Introduction food has served many purposes

Introduction food has served many purposes

For people around the world and throughout history, food has served many purposes:

nourishment, cultural and social tradition, employment and livelihood, and pleasure. However,

mounting commoditization, industrialization, centralization, and globalization of the agriculture

and food systems are changing the way food is produced, distributed, and acquired around the

world, meaning a smaller number of large global entities than ever throughout history controls

food that travels farther than ever before. Large food processors and retailers produce and

market enormous quantities of standardized, uniform products and have significant decision

making power in determining how and where agricultural production takes place, taking

up to 25 percent farther than it did in 1980 (Pirog, Van Pelt, Enshayan, & Cook, 2001). Cheap

gasoline and transportation subsidies have also facilitated the expansion (Halweil, 2003) with

grave environmental costs. While agricultural yields skyrocketed throughout the 20th century –

increasing by 25 percent in the 1940s, 20 percent in the 1950s, 17 percent in the 1960s, 28

percent in the 1980s – this was only at the expense of more and more fossil fuels, with every

calorie of food actually produced now costing ten to several hundred calories of energy. Sadly

enough, most of this energy goes up in smoke from the exhausts of smokestacks and tailpipes.

Along with these developments, heightened use of chemicals in the production of produce, use of

antibiotics and growth hormones in animal production, and mounting contamination scares may

be weakening of consumers’ faith in the food system (Clancy, 1997). Agricultural communities

transportation and the social breakdown of agricultural communities are actually likely to be

heightened with the use of GMOs, considering it would require an increase in centralized,

industrial, corporate production. The prospects of a localized system utilizing GMOs are poor

considering the high costs of research, development, and other technical aspects, which create

large economies of scale. A food system of engineered products is inherently global (Magdoff,

Foster, & Buttel, 2000; Altieri, 2000).

To address these sorts of concerns specialists from relevant fields and communities

around the world are developing alternative ways of producing, distributing, and consuming

foods. The City of Portland, Oregon, along with many other urban areas, is turning to the idea of

community food security and a community-based, local, sustainable food system – a

economic capital, increased nourishment and food security, support for sustainable agriculture

and smaller family farms, direct producer/consumer links, increased citywide self-reliance, and a

direct reduction in the energy dependence of the city.

acquisition, consumption, etc.; however, this paper focuses only on the distribution element of

reaches the consumer. It is also the focal point for efforts to alter and condense the route from

producer to consumer. Additionally, it is the point where corporate control over food systems

can be most difficult to break down, considering globalization has created enormous economies

of scale that undercut the price of locally-produced commodities and are highly technical, posing

high barriers to firm entry. Food systems and food distribution are especially important to study

within an urban setting such as Portland because over the years many cultural, social, and

economic factors have significantly separated urban populations from food production.

This paper focuses on efforts toward community- and locally-based sustainability in an

urban food system using food distribution in Portland as a case study, in an attempt to understand

why the movement has been so successful there. Chapter One provides background information

regarding the nature of food systems, their importance in urban areas, and the goals and values of

a local food system. After gaining some understanding of what a local food system is and what

it stands for, Chapter Two presents theoretical models to help explain why Portland’s movement

for a local food system has been so successful. Chapters Three and Four present the case study

of Portland’s local food system movement, in two parts. Lastly, Chapter Five describes how

Portland’s movement exhibits the theoretical elements of Chapter Two, focusing on three

indicators, and provides conclusion to the paper.

The set of operations and processes involved in transforming raw materials into foods

and transforming nutrients into health outcomes, all of which functions as a system

concepts, the integrated model expounded in this paper considers the processes that occur within

materials, and output of products. Overall, these nine stages represent key processes in the

system: production, processing, distribution, acquisition, preparation, consumption, digestion,

transport, and metabolism of food products (Figure 1). Starting with raw materials, flow through

this system transforms crops into food products that are distributed to consumers, who reap

nutritional and health-related outcomes.

Figure 1. Food and nutrition system: subsystems and stages (Sobal et al., 1998)

This is not to make it seem as though the food system operates mechanically or

identically in all communities. Food systems are a result of a wide variety of environmental,

social, and economic conditions, as well as the work of various individuals and institutions

throughout the stages (Figure 2). Materials, energy, and information continuously flow within

systems, subsystems, and the environment in which they exist, resulting in dynamic differences

example, the food production and waste disposal stages may be principle concerns. Food

systems can also be diagrammed as a function of these myriad influences (Figure 2).

Distribution

producers and consumers of most foods were the same – family members, close neighbors, or at

least members of the same community or region. Over time, however, diversifying food

companies, centralization of processing plants, and globalization of food sources have widened

the gap between farmers and their markets (Clancy, 1997). Although a portion of consumers in

industrialized nations still rely on some home-scale food production and processing, most use

market distribution channels as points of food access (Sobal et al., 1998). Currently, major

market distribution streams include the wholesale and retail streams (supermarkets, food

Choices made within these streams by consumers, producers, processors, and other participants

in the food system have significant impacts on our natural, social, economic, and cultural

environments as well as the structure of the food system.

Sociocultural Environment

Any food system operates within and is influenced by social, economic, and biophysical

environments, with each step additionally dependent on people to provide labor, research, and

agricultural techniques, and cultural traditions. It constantly interacts with other systems,

including economy, government, culture, health care, and transportation. These exchanges are

essential for proper operation of the food system and a successful food system must be flexible

enough to withstand fluctuation and change in these other systems (Sobal et al., 1998). Scarcity

of inputs, mismanagement of outputs, or the inability to successfully connect with the proper

social and environmental systems can limit the ability of a food system to function, resulting in

food insecurity and hunger that undermine people’s ability to live, work, and learn, and in food

Urban Food Systems

In general, urban areas are hotspots for food insecurity. Urban residents generally have

far less awareness of and are far more physically separated from food production. As urban

populations become poorer, food insecurity is found increasingly in cities. More than half of the

world’s population will be living in urban areas by 2008, the urban population grows by more

than 180,000 each day, and over 750 million of the world’s poorest people live in urban areas

choices at cheaper prices it often makes access to locally produced foods very difficult.

Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) argue that although these food issues should be a top priority of

metropolitan public policy, the average citizen and most urban planners perceive them as “falling

within the purview of rural policy, applying mainly to farmers” and thus ignore them.

Admittedly, food is generally produced outside of urban areas, and urban historian Arnold

Toynbee (1970) even went so far as to define cities entirely by their inability to provide a

selfsufficient food system: “A city is a human settlement whose inhabitants cannot produce,

within the city limits, all of the food they need for keeping them alive.” While Toynbee may not

endorse such a food system, the idea that cities do not need to produce their own food has

conceptually distanced food issues from urban issues, even though food matters are economically

because they not only spend a higher proportion of their incomes on food but may also

experience a lack of choices due to lower rates of automobile ownership and a general lack of

supermarkets in inner-city areas (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). So while food matters seem to

have great importance in urban areas, Pothukuchi and Kaufman (1999) have identified four

significant factors in why the food system has low priority among urban policy officials and city

residents:

• technology (transportation, mechanized farming, refrigeration, food processing) has

rendered invisible in local food retail the loss of local farmland; and

• a “persistent dichotomy” in public policy between urban and rural policy, especially

in the United States.

The range of these goals is quite wide – preservation of farmland is a fairly objective, empirical

pursuit that is easily measured, while heightened pleasure in eating is a far more subjective,

participatory matter difficult to measure or control. Communities and regions more likely to

Enacting change in the food system is not a simple process, however. Rosset (2000) and

obstacle. They also discuss the psychological barrier to believing alternatives can work that is

created by this obstacle. Heffernan (1999) discusses how, as consolidation in corporate food

companies increases, major decisions in the food system are increasingly made by a declining

number of agri-business and retail firms, with little room left in the decision making process for

independent farmers. Even policy changes are unlikely to bring about revolution, considering

the strength of this corporate power (Altieri, 2000). With five major retail firms accounting for

over 40 percent of food sales in the United States (up from 20 percent in 1993) (Hendrickson, et

Literature on globalizing food systems acknowledges the salience of the growing

movement for sustainability, but critiques whether the movement will ever gain hold in the face

of such difficulties to overcome. Altieri (2000) and Henderson (2000) argue that the lack of

Cornell College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (Cornell CALS). (2004). Community food

system information. Retrieved 10 May 2004, from

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/agfoodcommunity.html.

PA: FoodRoutes Network.

www.nfu.org/images/heffernan_1999.pdf.

Henderson, E. (2000). Rebuilding local food systems from the grassroots up. In F. Magdoff,

J.B. Foster, & F. Buttel (Eds.), Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers,

Food, and the Environment (pp. 175-188). New York: New York University Press.

Hendrickson, M., Heffernan, W.D., Howard, P.H., & Heffernan, J.B. (2001). Consolidation in

food retailing and dairy: Implications for farmers and consumers in a global food system.

Report to the National Farmers Union. Retrieved 25 November 2005, from

http://www.nfu.org/images/heffernan.pdf.

Koc, M., MacRae, R., Mougeot, L. J. A., & Walsh, J. (2000). Introduction: Food security is a

global concern. In M. Koc, R. MacRae, L. J. A. Mougeot & J. Walsh (Eds.), For

hungerproof cities: Sustainable urban food systems (pp. 1-10). Ottawa: International

Perkins, E. (1999). Public policy and the transition to locally based food networks. In M. Koc,

R. MacRae, L. J. A. Mougeot & J. Walsh (Eds.), For hunger-proof cities: Sustainable

urban food systems (pp. 60-66). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

213-224.

Redclift, N., & Mingione, E. (1985). Introduction. In N. Redclift & E. Mingione (Eds.), Beyond

employment: Household, gender, and subsistence. New York: Basil Blackwell.

Rosset P.M. (2000). Cuba: A successful case study of sustainable agriculture. In F. Magdoff,

J.B. Foster, & F. Buttel (Eds.), Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers,

Food, and the Environment (pp. 203-214). New York: New York University Press.

Senaur, B., Asp, E., & Kinsey, J. (1991). The food industry: An overview and implications of

consumer trends. In Senaur, Asp & Kinsey (Eds.), Food trends and the changing

Smit, J., Ratta, A., & Nasr, J. (1996). Urban agriculture: Food, jobs and sustainable cities. (Vol.

1. Publication Series for Habitat II). New York: United Nations Development

United Nations Statistics Division. (2006). Urban and total population by sex: 1994 – 2003.

Retrieved 19 April 2006, from

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/DYB2003/Table06.pdf.

Review by the Roots of Change Council and the Roots of Change Fund. Portland, OR:

Ecotrust Food & Farms program.

Wilkins, J. L. (2000). Sustainable food systems. In Earth Pledge Foundation (Ed.), Sustainable

cuisine white papers. New York: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

World Bank. (2004). Urbanization and Cities – Facts & Figures. Retrieved Dec. 4, 2004, from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20149913~men

uPK:34457~pagePK:64003015~piPK:64003012~theSitePK:4607,00.html.

Change

The interdisciplinary nature of a food system, particularly that of a local food system,

implicates a wide variety of theoretical models. There is little to no literature currently available

to answer the question of why a sustainable food system movement such as Portland’s is

movements. Eileen Brady, having worked with colleagues for many years to explore and map

the conceptual matters behind a successfully sustainable food system, explained to me what she

and others believe is the major difference between a truly successful attempt for a local food

system and those that fail or fall short. This paper recognizes the work of Brady and her

colleagues on the Vivid Picture Project, resulting from years of work amongst national food

system leaders and synthesizing information gathered from people working at all points of the

food system, as a given, then exploring other disciplines that expand upon and help explain this

theory.

Brady begins by clarifying what she calls a theory of change underlying the project’s

recommended strategy for change, indicating that every movement has some underlying

movement is actually trying to change (personal communication, January 10, 2006). A theory of

change may describe who is included in a movement, who holds the power, who the key change

agents are, and what exactly they are trying to change. In a movement for a sustainable or local

action, as well as the values underlying the movement. It would also describe at what levels the

movement is trying to enact change, for instance with consumers, farmers, intermediaries, small

businesses, local officials, large corporations, or any others.

The Vivid Picture Project’s theory of change describes what many perceive as a major

dichotomy between the strategies of change commonly used in sustainable food systems

movements and what they see as the more successful way to approach the matter. The difference

hinges mainly on the perceptions of nonprofits, public agencies, and local governments

participating in food system activism, programs, and policy change, but includes the perceptions

of any other participants acting in similar ways.

themselves a question of what is necessary to change the food system, and acted accordingly

(Vivid Picture, 2005). Brady and the report conceptualize this questioning as a “fill in the blank”

of “we could change the food system if…,” and describe the old strategy for change as having

three common answers to this question (Vivid Picture, 2005). Individuals or entire organizations

may use any of the three in isolation based on the objectives of their work, but are likely to use

the consumers, they will make shopping decisions that will help change the food system. The

new choices made by these consumers will drive demand for sustainable products, feeding the

social movement behind these choices. A corollary to the consumer education element is that if

society, such as chemical use in agriculture, poor treatment of farmworkers, etc. The third

element is “…if we create an alternative food industry,” on the assumption that there is no way

to beat the dominant, unsustainable system, but that the creation of “our own” system with

alternative farmers, stores, restaurants, etc. will provide sustainable means until the “bad system”

fails and it can become the new dominant system. This has led to the creation of a strong but

small sustainable food system around the country.

Brady describes a number of problems with this theory of change (personal

communication, January 10, 2006). To begin with, each of these three tenets requires the

existence of a “bad guy,” or something for the movement to fight against. While she

acknowledges the importance of recognizing failures in the current system, she posits that a

that merging into the mainstream inherently means a dilution of the values driving the

movement. For example, some may be against putting natural and organic foods into large

supermarket chains, feeling as though the movement should not support such corporations. The

with social change indicates a hope to expand the movement to some broader level. The

successes of previous food system movements should not be ignored; they have produced the

past 35 years’ emergence of sustainable agriculture and food systems movements, and have seen

some growth of a mainstream sustainability movement in organics and other natural products.

But for sustainable food systems movements to be built on a theory of change that fundamentally

complicates its ability to expand beyond the fringe creates serious weaknesses (Vivid Picture,

2005).

What theory of change is necessary for the movement to move from fringe to

argues that movements should recognize systemic, interdisciplinary opportunities for growth out

of the fringe it has previously occupied, focusing on the “bragging rights” of successes instead of

of efforts influencing a wide variety of food system elements, tying together the economic and

social elements of the movement, creates far more success than the previous ways of perceiving

change. An opportunities-based perspective “has more winners than losers,” overcomes

divisiveness, builds alliances, and focuses on providing incentives for positive change. The

mantra of such a movement would be: “We are all in this together. All of us must benefit” (Vivid

The following are necessary components of the strategy behind an opportunities-based

• Be incentive-based, instead of fear- or penalty-based;

• Be values-driven, conforming to the values of sustainability;

• Be transformative at the core and at the same time have broad appeal;

• Have more winners than losers, leading to greater economic and social returns

than the current system;

• Address mutual vested interests, offering tangible benefits;

to indicate the shift into the mainstream as a priority. These are listed in Appendix A: The Vivid

Picture Project’s “Goals for a New Mainstream”. As an interesting indicator of what an

opportunity-based system looks like as opposed to others, we can be conscious of the verbs

utilized in these goal statements: “promote,” “provide,” “facilitate,” “encourage,” “honor,”

notion that organizations are constantly confronted with a wide variety of moral issues requiring

some theory of organizational ethics, stakeholder theory posits that business managers and

decision makers take into account the interests of stakeholders as a means of achieving the

organization’s own goals, mainly of profit maximization (Phillips, 2003). According to Freeman

(cited in Phillips, 2003), a stakeholder is any person or group who “can affect or are affected by

the achievement of the firm’s objectives.” Under stakeholder theory, stakeholders are seen as

having some instrumental value in helping the firm achieve the goals or as having some intrinsic

stakeholders merely for their role as potential consumers. In other words, the various elements

of the sustainable food system movement affect the decisions made by businesses, which see

them as stakeholders with some influence on the success of their business, instead of merely

located and the suppliers used by the organization, and to these groups the organization has a

distinct moral obligation. Other elements, such as advertising, social movements, local

government, and public information dissemination are derivatively legitimate stakeholders for

few others.

limitations are a stakeholder factor is under debate. In the case of a food system, the

environmental impacts of food production are certainly a limiting factor in the sorts of foods

available, but this does not necessarily affect the decisions made by businesses. The debate

centers on the environmental impacts of food production act as a stakeholder-type influence in

how food businesses make their decisions. Starik (1995) argues vehemently that the

environment has been an economic and ethical stakeholder for years while not ever formally

recognized in theory literature as being one. Phillips and Reichert (Phillips, 2003; and Phillips

to consider it one – just as it is an organization’s prerogative to consider any other stakeholder as

legitimate – and that those that do will have a more realistic, though complex, view of the

business atmosphere in which they exist. The environment as a stakeholder is likely to impose

for a sustainable food system have some tangible influence on the products made available by the

various restaurants, grocery stores, food distributors, etc. This influence and phenomena is quite

obvious in the practices of Portland food businesses, as will be described in the case study.

policyrequired data (such as the nutrition information on the packaging of every food item),

information from organizations and institutions, the physiological effects of certain food

products, and culturally and socially conditioned preferences. The final consumption decisions

made across a large population influence the practices and innovation incentives of the

companies that produce, process, and distribute food.

product evolution is a process spanning technology, communications, and marketing, with

which furthermore promotes confidence in products by seemingly reducing the purchasing risk

This indicates that, as the values of a sustainable food system infuse the dominant food system

information, consumers will increasingly choose “sustainable” foods and further influence

mainstream adoption of sustainable values. Cathy R. Wessells, Robert J. Johnston, and Holger

Donath (1999) discuss how information regarding the environmental benefits of food products is

necessary for demand to increase and thereby change the market and its impact on the

conglomerations of the food system, since larger firms are better suited to handle changes in

consumer demand and to take risks on new markets (Reed and Clark, 2000). As the niche market

begins to influence the mainstream, this will be less of an issue.

The consumer information model suggests one major phenomenon in consumer behavior

relevant to the development of sustainable food markets. With often little time or effort to

process all relevant information, consumers experience “information overload” and have trouble

articulating their specific desires, instead demanding new products similar to familiar ones

(Padberg and Westgren, 1979). As far as organic and local food markets are concerned, this

means consumers demand a wide variety of goods in this niche market, often mimicking what’s

available conventionally, with foods as conventional as microwave TV dinners, junk foods, and

Picture’s goals for local food systems include encouraging eaters to gain information about

Conclusion

The success of the Portland movement for a sustainable urban food system speaks greatly

to its existence as a social movement based in economic change and to its systemic strategies for

change. The relationship of activism to a viable market provides a means for the identity of the

social movement to materialize in a meaningful way to participants, and the preponderance of

various social movement and business networks has created a strong and thriving means for these

sustainable food system market to grow into and merge with the dominant, mainstream system.

Because of its adherence to the new strategy for effective change, the Portland movement for a

sustainable food system has seen much success amongst its food distribution subsystem.

Burton, B.K., & Dunn, C.P (1996) Stakeholder interests and community groups: A new view. In

Phillips, R. (2003). Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-

Oregon, Part I

percent higher than the national average (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005a and 2005b). The city

a grocery store to have a farmers’ market since the market openly offers products available in the

store, but People’s attributes their sponsoring the market to their commitment to the economic

feasibility of small farming operations. In 1992, soon after this market started, the Portland

Farmers’ Market was founded as a non-profit organization with the aim of creating a space for

community interaction and development and for bringing local foods into the limelight. At this

point, the market occurred downtown once a week on Saturdays, with 14 vendors selling produce

and other goods.

The mission of the Portland Farmers’ Market accurately portrays its efforts to educate

Portland citizens and consumers, to build community, and to support the local food system – “To

enhance the business success of our region’s small farms by operating vibrant urban farmers’

markets that serve as community gathering places. In support of this mission we will:

and access to local, healthier foods.”

This same year the Market started, the federal government started the Farmers’ Market

Nutrition Program, mandating that some amount of food vouchers given to low-income WIC-

and food stamp-receiving families be spent at farmers markets. This not only increased the

access of low-income families to the fresh, nutrition foods mainly provided at farmers’ markets,

but also public awareness about the prevalence farmers’ markets, now a strongly growing trend

market, in a different area of downtown Portland. Primarily oriented to serve people working

1999, they held a growers’ roundtable for local farmers and processors, to address any concerns

or difficulties they experienced in selling at a market. The group discussed issues such as how to

set up an attractive booth and how to market and price their goods competitively. Many of the

growers commented that selling at the market was a major benefit because they are not only able

to meet customers and get retail price for their products, but are able to set their prices based on

the real cost of producing the food.

started 47th Avenue Farm on less than an acre of land near her home, and began to sell shares of

her organic produce to friends and other close contacts, not having enough capital to market her

farm extensively.

Because GNC’s food operations headquarters were in Portland, Nature’s retained its local control

and most of the managers and other high-level employees stayed with the company. Until, that

is, GNC sold Nature’s to Boulder, Colo.-based Wild Oats, now one of the largest natural grocery

chains in the United States, in 1999. Sensing changes that steered Nature’s away from its

philosophical and localized roots and towards the growing corporate natural foods movement,

attributed to a desire amongst these founders for a “business that we could be proud of – a

business with a commitment to its community, to promoting sustainable agriculture, and to

maintaining a progressive workplace.”

locally and for a decent price, the company will not source elsewhere. All beef products sold in

the store are locally produced, and pork products from within a close range of the city. All dairy

products used in the store are organic, and the store deli offers a wide variety of organic dishes

and an entirely organic salad bar. To manage relationships with local farmers and food sources,

New Seasons has a staff member designated entirely to building relationships with local produce

sources – Chris Harris is the New Seasons Produce Merchandiser/Local Buyer. Working with

smaller local growers asks more for the merchandisers and department managers in terms of

to the stores. Some items come from multiple suppliers and arrive at different stores on different

days” (personal communication, March 31, 2006).

close-knit “tribe,” or “clan,” with many families working together or for a number of related

local-food businesses and organizations around the city.

Lay, and General Mills. According to Rohter, his wife Brady, and company documents, there are

both natural and mainstream products can go to one store for everything they need. Deeper

reasons include a hope to make New Seasons an equivalent to non-natural, mainstream

supermarkets that neighborhoods generally rely on. “Very few people shop at natural food stores

because it’s their neighborhood store,” Brady says. “We asked ourselves, ‘How do we make

[organic and local foods] more accessible? How do we become a neighborhood market? That’s

After drawing in the consumer base, New Seasons engages strongly in educating their

consumers about the various values of eating locally, seasonally, and organically. The stores hold

frequent in-store tastings with local farmers and encourage local farmers’ markets, CSAs, and

Restaurants), and other active members of the local food system movement. In 2003, over

million in sales. At about this time, the Market began developing a wide variety of educational

and outreach programming related to the local food system, most in coordination with the local

Chef’s Collaborative. In 2003, the market hosted 50 Chef in the Market demonstrations,

bringing in local chefs such as Greg Higgins from Higgins Restaurant (see Restaurants), David

Yudkin of Hot Lips Pizza, and others to talk about cooking with local, seasonal, and organic

$30,000 of Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program vouchers at the Market, with more than $1

million used at farmers’ markets around the state. The Market also donated over 20,000 pounds

of leftover produce to various shelters and food-related charity organizations around the city.

the market, people answered in the following ways (in order of decreased importance): to meet

waiting lists of vendors hoping to sell their goods at the markets. The Saturday market featured

an average of 125 vendors and 7,000 customers each week; the Wednesday market 45 vendors

and 4,500 customers; and the Thursday market 45 vendors and 2,000 customers.

hope that this market will help address the unmet demand of vendors on the waiting lists for

fast-food type meal services. In May 2005, the Kaiser Permanente health care facility in North

Portland, a low-income area of the city plagued by obesity and related health issues, opened a

farmers’ market on Wednesday afternoon/evenings in conjunction with various interested

community organizations. Every week approximately two dozen vendors set up booths for the

more than 1,000 people who come to the market, including patients, hospital staff, and local

Masterson’s original spot and the acreage on Zenger Farm, and feeds more than 50 subscribers

each year. Around this time, it also started offering a “Farm Patron Share,” a normal share at a

higher cost which “more accurately reflects the true cost of growing your food because it

includes your farmers’ salary.” 47th Avenue also began offering different types of shares with

add-ons such as eggs, flowers, and goat cheese, produced by other local producers.

47th Avenue is not certified organic, because certification is an expensive and

Inviting customers to the farm and encouraging them to participate in the growing process fosters

trust between the producer and the consumer that the product is being grown in an

environmentally friendly way. Six work parties throughout the summer, a monthly newsletter,

and weekly food pickups make for constant communication and interaction between the farm and

the consumer at a level that is rarely found outside of CSA operations. Like many other local

47th Avenue has sold produce to local restaurants and retail, such as People’s Co-op, but

Masterson comments that she’s much more interested in focusing on the CSA aspect of her

business because of the community interaction it allows her.

farmers’ markets, mainly in Portland, and 20 percent come from selling to wholesalers, such as

distributing mainly through the Wednesday Portland Farmers’ Market.

Conclusion: Broadening access and increasing awareness

Since the 1960s, Portland has seen massive growth in the availability of local and organic

interested in promoting a local system, but also through supermarkets and intense expansion of

farmers’ markets. By specifically demarcating local products and providing information about

and opportunities to directly connect with the producer, these stores, markets, and CSAs are not

only shortening the actual path of the food from producer to consumer, but also the conceptual

one, bringing food production back into the minds of those who eat it. Each of these businesses

acknowledged their work to make small, independent farming a more economically viable

Restaurants

Restaurant fare is quickly becoming one of the major sectors of Americans’ diets. By

offering local and organic produce, highlighting local farmers, and participating in community

events and educational endeavors, restaurants involved in a sustainable food system not only

in this section – Higgins, Hot Lips Pizza, Burgerville, and the Food for Thought Café24 – were

chosen to represent the many different types of restaurants participating in the food system, and

are the most well known examples of restaurants participating in the local system.

In 1994, high-profile gourmet chef Greg Higgins opened Higgins Restaurant in

downtown Portland, featuring an entirely seasonal and local menu featuring a large percentage of

products grown by small local farms. Higgins’ commitment to local products began in

childhood, growing up in an agricultural community and experiencing the financial difficulties of

small farming endeavors. An avid organic gardener himself, he refused to use anonymous

products shipped from all over the world, not knowing how they were grown or who grew them.

“There exist today a growing need for commitment to sustainable food practices,” Higgins writes

on the restaurant’s website. “We believe strongly in supporting farming techniques that are

sustainable, organic, and regenerative. The cuisine here at Higgins is truly rooted in our Northwest

soil.”

Higgins works with 30 to 40 farmers throughout the year whom he contacts in a variety

of ways, including the Farmer-Chef Connection (see Organizational/Programmatic Support) and

local farmers’ markets. As a backup to direct connections with farmers, which is necessary for a

restaurant of Higgins’ prestige and capacity (serving 300 people every day), Higgins uses

Oregon, Part II

When entering the cafeteria of a school, university, prison, health care facility, corporate

campus, or any other such institution, one has little choice in the matter of what they eat. As

such, institutional purchasing via food service companies and the food distribution companies

that supply them have large influences on the prevalence and success of any local food system.

For these companies and programs – which largely remain behind the scenes – to change to local

and organic purchasing is a relatively new trend, but Portland companies and programs in all of

these areas have begun to make strides toward sustainability.

Food service companies provided $45 billion of food around the United States in 2003

(USDA ERS, 2005). Food distribution (otherwise known as “wholesaling”) is a $589 billion per

year industry in the United States, larger even than food retail. Generally, food goes through a

cooperative/beef distribution, Bon Appetit food service company, Aramark food service

company’s partnership with local prisons, Portland Public School District’s farm-to-school

program, Portland Public Schools Garden of Wonders program, and local efforts to bring local

with just over a dozen other ranching families in Oregon. Under financial stress to keep their

ranch profitable in a struggling commodity market and amidst growing criticism of ranching’s

environmental impacts, Connie happened upon a local market opportunity amongst “health

buffs” looking for antibiotic- and hormone-free, grass-fed, sustainably grown beef products.

Alliance, required since 1998, and is responsible for adhering to “Grazewell Principles” of

sustainable ranching, handed down by the organization. They also attend two yearly co-op

membership meetings, participate in Customer Appreciation Day in August (where customers

visit and tour ranches and learn about OCB), and spend one weekend per year doing store

visitations or in-store meat demonstrations in Seattle, Portland, or San Francisco. Altogether,

OCB sends about 900 head of cattle a week to the processing plant. The cattle are vegetarian fed

from birth to processing, and if treated for sickness (less than one percent of all cattle) are

company, which at this point was already operating extensively in Portland’s universities and

corporate campuses, issued a strict mandate for all company operations to purchase extensively

from local producers and artisans. This “Farm to Fork” program brings into the company’s

mission its “Dream to be the premier on-site restaurant company known for its culinary expertise

and commitment to socially responsible practices … for the well being of our guests,

communities, and the environment.”

Responsibility program trains each account’s manager and executive chef in the company’s

facility are labeled as vegetarian, vegan, organic, low fat, and other designations deemed

important to the company. Options for fair trade, shade grown, and organic coffees are made

available to each site, as well as biodegradable disposable products, recycling programs, and

sustainable seafood purchasing decisions. Decisions to utilize these programs are often up to the

budget and administration of each particular site, though the broader efforts to purchase locally

and organically are a part of every site’s operations. The company also boycotts purveyors that

do not support farm workers’ rights, favors meats grown without the use of antibiotics, and

In 2000, Bon Appetit food service began a strategic venture with Oregon’s Intel corporate

campuses, working with the company to provide their 20,000 Oregon employees, guests, and

contract workers with a sustainable food service system. This partnership, along with many of

Bon Appetit’s other Portland deals, is coordinated through Food Alliance’s Marketplace Partners

the conditions of Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program, rBGH-free milk, and

antibiotic-free poultry.

also asked to describe the prevailing factors influencing purchasing decisions, with top responses

and price, demand, volume, food quality and safety, and contracts/vendor agreements as

difficulties to overcome (Pierson, 2003). Likewise, growers interviewed cited many of the same

positive and negative factors to selling direct to institutions and distributors.

(described later in this chapter) began collaborating to encourage Aramark, the food service

company responsible for Multnomah County Correctional Facilities’ food service program, to

pilot test local purchasing at the facility. While Aramark’s company policy does include some

environmental and sustainability endeavors and they have partnered with Food Alliance, just as

Bon Appetit has, their normal practices barely rival the intense sustainability emphasis of Bon

Appetit’s practices. This project would test their ability to open up new local food system

now equipped, through the help of the Food Policy Council and other involved parties, to track

which of the foods they distribute are locally produced, and this tracking is now mandated by the

contractual responsibilities of all distributors to the correctional facilities. Three Food Alliance-

attracted over 225 attendees.

– heath care facilities. The average U.S. hospital serves more than a million meals per year

(How hospital food service, 2004), and not only serve patients and staff, but also visitors and

other community members through on-site cafeterias, vending machines, and catering services

much healthier. Seventy to 80 percent of U.S. hospitals operate their own food service, deciding

operations purchase food through a distributor or wholesaler. This can make farm-to-health care

direct connections with farmers easier than with schools or other institutions. The remaining 20

percent contract with private food service companies. Aramark, for example, manages food

service for approximately 450 U.S. health care facilities (Romano, 2004).

health care network of hospitals, clinics, and other health care services, develop a farm-tohealth

care program since 2004. Nationwide efforts to change the purchasing practices of health care

food service operations have been spearheaded by Health Care Without Harm, an international

consistent with environmental and health-related principles. This includes providing more fresh

fruits, vegetables, meats, and seafood that are organic, antibiotic free, and/or locally produced.

purchasing practices, including locally grown foods that are pesticide and antibiotic free. While

local purchasing has not yet begun, Patel is hopeful that the efforts will come to fruition.

“There’s definitely some energy around [this project],” Patel says. “The hospitals have been very

excited about this.” Aside from purchasing, health care in the Portland area and around the

country are turning to farmers’ markets, such as the Kaiser Permanente Farmers’ Market, as a

viable option for improving access to healthy and locally grown foods. The success of the Kaiser

market may encourage expansion of health care farmers’ markets throughout the metro area,

In Spring 2005, Bon Appetit won a BEST award in Sustainable Food Systems for their

work with Intel. More than 60 percent of the food served on these campuses now included

sustainable products. The partnership had increased one local farm’s production by 73 percent,

and increased Shepherd’s Grain Co-op’s (the same used by Hot Lips Pizza) production by 125

Local Challenge,” using incentives to encourage its sites to serve a lunch made completely of

ingredients within a 150-mile radius of the site. A number of sites in Portland participated.

strengthened the values of the original organics movement. Panel members included Greg

The foundations of farm-to-school are seemingly simple – connect preK-12 schools with local

farms for fresh, high quality, nutritious produce and other foods – but in practice, the programs

are far more dynamic. Current farm-to-school initiatives generally include a variety of efforts,

purchasing of local foods, but a number of recent bills have been introduced suggesting efforts

such as the elimination of vending machines and competitive foods throughout the state;

however, none have passed. At the county level, the Food Policy Council has taken on a major

initiative with school food leadership, hoping to coordinate the efforts of all public and private

efforts in the Portland and Multnomah County. County commissioners and other county-level

officials have become active in encouraging policies promoting local purchasing and other

farmto-school-related programs.

Overall, however, the food service purchasing, budget, and other procedures are

determined on a district-by-district basis, meaning most of the work happens on that level.

According to Mike Moran of the Food Policy Council, the Portland Public Schools district is

aggressively interested in developing more farm-to-school projects. Local purchasing, school

gardens, and other aspects of farm-to-school occur at generally small-scale and varying levels

In 1998, Linda Colwell of the Portland Chef’s Collaborative and its Adopt-a-School

program applied for and received a grant to develop a curriculum guide for K-5 garden-based

agricultural education, and started the Garden of Wonders program at Edwards Elementary

been on the school’s property for more than 20 years. The program began by bringing children

bringing local farmers and producers into direct connection with the school’s cafeteria. While on

occasion the garden may have been able to produce enough to be added to a meal, Colwell

preferred that the students eat the food directly in the garden.

week (breakfast and lunch). Chefs from restaurants such as Higgins participated, and the

pursuits, monthly workshops and mentoring through the Learn & Grow Program provide

educational sessions with topics like Cooking Summer Vegetables, Seed Saving, and many

others. In 2003, these workshops reached over 275 people and trained 22 mentors.

elementary school to high school children. Growing Gardens has often worked with other

produce days. The Learning Garden also offers a container-garden area, demonstrating

techniques that allow people who have limited outdoor space to garden productively. Theme

beds within the garden demonstrate companion planting techniques (using a “guild” of plants

local foods.

gardens were set aside for food to be tended and harvested by garden members and donated to

local food-related charity organizations. This first year, the program provided over 10,000

pounds of food, with the three participating Children’s Gardens donating over 100 pounds.

of Housing Authority of Portland land. Foodworks brings at-risk youth to the site to grow salad

otherwise unused city-owned land that could be used for agricultural activities. The report

recommends, among other things, that the city form an Urban Agriculture Commission to

oversee the development of a formal urban agricultural policy for the city.

gardening opportunities to become more accessible. On the most basic level, gardening

increases eaters’ awareness of food production and what it takes to grow their food, information

which may change their purchasing practices.

would not have started or stabilized without outside influence and assistance. The basic need of

a local food system movement to overcome the difficult obstacles to becoming economically and

logistically viable necessitates this help, whether from governments, organizations, or other

businesses. The efforts highlighted in this section make possible the work of the individuals,

groups, and businesses described throughout the case study. This support helps to influence local

policy, to organize events and collaborations, to secure funding, and to provide technical and

expertise assistance with program development.

The work of the organizations described in this section – Food Alliance, the

Portland/Multnomah County Food Policy Council, Ecotrust,42 and the Portland chapter of the

Chef’s Collaborative43 – have been discussed in brief through their connections with most (if not

all) of the businesses, organizations, and projects described thus far. Provided here, however, are

In 1997, an extension service between the University of Washington and the University of

This matrix of certification standards defines environmental, economically, and socially

sustainable agriculture production, with guiding principles including standards for water and soil

conservation, reduction or elimination of pesticides, protection of wildlife habitat, safe and fair

working conditions, and the welfare of farm animals. Certified farms are not necessarily

program, connecting them with retail stores, restaurants, food service companies, and other

outlets for their certified products to be distributed. As mentioned earlier, the partners discussed

drastically eases the process of making initial contact and provides assurance that the products

were actually produced with sustainable principles in mind. These businesses do not have to

What Food Alliance does, essentially, is act as a temporary intermediary to connect small

farms and purchasers, but without claiming any financial gain and with having the eventual goal

of phasing itself out of the relationship. Just as federal organic certification allows consumers to

recognize food grown without chemicals, Food Alliance certification makes it easier for

consumers to recognize products produced in an entirely sustainable manner. As their website

says, “In a marketplace overflowing with choices, consumers want guidance in placing their trust

and support. They need – they deserve – credible information to make food choices that support

their values. The Food Alliance certification provides this credibility.”

Guide to Local and Seasonal Products, coordinated jointly with the Portland chapter of the

Chef’s Collaborative. According to Deborah Kane, current director of the Food & Farms

Program, Ecotrust views its work in three steps: (1) create a vision for sustainability in the

system does not quite adhere to all of Vivid Picture’s goals, but is well on its way.

The first annual Farmer-Chef Connection event was held in Spring 2001, providing

farmers and local chefs, retailers, and institutional buyers interested in creating direct purchasing

connections with a means of finding each other and setting up these deals. Forty-two producers

and 26 buyers attended the daylong event, which included educational workshops and

presentations and periods where these parties could interact. Ecotrust and the Chef’s

Collaborative followed the event with the first annual publication of the Guide to Local and

Seasonal Products, a directory with contact information and selling/purchasing details of sellers

distributors, etc.), and other producers by product and by location, and provides advice and tips

for both sellers and buyers on how to navigate direct connections. This first year, listings in the

the following years, even non-participants could supply listings. Both the Connection event and

the Guide continue annually.

named director of the program. She describes the work of the program, “We are building visions

(consumers), passing around the middle. We want to dominate the system, not be on the fringe.”

Hot Lips Pizza, Scott Exo of the Food Alliance, Rachel Bristol of Oregon Food Bank (current co-

chair), and many other movement leaders. It has also included representatives from groups like

the African American Health Coalition, the Sustainable Development Commission, and

Portland Public Schools, as well as retired farmers and representatives of local businesses.

However, while affiliated with these outside establishments, members are asked to participate on

behalf of themselves and their expertise and not necessarily the interested of their business or

organization.

In general, food policy councils are government bodies associated with a city, county, or

state, and are a recently new development in the realm of food system policy analysis. Many

resources consulted for this project called for the creation of or growth in power of such councils

advocacy, and community development (Pothukuchi & Kaufman, 1999). Food Policy Councils

are often comprised of a common “cast of characters,” including regional experts on health,

community development, food retail, local agriculture, food security, and other relevant food

system issues.

In Spring 2003, the third annual Farmer-Chef Connection attracted 69 producers and 65

buyers, and the Guide to Local and Seasonal Products was made available online. This made it

much easier for buyers and sellers to provide and continuously update the necessary information,

as well as to search by specific needs for beneficial partners. This same year, Ecotrust, the

Chef’s Collaborative, and the Pacific Marine Conservation Council hosted the first annual

Fisherman-Chef Connection, expanding the structure of the Farmer-Chef Connection to local

Also in 2003, Ecotrust began their Buy Local campaign, publishing the Tale of Two

Tomatoes publication. Headed by the Debra Sohm of the Food & Farms program and Dianne

California and Oregon through inserts in prominent newspapers. Soon afterward, local tomato

sales doubled from $113,000 to $240,000. Sohm and Stefani-Ruff received a grant for the

project from the FoodRoutes Network, a local organization headquartered in Pennsylvania, and

were accepted into the Network’s “Buy Local” program, which will continue to give them

the City Council and County board within a year. This first report was presented in October,

campaigns, all with the goal of changing the ways food moves from producer to consumer. In

fact, the guiding principles of the Council are based upon these strategies, all related to the

notion that every city and county resident has the right to an adequate supply of nutritious,

affordable, culturally appropriate and sustainability produced food and that, for this food to be

produced, local agricultural pursuits need to be protected.

In 2004, a Food Alliance survey showed that farmers and ranchers certified by their

markets for their goods, sales increases, and price premiums averaging 8 percent. At present, the

certification program now includes over 85 certified farms and ranches in Oregon, amongst 215

total producers across 16 states. The Marketplace Partners program now connects certified

regional farms with two direct markets (farm stands), six grocery stores, eight food service sites

(serviced by Bon Appetit and Sodexho food service companies), six food distribution companies,

The Portland chapter of the Chef’s Collaborative group now maintains a mailing list of

400 to 500 chefs, restaurants, farmers, and other organizations, with a regular participant list of

about 100. Monthly meetings and other frequent events help keep chefs and producers motivated

New Seasons Market and the Chef’s Collaborative comments, “because it’s not always the

Ecotrust to pursue her leadership positions in other related projects, such as Vivid Picture.

Ecotrust appointed Deborah Kane, a veteran local food systems leader and former executive

director of Food Alliance from 1997 until 2004. Kane’s first project for Food & Farms is the

launch of a publication Edible Portland in April 2006, a chapter of the national network of

Edible Communities publications. This publication is the first of Kane’s vision of increasing the

communication activity within Portland’s local food system movement. Kane also sees herself as

moving the Food & Farms program to the second of Ecotrust’s three-step process; Vivid Picture

under Brady outlined the vision for change, now the program under Kane will work to broaden

Portland as an example of sustainability and to increase the movement’s identity so more people

also changes the consumers’ values in a way that further increases profits and draws them into

the social movement underlying the business. Imagine, for example, that an automobile

company engaged in a marketing campaign that not only advertised their product, but also

movement. Crane (2000) describes how collaboration with competitors, purchasers, and

advocacy groups are all potentially important means of marketing. All of this contributes greatly

to the movement’s ability to enter the mainstream market, mainly in its abilities to educate

consumers, attract them to the movement, and maintain a high level of positive publicity about

the movement and its underlying values and goals. Green marketing can target less committed

consumers for greater “market penetration,” expanding the customer base beyond the “green

marketing signals to consumers already conscious of their purchases which products to buy

and/or where to buy them from – in other words it can attract non-niche customers by educating

them about the cause, and niche customers by making sure the product’s/business’ “greenness” is

known.

education even more important. David Yudkin of Hot Lips Pizza agrees, saying, “there’s a huge

conceptual leap to make, but when you build awareness, you build advocacy” (personal

communication, June 4, 2004). Of the myriad ways businesses, organizations, and individuals in

choices for them. It’s important to just give them the information they need” (personal

communication, June 10, 2004). This sort of education emphasizes the notion that consumers

use information to make purchasing decisions and that any change in decision making needs to

be as easy as possible. Many experts agree that education is key to individual advocacy and

integral to any change. Browne, et al., (1992) claim that in order to “rehumanize consumption,

reintegrate food into the culture, and turn producers and eaters into allies, people will have to

The effects of marketing and promotion are clear in the context of the consumer

information model. The better and more attractive information available regarding the product,

the more likely the product will be in the group of consumption options of the final

Literature on the relationship between advertising and consumer behavior is extensive,

but a short summary may be helpful. Walters (1974) describes promotion’s influence on the

products;

contact with the promotion itself.

However, the basic principles are likely the same. In the case of food, other marketing principles

seeking out the possible benefits in a purchase. “It is human nature to be interested in the

payoff” of a purchase choice (Walters, 1974), and the promotion of a local food system should

then focus partially on the opportunities for any of the sustainability and bridge values described

by the new strategy for change. Experts also say that marketing is more effective when

promoting some sense of identity or group belongingness along with the product (Walters, 1974),

and consumer education regarding local food systems and their products. Some level of this is

expected considering these businesses would engage in marketing despite their participation in

the movement, but in many cases, consumer education is strongly emphasized. Hot Lips Pizza,

for example, has a strong educational aspect, frequently holding demonstrations and classes for

adults and children at local farmers’ markets and keeping a large supply of educational materials

regarding sustainable agriculture and local food systems in the store. Higgins Restaurant’s

the food. For as much as the restaurant’s menu changes (sometimes even daily), the staff tastes

every item and is well versed in the type of ingredients and where they came from. The back of

the menu features an essay about the restaurant’s mission, and farmer profiles are available for

customers to read. Bon Appetit’s food service sites feature continuously updated information

regarding their practices and the local farmers from whom they purchase food served in the

cafeteria. These are only a few examples of consumer education within the Portland movement.

Additional marketing structures also lend to the mainstream encouragement of the

system. Food Alliance and other third-party certification systems are one form of

“fair trade” coffee and chocolate. Wessells, Johnston, and Donath (1999) explain eco-labeling

ecolabeling creates a market-based approach for addressing environmental issues, acting as

promotion for the suppliers of these products and creating new markets for sustainable products

in which supply and demand can be assessed more easily. For instance, Food Alliance makes it

easy for marketplace \partners to use its name as an eco-label by providing them with materials

to promote Food Alliance-certified products in their stores or locations. The BEST awards may

also be considered an eco-label, in some respects, considering that the receipt of the award

signals to consumers that the business adheres to some level of sustainable operating procedures;

In the recent years, retail offering local products and products purchased direct from

booth about the selling farm or company, including details about acreage, location, owners,

crops, and other information. In 2003, People’s Co-op developed the “People’s Produce”

program, a new classification for produce sold in the store. The Co-op labels produce as such

farmers in the program is displayed in the store for customers to easily access. In May 2005,

New Seasons launched the “Home Grown” program, specially labeling all products in the store

that regionally grown, caught, or manufactured. New Seasons also regularly brings farmers into

the store to talk about their products and conduct free tastings. Both “People’s Produce” and

“Home Grown,” along with these other programs, make shoppers more aware of local products

and make it much easier for those already aware to make conscious decisions about local

In sum, the marketing engaged in by Portland’s local food system focuses on fostering

local food system values in the consumer base and then creating easy opportunities for them to

identify products produced with those values and use that information to narrow down their food

Networking and Supply Chain Management

As displayed by the chart below (Figure 4) and described implicitly through this chapter,

Portland’s local food system movement has experienced increasing activity for more than 45

the advent of many of the events and organizations that led to most of the networking within the

movement, such the Chef’s Collaborative, Food Alliance, Ecotrust’s Food and Farms Program,

the Farmer- and Fisherman-Chef Connection, and many others. As these organizations began to

collaborate in finding viable market opportunities and in consumer education, it increased the

likelihood of success for both already existing businesses and programs and new endeavors

networks can also serve to open up opportunities to utilize the movement’s identity, in other

words, make it easier for people to feel as though they are a part of the social movement.

Chapter Two’s discussion of the last stage of social movement development claimed movements

either falter under broad identities or are fortified, and in the case of Portland’s sustainable food

system movement, the latter is obviously the case. As the network becomes stronger and more

opportunities for change are utilized, more people can and do get involved.

Figure 4. Major events in the Portland Local Food System Movement, 1960-2005

Other cities around the United States have begun to experience local food system

movements comparable to Portland’s, but on a much smaller scale. The story of Portland’s

movement indicates that once a viable network is built, the relative ease in entering and

stabilizing the movement makes it possible for rapid growth and expansion of the movement. In

other words, an increasing network may exhibit somewhat of a “tipping point” for a local food

certifications, and the Portland chapter of the Chef’s Collaborative – were conceived. In other

cities with movements for local food systems, this tipping point may not yet have come. The

logistical difficulties of local purchasing, particularly with direct-connections to farmers, are

substantial enough to keep many businesses from coordinating these purchases. Finding ways

to network and organize the supply chain can make it easier for restaurants, grocery stores, and

other elements of the distribution subsystem to connect with and purchase from local farmers

party certification systems and eco-labeling provide some organization to the supply chain,

making it easier for purchasers to get in contact with producers and to have assurance that the

products are produced with the values of the local food system movement.

Seasonal Products, provide a structure to the supply chain the mitigates some of the difficulties

of farm-to-market connections, allowing the connections to become a larger part of the

communication it takes to keep relationships with farmers strong and functioning, admitting it

might be easier for them to use a wholesaler or distributor. Receiving one coordinated delivery

from a large, experienced food distributor featuring straightforward ordering procedures is a lot

immediate access to a variety of local producers, making it easy for restaurants and other such

purchasers to immediately buy what they need for that day’s or that week’s offerings. The efforts

of the highlighted organizations to lend some stability and organization to elements such as

product offerings and availability, contact names and data, and other important information make

it substantially easier for purchasers to make these contacts.

Local policy change

distinct desires, concerns, and needs of the organizations, businesses, and populations involved

Goldsmith and Wolman (1992) argue that strong leadership and/or a strong organizational

structure are far more likely to influence local policies, since they have a much higher potential

to mobilize citizens and to assist government in the research behind and implementation of

“nuisance.” Another one of the authors’ main arguments is that public policies that accurately

reflect citizen preferences strongly determine how effective that local government is in

encouraging citizen well being. Portland’s local food system movement exhibits a policy

influence structure with both strong leadership and organizational structure, namely in the Food

Policy Council but also in the other organizations described throughout the case study. The Food

Policy Council includes participants from many backgrounds, advocating from their extensive