Measuring Racial Equity in the Food System: Established and Suggested Metrics

The U.S. food system has created and been shaped by racial injustices since its inception. The ways in which racial injustice is made manifest through our food system are sometimes quite clear and other times murky at best. Data is a powerful tool that can either illuminate or obstruct the reality of injustice. Disaggregating data by race can shed light on systemic oppression.This report identifies metrics related to racial equity in the food system that are either in use by organizations currently or have been recommended, whether in a publication or through an interview. By documenting the current landscape in this area, this report provides a foundation for the Michigan Good Food Charter Shared Measurement Advisory Committee to consider and select a set of metrics that can be used at state (Michigan) and local levels to track progress towards an equitable food system.The metrics in this report can also provide a foundation for other interested organizations to track progress. To identify metrics presented in this spreadsheet, over 100 sources were scanned from reports and peer-reviewed literature touching on race or ethnicity and the food system. Duplicate metrics found in multiple sources were included only once. Personal communication (either interviews or emails) with about a dozen food system experts added several additional suggested metrics and insight on the structure of the list

A Call to Build Trust and Center Values in Food Systems Work

In September of 2019, 70 people from across the U.S. came together to learn from each other about the work of coordinating state level food system plans. The initial intention for this gathering was to surface promising practices of developing and implementing food systems plans—meaning guiding documents, such as the Michigan Good Food Charter or the Vermont Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, that are developed with public input, set out a vision for the food system of a particular place, and identify high priority policies and strategies. Over the course of planning and hosting the three day convening, it became clear that a focus exclusively on technical practices was neither practical nor what participants were most interested in. Instead, it was the complex and adaptive process of bringing people together and the way in which we shared our time that most resonated with many participants. To share more about the design and experience of the gathering, we—the facilitation team—first decided to write a reflection shortly after the event. Much has happened in the months that have followed. The urgency of our present moment in time can no longer be downplayed. The tumultuous events of 2020 have brought the long-standing inequities of our society into stark relief. Six months ago, we were prepared to inspire you to bring values and a focus on equity into your food systems work. Now, we are sending out a call to deep care and accountability to our fellow food system practitioners. If you are not actively working to counter white supremacy culture and structural racism, then your food systems work is in vain and you are reinforcing the status quo

You Can't Rush the Process: Collective Impact Models of Food Systems Change

Local food advocates are increasingly joining together to form state and multi-state initiatives to strengthen food systems on a broader scale than has been possible in the past. Many of these efforts are built around the concept of collective impact, the idea that organizations representing diverse sectors must actively commit to a common agenda to solve complex social problems.Michigan joined this trend in 2009 when three organizations – the MSU Center for Regional Food Systems (CRFS), the Food Bank Council of Michigan, and the Michigan Food Policy Council – came together to develop a vision and set of goals for the state's food system. These efforts resulted in the release of the Michigan Good Food Charter in 2010.Since then, a steering committee has emerged to guide the work, and a suite of state networks formed to push for food system change in specific sectors and communities. Now in 2015, there is a desire to understand the impact of the work on a deeper level and measure change in a way that furthers the capacity of and coordination between partner organizations.A team of researchers from the University of Michigan and Michigan State University carried out this national scan of similar initiatives from across the country to position the Michigan work on a national level. This report shares our survey findings.This "national scan" is one component of a larger, indepth evaluation of the Michigan Good Food Charter work at CRFS. Due to resource and time constraints, this report offers only an initial glimpse into some of the many – and ever- expanding – networked food systems initiatives around the country

Participatory State and Regional Food System Plans and Charters in the U.S.: A summary of trends and national directory

Completed in August of 2021, this report offers a snapshot of national trends, and a directory of food systems plans and charters that exist at state and regional levels across the United States (see the directory at the end of this document). It is intended to serve as a resource to facilitate network building and co-learning among practitioners leading these efforts and groups interested in launching their own plans and charters. We collected information from plans and charters that are publicly available on websites, and — to the extent possible — followed up with lead organizations or individuals to review information1 relevant to their state. We looked for plans and charters that: a)are systems-based and cross-sector (covering the entire food system), b)propose visions beyond 2021 or that are currently being updated (e.g., the 2005 California plan proposed avision of the food system into 2030), and c)were participatory and collaboratively developed (those that crowdsourced ideas and attempted to mobilizestakeholders throughout the state using numerous strategies such as summits, working groups, etc.)

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Can Farmers’ Markets in Shrinking Cities Contribute to Economic Development? A Case Study from Flint, Michigan

We examine the extent to which the Flint Farmers’ Market produces positive spillover effects on nearby businesses in downtown Flint, Michigan. We care about spillover spending in shrinking cities like Flint because farmers’ markets may contribute to growth beyond their boundaries, and thus help to sustain their surrounding areas. We surveyed visitors of the Flint market to determine the percentage who spend downtown outside of the market, how much they spend, the demographic characteristics that predict spending, and the additional businesses that visitors would like to see in the downtown. We also interviewed downtown business owners and managers to capture their perspectives on the market, including whether its relocation in 2014 helped their businesses. This study differs from prior research on spillover effects because it uses a mixed-methods approach and it explores how the shrinking-city context affects market outcomes. Overall, we find that the Flint market has minimal impact on nearby businesses compared to markets in non-shrinking cities. We discuss the possible reasons why the Flint market under-performs, including potential visitor concerns about crime and a site design that does not promote walking to other destinations. We also discuss how these concerns (e.g., crime, walkability) stem from the shrinking-city context

Increased Productivity, Role in Alleviating Food Insecurity Possible: Response #1 to Hallsworth and Wong’s viewpoint

First paragraphs It's true that urban agriculture may provide a modest contribution to most cities' food supply. However, Hallsworth and Wong (2013) fail to recognize the range of cities across North America as well as the numerous opportunities to increase the productivity of urban agriculture and its potential role in alleviating food insecurity. They also under¬emphasize the value of urban agriculture beyond the quantity of food produced. There are many cities — Detroit, Cleveland, and Milwaukee come to mind — with large amounts of open space and notions of incorporating agriculture into the fabric of a 21st century green city. The authors fail to acknowledge the potential for expanded productivity per unit of land beyond what is currently observed, for example with the use of passive solar, season-extension methods. In Michigan, with average low temperatures below Vancouver's, unheated hoophouses allow for at least 30 crops to be grown, many year-round (Colasanti, Matts, Blackburn, Corrin, & Hausler, 2010). The authors dismiss what can be grown in a 4-square-meter (43-square-feet) garden as "suitable only for... personal enjoyment," but during the frost-free period an extra vegetable serving for a family of four per day is easily accomplished in this space....

Extension, the Land-Grant Mission, and Civic Agriculture: Cultivating Change

Criticisms claiming the land-grant system has failed its mission and recent restructuring in the food system have together challenged the role played by Extension. This article explores whether a framework of southeast Michigan\u27s Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) fosters civic participation in the agrifood re-localization movement. Employing a case study approach, we discuss this framework and provide an overview of Extension educator involvement. Our case study indicates that the FSEP structure enables Extension professionals to expand their repertoire of community interaction models and engage citizens as agrifood citizens and leaders in order to move towards sustainable development

Assessing the Local Food Supply Capacity of Detroit, Michigan

Urban agriculture is touted as a strategy for more locally reliant food systems, yet there is little under­standing of its potential food provisioning capacity. Using Detroit, Michigan as an example, we use secondary data to develop a methodology for estimating the acreage required to supply, as far as seasonally possible, the quantity of fresh fruits and vegetables consumed by city residents. We com­pare these requirements with a catalog of the publicly owned, vacant parcels in Detroit to assess the feasibility of producing significant quantities of the fresh produce consumed within city limits. We demonstrate that if high-yield, biointensive grow­ing methods are used, 31% and 17% of the sea­sonal­ly available vegetables and fruits, respectively, currently consumed by 900,000 people could be supplied on less than 300 acres without incorpo­rating extraordinary postharvest management or season-extension technology. This indicates that urban agriculture could play an important role in food provisioning in many places

Implementing Collective Impact for Food Systems Change: Reflections and Adaptations from Michigan

As Collective Impact (CI) gains popularity across food systems change efforts, few scholars and practitioners have evaluated whether this collabora­tive social-change framework is well suited to food systems work. We begin to answer this question based on our own experience applying a CI model to support statewide goals established in the Michigan Good Food Charter. Our reflections are based on the project’s evaluation findings, internal staff discussions about their CI-based efforts, discussions with other food systems practitioners using CI, and a review of emerging literature where scholars and practitioners evaluate or reflect on facilitating a CI initiative. The Michigan experience largely corroborates what is emerging in the broader criticisms of CI: that limited guidance exists about how to implement various elements of the model, that CI is relatively silent on policy advocacy, and that, unless intentionally integrated, it has the potential to exacerbate, rather than address, inequities. However, our experience and that of other food systems practitioners also suggest that it is possible to transcend these limitations. We argue that groups expecting to make significant improve­ments to food systems can turn to CI as one of many social-change models that can guide their work, but only if lead organizations have the capacity to build trust and relationships between stakeholders and if they can thoughtfully integrate strategies for ensuring policy- and equity-based change