-approved USDA facility. Federal laws, which
are crafted to protect the public from the potential hazards of meat processing operations, are
written for industrial-scale facilities, and thus place prohibitive expenses on small meat processing
facilities (Taylor, 2008). Although the NH legislature passed a law authorizing a NH State Meat
Inspection Program in 2011, it has not been accepted by the USDA (Callahan, 2012). Only one USDAinspected meat processing facility was in operation in NH until the fall of 2012, when a second facility
opened (Merrill, 2012). Some meat producers reported that they ship their livestock to processing
facilities in Maine, Vermont, or Massachusetts, which presents logistical and financial burdens. Other
potential concerns related to small-scale meat processing included the possibility that farmers may
not receive their own livestock in meat product or that the processing facility might produce the
wrong cuts, which could have significant financial implications for producers.
2
Hoop houses are also known as green houses, high tunnels, or polytunnel hoop houses.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
8
Regulations
Until this year, it was illegal in NH to sell value added foods that were not produced in a licensed
facility. A law passed by the NH legislature in 2012 eased these regulations to allow for the off-thefarm sale of value added products, such as jams and jellies, if the annual revenue is less than
$10,000. This law also expanded the quantity of raw milk that can be sold to consumers to 20 gallons
per day, including dairy products such as cheese and yogurt (NH Legislature, 2012). While some feel
that raw dairy presents a health issue in terms of potential exposure to disease, other consumers
welcome the opportunity to access fresh raw milk, contending that it is their prerogative to purchase
raw milk if they are confident in the farmers’ practices. In addition, many producers benefit from this
legal change, since they make a larger profit from the sale of raw milk (Arriens, 2012). Other
concerns included increasing regulations and rules related to the production and processing of
agricultural products, such as towns potentially taxing landowners for the use of temporary
structures (e.g., high tunnels) and discontinuing current use status for properties when livestock
housing or storage buildings are added (Dole, et al., 2010).
Transportation
About half of producers (51%) said that the time required to coordinate distribution limited their
ability to distribute their products. In addition, numerous institutional buyers voiced frustration that
the only way to offer locally produced products was for their employees to collect them from the
farm. Several regions around the state are currently working on developing food hubs, both formally
and informally. The USDA defines a food hub as a “centrally located facility with a business
management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or
marketing of locally/regionally produced food products” (Barnham, 2010).
Farmer Income
Table 2. Farm Income, NH and US
Low farmer income may deter people
NH
US
Difference
from pursuing farming and may force
farmers to switch professions. Barriers
Average Farm Income
$56,467
$89,479
$33,012
linked to farmer income in NH included
Annual Sales < $25,000
83%
71%
12%
the high initial investment for farming,
17%
Annual Sales > $25,000
29%
12%
including the high cost of land, and lack
(USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture)
of benefits available to farmers (e.g.,
health care coverage) (Dole, et al., 2010). According to the USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA,
2009), about half of NH farms sold less than $2,500 in products (49.6%). Only 31% of NH farms
reported net gains3 in 2007. In our sample, 72% of producers reported that they expected their farm
to gross less than $50,000 in 2012, and 82% expected less than $100,000. Producers cited personal
time and energy (61%) and annual overhead costs (46.8%) as the top two factors affecting farm
productivity. Nationally, 28% of farmers reported farming as their principal occupation in 2007,
compared with 43% in 1997 (USDA, 2009).
“Farms with total production expenses equal to total of market value of agricultural products sold, government payments,
and farm-related income are included as farms with net gains (USDA, 2009).
3
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
9
NH survey respondents identified a range of initiatives taken to increase business over the past five
years, including diversifying production (48%), increasing marketing (61%), and selling to institutions
(26%). The majority of producers (65%) also host farm-related activities that allow them to engage
with consumers (e.g., sleigh rides, farm tours, workshops), and 94% of these producers found that
visitors to their farms purchase their products. However, there is room for growth in NH farms: 79%
of our sample reported that less than 25% of their product is sold on the wholesale market and 74%
of producers said they want to expand their production.
Consumer Related Factors
Consumer Awareness
Nationally, consumer interest in and demand for local
“Communication and consumer
food is growing as a result of numerous movements,
education are the greatest problems.
including those focused on decreasing the distance food
The percent of NH'ites who seek and buy
travels, increasing access to food for consumers,
local food is depressingly low. It's not a
matter of distribution or availability from
protesting mass-produced food products, supporting
what I can see.”
local farmers, and increasing understanding of where
 Producer survey respondent
food comes from (Martinez, et al., 2010). On our survey,
over 70% of local food consumers indicated that
supporting their local economy was one of their top reasons for purchasing local foods. As consumer
demand for local products increases, restaurants, schools, and stores recognize that it makes good
business sense to make local foods available. Efforts to increase consumer awareness include social
events that highlight local food producers and
“[A member] was very upset with the price of
fundraise for various components of the food
some of our produce and she said, ‘What are
system. This increased demand for local products
we supposed to do? Be putting our farmers’
kids through college?” And our answer back to
has also created a need for consumer education on
her was, ‘Yes’.”
selecting and cooking local foods, especially
 Tony White, Director of Operations,
seasonal foods or “lesser known” crops (Dole, et al.,
Hanover Food Co-op Stores
2010).
Consumer Access
Fifty-nine percent of consumer survey respondents reported that they lacked sufficient opportunities
to buy local foods, with 67.4% of respondents identifying seasonal availability as the main factor
limiting their purchases of locally-produced foods. The top three methods of purchasing local
products reported were 1) direct sales through farmers’ markets, farm stands, and/or at the farm; 2)
grocery stores (including co-ops); and 3) CSAs.
Direct Sales
Consumers access local foods primarily through direct sales. In our survey, 75.3% of producers
reported selling directly to consumers as their top sales method, and 56.2% of consumers selected
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
10
direct sales as their top method of accessing local foods. Nationally, 6.2% of all farms sell “directly
to individuals for human consumption,” compared to 23.6% in NH (USDA, 2009).4
Although farmers’ markets are one of the most popular methods of direct sales in NH, both
producers and consumers had suggestions for improving markets. While producers would like to
see fewer farmers’ markets, consumers would like to see more. Producers said that a recent
increase in the number of markets has caused fewer consumers to attend each market, which
decreases producer profitability. In addition, with a greater number of markets in operation,
consumers have a smaller selection since producers are spread out between markets. There is also
tension between markets competing for both producers and consumers. When asked what would
improve access to local foods, numerous consumers said that farmers’ market hours do not fit their
schedule. A study done by Merrimack County (NH) Conservation District found that markets in
larger towns that were held Saturday mornings were thriving, while markets in smaller towns held
in later afternoons and evenings were struggling (Dole, et al., 2010). There were 76 summer
farmers’ markets in NH in 2012 (NH Department of Agriculture, 2012a). On average, these markets
were open for about 3.5 hours and about 55% of the markets were on weekdays. Of those held on
weekdays, only 33% were open after 6pm. There are also 29 winter farmers’ markets, including
markets that are only held once for the holidays (NH Department of Agriculture, 2012c). About a
third of the winter markets were held monthly or less often, another third were held twice a
month, and one-third were held weekly or twice a week.
Grocery Stores
About 20% of consumers expressed a desire for
“I’ve dealt a lot with larger chains…but it’s a
increased access to local products at larger grocery
fine line when it’s no longer feasible for a
stores where they already shop. However, very few
farmer to sell at the prices they’re required
by larger chains or businesses. The
producer respondents identified a desire to
difference there is that we’re trying to figure
increase sales to grocery stores. Producers felt that
out what is the right amount of money to
requirements placed on them by chain grocery
pay for food that allows us to be sustainable
stores and wholesale supply companies, such as
and prosper and grow… and for more
upstart, young farmers to get into the
packaging requirements and insurance coverage,
business and find ways to develop their farm
are costly and burdensome. However, farmers we
and have an outlet for their food.”
spoke to were happy with their relationships with
 Tony White, Director of Operations,
various cooperative food markets. In addition,
Hanover Food Co-op Stores
numerous consumer survey respondents made
positive comments about their local co-ops, and even more commented that they wanted more coops or a co-op closer to their home.
4
These values differ from those cited elsewhere in the paper since all farms, even those that produce inedible products
(e.g., Christmas trees), were included in the calculation. The numbers reported are the percentage of farms that
produce and sell products directly to individuals for human consumption, nationally and in NH (USDA, 2009).
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
11
CSAs
There are 47 CSAs in NH (NH Department of Agriculture, 2011). Seven-percent of consumers
identified CSAs as their top method of accessing local foods. In addition, numerous respondents
identified improvements to CSAs to make it easier for them to purchase local food, including
offering more pickup locations at workplace hubs, having smaller portions available, and offering a
wider variety of products (e.g., meat, dairy, and produce).
Consumers overwhelmingly identified home delivery as a method to increase access to local foods,
which producers and organizers are beginning to address. One newly initiated, innovative program
seeks to increase consumer access through a “virtual farmers’ market” that allows consumers to
order local products online with weekly pick-ups. However, other participants indicated that webbased programs implemented in the past have had varying levels of success.
Institutional Access
Our sample identified the three main barriers to
serving local foods in institutions as 1) increased
cost for the institution, 2) time required to
establish relationships between farms and
institutions, and 3) lack of clarity around
regulations and requirements for different food
services. The inability of individual small farms to
provide product on a large scale is also a barrier to
institutional access to local foods. However, there
has been some success in developing community
and school gardens that provide produce for childcare centers, social service agencies, schools, and
food pantries. Several higher education institutions have been involved in these activities through
service learning programs for their students.
Cost of Locally-Produced Foods
Consumer survey participants (56.1%) also identified cost as a limiting factor in their purchases of
locally made products. Several respondents suggested that they would buy more local foods if they
were more competitively priced with non-local foods. One survey participant noted, “Feeding a
family of 5 is expensive...Prices are a large factor in our food choices...prices for organic meats in
particular are not affordable. We have to weigh our food purchases with college education, oil prices,
etc…and if local products are priced too high they just won't make the cut.” Another expressed a
similar comment, but noted further, “I understand that it costs farmers money to raise their livestock
and they need to make a profit.”
Improving Health
Increasing interest in strengthening the local food system across a range of sectors, including public
health, business, government, and education, provides some traction for increasing access to local
foods. Food insecurity and increasing rates of obesity and diabetes in NH were raised as important
factors by public health organizations involved in food systems work. The nutritional needs of infants,
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
12
children, women of childbearing age, the elderly, and low-income populations are also of particular
concern. At the state level, the Food Advisory Council, comprised of a broad range of stakeholders,
has begun to develop a coordinated effort to improve NH’s food system by first assessing and
planning for addressing childhood hunger in NH (NH Hunger Solutions, November 2012). In addition,
the NH Department of Health and Human Services Obesity Prevention Program works to promote
healthy eating and active living initiatives around the state.
Federal food assistance programs, such as the National School Lunch Program, the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, and the Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program (WIC), are in
place in NH to address the nutritional needs of vulnerable populations. During the 2011-2012 school
year, 26.8% of enrolled students in NH were eligible for free or reduced lunch (Annie E. Casey
Foundation, 2012). The NH Farm to School Program encourages schools to serve local foods to all
students. The NH Division of Public Health Services,
in coordination with the NH Department of
Agriculture, currently contracts with local farmers to
provide fruit and vegetable “bundles” to eligible
low-income seniors during the summer when they
pick up their commodity foods. This program also
provides nutrition education and information about
food preparation. For involved farmers, this provides
the security of a known income during the season.
WIC regulations enacted in 2009 provide vouchers
for fruits and vegetables that can be redeemed in grocery stores. Several years ago, the NH WIC
Nutrition and Commodity Supplemental Food Programs issued free fruit and vegetable coupons to
participants to be used at farmers’ markets. However, this program was discontinued due to low
redemption rates (about 35%), likely due to transportation issues. In addition, the regulatory burden
associated with training, reviewing, and monitoring vendors presented barriers for the success of this
program.
Crosscutting Factors
Regional Identity
Although NH is a small state, the topography and road system create natural regional boundaries.
While this presents challenges for distribution, it also fosters strong regional identities that drive the
formation of regionally-oriented groups and organizations, and regions that consumers identify with
as “local” to them. Reinforcing the regional orientation of the local food system, the UNH
Cooperative Extension has one office in each county, which includes educators, support staff, and a
volunteer advisory council of 12 volunteers, a County Commissioner, and a County Delegation
Representative. The county offices are supported through joint funding by the county, UNH, and
USDA (University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, 2012).
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
13
Partnerships between regional groups beyond the agricultural sector, such as Conservation Districts
and Regional Planning Commissions, increasingly support efforts to improve access to local foods.
While the state was our primary unit of analysis, we found that many activities were organized
around ad hoc regions. The regional food systems exist in a unique context with their own challenges
and assets.
Community Building
Through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and the survey findings, it was clear that
shared values and sense of community are deeply embedded among producers and consumers.
Many producers identified a desire to help their communities and to make their products accessible,
recognizing that there may be cost barriers for some consumers. The number one reason consumers
reported purchasing local food products was to support their local economy. These findings are
consistent with the high level of social capital that exists in NH (Gittell, 2007). Several producers
mentioned the value of their relationships with other
small farmers as a source of support, which is reflected
“Our produce sales are decreasing as
more farmers’ markets go up and our
in the initiation of formal and informal support groups,
farmers have their farm stands and CSAs.
such as NOFA, Small and Beginner Farmers of NH, and
It takes away sales from our stores and in
various regional Permaculture Groups. In fact, one of
our mind that’s okay, there’s room for all
the positive aspects raised about the seasonal work of
of that to succeed.”
farming is that it enables farmers to invest in
 Tony White, Director of Operations,
relationship building during the winter months. One
Hanover Food Co-op Stores
farmer stated, “We want to build community so we
know that we will always have a support system.”
Stakeholder Communication
Throughout this project, we learned of many different initiatives throughout the state. There has
been a recent explosion of activities around town, regional, statewide, and New England food
systems involving a wide range of traditional and non-traditional partners including the arts, real
estate, conservation, and education. Activities, such as social and fundraising events that include art
and live music, bring people from various sectors together around local food. The business,
conservation, and agriculture sectors are working together to develop specialty real estate markets
that connect potential farmers with landowners interested in supporting agricultural use of their
land, as well as providing education about negotiating the funding to enable these transactions.
There are also regional initiatives to bring producers and potential institutional or business
customers together (Cheshire County Conservation District, 2012; Dole, et al., 2010). Statewide
initiatives addressing food systems issues include planning for reducing childhood hunger (NH
Hunger Solutions, November 2012) and for long-term water sustainability (NH Sustainability
Commission, 2012). New England-wide initiatives include promotion of land conservation for
agricultural purposes (New England Governors Conference, 2009). These activities at the regional and
state-level, as well as numerous other initiatives, often occur in isolation. This lack of awareness may
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
14
result in duplication of efforts and failure to take advantage of regional and state-level resources and
expertise.
Leadership
NH’s local food system benefits from the efforts of champions from a range of diverse and
continually expanding sectors at all levels of the food system. In an effort to design a statewide food
system plan, Food Solutions New England (FSNE), which is based at the UNH Sustainability Institute,
has launched a statewide design team in which stakeholders from around the state, representing
diverse food system sectors, will begin to discern a strategy for a more robust NH state food system
built on more extensive instate networking and collaboration. Parallel to the state networking
initiative, FSNE is also heading up a New England-wide design planning process to promote a broader
regional approach to food system planning (Food Solutions New England, 2012). This work would not
be possible without support from public institutions and private grant partnerships. Other initiatives,
such as the Monadnock Farm to Community Connection (MFCC), exemplify successful leadership in
bringing sectors together to form a regional coalition that is currently engaged in a strategic planning
process (Cheshire County Conservation District, 2012). This coalition has developed partnerships that
have sponsored educational efforts and engaged in local policy-making around supporting local
farms. The MFCC has supported local food system infrastructure that fosters farm to institution and
farm to restaurant activities through the implementation of aggregation and delivery services and
was instrumental in establishing the Monadnock Food Co-op, which is currently under construction.
The state legislature demonstrated leadership at the state level in passing recent legislation to
expand access to value-added and dairy products (NH Legislature, 2012). This legislation, introduced
on behalf of a group of small farmers in the central part of the state, highlights the accessibility to
state policy-makers and provides an example of balancing local values, economy, and regulation.
Other state-level policy initiatives include working on more local solutions to meat processing
regulations and studying the feasibility of leasing state-owned land to young and beginner farmers.
Producers felt that the local food system would benefit from more state and national legislative
support for local farming, including incentivizing young people to go in to farming and supporting
organizations that provide training and assistance to new/young farmers. NH producers have been
involved in national advocacy around these and other food systems issues affecting NH.
LOOKING FORWARD
The small sample and the time-limited nature of this investigation pose limitations to the findings. Our
sample was weighted toward producers of meat, dairy, and produce and did not include fish, wine, or
grain producers. Several efforts were extended to include fisherman and NH’s local seafood industry in
our study, however, we were unable to engage any representatives in our key informant interviews,
focus groups, or producer survey. Seafood represents an important element of NH’s food system, and
any future work in this area should apply specific focus on this segment.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
15
This study focused on only one of many points of leverage in the food system: the intersection
between consumers and producers. The consumer survey sample represented residents who are
connected with, or engaged in, their local food systems. Nonetheless, this exploration provides a point
of entry and a framework for discussion that may be transferable to other aspects of NH’s local food
system and local food systems around the country. This point of discussion represents one place to
intervene in the local food system that has implications for the entire system (Meadows, 1999). The
following recommendations emerged from our investigation and include those involving practices,
programs, and policies (see Table 3). These components, as well as the recommendations themselves,
are highly interconnected within the local food system. For purposes of discussion, they are presented
here as individual recommendations, but they are actually interdependent and cut across system
components.
Table 3. Summary of Recommendations
Recommendation
Practice
Producers
Consumers
Cross-Cutting
Policy

Enhance Educational and Workforce Development Opportunities
Connect New Farmers to Land
Program



Support and Foster Strategies to Maximize New Hampshire’s Growing Season

Expand In-State Capacity for Meat Processing and Inspection






Increase Efforts to Educate Consumers

Strengthen Direct Sales Models

Improve Access to Locally Produced Foods for Low Income Consumers
Support Multifunctional Farming Approaches


Develop Distribution Systems to Meet the Larger Scale Needs of Institutions


Enhance Opportunities to Foster Farm To Institution Programs


Increase Marketing and Agritourism Efforts


Promote Cross-Fertilization of Ideas, Activities, & Information Across System Levels


Develop & Communicate Evidence of the Value of Sustainable Local Food Systems

Foster Collaboration among Food Systems and Public Health Systems






Producer Related Factors
Enhance Educational and Workforce Development Opportunities
Farming requires a complex set of skills and knowledge, necessitating a skilled labor force and
education and training for farmers. While several statewide organizations provide such training,
there is an ever-increasing demand. The increasing availability of information through technology
provides a potential platform for on-demand, up-to-date information and education for farmers.
Technical schools or community colleges that have the technological infrastructure to support
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
16
distance learning could provide this training. Parts of NH have a large number of refugees, many of
whom were farmers in their native countries. Programs, such as the International Institute of NH and
Lutheran Social Services, are working with these refugees to align their skills with the NH climate and
culture. These experienced farmers could provide labor on farms around the state.
Connecting New Farmers to Land
The combination of younger farmers and expensive real estate creates barriers that could be reduced
by connecting farmers to available farmable land. Land may be available because families are no
longer actively farming, but want to ensure that their land is used for farming. A legislative study
group examining the feasibility of leasing state-owned land to young and beginning farmers, and a
growing market for specialized real estate sales and creative financing to enable these relationships,
offer promise. Increasing opportunities exist to lease farm land and for young farmers to live on a
farm in exchange for farming. Reducing the 10-acre
“We need stronger laws that protect
threshold for current use assessment (NH Department of
potential farmland from speculative
Revenue Administration, 2012), thereby reducing property
land pricing, so prospective farmers
could afford to buy it.”
tax burden, might also facilitate the establishment of small
farms. Emerging trends toward supporting local
 Consumer survey respondent
development, such as those offered by the Slow Money
movement (Tasch, 2009), and an increasing desire for land conservation, also present potential
opportunities. These initiatives provide mechanisms for connecting the interests and abilities of new
farmers to resources that might not be ordinarily available to them and benefactors who seek to shift
their investment from the traditional business model to one that incorporates contemporary
economic, social, and environmental realities.
Support and Foster Strategies to Maximize New Hampshire’s Growing Season
Possible strategies for maximizing NH’s short growing season include investing in infrastructure for
year-round growing and expanding winter farmers’ markets. With the necessary capital or support,
producers can begin or continue to invest in the infrastructure needed to grow year round. Existing
successful private-producer partnerships could be expanded. For example, hospitals, schools, and
cooperative markets have invested in infrastructure (e.g., hoop house, greenhouse) on farms to
ensure that winter crops are available to them. Producers may work with co-ops to coordinate preseason planning to ensure a market for non-traditional winter crops. Establishing shared kitchens and
processing facilities for canning, freezing, or storage would enable the preservation of fresh foods for
year-round sales.
Expand In-State Capacity for Meat Processing and Inspection
A potential solution for the lack of meat inspection infrastructure is for the NH state legislature and
the agricultural community to work with the USDA to gain approval for a state meat processing
facility program passed by the NH state legislature in 2011. If approved by the USDA, the program
would also need initial funding from the state legislature. This program could be structured in various
ways, such as having a state inspector or private third party inspector overseen by the state.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
17
Regardless of the eventual structure, it is projected that such a program could eventually be selffunding through per-animal slaughter fees and annual fees paid by inspectors and slaughterhouses.
While scale alone is not an indicator of sanitation issues that could present public health hazards, a
less expensive inspection system, implemented and administered on a state or local level could be
specifically designed to address public health concerns inherent in a small or local processing
operation.
Consumer Related Factors
Increase Efforts to Educate Consumers
There are opportunities to enhance consumer awareness
“Consumers need to see where their
and understanding of the local food system, the benefits of
food comes from, there is a serious
buying local, and ways to use local, seasonal products in
disconnect, and many times that
order to grow the consumer base. Existing education
affects their willingness to pay a fair
channels, such as the NH Farms Network (Brody, n.d.), comarket price.”
ops, and publications, can be expanded. Businesses that
 Producer survey respondent
serve or sell locally-produced foods should explicitly
promote the specific farms as well as the benefits of buying local. In addition, efforts should be
broadened in order to reach those not currently buying local products. Consumers identified
supporting their local communities as the top reason for buying local products. Reinforcing the
connection between supporting local foods and the socioeconomic health of the community may
facilitate the development of the local food system.
Strengthen Direct Sales Models
Having fewer and larger farmers’ markets with flexible
hours could result in a wider variety of product
availability at times convenient to consumers. This
alternative might also translate into opportunities for
more centralized and profitable markets for producers.
This may be an opportunity for the NH Farmers’ Market
Association to test new models for farmers’ markets.
Businesses could also include CSA membership as an
employee benefit.
Improve Access to Locally Produced Foods for Low Income Consumers
Opportunities may exist beyond conventional federal food assistance programs to link low-income
consumers to locally produced foods. For example, in the absence of the WIC Farmers’ Market
Nutrition Program, the NH Department of Agriculture might take a lead role in promoting
supplemental support in the interest of supporting local producers. Expanding the practice of
“gleaning,” or the collection of edible, but unsalable foods (such as those with blemishes) from fields
after harvesting may be another way to link low-income consumers to local foods through food
banks or pantries. This practice presents unique challenges, however, since it relies on volunteer
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
18
labor during a specific window of opportunity. Expanding the establishment of community and
school gardens that provide food for social service agencies and food pantries is another way to
connect local consumers with locally-produced foods. Several institutionalized efforts demonstrate a
desire to integrate public health and food systems and make explicit connections between them,
such as including access to healthy food as a measure of the County Health Rankings project by the
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Wisconsin and state support of the NH
Healthy Eating Active Living Program.
Crosscutting Factors
Support Multifunctional Farming Approaches
Recent research identifies a trend in multifunctional farming to improve viability and profitability of
small farms and rural communities (Liang, 2012; Van der Ploeg & Roep, 2003). Multifunctional
farming entails a combination of approaches, including broadening, deepening, and regrounding
activities, which support the development of sustainable food systems (Brown, Goetz, & Fleming,
2012).
 Broadening Activities - Diversifying to include new
goods and services that foster linkages between
farms, visitors, and community attractions, such as
agritourism.
 Deepening Activities - Refocusing agricultural
production to better meet consumer demands, such
as increasing direct sales to consumers.
 Regrounding Activities - Readjusting or refocusing
household resources, such as off-farm employment to
support farm operations.
This approach may be cultivated by various organizations, such as the UNH Cooperative Extension,
offering support to farmers to expand on-farm activities. Various combinations of these strategies
were identified and/or have been implemented by NH farmers and organizations, as cited
throughout this paper, and are included in many of the following crosscutting recommendations.
Develop Distribution Systems to Meet the Larger Scale Needs of Institutions
A food hub could make the distribution process easier for
“I would love to see a food hub. I think
both producers and institutions. Opportunities exist for the
coordination and cooperation between
further development of regional food hub initiatives
farms would be the greatest thing to
currently underway. In our producer survey, 82% of
improve connecting people to their
food.”
producers said they would be interested in selling to a food
hub. In a survey done by the International Institute of NH of
 Producer survey respondent
institutions in southern NH, 82% of institutions said that
they would buy more local food if they could go through a food hub (International Institute of New
Hampshire, 2012). In addition, more local producers are working with local distributors to transport
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
19
their food to institutions. With this model, institutions can work out agreements with their existing
distributors instead of working with numerous local farmers individually.
Enhance Opportunities to Foster Farm to Institution Programs
While the development of food hubs around the state may assist in making connections between
farms and institutions, it is essential that institution-specific federal, state, and local requirements for
serving local foods are understood. Programs in child care centers and schools that subsidize fresh
fruits and vegetables for low income students and school gardening programs promote access for
these populations. The NH Farm to School Program has been an excellent resource for these
activities. Hospitals have opportunities to promote access to local foods at many points in their food
systems, from their public cafeterias to their inpatient food
“Farmers don’t want to leave the farm,
services. Schools and hospitals also serve as centers of
chefs don’t want to leave the
activity within their communities that make them good sites
restaurants – a food hub can address
for farmers’ markets, CSA pick-up points, and educational
this!”
activities related to healthy eating or preparing fresh foods.
 The NH Food Hub Project Team
NH Farm to Restaurant Connection (NHFRC) links farms to
food businesses. The interdisciplinary board of NHFRC is undertaking numerous activities, including a
recent “Certified Local” program for restaurants (NH Farm to Restaurant Connection, 2012).
Institutions should promote their collaboration with farms and the specific farms they work with to
their stakeholders and customers. At the individual farm level, sharing of resources such as
equipment or cold storage facilities may enable larger scale production and provide some assurance
that bulk quantities and consistent supply are available (Dole, et al., 2010)
Increase Marketing and Agritourism Efforts
Travel and tourism represent the second most important export
industry for the state of NH (Goss, 2011). Agritourism ventures
provide opportunities to enhance linkages between consumers
and producers of local foods. Activities or opportunities that bring
consumers to the farm increase consumer awareness about the
food system and provide producers with a direct connection to
their consumers and an additional opportunity for direct sales.
The NH Department of Agriculture is working with the NH
Department of Resources and Economic Development to increase awareness of agricultural events.
Promote Cross-Fertilization of Ideas, Activities, and Information Across System Levels
We found linkages between consumers and producers of local foods, as well as organizers of local
food initiatives, in many directions and at various system levels. See Figure 1 for examples of these
linkages within and between groups. Fostering these connections that enable communication within
and across groups, while honoring the unique differences across regions, will increase the
effectiveness of the existing system. FSNE initiatives serve to promote this communication and
network-building capacity among and between diverse food system sectors. Existing e-mail lists and
newsletters (e.g., NOFA, Small and Beginner Farmers) are limited to members. However, the
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
20
increasing use of social media tools has great potential for increasing communication among all
interested groups, and was identified as an area of interest for training (Dole, et al., 2010).
Continuing to develop or expand existing connections with other sectors at the local and state levels,
such as public health, education, business, government, and the arts, will raise awareness of the local
food system and its interconnection to our health, economy, and culture.
Develop Evidence and Communicate the Value of Sustainable Local Food Systems
Legislative and public support of food system changes
will be enhanced when we can demonstrate the value of
“We’ve seen a surge in the local food
movement, but question whether it is
developing our food systems, the true cost of food, the
sustainable without an overarching vision
connection between healthy farms and a healthy
from a systems perspective.”
economy, and the link to community and population
 Regina Flynn, Program Manager,
health. The development of strong connections that
Obesity Prevention Program, NH
enable the exchange of data, information, and
Division of Public Health Services, NH
Food Advisory Council Member
knowledge would benefit the state, the New England
region, and beyond. The UNH School of Law’s
interactions with NH Department of Agriculture provides a unique opportunity to provide training for
young professionals, while leveraging food law expertise for state policies and practices.
Conventional and emerging methods of public health systems analyses (deLeon & Varda, 2009;
Homer & Hirsch, 2006; Varda, Shoup, & Miller, 2012; Wholey, Gregg, & Moscovice, 2009) and the use
of standardized tools (e.g.,the Community Food Systems Assessment, the Retail/Farm Index)
(McCabe, 2010) can provide evidence of what works well and highlight opportunities for positive
change that may be valuable to legislators, the health system, businesses, and other sectors. These
models have been introduced at the state level in the work of the “Business as Usual” Modeling and
the state and regional food planning of FSNE and at the regional level through the work of the
Monadnock Farm and Community Connection Project.
Foster Collaboration among Food Systems and Public Health Systems
The formation of agricultural policy at the federal level does not easily align with the NH reality of a
regionally-focused food system. Although federal regulations provide important safeguards for public
health, food system reformers often focus on expanding the role of individual consumers and
community organizations in shaping the local food system (McCabe, 2010). This focus aligns more
closely with NH culture, geography, and politics. Initiatives currently in place around the country,
such as the development of food policy councils, foster this notion and provide models for
community involvement (American Planning Association, 2012; Flournoy, 2011; McCabe, 2010). Food
policy councils coordinate local food system efforts, including researching food production,
identifying priorities, and planning improvements. In order to develop an effective food system that
benefits the health of all members of the community, it is critical to involve representatives of the
public health sector in food systems planning, and for those leading food systems initiatives to
consider public health issues. Collaboration between public health and food systems planners will
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
21
Figure 1. Examples of Linkages of Producers, Consumers, and Organizers
help both sectors to be more effective in their own work, increase overall knowledge of both sectors,
and help to create a healthy food system for all community members.
Current changes in the structure of NH’s regional public health system make this an opportune time
to embed food systems work within the developing structure. In addition, the existing county-based
UNH Cooperative Extension structure includes educators, support staff, and a county Advisory
Council that may help provide a strong beginning for integrating regional food systems as part of the
local public health system. Work around the integration of public health and food systems planning
has already begun at the NH and New England-levels through FSNE. This group will be able to provide
guidance to the NH regions working towards this integration.
CONCLUSION
NH’s local food system is complex and adaptive. Many existing innovative strategies promote
exchanges between producers and consumers of locally produced foods that include individual
practices, coordinated regional programs, and statewide policy. NH’s high level of social capital and
access to legislators allows for the adoption of practices and laws that support the development of the
local food system in ways that reflect the values of NH’s residents. Collaboration between public health
and food systems planners will help to create a healthy food system for all community members.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
22
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the over 500 NH residents who helped inform this project through interviews,
focus groups, surveys, and reviews of drafts of this paper.
Funding for this series is provided by the Healthy Farms, Healthy People Coalition through a CDC
cooperative agreement administered by the National Network of Public Health Institutes. ChangeLab
Solutions provided technical assistance for the series. The views and opinions of these authors and
organizations are not necessarily those of CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Planning Association. (2012). Food Policy Councils: Helping local, regional, and state governments address food
system challenges. Retrieved 16 November, 2012, from
http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health/briefingpapers/foodcouncils.htm
American Public Health Association. (2007). Toward a healthy, sustainable food system: Policy No. 200712. Retrieved
December 30, 2012, from http://www.apha.org/APHA/CMS_Templates/PolicySearch.aspx?NRMODE=Published&
NRNODEGUID={40FCA601-747E-4190-936BBBB2DB8CDD36}&NRORIGINALURL=%2fadvocacy%2fpolicy%
2fpolicysearch%2fdefault.htm%3fid%3d1 361&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest&id=1361#top
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012). Free/Reduced School Lunch Eligibility Rate by District (Percent) – 2011-2012. Kids Count
Data Center. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bystate/Rankings.aspx?state=NH&ind=7126
Arriens, J. (2012). Sales increase even in face of safety concerns. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news/news-26jan2009.htm
Ascheim, J., Aversa, B., Frey, K., LaFave, L. A., Twitchell, N., & Norton, J. W. (2011). Creating a regional public health system:
Results of assessments to inform the planning process. Concord, NH: NH Health and Human Services, Division of Public
Health Services.
Barnham, J. (2010). Getting to scale with regional food hubs. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from
http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/12/14/getting-to-scale-with-regional-food-hubs/
Brody, H. (n.d.). The New Hampshire Farms Network. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from www.newhampshirefarms.net
Brown, J., Goetz, S. J., & Fleming, D. A. (2012). Multifunctional agriculture and farm viability in the US.
Burke, J. D. (2011). Just food: Obesity trends demand system strategies. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 5(3), 222228.
Callahan, K. (2012). Are two slaughterhouses enough to handle meat processing in the entire state? Retrieved December 7,
2012, from http://www.nhbr.com/news/977930-395/are-two-slaughterhouses-enough-to-handle-meat.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Overweight and obesity. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes/index.html
Cheshire County Conservation District. (2012). Monadnock Farm and Community Connection. Retrieved December 29,
2012, from http://cheshireconservation.org/MFCC
Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2011). Household food security in the United States in 2010.
Economic Research Report No. (ERR-125). Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR125/ERR125.pdf
deLeon, P., & Varda, D. M. (2009). Toward a theory of collaborative policy networks: Identifying structural tendencies.
Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 59-74.
Dillon, M., & Rogers, S. (2009). New Hampshire Civic Health Index 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=carsey
Dole, R. E., Luke, S. L., Smith, R., Young, S., & Yazzie-Whitcomb, H. (2010). Capital Area Farm & Community Connection
Infrastructure Inventory Project. Retrieved February 8, 2013, from
http://mysare.sare.org/mySARE/assocfiles/937552SARE%20Final%20Report.pdf
Driscoll, D., Rojas-Smith, L., Sotnikov, S., Gadsden-Knowles, K., Perry, N. B., Lenaway, D. D., et al. (2006). An instrument for
assessing public health system performance: validity in rural settings. Journal of Rural Health, 22(3), 254-259.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
23
Federation of Tax Administrators. (2011). 2011 State tax revenue. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/11taxbur.html
Finkelstein, E. A., Trogdon, J. G., Cohen, J. W., & Dietz, W. (2009). Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: Payerand service-specific estimates. Health Affairs, 28(5), w822-w831.
Flournoy, R. (2011). Healthy food, healthy communities: Promising strategies to improve access to healthy food and
transform communities. Lifting Up What Works.Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.policylink.org/atf/cf/%7B97c6d565-bb43-406d-a6d5-eca3bbf35af0%7D/HFHC_FULL_FINAL.PDF
Food Solutions New England. (2012). Food Solutions New England. Retrieved November 29, 2012, from
http://foodsolutionsne.org/content/about
Food Systems and Public Health Conference Work Team. (2012). Principles of a healthy, sustainable food system.
Retrieved November 11, 2012, from http://www.planning.org/nationalcenters/health/foodprinciples.htm
Gittell, R. (2007). What makes New Hampshire special? The real NH Advantage: 2006 Social Capital Community Benchmark
Survey, A Project of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. Available from
http://www.nhpolicy.org/reports/what_is_nh_2008.pdf
Goss, L. (2011). New Hampshire Fiscal Year 2010 Tourism Satellite Account. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:r2aA1wFEJo4J:jupiter.plymouth.edu/inhs/EconomicReports/Tourism_S
atellite_Account_FY2010.doc+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjm3J6AaPCYBMnWNjEVGCbCNgpg7pwttP2db_qfO
xfY1xPh9iCQQ5TLbSR3J8nnK73Ni6rvN6ixSgRwpQ-Rd6nnEWdit_PCi42RMaOOPbId8K8z5UvIDAE_x9yBRDl46zhkFH_
S&sig=AHIEtbTnEBO8oRak2W0_LtUzGkVgXF1IXw
Gundersen, C., Kreider, B., & Pepper, J. (2011). The economics of food insecurity in the United States. Applied Economic
Perspectives and Policy, 33(3), 281-303.
Hart Research Associates. (2009). Americans' attitudes on food safety. Washington, D.C.: Pew Charitable Trusts.
Healthy Eating Active Living Convergence Partnership. (2008). Promising strategies for creating healthy eating active living
environments. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from http://www.convergencepartnership.org/atf/cf/%7B245A9B446DED-4ABD-A392-AE583809E350%7D/CP_Promising%20Strategies_printed.pdf
Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 33-45.
Hodgson, K. (2012). Planning for food access and community-based food systems: A national scan and evaluation of local
comprehensive and sustainability plans. Retrieved December 27, 2012, from
http://www.planning.org/research/foodaccess/pdf/foodaccessreport.pdf
Homer, J. B., & Hirsch, G. B. (2006). System dynamics modeling for public health: background and opportunities. American
Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 452-458.
International Institute of New Hampshire. (2012). NH Institutional Buyers [Data file]. International Institute of New
Hampshire.
Jackson, R. J., Minjares, R., Naumoff, K. S., Shrimali, B. P., & Martin, L. K. (2009). Agriculture policy is health policy. Journal of
Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 4(3-4), 393-408.
Jayasinghe, S. (2011). Conceptualising population health: From mechanistic thinking to complexity science. Emerging
Themes in Epidemiology, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.ete-online.com/content/8/1/2
Liang, C.-l. (2012). Community-based multifunctional farms in New England and implications for rural developmentWebinar. Retrieved December 29, 2012, from
http://www.uvm.edu/tourismresearch/agtour/publication/Multifunctional_Farms_Webinar_12-11-2012_Slides.pdf
Lougee, J. (2009). Sustaining agriculture in the Granite State: A citizen’s guide to restoring our local foods, farms and
independence. Durham, NH: The NH Coalition for Sustaining Agriculture.
Magnusson, M., & Gittell, R. (2010). Home grown: Local food systems in New Hampshire. Durham, NH: Food Solutions of
New England/University of New Hampshire.
Martinez, S., Hand, M., DaPra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., et al. (2010). Local food systems: Concepts, impacts and
issues (No. 24313): USDA.
McCabe, M. S. (2010). Reconsidering Federalism and the Farm: Toward Including Local, State, and Regional Voices in
America's Food System. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from http://works.bepress.com/margaret_sova_mccabe/2
Meadows, D. H. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute.
Merrill, L. (2012). New slaughter facility open for business, Weekly Market Bulletin (Vol. 91, pp. 1). Concord, NH: New
Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food.
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013). Constituents per state legislative district. Retrieved February 4, 2013,
from http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/redist/constituents-per-state-legislative-district.aspx
NetState. (2012). New Hampshire Geography. Retrieved November 10, 2012, from
http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/nh_geography.htm
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
24
New England Governors Conference. (2009). Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Land Conservation. Retrieved
December 28, 2012, from http://negc.org/main/admin/uploads/20_negc_clc_report_909.pdf
NH Department of Agriculture. (2011). 2011-2012 NH community supported agriculture farms (CSA) & community
supported fisheries (CSF). Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://agriculture.nh.gov/publications/documents/csa.pdf
NH Department of Agriculture. (2012a). 2012 Farmer's Markets. Retrieved November 16, 2012, from
http://www.nh.gov/agric/publications/documents/farmersmarkets.pdf
NH Department of Agriculture. (2012b). New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food. Retrieved November
16, 2012, from http://agriculture.nh.gov/aboutus.htm
NH Department of Agriculture. (2012c). NH Winter Farmers' Markets 2012-2013. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://www.agriculture.nh.gov/documents/2012-13Winterfarmersmarkets.pdf
NH Department of Revenue Administration. (2012). State of NH current use criteria booklet for April 1, 2012 - March 31,
2013. Retrieved from http://www.revenue.nh.gov/munc_prop/current_use/documents/2012-booklet.pdf.
NH Farm to Restaurant Connection. (2012). The New Hampshire Farm to Restaurant Connection: Promoting New
Hampshire farms and food producers to restaurants, schools, food markets, hospitals and the public. Retrieved
December 9, 2012, from www.nhfarmtorestaurant.com/
NH Hunger Solutions. (November 2012). New Hampshire roadmap to end childhood hunger. Retrieved December 27, 2012,
from http://www.childrennh.org/web/Hunger%20Solutions/Plan%20Release/ The%20NH%20Roadmap%20to%20End%
20Childhood%20Hunger%20-%20Detailed%20Plan.pdf
AN ACT relative to the sale of homemade food and licensing of certain milk producer-distributors. (2012).
NH Sustainability Commission. (2012). New Hampshire lives on water. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://www.governor.nh.gov/media/news/2012/121712-water-issues.htm
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire. (2012). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://nofanh.org/
Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. (2012). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.nesare.org/
Ogden, C., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2012). Prevalence of obesity in the United States, 2009-2010: NCHS Data
Brief No. 82. Retrieved from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db82.pdf.
Plymouth State University. (2012). Center for Rural Partnerships. Retrieved December 28, 2012, from
www.plymouth.edu/center-for-rural-partnerships/
Small and Beginner Farmers of New Hampshire. (n.d.). About SBFNH. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.sbfnh.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=176
Sparks, G. (2012). More communities warm up to winter markets national farmers market directory sees 52 percent spike in
winter listings. Retrieved December 28, 2012, from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?
template=TemplateU&navID=&page=Newsroom&resultType=Details&dDocName=STELPRDC5101473&dID=178935&w
f=false&description=More+Communities+Warm+Up+to+Winter+Markets+National+Farmers+Market+Directory+Sees+
52+Percent+Spike+in+Winter+Listings&topNav=Newsroom&leftNav=&rightNav1=&rightNav2
NH State Constitution, Part 2, Art XV(1783/2007).
Stracuzzi, N., & Ward, S. (2010). What’s for dinner? Finding and affording healthy foods in New Hampshire communities.
New England Issue Brief, 21. Retrieved from http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_StracuzziWard_Healthy_Food.pdf
Tasch, W. (2009). Inquiries into the nature of Slow Money: Investing as if food, farms, and fertility mattered. White River
Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.
Taylor, D. A. (2008). Does one size fit all?: Small farms and U.S. meat regulations. Environmental Health Perspectives
Retrieved 4 February, 2013, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599784/
The New Hampshire Institute of Agriculture and Forestry. (n.d.). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.nhiaf.org/#!about
Trust for America’s Health. (2009). Keeping America’s food safe: A blueprint for fixing the food safety system at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from
http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/2009FoodSafetyReport.pdf
Trust for America’s Health. (2012a). Bending the obesity cost curve in New Hamsphire. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from
http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/TFAHSept2012_ALL_ObesityBriefs.pdf
Trust for America’s Health. (2012b). F as in Fat. Retrieved November 11, 2012, from
http://healthyamericans.org/report/100/
Trust for America’s Health. (2012c). Key health data about New Hampshire. Retrieved December 28, 2012, from
http://healthyamericans.org/states/?stateid=NH#section=3,year=2012,code=undefined
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
25
United Health Foundation. (2011). America’s health rankings. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://www.americashealthrankings.org
United Health Foundation. (2012). America's health rankings. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/NH/2012
University of New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station. (2011). Organic Dairy Research Farm. Retrieved January 22,
2013, from http://colsa.unh.edu/aes/odrf
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. (2012). New Hampshire Agricultural Commissions. Retrieved
November 16, 2012, from http://extension.unh.edu/Agric/AgComm/NHAGCom.htm#AG_Six
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. (2013). Retrieved January 22, 2013, from
http://extension.unh.edu/resources/category/Agriculture
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Real Education in Agricultural Management. (2011). What is CREAM? Retrieved
January 22, 2013, from http://www.unh.edu/cream/about.html
University of New Hampshire School of Law. (2013). Students in Food and Animal Law Classes Visit UNH Dairy Farms.
Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://law.unh.edu/news/2011/04/students-in-food-and-animal-law-classes-visitunh-dairy-farms
University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute. (2012). Retrieved January 22, 2013
University of New Hampshire Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems. (2011). Major in Sustainable Agriculture and Food
Systems. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://colsa.unh.edu/aes/odrf
USDA. (2009). 2007 Census of Agriculture: US Summary and State Data. Geographic Area Series, Part 5 Retrieved December
30, 2012, from http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
USDA. (2012a). Know your farmer, know your food. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER
USDA. (2012b). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average monthly participation. Retrieved December 30, 2012,
from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15SNAPpartPP.htm
Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Roep, D. (2003). Multifunctionality in rural development: The actual situation in Europe. In G. Van
Huylenboeck & G. Durand (Eds.), Multifunctional Agriculture: A New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural
Development. Hampshire: Ashgate.
Varda, D. M., Shoup, J. A., & Miller, S. (2012). A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public
affairs literature: implications for public health practice and research. American Journal of Public Health, 103(3), 564571.
Wauchope, B., & Ward, S. (2012). Mapping food insecurity and food sources in New Hampshire cities and towns. Durham,
NH: Carsey Insitute and the Children's Alliance of NH.
Wholey, D. R., Gregg, W., & Moscovice, I. (2009). Public health systems: A social networks perspective. Health Services
Research, 44(5), 1842-1862.
The Intersection of Producers and Consumers within New Hampshire’s Food System
26