An Inquiry into Democratizing Alternative AgroFood Movements: Participation of Social Justice Organizations and Underserved Populations in the Thurston County Food Systems Council

Item

Title

Eng An Inquiry into Democratizing Alternative AgroFood Movements: Participation of Social Justice Organizations and Underserved Populations in the Thurston County Food Systems Council

Date

2013

Creator

Eng Kowalewski, Heather

Subject

Eng Environmental Studies

extracted text

An
Inquiry
into
Democratizing
Alternative


Agro­Food
Movements:

Participation
of
Social
Justice
Organizations
and
Underserved


Populations
in
the
Thurston
County
Food
Systems
Council






by

Heather
Kowalewski



























A
Thesis

Submitted
in
partial
fulfillment

of
the
requirements
for
the
degree

Master
of
Environmental
Studies

The
Evergreen
State
College

August
2013




ii


























©2013
by
Heather
Kowalewski.

All
rights
reserved.






This
Thesis
for
the
Master
of
Environmental
Studies
Degree

by

Heather
Kowalewski



has
been
approved
for

The
Evergreen
State
College

by

________________________

Dr.
Martha
L.
Henderson,
PhD

Member
of
the
Faculty



























________________________

Date










Abstract





An
Inquiry
into
Democratizing
Alternative
Agro­Food
Movements:

Participation
of
Social
Justice
Organizations
and
Underserved
Populations
in

the
Thurston
County
Food
Systems
Council

Heather
Kowalewski


The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
emerging
across
the
world
in

response
to
the
environmental
and
social
degradations
initiated
by
the
global

industrialized
agro‐food
system.

It
is
crucial
to
take
a
step
back
and
assess

whether
players
in
the
agro‐food
movement
are
reproducing
the
same

inequities
present
in
the
current
agro‐food
system.

A
political
ecology

analysis
identifies
a
lack
of
food
democracy,
or
the
ability
for
citizens
to

influence
and
participate
in
the
current
agro‐food
system,
as
a
systemic
cause

of
social
inequity.

Underserved
populations
that
lie
outside
the
dominant

culture
disproportionately
lack
access
to
both
food
and
democratic

participation,
and
are
currently
missing
as
prominent
players
in
the
agro‐
food
movement.


A
case
study
of
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)

asks
the
question
of
why
underserved
populations
are
missing
from
the
agro‐
food
movement
at
the
local
scale
to
provide
insight
on
promoting
food

democracy
globally.

Qualitative
interviews
with
local
social
justice

organizers
gives
insight
to
creating
inclusive
organizing
environments;

empowering
underserved
populations
within
social
movements;
and
the

potentials
to
integrate
social
justice
into
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.


Major
barriers
to
diverse
participation
revealed
in
the
study
range
from

immediate
practical
needs,
deep
patterns
of
oppression,
and
systemic
issues

of
a
capitalist
system.

Overall,
there
is
unfulfilled
potential
to
connect
social

justice
organizations
and
underserved
populations
to
the
TFSC
and
the
larger

movement.

Developing
a
more
just
agro‐food
system(s)
will
require

communities
to
identify
existing
inequities
and
to
intentionally
create

avenues
for
democratic
access
by
all
peoples.










Table
of
Contents



Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................................. IX

Acronyms.................................................................................................................................................................................. X

Chapter
1:
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Agro‐Food
Systems
as
an
Environmental
Study .....................................................................................................1

Food
Equity:
An
Integral
Factor
of
a
Sustainable
Agro‐Food
System ............................................................2

Research
Question.......................................................................................................................................................4

Chapter
2:
Theoretical
Framework ............................................................................................................... 6

Political
Ecology ....................................................................................................................................................................6

Food
Justice .............................................................................................................................................................................8

Community
Food
Security.................................................................................................................................................8

Food
Democracy................................................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter
3:
The
Global
Agro­Food
System
and
Associated
Resistance .............................................13

Inequity
in
the
Agro‐Food
System.............................................................................................................................. 14

Hunger
in
a
World
of
Abundance................................................................................................................................ 15

Hunger
in
the
United
States ................................................................................................................................. 16

Institutionalized
Oppression
within
the
Agro­Food
System .................................................................... 17

Power
Distribution
in
the
Agro‐Food
System ....................................................................................................... 20

Food
Policy
Councils:
An
Avenue
for
Food
Democracy..................................................................................... 25

What
is
a
Food
Policy
Council ............................................................................................................................. 26

Challenges
&
Potentials ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Chapter
4:
Thurston
County
Profile ............................................................................................................31

Landscape,
History,
and
Demography ...................................................................................................................... 31

Who
is
at
Risk?
Food
Insecurity
in
Thurston
County .................................................................................. 36

Emergency
Food
Services
in
Thurston
County..................................................................................................... 38

The
Alternative
Agro‐Food
Movement
in
Thurston
County ........................................................................... 40

Community
and
School
Gardens......................................................................................................................... 41

Direct
Market
Models ............................................................................................................................................. 42

Tribal
Food
Sovereignty ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Local
Politics .............................................................................................................................................................. 44

Thurston
Food
Systems
Council.................................................................................................................................. 46

Chapter
5:
Methods
&
Results .......................................................................................................................48

Survey
Methods .................................................................................................................................................................. 48

Interview
Methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 50

Profile
of
Interview
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 52

Data
Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Survey
Results..................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Demographics
&
Socio­economic
Characteristics ....................................................................................... 67

Interaction
with
Local
Food
Movement
&
Food
Systems.......................................................................... 72

Interview
Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 78

Theme
Frequencies.................................................................................................................................................. 78

Sub­theme
Frequencies .......................................................................................................................................... 80

Chapter
6:
Data
Analysis
&
Discussion .......................................................................................................82

Survey
Interpretation
&
Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 82

Interview
Interpretation
&
Discussion..................................................................................................................... 86

Serving
the
Minority................................................................................................................................................ 86





Participation .............................................................................................................................................. 87

Intersectionality....................................................................................................................................... 90

Institutionalized
Oppression.............................................................................................................. 96

Balancing
Short‐term
&
Long‐Term................................................................................................ 98

Communications
&
Relationship­Building .................................................................................................. 101

Message
Across
Barriers ................................................................................................................... 101

Quality
of
Invite..................................................................................................................................... 104

Mutual
Commitment/Reciprocity................................................................................................. 107

Cultural
Differences.............................................................................................................................................. 108

Experiences/Relevancy ..................................................................................................................... 108

Meeting
Skills
&
Structures.............................................................................................................. 111

Intent
vs.
Action .................................................................................................................................... 112

Indigenous
Cultures.............................................................................................................................................. 113

On
Systems ............................................................................................................................................................... 116

Leadership............................................................................................................................................... 116

Organization
Structures .................................................................................................................... 117

Non‐profit
Industrial
Complex ....................................................................................................... 118

Democracy
in
Our
System ................................................................................................................ 120

Conclusion
and
TFSC
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 122

Chapter
7:
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 127

Bibliography..................................................................................................................................................... 131












List
of
Figures



3.1:
U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
Status,
2011

3.2:
Model
of
an
Agro‐Food
System

3.3:
Corporate
Ownership
of
Food
Distribution

4.1:
Poverty
by
Demographic
Category
in
Thurston
County
and
Olympia

4.2:
Participation
in
School
Meals
Program
for
Thurston
County


4.3:
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
vision,
mission
statement,
and
goals

5.1:
Ethnic/Racial
Distribution
of
Survey
Participants

5.2:
Residence
Distribution
of
Survey
Participants

5.3:
Distribution
of
Income
Levels
of
Survey
Participants

5.4:
Age
Distribution
of
Survey
Participants

5.5:
Distribution
of
Education
Levels
of
Survey
Participants

5.6:
Length
of
Food
Activism
Involvement
of
Survey
Participants

5.7:
Source
of
Information
for
Food
Summit
of
Survey
Participants

5.8:
Frequency
of
Shopping
Locations
of
Survey
Participants

5.9:
Current
Food
Stamp
Usage
of
Survey
Participants

5.10:
Perception
of
Underserved
Populations
Missing

5.11:
Frequency
of
Interview
Themes

5.12:
Frequency
of
Interview
Subthemes
Compared
across
Interviews




vii


List
of
Tables



3.1:
U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
and
Race/Ethnicity




3.2:
U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
and
Poverty
Level




3.3:
U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
and
Household
Composition




4.1:
Race/Ethnicity
of
Washington
State,
Thurston
County,
and
Olympia





List
of
Maps



4.1:
Thurston
County
in
vicinity
of
the
state
of
WA

4.2:
Cities,
Tribal
Reservations,
and
Fort
Lewis
in
Thurston
County

4.3:
Distribution
of
Minority
Populations
in
Thurston
County

4.4:
Locations
of
Emergency
Food
Programs
in
Thurston
County

4.5:
Distribution
of
School
and
Community
Gardens
in
Thurston
County



List
of
Appendices

Appendix
A:
Stakeholder
Assessment
Survey

Appendix
B:
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
Vision,
Mission
Statement,
and
Goals

Appendix
C:
Timeline
of
Food
Summit
and
Formation
of
the
Thurston
Food
Systems

Council









viii


Acknowledgements





I
want
to
first
thank
all
the
amazing
social
justice
and
food
organizers
I
interviewed

for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
share
their
wisdom
and
inspirational
work.

This

research
simply
relays
the
hands‐on
knowledge
by
those
who
work
every
day
for
a

better
world
through
community
building
and
empowerment.





I
also
want
to
the
thank
the
institution
of
The
Evergreen
State
College,
particularly

my
thesis
reader
and
Director
of
the
Graduate
Program
on
the
Environment,
Martha

Henderson,
who
has
pushed
me
to
dive
deeper
into
these
topics
than
I
thought
was

possible.

Thank
you
to
my
former
supervisor,
Gail
Wootan
and
office
companion,

Jan
Hays,
for
their
amazing
flexibility,
support,
and
office
gatherings.

Thank
you
to

my
family,
particularly
for
feeding
and
housing
me
during
the
writing
phase
of
my

thesis
(thanks
mom!),
my
amazing
partner
Derek
Race
for
his
emotionally
stable

support,
and
my
MES
family
–
my
fellow
students
were
a
community
of
support
and

inspiration
through
this
demanding
endeavor.

I
am
particularly
grateful
to
fellow

MES
students
and
amazing
friends,
Melissa
Pico
and
Ashley
McBee,
for
all
their

hours
of
editing
and
believing
in
me.





Last,
certainly
not
least
want
to
thank
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council,
with
a

particular
thank
you
to
TJ
Johnson,
for
allowing
their
organization
to
be
the
center

of
inquiry
for
this
research.

It
will
take
organizations
being
open
to
analysis
and

critique
to
truly
push
the
envelope
on
successful
community
organizing.

I
am

extremely
excited
to
see
the
transformations
that
occur
due
to
their
presence
in

Thurston
County.





ix


Acronyms



CFS











Community
Food
Security


CSA











Community
Supported
Agriculture


FNB
 








Food
Not
Bombs


FPC











Food
Policy
Council


GRuB
 








Growing
Raised
Bounty


LFO
 








Left
Foot
Organics


POWER








Parents
Organizing
for
Welfare
and
Economic
Rights


SSS








Senior
Services
for
South
Sound





SNAP


Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance
Program
(previously

Food
Stamp
Program)


TESC
 








The
Evergreen
State
College


TCFB
 








Thurston
County
Food
Bank


TFSC
 








Thurston
Food
Systems
Council


TRPC
 








Thurston
Regional
Planning
Council


USDA
 








United
States
Department
of
Agriculture




x


Chapter
1:
Introduction




“The
agro­food
system
is
‘both
a
symptom
and
a
symbol
of
how
we
organize
ourselves
and
our

societies,’
and
represents
‘a
microcosm
of
wider
social
realities.’
“

(Lang,
1999,
p.
218)





Agro­Food
Systems
as
an
Environmental
Study

Food
is
the
most
intimate
connection
humans
experience
with
the
natural

environment.

Humans
are
literally
consuming
other
organisms
into
their
own
being

and
are
dependent
upon
these
organisms,
and
the
functions
that
support
them,
for

their
very
survival.


This
vital,
concrete
connection
to
Earth
has
been
present
for
all

peoples
in
all
places
and
so
remains
today.

Environmental
historian
Donald

Worster
(1990)
claims
this
unique
relationship
gives
us
the
ability
to
examine,

through
agro‐food
systems,
not
only
the
“reorganization
of
nature
(1100),”
but
also

the
“restructuring
of
human
relations
(1098).”

Agro‐food
systems
on
one
side
entail

humans
altering
ecosystems
to
maintain
a
consistent
flow
of
provisions,
a
process
in

which
we
literally
modify
and
“re‐organize”
nature
to
fit
an
image
that
makes
sense

to
us
and
meets
our
needs.

On
the
other
side
of
the
system
are
the
relationships

among
individuals
and
institutions
necessary
to
produce,
process,
distribute,
eat,

and
dispose
of
this
food;
relationships
which
are
structured
and
re‐structured

according
to
dominant
social,
economic,
and
political
paradigms.

The
practical
act

of
agriculture
is
bounded
within
natural
limits,
but
the
agro‐food
system,
as
a
whole,

is
a
socially
constructed
entity
bounded
by
political‐economic
arrangements
and

social
norms.









1


Investigation
of
the
agro‐food
system
requires
a
political
ecology
approach
in
which

the
reinforcing
cycle,
among
political
frameworks
structuring
society,
human‐nature

relationships,
and
human‐human
relationships,
is
made
transparent.

Through
this

lens,
relations
of
power,
privilege,
and
preference
become
palpable.

At
a
conceptual

level,
a
political
ecology
of
agro‐food
systems
allows
humans
to
examine
the

manifestation
of
conscious
and
subconscious
perceptions
and
ideologies
underlying

society.

Behaviors
and
arrangements
perceived
as
“normal”
are
revealed
to
be

creations
of
complex
network
of
both
past
and
current
influences.

In
this
way,

humans
are
able
to
investigate
the
individual
and
collective
psyche
through
analysis

of
systems
that
are
produced
and
practiced.

At
a
practical
level,
a
political
ecology

of
agro‐food
systems
allows
humans
to
structure
systems
in
a
more
balanced,

holistic
way
with
a
deeper
understanding
of
inter‐relationships
among
and
within

systems.

Emergence
of
a
growing
alternative
agro‐food
movement
illuminates
the

contention
surrounding
the
current
agro‐food
system
and
indicates
the
potential
for

global
shifts
in
this
vital
human
relationship
to
planet
Earth.




Food
Equity
–
an
Integral
Factor
of
a
Sustainable
Agro­food
System

Currently,
individuals,
organizations,
and
communities
across
the
world
are
taking

political
and
grassroots
action
to
evolve
agro‐food
systems.

Niche
movements
that

comprise
the
overall
alternative
agro‐food
movement
include
local
food,
organic

food,
community
and
school
gardens,
food
sovereignty,
community
food
security,

sustainable
agriculture,
and
slow
food.

Each
concept
offers
ideas
and
actions

around
a
more
just
and
sustainable
agro‐food
system,
however
approaches
differ
in





2


definition
and
prioritization
of
what
a
just
food
system
looks
like.

It
is
a
crucial
time

to
assess
whether
the
same
inequities
produced
by
the
current
system
are
being

reinforced
within
alternative
structures.





Sustainability
automatically
implies
that
social,
ecological,
and
economic
factors
will

all
be
considered
in
a
holistic
and
balanced
approach.


Sustainability
advocates
have

succeeded
in
bringing
environmental
issues
to
the
forefront
of
the
alternative
agro‐
food
movement,
but
have
failed
in
equally
addressing
social
justice
and
equity
issues

(Allen
2010;
Jacobson
2006;
Sachs
1992).

Any
goal
surrounding
sustainable
agro‐
food
systems
should
consider
social
equity,
not
just
environmental
impacts,
in
its

assessment.

Social
equity
within
an
agro‐food
system
can
be
assessed
in
numerous

ways
including
workers
rights,
access
to
appropriate
foods,
and
health
impacts.



Allen
(2010)
describes
both
“material
equity
(that
is,
the
distribution
of
resources)

and
process
equity
(that
is,
inclusion
and
democratic
participation)
(296).”

Within

the
alternative
agro‐food
movement,
there
is
a
trend
for
those
with
less
material

equity
to
also
have
less
process
equity,
meaning
those
who
have
less
access
to

resources
(food)
typically
have
less
access
to
process
(organizing
and
movement‐
building)
(Allen
2010).


A
movement
championed
by
those
of
the
dominant
culture,

whom
currently
have
disproportionate
access
to
both
resources
and
process,
risks

inadvertently
incorporating
the
same
underlying
ideologies
that
have
served
as
the

foundation
for
inequity
in
the
current
system.

Analysis
of
social
equity
within
agro‐
food
systems
demands
an
understanding
of
who
has
the
power
in
the
system,
and
is





3


ultimately
the
analysis
of
the
current
state
of
democracy
within
current
and

emerging
systems.






Research
Question


This
research
explores
the
state
of
social
equity,
specifically
process
equity,
within

the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
at
the
local
level
through
the
case
study
of
the

Thurston
Food
Systems
Council.

Literature
informing
this
study
is
focused
on
the

theories
underlying
the
agro‐food
movement,
but
specific
case
studies
allow
for
the

teasing
apart
of
these
theories
at
the
practical
level.

If
communities
want
to

implement
more
just
agro‐food
systems,
there
must
first
be
an
understanding
of
the

existence
and
perpetuation
of
inequity.

Inequities
revealed
in
a
community
case

study
will
be
place‐specific
to
some
extent,
but
without
a
doubt
will
reveal
patterns

that
cross
space
and
place.

Literature
and
past
studies
presented
in
this
research

identify
a
trend
of
difficulty
in
creating
inclusivity
and
diversity
within
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement.

Comparison
of
specific
case
studies
can
begin
to

identify
the
political
ecology
behind
these
trends.





The
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
has
been
critiqued
for
its
inability
to

engage
socio‐economically
diverse
community
members,
which
raised
the
specific

research
question:
Why
are
the
voices
of
underserved
populations
missing
from
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement
in
Thurston
County?

The
goal
of
this
research
is
to

gain
a
deeper
understanding
of
the
barriers
to
creating
an
inclusive,
diverse

organizing
environment
at
the
community
level
and
within
the
larger
agro‐food





4


movement.

The
expertise
and
knowledge
of
social
justice
organizers
interviewed

for
this
study
provides
insight
on
creating
inclusive
organizing
environments,

empowering
underserved
populations
within
social
movements,
and
the
potentials

to
integrate
social
justice
into
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.



I
present
the
research
first
by
explaining
in
Chapter
Two
the
theories
underlying
my

analysis
of
social
equity
in
alternative
agro‐food
movements,
specifically
theories
of

political
ecology,
food
justice,
community
food
security,
and
food
democracy.


Chapter
Three
investigates
inequities
within
the
current
globalized
agro‐food

system
and
some
of
the
underlying
factors
behind
food
insecurity
and
food
equity.


This
chapter
also
discusses
the
formation
of
Food
Policy
Councils
and
their
potential

to
play
a
crucial
role
in
increasing
food
equity
through
democratic
participation.


Chapter
Four
explores
Thurston
County
specifically
through
the
lens
of
food
equity,

examining
food
insecurity
trends
and
the
presence
of
the
alternative
agro‐food

movement
at
the
local
level.

The
last
section
of
the
chapter
provides
a
description
of

the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council,
the
entity
at
the
center
of
inquiry,
which

provides
a
specific
case
study
for
analysis.

Chapter
Five
lays
out
my
methods
and

results.

Chapter
Six
will
provide
my
interpretation
of
research
data
as
it
reveals
the

major
barriers
to
engaging
underserved
populations
in
local
agro‐food
organizing

and
corresponding
implications
on
the
national
agro‐food
movement.

Chapter

Seven
provides
a
summation
of
conclusions
drawn
during
the
study
and
the
big

picture
ideas
readers
should
leave
understanding
and
questioning.









5


Chapter
2:
Theoretical
Framework


Environmental
studies,
much
like
food
studies,
is
inherently
interdisciplinary.

The

field
as
a
whole
recognizes
that
to
examine
an
“environmental”
issue,
one
has
to

examine
it
from
all
perspectives
because
social,
political,
economic,
and

environmental
systems
are
an
entangled
web
through
which
humans
define,
and

live
on,
this
planet.

Although
this
study
is
done
primarily
from
a
social
justice
lens,

its
findings
reflect
the
complex
relationships
among
political‐economic
structures,

social
interactions,
and
relationships
to
the
environment,
and
is
particularly

interested
in
power
distributions
and
social
equity
revealed
at
the
local
level.

This

study
draws
upon
concepts
from
many
disciplines
and
theories
including
political

ecology,
community
food
security,
food
justice,
social
movements,
food
democracy,

and
food
policy
councils.





Political
Ecology


Political
ecology
practitioners
may
come
from
a
wide
range
of
backgrounds
in
both

the
physical
and
social
sciences,
but
are
connected
by
their
“query
[of]
the

relationship
between
economics,
politics,
and
nature
(Robbins
2004:
5),”
with

nature
including
human
actors.

The
concept
was
termed
in
1972
and
initially

research
focused
on
relationships
in
the
Global
South1,
however
similar
analysis
can

be
applied
to
conditions
in
Western
society.

Often
the
overall
goal
of
political

ecology
research
expands
beyond
academic
inquiry
to
include
practical
application


























































1
The
term
Global
South
refers
to
lesser
developed
countries
in
the
geographic
south
that
tend
to
face

great
amounts
of
political,
social,
and
economic
upheaval.

A
socio‐economic
and
political
divide

defines
the
North‐South
divide.

The
nations
of
Africa,
Central
and
Latin
America,
and
most
of
Asia

comprise
the
Global
South.
(American
University
Center
for
the
Global
South
Website)





6


of
theory
to
benefit
marginalized
social
and
natural
systems.

Research
has
the

potential
to
move
environmental
issues
into
movements
incorporating
social
justice

(Peet
and
Watts
1996b).

The
majority
of
research
surrounding
the
agro‐food

system
has
been
conducted
in
the
natural
sciences
from
an
“environment”

perspective,
and
has
not
been
balanced
with
issues
concerning
social
equity
and

access.

Emerging
political
ecology
studies
make
these
connections.

According
to

Patricia
Allen
(1998),
Director
of
the
Center
for
Agroecology,
University
of
California

Santa
Cruz:

A
political
ecology
of
food
and
agriculture
seeks
to
understand

the
contradictions
and
conflicts
which
structure
social

relations
and
interactions
with
nature
and
which
drive

economic
change.
(157)




Understanding
relationships
across
both
natural
and
social
systems
brings

together
“green”
issues
(those
concerning
environment
as
a
focus)
and
“red”

issues
(those
concerning
social
justice
as
a
focus)
in
hopes
of
developing
a

progressive
society
that
supports
sustainable
relationships
between
society

and
nature
(Allen
1998).





I
find
the
case
study
of
the
Thurston
[County]
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
to
be
a

contribution
to
the
larger
political
ecology
literature.

Political
ecology
provides
“an

empirical
inquiry
into
specific
movements,
discourses,
and
institutions
focused
on

environment
and
social
justice
within
a
geographically
bounded
region
(Watts

1996:
14).”

My
research
is
an
inquiry
into
the
discourses
and
movements
around

food
justice
through
the
particular
case
study
of
TFSC.









7


Food
Justice

While
many
of
the
concepts
underlying
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement

consider
the
entire
cycle
of
food
and
the
associated
human
and
environment

exchanges,
the
food
movement
as
a
whole
has
not
proportionately
addressed
social

justice
(Allen
2010).


Food
justice,
however,
highlights
equity
and
its
connection
to

political
forces.

Tim
Lang
(1996)
identifies
the
following
ideologies
as
the

foundation
of
food
justice:

Consumers
have
rights
which
must
be
fought
for
rather
than

assumed

• Human
and
environmental
health
go
hand
in
hand

• There
is
no
such
thing
as
an
average
consumer

• What
matters
is
not
just
“what”
is
eaten,
but
“how”
it
is

produced
and
distributed

• Policies
can
be
changed
for
the
better,
but
this
requires

imagination,
coalitions,
and
focused
effort.



Much
like
political
ecologists,
food
justice
advocates
recognize
environmental
health

•

is
positively
correlated
with
the
health
of
people,
and
that
the
health
of
both
is
a

function
of
the
amount
of
equity
within
the
system.

Inclusion
of
human
rights

within
the
food
system
adds
a
level
of
social
justice
not
often
found
in
many

alternative
agro‐food
concepts,
and
therefore
serves
as
a
founding
ideology
of
this

study.





Community
Food
Security

Community
food
security
(CFS)
proposes
similar
ideals
as
food
justice,
but
CFS

stresses
the
notion
that
the
community,
versus
the
individual
or
household,
is
the

appropriate
scale
for
analysis
and
change
in
agro‐food
systems.

Hamm
and
Bellows

(2003)
define
CFS
as
“….
a
situation
in
which
all
community
residents
obtain
a
safe,





8


culturally
acceptable,
nutritionally
adequate
diet
through
a
sustainable
food
system

that
maximizes
community
self‐reliance
and
social
justice
(p.
37).”

This
approach

differs
from
the
concept
of
local
food,
another
major
sector
of
the
alternative
agro‐
food
movement.

While
local
food
is
considered
a
viable
part
of
CFS,
local
agriculture

and
local
food
activists
tend
to
focus
on
the
support
of
local
farmers
and
purchasing

of
local
goods
respectively,
which
in
itself
does
not
address
the
larger
scope
of

equity
issues.

CFS
offers
a
method
of
using
the
local
to
define
an
equitable,

sustainable
system
and
has
the
potential
to
develop
“a
deep
and
democratic

understanding”
of
equity
and
power
issues
through
local
experiences
(Allen
1998).



Levkoe
(2006)
identifies
CFS
as
the
most
holistic
perspective
underlying
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement
for
it
builds
off
human
rights
and
anti‐poverty

discourses
to
include
sustainability,
community
building,
and
the
recognition
for
“a

strong
safety
net
that
can
provide
for
those
in
need
until
conditions
improve
(p.

91).”





The
CFS
discourse
stems
from
anti‐hunger
and
environmental
justice
movements
in

the
1970’s.

Theory
identifies
the
community
as
an
“…integrated
social
and

ecological
system
(Ganapathy
2005,
p
52)….”
and
recognizes
the
“…underlying

social,
economic,
and
institutional
factors
within
a
community
that
affect
the

quantity,
quality,
and
affordability
of
food
(Kantor
2001,
p
20).”

CFS
goes
beyond

traditional
food
security
assessments
that
consider
individual
households
as
a
unit

for
analysis,
and
instead
considers
the
food
system
of
an
entire
community,
from





9


production
to
disposal.

This
study
provides
a
CFS
perspective
for
Thurston
County,

and
supports
the
lens
of
CFS
as
a
framework
for
food
equity
studies.





Food
Democracy

The
theory
of
food
democracy
is
summarized
by
Lang
(1999)
in
the
following
quote:

Food
democracy
ideally
means
that
all
members
of
an
agro‐
food
system
have
equal
and
effective
opportunities
for

participation
in
shaping
that
system,
as
well
as
knowledge

about
the
relevant
alternative
ways
of
designing
and
operating

the
system
(83).



The
benefits
of
food
democracy
may
go
well
beyond
an
influence
on
the
agro‐food

system.

For
example,
Charles
Levkoe
(2006)
proposes
that
skills
and
empowerment

gained
from
involvement
in
community
food
organizing
can
increase
democratic

participation
in
general.

Democratic
learning
is
linked
to
informal
socialization
by

family
and
culture,
as
well
as
through
formal
educational
institutions
(Levkoe
2006,

Merrifield
2001,
Schurgurensky
2003).

Indirect
learning
occurs
through
group

participation,
and
scholars
recognize
that
actively
being
involved
in
social

movements
is
essential
for
this
learning
to
occur.

Social
movements,
such
as
the

agro‐food
movement,
get
individuals
locally
involved
which
leads
to
more
interest

and
engagement
in
broader
issues
(Levkoe
2006).

The
ability
to
influence
politics

becomes
real
and
relevant
in
a
local
context
and
can
then
be
extrapolated
to
larger

issues.





The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
unique
in
its
range
of
diverse
groups
and

interests,
which
increases
its
potential
for
large‐scale
social
change.

Food
First





10


(2010)
connects
these
notions
in
their
report
Democracy
in
Action:
Food
Policy

Councils:

The
power
of
informed,
democratic
collaboration,
especially

when
linked
to
specific
places
where
people
live,
work,
and
eat,

has
an
additional
emergent
quality:
it
can
change
the
way
we
–

and
others
–
think.

This
is
social
learning,
the
basis
for
social

change.
(3)



Arguably
we
cannot
achieve
a
just,
sustainable
agro‐food
system(s)
without

promoting
food
democracy.

As
researcher
Neva
Hassanein
(2003)
points
out

“food

democracy
is
necessary
because
achieving
sustainability
involves
conflicts
over

values,
and
there
is
no
independent
authority,
such
as
science
or
religion,
to
which

we
can
appeal
for
resolution
over
these
conflicts
(85).”

Ideas
on
what
is
fair
and

just,
as
are
reflected
in
sustainability
and
food
justice,
are
not
absolutes,
but

subjective
reflections
on
the
values
that
our
society
supports.

People
of
the
society

are
the
only
ones
who
can
decide
what
that
balance
of
values
should
be.

Achieving

food
democracy
requires
a
shift
in
thinking
how
and
who
can
contribute,
and

creating
pragmatic
mechanisms
for
making
it
happen.


Organizations
modeled
after

Food
Policy
Councils,
such
as
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council,
particularly

appear
to
have
this
potential.





A
key
phrase
in
Lang’s
(1999)
food
democracy
definition
is
“equal
and
effective

opportunities
(83).”

Chapter
3
reveals
ways
in
which
our
current
agro‐food
system

does
not
support
food
democracy,
particularly
among
underserved
populations,
and

drastically
lacks
equal
or
effective
avenues
for
participation.

This
study
assesses
the

current
state
of
food
democracy
in
the
agro‐food
movement,
and
investigates
the





11


barriers
and
opportunities
community
organizations
have
to
increase
food

democracy,
particularly
among
those
disproportionately
impacted
by
injustices
of

the
agro‐food
system.








12


Chapter
3:


The
Global
Agro­Food
System
and
Associated
Resistance

The
U.S.
serves
as
the
global
model
and
driver
of
the
industrialized,
commodity

agriculture
that
produces
the
majority
of
food
in
our
world.

In
the
mid
1800’s
the

industrial
revolution
resembled
a
shift
from
a
largely
agrarian
and
rural
American

society
to
one
based
on
mechanization
and
mass
manufacturing;
a
shift
grounded
in

capitalist
ideologies.

American
policies
encouraged,
and
continue
to
encourage,
this

growth
within
the
country
and
around
the
world
(Allen
&
Wilson
2008).

The
result

is
a
globalized
agro‐food
system
geared
towards
high
productivity
and
efficiency

that
depends
on
massive
inputs
of
fertilizers,
pesticides,
water,
and
fossil
fuels.


Systems
produce
large
amounts
of
food,
but
also
immense
inequities
and

unsustainable
practices.

“Cheap
food”
produced
by
the
global
system
has
the
costs

of
negative
externalities
absorbed
by
society
and
nature,
costs
which
are
now
being

felt
in
economic
terms
by
those
even
in
the
richest
countries,
and
are
destroying

ecosystems
and
livelihoods
globally.






Environmental
costs
appear
in
the
forms
of
deforestation,
eutrophication,
chemical

contamination,
and
soil
erosion
(Tilman
et.
al
2002;
Olson
1992;
Pimental
et.
al

1995).

Additionally,
food‐related
activities
are
a
leading
source
of
greenhouse
gases

contributing
to
climate
change
(TRPC
2011).

Social
costs
include
hunger,
exposure

to
toxins
through
pesticides
and
fertilizers,
and
diet‐related
diseases,
which
are
now

one
of
the
leading
causes
of
preventable
deaths
in
the
United
States
(Health
&





13


Human
Resources
website).

The
collective
alternative
agro‐food
movement

symbolizes
resistance
to
this
arguably
broken
system,
however
players
in
this

movement
risk
inadvertently
reinforcing
and
reproducing
inequities.

The
following

sections
reveal
practices
and
underlying
ideologies
that
are
not
congruent
with
the

goals
of
food
justice,
community
food
security,
and
food
democracy.







“A
basic
principle
of
modern
state
capitalism
is
that
costs
and
risks
are
socialized
to

the
extent
possible,
while
profit
is
privatized.”


–
Noam
Chomsky



Inequity
in
the
Agro­Food
System

The
U.S.
agro‐food
system
is
based
off
capitalist
ideologies,
a
political‐economic

concept
geared
towards
production
and
growth.

Following
the
Great
Depression,

the
United
States
adopted
a
form
of
capitalism
based
on
the
principles
of
individual

freedoms
liberated
from
the
state,
deregulated
markets,
and
the
privatization
of

resources,
often
termed
neoclassical,
neoliberal,
or
laissez‐faire
capitalism.


Whatever
the
term,
this
form
of
capitalism
assumes
that
all
humans
have
equal

opportunity
and
access,
failing
to
account
for
social
oppression,
like
racism
and

classism,
inequalities,
and
the
exploitation
of
natural
resources.

Privatization
and

capitalization
of
the
agro‐food
system
has
resulted
in
a
few
owning
the
market,
and

the
“commodification
of
human
relationships,”
in
which
people
are
merely

consumers
with
little
influence
on
how
the
system
operates
(Levkoe
2005).


Allen

(1998)
argues
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
has
not
been
successful
in

challenging
these
underlying
capitalist
ideologies,
which
has
prevented
true
change

from
occurring.

She
argues
that
instead
of
attempting
to
integrate
more
people
into





14


the
same
system,
societies,
particularly
the
United
States,
need
to
envision
different

political
and
economic
arrangements
that
may
be
more
conducive
to
equity.








The
scope
of
this
research
does
not
address
the
functions
of
neoliberal
capitalism,

and
cannot
make
claims
to
whether
an
equitable
agro‐food
system
is
possible
under

these
ideologies.

Regardless,
the
current
agro‐food
system
has
inequities
that
are

connected
to
the
structure
of
the
system.

Players
in
the
alternative
agro‐food

movement
have
to
make
these
inequities
transparent
in
order
to
avoid
re‐producing

existing
issues,
and
the
extent
that
these
inequities
are
inherent
to
a
capitalist

system
should
continue
to
be
analyzed.







Hunger
in
a
World
of
Abundance

A
blaring
example
of
inequity
in
the
globalized
agro‐food
system
is
the
number
of

people
that
suffer
from
hunger
and
food
insecurity
in
the
world.

The
concepts
of

food
justice
and
community
food
security
are
based
off
the
beliefs
that
food
is
a

right,
and
that
all
peoples
should
have
access
to
healthy,
appropriate
food.

Although

more
than
enough
food
is
produced
today
to
feed
the
entire
world
population,

millions
around
the
globe
suffer
from
hunger
and
food
insecurity.

Traditionally

hunger
was
viewed
as
an
issue
of
production
versus
population
–
a
belief
that
the

planet
could
not
produce
enough
food
for
such
a
large
population.

Today,
this

approach
is
considered
outdated
and
verifiably
false
as
it
is
statistically
supported

that
increases
in
amount
of
food
produced
are
not
related
to
access
of
the
food

produced
(Boucher
1999).

By
the
1980's,
in
quantity,
there
was
enough
food
to





15


provide
“access
by
all
people
at
all
times
to
enough
food
for
an
active,
healthy

lifestyle”
(World
Bank
1986
as
quoted
in
Anderson
&
Cook
1999),
however
in
2010

the
United
Nations
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
(FAO)
reported
925
million

people
worldwide
suffered
from
hunger
(FAO
2010).





Hunger
in
the
United
States


In
the
United
States
issues
of
hunger
are
framed
in
terms
of
food
insecurity.

The

United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
defines
“very
low
food
security,”
or

“food
security
with
hunger”
as
an
individual
or
household
that
“reports
multiple

indications
of
disrupted
eating
patterns
and
reduced
food
intake
(USDA
Economic

Research
Service
website).”

As
one
interviewer
of
this
study
put
it,
hunger
in
the

United
States
is
“missing
meals”
and
it
is
happening
all
around
us.

In
2011,
16.7

million
American
children
and
33.5
million









U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
Status,

2011

11%


4%

Food
‐secure

households

Households
with
low

food
security

Households
with
very

low
food
security











85%












Figure
3.1.
U.S.
Households
by
Food
Security
Status,
Year
2011
Census
Data
as
collected
on

the
Current
Population
Survey
Food
Security
Supplement.


Source:
USDA
Economic
Research
Service
website.






16


American
adults
were
living
in
food
insecure
households
(Feeding
America
website)

(Figure
3.1).


Issues
of
food
insecurity
in
the
United
States
will
likely
continue
to

increase.


From
2009
to
2010
all
the
food
banks
in
the
US
saw
an
increase
in
visits

ranging
from
11‐21%
(TRPC
website),
and
one
in
nine
Americans
were
recipients
of

Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance
Program
(previously
known
as
the
Food
Stamp

program)(Food
First
2010).


Furthermore,
the
assistance
provided
through

emergency
food
response
is
currently
under
risk
of
budget
cuts
and
remains
a
main

area
of
contention
in
the
political
system.




Institutionalized
Oppression
within
the
Agro­Food
System

Inequities
within
the
agro‐food
system
are
not
evenly
distributed
throughout

society,
but
instead
are
shouldered
by
certain
groups
within
the
larger
population.


Almost
all
populations
that
fall
outside
the
dominant
culture,
or
represent
a

minority,
are
at
higher
risk
on
all
levels
within
the
system.

In
2011,
food
insecurity

in
the
United
States
was
highest
among
low‐income
households,
single
parent

households,
Black
non‐Hispanic
households,
and
Hispanic
households
(Feeding

America
website)
(Tables
3.1,
3.2,
3.3),
and
forty
percent
of
workers
in
the
lowest

paying
sectors
of
the
food
chain
identified
with
a
minority
population
(Rockefeller

Foundation
2012).


Social
class
is
one
of
the
main
determinants
of
diet‐related

diseases,
such
as
diabetes
and
obesity,
and
in
the
United
States
there
is
a
20‐year
life

expectancy
difference
between
the
most
and
least
advantaged
populations
(Food

First
2010;
Marmot
2005).

Additionally,
disadvantaged
populations
across
the





17


world
suffer
the
most
from
environmental
degradation
(Human
Development

Report
2011).





Disproportionate
access
mirrors
disproportionate
impact;
populations
that
suffer

most
from
food
insecurity
and
food‐related
issues
are
the
populations
with
the
most

limited
access
to
food.

The
term
‘food
deserts’
has
been
developed
to
define
low‐
income
neighborhoods
that
do
not
have
access
to
a
grocery
store
or
healthy,

affordable
food
within
a
certain
distance.

Grocery
stores
strategically
choose

locations
in
middle
and
upper
class
neighborhoods
to
ensure
higher
profits
leaving

low‐income
and
minority
neighborhoods
with
mostly
corner
stores
and
fast
food

restaurants
(Food
First
2010).

Food
that
is
accessible
at
low
prices
is
often
highly

processed
and
laden
with
chemicals,
sugars,
and
fats.

Currently,
there
is
not
a
level

playing
field
for
nutritious
food,
local
food,
organic
food,
or
culturally
appropriate

food,
particularly
among
low‐income
and
minority
households.

One
of
the
critiques

around
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
that
it
has
not
yet
confronted
issues

of
racism
and
classism
present
in
the
current
agro‐food
system.

Consequently

players
in
the
movement
“often
end
up
reproducing
the
same
political
and
economic

disenfranchisement”
(Food
First
2010:
12).













18









Food
Secure


Race/Ethnicity


Percent

Food
Secure


Food
Insecure

Percent
Low
Food

Security


Percent

Very
Low
Food

Security


White
non­
Hispanic


87.9


7.9


4.2


Black
non­
Hispanic


74.1


15.9


10.0


Hispanic


71.7


20.0


8.3


Other


86.9


9.1


4.0


Total
Population


83.6


10.9


5.5


Table
3.1.
U.S.
Households
by
food
security
status
and
race/ethnicity,
2011.
Source:
USDA
ERS
website.










Food
Secure


Poverty
Level


Percent

Food
Secure


Food
Insecure

Percent
Low

Food
Security


Percent

Very
Low
Food

Security


Under
100%

Poverty
Level


57.8


26.5


14.9


130%
Poverty

Level


60.7


24.8


13.6


185%
Poverty

Level


64.1


23.1


11.2


Over
185%

Poverty
Level


93.0


5.0


1.9


Total
Population


87.6


8.4


4.1


Table
3.2.
U.S.
Households
by
food
security
status
and
poverty
level,
2011.
Source:
USDA
ERS
website.
























19





Food
Secure


Household

Composition


Percent

Food
Secure


Food
Insecure

Percent
Low

Food
Security


Percent

Very
Low
Food

Security


Married­couple

families


85.0


11.2


3.8


Female
head
with

children,
no

spouse


62.5


25.5


11.9


Male
head
with

children,
no

spouse


73.7


18.8


7.5


No
children,
more

than
one
adult


89.7


6.0


4.3


Total
Population


83.6


10.9


5.5


Table
3.3.
U.S.
Households
by
food
security
status
and
household
composition,
2011.
Source:
USDA
ERS
website.










Power
Distribution
in
the
Agro­Food
System



If
amount
of
food
is
not
the
issue
then
we
are
forced
to
look
deeper
at
what
prevents

certain
peoples
from
obtaining
consistent
food
supplies.

A
political
ecology

approach
identifies
the
need
to
understand
power
distributions
supported
by

existing
political
and
economic
arrangements.

Who
has
the
ability
to
make

decisions
in
our
systems?
Who
defines
the
discourse
around
these
systems?

And

who
is
profiting
and
benefiting
from
these
systems?

Immediately
it
is
seen
that
one

of
the
major
issues
is
the
absence
of
comprehensive
approaches
that
connect
these

factors
with
the
presence
of
inequities
and
the
lack
of
power
citizens
have
within

the
system.








20


The
agro‐food
discourse
supported
by
the
United
States
government

disproportionately
focuses
on
production
and
emergency
food
services
versus

actual
food
issues
(Allen
1998).

The
national
political
and
economic
environment

supports
large‐scale
operations
that
are
motivated
by
profit
and
production
versus

nutrition,
sustainable
practices,
and
equity.

In
the
US,
and
the
world,
the

agricultural
and
food
industry
is
controlled
by
a
handful
of
transnational

corporations
that
regard
profit
as
the
primary
goal.

Four
firms
control
84%
of
the

meatpacking
market,
three
firms
control
55%
of
the
flour
milling
market,
and
five

retailers
control
more
than
half
(52%)
of
the
grocery
market,
with
Wal‐Mart

controlling
one‐quarter
of
the
total
market
(Rockefeller
Foundation
2012).

Over

60%
of
the
retail
purchases
are
in
control
of
ten
of
the
largest
multinational

corporations
(Thomas
2004).

Figure
3.3
gives
an
example
of
the
consolidation
of

distribution
within
the
agro‐food
system.

American
agricultural
policy
is
comprised

of
legislative
actions
intended
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
large
players
of
agricultural

industry,
often
with
detrimental
impacts
to
the
overall
society
and
the
environment

(Allen
1998;
McCalla
1985;
Paarlberg
1980).

Policies
initiate
a
cycle
where
money

from
consumers
is
transferred
to
the
wealthiest
farmers
who
in
turn
fuel
the

industry
and
policymakers.

The
cycle
removes
power
from
the
consumer
as
well
as

from
farm
and
food
workers
who
perform
the
majority
of
agro‐food
work
(Allen

1998).







21








Figure
3.3.

Corporate
Ownership
of
Food
Distribution.

This
image
exemplifies

how
ownership
is
consolidated
within
the
agro­food
system.

Consumers
are

often
unaware
that
the
seemingly
diverse
options
are
in
reality
owned
by
a
few.


Source:
Huffington
Post
2012.


In
the
United
States
there
is
one
single
government
entity
concerning
food,
the
US

Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA).

Political
power
lies
solely
in
one
institution
that

does
not
address
the
many
stages
of
food
following
production
such
as
processing,

distribution,
purchasing,
eating,
and
waste
disposal/recycling.

Wayne
Roberts,

Canadian
food
policy
analyst,
explains
the
error
of
this
approach:








“Because
food
touches
so
many
aspects
of
our
lives
in
so
many

ways,
a
government
that
does
not
have
a
comprehensive
food

policy
cannot,
by
definition,
have
a
comprehensive
health

policy,
energy
policy,
job
creation
policy,
environment
policy,

global
warming
policy,
anti‐poverty
policy,
immigration
and

settlement
policy,
trade
policy,
industrial
policy
or
–
last
but

not
least
–
agricultural
policy.
When
food
is
torn
apart,
with

bits
stored
in
silos
of
health,
energy,
environment,

immigration,
trade
and
agriculture
departments,
it
becomes

like
the
patient
who
is
treated
by
doctors
as
a
liver,
pancreas,

heart,
spine,
ear,
nose
and
throat,
not
a
whole
person.”


(as
quoted
in
Phillipi
2010)


22


A
primary
goal
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
to
demonstrate
that
in

reality
food
is
connected
to
many,
arguably
all,
sectors
of
development
and

commerce,
and
as
a
nation
we
have
to
recognize
these
relationships.

Figure
3.2

gives
a
more
holistic
example
of
the
relationships
and
influences
that
are
part
of
an

agro‐food
system.

Transportation
impacts
the
accessibility
individuals
have
to
food;

environmental
issues
ranging
from
pollution
to
climate
change
are
linked
directly
to

agricultural
practices;
education
is
a
key
component
in
restoring
knowledge
on

healthy,
culturally
appropriate
eating
practices;
and
development
regulations
can

support
or
hinder
urban
and
community
gardening
and
farming.

As
it
stands
there

are
no
municipalities
in
the
nation
that
focus
on
food.


























Figure
3.2.

Model
of
an
agro­food
system
indicating
the
complex
interactions
and

relationships
of
an
agro­food
system.

Currently
the
United
States
government
does
not

have
entities
in
place
that
address
the
agro­food
system
at
this
level
of
systemic

analysis.

Source:
Iowa
Food
Systems
Council
2011.





Food
insecurity
definitions
utilized
by
the
USDA
fail
to
link
individuals
with
the

economics
and
politics
of
the
community
and
nation
in
a
largely
apolitical
approach





23


(Anderson
&
Cook
1999).


The
failure
to
address
systemic,
political
ecology
sources

of
hunger
is
exemplified
in
conventional
responses
to
hunger
and
food
insecurity.


For
example
the
charity‐based
system
of
giving
food
to
those
experiencing
food

insecurity,
such
as
food
banks
and
soup
kitchens,
largely
dismisses
the

circumstances
that
led
to
food
insecurity
in
the
first
place.

These
actions
are
not

economically
empowering
and
are
merely
a
stepping‐stone
to
addressing
the

hardships
of
poverty
that
underlie
issues
of
hunger
and
food
insecurity.

Responsive

versus
preventative
measures
remain
prevalent
at
local
levels
as
well
as
for
global

hunger
aid.





Levkoe
(2005)
believes
injustices
in
the
agro‐food
system
are
correlated
with
the

“increasing
focus
on
people,
not
as
citizens,
but
as
consumers.”

Additionally,
the

corporate
agro‐food
economy
has
created
what
Kneen
(1993)
defines
as

“distancing”
from
our
food:
“the
disempowering
and
deskilling
of
people
from

producing
their
own
food
and
being
able
to
eat
well.”

People
are
losing
much
of
the

knowledge
and
skills
associated
with
cooking
and
eating
in
healthy,
culturally

appropriate
ways;
a
condition
that
disempowers
peoples
to
take
control
of
food

security
within
their
lives.
It
becomes
obvious
food
is
a
“political
issue”
when
one

understands
government
structure
and
regulations
detract
power
from
the
people.


Hunger
and
food
insecurity
are
then
realized
as
a
result
of
“a
lack
of
power
and

democracy”
(Boucher
1999:
2).


The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
exemplifies

that
communities
all
over
the
world
are
yearning
for
a
different
way
of
relating
to





24


food,
yet
in
the
current
system
people
do
not
have
adequate
avenues
to
voice
their

opinion
leaving
them
powerless.





Food
Policy
Councils:
An
Avenue
for
Food
Democracy


The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
largely
based
on
the
belief
that
a
more

sustainable,
just
agro‐food
system
will
become
a
reality
through
empowering

community
members
and
starting
with
local
change.

Food
Policy
Councils
(FPC)
are

a
specific
method
and
organization
structure
that
connects
local
community
action

with
the
overarching
policy
shaping
and
influencing
these
communities.

FPCs
are

recognized
for
their
ability
to
directly
increase
food
democracy.

The
Thurston
Food

Systems
Council
was
inspired
by
the
functions
and
structure
of
FPCs.



The
first
FPC
was
formed
in
1982
in
Knoxville,
TN
in
response
to
food
access

inequities.

Since
that
time
dozens
of
FPCs
have
formed
throughout
the
United
States

and
Canada
in
the
attempt
to
locally
assess
and
evolve
agro‐food
systems.

Some
of

these
organizations
have
been
extremely
successful,
while
others
have
disbanded
or

evolved
into
different
entities.

Food
First,
a
national
food
advocacy
group,

performed
a
comprehensive
examination
of
these
organizations
in
2009
in
which
45

individuals
were
interviewed
and
findings
were
published
in
a
report
entitled
“Food

Policy
Councils:
Lessons
Learned.”

The
interviewees
of
this
project
were
the

prominent
players
of
functioning
and
past‐functioning
councils,
allowing
a
firsthand

perspective
on
the
opportunities,
challenges,
and
potentials
of
these
organizations.


Other
national
organizations,
such
as
the
Community
Food
Security
Coalition
and





25


the
Drake
Agricultural
Law
Center,
are
attempting
to
serve
as
comprehensive

resources
for
FPCs
and
similar
organizations.





Additionally
several
pieces
of
academic
research
have
emerged
over
the
past
years

as
these
organizations
reach
a
stage
of
comparison
and
analysis.

It
is
encouraged

that
individuals,
organizations,
and
communities
proposing
a
FPC
or
system‐level

food
organization
first
research
these
resources.

It
is
often
easy
to
feel
isolated
in

addressing
issues,
or
to
be
excited
to
begin
as
quickly
as
possible,
however
there
is

much
experience
and
wisdom
on
the
formation
and
functioning
of
FPCs.







What
is
a
Food
Policy
Council?

A
Food
Policy
Council
(FPC)
is
a
group
of
stakeholders
that
ideally
represent
all

sectors
of
the
food
system,
including
production,
consumption,
processing,

distribution,
and
waste
recycling.

Sectors
are
often
represented
by
diverse
players

in
the
community
that
may
include
anti‐hunger
and
food
justice
advocates,

educators,
farmers,
politicians,
non‐profits,
business
owners,
workers
in
the
food

industry,
food
processors,
food
distributors,
and
concerned
citizens
(Food
First

2009).

Together,
these
diverse
stakeholders
provide
system‐wide
assessment
and

problem
solving
for
local
and
regional
food
systems,
a
sector
that
is
not
present
in

the
American
political
system.

In
2009
there
were
over
40
active
FPCs
existing
at

local,
regional,
and
state
levels
(Food
First
2009).

Some
are
government
mandated

and
may
actually
be
housed
in
government,
while
many
are
grassroots
initiatives

that
become
housed
by
a
non‐profit
or
become
a
non‐profit
themselves.

Either
way





26


FPCs
often
have
a
relationship
and
recognition
by
local
government
officials
so
that

they
may
influence
actual
policy.






The
term
“food
policy”
can
be
somewhat
misleading
concerning
the
function
of

these
councils.

While
many
do
focus
on
actual
politics
surrounding
the
food
system,

they
also
streamline
food
programs
in
the
local
area.

Food
First
(2010)
identifies

that
councils
typically
have
one
or
more
of
the
following
functions:

•

To
serve
as
forums
for
discussing
food
issues,


•

To
foster
coordination
between
sectors
in
the
food
system,


•

To
evaluate
and
influence
policy,
and


•

To
launch
or
support
programs
and
services
that
address
local
needs


In
other
words,
influencing
policy
is
essential
for
structural
change
in
the
food

system,
but
the
social
benefits
of
education
and
coordination
appear
equally

important.

Above
all
a
FPC
is
intimately
connected
to,
and
therefore
expressed,
by

people
of
a
specific
place.

Specific
functions,
and
even
the
name,
of
a
FPC
reflect

each
community’s
unique
needs
and
abilities.

For
example
the
organization
this

research
focuses
on
decided
to
choose
the
name
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council

versus
Thurston
Food
Policy
Council
because
it
was
felt
the
term
“policy”
is
limiting

in
its
scope.

This
has
happened
in
other
communities
as
well,
but
these

organizations
still
fall
under
the
broad
purpose
of
FPCs
“to
coordinate
work
in
all

sectors
within
the
food
system
of
a
specific
geographic
area”
(Food
First
2010,
p
19).

Regardless
that
each
FPC
is
unique
to
a
community,
Food
First
and
other
pieces
of





27


literature
(Beihler
et
al
1999,
Borron
2003,
Schiff
2008,
Webb
2008)
identify
similar

challenges
and
opportunities
regardless
of
council
size
and
location.







Challenges
&
Potentials
for
Food
Policy
Councils

This
research
focuses
on
the
challenge
for
Food
Policy
Councils
(FPC)
to
engage

diverse
membership,
specifically
from
different
socio‐economic
and
ethnic

backgrounds,
however
this
challenge
is
by
no
means
disconnected
from
other

limitations.

One
of
the
largest
challenges
faced
by
FPCs
is
the
ability
to
balance
the

focus
between
policy
and
programming.

While
it
is
recognized
that
system‐based

change
has
a
long
term
approach
and
will
require
changes
in
policy,
studies
of

councils
identify
projects

“accomplished
within
a
relatively
short
time
frame
help
to

build
credibility
for
an
organization
along
with
member
motivation
and
pride”

(Schiff
2008
as
quoted
in
Food
First
2009a,
p.
34).

In
the
context
of
engaging

underserved
populations
this
pressure
for
short
term,
immediate
successes
may

have
councils
acting
before
they
have
a
diverse
stakeholder
membership.

The

discussion
section
of
this
research
explores
the
trade‐offs
on
building
diversity
in

the
initial
formation
stages
of
the
organization
as
a
means
to
empower
underserved

populations
versus
building
a
concrete
infrastructure
before
beginning
concerted

efforts
to
engage
diverse
populations.





Lack
of
staffing
and
funding
are
certainly
the
most
concrete
barriers
to
expanding

council
work.

Food
First
(2010)
reports
that
many
FPCs
have
no
funding
and

survive
purely
as
volunteer
organizations.

Furthermore
the
majority
of
FPCs
at
all





28


levels
have
either
no
staff
or
one
part‐time
staff.

Many
individuals
sit
on
a
council
as

part
of
their
position
with
another
organization
or
agency
or
strictly
on
a
voluntary

basis.

Limitation
of
resources
certainly
makes
it
difficult
to
offer
compensation
for

participation.

Lack
of
transportation
support
and
childcare
can
make
it
almost

impossible
for
certain
demographics,
such
as
low‐income
parents,
to
attend

meetings.





Lack
of
diverse
participation
is
a
noted
challenge
for
many
FPCs.

Diversity
in
this

context
means
both
diversity
from
socio‐economic
and
cultural
groups,
but
also

diversity
in
representatives
of
the
food
system.
For
example,
Food
First
(2010)

found
that
many
FPCs
did
not
have
representation
for
distribution
or
waste.
In

terms
of
diversity
in
a
minority
context,
it
can
be
difficult
to
address
inequities
in
a

community
food
system,
if
very
few
of
the
individuals
participating
in
FPCs
are
from

the
communities
experiencing
the
inequities
(minority
communities).

Allen
(2010)

believes
local
communities
and
food
councils
will
only
be
successful
in
supporting

equity
if
they
first
identify
the
inherent
inequity
of
a
place,
particularly
the

“differences
in
wealth,
power
and
privilege
[that]
exist
both
among
regions
and

within
regions”
(296).





Despite
these
challenges,
FPCs
across
the
nation
are
transforming
food
systems

beginning
at
the
local
level.

Food
First
(2010)
proclaims
“local
and
state

governments
are
the
testing
ground
for
innovative
policy
ideas
that
often
become

part
of
the
national
norm.”

Taking
action
at
a
local
level
will
resonate
through
our





29


country
and
serve
as
the
foundation
for
necessary
policy
shifts
at
all
levels.

The

most
unique
aspect
of
FPCs
among
food
justice
endeavors
is
their
ability
to
create

“democratic
spaces
for
convergence
in
diversity”
(Food
First
2009a,
p.
7).

Changes

are
taking
place
because
everyday
people
are
demanding
a
new
way
to
relate
to

food
–
FPCs
are
structures
to
ensure
an
organized
method
for
amplifying
citizens'

voices.

FPCs
become
a
mechanism
for
increasing
food
democracy.







30


Chapter
4:
Thurston
County
Profile

“If
food­system
localization
efforts
are
to
work
toward
equity,
they
must
consider

inherited
material
and
discursive
asymmetries
within
frameworks
of
economy,

demography,
geography
and
democracy.”


‐Allen
2010



Analysis
of
the
Thurston
County
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
offers
insight
to

challenges
of
achieving
food
democracy
at
the
local
level.

The
following
section
will

explore
the
broad
geography
of
Thurston
County,
that
is
the
spatial
relationships
of

not
just
the
physical
realm,
but
also
the
social
and
political.

Factors
that
encompass

the
overall
geography
of
Thurston
County,
and
inevitably
have
impact
on

participation
in
the
TFSC,
include
demographic
composition,
existing
infrastructure

for
food
access
and
emergency
food
services,
and
the
presence
of
actors
in
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement.

Research
data
sheds
light
on
how
these

geographic
dynamics
are
related
to
food
democracy




Landscape,
History,
and
Demography

Thurston
County
(Map
4.1)
is
located
in
Western
Washington
on
the
southern
end

of
the
Puget
Sound,
and
is
commonly
referred
to
as
the
“south
sound.”

The
larger

cities
of
Seattle
and
Tacoma
lie
to
the
north
of
the
county,
while
to
the
south
lies
the

Columbia
River
and
the
city
of
Portland,
OR.


Thurston
County,
population
252,264,

is
home
to
the
state
capitol,
Olympia,
WA.

Abutting
Olympia
to
the
south
and
north

are
the
cities
of
Tumwater
and
Lacey.


Besides
these
three
urban
areas,
there
is
a

smattering
of
several
smaller
towns
throughout
Thurston
County
including
Yelm,

Tenino,
Rainier,
and
Rochester
(Map
4.2).

Approximately
26
percent
of
county





31


residents
live
in
rural
areas,
which
is
significantly
higher
than
the
statewide
average

of
16
percent
(WA
Public
Health
and
Social
Services
2013).

As
the
following

sections
reveal,
rural
communities
in
Thurston
County
have
significantly
less
access

to
both
emergency
food
resources
and
alternative
agro‐food
activities.



Map
4.1.
Thurston
County
in
vicinity
of
the
state
of
Washington.
Source:
TRPC
Website.




Directly
outside
Thurston
County
boundaries
lies
Joint
Base
Lewis
McChord
in





neighboring
Pierce
County.

It
is
felt
that
the
presence
of
this
large
military
base

should
be
factored
when
considering
the
overall
composition
of
Thurston
County.


The
combined
Army
and
Airforce
Base
covers
415,000
acres
making
it
the
largest

military
installment
on
the
West
Coast
and
supports
an
estimated
125,000
people

that
includes
military
personnel,
families,
civilians,
and
contract
employees
(City
of

Lakewood
Website).

Many
of
these
individuals
live
outside
the
base,
including
in

Thurston
County.

The
presence
and
inclusion
of
military
as
a
typically
underserved





32


population,
although
not
a
focus
in
this
study,
was
mentioned
in
more
than
one

study
interview.





Historically,
Thurston
County
was
inhabited
by
Coastal
Salish
tribes,
including
what

is
known
today
as
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe,
Squaxin
Island
Tribe,
and
the

Confederated
Tribes
of
Chehalis.

These
peoples
inhabited
and
lived
off
the
land

until
the
arrival
of
white
settlers
in
the
early
1800s
when
tribal
populations
were

decimated
from
European
disease.

In
the
aftermath,
following
countless
treaties

that
were
never
followed
through
on
and
several
violent
disputes,
many
tribes
were

forced
onto
reservation
land.

Tribal
nations
are
active
players
in
the
culture
of
the

region,
and
are
an
increasingly
prominent
voice
in
the
political
management
of
local

resources
(TRPC
2011).

The
boundaries
of
Thurston
County
encompass
the
tribal

reservations
of
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
Chehalis
and
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe

(Map
4.2).

Native
American
populations
are
some
of
the
highest
at
risk
of
poverty

and
food
insecurity.

In
the
United
States,
poverty
rates
reach
nearly
50%
for
Native

Americans
while
poverty
rates
for
whites
is
13%
(Cromartie
1999
as
quoted
in
Allen

2010).



Today
the
population
of
Thurston
County
is
predominantly
white
(82%)
and
overall

is
less
ethnically
diverse
than
the
state
of
Washington
(Table
4.1).

Having
a

predominantly
white
population
creates
an
additional
barrier
in
engaging
ethnic

diversity
in
the
Thurston
County
alternative
agro‐food
movement.

The
capitol
city








33

























Map
4.2.
Cities,
tribal
reservations,
and
land
owned
by
Fort
Lewis
within
Thurston
County
boundaries.


Source:
US
Department
of
Transportation
website.




of
Olympia
is
even
less
diverse
in
ethnicity
and
race
with
84%
of
the
population

being
white.

Olympia
is
the
site
for
much
of
the
alternative
food
activity,
including

the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC),
which
suggested
to
the
researcher
that

participants
in
the
local
food
movement
would
not
adequately
represent
the
ethnic

diversity
present
in
the
greater
Thurston
County.

Survey
results
presented
in
the

next
chapter
corroborate
this
assumption.

Data
collected
by
the
WA
Public
Health

and
Social
Services
(2013)
show
a
10%
increase
in
the
county’s
minority
population

from
2000
to
2010
and
indicate
ethnic
diversity
will
continue
to
increase.














34


Race/Ethnicity


Washington
State


Thurston
County


City
of


Olympia


White


77%


82%


Black


4%


3%


American
Indian,

Alaskan
Native


2%


1%




1%


Asian,
Native

Hawaiian,
Other

Pacific
Islander


8%


6%




6%


Hispanic
or
Latino,

any
race


11%


7%


84%

2%


6%




Table
4.1.
Race/Ethnicity
of
WA
State,
Thurston
County,
and
Olympia.
Non­white
populations

are
disproportionately
underrepresented
in
the
alternative
agro­food
movement
and
are
at

higher
risk
to
food
insecurity
and
inequity.
Source:
TRPC
2012.







Thurston
County
does
not
have
any
neighborhoods
meeting
the
HUD
definition
as

an
ethnically
or
racially
segregated
area
of
poverty,2
however
there
are
areas
that

show
higher
percentages
of
minority
groups;
particularly
east
Lacey
and
the

surrounding
unincorporated
areas
to
the
south
(Map
4.3).

An
exception
appears
on

the
Nisqually
Indian
Reservation
in
which
the
population
is
predominantly
Native

American
and
has
a
poverty
rate
between
21%
and
44%
(Public
Health
and
Social

Services
2013).

Being
able
to
identify
areas
with
higher
percentages
of
minority

(underserved)
populations
means
being
able
to
identify
physical
areas
in
which

community
members
may
be
more
susceptible
to
issues
of
inequity.































































2
Defined
as
an
area
less
than
50%
white
and
with
a
poverty
rate
over
40%
or
that
is
three
times
the

average
tract
poverty
rate
for
the
country.








35








Map
4.3.

Distribution
of
Minority
Populations
in
Thurston
County.

Larger
concentrations
of

minority
populations
are
evident
in
areas
surrounding
Lacey
and
in
tribal
reservations.


Source:
Thurston
County
Regional
Consolidated
Plan
2012.


Who
is
at
Risk?
—Food
Insecurity
in
Thurston
County

In
Thurston
County,
4.6%
of
the
population,
or
11,650
individuals
ages
18
&
up,

reported
going
hungry
because
they
did
not
have
money
for
food,
while
an

additional
9.2%
of
the
population,
or
23,310
individuals,
said
food
does
not
last
with

the
money
they
have
(Edwards
2011).


Overall
the
county
has
a
10%
food

insecurity
rate
meaning
1
in
10
people
are
not
sure
where
their
next
meal
will
come

from
(Edwards
2011).

Arguably,
the
biggest
indicators
of
food
insecurity
are

income
level
and
race/ethnicity.

The
USDA
Economic
Research
Service
(2011)

found
41.1%
of
U.S.
households
with
incomes
below
official
poverty
line
were
food

insecure,
compared
to
7%
of
those
with
incomes
above
185%
of
the
poverty
line.

In





36


Thurston
County,
16%
of
people
of
all
ages
are
in
poverty,
and
it
is
estimated
one
in

four
are
at
or
below
200%
of
poverty
level
(TCFB
2011).
































Figure
4.1.

Poverty
Status
by
Demographic
Category
in
Thurston
County
and

Olympia.

Source:
American
Community
Survey
2011.




In
Thurston
County,
the
populations
with
the
highest
percentage
of
poverty
are

individuals
of
two
or
more
races,
single
mothers,
unemployed
individuals,
and

individuals
with
less
than
a
high
school
degree
(Figure
4.1).

While
poverty
is

explicitly
linked
to
issues
of
food
insecurity,
Feeding
America
(2011)
claims
that
in

the
United
States
“unemployment
rather
than
poverty
is
a
stronger
predictor
of
food

insecurity
(website).”

The
unemployment
rate
for
Thurston
County
rose
from
7.5%

to
8.1%
from
April
to
May
2012.

Overall
it
is
expected
the
number
of
people





37


experiencing
unemployment,
poverty,
and
food
insecurity
in
Thurston
County
will

increase.









Figure
4.2.
Participation
in
Free
and
Reduced
School
Meals
Program
for
Thurston

County
school
districts.

School
districts
in
rural
areas
have
a
higher
percentage
of

participating
students.
Source
Edwards
2011.




Emergency
Food
Services
in
Thurston
County

Thurston
County
is
home
to
a
number
of
food
assistance
programs
including

numerous
food
banks,
mobile
food
banks,
and
soup
kitchens;
however
these
are

insufficient
for
meeting
the
needs
of
all
those
experiencing
food
insecurity
in

Thurston
County.

Additionally,
much
of
the
programming
is
centered
in
the
urban

core
of
Olympia.

All
six
school
districts
participate
in
the
Free
and
Reduced
School

Meals
Program
with
a
range
of
25.3%
(in
Olympia)
to
53%
(in
Rochester)
students

participating,
indicating
a
higher
need
in
rural
areas
(Figure
4.2).

All
Thurston

County
food
banks
saw
at
least
a
6%
increase
in
visitors
from
2009
to
2010
with
the





38


urban
core
having
a
21%
increase
(123,906
visits
to
150,122
visits).


Map
4.4
shows

the
distribution
of
emergency
food
programs
throughout
the
county.


Many
Thurston
County
residents
experiencing
food
insecurity
utilize
government

assistance
programs,
however
43%
of
individuals
defined
as
food
insecure
do
not

meet
qualifications
for
the
Supplemental
Nutrition
Assistance
Program
(SNAP,






Map
4.4.
Locations
of
Emergency
Food
Programs
in
Thurston
County.

Programs

are
more
heavily
concentrated
in
the
urban
core.
Source:
Edwards
2011.


previously
called
Food
Stamp
Program)
indicating
current
government
assistance
is

not
sufficient
(Edwards
2011).

In
2009,
42,240
clients
were
part
of
SNAP
(an

increase
from
13.9%
to
16.9%
of
the
population
from
the
previous
year),
and
almost

5,000
pregnant
and
nursing
women
participated
in
the
Woman,
Infant,
&
Children

(WIC)
program
(Edwards
2011).

The
Nisqually
and
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the

Chehalis
Reservation
also
participate
in
the
Food
Distribution
Program
on
Indian





39


Reservations
(FDPIR).

Food
Lifeline
(2011)
estimates
it
would
take
11
million
more

meals
to
feed
low‐income
individuals
in
Thurston
County.






The
Thurston
County
Food
Bank
(TCFB)
is
one
of
the
largest
emergency
food

providers
in
the
county.

TCFB
strives
to
increase
the
amount
of
local,
fresh
produce

and
diverse
food
options
available
to
clients,
which
has
resulted
in
direct

relationships
to
farmers
as
well
as
a
gleaning
volunteer
program.

Additionally,

several
community
partners
grow
food
specifically
for
TCFB.

Groups
include
the

Wendell
Berry
Community
Garden,
St.
Mark
Lutheran
Church,
and
the
Kiwanis.


The

Kiwanis
have
planted
and
harvested
gardens
in
four
locations
purely
for
the
food

bank
and
in
2011
produced
36,225
pounds
of
fresh
produce
for
the
Food
Bank

(TCFB
website).


TCFB
offers
a
wonderful
example
of
emergency
food
services

participating
in
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.





The
Alternative
Agro­Food
Movement
in
Thurston
County


The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
visible
in
many
forms
in
Thurston
County

and
the
surrounding
region.

Small,
organic
local
farms
are
actually
on
the
rise
even

as
working
farmland
decreases;
community
and
school
gardens
are
consistently

forming;
a
number
of
the
youth
and
low‐income
food
programs
are
known

throughout
the
nation;
farmland
is
being
preserved
through
land
trusts;
city

regulations
are
evolving
to
support
urban
farming;
and
local
tribes
are
conducting

their
own
food
sovereignty
projects.


Leadership
and
action
for
these
projects
is

seen
both
at
a
grassroots
and
governmental
levels.

While
specific
examples
actively





40


engage
underserved
populations,
much
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
activity
focuses

on
local
food
markets
and
is
concentrated
in
the
urban
cores.

Local
food
markets
in

Thurston
County
risk
reproducing
existing
economic
relations,
thus
being
exclusive

to
underserved
populations.



Community
and
School
Gardens

There
are
currently
eleven
community
gardens
in
Thurston
County,
as
defined
by

Thurston
County
Public
Health
and
Social
Services.

Seven
of
these
are
in
Olympia

city
limits,
two
in
Lacey,
one
in
Rochester,
and
one
in
Rainier
(Map
4.5).

Public

Health
and
Social
Services
serves
as
the
department
for
community
gardens
because

“improved
access
to
healthful
foods
such
as
fruits
and
vegetables
improves
the

consumption
of
them,
in
turn
decreasing
the
risk
of
chronic
disease
(TC
Public

Health
&
Social
Services
website).”

This
is
a
prime
example
of
how
food
related

issues
fall
under
a
range
of
government
agencies.

Currently
community
and
school

gardens
are
not
as
accessible
in
low‐income
areas
of
the
county
(Edwardes
2011).



















Map
4.5.
Distribution
of
School
&
Community
Gardens
in
Thurston
County.

Source:
Edwards
2011.





41


Direct
Market
Models

Local,
organic
food
is
a
growing
sector
in
Thurston
County,
particularly
in
Olympia.


Currently
42.5%
of
total
farmland
(working
and
non‐working)
is
now
dedicated
to

organic
production
(TRPC
2011).

The
South
of
Sound
Community
Farmland
Trust

issues
a
Thurston
County
Farm
Map
each
year
that
lists
farms
engaging
in
direct‐
market
sales.

Farms
include
Community
Supported
Agriculture
(CSAs),
pick
your

owns,
and
farmers
markets.

For
the
year
of
2013,
55
local
farms
will
be
included
on

the
map.


WSU
Extension
Agency
(website)
notes
access
to
local
markets,
such
as

the
six
operating
farmers’
markets,
is
what
drives
much
of
the
economic
viability
for

local
farmers.

Direct
markets,
considered
a
large
piece
of
the
local
alternative
agro‐
food
movement,
are
disproportionately
located
and
utilized
in
the
urban
core
of

Olympia
(Edwards
2011).





Olympia
is
well
known
for
both
the
Olympia
Farmer’s
Market
and
the
Olympia
Food

Co‐op,
with
the
farmer
market
being
the
second
largest
in
the
state.

A
Co‐op,
or

Cooperative,
signifies
ownership
by
all
members
and
relies
on
consensus
decision‐
making;
an
organizational
form
congruent
with
food
democracy
in
which
citizens

actively
have
an
input
on
how
the
co‐op
is
run.

Both
markets
have
established

mechanisms
for
participation
by
underserved
populations,
including
accepting
EBT

benefits,
free
memberships,
discounts,
and
getting
food
in
exchange
for

volunteering.

As
readers
will
see
in
the
discussion
section
in
the
following
chapter,

there
is
debate
on
whether
the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
and
Farmer’s
Market
are

“inclusive.”







42




Direct
food
markets
fall
under
the
principles
of
Community
Food
Security
through

supporting
local
farmers
and
community
resources
(Ganapathy
2005),
however

Allen
(1998)
argues
direct
markets
overall
are
not
successful
in
creating
equity

because
they
support
existing
relationships
that
have
created
inequity
in
the
first

place.

The
CSA
consumer
base
in
the
United
States
is
dominated
by
upper
middle‐
class,
white
individuals
concerned
mostly
with
environmental
issues
(Forbes
2007;

Guthman
et
al
2006).

Potential
barriers
to
people
with
low‐incomes
and
other

underserved
populations
include
up‐front
payment,
limitations
on
time
and

transportation,
and
the
inability
to
utilize
EBT
benefits.

Many
CSA
farms
have

intentions
to
engage
underserved
populations,
but
have
expressed
they
do
not
have

adequate
resources
to
do
so
and
that
government
entitlements
or
higher
income

customers
should
meet
this
need
(Guthman
2006).





Tribal
Food
Sovereignty


Tribal
community
food
sovereignty
projects
are
increasing
throughout
the
region.


Food
sovereignty
is
a
sector
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
focused
on
“the

rights
of
peoples
to
define
their
own
food
and
agriculture”
(Rosset
2003,
p.
1)
and

provides
a
policy
framework
geared
towards
food
democracy
(Windfuhr
&
Jonsen

2005).

Tribal
communities
are
responding
in
innovative
ways
to
take
control
of

their
food
resources
to
preserve
and
nurture
the
health
and
culture
of
their
people.


Examples
in
Washington
include
the
Suquamish
Tribe’s
food
policy
council,

community
education
programs
through
the
Tulalip
Tribe,
and
a
garden
program





43


through
the
Nisqually
Tribe.

In
Western
Washington,
native
foods
are
considered

superior
to
conventional
foods
both
nutritionally
and
because
of
their
deep
cultural

connection
to
indigenous
groups
(NWIC
website).

Access
to
tribal
foods
is

profoundly
connected
to
U.S.
policy
–
treaty
rights
concerning
fishing,
hunting
and

gathering
of
traditional
foods
were
not
upheld
until
the
“Boldt
Decision”
in
1974

and
tribal
reservations
have
been
inundated
by
U.S.
government
commodity
foods

that
are
connected
to
the
development
of
chronic
diseases
such
as
diabetes
(NWIC

website).

Many
of
the
goals
defined
by
tribal
food
sovereignty
align
with
goals
of

food
democracy
and
equity
that
is
often
lacking
in
Food
Policy
Councils.





Local
Politics


Local
regulations
and
policymakers
are
a
significant
indicator
of
the
alternative

agro‐food
movement
in
a
community
and
can
be
the
forerunner
for
changes
across

the
country.

The
Thurston
Regional
Planning
Council
(TRPC)
is
the
most
prominent

example
of
a
local
government
agency
active
in
the
Thurston
County
agro‐food

movement.

TRPC
recently
initiated
the
project
Sustainable
Thurston,
“a
community

conversation
that
will
result
in
a
vision
for
a
vibrant,
healthy,
and
resilient
future”

(TRPC
Website).

The
community‐envisioning
project
includes
several
panels,

including
a
“local
food
systems
panel,”
to
gather
comprehensive
data
on
community

topics
such
as
housing,
solid
waste,
education,
and
public
safety.

The
local
food

systems
panel,
made
up
of
many
of
the
prominent
food
activists
in
the
community,

noted
several
policies
in
progress
that
support
the
local
food
system,
including

urban
agriculture
ordinances,
transfer
of
development
rights,
and
agritourism





44


(TRPC
website).


Additionally
the
Thurston
County
Board
of
County
Commissioners

is
adding
food
as
a
topic
to
the
health
section
of
their
comprehensive
plan.







Specific
examples
and
actions
indicate
food
is
becoming
recognized
as
a
crucial

consideration
in
many
facets
of
local
government.

Sustainable
Thurston
is
in
its

initial
phases,
but
could
potentially
offer
political
leadership
in
identifying
and

implementing
policies
geared
towards
food
equity.

Fortunately,
the
TRPC
has
been

directly
supportive
and
involved
in
the
TFSC
process.

Many
local
policymakers
have

been
vocal
proponents
of
a
food
policy
council
or
similar
organizations,
indicating

the
support
of
nurturing
local
food
democracy.







Overall,
the
majority
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
activity,
as
well
as
emergency
food

services,
are
taking
place
in
the
Olympia
urban
core,
which
may
skew
definition
and

participation
in
the
county’s
alternative
agro‐food
movement.

Olympia
is
composed

predominantly
of
well‐educated,
white,
middle
class
individuals
and

demographically
does
not
represent
the
entire
county.


Underserved
populations

and
rural
sectors
of
the
community
are
at
higher
risk
of
inequity
and
currently
have

less
access
to
alternative
food
activities.

The
information
above
identifies
power

inequities
through
patterns
of
ethnicity,
poverty,
and
food
insecurity.


Power
and

privilege
are
also
connected
to
the
discourse
surrounding
a
movement,
meaning

those
who
define
the
problems
and
solutions
are
those
with
the
power
(Allen
1998).


As
the
TFSC
gains
momentum
it
represents
the
opportunity
to
nurture
food

democracy,
however
if
visions
are
defined
by
a
specific
demographic
sector
of
the





45


community,
inevitably
there
is
a
power
distribution
within
the
movement
at
a
local

level.

The
following
chapter
discusses
methods
utilized
in
this
study,
including
the

presence
of
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC),
and
other
non‐profit
and

community
organizations
that
have
the
potential
to
overcome
potential
barriers
to

local
food
democracy.







Thurston
Food
Systems
Council

In
2012,
two
entities
in
Thurston
County
independently
suggested
the
formation
of

a
Food
Policy
Council
(FPC);
one
came
from
local
government
in
the
form
of
the

Sustainable
Thurston
local
food
systems
panel,
and
the
other
from
grassroots

community
organizing.

Many
non‐profit
organizations
in
the
community,

particularly
Hunger
Free
Thurston
County3,
have
considered
initiating
a
council
for

several
years,
however
grassroots
efforts
did
not
solidify
until
the
Food
Summit;
a

one‐day
community
gathering
in
October
2012
attended
by
over
200
participants
to

discuss
local
food
systems.

The
resulting
formation
of
the
Thurston
Food
Systems

Council
(TFSC)
is
the
backdrop
for
the
research
presented
in
this
paper.

In
March

2012,
TFSC
was
created
by
a
combination
of
those
involved
in
Sustainable
Thurston

and
in
the
Food
Summit,
however
it
is
unclear
how
the
relationships
between
these

two
projects
will
emerge.

As
of
March
2013,
the
TFSC
had
developed
a
vision
and

mission
statement,
launched
an
initial
website,
and
were
finalizing
the
leadership

and
organizational
structure
(Appendix
B).




























































3
Hunger
Free
Thurston
County
(HFTC)
was
a
coalition
composed
of
Growing
Raised
Bounty,
the

Thurston
County
Food
Bank,
Left
Foot
Organics,
and
Sustainable
South
Sound.

The
goals
of
HFTC

included
the
development
of
a
Food
Policy
Council,
however
HFTC
disbanded
in
hopes
that
TFSC

would
continue
this
work







46


Currently
TFSC
members
are
considering
many
of
the
issues
faced
by
FPCs,

including
lack
of
diversity
in
membership.

Members
recognize
TFSC
is
lacking
in

socio‐economic
and
ethnic
diversity
in
both
members
and
public
participants,
and

while
social
justice
is
a
mentioned
goal
in
the
TFSC
framework,
it
is
not
an
area
that

many
current
members
are
familiar.

At
the
time
of
this
study,
Growing
Raised

Bounty
(GRuB)
and
the
Thurston
County
Food
Bank
(TCFB)
were
the
only
groups

represented
that
work
specifically
with
underserved
populations
in
the
area,

however
it
is
unclear
what
their
involvement
will
be
past
formative
stages.


Members
have
also
expressed
the
want
to
engage
social
justice
organizations
in
the

area,
however
it
is
not
evident
this
is
a
high
priority
at
the
time.


The
researcher

was
invited
to
present
preliminary
research
results
to
the
TFSC
in
the
spring
2012,

in
hopes
of
providing
potential
avenues
for
engaging
underserved
populations
and

social
justice
organizations.


















47


Chapter
4:
Methods
&
Results

Research
Design

In
undertaking
this
study,
two
major
forms
of
data
collection
were
utilized.

Survey

data
was
collected
to
provide
a
profile
of
participants
of
the
Thurston
Food
Systems

Council
(TFSC)
planning
process
in
a
quantitative
manner
meant
to
support
or

refute
the
subjective
perception
that
underserved
populations
are
missing.

A

qualitative
interviewing
method
was
utilized
to
interview
representatives
of

organizations
that
serve
a
particular
underserved
population
for
a
deeper

understanding
of
inequitable
participation.


Additionally,
the
researcher
was
a

consistent
participant
in
the
activities
and
meetings
surrounding
the
formation
of

the
TFSC,
as
well
as
an
active
volunteer
with
numerous
food
and
social
justice

focused
organizations
in
the
community.

Two
years
of
community
work
and

networking
gave
the
researcher
a
personal
connection
and
understanding
of
food‐
related
organizing
in
the
local
community.

This
lent
valuable
insight
into
which

organizers
in
the
community
would
serve
as
the
foundation
of
this
research.

It

cannot
be
stressed
enough
that
this
paper
is
but
a
shadow
of
the
work
organizers

and
activists
participate
in
every
day,
and
that
the
opportunity
to
interview
these

individuals
gives
tremendous
depth
and
profundity
to
the
research
topic.






Survey
Methods

Questionnaires
were
distributed
at
eight
separate
meetings
that
were
organized
as

follow‐up
meetings
to
the
Food
Summit,
the
initial
public
planning
for
the
TFSC
and

other
local
food
projects.

The
intention
of
the
meetings
was
to
maintain
excitement





48


and
organizing
momentum
within
the
community,
and
to
solidify
specific
projects.


Meetings
were
held
at
the
Timberland
Library
in
Lacey,
WA
in
January
2012.


Meetings
were
open
to
the
general
public
and
announcements
were
passed
along

via
email
listservs
connected
to
the
Food
Summit
and
participating
community

organizations.

Appendix
C
provides
a
timeline
of
the
Food
Summit
in
comparison
to

the
formation
of
TFSC,
the
formation
of
the
Local
Food
Systems
Panel
for

Sustainable
Thurston,
and
this
research.



Thirty‐five
questions
comprised
the
survey
with
23
being
multiple
choice
and
the

remaining
12
being
open‐ended
responses.

The
full
survey
can
be
viewed
in

Appendix
A.

Surveys
were
divided
into
three
sections:


1.
Feedback
on
the
current
public
planning
process;


2.
Personal
identification
of
participants’
demographics,
socio‐economic

characteristics,
food
behaviors,
and
connection
to
food
system;
and


3.

Perceptions
on
groups
missing
from
planning
process
and
suggestions
for

collaborations.



The
primary
intentions
of
the
questionnaires/surveys
was
to
establish
a
profile
of

who
was
involved
in
the
public
planning
process,
both
on
an
organizational
level

and
on
a
citizen
level
(concerning
socio‐economic
characteristics
and
connection
to

food
system).

Additionally
the
survey
was
utilized
to
gauge
overall
perception
of

the
effectiveness
of
the
current
planning
process
and
whether
participants

perceived
certain
groups
were
missing
from
the
overall
process.

The
survey
had

stakeholder
groups
defined
in
two
different
ways:
one
set
of
questions
asked





49


participants
if
certain
minority
or
typically
underrepresented
peoples
were
missing

(e.g.
low‐income,
Hispanic,
military,
individuals
with
disabilities)
while
another
set

of
questions
asked
if
groups
connected
to
the
food
system
were
missing
(e.g.

farmers,
business
owners,
politicians,
consumers).

These
two
ways
of
defining

stakeholders
represent
different
approaches
for
gauging
diversity
of
participants.


This
research
paper
takes
a
social
justice
approach
in
analyzing
participation
and

therefore
focuses
on
involvement
of
socio‐economic
groups.






Interview
Methods

Interviews
were
considered
ethnographic,
meaning
the
interviewer
had
a
list
of
pre‐
meditated
topics
and
questions
as
a
guide
to
ensure
specific
areas
of
inquiry
were

addressed
in
all
interviews,
however
the
conversation
was
allowed
to
flow

depending
upon
the
knowledge
and
interest
of
the
individual
interviewee.


Questions
evolved
throughout
the
interview
process
as
themes
emerged,
but
all

interviews
encompassed
these
major
topics:






•

Participation
of
Underserved
Populations
in
Community
Organizing




Methods
for
successful
engagement
and
participation
of
a
particular

underserved
population




Dynamics
of
the
local
community
that
influence
(positively
and

negatively)
the
participation
of
the
population
with
which
the

organization
serves





50




Dynamics
of
political
systems/policies
that
influence
(positively
and

negatively)
the
participation
of
the
population
with
which
the

organization
serves


•

Perceptions
on
Food
Policy
Councils
and
the
Role
of
Social
Justice
in
Agro‐Food

Movements


•

Level
of
Interviewee’s
Knowledge
and
Participation
in
Local
Food
Organizing

(specifically
the
Food
Summit
and
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council)



Overall
questions
led
to
an
exploration
of
physical
and
perceptual
barriers
for

engaging
underserved
populations
in
democratic
participation
with
a
particular

focus
on
local
minority
participation
in
food‐related
organizing.

These
topics
were

discussed
mostly
on
a
local
scale,
but
have
implications
that
reflect
the
larger
social

structures
of
agro‐food
movements
and
political
structures
that
influences

democratic
accessibility.




Interviews
were
held
at
a
time
and
location
chosen
by
the
interviewee,
often
their

office
or
a
local
coffee
shop.

All
interviews
were
conducted
in
August
and

September
of
2012.

Depending
on
time
availability
of
the
interviewee,
interviews

lasted
from
45
min
to
2.5
hours,
with
the
majority
lasting
approximately
1.5
hours.


This
range
in
interview
lengths
should
be
noted
when
comparing
the
prevalence
of

themes
and
subthemes
among
interviews.

Ideally,
interviews
would
be
a
standard

length
for
direct
comparison,
but
because
the
same
questions
were
asked
in
all

interviews
regardless
of
time,
it
is
felt
depth
of
topics,
not
necessarily
appearance
of





51


themes,
was
hindered
in
shorter
interviews.

Interviews
were
recorded
in
full
and

downloaded
immediately
to
the
researcher’s
personal
computer.



Profile
of
Interview
Participants

Interviewees
were
chosen
because
of
their
recognized
commitment
to
organizing

with
a
particular
underserved
population
in
the
local
community.

All
of
the

individuals
and
their
affiliated
organizations
are
prominent
players
in
social
justice

work
being
done
in
the
Olympia
area
and
greater
Thurston
County.

Many

interviewees,
although
not
all,
are
founders
or
original
members
of
their
respective

organization
and
have
worked
in
the
field
of
social
justice
for
over
a
decade.

A

number
of
the
organizations
specifically
incorporate
food
justice
into
their
work,

however
the
only
connecting
factor
among
all
organizations
is
that
they
are

recognized,
established
local
organizations
that
work
with
a
defined
underserved

population.

Additionally,
a
few
of
the
organizations
have
been
main
participants
in

the
TFSC
planning
process,
while
the
remaining
has
varying
degrees
of
involvement

and
knowledge.

This
was
intentional
on
the
interviewer’s
part
as
a
way
of

identifying
why
certain
organizations
and
peoples
are
already
connected
to
local

food‐related
organizing,
while
others
are
not.





Nine
representatives
from
different
organizations
were
interviewed.

Five
of
these

organizations
serve
individuals
who
are
low‐income
or
homeless,
or
underserved

populations
defined
by
class
or
income.

Two
of
the
organizations
work
with

particular
ethnic
or
racial
peoples,
while
the
two
remaining
organizations
represent





52


the
elderly/senior
populations,
and
individuals
with
developmental
disabilities.

The

organizations
and
individual
representatives
who
were
interviewed
are
described

on
the
following
pages.

The
heading
above
each
description
includes
the

interviewee’s
position
within
the
respective
organization,
the
underserved

population
that
the
organization
serves,
and
the
level
of
involvement
in
the
TFSC

process
at
the
time
of
this
study.

A
descriptive
paragraph
elaborates
the
history
and

main
programs
of
each
organization,
noting
their
significant
contributions
to
the

local
community.


These
descriptions
are
valuable
to
not
only
give
context
to
this

study,
but
as
a
profile
of
prominent
activists
in
the
community.


Identification
of

major
players
in
the
community
allows
for
strategic
coalition
building
and
planning

in
a
movement.









53


















Kim
Gaffi,
Executive
Director
&
Co­founder,

Growing
Raised
Bounty
(GRuB)

GRuB
Serves:
Low‐income
families
and
youth

TFSC
Involvement:
Primary
Organizer



Organization
Description:


The
non‐profit
GRuB
was
co‐founded
in
1993
by
Kim
Gaffi
and
Blue
Peetz
as
they

saw
a
need
to
connect
low‐income
households
to
food
justice
in
Thurston
and

Mason
counties.

The
organization
has
several
well‐established
programs
including

the
Kitchen
Garden
Project,
in
which
volunteers
have
built
over
2,200
backyard
and

community
gardens
for
lower‐income
households.

Other
programs
are
focused
on

youth
engagement
and
include
the
School
Summer
Employment
Program
in
which

local
high
school
youth
are
employed
at
GRuB’s
Olympia‐based
farm
and
participate

in
farming,
leadership,
and
communication
workshops;
and
the
Farm
Field
Trip

Program
in
which
elementary
and
middle
school
student
gain
hands‐on
garden

experience.

Last
year
marked
the
beginning
of
the
GRuB
in
the
Schools
Pilot
Project

which
has
evolved
from
the
Cultivating
Youth
Employment
&
Drop‐out
Prevention

Program
to
allow
high‐schoolers
who
are
low‐income
and/or
disengaged
to
gain

valuable
life
skills
and
school
credits
through
work
at
GRuB.


GRuB
is
well
known

throughout
the
Olympia
community
and
has
been
recognized
for
its
amazing
food

justice
work,
including
a
3‐year
USDA
Community
Food
Project
Grant.


GRuB,
and





54


Kim
Gaffi
specifically,
have
been
a
strong
presence
through
the
Food
Summit
and

TFSC
process.







55




























Robert
Coit,
Executive
Director,

Thurston
County
Food
Bank
(TCFB)

TCFB
Serves:
Low‐income
and
individuals
who
are
Homeless

TFSC
Involvement:
Consistent
Attendant,
Future
Involvement
Questionable


Organization
Description:

The
primary
mission
of
the
non‐profit
TCFB
is
to
eliminate
hunger
throughout

Thurston
County.

TCFB’s
service
area
includes
the
urban
cores
of
Olympia,
Lacey,

and
Tumwater
as
well
as
underserved
locations
within
Thurston
County.

The
major

food
bank
headquarters
is
located
in
Olympia,
WA
and
there
are
an
additional

fifteen
satellite
food
banks
as
well
as
nine
mobile
food
banks.

Additionally
TCFB

partners
with
food
banks
in
Rochester,
Tenino,
and
Yelm
to
address
hunger
among

rural
residents,
and
participates
in
a
number
of
youth
programs
including
school

food
bags
and
school
gardens.

TCFB
is
known
for
the
client
choice
model,
in
which

food
bank
users
are
able
to
choose
the
food
they
want,
and
for
the
large
amounts
of

fresh,
local
produce
brought
in
through
community
partnerships
and
the
TCFB

gleaning
coalition.

Robert
Coit
was
personally
asked
to
serve
as
the
chair
for
the

Sustainable
Thurston’s
local
food
systems
panel,
indicating
his
prominent
position

as
a
food
justice
activist
in
the
community.





56





















Monica
Peabody,
Director
&
Founder,

Parents
Organizing
for

Welfare
&
Economic
Rights
(POWER)

POWER
Serves:
Low‐income
Parents

TFSC
Involvement:
Minimal
&
Inconsistent
Involvement



Organization
Description:

POWER
is
a
low‐income
member
led
non‐profit
dedicated
to
advocating
for
and

empowering
low‐income
parents.

POWER
believes
the
United
States
is
facing
the

most
dangerous
time
for
low‐income
families
since
the
Great
Depression
and
is

determined
to
move
forward
towards
a
future
in
which
poverty
is
eradicated.



POWER
works
towards
these
goals
through
advocacy,
welfare
witness,
outreach,

policy
change,
and
workshops.


POWER
has
strong
values
in
recognizing
the

essential
work
of
mothers
and
caretakers
within
a
community.

Education
and

policy
change
are
considered
key
to
systemic
change
with
the
first
step
being
self‐
education
on
individual
rights.

POWER
has
been
a
constant
presence
at
the
Capitol

over
the
years
and
has
been
instrumental
in
the
passing
of
several
pieces
of

legislation.

Monica
Peabody,
a
low‐income
single
mother,
founded
POWER
after

several
years
of
working
with
Welfare
Rights
Organizing
Coalition
in
Seattle,
WA.











57




















Jill
Severn,
President,

Panza
–
organization
serving
Camp
Quixote

Camp
Quixote
&
Panza
Serve:

Individuals
who
are
Homeless

TFSC
Involvement:
No
Knowledge
or
Involvement



Organization
Description:

Camp
Quixote
is
a
community
of
adults
who
are
homeless
that
came
together
with

the
belief
that
no
individual
should
have
to
live
in
a
tent.

The
community
is
self‐
governed
by
those
who
are
homeless
and
includes
elected
officers
and
an

established
code
of
conduct.

Camp
Quixote
is
supported
by
the
non‐profit
Panza,

whose
members
raise
funds,
volunteer,
and
create
connections
within
the

community.

Faith
communities
host
the
Camp
for
90‐days
at
a
time
a—a
time
limit

mandated
by
law.

The
vision
of
Camp
Quixote
is
to
establish
a
permanent
Quixote

Village
that
includes
personal
dwellings
and
community
spaces
and
facilities.

As
of

summer
2012
Camp
Quixote
and
Panza
had
identified
potential
land
for
the
village.


Jill
Severn
became
president
of
Panza
after
volunteering
for
the
Camp
at
the
church

she
was
attending
and
recognizing
the
amazing
work
being
done
and
the
need
for

strong
advocacy
for
people
who
are
homeless.







58
























Various
members,

Food
Not
Bombs
(FNB)

FNB
Serves:
Low‐income
and

individuals
who
are
Homeless

TFSC
Involvement:

Minimal
Knowledge
or
Involvement



Organization
Description:

Food
Not
Bombs
was
founded
in
1980
in
Boston
as
a
protest
to
nuclear

disarmament
and
other
acts
of
global
violence.

Today
hundreds
of
chapters

throughout
the
world
continue
to
distribute
free
vegetarian
food
in
protest
of
war

and
poverty.

FNB
is
an
all‐volunteer
organization
with
no
formal
leaders
and
is

unique
to
each
chapter’s
community.


Recovered
food
that
would
otherwise
be

thrown
away
is
prepared
and
served
in
a
public
place
for
all
to
enjoy
freely.

The

strategy
of
FNB
is
considered
nonviolent
direct
action,
using
the
act
of
providing

free,
nutritious
meals
as
a
symbol
of
resistance.

The
Olympia
chapter
of
FNB
is

currently
organized
through
Media
Island,
a
resource
and
networking
center,
and

food
is
served
outside
the
Olympia
Timberland
Library.

The
several
members
that

participated
in
the
study
interview
had
been
involved
varying
lengths
of
time

exemplifying
the
fluid
nature
of
the
FNB
volunteer
base
in
Olympia.






59



















Nemah
Choubaquak,
Cultural
Programs
Director

&
Caitlin
Krenn,
Farm
Manager,

Nisqually
Indian
Tribe

Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
Serves:
Nisqually
tribal
members

TFSC
Involvement:
Minimal
Knowledge
or
Involvement




The
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
calls
their
people
“the
people
of
the
river,
the
people
of

the
grass;”
peoples
who
thrived
in
the
south
Puget
Sound
long
before
white
settlers

arrived.

The
heavily
disputed
Medicine
Creek
Treaty
in
1854
moved
the
Nisqually

people
onto
reservation
land,
which
currently
includes
4,717
acres
next
to
the

Nisqually
River.

Currently
the
tribe
has
over
650
enrolled
members
and
is

constantly
growing
as
a
sovereign
nation.

Tribal
government
is
conducted
under

the
tribe’s
Constitution
and
is
led
by
a
General
Council
comprised
of
tribal
members.


Programs
include
financial,
health
and
community
services
as
well
as
natural

resource
management.


The
Nisqually
Culture
Program
was
established
to
revitalize

Nisqually
culture
and
traditional
ways
of
life.

Included
in
the
Nisqually
Culture

Program
is
a
community
farm
and
several
native
food
sovereignty
projects,

including
a
community
gathering
similar
to
the
Food
Summit
in
which
community

members
envisioned
a
more
holistic
local
food
system.

Nemah
Choubaquak
is
a

Nisqually
tribal
member
who
grew
up
on
reservation
lands.

Caitlin
Krenn,
is
a
non‐
tribal
member
who
has
been
farm
manager
for
three
years
after
completing
her

education
at
The
Evergreen
State
College.






60












Stefanie
Gottschalk
Huerta,

Advocacy
and
Outreach
Coordinator,
CIELO

CIELO
Serves:
Latinos

TFSC
Involvement:
Minimal
Knowledge
or
Involvement


Organization
Description:

CIELO,
centrally
located
in
Olympia,
offers
family
centered
programming
for
all

Latinos
and
underserved
populations
in
the
south
Puget
Sound
community.

The

mission
of
the
non‐profit
is
to
promote
community,
self‐sufficiency
and
leadership

among
the
groups
they
serve
by
increasing
knowledge
and
access
to
education
and

mental
health
services,
and
social
and
cultural
activities.

Programs,
such
as
GED

preparation,
Spanish
and
computer
literacy,
build
skills
for
individuals
to
interact
in

the
larger
community.


Other
programs,
such
as
Proyecto
Familia
and
the
Sewing

Project
provide
safe,
empowering
spaces
centered
on
social
and
educational

services.

Social
justice
and
cultural
expression
and
celebration
are
founding

principles
for
all
the
work
done
through
CIELO.

Stefanie
Gottschalk
Huerta
has
been

involved
with
CIELO
since
2009
when
she
came
to
the
organization
as
an
intern

through
The
Evergreen
State
College.










61












Cathy
Visser,
Senior
Nutrition
Director,

Senior
Services
for
South
Sound
(SSSS)

SSSS
Serves:
Seniors

TFSC
Involvement:
Minimal
Knowledge
or
Involvement



Organization
Description:

The
non‐profit
SSSS
operates
seven
sites
in
Thurston
and
Mason
counties
as
well

senior
centers
in
both
Olympia
and
Lacey.

Programs
intended
to
keep
seniors
vital

and
independent
in
the
community
include
adult
daycare,
case
management,

nutrition,
transportation,
and
various
living
programs.

The
Senior
Nutrition

programs
include
congregate
meals
where
seniors
can
gather
and
share
nutritious

meals
for
affordable
prices,
and
meal
on
wheels
in
which
meals
are
delivered
to

seniors
confined
to
their
homes.


These
programs
serve
approximately
10,000

meals
a
month.

Over
the
years
local,
fresh
food
has
become
integrated
in
the

nutrition
programs
and
the
Olympia
senior
center
buys
from
local
sources
when

possible.

Cathy
Visser
has
served
as
Senior
Nutrition
Director
for
five
years
and

provides
a
strong
background
in
community
nutrition,
public
health,
and
dietetics.









62






















Ann
Vandeman,
former
Executive
Director,

Left
Foot
Organics

Left
Foot
Serves:
Individuals
with
Developmental
Disabilities

TFSC
Involvement:
Minimal
Knowledge
or
Involvement


Organization
Description:

The
non‐profit
LFO
was
founded
in
2001
with
the
mission
of
connecting
individuals

of
all
abilities
with
food
and
farming.

LFO
established
a
five‐acre,
organic
farm

where
they
focused
on
employment
for
individuals
with
disabilities
and
rural
youth.


Employment
programs
allowed
individuals
of
all
abilities
to
learn
and
work
with

one
another
while
gaining
valuable
farming
and
marketing
skills.

Much
of
the

organization
was
funded
through
produce
sales
at
market
stands
and
in
CSA
shares.


Ann
Vandeman
founded
the
organization
and
is
well
known
through
the
community

as
a
prominent
food
justice
activist
and
farmer.

Her
inspiration
to
engage
folks
of
all

abilities
comes
from
personal
experience
as
mother
of
a
child
with
a
development

disability.

Unfortunately
LFO
ceased
operation
in
February
2013,
citing
funds
were

not
sufficient
to
support
the
social
programs
offered
at
the
farm.

Unsustainable

funding
in
the
non‐profit
food
justice
sector
is
discussed
in
the
following
sections.











63


Data
Analysis

Surveys

To
analyze
survey
data,
all
answers
were
coded
by
number
and
entered
into
a

Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet.

Graphs
and
tables
were
generated
to
identify
and

compare
prevalence
of
answers
of
a
question.

Correlations
were
performed
among

certain
variables
to
investigate
relationships.


Open‐ended
responses
were

analyzed
in
both
a
quantitative
and
qualitative
manner.


Responses
were
coded
and

frequencies
were
calculated
and
answers
were
also
used
to
contribute
to
themes

identified
in
the
interview
data.





Interviews

To
analyze
interview
data,
the
researcher
produced
typed
transcripts
verbatim
from

audio
recordings
and
notes.

Comments
and
insights
were
also
typed
in
the
margins

of
the
transcripts
during
the
transcription
process.

Interview
coding
was
a
blend
of

an
open
coding
framework
and
responsive
interview
modeling.

Open
coding
is
an

approach
where
the
researcher
codes
the
interview
data
as
they
initially
read

through
the
transcripts
with
no
pre‐determined
list
of
concepts
or
themes,
while

responsive
interview
modeling
demands
researchers
to
first
utilize
literature,

interview
questions,
and
knowledge
of
interview
content
to
first
develop
concepts

or
themes
before
physical
coding
takes
place.

For
this
particular
research,
the
initial

coding
was
done
in
open
coding
framework
in
which
the
researcher
noted
all

emerging
themes
and
concepts,
but
then
themes
and
concepts
were
more
clearly

defined
and
organized
for
the
final
rounds
of
coding
and
analysis.

The
benefit
of
this





64


hybrid
approach
blends
the
strength
of
a
more
unbiased
lens
of
coding
used
in
open

coding
approaches,
and
the
systematic,
thorough
nature
of
responsive
interviewing

approaches.

Ultimately
the
codes
were
organized
into
a
system
of
themes
and

subthemes
as
seen
below,
which
are
further
defined
and
discussed
in
the
discussion

section:



I. Serving
the
Minority

a. Participation
Needs
(Physical,
Social,
Cultural)

b. Intersectionality
of
Interests
&
Needs

c. Institutionalized
Oppression

d. Balancing
Short‐Term
and
Long‐Term
Goals

II. Communication
&
Relationship
Building

a. Message
Across
Social/Cultural
Barriers


b. Quality
of
Invite

c. Mutual
Commitment/Reciprocity

III. Cultural
Differences

a. Experiences/Relevancy

b. Meeting
Skills
&
Structures

c. Intent
vs.
Action

d. Indigenous
Cultures

IV. On
Systems

a. Leadership

b. Organization
Structure
&
Decision‐making

c. Non‐profit
Industrial
Complex

d. Democracy
in
Our
System



The
frequency
of
the
themes
was
analyzed
and
compared
within
and
among
the

interviews.


These
themes
formed
the
basis
of
the
subsequent
discussion
and

conclusions
of
this
research
paper.

Although
each
individual
theme
carries
its
own





65


significance,
there
is
much
overlap
and
association
between
and
among
the
themes.



These
connections
and
potential
causations
are
examined
further
in
the
discussion

section.









66


Results




Survey
Results




Survey
data
captures
a
profile
of
the
individuals
who
were
attending
public

participation
meetings.

This
profile
includes
socio‐economic
and
demographic

information
such
as
racial
identity,
income
levels,
education
level,
and
location
of

residence.

The
profile
also
includes
indicators
on
how
the
respondents’
primarily

interact
with
the
agro‐food
system,
including
shopping
behaviors
and
knowledge
of

food
movements.

The
final
section
of
the
results
gives
a
summary
of
the
overall

perceptions
of
the
public
planning
process.

This
information
includes
the
greatest

benefits
of
the
planning
process
as
identified
by
participants
as
well
specific

stakeholder
and
minority
groups
that
were
or
were
not
perceived
as
being
included

in
the
overall
process.

Together
this
data
allows
us
to
see
who
is
involved
currently

and
can
perhaps
be
used
as
a
method
for
identifying
priorities
of
the
community

already
involved,
insights
of
assumptions
or
biases
held
by
the
current
group,
and
a

tool
to
evaluate
future
inclusion
in
the
process.





Demographic
&
Socio­economic
Characteristics




Ethnicity

Considering
ethnic
and
racial
identities,
the
majority
of
attendants
identified
as

Caucasian
(89%,
n=70),
4%
identified
as
Native
American
(n=3),
3%
identified
as

Hispanic
(n=2),
and
2%
identified
as
Asian
(n=2).


None
of
the
attendants
marked

that
they
identified
as
African
American
or
Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander,
however
7%

(n=6)
marked
“other”
on
the
survey
in
which
one
individual
identified
as
Mexican,





67


three
indicated
associations
with
a
specific
Native
American
tribe
(Samish,
Hackfoot,

Sioux),
and
two
noted
they
were
of
mixed
ethnicities
(mixed,
black/Caucasian).


(Figure
5.1)




Ethnic/Racial
Distribution
of
Participants

Hispanic
 Asian

2%

3%

Native
American

4%







other

7%


Caucasian





Native
American





Hispanic


Caucasian

84%


African
American





Asian





Hawaiian/Pacixic





other












Figure
5.1
Ethnic/Racial
Distribution
of
Survey
Participants.

Surveys
indicate
the
majority
of

participants
in
the
Thurston
County
public
planning
process
identify
as
Caucasian.






Residency

The
majority
of
attendants
also
considered
themselves
residents
of
Olympia
(75%,

n=55).

An
additional
11%
(n=9)
were
residents
of
Lacey
and
Tumwater,
two
of
the

cities
directly
bordering
Olympia
city
limits
(Map
4.2),
while
the
remaining
14%

(n=12)
were
scattered
among
the
outlying
communities
of
Yelm
(1%,
n=1),
Tenino

(3%,
n=2),
Rural
North
(4%,
n=3),
and
Rural
South
(3%,
n=2).

None
of
the

attendants
were
residents
of
the
Nisqually
Reservation,
the
Chehalis
Reservation,
or

several
other
outlying
communities
listed
on
the
survey
(Figure
5.2).

Considering

that
most
of
the
participants
reside
in
Olympia,
it
is
not
surprising
the
racial/ethnic

profile
of
the
public
meetings
reflects
the
racial/ethnic
distribution
in
Olympia
itself.







68


Residence
of
Participants

Tenino

Rural
South

Outside
TC
 3%

3%

Rural
North

1%

4%

Lacey

6%


Tumwater

7%

Yelm

1%


Bucoda

Tenino

Lacey

Grand
Mound

Tumwater

Yelm

Rochester

Olympia

Rainier

Rural
North


Olympia

75%


Rural
South

Nisqually
Rez

Chehalis
Rez

Outside
TC











Figure
5.2.

Residence
Distribution
of
Survey
Participants.

Location
of
residence
within

Thurston
County
of
participants
of
the
local
food­systems
community
meetings.

None

of
the
participants
resided
in
Bucoda,
Grand
Mound,
Rochester,
Rainier,
the
Chehalis

Indian
Reservation,
or
the
Nisqually
Indian
Reservation.





Income

The
most
prominent
income
level
was
an
average
annual
income
of
$60,000
‐

$100,000
(27%,
n=20).

Interestingly,
the
second
most
prominent
income
level
was

an
average
annual
income
of
under
$10,000
(23%,
n=17).


According
to
2012

poverty
guidelines
(Federal
Register
2012)
the
combination
of
family
size
and

income
puts
26%
of
respondents
(n=20)
at
or
below
poverty
level.

Further
analysis

reveals
that
the
majority
of
individuals
who
claim
an
income
level
under
$10,000

also
identify
as
students
(65%,
11
of
17
individuals)
and
two
additional
individuals

are
AmeriCorps
members.

Therefore
although
quantitatively
the
public
process

shows
a
distribution
of
income
levels,
over
half
of
those
considered
at
poverty
levels

are
students.

This
is
important
because
students
living
under
the
financial





69


constraints
of
academia
are
a
distinctive
population
that
is
unique
from
the
larger

low‐income
population.

(Figure
5.3)


Income
Levels
of
Participants

over
100,000

7%


under
10,000

under
10,000

23%

60‐100,000

27%


10‐15,000

9%


10‐15,000

15‐20,000

20‐40,000

40‐60,000

60‐100,000


40‐60,000

12%


20‐40,000

15%


15‐20,000

7%


over
100,000












Figure
5.3.
Distribution
of
Income
Levels
for
participants
at
local
food­systems
community

meetings.




Age





The
dominant
age
group
was
19‐29
years
of
age
(34%,
n=25).

The
second
largest

age
group
was
40‐49
years
of
age
(20%,
n=
15).

Both
age
groups
of
30‐39
and
Over

60
represented
16%
(n=12)
of
the
attendants
and
13%
(n=10)
were
50‐59.

(Figure

5.4)





70


Age
of
Participants

Under
18

1%

Over
60

16%


19‐29

34%


50‐59

13%


Under
18

19‐29

30‐39

40‐49

50‐59


40‐49

20%


30‐39

16%


Over
60















Figure
5.4.
Age
distribution
of
participants
at
local
food­systems
community
meetings


Education

A
total
of
85%
of
participants
indicated
a
college
degree
as
their
current
education

level
with
44%
(n=33)
marking
a
Bachelor
degree
as
their
highest
level
of

education,
and
33%
(n=25)
indicated
a
Master
or
PhD
degree
as
their
highest
level

of
education.

Of
the
remaining
participants,
12%
(n=9)
indicated
a
High
school

degree
or
GED
as
their
highest
level
of
education.

It
is
highly
likely
participants
in

both
the
High
school/GED
category
and
Bachelor
category
are
in
the
process
of

attending
school
since
this
distinction
was
not
made
on
the
survey.

(Figure
5.5)





71


Education
Level
of
Participants

Attending
HS

3%

HS/GED

12%

Masters/PhD

33%


AA/Tech

Degree

8%


Attending
HS

HS/GED

AA/Tech
Degree

BA/BS


BA/BS

44%


Masters/PhD








Figure
5.5.

Distribution
of
Education
Level
of
Survey
Participants.

Highest
level
of

education




attained
by
participants
at
local
food­systems
community
meetings.

85%
of

participants
indicated
some
form
of
college
degree.





Interaction
with
Local
Food
Movement
&
Food
Systems



Level
of
Involvement

Fifty‐seven
percent
(57%)
of
the
public
participants
that
attended
these
community

meetings
had
also
attended
the
October
Food
Summit.

This
indicates
that
the
Food

Summit
was
a
large
source
of
inspiration
for
public
participation,
however
it
was

not
the
sole
driver
for
the
large
community
involvement.

Over
half
of
the
attendants

(60%,
n=43)
indicated
they
had
been
involved
in
food
activism
for
at
least
one
year

(29%
=
1‐5
years;
9%
=5‐10
years;
22%
=
10+
years)
while
another
18%
claimed

involvement
at
least
6
months
to
a
year
(18%)
(Figure
5.6).

The
remaining
21%

(n=16)
had
become
involved
in
food
activism
presumably
because
of
the
activity

occurring
around
the
Food
Summit
since
it
was
their
first
experience
in
food

activism.







72


Length
of
Participant
Involvement
in


Food
Activism


10+
Years

22%


Food

Summit

14%


This
Meeting

7%


1‐6
Months

1%

6
Months
‐
1

year

18%


5‐10
Years

9%

1‐5
Years

29%


Food
Summit

This
Meeting

1‐6
Months

6
Months
‐
1
year

1‐5
Years

5‐10
Years

10+
Years




Figure
5.6.

Length
of
time
participants
at
local
food­systems
community
meetings
had

been
involved
in
local
food
activism.






Participants
were
also
asked
how
they
had
become
informed
about
the
Food

Summit.
The
majority
of
respondents,
51%
(n=38),
had
been
informed
by
word
of

mouth.

Additionally,
36%%
(n=27)
marked
other,
35%
(n=26)
were
informed

through
an
organization,
17%
(n=16)
were
informed
by
a
flyer
in
the
community,

and
21%
(n=16)
were
informed
through
an
internet
source
(Figure
5.7).



Percentages
add
up
to
over
100%
because
many
of
the
participants
marked
more

than
one
source.

Of
the
participants
whom
marked
other,
20
out
of
the
27
indicated

were
informed
of
the
Food
Summit
through
The
Evergreen
State
College,
specifically

many
of
these
respondents
noted
they
were
informed
through
the
Ecological

Agriculture
class
taught
by
TJ
Johnson,
a
local
activist
and
primary
organizer
of
the

Food
Summit.

The
most
prominent
organization
connections
among
participants

were
GRuB
and
the
food
bank.












73


Information
Source
for
Food
Summit

40

35

30

25

20

15

10


Series1


5

0







Figure
5.7.
Source
of
Information
for
Food
Summit
of
Survey
Participants.

Responses
of

participants
at
local
food­systems
community
meetings
indicating
how
they
were
informed

about
the
Food
Summit.






Shopping
Behaviors/Locations


Questions
were
asked
on
how
often
individuals
shopped
at
or
utilized
the
following:

the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op,
the
Olympia
Farmer’s
Market,
the
Thurston
County
Food

Bank
(main
headquarters
located
in
Olympia),
and
food
stamps.

There
was
also
an

open‐ended
question
for
individuals
to
list
the
main
places
they
acquired
food.

Of

the
76
respondents,
8%
(n=6)
said
they
never
shop
at
the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op,

while
63%
(n=
45)
shop
there
every
week
(Figure
5.8).

Overall,
88%
of
participants

(n=63)
shop
at
the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
at
least
every
other
month.





Concerning
the
usage
of
the
Olympia
Farmer’s
Market,
5%
(n=
4)
said
they
never

shop
at
the
Olympia’s
Farmer
Market,
while
21%
(n=
15)
shop
there
every
week,

37%
(n=27)
shop
there
every
month,
and
21%
(n=
15)
shop
there
every
2‐3
months





74


(Figure
5.8).

Overall
79%
of
participants
(n=57)
shop
at
the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
at

least
every
other
month.



Frequency
of
Shopping
Locations
for
Participants

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Food
Bank

Olympia
Co‐op

Olympia
Farmers
Market




Figure
5.8.
Comparison
of
frequency
of
various
shopping
locations
used
by
participants
at

local
food­systems
community
meetings.

Participants
significantly
utilized
the
Olympia

Food
Co­op
and
Olympia
Farmers
Market,
while
a
small
number
(14
of
76
participants)

use
the
Thurston
County
Food
Bank
(located
in
Olympia)
as
a
food
source.





Alternately,
81%
(n=
59)
said
they
never
visit
the
Thurston
County
Food
Bank,

while
out
of
the
remaining
19%,
1%
(n=
1)
visit
there
every
week,
1%
(n=1)
shop

visit
every
month,
7%
(n=5)
visit
there
every
2‐3
months,
3%
(n=
2)
visit
there

every
4‐6
months,
and
7%
(n=
5)
visit
there
one
or
two
times
a
year
(Figure
5.8).


Overall
this
shows
that
9%
of
participants
(n=7)
visit
the
Thurston
County
Food

Bank
at
least
every
other
month.

Eighty‐six
percent
(86%)
of
respondents
(n=65)

were
not
currently
on
food
stamps,
meaning
14%
(n=11)
were
on
food
stamps
at

the
time
of
this
meeting
(Figure
5.9).







75


Current
Food
Stamp
Usage
among

Participants

yes

14%

yes

no

no

86%








Figure
5.9.
Current
food
stamp
usage
of
participants
at
local
food­systems
community

meetings.

An
additional
12
individuals
(15.7%)
indicated
they
had
utilized
food
stamps

at
one
time
in
their
life.


Of
those
not
currently
on
food
stamps,
12
individuals
stated
they
had
been
on
food

stamps
at
one
time.

Overall
this
indicates
30%
of
all
respondents
(n=23)
have
at

one
time
used
food
stamps.

Further
analysis
indicates
that
three
of
the
food
stamp

users
identified
as
students,
three
identified
as
AmeriCorps
members,
and
the

remaining
five
showed
connections
to
Growing
Raised
Bounty
(GRuB).

The

importance
of
these
connections
is
elaborated
in
the
discussion
section.





Perception
of
Local
Food
System
Planning
Process



The
questionnaire
included
a
list
of
underserved
populations
and
asked
participants

to
mark
all
that
they
felt
were
missing
for
the
current
local
food
systems
planning

process.

In
total
78%
of
the
participants
(n=59)
identified
that
at
least
one
(if
not

more)
underserved
population
was
missing
from
the
planning
process.


Of
the





76


participants
whom
responded
to
the
questions,
64%
(n=38)
felt
the
Hispanic

population
was
missing,
61%
(n=36)
felt
the
Native
American
population
was

missing,
61%
(n=36)
felt
the
immigrant
population
was
missing,
58%
(n=34)
felt

the
African
American
population
was
missing,
54%
(n=32)
felt
the
Asian
population

was
missing,
51%
(n=30)
felt
the
individuals
with
disabilities
population
was

missing,
46%
(n=27)
felt
the
veteran/military
population
was
missing,
41%
(n=24)

felt
the
individuals
with
low
incomes
population
was
missing,
36%
(n=21)
felt
the

youth
population
was
missing,
29%
(n=17)
felt
the
elderly
population
was
missing,

and
15%
(n=9)
felt
another
population
not
listed
was
missing
(Figure
5.10).






Perception
of
Underserved
Populations
Missing

from
Local
Food­systems
Planning
Process

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


Series1




Figure
5.10.
Perception
of
Underserved
Populations
Missing
from
Local
Food­systems

Planning
Process.




















77


Interview
Results




Theme
frequencies

Serving
the
Minority
was
the
most
dominant
theme
for
all
interviews
while
there

was
variation
in
frequency
ranking
for
the
remaining
three
themes.

Serving
the

Minority
ranged
from
30%‐45%
among
the
interviews
with
an
average
of
36%
for

all
interviews.



When
considering
the
average
of
all
interviews
the
three
themes,

Cultural
Differences,
Communication
&
Relationship
Building,
and
On
Systems
were

evenly
distributed
(22%,
21%,
and
21%
respectively)
as
can
be
seen
on
Figure
5.11.


However,
when
comparing






















Figure
5.11.
Frequency
of
Interview
Themes
for
all
Interviews.


individual
interviews
there
is
some
amount
of
disparity.

Cultural
Differences
ranges

from
17%‐29%,
Communication
&
Relationship
Building
ranges
from
12%‐29%,

and
On
Systems
ranges
from
10%‐27%.


The
entire
distribution
of
theme

frequencies
can
be
viewed
in
Figure
5.12.








78




Communications
and
Relationship‐building
was
most
commonly
ranked
as
the

second
most
frequent
theme
(five
of
the
nine
interviews),
while
Cultural
Differences

was
the
second
most
frequent
theme
for
four
of
the
interviews,
and
On
Systems
was

second
most
frequent
for
only
one
of
the
interviews.



Frequency
of
Interview
Themes
for
All
Interviews

60

50

40

Serving
the
Minority

30

20

10

0


Cultural
Difference

Communication
&

Relationship
Building

On
Systems




Figure
5.12.
Comparison
of
frequencies
of
interview
themes
across
all
interviews.

Serving
the

Minority
was
the
most
prominent
theme
for
all
interviews,
however
the
other
three
themes

were
ranked
differently
depending
on
interview.




Discrepancies
among
interviews
could
be
dependent
upon
the
differences
in

governing
philosophies
and
programs
for
each
organization,
as
well
as
differences

in
interview
questions
and
lengths.

As
is
mentioned
in
the
Methods
section,

interview
questions
evolved
as
themes
emerged
thus
influencing
the
focuses
of

latter
interviews.

Specifically
questions
concerning
political
barriers
and
influence

to
minority
participation
were
more
highly
emphasized
in
the
later
interviews.






79


Additionally
questions
to
encourage
elaboration
on
the
role
of
meeting
and

decision‐making
processes
were
more
highly
emphasized
in
the
later
interviews.


Interviews
ranged
drastically
in
length
from
45
min
to
2.5
hours
dependant
upon

interviewee
availability.

Potential
reasons
for
major
differences
are
commented

upon
in
the
following
Discussion
section.





Subtheme
frequencies

Most
prominent
subthemes
(in
order
of
frequency
out
of
fifteen
subthemes)
were

Participation
(16%),
Intersectionality
(15%),
both
of
these
subthemes
fall
under
the

Serving
Minority
theme,
which
was
the
most
prominent
theme
for
all
interviews,

and
Experiences
and
Relevancy
(13%),
which
is
under
the
theme
Cultural

Differences.

Leadership,
which
is
a
subtheme
under
On
Systems,
was
the
fourth

most
prominent
subtheme
with
8%
frequency,
while
the
remaining
subthemes
were

within
3%‐6%.







Ultimately
these
themes
and
subthemes
represent
a
subjective
manner
in
which
the

researcher
was
able
to
organize
the
data.

Many
of
these
topics
are
highly

intertwined
and
related
making
it
difficult
to
categorize.

It
is
clear,
objectively,
that

certain
areas
are
much
more
prominent.


The
discussion
section
uses
these
facts,

plus
the
knowledge
gained
through
the
research
process,
to
analyze
and
discuss

why
certain
topics
appear
more
often.

Through
investigation
one
can
identify
the

largest
needs
and
barriers
to
inclusive
participation
of
underserved
populations.


The
focus
of
the
study
is
conducted
through
the
lens
of
food,
however
many
of
the





80


barriers
and
opportunities
revealed
are
applicable
to
creating
a
more
just,
inclusive

society
in
general.







81


Chapter
6:
Data
Analysis
&
Discussion


There
are
many
avenues
for
analysis
that
this
research
could
elaborate
upon
due
to

the
variety
and
amount
of
data
collected.

This
paper
focuses
primarily
on
the

interview
data.

Survey
data
was
crucial
to
identifying
quantitatively
the
diversity

and
perceptions
of
current
participants,
but
the
deep
understanding
of
inclusiveness

and
diversity
comes
from
the
interviewees’
knowledge.


Data
from
the
survey
is

used
to
complement
the
major
themes
and
topics
discovered
during
the
interviews.


Summative
conclusions
gathered
from
the
data
analysis
of
both
surveys
and

interviews
are
presented
at
the
end
of
this
chapter.



Survey
Interpretation
&
Discussion

The
survey
data
confirmed
that
public
participation
surrounding
the
TFSC
planning

process
was
lacking
in
socio‐economic
diversity.

The
majority
of
individuals
at
the

public
planning
meetings
were
Caucasian/white
(84%),
residents
of
Olympia
(75%)

or
the
surrounding
urban
centers
of
Lacey
and
Tumwater
(additional
13%),
had
an

education
level
above
a
high
school
degree
(85%),
shop
at
the
Olympia
Farmer’s

Market
(92%)
and
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
(95%),
and
heard
about
the
Food
Summit

and
related
TFSC
activity
through
word
of
mouth
(51%),
a
connection
with
an

organization
(17%),
or
The
Evergreen
State
College
(26%).

Overall
participant

demographics
reflect
the
city
of
Olympia
more
accurately
than
the
entire
Thurston

County
population.

While
a
number
of
participants
utilize
the
food
bank
(19%)

and/or
food
stamps
(14%),
the
majority
of
public
participants
do
not
interact
with





82


emergency
food
sources.

The
lacking
of
socio‐economic
diversity
indicates
the

public
process
is
not
engaging
underserved
populations
at
a
high
level.





Interview
data
indicates
mixed
perceptions
on
the
inclusiveness,
or
exclusiveness,

that
both
the
Olympia
Farmers
Market
and
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
markets
embody.


While
some
interviewees
specifically
noted
that
there
were
great
opportunities
for

low‐income
individuals
to
participate,
other
interviewees
specifically
called
both
the

Olympia
Farmers’
Market
and
Olympia
Food
Co‐op
“exclusive.”


Regardless
of

whether
this
presence
is
a
positive
or
negative
indicator
considering
inclusion,
it

does
indicate
the
majority
of
people
share
similar
behaviors
interacting
with
the

local
agro‐food
systems
and
markets.

Furthermore
the
public
participants

statistically
lack
the
same
knowledge
of
the
agro‐food
system
from
the
perspective

of
utilizing
food
stamps
and
the
local
food
bank.


It
should
also
be
noted
that
almost

half
of
the
participants
put
a
large
grocery
store
as
a
primary
food
source,
yet
these

stores
are
not
currently
involved
in
the
TFSC.

TFSC
members
have
recognized
the

importance
of
including
these
stakeholders,
but
faced
a
number
of
challenges
in

actually
engaging
them.





While
the
group
was
homogenous
concerning
race/ethnicity,
residency,
education

level,
and
shopping
behaviors,
there
was
diversity
among
participants
concerning

age,
income
level,
and
length
of
involvement
in
food
activism.

There
was
a
slightly

higher
percentage
of
participants
between
ages
19‐29
(34%),
however
the
age

groups
of
30‐39,
40‐49,
50‐59,
and
over
60
were
evenly
distributed
(16%,
20%,





83


13%,
16%).



The
two
predominate
income
levels
were
at
either
end
of
the

spectrum
with
27%
having
a
household
income
between
$60,000‐$100,000
and

23%
having
a
household
income
of
under
$10,000.

The
large
percentages
of
both

younger
participants
and
low‐income
participants
is
thought
to
be
correlated
with

three
specific
entities:
Growing
Raised
Bounty
(GRuB),
the
Thurston
County
Food

Bank
(TCFB),
and
The
Evergreen
State
College
(TESC).

As
is
mentioned
in
the

results
section,
over
half
of
the
individuals
with
income
levels
below
$10,000

identified
as
students.

Many
individuals
with
low‐incomes
also
noted

organizational
connections
with
GRuB
or
TCFB.







The
fact
that
most
individuals
heard
about
the
public
meetings
through
word
of

mouth
or
an
organization
exemplifies
personal
relationships
as
a
successful
avenue

for
community
engagement.


The
resulting
demographics
at
the
public
meetings

suggest
underserved
communities
are
not
yet
a
part
of
this
set
of
connections,

however
GRuB,
TCFB,
and
TESC
all
represent
entities
that
appear
to
bridge
the
“food

community”
with
underserved
populations.

Additionally
there
are
a
high

percentage
of
participants
who
were
new
to
food
activism
in
the
community

indicating
the
groups
and
individuals
involved
are
not
stagnant
and
have
the

potential
to
continue
to
increase
participation.





The
connection
to
TESC
can
predominantly
be
traced
back
to
one
individual,
TJ

Johnson.

TJ
Johnson
wears
many
hats
in
the
food
activism
community
including

lead
organizer
of
the
Food
Summit,
coordinator
of
the
Wendell
Berry
Community





84


Garden,
member
of
Sustainable
South
Sound,
and
lead
organizer
in
the
TFSC.

At
the

time
of
the
Food
Summit
TJ
was
also
co‐teaching
a
course
entitled
Ecological

Agriculture
at
TESC
and
actively
involved
his
students
in
the
entire
community

planning
process.

While
the
community
no
doubt
benefits
from
TJ’s
efforts
and

actions,
research
surrounding
Food
Policy
Councils
warns
of
the
dependence
on
one

strong
personality,
organization,
or
figure
(Food
First
2009).


Precautions
of

dependency
on
strong
figures
should
also
be
considered
for
the
TFSC
by
recognizing

GRuB
and
TCFB
are
currently
the
only
organizations
connecting
underserved

populations
–
a
connection
which
could
be
lost.





It
was
clear
public
participants
felt
underserved
populations
were
missing
from
the

public
planning
process.

Open‐ended
responses
included
comments
indicated

strong
feelings
among
some
participants:
when
indicating
who
was
missing

responses
included
“99%
of
the
community
that
are
not
food
activists,”
and
“the

whole
county
other
than
North
Urban
and
Olympia
Center.”

While
the
majority
of

participants
may
agree
voices
are
missing,
there
was
not
clear
consensus
on
which

groups
should
be
prioritized.

An
open‐ended
question
asking
which
groups
are
the

most
important
populations
for
representation
on
the
TFSC
received
answers

ranging
from
specific
organizations,
specific
socio‐economic
populations,
to
simply

“everyone.”

Overall
the
range
of
answers
exemplifies
the
subjective
nature
of

defining
a
local
agro‐food
system
and
exemplifies
the
difficulty
of
truly
creating
a

collective
community
vision.

The
task
of
prioritizing
stakeholders
and
projects
will





85


be
skewed
if
the
TFSC
does
not
have
the
voices
of
underserved
groups
and

individuals
that
interact
with
the
agro‐food
system
in
drastically
different
ways.





While
critiques
on
diverse
participation
arose
from
the
survey
both
quantitatively

and
qualitatively,
there
were
also
equal
amounts
of
support
and
praise
for
the
public

planning
process
and
the
continuing
growth
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement

in
the
community.

A
total
83%
of
participants
indicated
they
were
satisfied
or

extremely
satisfied
with
the
public
planning
process,
and
none
of
the
participants

marked
they
were
dissatisfied.

When
asked
what
the
most
beneficial
part
of
the

planning
process
had
been,
almost
all
responses
included
a
reference
to
networking

and
relationship‐building.

The
following
discussion
on
interview
data
dives
deeper

into
how
the
network
can
be
more
inclusive
of
underserved
populations.





Interview
Interpretation
&
Discussion

Serving
the
Minority

Serving
the
Minority
was
the
most
prevalent
theme
for
all
the
interviews.

Many
of

the
organizations
in
this
study
identify
as
a
group
that
“serves”
a
particular

population
–
a
common
term
for
social
justice
organizations
that
radiates
the

mentality
of
working
with
underserved
peoples.


“Serving
the
Minority”

summarizes
the
most
relevant,
and
immediate
considerations
and
actions
for

connecting
underserved
populations
to
local
movements.


Topics
fall
under
the

subthemes
of
Participation,
Intersectionality,
Institutionalized
Oppression,
and

Short
Term
versus
Long
Term.













86




Participation

All
of
the
interviewees
spent
time
talking
about
needs
that
have
to
be
met
in
order

for
participation
to
occur.


When
participation
was
discussed,
the
interviewees

focused
primarily
on
both
tangible
needs
and
creating
a
sense
of
empowerment
or

ownership.

Tangible
needs
that
were
discussed
commonly
included
transportation,

childcare,
and
compensation
for
time.

These
are
needs
that
particularly
for

underserved
populations
can
be
the
deciding
factor
on
attending
a
meeting
or
event.


Many
of
the
organizations
interviewed
have
spent
time
overcoming
these
barriers.


For
example
POWER
provides
childcare
at
events
and
offers
transportation

vouchers.

The
Food
Bank
gives
away
extra
food
for
the
completion
of
surveys.


CIELO
ensures
food
and
childcare
are
present
at
meetings.


It
is
obvious
a
major

barrier
to
meeting
these
needs
is
the
presence
of
money
or
resources,
however

intentional
organizations
find
creative
ways
of
making
this
happen.

The
Food
Bank

relies
on
large
volunteer
base
and
being
imaginative
in
volunteer
work
so
even

children
can
assist.

POWER
utilizes
the
help
of
a
local
childcare
collective.

Olympia

specifically
has
many
opportunities
to
create
partnerships
and
share
resources.



The
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
currently
has
no
funding,
however

budget
plans
to
meet
some
of
these
needs
could
be
considered.

Interviewees
warn

that
not
having
these
resources
available
will
indeed
impact
participation,
saying:




“…if
you
do
have
a
meeting
and
you
don’t
include
child
care
and

transportation
support
and
food
then
you’re
leaving
out
a
really
vital

voice…”








87


A
few
of
the
interviewees
talked
about
tangible
needs
on
a
deeper
level,
such
as
the

hindrance
of
poverty
and
hunger
for
one’s
ability
to
interact
or
care
about
an
issue.


For
example
the
two
following
quotes
speak
to
the
fact
that
before
an
individual
can

be
expected
to
participate,
they
must
first
be
able
to
care
for
themselves
in
the
most

basic
ways:



“First
you
have
to
be
able
to
answer
the
question
what
am
I
going
to

eat
tonight
before
you
can
get
people
to
think
about
what
they
are

going
to
eat
five
years
from
now.”





“…it’s
kind
of
a
continuum
of
self‐sufficiency…
like
where
you’re

meeting
your
basic
needs
and
then
once
you
start
to
get
more
settled

in
your
community
then
you
can
become
actively
participatory…”





Organizations
such
as
the
TFSC
are
crucial
in
addressing
larger
systemic
issues,
but

in
the
meantime
they
can
ensure
meetings
and
events
are
as
accessible
as
possible.





The
need
to
foster
empowerment
or
ownership
by
underserved
populations
was

also
a
large
factor
when
considering
participation.

Interviewees
held
the
sentiment

that
members
of
the
dominant
culture
have
to
consciously
share
the
power
that
is

disproportionately
available
to
them.


Many
of
these
populations
have
little
room
to

feel
empowered
in
their
day‐to‐day
life,
whether
it
is
because
they
are
culturally

oppressed
or
because
they
have
no
home
to
speak
of.

Typically
many
become

“clients”
in
the
world
of
social
services,
which
contributes
to
a
feeling
of
not
having

control
over
one’s
life.

When
interviewees
talked
about
empowerment,
they
talked

about
members
having
a
significant
role
in
creating
an
organization’s
agenda
and

goals.

Most
of
the
organizations
interviewed
are
member‐led
to
some
degree.

One

interviewee
discussed
this
approach
versus
the
traditional
Alinsky‐style
organizing

that
stems
from
labor
unions.

The
Alinsky
model
is
a
top
down
structure
in
which





88


the
organizer
goes
into
the
community
to
have
individuals
work
on
their
agenda.


Quite
adversely
the
organizations
in
this
study
seek
for
those
most
impacted
to

voice
what
they
need,
thus
the
people
define
their
own
needs
in
an
effort
to
foster

their
own
power.


For
GRuB,
empowerment
also
means
showing
the
impact

individuals
can
have:


“…the
reason
they
(GRuB
youth)
are
so
engaged
is
because
they

realize
that
by
participating
they’re
impacting
the
world.”



‐Kim
Gaffi,
GRuB
Director



The
exact
mechanisms
for
creating
an
empowering
space
vary,
but
all
give

individuals
a
pathway
to
have
their
voices
heard
and
result
in
a
feeling
of

contribution.

Jill
Severn
claims
the
success
of
Camp
Quixote,
a
camp
for
those
who

are
homeless,
is
connected
to
empowerment.




“…
they
have
power
over
their
own
internal
governance…and
I
think

its
that
feeling
of
giving
people
agency
over
their
own
lives
that
is
the

most
important
prerequisite
to
engaging
people.”

‐‐
Jill
Severns,

Panza
President



POWER
uses
political
activism
as
a
means
for
empowerment.

By
giving
people
the

skills
to
fight
for
their
rights,
individuals
are
given
that
feeling
of
agency.

The
TFSC

is
in
a
position
to
ensure
individuals’
know
their
rights
around
food
and
the
avenues

they
can
take
to
secure
these.

An
organization
that
promotes
food
democracy,
such

as
a
Food
Policy
Council
and
the
TFSC,
has
the
potential
to
be
an
empowering
tool

for
all
in
a
community,
but
conscious
efforts
have
to
be
made
so
that
power
is

distributed
to
all.


The
public
organizing
leading
up
to
the
TFSC
indicates
the

organizations’
want
to
be
defined
by
the
community,
but
they
do
not
have

representatives
from
all
of
the
many
sectors
of
the
community.









89


A
few
interviewees
also
mentioned
the
need
to
create
a
physical
and
social
space

that
was
culturally
safe.


This
requires
a
keen
sense
that
those
outside
the
dominant

culture
have
formal
and
informal
differences
connected
to
class
or
ethnicity.


One

interviewee
gives
the
example:


“…I
think
that’s
why
low‐income
people
like
to
get
together
because

you
know
you’re
not
going
to
be
embarrassed
by
talking
about
your

food
bank
dinner...”





For
initial
engagement
this
may
mean
relying
on
focus
groups
or
organization

liaisons
for
feedback
from
a
particular
population.

Additionally
groups
can
openly

discuss
perceptions
they
have
on
the
topic
they
are
organizing
so
they
can
identify

underlying
presumptions.

Overall
it
will
take
time
and
conscious
efforts
to
create

spaces
that
do
not
unconsciously
inhibit
or
oppress
certain
peoples.







Intersectionality


The
subtheme
intersectionality
refers
to
both
the
presence
and
absence
for
the

agro‐food
movement
to
overlap,
or
intersect,
with
social
justice
organizations
and

the
peoples
they
serve.


Intersectionality
was
the
second
highest
subtheme
among

interviews.

A
main
critique
of
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
is
the
inability
to

align
goals
across
the
movement,
particularly
social
justice
goals
(Allen
2010).


This

section
discusses
the
larger
issues
of
intersectionality
and
then
focuses
more

directly
on
intersectionality
with
the
Thurston
County
agro‐food
movement
and
the

TFSC.

When
asked
about
ways
to
engage
underserved
populations
some

interviewees
were
confused
on
why
a
Food
Policy
Council
(FPC)
would
even
want,

or
expect,
a
group
to
be
involved:






90


“It’s
sort
of
a
Maslow’s
hierarchy
issue…
I
mean
people
who
are

struggling
with
life
times
of
abuse
and
trauma,
and
mental
illness
and

addiction,
and
having
been
on
the
street,
and
the
anxiety
disorders…to

get
them
to
focus
on
food
policy
is…challenging.”






This
sentiment
reflects
the
perception
that
FPCs
work
primarily
at
a
policy
level,

and
it
also
reflects
a
perceived
disconnect
of
disenfranchised
peoples
from
policy

work.

It
demonstrates
that
FPCs
and
the
agro‐food
movement
will
have
to
make

clear
how
people
of
all
walks
of
live
are
connected,
and
how
they
can
contribute.



This
perspective
makes
it
difficult
to
understand
how
an
organization
can
expect

input
from
individuals
who
are
struggling
each
day
just
to
survive.

If
FPCs
seek
to

address
food
democracy
in
which
everyone
has
a
voice,
then
these
obvious

hindrances
will
have
to
be
recognized.

A
potential
solution
is
creating
a
plethora
of

avenues
to
be
involved.

Robert
Coit,
Director
of
Thurston
County
Food
Bank

(TCFB),
explains
that
the
volunteer
model
utilized
at
the
TCFB
is
unique
in
that
it

focuses
on
getting
as
many
people
as
possible
involved.

The
volunteer
tasks
are

broken
down
to
the
most
miniscule
and
mundane
of
tasks
so
persons
of
limited

skills
or
abilities
can
perform
them.

Many
organizations
and
businesses
would

consider
this
inefficient
in
terms
of
achieving
work,
however
Robert
feels
the

community
connections
compensate
for
any
work
losses.

Perhaps
TFSC
and
other

FPCs
can
take
similar
approaches
in
gathering
input
from
the
community.

This

means
gauging
effectiveness
and
progress
in
new
ways.

Sadly
these
hardships
are

symptoms
of
the
same
broken
system
that
alternative
agro‐food
practitioners
are

addressing,
but
organizations
can’t
wait
for
a
new
system
to
be
designed.

As

systems
transition,
it
is
crucial
agro‐food
movements
start
the
hard
work
of

connecting
the
impoverished
and
underserved
to
the
systems
that
perpetuate
their





91


own
poverty,
hunger,
and
oppression.

Food
justice
practitioners
can
do
a
better
job

of
articulating
how
democracy
can
make
a
difference.




At
the
beginning
of
this
research
it
was
believed
that
the
concept
of
FPCs
and
the

local
formation
of
the
TFSC
were
commonly
held
knowledge
in
the
Olympia
area,

particularly
among
organizers.

Therefore
it
was
interesting
to
observe
that
many
of

the
interviewees
had
not
heard
of
these
activities
or
were
falsely
informed
about

local
efforts
in
the
agro‐food
movement.


Even
among
those
correctly
informed,

most
were
not
impressed
with
the
ability
of
the
Thurston
County
agro‐food

movement
to
engage
underserved
populations.

One
interviewee
who
attended
the

Food
Summit
commented
she
saw
“a
room
full
of
people
that
could
afford
to
be

there.”

Another
interviewee
blatantly
stated
that
besides
TCFB,
there
are
no
other

avenues
that
engage
low‐income
individuals
in
local
food
organizing.

This

individual
went
as
far
to
say,
“I’m
not
sure
anyone
is
really
willing
to
invest
that

much
to
reach
that
target
population.”

One
other
simply
answered
“no”
when
asked

if
she
had
seen
evidence
of
efforts
to
connect
to
underserved
populations
in
the

TFSC
process.

A
few
of
the
interviewees
recognized
efforts
by
Food
Summit

organizers,
specifically
that
scholarships
were
given
to
attend
and
that
the
meeting

was
intentionally
held
in
Lacey
at
the
fairgrounds
as
a
more
“inclusive”
location.


Food
Summit
organizers
did
have
many
social
justice
and
minority
organizations

listed
on
their
outreach
list,
however
they
were
only
slightly
successful
in

engagement.

One
of
the
interviewees
who
is
also
a
Food
Summit
organizer
admits

that
she
tried
to
connect
with
the
local
tribes,
but
that
her
efforts
could
have
gone





92


much
farther
to
become
a
more
“quality
invite.”


Collectively
the
interviewees
felt

that
the
voices
of
their
constituents
are
missing
from
the
current
food
conversations

in
Thurston
County
and
beyond.






One
individual
was
adamant
that
the
TFSC
was
too
narrowly
focused
on
local

agriculture
versus
the
food
system
as
a
whole.

Particularly
for
low‐income

populations,
this
may
alienate
a
large
group
of
people
who
do
not
currently
have
the

privilege
to
support
local
agriculture.


There
was
a
feeling
that
Olympia
specifically

has
a
unique
ability
to
focus
on
topics
such
as
local
agriculture
that
is
not
possible
in

all
communities:



“…
I
don’t
know
if
there’s
a
lot
of
opportunity
for

anybody
in
the
community
to
get
involved
with
food

policy
and
where
our
food
comes
from
–
maybe
in

Olympia
because
we
are
privileged…and
a
lot
of
us
who

are
able
to
afford
good
healthy
organic
food
are
also

connected
to
the
community
in
a
way
that
allows
us
to

get
involved
with
food
policy
with
this
whole
local
foods

movement…”



This
supports
the
view
that
the
agro‐food
movement
can
be
elitist
and
exclusive
to

those
who
have
the
time
and
money.


Furthermore
it
suggests
that
interacting
with

policy
level
work
is
exclusive
in
a
country
that
defines
itself
as
a
democracy.

A
few

of
the
interviewees
expressed
the
concern
that
the
TFSC
will
be
more
characteristic

of
Olympia,
not
necessarily
Thurston
County
as
a
whole.


As
one
commented,

“…it

can’t
be
about
Olympia,
it
has
to
be
about
Thurston
County.”

Survey
results

corroborate
these
concerns.

Other
interviewees
didn’t
explicitly
express
concerns

about
Olympia
being
disproportionately
represented,
but
did
comment
they
didn’t

feel
the
topics
being
addressed
by
the
TFSC
would
concern
the
populations
they





93


served.

There
is
obviously
a
gap
in
understanding
how
underserved
populations
fit

into
the
TFSC.

If
this
gap
is
present
among
lead
organizers
in
the
area,
then
it
is

likely
exacerbated
among
the
general
public.







Although
currently
unfulfilled,
there
was
much
hope
among
the
interviewees
that

food
has
an
ability
to
make
connections
across
groups.

Most
of
the
interviewees

said
meals
are
an
important
part
of
their
organization
because
of
the
social
aspect

associated
with
food.

One
interviewee
commented,
“I
feel
like
sharing
food
with

someone
gives
you
the
chance
to
nourish
more
than
just
your
physical
body.”


Another
interviewee
revealed
surprise
at
the
range
of
political
beliefs
held
by

supporters
of
her
organizations’
food
programs.


An
interviewee
summed
it
up

when
he
said
your
religion,
your
political
affiliation,
your
beliefs
–
none
of
that

mattered
because
we
all
need
food.

So
even
though
on
a
theoretical
and
political

level
interviewees
could
not
always
see
the
connections,
connections
were
very

obvious
when
considering
the
very
basic
act
of
eating.

Potlucks
and
events
centered

on
food
have
the
potential
to
create
spaces
for
all.








In
the
Thurston
County
community,
GRuB
and
the
TCFB
are
organizations
that

connect
the
food
movement
to
underserved
populations.

These
two
groups
were

mentioned
in
almost
every
interview
either
as
an
established
or
potential
partner,

which
coincides
with
survey
data.

Both
groups
have
been
connected
to
the
TFSC
in

some
manner
and
should
not
be
underestimated
for
their
strength
as
collaborators.


Interviewees
gave
other
suggestions
of
entities
that
naturally
seem
to
bridge
social,





94


cultural,
and
economic
classes.

CIELO
representative,
Stefanie,
pointed
out
that

many
farmworkers
are
Latinos
therefore
connecting
with
the
Latino
population

could
bring
diversity
in
two
ways.

Similarly
the
former
LeftFoot
Organics
director

noted
that
individuals
with
developmental
disabilities
hold
many
food
service
jobs.


Furthermore,
she
noted
individuals
with
disabilities
are
unique
in
that
they
are
not

a
distinct
social
class
and
therefore
are
connected
to
the
community
in
many
ways.





Social
entities
such
as
schools,
places
of
worship,
military,
and
larger
grocery
stores

connect
people
from
many
socio‐economic
backgrounds.

Disenfranchised

populations
are
also
connected
to
health
departments,
nutrition
programs,
and

social
services.

Most
importantly
many
underserved
populations,
particularly
in

Western
Washington,
have
formed
groups
specifically
for
that
population.

For

example
all
of
the
organizations
interviewed
said
they
would
be
willing
to
work

with
TFSC
as
long
as
some
of
the
previously
mentioned
mechanisms
for
meeting

tangible
needs
and
empowerment
were
put
in
place.

Prioritizing
connections
with

these
community
groups,
service
providers,
and
non‐profits
may
increase
the

diversity
within
the
TFSC.





Ultimately
all
groups
and
individuals
need
to
work
together
to
find
where
projects

and
goals
can
intersect.

One
interviewee
expressed
her
hope
that
greater

collaborations
could
be
made
for
all
those
wanting
a
better
world:

“…everyone
is
working
on
their
issues,
and
I
feel
if
there
was
more

cohesion
of
really
understanding
that
all
struggles
are
inter‐
related…all
of
our
liberation
is
combined.”








95


Institutionalized
oppression

Although
there
was
critique
of
the
TFSC
process
specifically,
most
interviewees

identified
that
disconnection
between
social,
economic,
and
cultural
groups
is
not

unique
to
the
specific
situation.

There
was
an
overtone
that
disconnection
within

the
agro‐food
movement
stems
from
larger
issues
of
institutionalized
oppression

and
racism.

Some
of
examples
are
quite
obvious
such
in
the
case
of
undocumented

workers.

How
is
an
individual
supposed
to
feel
safe
and
interact
with
a
system
that

could
deport
them
at
any
moment?

What
about
migrant
populations
that
do
not

speak
the
language?

Monica
Peabody,
Director
of
POWER,
explained
how
welfare

policies
inherently
perpetuate
poverty,
particularly
for
single
parents.

She

explained
budget
cuts
have
led
to
welfare
equaling
30%
of
poverty
level,
meaning

individuals
receive
one
third
of
what
they
need
to
get
their
basic
needs.

This

poverty
puts
hindrances
on
your
ability
to
interact
in
the
community.

Furthermore

it
is
passed
on
to
their
children
–


“…[your
kids]
don’t
have
the
same
opportunities…so
they’re

maybe
not
as
well
rounded
or
you
know
have
as
good
behavior

because
they’re
not
going
to
do
things
that
build
their
learning

and
bodies…extracurricular
activities…
cost
money…
access
to

healthy
food
[costs
money].”





This
goes
back
to
the
idea
that
democratic
learning
comes
from
both
formal

institutions
and
informal
social
settings.

Starting
at
an
early
age,
poverty
creates

divisions
among
people,
leaving
those
who
are
poor
with
fewer
opportunities.

This

division
of
classes
will
grow
as
our
economic
system
increases
the
number
of

individuals
who
will
need
assistance
in
this
country:

“…It’s
crazy
making
to
think
that
someone
can
work
at
a

minimum
wage
job
where
you
probably
never
quite
get
40





96


hr/wk
and
manage
to
pay
rent
and
eat…that’s
becoming

beyond
the
capacity
for
more
and
more
people.”



Oppression
is
also
connected
to
a
plethora
of
social
misperceptions.

Single
mothers

are
viewed
as
“welfare
mothers”
who
can’t
properly
take
care
of
their
children.


Individuals
are
surprised
that
undocumented
workers
actually
live
in
Olympia.


People
who
are
homeless
must
have
brought
it
on
themselves.

Many
of
the

interviewees
agreed
there
is
simply
a
lack
of
places
in
modern
society
for

individuals
from
different
background
to
mingle
and
learn
from
one
another.





Class
separation
was
talked
about
numerous
times
and
one
interviewee
felt

“…federal
policies
have
promoted
the
division
of
wealth
and
poverty.”



One
group

talked
about
the
gentrification
that
occurs
in
much
of
Olympia’s
organizing.

The

term
gentrification
is
typically
used
in
terms
of
urban
development
in
which
“…the

influx
of
middle‐class
or
affluent
people
into
deteriorating
areas
that
often
displaces

poorer
residents”
(Merriam‐Webster
website).

In
the
context
of
organizing
it
was

meant
that
middle‐class
individuals
dominate
many
of
the
organizations
and
events

in
Olympia,
which
inherently
drives
out
minority
groups.

This
is
not
to
say
that
this

is
intentional,
but
bringing
awareness
to
this
process
may
assist
in
preventing
it.





Institutionalized
oppression
means
certain
groups
are
inherently
at
a
disadvantage

in
our
systems,
and
that
the
dominant
culture
disproportionately
has
access.

In

terms
of
democratic
participation
the
dominant
culture
has
more
access
to
influence

policy,
and
more
access
to
learning
and
passing
on
the
skills
needed
to
do
so.

The

TFSC
can
work
to
eliminate
these
disadvantages
from
their
organization.





97


Balancing
Short­term
&
Long­term

Engaging
underserved
populations
through
a
social
justice
lens
means
finding
a

balance
between
short‐term
and
long‐term
goals
and
programming.

This
was

reflected
throughout
the
interviews.

On
the
one
side,
hands‐on
activities
are

essential
for
engaging
groups
such
as
those
with
limited
abilities
or
who
have
not

reached
a
place
of
conceptually
discussing
food
issues.

In
reality,
some
people
just

prefer
the
hands‐on
activities
regardless
of
ability
or
knowledge.

On
the
other
side,

it
is
obvious
that
issues
of
an
unsustainable
food
system,
poverty,
and
hunger
need

particularly
long‐term
considerations.

Interviewees
revealed
the
way
to
create

initial
investment
is
showing
how
people
are
connected
in
a
real
immediate
way.



GRuB
finds
this
balance
by
focusing
their
program
on
actually
growing
food:


“…having
a
garden
to
build
[is]
something
that’s
immediate,

something
that
is
relevant
to
my
life
and
it’s
a
doorway
to

other
conversations
and
other
engagement.
“



Sometimes
providing
a
place
to
gather
is
all
that
is
needed
for
larger
discussions
to

occur.

Food
again
is
unique
in
that
the
practice
of
growing
and
eating
are
very

hands‐on
and
relevant
to
everyone,
but
that
the
systems
that
influence
these

practices
will
require
long‐term
visions
and
planning.







The
balance
of
long‐term
and
short‐term
was
often
discussed
in
the
context
of

keeping
a
consistent
volunteer
base.

It
was
identified
that
people
are
often

motivated
to
volunteer
because
they
want
to
create
change
in
the
world.


One

interviewee
connected
this
directly
to
Food
Policy
Councils
(FPCs):

“One
of
the
reasons
FPCs
start
and
then
fail
because
its
all

volunteer,
we’re
all
going
to
change
the
world
and
we
don’t





98


change
the
world
fast
enough
and
they
lose
sight
of
the
smaller

incremental
positive
changes.”



Arguably
this
becomes
even
more
evident
as
the
world
focuses
on
concepts

like
sustainability
that
urge
citizens
to
make
choices
for
the
future

generations.

It
is
impossible
that
we
will
see
all
the
impacts
immediately
if

they
are
truly
designed
for
long‐term
change.

Robert
Coit,
Director
of

Thurston
County
Food
Bank,
says
for
him
what
is
more
important
is
that

there
are
no
steps
backwards.

This
is
his
gauge
for
success.

He
says:

“…my
professional
philosophy
has
always
been
as
long
as

change
happens
and
as
long
as
its
positive,
I’m
ok
with
the

pace…what
drives
me
is
ongoing
positive
change,
even
if
it

takes
a
lot
longer....”





Long‐term
goals
are
reflected
in
both
the
philosophies
and
missions
of
the
groups,

as
well
as
their
internal
structure.

Interviewees
discussed
hindrances
for
them
to

serve
as
a
representative
of
their
organization
on
the
TFSC.


Most
talked
about
the

need
for
funding,
or
the
frustration
of
being
with
groups
before
that
“had
no
teeth.”



Therefore
it
seemed
like
long‐term
sustainability
of
an
organization
is
connected
to

consistent
funding
and
clear
avenues
for
influencing
change.

For
many
of
the

groups
this
meant
that
they
would
want
to
know
how
TFSC
could
truly
influence

policy.






A
major
challenge
for
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
is
the
balance
of

gathering
diverse
community
and
stakeholder
input
with
forging
ahead
to
solidify

the
organization.

Currently
they
are
moving
forward
with
organization





99


infrastructure,
but
interviewees
are
wary
on
whether
this
will
decrease
the

potential
for
diverse
engagement:


“…you
do
need
to
move
forward,
you
can’t
wait
for
everyone

to
be
in
the
room…
it
will
never
happen.

Then
as
you
move

forward
how
do
you
make
that
activity
both
really
enticing

and
safe
for
lots
of
kinds
of
people,
and
for
me
that
part
we

[TFSC]
haven’t
successfully
done…”




In
other
words
the
TFSC
isn’t
necessarily
being
critiqued
for
moving
forward,
but

for
doing
so
without
clearly
stating
how
they
will
continue
to
engage
diverse

participants.


Moving
forward
too
quickly
can
take
away
the
opportunity
for
initial

ownership.

On
the
other
hand,
it
is
obvious
that
there
is
a
gap
in
understanding
how

these
groups
are,
or
can
be
involved
in
the
food
movement.

This
requires
a
clear

message
on
potential
areas
of
participation.

So
should
priority
lie
in
getting
more

involvement
or
forming
a
more
clear
organization
for
people
to
become
involved

with?

Kim
Gaffi
of
GRuB
is
currently
involved
with
TFSC
and
suggests
a
both/and

approach.

She
promotes
the
ideas
of
mini‐Food
Summits,
in
which
different

communities
come
together
to
define
what
they
want
their
food
system
to
look
like.


This
creates
an
empowering,
culturally
safe
environment
for
individuals
to
create

their
own
agenda.

Subsequently
agendas
can
be
compared
across
communities
thus

finding
natural
alliances
and
connections.

The
TFSC
can
serve
as
a
hub
for
this

work.





Perhaps
the
key
to
a
balance
of
short‐term
and
long‐term
is
being
adaptive.

If
we

are
part
of
a
movement
that
is
seeking
a
new
form
then
there
will
be
a
transition

period.

And
even
then,
the
form
we
aim
for
will
need
to
be
adjusted
and
evolve,
for





100


we
never
know
what
the
future
holds.


Sustainability
is
not
about
certainty
but

about
living
fluidly
with
the
world
around
us.






Communication
&
Relationship­Building

Communication
&
Relationship‐building
was
the
second
highest
theme
for
five
out

of
the
nine
interviews.

All
interviewees
saw
communication
and
relationship

building
as
crucial
prerequisites
for
engagement
and
for
overcoming
barriers

among
diverse
groups.

Relationships
were
talked
about
both
on
an
organizational

level
and
a
people
level.

The
alternative
food
movement
in
particular
has
the

potential
to
bring
together
all
people
and
can
unite
organizations
across
a
wide

range
of
expertise.

This
theme
is
divided
into
the
subthemes
of:
Message
Across

Barriers,
Quality
of
Invite,
and
Mutual
Commitment/Reciprocity.



Message
Across
Barriers

The
presence
of
informal
social
networks
has
been
mentioned
several
times

throughout
this
paper.

Furthermore,
these
networks
have
been
identified
as
a

crucial
step
in
developing
democratic
skills.

This
section
reveals
a
primary
reason

for
the
lack
of
diversity
in
the
Thurston
County
food
movement
is
the
failure
to

deliver
messages
across
different
social
networks.




When
asking
interviewees
about
the
best
way
to
get
a
message
out
into
the

community,
the
answer
was
unanimous:
word
of
mouth.

Almost
every
single

individual
said
word
of
mouth
is
the
most
effective
way
to
communicate
and





101


perform
outreach.

Survey
results
reveal
that
Food
Summit
attendants
heard
about

the
event
primarily
through:
word
of
mouth
(30%);
The
Evergreen
State
College

(22%);
or
through
an
affiliated
organization
(21%),
exemplifying
this
claim.


As
one

interviewee
exclaims:

“…
a
satisfied
client
is
the
best
form
of
outreach…if
someone

comes
here
an
feels
like
they’ve
been
welcomed
into
this

community…
they
will
spread
the
word…”



Another
interviewee
explains
that
poor
people
specifically
have
to
form
a

community
for
support
of
one
another,
and
that
alternately
“people
who
are

wealthy
live
segregated.”

For
those
on
the
fringes
of
the
dominant
culture
it
has

been
crucial
to
maintain
networks
among
others
with
whom
they
identity,
and
who

often
share
similar
hardships.

The
lack
of
diversity
in
the
Thurston
County
food

movement,
coupled
with
the
lack
of
knowledge
by
interviewees
not
actively

involved,
insinuates
these
groups
are
not
yet
a
part
of
the
informal
“food
network.”





The
groups
represented
by
the
interviewees
(low‐income
youth,
low‐income
single

parents,
individuals
with
developmental
disabilities,
individual
whom
are
homeless,

Latinos,
the
elderly,
and
Tribes)
cover
a
large
range
of
typically
under‐represented

populations.

The
fact
that
society
has
informal
networks
defined
by
socio‐economic

characteristics
traces
back
to
divisions
in
society
created
by
oppressive
systems.


Many
of
the
groups
are
disproportionately
impacted
by
poverty
and
hunger.

Class

division
was
brought
up
multiple
times
throughout
interviews.



“…
one
of
the
primary
problems
with
our
country
is
the

chasm,
which
grows
bigger
by
the
year,
between
affluence

and
poverty…building
relationships
between
people
of





102


different
classes
is
critical
to
ever
sort
of
closing
that
ever

growing
gap…”



One
interviewee
commented
on
the
Occupy
Movement
as
the
national
symbol
of

wanting
to
create
these
relationships.

It
is
essential
to
create
spaces
where
diverse

groups
interact
and
get
to
know
each
other
as
people,
not
a
superficial
thing
that

defines
them.

Several
interviewees
again
pointed
out
faith‐based
communities
and

schools
as
existing
entities
that
do
this.





Regardless
of
why
these
divisions
are
present,
it
is
crucial
that
food
organizers

identify
ways
of
reaching
different
communities.

Language
was
identified
as
a

potential
barrier
for
communication.

Particularly
when
working
with
new
concepts

and
progressive
ideas,
jargon
can
be
confusing
to
someone
just
joining
an

organization
or
movement.


An
interviewee
warns
that
just
because
your
intentions

are
to
serve
a
group
does
not
mean
this
group
will
understand
or
be
receptive
of

your
message:



“…in
our
community
some
of
the
inclusion
is
difficult
…your

message
though
it
may
be
on
behalf
of
disenfranchised

people…does
not
resonate
with
a
sector
of
that
community

because
you
are
using
the
language
that’s
not
accessible
–

they’re
like
what
the
hell
is
food
justice…”



This
issue
can
go
both
ways.

Social
justice
organizers
utilize
concepts
and
language

that
is
ever
changing
to
be
more
“appropriate.”

Those
in
the
food
movement
may

not
be
well
versed
in
these
areas
making
it
difficult
for
them
to
adequately

incorporate
social
justice
goals.

Groups
from
all
walks
should
be
observant
of

whether
the
language
they
are
using
is
potentially
exclusive.











103


So
how
do
we
begin
to
cross
these
social
network
and
discourse
barriers?

First
and

foremost,
almost
every
interviewee
said
you
have
to
“go
where
they
are.”

The

organizations
interviewed
represent
sites
that
intentionally
gather
specific
groups.



There
needs
to
be
recognition
that
the
newspapers
and
radio
stations
that
seem

familiar
for
the
majority
of
the
community
may
not
reach
all
peoples.

Furthermore,

illiteracy
is
connected
to
issues
of
poverty
so
verbal
outreach
may
be
necessary.


Simply
asking
people
can
be
illuminating
–
focus
groups
would
be
ideal
in
gathering

feedback.

It
seems
if
any
community
can
make
these
connections
it
can
be
Olympia,

as
one
interviewee
commented,
“…
I
think
Olympia
is
just
kind
of
human
size…its

small
enough
that
a
lot
of
people
know
each
other.”

The
next
subtheme
captures
a

critical
component
of
communication:
the
importance
of
a
quality
invite
and
what

that
looks
like.







Quality
of
Invite

Many
interviewees
talked
about
the
difference
between
an
invitation
and
a
quality

invitation.

Again
the
first
step
in
a
good
invitation
is
to
“go
where
the
people
are.”

If

an
organization
seeks
feedback
or
participation
by
a
particular
group
that

organization
needs
to
actively
seek
out
gathering
places.

Interviewees
explained

that
it
is
simply
not
enough
to
dub
an
organization
or
event
“inclusive.”

Particularly

for
underserved
populations
it
is
crucial
to
make
an
invitation
that
is
convenient

and
empowering.

For
example,
by
going
to
an
existing
meeting
with
a
Latino‐based

group
and
delivering
an
invite
when
they
are
already
gathered,
you
are
honoring
the

fact
that
people
have
limited
time.


Many
interviewees
recognized
that
those
of
the





104


dominant
culture
do
not
realize
when
they
may
be
exhibiting
oppressive
behaviors.


By
going
to
a
space
that
is
already
a
gathering
spot
for
a
group,
you
are
making
it

convenient
and
also
entering
a
space
that
is
safe
for
them.





Above
all
a
quality
invitation
is
empowering
in
that
it
shows
a
person
or
group
how

they
are
needed.

Most
of
the
interviewees
agreed
that
it
is
crucial
to
frame
an
invite

as
a
request
for
help.


It
needs
to
be
clear
that
people
are
meaningful
to
the
process.


It
is
apparent
that
many
individuals
and
groups
are
not
yet
clear
on
how
they
fit
in

the
community
food
movement.

This
can
quickly
become
a
contested
issue
because

many
organizations
feel
like
they
have
already
attempted
to
invite
diverse
groups,

but
often
there
are
two
major
assumptions:
1.
The
invitation
was
done
in
an

appropriate,
effective
manner.
2.

It
was
clear
how,
and
why,
the
group
should

contribute.

As
one
interviewee
put
it:

“…there
will
be
the
sentiment
of
well
you
know
we
invited
all

those
groups.

And
so
okay
well
invite
them
again…in
that
case

something
was
done
and
its
more
about
evaluation
that

strategy
and
also
evaluating
the
assumptions
underneath
it.”





It
is
easy
to
want
to
put
“blame”
on
one
group
or
the
other
–
“we
invited
them,
they

should
be
here”
versus
“they
haven’t
tried
hard
enough
to
invite
us/them,”
but
it

shouldn’t
be
about
who’s
“wrong.”

It
is
a
reality
that
we
live
in
a
world
where

communication
across
groups
is
lacking.


The
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
was
unsure
on

what
an
effective
invite
would
be
for
them:
“…probably
most
tribes
are
not
going
to

the
table
without
an
invitation,
but
I
don’t
know
actually
how
to
do
it
either.”

We

are
simply
at
a
stage
where
we
are
finding
ways
of
being
inclusive
and
this
road
will

require
many
steps
of
trying,
re‐assessing,
and
trying
again.

Our
cultural
and
social





105


surroundings
build
a
large
number
of
assumptions
that
many
are
not
aware
they

hold,
”…it’s
like
you
invite
someone
that
feels
appropriate
for
you,
you
might
not

realize
that
you
are
not
engaging
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
for
that
person.”





When
an
organization
is
seeking
diverse
input,
it
cannot
be
assumed
that
people
will

be
able
to
prioritize
that
issue.

Ideally
we
would
live
in
a
world
where
we
all
had

enough
time
to
invest
in
all
organizing
and
events,
but
that
is
not
the
case.

In
the

case
of
the
agro‐food
movement,
it
is
up
to
practitioners
to
show
people
how
they

can
help
–
this
is
very
different
then
telling
someone
how
it
will
help
them.

One

interviewee
exclaimed:


“…just
because
we
list
them
on
this
list
of
we
want
all
these

people
doesn’t
mean
this
is
the
burning
issue
for
them
right

now
and
yet
we
still
want
their
perspective.

So
we
can’t
expect

them
to
spend
their
time
at
that
table
all
the
time.”



When
we
start
dealing
with
issues
as
encompassing
as
agro‐food
systems
where

everyone
is
impacted,
we
have
to
realize
that
the
way
people
become
connected

should
accommodate
a
wide
range
of
abilities
and
availabilities.

Food
democracy

recognizes
the
need
to
uplift
voices
of
citizens,
but
if
it
is
understood
that
certain

groups
are
limited
in
access,
then
food
democracy
activists
will
need
to
develop

diversity
in
access
for
a
diversity
of
peoples.








It
was
felt
by
a
few
of
the
interviewees
that
the
Food
Summit
and
TFSC
has
not
yet

put
energy
into
quality
invites
for
certain
groups.

In
the
world
of
technology
and

established
networks
it
is
easy
to
click
a
button
to
spread
your
message.

But
quality

of
invite
comes
down
to
the
need
for
taking
time
to
build
relationships
with
the





106


people.

One
way
to
connect
with
peoples
who
identify
with
a
specific
group
is
to

identify
leaders
in
those
communities
–
this
notion
is
elaborated
upon
in
a
following

section.

Another
comes
back
to
articulating
how
people
can
help
you,
and
how
you

can
help
them.



Mutual
Commitment/Reciprocity

Reciprocity
was
discussed
for
both
engaging
organizations
and
individuals
in
a

movement.


The
general
sentiment
was
if
it
is
the
dominant
culture
seeking
the

participation
of
underserved
populations,
then
it
is
the
responsibility
of
the

dominant
culture
to
identify
how
they
can
assist:

“
…there
is
a
give
and
take,
but
ultimately
if
you
are
working
in

solidarity
with
a
community,
you
know
working
in
infinity
with

a
community
different
than
yours,
then
you
have
to
have
this

awareness
about
not
placing
your
needs
first
kind
of
thing.”



Examples
of
reciprocity
were
as
simple
as
someone
from
an
interested
organization

simply
spending
time
with
people,
getting
to
know
them
first
before
asking
for
help.


One
way
of
understanding
how
reciprocity
may
occur
is
first
asking
a
group
what

they
are
already
doing
so
you
can
speak
in
terms
of
their
work.

For
many
of
the

interviewees,
they
ensure
they
are
giving
back
to
their
members
by
getting

consistent
feedback.

The
Food
Bank
particularly
relies
on
a
consistent
feedback

cycle
from
its
clients
and
finds
community
support
comes
from
those
they
have

helped
in
the
past.

The
Food
Bank
specifically
could
be
a
large
source
of
outreach

for
the
TFSC.

Individuals
that
are
not
part
of
a
formal
group
visit
the
Food
Bank
on
a

consistent
basis.














107


The
sustainability
and
agro‐food
movements
exemplify
the
need
for
community

members
to
support
one
another.


Non‐profit
and
community
organizations
are

already
strapped
for
time
and
resources
making
it
crucial
that
we
learn
how
to

mutually
support
one
another.

It
was
commented
in
one
interview
that
people

simply
don’t
want
to
take
the
time
anymore
in
building
relationships,
but
this
is

crucial
as
we
face
a
world
with
pertinent
issues
of
climate
change,
environmental

destruction,
and
hunger.

Another
interviewee
commented
that
inviting
people
and

building
relationships
is
ultimately
“only
half
of
it.”

The
other
half
entails
finding

new
ways
to
organize
and
work
together.







Cultural
Differences

The
Cultural
Differences
theme
recognizes
that
certain
characteristics
are
unique
to

a
group,
whether
that
group
is
a
formally
or
informally
defined
culture.


In
the

interviews
the
presence
of
cultural
differences
came
up
in
three
ways:

Experiences/Relevancy,
Meeting
Skills
&
Structures,
and
Intent
vs.
Action.








Experiences/Relevancy

Experiences
&
Relevancy
was
the
third
highest
subtheme
among
interviews
and
is

definitely
connected
to
many
of
the
other
themes
and
subthemes.

Each
one
of
us
is

at
our
own
place
with
how
we
interact
with
the
world
and
it’s
easy
to
forget
it
took

millions
of
inputs
to
get
to
that
place.


It’s
also
easy
to
forget
that
these
experiences

are
greatly
varied
among
individuals
and
even
more
so
among
groups,
especially
in

a
world
so
divided
by
class
and
ethnicity.

How
is
it
possible
to
create
effective,





108


quality
invites
that
connect
to
a
person
if
one
assumes
that’s
persons
view
of
the

world?

For
the
alternative
food
movement
this
means
learning
how
different

people
interact
with
the
agro‐food
system,
and
the
potential
different
views
on
how

they
would
change
the
system.





Survey
results
from
this
research
identified
that
the
majority
of
individuals
had

similar
shopping
preferences,
namely
many
purchased
locally
from
the
Farmer’s

Market
and
Olympia
Co‐op.

This
group
had
much
less
experience
in
visiting
the

Food
Bank
or
utilizing
food
stamps,
two
avenues
of
food
interaction
that
are
much

higher
among
disenfranchised
populations.

Differences
in
food
culture
are
not
just

connected
to
income,
but
also
ethnicity.

And
sadly
the
current
food
system
has

greatly
limited
the
variety
of
foods,
leaving
many
with
no
choice
on
how
they
eat.


The
resulting
disconnect
from
food
sources
and
culturally
diverse
foods
hinders
our

ability
to
reach
out
to
diverse
groups.


Regardless
of
where
the
differences
stem
it
is

crucial
to
be
aware
that
others
may
not
hold
your
same
beliefs:

“…the
cultural
divide
in
our
community
is
a
challenge
because

we
have
a
lot
of
progressive
folks
who
the
very
people
they

may
feel
they
are
advocating
for,
sometimes
they
don’t
actually

share
their
political
beliefs…”









One
of
the
dangers
of
not
recognizing
diversity
in
views,
is
it
makes
it
easier
to
think

your
viewpoint
is
right.

It
may
also
make
one
limited
in
creative
solutions.





Interviewees
offered
various
approaches
they
use
in
their
organizations
to
connect

people
of
different
backgrounds.

For
instance,
although
CIELO
clients
all
identify
as

Latino,
there
is
a
large
variation
in
educational
backgrounds.

Some
individuals
may





109


be
illiterate
while
others
have
various
college
degrees.

The
concept
CIELO
takes
is

not
to
point
out
these
differences,
but
to
focus
on
“
finding
a
common
ground
for
all

students
that
come
from
all
different
walks
of
life.”

These
individuals
have

obviously
come
around
a
common
identity
as
Latino,
so
there
is
a
connection.


Although
it
is
important
to
recognize
differences,
initially
it
may
be
more
powerful

to
talk
about
what
connects
us.

There
are
intrinsic
human
connectors,
and

thankfully
for
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement,
food
is
also
a
basic
need
and

thus
a
basic
connector.



CIELO,
POWER,
and
GRuB
all
identified
using
the
concept
of
“popular
education”
in

their
organizations.

Popular
education
refers
to
having
participants
“use
the
lens
of

their
own
experience
and
the
wisdom
of
their
own
experience
as
a
key
to
their

education.”

Essentially,
this
means
starting
from
where
people
are
at,
and
building

from
there,
which
will
require
spaces
that
allow
for
sharing.

This
in
turn
can
be
an

empowering
experience:

“…placing
the
power
back
in
the
hands
of
students,
you’re
not

coming
in
here
as
a
vessel
to
be
filled
up
with
information,

you’re
coming
here
with
a
hell
of
a
lot
of
experience
of
your

own,
you
know
your
own
life,
a
lot
of
stories
to
tell,
your
own

knowledge
and
have
that
be
the
starting
point,
really
building

that
up.”




When
Ann
worked
with
Left
Foot
Organics,
she
recognized
the
power
for

intentionally
creating
a
space
for
those
with
development
disabilities:



“…
makes
the
work
fun
to
have
a
more
diverse,
an
intellectually

diverse
work
force…it’s
concrete,
I
don’t
think
most
typically

developing
people
can
conceptualize
what
that’s
like
by
just

talking
about
it,
they
have
to
go
do
it.”







110




Food
Policy
Councils
should
recognize
that
one
individual
gives
only
a
partial

glimpse
into
a
group
they
identify
with.

It
is
undeniable
that
many
underserved

populations
face
the
same
issues
with
the
current
agro‐food
system.

Many
do
not

have
the
funds
to
purchase
local
or
organic
food;
many
utilize
resources
such
as

food
stamps
and
food
banks;
and
many
do
not
have
access
to
food
they
consider

culturally
or
ethically
appropriate;
however
one
person
cannot
represent
a
whole

group
within
an
organization
or
a
movement.


This
means
that
FPCs
and
similar

groups
will
have
to
tap
into
the
informal
networks
and
create
spaces
to
learn
from
a

whole
community
of
people.

As
we
learn
differences
among
groups,
we
will
also

learn
where
we
can
come
together
on
common
ground.





Meeting
Skills
&
Structures

A
few
of
the
interviewees
focused
on
the
hindrances
of
typical
dominant
culture

skills
and
mannerisms
with
organizing.

There
was
consensus
that
what
is

considered
professional
in
dominant
culture
creates
an
exclusive
environment.

It

makes
sense
that
structures
that
were
created
by
the
dominant
culture
would

naturally
support
the
dominant
culture.

Meeting
styles
embodied
by
the
dominant

culture
were
described
as
factual,
“left‐brained,”
and
highly
structured.

One

interviewee
suggested
meetings
that
incorporated
more
celebration
and
creativity,

which
are
conducive
to
the
idea
of
popular
education
and
creating
more
of
a

learning
environment.


Additionally
a
few
of
the
interviewees
discussed
the

underlying
skills
needed
for
the
typical
“professional”
setting.

Things
that
may
seem





111


simple
to
some,
such
as
filling
out
forms
or
following
Robert’s
Rules,
may
be

intimidating
or
unknown
to
others.


Disenfranchised
groups
typically
have
less

access
formally
and
informally
to
gain
these
skills.






Many
interviewees
agreed
we
are
limited
in
different
organizing
models
and

approaches,
particularly
in
the
United
States.

An
interviewee
commented
that
the

education
system
is
a
good
example
of
how
limited
we
are
in
gauging
success
–
in

our
schools
a
“good
student”
falls
within
very
defined
parameters.

Current

education
reformers
are
recognizing
the
oppression
present
in
standardized
tests.


Organizations
are
attempting
to
break
out
of
the
conventional
mode,
but
it
is
hard

without
more
examples.

A
number
of
the
groups
talked
about
having
a
space
for

people
to
share:


“…its
not
just
I’m
reporting
on
my
organization
but
its
people

around
a
table
saying
this
how
I’m
doing
right
now,
so
you’re
showing
up
as
a

person,
a
full
person.”





Intent
versus
Action

A
few
of
the
interviewees
were
adamant
in
recognizing
that
Olympia
and
Western

Washington
seem
more
progressive
than
other
parts
of
the
country.

In
the
same

right,
it
was
warned
that
intention
does
not
always
equal
to
effective
action.

Again
it

came
back
to
recognizing
that
the
methods
being
utilized
to
increase
inclusion
may

not
be
the
best
methods.

Additionally,
organizations
cannot
just
incorporate
social

justice
terms
into
their
goals;
they
must
be
reflected
in
how
the
organization
is
run.


One
interviewee
commented
how
even
though
the
Northwest
has
a
more





112


“developed
vocabulary
and
awareness”
around
oppression
and
diversity
that
it

doesn’t
necessarily
mean
progress,
and
that
“we
just
might
have
different
words.”


Ultimately,
however,
all
of
the
organizations
interviewed
receive
enormous
support

from
the
community
and
their
fellow
organizers.

Although
there
is
much
work
to

done
it
was
recognized
that
there
are
amazing
community
projects
in
Thurston

County,
including
the
TFSC.







Indigenous
Cultures

The
hardships
and
oppression
suffered
by
Native
American
peoples
is
connected
to

the
oppression
of
other
underserved
populations,
but
the
history
and
extent
of
this

oppression
runs
deeper
in
the
specific
place
of
Thurston
County.


Indigenous

cultures
also
hold
intrinsically
different
worldviews.

Many
of
the
underlying
values

and
concepts
underlying
these
worldviews
have
the
potential
to
align
with
emerging

sustainability
and
justice
principles.

The
insights
received
through
the
connection

to
one
tribe
in
no
way
speaks
for
all
indigenous
groups
or
the
nature
of
relations

between
natives
and
non‐natives,
but
can
serve
as
a
starting
point
on
how
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement
can
learn,
and
hopefully
collaborate,
with

indigenous
peoples.





The
Nisqually
tribal
representative
explained
“the
tribe
has
a
history
of
cultivating

food
and
actually
having
gardens
with
individuals,”
but
interview
questions
were

focused
on
the
specific
project
of
a
large
community
garden
started
three
years
ago.


The
garden
now
encompasses
an
acre
of
land
where
vegetables,
fruits,
traditional





113


foods,
and
medicinal
herbs
are
grown
for
members
of
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe.


Community
planning
and
input
has
been
the
driving
force
for
the
evolution
of
the

garden.

In
this
garden
“productivity
isn’t
measure
in
pounds
of
produce.”


It
was

described
in
having
further
importance
including
serving
as
a
healing
space,
a

gathering
space,
and
a
space
to
bring
together
the
community
and
the
land.

The

alternative
agro‐food
movement
could
drastically
shift
emerging
agro‐food
systems

if
productivity
and
the
overall
worth
of
food
were
re‐considered
in
holistic
ways.










The
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
views,
and
has
always
viewed,
food
in
a
holistic
manner.


There
was
confusion
when
the
interviewer
asked
where
food
was
managed
in
the

government
since
conceptually
it
is
connected
to
all
for
the
Nisqually
people.

One
of

the
interview
subjects
replied,

“I
can’t
think
of
an
area
they
wouldn’t
include
it
in….”

and
continued
to
give
examples
of
how
food
is
present
when
considering
culture,

health,
retained
rights
under
treaties,
natural
resources,
and
education
to
name
a

few.

FPCs
and
the
TFSC
are
attempting
to
connect
various
government
sectors

through
the
lens
of
food.

The
example
of
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
suggests
that
to

achieve
this
goal,
organizations
and
individuals
may
have
to
shift
their
entire

paradigm
of
food.







A
significant
barrier
for
native
and
non‐native
collaboration
was
identified
in
the

mentality
towards
current
farmland.

Preservation
of
small
farms
is
often
a
platform

in
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.

Thurston
County
specifically
is
an
ideal

environment
for
small‐scale
agriculture.


Images
of
small
family
farms
may





114


represent
a
back
to
the
land
mentality
for
the
dominant
culture,
but
for
indigenous

peoples
this
farmland
is
land
that
was
taken
and
drastically
altered
from
a
more

“natural”
state.

The
small
farms
that
are
endearing
to
many
in
Thurston
County
can

easily
be
a
symbol
of
oppression
for
tribes.

This
example
symbolizes
the
deep,
and

painful,
history
of
indigenous
cultures
and
how
it
can
be
reflected
in
the
landscape.



The
above
is
not
meant
to
discourage
collaborations
among
natives
and
non‐natives,

but
to
bring
forward
the
reality
of
how
we
go
to
the
point
we
are
today.

Progress
in

building
relationships
among
all
peoples
will
likely
require
uncomfortable

recognition
that
our
current
society
is
partially
based
on
the
abominations
of
our

ancestors.

Healing
cannot
take
place
without
a
reconciliation
process.

Building

relationships
is
the
first
step
in
doing
so.





The
philosophies
held
by
indigenous
groups
symbolize
potential
areas
of
powerful

collaboration
for
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.


The
intrinsic
holistic
views

around
food
and
its
connection
to
all
of
life
resonate
with
the
want
for
a
just
and

sustainable
food
systems.

Nemah,
the
Nisqually
tribal
member
interviewed,

explains,
“…food
isn’t
just
food,
it’s
also
the
water,
the
air,
the
land
that
our
food

needs
to
survive
and
thrive.”

A
philosophy
that
is
reflected
in
concepts
of

environmental
sustainability,
however
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
knows
people
are

part
of
this
cycle
as
well:

“….we
consider
food
necessary
to
survival
and
that
the
success

of
survival
of
other
species
is
a
direct
reflection
of
how

successful
we
are
as
a
species,
as
animals,
so
that
our
success
is





115


dependent
on
their
success…that
is
not
a
view
that
is
held

outside
indigenous
cultures.”



Organizers
in
the
agro‐food
movement
should
seek
advice
from
tribal
members
to

ensure
their
organizations
and
programs
are
not
subconsciously
insensitive
to

indigenous
peoples.

Other
interviewees
mentioned
indigenous
cultures
and
local

tribes
as
groups
that
can
teach
non‐natives
about
more
inclusive
governance.

As
the

next
section
reveals,
a
lack
of
organization
structures
can
hinder
the
creation
of

diverse
democratic
participation.





On
Systems

The
final
theme
was
labeled
“On
Systems”
and
elaborates
characteristics
present

and
lacking
in
dominant
culture
systems
that
influence
participation
by

underserved
populations.

On
Systems
is
divided
into
the
subthemes
of
Leadership,

Organizations
Structure,
the
Nonprofit
Industrial
Complex,
and
Democracy
in
our

Systems.



Leadership

Leadership
was
the
forth‐highest
subtheme
among
all
the
interviews.

Primarily

interviewees
discussed
the
lack
of
diverse
leaders
in
our
country,
and
the
associated

need
to
identify
and
empower
leaders
who
identify
with
underserved
populations.



Kim
Gaffi
says
the
youth
at
GRuB
need
these
role
models:








“…until
they
see
people
that
look
like
them
and
talk
like
them

in
positions
of
power
they
assume
there’s
not
a
place
for

them…”


116


Many
of
these
organizations
strive
to
empower
their
members
by
supporting

leadership
skills
among
them,
however
there
can
also
be
disconnect
between

members
and
those
in
power
in
the
organization.

Board
members
or
Executive

Directors
often
do
not
identify
with
the
group
they
serve:

“…true
low‐income
based
organizing
is
incredibly
rare…a
lot
of

anti‐poverty
groups
that
talk
about
being
grassroots…they
have

low‐income
members
but
they
hire
college
graduate
staff
that

are
not
from
the
population
that
they’re
working
with…”



This
does
not
mean
that
those
of
the
dominant
culture
shouldn’t
work
with
such

organizations,
but
empowering
underserved
populations
means
consciously

uplifting
leaders
from
those
communities.

Identifying
and
empowering
these

leaders
may
be
the
key
to
tapping
into
the
informal
networks
and
engaging
a
whole

community
not
just
an
individual.

It
was
mentioned
several
times
that
this

approach
is
beneficial
for
engaging
any
community.

In
the
context
of
the
TFSC,
the

approach
of
identifying
and
empowering
leaders
was
mentioned
several
times
for

connecting
with
rural
communities
throughout
Thurston
County
–
a
population
not

included
in
this
study,
but
one
currently
missing
from
the
TFSC.



Organization
Structure



Many
of
the
interviewees
are
attempting
to
run
their
organizations
in
more

inclusive
and
empowering
ways:
Camp
Quixote
is
self‐governed
by
individuals
who

are
homeless;
POWER
is
member‐led
and
utilizes
consensus
decision‐making;

CIELO
recently
let
students
sit
on
the
Board
and
identifies
Latinos
to
teach
courses;

GRuB
is
attempting
to
diversify
their
Board
and
finding
ways
to
let
the
youth
and

members
define
the
organization;
and
Food
Not
Bombs
is
an
unofficial
non‐profit





117


that
utilizes
direct
action.

All
of
these
groups
recognize
that
changing
their

organization
structures
is
a
learning
process,
particularly
because
diverse
models

are
lacking:

“..this
is
kind
of
groundbreaking
in
the
sense
that
there’s
not

really
that
many
models
for
within
marginalized
communities

of
just
having
this
cycle
of
leadership…”



One
interviewee
thinks
ultimately
a
hybrid
approach
is
possible
that
blends

components
of
mainstream
organizing
with
newer
methods.

A
number
of
the

interviewees
felt
examples
for
different
methods
of
organizing
and
decision‐making

may
only
truly
exist
outside
the
U.S.


Organizations
will
have
to
be
adaptive,
have

avenues
for
constant
input,
and
seek
advice
from
within
and
without
our
country
on

different
organizing
skills.

The
alternative
agro‐food
movement
can
be
a
forerunner

of
envisioning
new
arrangements
for
community
organizing.









Non­profit
Industrial
Complex

Throughout
the
interviews
it
became
obvious
that
all
of
the
organizations
are

greatly
hindered
by
limited
budgets
and
resources.

For
some
of
the
organizations,

these
restraints
have
led
to
decisions
that
went
against
their
philosophies
or

founding
values.

One
of
the
interviewees
frequently
referred
to
running
their

organization
as
a
corporation.

Grants
fund
a
large
number
of
non‐profit

organizations
and
budget
cuts
are
taking
their
toll.


Unfortunately
this
leads
to

competition
among
many
organizations
fighting
for
the
same
causes,“…because
a
lot

of
funds
come
from
one
pot
of
money.”

It
can
be
argued
that
funding
dependent

upon
singular
grants
and
donations
is
unsustainable.









118


There
is
a
positive
aspect
of
limited
funds,
however:
as
money
becomes
tighter,

organizers
have
to
shift
their
focus
to
finding
creative
ways
to
collaborate:



“…conversations
have
happened
about
what
it
is
to
contribute
to
your

community,
I
definitely
don’t
think
the
only
way
you
can
do
it
is

through
money.”





Collaborations
have
the
potential
to
bring
organizations
and
peoples
together
for

stronger
social
movements.

It
was
mentioned
that
organizations
are
often
too

focused
on
singular
issues
and
that
much
work
can
be
done
on
aligning
goals
and

thus
resources.

One
interviewee
discussed
the
notion
of
sharing
volunteers
across

organizations
and
having
a
collaborative
volunteer
training
program.

Sharing
space

is
a
potential
approach
for
community
organizers.

It
was
felt
that
mainstream

organizations
typically
have
more
access
to
resources
–
consciously
partnering
with

underserved
groups
would
be
a
way
of
sharing
the
power.




The
concept
of
the
“non‐profit
industrial
complex”
seeks
to
explain
the
issues
of

running
non‐profits
in
a
capitalist
society.

It
explains
the
relationships
among

government
entities,
the
dominant
class,
foundations,
and
non‐profits
leads
to

control
of
alternative
movements
by
existing
power
forces
(INCITE!
Website).

Many

non‐profit
organizations
are
value‐based
organizations
that
seek
to
solve
issues

created
by
the
very
system
they
exist
within.

Ultimately,
financial
resources
are

controlled
by
outside
entities,
potentially
disempowering
the
organization’s
ability

to
affect
change
depending
on
the
interest
of
funders.

Therefore
the
discourse
and

power
is
often
controlled
once
again
by
those
with
money.

Interviews
suggest





119


issues
connected
to
relationships
explained
in
the
non‐profit
industrial
complex,

however
cannot
be
expanded
upon
within
the
scope
of
this
research.









Democracy
in
Our
System


Previous
sections
discussed
how
democratic
participation
requires
certain
skills,

and
access
to
these
skills
is
disproportionately
available
to
the
dominant
culture.


Additionally,
a
number
of
the
interviewees
discussed
the
perceptual
barriers
to

participating
in
the
political
system.

One
interviewee
identified
that
the
attitude
of,

“I’m
not
into
politics…like
its
sports
or
something,”
is
rampant
in
our
country
among

people
of
all
walks
of
life.

Another
interviewee
proclaimed
that
“the
personal
is

political”
and
that
it
may
be
easier
for
individuals
of
the
dominant
culture
to

disconnect
from
politics
because
they
are
the
ones
that
are
least
impacted.

On
the

other
side,
individuals
who
are
low‐income
will
likely
feel
changes
in
social

programming
every
day
of
their
lives.

Perceptions
will
only
change
if
people

understand
how
they
are
influenced
by
their
political
systems
and
how
they
can

influence
these
systems.

Jill
Severns
explains
the
shift
she
saw
with
Camp
Quixote

residents
(individuals
who
are
homeless):

“….camp
residents
have
been
involved
in
that
political
process.


And
that
has
been
a
big
deal
for
people
in
the
camp
who
had

never
had
any
contact
with
civic
life
before…
you
couldn’t
say

there
was
actually
a
structural
barrier
to
their
participation
in

civic
life,
but
on
the
other
hand
they
had
never
been
drawn

into
it
before…never
felt
that
it
related
to
them
or
that

politicians
represented
or
cared
about
them…”




Physical
barriers
were
not
viewed
as
the
main
hindrance,
but
simply
the
perceptual

barrier
that
they
could
not
make
a
difference
through
democratic
participation.







120




One
interviewee
believes
one
reason
Americans
don’t
participate
actively
in
the

political
system
is
because
“…we
tend
to
think
in
our
country
that
the
government

does
beneficial
or
hurtful
things
to
us
and
that
we
are
passive
recipients.”

For
this

interviewee
talking
about
the
history
of
movements
exemplifies
that
this
is
not
the

case,

“…we
don’t
talk
about
civil
rights
as
something
the
government

decided
to
do
differently
one
day…no
people
worked
their

butts
off
and
went
to
jail
and
got
killed.”



Democratic
action
has
been
a
part
of
all
movements
and
is
needed
to
push
forward

in
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement.

Interviewees
recognized
“it’s
not
easy
for

anyone
to
be
actively
involved
in
the
[political]
system,”
but
most
interviewees
felt

people
have
to
strive
to
influence
political
systems
because
it
influences
every
day

of
their
life.







A
few
of
the
interviewees
recognized
that
the
potential
for
democratic
input
were

quite
high
in
Olympia
and
Thurston
County.

The
local
government
is
literally
in
the

backyard,
and
government
officials
especially
at
city
and
county
levels
are
active
in

much
of
the
community
organizing.

Food
Policy
Councils,
and
the
TFSC,
can
build

off
this
to
show
all
individuals
the
empowering
process
of
food
democracy.







121


Conclusion
and
TFSC
Recommendations

Overall,
data
affirmed
the
TFSC
is
disproportionally
composed
of,
and
influenced
by,

individuals
whom
identify
with
the
dominant
culture.

It
must
be
recognized
that

Thurston
County
itself
is
predominantly
inhabited
by
middle‐class,
Caucasian

individuals,
and
that
Olympia,
the
hub
of
food
organizing,
lacks
even
more
socio‐
economic
diversity.

However,
input
from
underserved
populations
is
readily

accessible
with
the
most
prominent
examples
being
organizations
that
were

interviewed
in
this
study.

Thurston
County
as
a
whole
has
regionally
significant

populations,
particularly
the
Nisqually
Indian
Tribe
and
the
Confederated
Tribes
of

Chehalis,
whom
are
not
yet
connected
to
TFSC.

The
capacity
for
collaboration
and

true
policy
change
is
amplified
when
considering
the
political
activity
of
Olympia
as

the
capitol.

Data
presented
in
this
study
has
the
potential
to
increase
the
diversity

of
voices
that
are
shaping
the
vision
of
a
more
just
agro‐food
system
for
Thurston

County.

It
is
recommended
that
the
TFSC,
particularly
in
the
formative
stages,

incorporate
the
following
knowledge
into
their
infrastructure
and
goals
as
a
means

to
prevent
re‐producing
the
same
inequity
and
inaccessibility
created
by
the
current

system.



Interview
and
survey
data
indicated
that
simple
practical
mechanisms
are
the
first

step
in
creating
inclusiveness
on
a
local,
immediate
scale.

Inclusion
of
childcare,

transportation,
and
compensation
for
time
increase
the
accessibility
of
organizing
to

underserved
populations,
not
just
in
the
alternative
agro‐food
movement,
but

community
organizing
in
general.


Choosing
meeting
styles
and
decision‐making





122


structures
geared
towards
popular
education
and
consensus
challenges
systemic

oppression
built
into
organization
structures
supported
by
the
dominant
culture.


Unfortunately,
organizers
in
the
United
States
appear
limited
in
organization

models.

Several
interviewees
suggested
researching
traditional
models
used
by

indigenous
groups
to
seek
alternative
models.

If
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council

(TFSC)
continues
to
support
social
justice
as
an
underlying
goal
then
such

considerations
are
crucial,
particularly
in
the
formative
stages
of
the
organization.


These
factors
will
not
guarantee
participation
of
underserved
populations,
but
they

will
be
essential
in
developing
an
environment
that
is
accessible
to
a
wider

population.


Mechanisms
encouraging
immediate
participation
cannot
deny,

however
the
need
for
deep
systemic
change,
particularly
the
connection
of
inequity

to
systemic
ideologies
inherent
to
capitalism.




The
research
revealed
informal
social
networks,
or
simply
individuals
talking
to
one

another,
are
still
the
most
effective
way
of
spreading
a
message.

Therefore,
the
fact

that
the
message
of
food
organizing
in
Thurston
County
is
not
reaching
certain

populations
exemplifies
the
lack
of
personal
connections
among
individuals
from

different
socio‐economic
groups.

Societal
divisions
based
on
power
and
privileges

construct
the
everyday
interactions
and
relationships
that
are
nurtured.

Lack
of

relationships
across
classes
and
cultures
makes
it
easy
to
take
for
granted
the

experiences
that
shape
an
individual’s,
or
collective
group’s,
perception.

Often
times

the
alternative
agro‐food
movement
insinuates
local
or
community
is
inherently

just,
which
assumes
those
within
a
community
agree
on
a
vision
of
justice.

TFSC





123


organizers
risk
defining
a
community
vision
before
including
voices
of
identifiable

groups
in
the
county.




One
of
the
largest
barriers
to
diverse
participation
highlighted
in
the
interviews
was

the
lack
of
leadership
within
underserved
communities.

Even
if
the
TFSC
were
to

engage
a
more
diverse
socio‐economic
participation,
the
ownership
and
leadership

of
the
organization
is
held
by
those
of
the
dominant
culture.

If
TFSC,
and
other

players
in
the
agro‐food
movement,
truly
want
to
include
voices
of
underserved

individuals,
then
resources
should
be
utilized
to
identify,
support,
and
empower

individuals
outside
of
the
dominant
culture.


It
is
important
to
start
building

relationships
that
challenge
existing
divisions,
but
it
cannot
be
denied
that
different

people
face
different
realities.

Bringing
underserved
individuals
into
a
setting

already
envisioned
by
members
of
the
dominant
culture
will
support
oppressive

behaviors
no
matter
how
unintentional.

The
very
nature
of
privilege
and
power
sets

this
stage,
for
the
dominant
power
is
just
that,
dominant,
and
power
inequities

become
“normal”
for
the
functioning
of
society.





Interviewees
agreed
that
regardless
of
these
barriers,
there
is
much
potential
for
the

alternative
agro‐food
movement
to
include
the
voices
of
underserved
populations,

both
for
the
specific
case
of
Thurston
County,
and
beyond.


The
intention
of
the

TFSC
was
recognized,
but
critique
fell
on
the
methods
that
have
thus
far
been

utilized
to
invite
underserved
populations
to
the
table.

A
quality
invite
first
and

foremost
is
brought
to
the
individuals
or
groups
being
asked
for
input.

TFSC
must





124


recognize
that
to
penetrate
the
informal
social
networks
present,
organizers
must

first
make
attempts
to
advertise
and
actively
go
where
such
groups
gather.

These

actions
not
only
indicate
respect,
but
also
allow
individuals
to
be
approached
in
a

space
that
is
potentially
more
“culturally
safe.”

An
invitation
must
also
be

empowering,
meaning
there
is
a
clear
message
of
asking
for
assistance,
and
an

attempt
to
see
what
the
group
itself
needs
so
strategic
collaborations
can
be
made

that
“help
everyone.”


At
the
time
of
this
study
it
appears
TFSC
is
failing
to
connect

with
local
social
justice
organizations
in
ways
that
could
infuse
TFSC
and
the
overall

movement
with
a
more
distinguished
knowledge
and
implementation
of
social

justice,
and
uplift
the
voices
and
leadership
of
underserved
populations.






Ultimately,
equity
does
not
mean
bringing
others
into
the
same
way
of
doing
things,

but
instead
means
supporting
others
in
the
opportunity
to
develop
and
implement

their
own
visions
and
creative
solutions.

In
other
words,
equity
means
supporting

democratic
participation.

TFSC
currently
represents
Olympia
and
lacks
voices
of

other
communities
present
in
Thurston
County.

Instead
of
denying
this
reality,

TFSC
can
intentionally
assist
other
communities
in
their
own
portion
of
the
agro‐
food
movement.

Tribal
nations,
rural
communities,
and
groups
that
gather
around
a

common
identity
should
have
the
opportunity
to
gather
and
analyze
their
unique

relationships
to
the
agro‐food
system.

Power
and
privilege
are
created
and

perpetuated
through
language
and
can
either
reinforce,
or
alternately
break
down,

existing
power
relations.

As
Thurston
County
develops
its
own
discourse
around

the
alternative
agro‐food
movement,
diverse
groups
should
be
empowered
to





125


develop
their
own
definitions
without
the
influence
of
the
dominant
culture.


Collaborations
can
then
be
made
across
communities,
instead
of
forcing
a
diverse

collection
of
individuals
and
groups
into
one
community
vision.

Such
empowering

approaches
can
radiate
to
a
global
scale.









126


Chapter
7:
Conclusion

The
issues
present
in
Thurston
County
are
not
unique
to
the
specific
place;
the

Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)
mirrors
the
alternative
agro‐food

movement’s
inability
to
proportionately
address
social
equity
issues,
and
the

tendency
to
be
championed
by
an
overall
homogenous
group
of
the
dominant

culture.

Inequities
concerning
both
resources
and
process
are
undeniably

correlated
with
socio‐economic
characteristics,
meaning
individuals
outside
the

dominant
culture
are
not
only
the
most
susceptible
to
food
insecurity,
but
are
also

the
least
likely
to
have
their
voices
heard
in
community
organizing.


The
agro‐food

movement
symbolizes
a
shift
in
the
structure
of
human
relations
around
food,
but
in

the
context
of
social
equity,
it
appears
humans
are
simply
changing
the
scale.


The

same
inequities
connected
to
lack
of
food
democracy
on
a
global
scale
are
being
re‐
produced
in
local
landscapes,
which
is
coupled
with
the
delusion
that
shifting
to
a

focus
on
the
local
inherently
will
ensure
a
more
“just”
system.





As
it
stands,
underserved
populations
remain
largely
voiceless,
and
therefore

powerless,
in
the
agro‐food
movement.

Perpetuation
of
inequity
in
the
movement

does
not
appear
intentional,
but
instead
stems
from
ignorance
and
the
inability
to

identify
and
name
the
true
underlying
ideologies
and
sources
of
oppression
in
the

first
place.

The
resulting
barriers
for
inclusive
organizing
identified
in
this
study

range
from
the
practical
to
conceptual.

Practical
barriers
include:
failure
to
increase

accessibility
to
meetings
with
practical
mechanisms,
such
as
childcare
and

transportation;
lack
of
diverse
organizational
structures
that
challenge
the
notion
of





127


“professional”
as
defined
in
Western
society;
and
failure
to
administer
quality

invites
that
empower
individuals
and
communities.

Conceptual
barriers
include:

misperceptions
of
the
discourse
and
actions
surrounding
the
alternative
agro‐food

movement,
and
manifestation
of
institutionalized
oppression
and
racism
in
local

physical
and
social
landscapes.





All
of
these
barriers
ultimately
represent
barriers
to
democratic
participation.

A

political
ecology
lens
recognizes
the
significant
role
of
politics
as
a
major
influence

on
relations
among
humans
and
the
environment.


A
political
ecology
of
the
agro‐
food
system
reveals
a
political
infrastructure
that
supports
corporations
over

people,
and
measures
productivity
through
quantity
and
money.

Democratic

participation
and
influence
are
correlated
with
distribution
of
power,
and
in
our

current
capitalist
system
power
is
undeniably
correlated
with
money.

The
existing

political
environment
supports
the
consolidation
of
ownership
and
power,
therefore

directly
perpetuating
inequity.

Through
this
lens,
the
current
system
appears
to

simultaneously
identify
as
a
democracy
while
supporting
ideologies
that
counter

equitable
democratic
participation.


An
assessment
of
our
current
state
of

democracy
within
the
agro‐food
system
reveals
it
is
a
largely
inaccessible
system,

both
perceptually
and
practically,
and
this
inaccessibility
is
repeated
through
the

political
structure.

The
structure
of
these
relations
is
not
being
challenged
in
the

agro‐food
movement.









128


Continued
analysis
of
agro‐food
systems
can
give
greater
transparency
to
the

interconnections
among
humans,
society,
and
nature.

Defining
amorphous
concepts

such
as
justice
and
democracy
is
a
continuous
process
of
investigation,
and
the

myriad
of
influences
that
shape
these
concepts
in
practice
will
require
critical

analyses
of
underlying
ideologies.

Individuals,
communities,
and
movements
can
be

deeply
examined
to
reveal
the
truth
of
the
relationships
that
are
practiced
so
we
can

begin
to
understand
our
systems
and
what
shapes
them.

Our
current
systems
are

not
only
environmentally
and
socially
destructive,
but
lack
a
resilient
and
adaptive

nature.

A
resonating
call
across
the
globe
for
sustainability
and
justice
demands

humans,
and
their
systems,
will
need
to
constantly
change
and
mold
to
live
fluidly

with
their
surroundings.

Political
ecology
strives
to
bring
transparency
to
the
inter‐
relationships
among
and
within
systems
so
in
practice
humans
can
have
a
more

holistic
understanding.

Research
should
continue
to
investigate
the
ideologies

underlying
capitalism
and
their
correlation
with
inequity,
particularly
the

relationships
present
within
the
non‐profit
industrial
complex.






Ultimately,
food
is
a
nourishment
that
connects
all
deeply
to
the
Earth,
as
well
as
to

each
other.

However,
while
the
act
of
eating
is
a
basic
and
necessary
human
act,
the

reality
of
the
processes
and
interactions
with
food
are
socially
constructed
and

defined.


The
agro‐food
movement
signifies
a
challenge
to
what
is
perceived
as

“normal”
regarding
human‐human
and
human‐environment
interactions.

As

alternative
systems
evolve,
players
in
the
movement
can
recognize
the
mechanisms

preventing
equitable
food
democracy
and
actively
incorporate
voices
oppressed
by





129


the
current
system.

This
support
of
equitable
democratic
participation
has
capacity

for
social
change
on
a
larger
scale
as
it
re‐defines
the
image
of
a
just
and
democratic

society.


Case
studies,
such
as
the
Thurston
Food
Systems
Council,
provide
critical

insight
for
communities
to
build
successful
collaborations
within
their
unique

physical
and
social
landscape.




Food
indeed
has
the
capacity
to
link
“red”
and
“green”
movements,
thereby

diminishing
a
perceptual
division
between
justice
for
people
and
justice
for
the

environment.

The
undeniable
connection
and
integration
of
humans
and
Earth
is

exemplified
in
relationships
surrounding
food.

Through
a
combined
effort
of

shifting
policies
and
structural
paradigms,
while
simultaneously
forging
personal

relationships
within
our
community,
there
is
grand
potential
to
intentionally
re‐
structure
the
notions,
and
the
reality,
of
justice,
equity,
and
democracy.

By

simultaneously
celebrating
our
collective
connection
to
food,
and
also
our
right
to

choose
what
this
connection
looks
like,
there
remains
potential
for
an
agro‐food

system
that
supports
equal
democratic
participation.

Although
this
appears
a

daunting
task,
it
is
hopeful
to
know
the
path
to
equity
and
justice
can
start
with

simply
sharing
a
meal
with
a
neighbor.







130


Bibliography

Allen
Patricia.
2010.
Realizing
justice
in
local
food
systems.
Cambridge
Journal
of

Regions,
Economy
and
Society,
3:
295‐308



Allen
Patricia.
2008.
Mining
for
justice
in
the
food
system:
perceptions,
practices,
and

possibilities.
Agriculture
and
Human
Values,
25:
157‐161



Allen
Patricia,
Wilson
Alice
B.
2008.
Agrifood
Inequalities:
Globalization
and

localization.
Development,
51
(4):
534‐540



Allen
Patricia,
Guthman
J.
2006.
From
‘old
school’
to
‘farm­to­school’:

Neoliberalization
from
the
ground
up.

Agriculture
and
Human
Values,
23
(4):
401‐
415



Allen
Patricia.
1998.
Sustainability
and
Sustenance:
The
Politics
of
Sustainable

Agriculture
and
Community
Food
Security.
Doctoral
Dissertation
for
Doctor
of

Philosophy
in
Sociology
at
University
of
California,
Santa
Cruz.

Available
through

The
Evergreen
State
College
Library





American
University
Center
for
the
Global
South
Website.
Available
at:

http://www.american.edu/academic.depts/acainst/cgs



Beihler,
D.,
Fisher,
A.,
Seidenburg.
A.,
Winne,
M.,
Zachary.,
Jill.
1999.
Getting
Food
on

the
Table:
An
Action
Guide
to
Local
Food
Policy.

Report
for
the
Community
Food

Security
Coalition
and
California
Sustainable
Agriculture
Working
Group.
Available

at:

http://www.foodsecurity.org/GettingFoodOnTheTable.pdf



Borron
S.
2003.
Food
Policy
Councils:
Practice
and
Possibility.
Hunger‐Free

Community
Report.
Bill
Emerson
National
Hunger
Fellow,
Congressional
Hunger

Center:
Eugene,
OR.
Available
at:
http://hungercenter.wpengine.netdna‐
cdn.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/07/Food‐Policy‐Councils‐Borron.pdf



Boucher
Douglas.
1999.
The
Paradox
of
Plenty:
Hunger
in
a
Bountiful
World.
Food

First
Books



City
of
Knoxville
Food
Policy
Council.
2012.
Summary
and
History
of
Local
Food

Policy.
Available
at:

http://www.cityofknoxville.org/boards/food/summaryhistory.pdf



City
of
Lakewood
Website.
2011.
Available
at

https://www.cityoflakewood.us/business/military‐growth




Community
Food
Security
Coalition
Website,
(CFSC).
2010.
Available
at:


http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/





131




Dubbeling
M,
de
Zeeuw
H.,
van
Veenhuizen
R.
2010.
Cities,
Poverty
and
Food:
Multi­
Stakeholder
Policy
and
planning
in
Urban
Agriculture.
Resource
Centers
on
Urban

Agriculture
&
Food
Security
Foundation.

Practical
Action
Publishing:
Warwickshire,

UK



Drake
University
Agricultural
Law
Center.
2005.
The
State
and
Local
Food
Policy

Project.
Available
at:
http://www.statefoodpolicy.org/



Edwards
Zena.
2011.
From
Farm
to
Fork:
An
Overview
of
the
Current
Thurston
County

Food
System.
Public
Powerpoint
presentation
for
the
Thurston
County
Food
Summit.


Available
at:

http://www.trpc.org/regionalplanning/sustainability/Documents/Local_Food_Syst
ems/Food_Apx4_From%20Farm%20to%20Fork.pdf.
FIGURE
4.2,
MAP
4.4,
MAP
4.5



Employment
Security
Department,
Washington
State.
2012.
Thurston
County
Profile.

Available
at

https://fortress.wa.gov/esd/employmentdata/reports‐publications/regional‐
reports/county‐profiles/thurston‐county‐profile




Food
and
Agriculture
Organization,
(FAO).
2010.
The
State
of
Food
Insecurity
in
the

World
2010.
Available
at
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf



Fitzsimmons
M.
Goodman
D.
1998.
Incorporating
Nature:
Environmental
narratives

and
the
reproduction
of
food:
Chapter
9.
Remaking
Reality:
nature
at
the
millennium,

edited
by:
Bruce
Braun
and
Noel
Castries.
Routledge
Publishing:
New
York,
NY



Food
First
the
Institute
for
Food
and
Developmental
Policy,
(Food
First).
2009a.

Food
Policy
Council’s:
Lessons
Learned.
Available
at:

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/foodpolicycouncils‐lessons



Food
First
the
Institute
for
Food
and
Developmental
Policy,
(Food
First).
2009b.

Democracy
in
Action:
Food
Policy
Councils.
Available
at:

http://www.foodfirst.org/files/pdf/Democracy%20in%20Action‐
%20Food%20Policy%20Councils5%20fall%202009.pdf



Food
Lifeline
Website.
Available
at
http://www.foodlifeline.org/




Hamilton,
N.
2002.
Putting
a
Face
on
our
Food:
How
State
and
Local
Food
Policies
can

Promote
New
Agriculture.
Drake
Journal
of
Agricultural
Law,
7:2
Available
at:

http://www.statefoodpolicy.org/docs/aglawjrn.pdf



Hassanein
Neva.
2003.
Practicing
food
democracy:
a
pragmatic
politics
of

transformation.
Journal
of
Rural
Studies,
19:
77‐86







132


Health
and
Human
Resources
Website.
Available
at:

http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/oehp/obesity/mortality.htm




Huffington
Post.
2012.
Available
at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/27/consumer‐brands‐owned‐ten‐
companies‐graphic_n_1458812.html.
FIGURE
3.3



Iowa
Food
Systems
Council
Website.
Available
at:

http://www.iowafoodsystemscouncil.org/cultivating‐resisilience.
FIGURE
3.2



Lang
Tim.
1999.
Food
policy
for
the
21st
century:
can
it
be
both
radical


and
reasonable?
In:
Koc,
M.,
MacRae,
R.,
Mougeot,
L.J.A.,
Welsh,
J.
For
Hunger­proof

Cities:
Sustainable
Urban
Food
Systems.
International
Development
Research
Centre,

Ottawa:
216–224.
Labor,
Peace,
and
Environmental
Movements.
Cornell
University

Press:
Ithaca,
NY



Levkoe
Charles.
2006.
Learning
democracy
through
food
justice
movements.

Agriculture
and
Human
Values,
23:
89‐98



Lyson
Thomas.
2004.
Civic
Agriculture:
Reconnecting
Farm,
Food,
and
Community.

Tufts
University
Press:
Medford,
Massachusetts



Marmot
Michael.
2005.
Social
Determinants
of
Health
Inequalities.

The
Lancet,

Volume
365:
1099‐1104.
Available
at:

http://www.who.int/social_determinants/strategy/Marmot‐
Social%20determinants%20of%20health%20inqualities.pdf




National
Alliance
for
Nutrition
and
Activity.
2010.
National
Health
Priorities:

Reducing
Obesity,
Heart
Disease,
Cancer,
Diabetes,
and
Other
Diet­
and
Inactivity­
Related
Diseases,
Costs,
and
Disabilities



National
Farm
Union.
2005.
The
Farm
Crisis
and
Corporate
Profits.

Available
at:

http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2005/corporate_profits.pdf



Northwest
Indian
College
Website,
(NWIC).

Tribal
Community
Food
Sovereignty.

NWIC
Traditional
Plants
&
Foods
Program.
Available
at:

http://nwicplantsandfoods.com/food‐sovereignty




Organic
Consumers
Association
Website.
Available
at

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/countrieswithbans.cfm




Phillipi
T.
2010.
The
Toronto
Youth
Food
Policy
Council:
A
Case
Study
on
the
Evolving

Implementation
of
an
Effective
Youth
Voice
in
Food
Policy
Development.
Master

Thesis
for
the
degree
of
Master
in
Environmental
Studies
at
York
University
in

Toronto,
Ontario,
Canada








133


Rosset
Peter.
2003.
Food
Sovereignty:
Global
Rallying
Cry
of
Farmers
Movements.

Backgrounder,
vol
9,
number
4.
Available
at:
http://www.foodfirst.org/fr/node/47





Schiff,
R.
2008.
The
Role
of
Food
Policy
Councils
in
Developing
Sustainable
Food

Systems.

Journal
of
Hunger
&
Environmental
Nutrition,
3:2,
206‐228



Southern
SWAG.
2005.
Food
Security
Begins
at
Home:
Chapter
4
How
Food
Policy

Councils
are
Organized
and
Operate.
Available
at:

http://www.foodsecurity.org/FPC/HowFoodPolicyCouncilsAreOrganizedandOpera
te.pdf



Thurston
County
Regional
Consolidated
Plan
2013‐2017.
2012.
Available
at:

http://olympiawa.gov/city‐services/housing‐social‐
service/~/media/Files/CPD/CDBG/Forms/CDBG_DraftConPlanDocs/RegionalCons
olidatedPlanPublicCommentDraft6113.pdf.
FIGURE
4.1;
MAP
4.2



Thurston
Regional
Planning
Council,
(TRPC).
2012.
The
Profile:
For
Thurston
County;

the
Cities/Towns
of
Bucoda,
Lacey,
Olympia,
Rainier,
Tenino,
Tumwater,
and
Yelm;

and
the
Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Chehalis
Reservation
and
the
Nisqually
Indian

Tribe.
Available
at:
http://www.trpc.org/data/Pages/profile.aspx.
TABLE
4.1,
MAP

4.3



Thurston
Regional
Planning
Council
Website,
(TRPC).

Facts
at
a
Glance.
Available
at

http://www.trpc.org/data/Pages/statsataglance.aspx.
MAP
4.1



U.S.
Census
Bureau
QuickFacts
Website.
Available
at

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html




U.S.
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
Economic
Research
Service
Website.

Available
at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food‐nutrition‐assistance/food‐
security‐in‐the‐us/definitions‐of‐food‐security.aspx.
FIGURE
3.1



U.S.
Department
of
Transportation
Website.

Available
at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tribal/case_studies/thurston.cfm.

MAP
4.2



Wekerle
Gerda.
2004.

Food
Justice
Movements:
Policy,
Planning,
and
Networks.

Journal
of
Planning
Education
and
Research,
23:
378‐386



Windfuhr
M.
Jonsen
J.
2005.
Food
sovereignty:
towards
democracy
in
localized
food

systems.
Practical
Action.
ITDG
Publishing.
Available
at:

http://www.ukabc.org/foodsovereignty_itdg_fian_print.pdf




Winne
Marke,
Joseph
Hugh,
Fisher
Andy.
2000.
Community
Food
Security:
A
Guide
to

Concept,
Design,
and
Implementation.

Community
Food
Security
Coalition:
Portland,

OR





134




Webb,
K.,
Pelletier,
D.,
Maretzki,
A.
N.,
Wilkins,
J.
1998.
Local
Food
Policy
Coalitions:

Evaluation
issues
as
seen
by
academics,
projects
organizers
and
funders.
Agriculture

and
Human
Values
15:65‐75









135


Appendix
A:

Stakeholder
Assessment
Survey

Analyzing
Current
Stakeholder
Involvement
in
the
Thurston
County


Food
Policy
Public
Planning
Processes



Section
I:
Feedback
on
Current
Public
Planning
Process

1. Did
you
attend
the
Thurston
County
Food
Summit
on
Saturday,
Oct
15,
2011?


Yes


No


2. If
No,
what
was
the
primary
reason
you
did
not
attend
the
Food
Summit
on
Oct.
15,

2011?
(check
all
that
apply)


Did
Not
Know
About
It

Lack
of
Transportation

Inconvenient
Location


Price
of
Registration
Ticket

Could
Not
Attend
All
Day

Needed
Child
Care



Other,
please
specify















3. If
Yes,
which
Whole
Measures
breakout
sessions
did
you
attend
(check
all
that
apply)


Fairness
&
Justice

Strong
Communities

Vibrant
Farms

Healthy
People



Sustainable
Ecosystems

Thriving
Local
Economies

N/A

4. Did
you
attend
Food
Summit
Debriefing
at
The
Evergreen
State
College?



Yes


No


5. Which
Whole
Measures
meetings
do
you
plan
or
did
you
attend
over
January
14
and
21?


(check
all
that
apply)



Fairness
&
Justice

Strong
Communities

Vibrant
Farms

Healthy
People



Sustainable
Ecosystems

Thriving
Local
Economies

N/A

6. How
did
you
learn
about
these
efforts
to
create
a
Thurston
County
Food
Policy
Council

(TCFPC)?
(check
all
that
apply)



Word
of
Mouth

Newspaper

Internet

Facebook

Through
an
Organization



Radio

Flyer

Other,
please
specify


















7. Thus
far
what
is
your
overall
satisfaction
with
the
meeting
format
being
utilized
to

include
community
input
in
the
planning
of
a
TCFPC?
(e.g.
the
Food
Summit,

brainstorming
sessions
and
open
discussions)



Extremely
Satisfied

Satisfied

Somewhat
Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
Nor

Dissatisfied




Somewhat
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Extremely
Dissatisfied

8. What
is
your
overall
satisfaction
with
utilizing
the
Whole
Measures
Framework
as
a
way

to
divide
and
discuss
the
local
food
system?





136



Extremely
Satisfied

Satisfied

Somewhat
Satisfied

Neither
Satisfied
Nor

Dissatisfied




Somewhat
Dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

Extremely
Dissatisfied

9. What
do
you
feel
are
effective
methods
for
incorporating
community
input
into
a

Thurston
County
Food
Policy
Council?
(check
all
that
apply)



Surveys

Focus
Groups

Community
Potlucks

Larger
Public
Meetings




Smaller
Public
Meetings
at
Various
Locations

Neighborhood
Organizations




Email

Other,
please
specify

 











10. What
has
been
the
most
beneficial
part
of
these
open
planning
sessions
for
you?


















































































 





































































































 




































































































 




















11. What
has
been
the
least
beneficial
part
of
these
open
planning
sessions
for
you?


















































































 





































































































 




































































































 




















12. General
comments
about
current
or
future
planning
processes:

















































































 





































































































 




































































































 




















Section
II:
Which
Stakeholders
are
Currently
Represented
in
the
Planning
Process
This
section
seeks
feedback
on
how
you
define
yourself
as
a
stakeholder
and
your
current

involvement
with
the
Thurston
County
food
system.

Organizers
would
also
like
your

opinion
on
any
groups
you
perceive
are
missing
from
the
current
planning
process.

Section
II
a:
Who
Are
You?

1. Please
indicate
the
community
in
which
you
live:



Bucoda

Tenino

Lacey

Grand
Mound

Tumwater

Yelm

Rochester



Olympia

Rainier

Rural‐north
of
Tumwater
Airport

Rural
South
of
Tumwater

Airport

Nisqually
Indian
Reservation

Confederated
Tribes
of
the
Chehalis

Reservation



Outside
of
Thurston
County

2. What
is
your
age?



Under
18

19‐29

30‐39

40‐49

50‐59

Over
60





137


3. What
is
your
current
education
level?




Attending
High
School

High
School/GED

Associates
Degree/Technical
Degree



Bachelors
Degree

Masters/PhD


4. What
is
your
ethnicity?



Caucasian

Native
American

Hispanic

African
American

Asian



Hawaiian
Pacific
Islander

Other,
please
specify














5. What
is
your
average
household
salary
range?


Under
$20,000

$20,000‐40,000

$40,000‐60,000


$60,000‐100,000

Over

$100,000

6. Do
you
currently
utilize
food
stamps?


Yes


No


7. Have
you
ever
utilized
food
stamps
in
the
past?


Yes


No


8. Do
you
consistently
utilize
services
provided
by
the
Thurston
County
Food
Bank?


Yes


No


9. Do
you
consistently
purchase
food
at
the
Olympia
Food
Co‐op?


Yes


No


10. Do
you
consistently
purchase
food
at
the
Olympia
Farmer’s
Market?



Yes


No


11. What
are
your
primary
sources
for
food
purchase?








































12. What
sector
of
the
food
system
do
you
represent?

(check
all
that
apply)



Producer/Grower

Processor

Distributor

Retailer

Consumer

Waste

Recovery




Policy
Maker

Educator

Community
Member

Student

Non‐Profit


Government

Private

Other
(please
specify)
 

















13. Please
list
any
specific
businesses
or
companies
that
you
represent
with
these
sectors:















































14. Please
list
any
organizations
you
are
actively
involved
with
in
the
community:





































138


15. Do
you
or
your
organization
or
business
intend
to
have
a
representative
sit
on
a
future

Food
Policy
Council
if
possible?



Yes


No

Maybe

Don’t
Know

16. How
long
have
you
been
involved
in
local
food
issues
and/or
activism?




It
started
with
the
Food
Summit

1‐6
months

6
months
–
1
year

1‐5
years


5‐10
years

over
10
years

17. Why
are
you
involved
in
local
food
issues?


















































































 





































































































 




































































































 




















Section
II
b:
Who
Is
Missing?

1. Do
you
feel
any
of
the
following
food
sectors
are
not
currently
represented
in
the

planning
process?
(check
all
that
apply)



Producer/Grower

Processor

Distributor

Retailer

Consumer

Waste

Recovery

Policy
Maker

Educator

Community
Member

Student

Non‐
Profit




Government

Private

Other
(please
specify)















Don’t


Know

2. Do
you
feel
any
of
the
following
underserved
populations
are
not
currently
represented

in
the
planning
process?
(check
all
that
apply)



Low‐Income


Elderly

Youth

Native
American

African
American


Hispanic


Asian

Disabled

Other,
please
specify





















3. Do
you
have
suggestions
for
organizations
to
contact
that
you
feel
should
be
involved
in

the
current
or
future
operation
of
a
TCFPC?

Any
specific
contacts?








































4. In
your
opinion,
what
are
the
most
important
groups
that
should
be
part
of
the
planning

process
for
the
TCFPC
and
should
be
represented
in
the
organization?








































5. In
your
opinion,
what
are
the
areas
of
priority
for
action
and/or
policy
changes
for
the

Thurston
County
local
food
system?












































139









































6. Any
additional
comments?



















































































140


Appendix
B:


Thurston
Food
Systems
Council
(TFSC)


Vision,
Mission
Statement,
and
Goals

March
2012











TFSC
Vision:


A
vibrant
food
system
where
everyone
in
Thurston
County
has
the
right
and

access
to
healthy,
local,
affordable,
culturally
appropriate,
sustainably

produced
food.



TFSC
Mission:


To
bring
together
the
community
resources
and
programs
to
develop
and

strengthen
the
local
food
system.




TFSC
Goals:

1) Evaluate
and
influence
food
system
policy

2) Support
urban
agriculture
and
foster
food‐friendly
neighborhoods


3) Promote
social
justice


4) Encourage
healthy
lifestyles
and
disease
prevention
through
food

and
nutrition
education

5) Create
a
diverse
and
resilient
local
food
economy


a. Encourage
increased
investment
in
food
system

infrastructure
(transportation,
distribution
and
processing)

b. Support
existing
farmers
and
programs
to
encourage
new

farmers

c. Recognize
the
value
of
commercial
and
non‐commercial
food

production

6) 
Protect
natural
resources
and
sustain
the
environment


7) Ensure
preservation,
protection
and
expansion
of
farmland


8) Strengthen
links
and
relationships
within
and
between
urban
and

rural
communities.









141


Appendix
C:



Timeline
of
Thurston
County
Food
Summit

Comparison
with
Thesis
Research
&
Local
Food
Systems
Panel






!! E%$=$50)I25&2F&(22>&
!"##C0&M$="*0=&
!! B%$)0$>&7D&=0">$50=&
)0&G9$&N3$%;%$$5&
!0)0$&B2**$;$&

!! <(2/"=&25&(22>?&
$3$50=&
!! ()%#&02"%=&
!! !@$)A$%=&
!! B2##"5C0D&E20*"/A&

123&
+,--&

()**&+,-+&

!! E%$*C#C5)%D&%$=$)%/9&
@%$=$50$>&02&G(!B&

!! M$=$)%/9$%&)*=2&
)T$5>C5;&G(!B&
#$$I5;=&
!! :&F$L&C50$%3C$L$$=&
C532*3$>&LC09&G(!B&

!! M$=$)%/9&S50$%3C$L=&

:";&+,-+&

!! (2%#)I25&G9"%=025&
(22>&!D=0$#=&B2"5/C*&
QG(!BR&

8)%/9&
+,-+&

!! :/I25&/%$)0$>&>"%C5;&
@"7*C/&F2**2L6"@&
#$$I5;&
!! S5/*">$=&#$#7$%=&2F&
O2/)*&(22>&!D=0$#=&
E)5$*&

!! E%$=$50)I25&2F&
K9C0$&E)@$%&7D&O2/)*&
(22>&!D=0$#=&E)5$*&
!! E"7*C/&8$$I5;=&
F2**2LC5;&(22>&
!"##C0&

4)56($7&
+,-+&

!! O2/)*&(22>&!D=0$#=&
E)5$*&/%$)0$>&7D&
!"=0)C5)7*$&G9"%=025&

./0&+,--&

!! E*)55C5;&F2%&(22>&
!"##C0&

!"##$%&'&()**&
+,--&

!! G9"%=025&B2"50D&(22>&
!"##C0&
!! +,,H&@)%I/C@)50=&
!! B2##"5C0D&
$53C=C25C5;&7%$)A2"0&
=$==C25=&
!! J=$&2F&K92*$&
8$)="%$=&(%)#$L2%A&

!! !C0$&F2%&%$=$)%/9&
="%3$D=&
!! .%;)5CP$>&7D&K92*$&
8$)="%$=&(%)#$L2%A&




142


Media

Kowalewski_HMESthesis2013.pdf