-
extracted text (extracttext:extracted_text)
-
THE PLACE OF ALTERNATIVE AGRO-FOOD SYSTEMS:
EXAMINING FOOD ACCESS AND EMERGENCY FOOD SYSTEMS IN
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
by
Kathryn Elvira Wolt
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
June 2013
©2013 by Kathryn Elvira Wolt. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Kathryn Elvira Wolt
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
________________________
Dr. Martha L. Henderson
Member of the Faculty
________________________
Date
ABSTRACT
The Place of Alternative Agro-Food Systems:
Examining Food Access and Emergency Food Systems in
Mason County, Washington
Kathryn Elvira Wolt
As a manifestation of broader structural violence, hungry populations are
embedded into existing agro-food systems and are indicative of failures within
these systems. This thesis seeks to ask if alternative agro-food programming
increases food access to vulnerable populations who utilize emergency food
networks by utilizing two analyses. A theoretical critique of alternative agro-food
system frameworks identifies four traps in planning that further embed hunger in
communities. This analysis is grounded in a case study of interactions between
alternative agro-food programming and emergency food networks in Mason
County, a rural community with high food inaccess in Washington State.
Informants involved with Mason County emergency food networks participated in
semi-structured interviews, and cited bartering and sharing, capacity, and specific
vulnerable populations as consistent challenges in programming. Social
networking was identified as the main organizational strength. A discussion of
the role of agro-food system programming and perceptions of food access in the
county informs recommendations for improving services and successfully
incorporating alternative agro-food systems in emergency food networks within
Mason County.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Maps …................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgments .…........................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1: Introduction ….................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Study Methodology …................................. 5
Chapter 3:Theoretical Context of Hunger within Agro-Food Systems …......... 31
Chapter 4: Context for Case Study in Mason County …................................... 49
Chapter 5: Analysis of Mason County EFNs: Case Study Interviews …......... 66
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations …............................................. 102
Bibliography …................................................................................................. 107
iv
List of Tables and Maps
Table 1: Revenue and Rank of Significant Crops Produced in
Washington (2012) ……………………………………………………23
Table 2: Levels of Consumer Participation and Access in Agro-Food Systems
(US) ……………………………………………………………………37
Map 1: Mason County, Washington …………………………………………..50
Map 2: Mason County Food Banks, Distribution Boundaries, and Transit Routes
…………………………………………………………………………58
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank the many individuals and organizations that
contributed to this project, particularly my advisor, Dr. Martha Henderson. Her
encouragement and thoughtful guidance were much appreciated throughout the
thesis process. Thanks to the many partner organizations who enthusiastically
helped establish connections with informants, including Washington State
University Extension Mason County, the Mason County WSU Master Gardeners,
Mason Matters, Mason General Hospital, Mason County Historical Society,
Community Action Council, Mason County Transit Authority, and Jennifer
Hardison at South Kitsap Food Lifeline. Special thanks are extended to Delphina
Liles for her passion and dedication to the Mason County community and Kara
Karboski for her humor and help with the maps in this thesis. Finally, infinite
thanks to the members of my MES cohort, who lovingly provided the support,
motivation, and friendship needed to complete this project.
This thesis is dedicated to the volunteer community of Mason County.
vii
vii
Chapter 1: Introduction
Hunger is a feature of communities with failing food systems. Individuals
who are unable to access food sufficient to meet their basic needs are often at risk
for negative health impacts and decreased social visibility. Global and domestic
hunger has been consistently maintained since the mid-1960s; this period also
marks the first major implementation by the United States government and
citizens to help hungry individuals through global and domestic food assistance
programs. Hunger in the non-industrial or rising industrial world is the common
face of food inaccess; future economic and environmental conditions will create
environments that exacerbate vulnerabilities for these existing hungry populations
globally. Parallel to this, hungry populations in the United States have grown and
shifted over the past century; they also reflect a changing economic,
environmental, and cultural landscape influenced by global pressures. Migration
away from agrarian, rural centers to metropolitan regions have increased need in
both communities; urban regions have experienced a greater concentration of food
assistance clients, while rural regions are increasingly vulnerable to decaying
social services and isolated hungry populations.
Concurrent to the establishment of a hungry constituency in the United
States, the rise of alternative agro-food movements has occurred against the
backdrop of steady and omnipresent conventional agricultural production. These
alternative systems have worked to counter conventional systems that are
1
popularly characterized by industrialized harvest and production, chemical
fertilization and pest control, and corporate control of trade and genetic seed
material. Alternative agro-food systems have used a variety of approaches to
provide “radical” solutions to manage and ameliorate food system failures that
have maintained and increased hungry populations in the United States.
Proponents and practitioners have created various narratives of agro-food
production that run counter to the environmentally and socially destructive
methods of conventional agro-food production; as of late, these narratives have
been driven into a strict binary, pitting conventional and alternative against each
other in the political and cultural arenas.
These frameworks have gained support from constituencies who have
specific value-laden relationships with alternative agro-food models. Emergency
food networks, which provide community food assistance in diverse ways, have
increased their partnerships with these alternative models as their work or values
overlap. With hungry populations being maintained or increasing and alternative
agro-food models gaining political traction and buy-in from constituents, it seems
clear that partnerships between emergency food networks and alternative
producers may be mutually beneficial. This, however, is dependent upon shared
values, goals, and missions between the two fields.
Alternative agro-food systems exist within “radical” narratives that
emphasize outsider, grassroots values. By contrast, emergency food networks
have been long-engrained in traditional values that transcend multiple
constituencies. Examining if alternative agro-food models share similar values
2
and tactics with emergency food providers is vital for social service providers,
food producers, land-use specialists, and economic developers. Food system
planning is an interdisciplinary process that benefits from examinations of on-the
ground practices within theoretical frameworks.
This thesis asks if alternative agro-food models are effective at improving
food access to vulnerable, rural populations. It provides a theoretical analysis of
the effectiveness of alternative agro-food systems to increase access for
populations vulnerable to hunger. This analysis will be drawn from existing food
policy and agro-food literature; primarily, it will utilize “traps” as ways to identify
fallacies in alternative agro-food policies, utilizing a framework developed by
Born & Purcell (2006). Specifically, productivity, neoliberal, charity, and scale
traps will be examined in the context of current, widely practiced alternative agrofood models that have taken root over the past two decades. To ground this
theoretical analysis, a subsequent case study in Mason County, Washington
establishes how these traps can be applied to challenges that rural emergency food
networks and their clients face in accessing nutritionally dense and appropriate
food. This case study uses interviews with key informants within the county's
emergency food network to determine what challenges are faced by social service
providers and their clients. Themes gathered from the interviews are then
analyzed within the context of the theoretical analysis to determine if the traps
identified are at work in Mason County's alternative agro-food networks.
Ultimately, this study asks the question: does alternative agro-food
programming increase food access to vulnerable populations who utilize
3
emergency food networks? This question will be answered by applying it to a
case study, which asks: what do emergency food networks look like in Mason
County? What challenges do they face? Finally, what interactions do they have
with alternative agro-food programming?
Healing the open wound of hunger in the United States is an ongoing
challenge that will be met with a diverse set of solutions; determining the unique
challenges of a food inaccessible community like Mason County faces in
partnership with both conventional and alternative agro-food systems can better
inform social service providers and decision makers as they shape plans to aid
hungry populations now and in the future.
4
Chapter 2: Literature Review and Study Methodology
Globalization, neoliberal trade policies, and increased volatility in global
food markets have triggered important discussions about access to food, both
domestically and internationally since the mid-1960s (Lock et al., 2009).
Numerous bodies of literature have dealt with the complex interactions between
producers, sellers, and consumers of food and the environmental, economic, and
political structures within which they function. Food is a critical link for basic
human health and a unique link between built and biophysical systems. As
agricultural production has intensified and food trade has transcended local
markets, traditional relationships between food producers, sellers, and consumers
have become increasingly commodified (Peters et al., 2009). Acute fluctuations
in food prices have increased costs for nutritionally dense foods while decreasing
food access for the world’s most vulnerable populations (Barrett et al., 2009).
While the impacts of globalized trade and communication have amplified
production, hunger has been maintained and increased in some communities.
Populations suffering from chronic hunger or malnutrition are often in rural
regions with decreased access to social, economic, or technological resources.
The food crises of 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 show the serious impact that food
access can have on political and social stability in these vulnerable regions
(Barrett et al., 2009; Rosen & Shapouri, 2008).
Food access exerts serious pressure on human health, economic systems,
and biophysical processes. Scholars and advocates have developed frameworks
5
within agro-food systems analysis to address the impacts of production, trade, and
consumption shifts on the accessibility of food for all individuals, particularly
those vulnerable to hunger. An overview of existing theoretical frameworks of
agro-food systems and the historical and contemporary application of alternative
food system frameworks provides a context for the state of global and domestic
agro-food networks.
2.1 Picturing Food Systems
Food is unique in its ability to intersect the cultural, social, political,
economic, and biophysical worlds. In the twentieth century, the intersection
between agricultural production and food consumption has become a widely
studied topic, reflecting upon both increases in agricultural yield and human
population growth (Anderson & Cook, 1999; FAO, 2009; Goodman & Dupuis,
2002; Lockie & Kitto, 2000; Niles & Rolf, 2008; Peters et al., 2008). The
interplay between food production, marketing, acquisition, and consumption is
frequently referred to as a “food system.” Agro-food systems analysis draws on
systems modeling, which incorporates different scales and levels of agricultural
yield, trade, and purchase. A food system takes into account all levels of
production, marketing, and purchase of food within a culture, community, or
political state (Dixon, 1999). Additionally, the distribution, preparation, and
consumption of food are contained within some analyses of food systems.
Food systems research draws upon the multi-disciplinary fields of
agronomy, anthropology, geography, economics, political economy, human health
and nutrition, and labor and population studies. The multi-faceted face of food
6
systems reinforces the vital link that food plays in the sociocultural, ecological,
and economic landscapes of our world. Researchers have developed multiple
theoretical frameworks from which food systems can be examined; examining
these frameworks expands understandings of food and its relationship to
ecological and human processes.
2.2 Conventional Agro-Food Systems
The conventional agro-food system functions almost exclusively within a
capitalist framework; food is seen a commodity and is traded in multiple
marketplaces. Conventional agro-food systems have been single-minded in their
approach to yield increases and the application and implementation of emerging
agronomic science and technology. Conventional systems are typified by their
dependence upon mechanization and petrochemicals to power farms, which are
frequently large monoculture operations (Story et al., 2008). Conventional agrofood cultivation has coupled with neoliberal trade policies which have resulted in
immense global acquisitions of land for food production by multi-national agrofood corporations; additionally, genetic modification of seed material has brought
about a host of legal and ecological concerns regarding biodiversity and
intellectual property rights (Goodman, 2001).
The United States’ unique social and natural landscapes have encouraged
the growth of agricultural production by both individuals and larger corporate
entities. The immigration of white Europeans to North America began the
agricultural transformation of the United States; a patchwork of subsistence and
expansive plantation farms in the Southeast were cemented early in the country’s
7
history; other white immigrants pushed westward towards the Great Plains to
begin tilling the seemingly endless topsoil for wheat and corn production
(Cochrane, 1993). Expansion into the West cemented the role agricultural
production played in shaping mythologies of the American economy and identity
(Gupta & Ferguson, 1992). Cattle, wheat, and corn provided not only sustenance
to a growing domestic population, but established the United States as the model
for robust production and distribution within international markets. By the mid1950s, the United States was known as the “breadbasket to the world” and was
supplying not only its expanding domestic population, but European countries
recovering from the famine of World War-II (Lentz & Barrett, 2008).
Distribution of conventionally produced agricultural goods continues to be
dependent upon food trade policies and practices, reinforcing the endemic
economic underpinnings of the conventional food system. Despite the FAO’s
report (2012) of a 170% increase in food consumption since the 1960s, increases
in oil prices, biofuel production on land previously used for food crops, and
decreases in soil productivity, water access, and genetic diversity are all potential
factors that will continue to impact the conventional food system in the coming
decades. Despite these potential challenges, conventional agro-food systems have
utilized global systems of trade and communication to increase their capacity for
shipping and cultivation of regional crops for international markets. Grocery
stores in the United States are now able to consistently stock out-of-season
products, as well as non-domestic products, year round.
The consistent availability of both non-regional produce and processed
8
food products has shaped the American diet and culture of eating; the spread of
cheap, mass produced food is commonly seen as a significant factor in the rise of
congestive heart failure, heart disease, childhood obesity, and diabetes in the
United States (Blasbalg, Wispelwey, & Deckelbaum, 2011). The environmental
impacts of decades of monoculture production on decreasingly productive farms,
compounded by chemical fertilizer use and the controversial cultivation of
genetically modified crop seed, have severe impacts on the health of agricultural
landscapes (Pimentel et al., 2005). The Federal government has further embedded
conventional production through financial subsidies that cushion risk for
conventional producers and, on the whole, discourage innovation or alternative
production (Marshall, 2000). The impacts of the dual cultural and environmental
consequences of conventional agro-food production have inspired the
implementation of alternative agro-food frameworks.
2.3 Alternative Food System Frameworks
The conventional food system has gained immense economic power over
the past 50 years. Increased efficiency in industrial food production and
management has been complemented by neoliberal trade policies and agricultural
subsidies, allowing almost complete domination by transnational trade over
regional production. Parallel to this increase in power, individuals have sought to
right the ecological and economic injustices of the conventional agro-food system
through the development and implementation of alternative food system
frameworks (Kloppenburg et al., 2000; Koc & Dahlberg, 1999). These
frameworks have been established by advocates, researchers, and decision makers
9
to determine how to improve aspects of the conventional food system. They
present a radical vision of food production and access which draws heavily from
social justice, sustainability, and political economy to address inequalities in the
conventional food system (Qazi & Selfa, 2005). Here, five basic theoretical
frameworks, which focus on one central motivating factor as a catalyst for the
“alternative” worldview, will be examined: 1) sustainable agriculture, 2) food
security, 3) food sovereignty/democracy, 4) food justice, and 5) the right to
adequate food. Due to the multitude of terms and ideas that are used by scholars
and practitioners of alternative food systems, it is useful to explore the different
frameworks to find similarities and divergence.
2.4 Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable agriculture presents itself as an ecological alternative to
industrial, conventional agricultural production (Lichtfouse et al, 2009). While
“sustainable” within this framework may apply to both economic and social
sustainability, the roots of the system are based in models of agriculture that are
low-impact, organic, and ecologically sound (Kloppenburg et al, 2000). Common
methodologies include low or no-till farming, livestock-crop integration, cover
cropping and other soil conservation techniques, and seed saving (Lichtfouse et
al., 2009). Sustainable agriculture encourages small-scale and local production of
food but focuses little attention on agricultural workers’ rights, relationships
between growers and consumers, or implementation for social change (Fidler,
2012). This framework has heavily influenced the “back to the land” movements
that saw growth both internationally and domestically in the 1900s, 1940s, 1960s,
10
and 2000s (Niles & Rolf, 2008). Sustainable agriculture is seen as the first foray
into alternative food system theory, and underpins many of the subsequent schools
of thought (Carolan, 2009).
Currently, sustainable agriculture focuses on organic education and
certification. The rise of the organic movement has been driven by sustainable
agriculture producers and buyers who have sought to streamline certification for
producers (Marshall, 2000). Organic food has now grown out of its niche market
and onto conventional grocery store shelves. While prices, particularly for
organic livestock products, still remain higher than conventionally produced food,
educational and marketing campaigns have increased organic sales (Born &
Purcell, 2006; Qazi & Selfa, 2005). Certified organic production is still a minor
part of net agricultural production in the United States. However, certain organic
producers have managed to co-opt business models from conventional agriculture
and successfully apply them to the marketing and cultural narratives of
sustainable agriculture; this has expanded production to national and international
markets on very large scales (Goodman & DuPuis, 2002). Organic agriculture
has entered the national food dialogue as a touchstone for the divisive
conventional-alternative agro-food binary, with proponents citing the numerous
environmental and human health benefits and detractors labeling it “elite.”
Additionally, climate change impacts on agricultural production have
strengthened the voice of sustainable agriculture advocates and supporters.
Warming global temperatures have been projected to severely impact
precipitation, and thus, water availability for crops (FAO, 2009; Fung, Lopez, &
11
New, 2011). Additionally, an increase in major flooding events, which are
projected under future climate scenarios, could bring about further soil
degradation on farms that have existing damage caused by yearly tilling and
nutrient leaching.
While agricultural production in the Midwest and Southeastern United
States are particularly vulnerable to climatic shifts, the Pacific Northwest will
experience more complex impacts. Regional agriculture in Washington State will
be severely impacted by sea level rise and ocean acidification, which is a major
threat to the Puget Sound’s shellfish production (Washington Climate Change
Impacts Assessment, 2009). However, vegetable, fruit, and wheat production, the
cornerstones of Washington state agricultural revenue, is projected to increase
under current climate scenarios. Proponents of sustainable agriculture in the
region are typically clustered in urban regions such as King County, with fewer
sustainable advocates and producers seen in counties such as Yakima and Chelan,
which have traditionally relied upon conventional agriculture as a cultural and
economic base (Qazi & Selfa, 2005). Sustainable agriculture rhetoric focuses on
“traditional”, small scale, organic, and ecologically inclined production; it is the
oldest and most well established alternative agro-food framework.
2.5 Food Security
Food security is a framework that focuses on local agricultural production
as a means of increasing food access. The term was coined at the 1974 World
Food Conference and has been co-opted by a large number of scholars and
activists; to that end, its meaning is sometimes convoluted (Maxwell, 1996). On
12
the international level, food security is used as a measure of access to healthy
diets and political participate in the food marketplace; it is most widely used by
government entities, including the USDA, to define individuals with appropriate
access to food (Carlson, Andrews, & Bickel, 1999).
Both domestic and international food security assumes that agricultural
resilience comes from local and seasonal production of food (Hendrickson &
Heffernan, 2002). Small-scale producers are highly valued in a food security
framework, while large-scale, monoculture production is seen as a vulnerable
market for food in emergency or crisis situations. Increasing worries about
biodiversity and land and biotechnology ownership have propelled the food
security movement in the United States (Goodman, 2001). Proponents of this
framework are usually engaged with opening localized food markets to smallscale producers, who are often young or beginning farmers (Hinrichs, 2000).
These alternative markets my include food cooperatives, community supported
agriculture (CSAs), community gardens, and farmers' markets (Niles & Rolf,
2009). Recently, “food hubs” have become popular mechanism for local markets
which are looking to expand capacity for producers; these hubs provide services
such as processing and storage facilities which attempt to bridge gaps in food
security at a regional level (Barham, 2011). Additionally, localized conceptions of
food access, known as “foodsheds,” have been mapped to define boundaries of a
local food system (Feagan, 2007; Peters et al., 2008).
Like other alternative agro-food programming, food security has lacked a
solid theoretical framework from which policy can be derived (Anderson and
13
Cook, 1999). Some practitioners make use of the words “community” or
“foodshed” to emphasize the idea of locally based agricultural production as a
function of social support and resilience (Born & Purcell, 2006; Feagan, 2007;
Peters et al., 2008). Critiques of “localization” as a method for social and
agricultural change have been presented within the schema of alternative agrofood systems (Born & Purcell, 2006; Goodman & Goodman, 2007).
Regionally, Washington State has seen localized food security rhetoric
encourage the creation of strong farmers' markets, CSA programs, and urban
farming; food security programming has again been focused in areas with high
community buy-in related to sustainable agriculture, specifically, in King and
Skagit counties and the South Puget Sound (Selfa & Qazi, 2005). Food security is
both the most commonly used framework for alternative food systems and the
most diverse.
2.6 Food Democracy/Sovereignty
Food democracy and food sovereignty are linked ideas that conceptualize
food access as a political process. Food sovereignty movements believe small
communities or political entities have the right to determine their access to food
through political decision making (Hassanein, 2003). This could take the form of
genetically modified organism (GMO) labeling or bans, limiting distance to food
sources, increasing the availability of grocery stores in a community, opening
access to land, or instituting price controls on food commodities (Beuchelt &
Virchow, 2012). This movement has seen traction within the international peasant
movement, most famously with the international farmers' movement, La Via
14
Campesina (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012). On a small scale, food democracy seeks
to empower individuals through participation in local agro-food programming;
this may include specialized farmers’ markets, gardening programs, or groceries
(Alkon & Mares, 2012).
Food democracy is a closely related concept, which focuses on the
participation of producers, consumers, and retailers to work for political action
and access to food. This movement encourages constituents to directly work with
the democratic process or create processes of their own; food policy councils are
popular community based tools that food democracy activists have used to
promote direct participation in conversations around food systems (Harper et al.,
2009; Hassanein, 2003). The most visible food democracy campaigns in the
United States in recent months have focused on limiting conventional agro-food
corporate influence in political processes. Popularly cited as the “Monsanto
Protection Act,” Section 735 of the Farmer Assurance Provision of spending bill
HR 933 has come under intense scrutiny on the part of food democracy advocates
(Pollack, 2013). This provision, which allows conventional agro-food giant
Monsanto and other producers of genetically modified seed to distribute its
product before Federal approval of its safety, has become one of the first
nationally organized food democracy campaigns in recent years. In Washington
State, advocates of food democracy have most recently supported Initiative 522, a
citizen initiative aiming to label genetically modified foods, to the November
2013 ballot.
Food democracy/sovereignty attempts to provide increased points of
15
access for constituents with political power, but is limited by existing systemic
injustices that prevent the full expression of political power by individuals in a
community.
2.7 Food justice
The food justice movement incorporates elements of food sovereignty and
food security with a central focus on social justice. Food justice believes that
hunger is a result of institutionalized injustices, including racism, sexism, and
classism. Those who participate in the food justice framework believe that agrofood systems should directly involve groups who have limited access to political
and economic capital (Alkon and Mares, 2012). Food justice may incorporate
elements of food democracy, but primarily functions in a way that minorities,
women, and children have access to produce, market, and consume “good food”
(Allen, 2010). The emphasis is not necessarily on direct political action, but on
confronting existing systemic injustices, using food as a mechanism for change.
Food justice is seen as a relatively young social movement that has not yet
laid a solid theoretical groundwork; however, many of the tactics used by food
justice practitioners draw on the long history of community organizing and
popular social change movements (Sbicca, 2012). Grassroots activists and
community organizers have incorporated existing frameworks of communication
and direct action into local agro-food programming; this may be manifested in
specialized community gardens for marginalized groups, emphasis on low-income
access to programming, and a strong rhetorical tie to radicalism through terms
like “guerilla gardening” (Levkoe, 2006). Activists believe that including
16
marginalized groups in the food system can aid in creating a more just social
system (Sbicca, 2012). As an alternative agro-food system framework, food
justice is more closely aligned to elements of social justice work than hands-on
food agro-food production; food as a mechanism for community connection is
emphasized over the actual production of crops.
2.8 Right to Adequate Food
The right to adequate food (RtAF) is an alternative framework that views
food access as a judicial issue. It contains “precise suggestions for measures and
policies to be implemented by governments” to provide access to food by all
citizens (Beuchelt & Virchow, 2012). A large amount of literature at the academic
and institutional level has been written about the right to food. Currently, RtAF
has been internationally acknowledged by 40 countries through the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966 (Riches,
1999). The United States has signed, but not ratified the ICESCR.
RtAF does not adjudicate the direct provisioning of food to citizens.
Instead, RtAF is seen through a “positive rights” lens, in which opportunities must
be given to citizens to procure food independently (UNCHR, 1989). The
ICESCR dictates that states who have pledged to maintain the RtAF must provide
economic and logistic access to food. In the event of disasters or acute events, the
state may be required to provide food resources to affected populations. States
that have ratified the ICESCR or who have constitutional provisions for RtAF
may face legal repercussions at the domestic and global levels if this right is
violated (Mechlem, 2004). Many scholars have noted the limitations of RtAF in
17
conjunction with other rights contained within the RtAF (Anderson, 2008; Chilton
& Rose, 2009; De Schutter, 2009; Riches, 1999). Individuals may be limited in
their access to legal services for a variety of reasons; additionally, those without
legal standing as citizens in a state may not be protected. This extends to
refugees, migrants, or undocumented individuals. Finally, the practicality of
legislating access to economic or physical access to food may be difficult to apply
on the ground (Chilton & Rose, 2009).
Advocates and researchers in the United States continue to examine how
RtAF may be implemented in order to improve food access. However, unlike the
previously discussed alternative food systems, RtAF has not been implemented
domestically and is unlikely to be a major part of alternative agro-food
programming in most communities.
2.9 Hunger within Agro-Food Systems
Both conventional and alternative agro-food systems incorporate
individuals at all levels of food access; this includes hungry populations who
experience little to no access to food. The systemic nature of hunger maintains or
increases hungry populations according to the balance of power and privilege
within a community.
Hunger and malnutrition are a significant challenge to
welfare and health of individuals around the world. Globally, there are 846
million people who currently suffer from malnutrition; the majority of this
population is made up of women, children, and infants (FAO, 2009). Maternal
and childhood malnutrition are a major impediment to cognitive and physical
development; the impacts of malnourishment are often exhibited in comorbidity
18
factors such as chronic disease, mental illness, social isolation, and poverty (FAO,
2009). Hunger exists due to both human and environmental factors; historically,
chronic hunger and famine have been viewed through a strictly environmental
lens; however, it is increasingly clear that hunger is an extension of institutional
injustices that may be embedded in a community or leveraged by those in power
to control or subjugate a constituency (Davis, 2002). Hunger enters vulnerable
individuals into nutritionally and socially fragile environments.
Hunger occurs in an agro-food system due to several systemic pressures.
Economic shifts, as seen acutely during the 2008 and 2011 Global Food Crises,
can cause food prices to spike dramatically, cutting off access to basic food
provisions for individuals living in chronic poverty (Rosen & Shapouri, 2008).
Price increases can amplify existing issues with the economic and political
distribution and control of food resources, which are often reflective of both
historic economic and political relationships and increased transnational control
of food production and trade (World Institute for Development, 1990).
Hunger is often impacted severely by environmental determinants;
seasonal droughts or flooding can create extremely tenuous situations for
chronically hungry communities that are dependent upon subsistence or
commodity agriculture for stability (Rukuni, 2011). Hunger is also a
manifestation of other institutionalized violence that decreases the power of
certain demographics within communities. Women, minorities, and other
marginalized groups are more prone to hunger; geographically, individuals in
large urban areas and isolated rural areas of the non-industrial world are
19
specifically vulnerable to food inaccess (Wu et al., 2012).
Agro-food systems analysis typically focuses on the conventional means
of providing food to populations through commodity chains. Populations that are
unable to participate in these channels of access are more prone to hunger, and are
not given priority in food systems planning. Hungry populations’ low visibility
within food systems is both indicative of their power within a food systems and
the intrinsic nature of hunger as a mechanism for subjugation (Davis, 2002).
Hunger in the United States wears multiple masks; it reflects structural
violence that becomes embedded in communities at multiple scales. The cultural
identity of the United States as a literal land of plenty has cultivated a
sociocultural norm of bounty, leading to a marginalization of hungry individuals
at the community level. To better understand the intricacies of community level
hunger in the United States, a further examination of the characteristics of rural
and urban food inaccess will be discussed.
2.10 Rural vs. Urban Hunger in the United States
While academic literature typically focuses on hunger in the nonindustrialized world, hunger is an issue that is both widespread and normalized in
industrialized nations. In the United States, urban and rural populations are seen
as the most vulnerable to food inaccess, though numerous studies have shown that
there are distinct differences in the way hunger is performed at each scale. As
low-income individuals flee rural and suburban communities with increasingly
limited economic opportunities, urban regions have experienced increased density
of hungry populations. Individuals uninterested or unable to leave impoverished
20
rural regions of the United States are often isolated from services or are limited by
cultural associations with utilizing government or social service food aid. Use of
social service benefits is higher in urban areas, while hunting, gardening, and
sharing food is common in rural settings (Smith & Miller, 2011).
In the United States, a vast collection of public, voluntary, and religious
agencies work to deliver services to hungry rural residents; there is a large body
of work, rooted in rural sociology and geography which addresses the unique
challenges that domestic rural populations face when accessing food (DeMarco,
Thorburn, & Kue, 2009; Goodman & Watts, 1994; Hinrichs, 2003; Mader &
Busse, 2011; Smith & Miller, 2011; Smith & Morton, 2009).
2.11 Emergency Food Networks
In order to address food access vulnerability, almost all functioning food
systems have “safety net” mechanisms used to address hunger. Emergency food
networks (EFNs) in the United States encompass a wide range of programming at
different scales. At the national level, the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program, TEFAP, and welfare benefits such as SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional
Aid Program) and WIC are all programs that distribute food to low-income
individuals who have limited access to nutritional diets (Poppendieck, 1994).
States have additional programming to aid these same populations; the
Washington State Department of Agriculture and Department of Health provide
distributional and educational capacity for programs such as TEFAP and SNAP.
However, in all communities in the United States that have established EFNs, the
bulk of emergency food work is done by non-profit, religious, or charitable
21
organizations that rely almost solely on donor funding and in-kind donations of
food.
EFNs are plagued with chronic challenges; primarily, hungry populations
rarely decrease. Non-profit organizations that distribute food facilitate the
acquisition, repackaging, storage, and management of donations. This leads to
the majority of food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens living on the edge of
administrative extinction (Poppendieck, 1994). During economic downturns,
such as the current recession in the United States, EFNs face further challenges as
client bases increase while corporate and individual donations slip dramatically.
Relying on the public and voluntary sectors to provide food to the most
vulnerable individuals in communities can result in unjust and inefficient
distribution. Donation-based frameworks for emergency food relief do not
guarantee that food will be available when it is needed; additionally, it is less
likely that the food will be nutritionally dense or culturally appropriate.
2.12 Agro-food Systems and Hunger in Washington State
This thesis focuses on a case study of food access within a rural,
agriculturally productive county in Washington State that exhibits low food
access. Washington State occupies a unique space in the agricultural legacy of
the United States, and effectively shows the conflicts that arise within all agrofood systems that exhibit hunger.
The Cascade mountain range splits the state into two landscapes that have
provided fertile ground for agricultural production and aspirations of Native
22
populations, Europeans immigrants, and migrant farmworkers. Westward
expansion by white immigrants in the 19th century established the beginnings of
conventional agricultural production in the region. Today, Washington is one of
the top state producers of food and non-food agricultural goods, with
approximately $6.7 billion in agricultural revenue reported in the 2007 USDA
Census of Agriculture, making it the 16th largest producer in the United States
(2007). Table 1, below, shows revenue produced by significant and iconic crops
within Washington State (Selfa & Qazi, 2005).
Table 1: Revenue and Rank of Significant Crops Produced in Washington
(2012)
US Rank (16)
Agricultural product
Annual Revenue
($1000)
(Total: 6,792,856)
Wheat (grain)
2,096,350
8
Vegetables harvested for
sale
343,787
3
Barley (grain)
223,598
4
Apples
165,215
1
Aquaculture
162,867
2
Christmas tree products
23,225
3
Conventional and alternative agro-food networks within the state leverage
utilize the historic and contemporary agricultural history of the region as means
for marketing, tourism, and development (Born & Purcell, 2006; Jarosz & Qazi,
2000). Logging and Christmas tree operations are included in the realm of iconic
23
industries that have emerged from the agricultural sector; coupled with apples and
shellfish. These products have ascended the commodity chain to become a
political, cultural, and economic touchstone within the state (Jarosz & Qazi,
2000).
Agricultural production within the state emphasizes the values of bounty,
economic prosperity, and wholesomeness as the bedrocks of the state’s varied
agro-food systems (Born & Purcell, 2006). However, like all communities,
Washington has maintained hungry populations for decades within these same
systems. EFNs exist in communities across Washington to provide services to
individuals who have low food access. These services may include food banks,
food pantries, soup kitchens, and nutrition education. The Washington State
Department of Health has outlined objectives to improve food access within these
networks for hungry populations, which are presented in the Washington State
Nutrition and Physical Activity Plan (Washington State Health Department,
2012). The plan states the following as primary objectives to rectify maintained
hunger within communities.
-Access to healthy foods at school, work, and in the community.
-Enough money to buy the kinds of foods recommended in the guidelines.
-Knowledge about nutrition.
-Motivation to choose healthy foods.
-Confidence that they can cook healthy foods.
-Healthy foods in their homes and daily environments.
-Social, cultural and family support for eating healthfully.
24
-Eating patterns that include frequent meals with family and/or friends eating
together (Washington State Department of Health, 2008).
These objectives guide goals for regional EFNs as they move to improve
services to clients. These goals take into account the varied economic, social, and
environmental challenges faced by individuals with low food access. While
Washington State has begun to create more efficient and effective methods for
providing direct food resources to individuals while increasing agency within
agro-food systems throughout the state, hunger has been a feature of the region
for decades and will be maintained in the coming years.
2.13 Food Access
The agro-food systems frameworks mentioned above use a variety of
terms to distinguish their specific motivations and processes in order to provide
new perspectives in agro-food systems planning. However, these frameworks and
terms are typically one-dimensional. By contrast, this study utilizes the term
“food inaccess” to refer to the state of hungry individuals; this term transcends
many different challenges that may be faced by vulnerable populations in
accessing food, and draws upon the groundwork laid by existing alternative agrofood frameworks holistically. Financial, environmental, and sociopolitical access
are all contributing factors that prevent individuals from procuring adequate food
or participating as autonomous agents in an agro-food system.
The majority of academic literature and government reports use the term
“food security” to designate the state of individuals who suffer from hunger or
malnutrition; this term, however, does not take into account the primary function
25
of hunger, which is lack of agency in obtaining adequate or appropriate food
(Anderson & Cook, 1999). Current use of the term “food access” by the USDA
refers to the distance individuals must travel to buy or procure food (Mader &
Busse, 2011). Areas with low access are popularly referred to as “food deserts;”
while this term is helpful in mapping one distinct challenge faced by individuals
looking to access nutritionally dense food, it does not accurately reflect the
multiple threads that prevent food from being procured by individuals. Food
access, as used by the researcher in this paper, is a holistic term that refers to the
multiple challenges that hungry individuals face. This term establishes a
multidisciplinary rhetoric that will be reflected in the case study, discussion, and
recommendations.
2.14 Methodology
This project uses two different methodologies to answer the research
questions. First, a theoretical critique based upon a systemic review of existing
publications, data, and practices will be performed. There is no cohesive theory
that binds together alternative agro-food frameworks; many authors have called
for such a framework to unite the varied programming that has emerged from the
alternative movement (Anderson & Cook, 1999). The critique examines the
history of the conventional alternative agro-food systems in the United States and
their relationship with emergency food networks, and additionally determines the
effectiveness of these systems at providing resources and support to vulnerable
populations who utilize emergency food systems. The result of this critique will
provide a theoretical perspective from which a case study will be examined.
26
While a new framework will not be introduced, a basic rubric of
limitations in planning will be identified that can inform better food systems
planning at multiple scales. A subsequent case study in Mason County,
Washington, a rural community on the Olympic Peninsula, will be explored
through the theoretical lens. The case study uses interviews with key informants
who are involved with conventional and alternative agro-food systems through
work with emergency food networks; the interviews are used to determine the
challenges this network faces in providing services to individuals facing low food
access within the county.
2.15 Theoretical Approach
Agro-food systems research represents a huge body of work that is
challenged by the complexity and diversity of its academic intersections.
Researchers examining domestic hunger and its role within agro-food systems
have used various approaches to analyze the many threads that establish and
maintain hungry populations. These have included approaches from the fields of
political economy, anthropology, geography, economics, and agronomy. Various
theoretical threads emerge from these analyses, but few have encapsulated the
breadth and scope of the literature. Many calls have been made to determine a
consistent theoretical approach to analyze agro-food systems effectiveness by
researchers as of late. This paper will attempt to create a theoretical approach to
determine the effectiveness of specific agro-food systems in ending hunger. It
will utilize an approach developed by Born & Purcell (2006), which identifies
“traps” in planning food systems. Born & Purcell focus specifically on scale as a
27
trap for planning food systems; this analysis argues that there are multiple traps
that hold alternative agro-food systems back from reaching the goal of achieving
radical changes in the way food is produced, marketed, and consumed in the
United States. The analysis will identify each trap and examine how each one
exists within alternative agricultural systems. These traps will later be examined
in the context of the case study results to determine if alternative agriculture
systems are succeeding in providing improved food access to county residents.
2.16 Case Study Approach
The theoretical approach, based in political economy and critical
ethnography, will provide a framework for analysis for the case study. With a
few exceptions, case studies of emergency food networks in North America have
focused on urban areas that suffer from high rates of food inaccess and hunger.
Fewer still have examined rural food inaccess outside of traditional agrarian
regions, such as the American Midwest. Over the past decade, a handful of
studies have emerged from Oregon State University and Wenatchee Valley
College illustrating the intersections between alternative agro-food systems,
emergency food networks, and food access in rural parts of the Pacific Northwest
(Grussing & Edwards, 2006; Lawson, Jarosz, and Bonds, 2008; Selfa & Qazi,
2005). Other case studies have revealed insights into discrimination, service
access, and sustainability of programs that have aimed to provide better care for
hungry populations through EFNs (Gee et al., 2007; Mason, Jaskiewicz, &
Christoffel, 2010).
28
The case study examines Mason County, a rural county in western
Washington that exhibits chronic food inaccess, health challenges and poverty.
Semi-structured interviews with informants who are members of the county’s
emergency food network are utilized. These informants are directors and
volunteers of food banks, as well as social service providers and community
members who work to distribute educational, financial, and in-kind food
resources to the food banks. The case study identified fourteen informants and
performed 10 interviews over the course of two months. Informants were
recruited by the researcher, who has done previous work with alternative agrofood systems, emergency food networks, and nutrition education within the
county.
A Human Subjects Review was conducted prior to the interviews, with
general questions approved by The Evergreen State College (TESC) Human
Subjects Review board. In addition, the board approved informed consent
statements and participant observation consent forms, which were provided to all
informants and subsequently signed. Informants stated that they were aware of
the risks of the study, and that their responses would be kept anonymous.
These interviews were transcribed by the researcher and coded using key
quotations that corresponded with specific themes. Keywords were used to
identify themes; these keywords were then applied to overarching themes.
Participant observation was conducted at three food banks (Saints’ Pantry, Hood
Canal, and Matlock); due to internal organizational issues, which will be
discussed in Chapter 5, the North Mason Food Bank was not incorporated in the
29
interviews or participant observation. Themes gathered from interviews are then
applied to the theoretical analysis to identify which traps, if any, are utilized by
alternative agro-food systems within the county. Finally, the case study and
theoretical analysis will inform recommendations that could be applied to county
social service providers and alternative agro-food leaders to improve overall longterm food access for individuals and populations at risk of hunger.
30
Chapter 3: Theoretical Context of Hunger within Agro-Food Systems
“The role of commodity chain analysis in agro-food studies and
related fields is to awaken the consumer to true political
consciousness. Until consciousness is awakened, consumption which
claims to be politically-based is, at best, ineffective and, at worst,
reinforces accumulation and power” (Goodman & DuPuis, 2002).
3.1 Barriers and Failures in Combating Hunger in the United States
As previously examined, conventional and alternative agro-food systems
have been embedded with oppositional visions of how food is grown, distributed,
traded, and consumed. These worldviews are a product of industrialization,
globalization, and external environmental and social factors that funnel food into
streams of access that are increasingly narrow. Within these systems, individuals
may perform multiple roles as a producer, distributor, and consumer; yet,
consumption remains the single role taken on by all people in a food network.
These consumers have varying abilities to purchase, access, or choose the food
that they may eat. Hungry individuals have the least agency over their level of
food access. Conventional and alternative agro-food systems incorporate
individuals at all levels of agency within their bounds; yet, as Timmer, Falcon, &
Pearson (1983) state, “[a] food system that contains many hungry people is a
failure in at least one dimension.” The dynamic environment of global economic
relationships, governmental policy on food and agriculture, and embedded
frameworks of structural injustice establish significant barriers to food access;
these barriers manifest themselves in food system failures.
31
In response to failures in providing equal and adequate access to
nutritionally dense food to vulnerable populations, both conventional and
alternative agro-food systems have developed mechanisms to provide emergency
food assistance to hungry people. Hungry populations utilize a variety of services
provided by non-profit, religious, and government organizations that provide
direct and indirect access to food. The most prominent programs working to
provide better food access to hungry individuals within the United States are
grouped together as an emergency food networks (EFNs). Their mechanisms
provide financial resources or direct food aid to individual who are suffering from
malnutrition. EFNs exist at every geographic scale, and act as an extension of the
economic, ecological, and cultural assumptions that are the basis of our agro-food
systems. EFNs provide unique social services to individuals who are not able to
participate fully as primary consumers in the food marketplace.
Institutional racism, classicism, sexism, and ageism play a significant role
in embedding hunger in American society. These factors are amplified by
economic, ecological, and sociopolitical barriers that have created landscapes that
maintain hungry populations. Alternative agro-food systems attempt to provide
new means for distribution and access to food for all levels of consumers; the
frameworks that have been used to define these alternative ideas have been
examined in Chapter 2, and are presented as “radical” alternates in contrast to
conventional systems.
However, careful examination of the intersection between the goals of
alternative agro-food systems and the needs of hungry populations that rely upon
32
EFNs reveals how “traps” in planning and practice have prevented significant
change. Practitioners and researchers who want to improve food access through
EFNs in the United States must acknowledge that they function within established
social and economic frameworks that exist within privileged landscapes of access
that transcend the labels of “conventional” or “alternative.”
This theoretical analysis will examine the current failures that exist within
agro-food systems which maintain chronic hunger with the United States.
Additionally, it will define the specific “traps” that the alternative agro-food
movement has embraced, which block the expansion of truly “radical” change to
combat hunger in the US. Finally, it will determine potential avenues for change
through multi-scale recommendations that will emerge from the theoretical
critique.
3.2 Hunger as a Food System Failure
Timmer, Falcon, and Pearson (1983) state that agro-food models that
maintain hungry populations represent a failure in food policy and food access.
Examining how hunger becomes an embedded in a food system can inform
political decisions and effective services for hungry populations. Hunger is a
global challenge that manifests on a community level according unique
vulnerabilities of local contexts. These local vulnerabilities dictate the level of
food access for individuals, yet are not the sole factors that determine the level of
hunger a community experiences. Systemic pressures at all scales impact the
vulnerability of a hungry population. Sociopolitical, environmental, and
33
particularly financial capacities are the primary avenues for food access; each one
is crucial for hungry individuals to improve their agency within their specific
agro-food system.
Access to food represents one of the most basic entry points into fully
expressed agency within a society; however, the commodification and
politicization of food have reinforced social barriers that reflect structural
violence. A key feature of hunger in all communities is its “normalization;” for
many citizens and decision makers, the presence of hunger is assumed to be a
problem that will always be present, and cannot be prevented. In this way, hunger
becomes institutionalized, much like other injustices that are often present in
populations who suffer from low food access. In most food systems planning,
hungry populations are not given priority; instead, mid- to high-level consumers
who have access to capital are the active players within these systems.
This cycle of power through food distribution can stagnant communities
with low levels of food access, and in the worst cases, it can be leveraged to
devastating effects by governments looking to control populations (Davis, 2002).
Historically, deaths from hunger have been one of the most devastating results of
violent conflict and political control in regions with low levels of individual
agency. While these examples are extreme and not readily applied to
contemporary communities in the United States, hunger is often an indicator of
layered structural violence within a community. As food systems planners
attempt to create more sustainable and efficient food systems, it will be necessary
34
to examine how elements of a food system are not working for the most
vulnerable populations.
3.3 Constructing Participation in Agro-Food Systems
Concern over food system inequalities has driven major bodies of research
towards the dismantling of inefficient systems (Niles & Rolf, 2008).
Traditionally, food system research has been based upon a neo-classical economic
model, which examines food access within a market system. Within this system,
food production functions as the main driver for hunger; hungry people are the
result of low food availability and low access to financial capital. This framework
for hunger prevention has spurred numerous programs aimed at increasing
agricultural yield and trade in areas of high vulnerability.
People who experience hunger may have fluctuating agency within agrofood systems; this includes their interactions with the consumption, production, or
marketing of food. Competition in the food marketplace is driven heavily by both
consumer demand and production capacity. In a functioning conventional agrofood system, the majority of individuals participate in this “primary marketplace,”
which allows them full expression of how to choose when and what type of food
they consume. The primary marketplace is the central focus of producers and
retailers of food products. Conventional producers who are able to respond to
consumer needs while providing a desirable, affordable, and consistently
available product are able to maintain existing products and potentially introduce
new variations on established brands. Individuals are only of value to agro-food
35
producers and retailers if they have the ability to choose what they purchase.
Dixon (1999) goes further, underlying the importance of financial capacity in
terms of individuality; “it is now through consumption that individuals are
identifying themselves.” Political identification through consumption drives
much of the rhetoric between conventional and alternative agro-food narratives.
Participating as a consumer in the conventional marketplace is a mark of status
and power, and is deeply connected to perceptions of EFN use by clients.
Various solutions have been put forth to eliminate hunger in communities.
It is assumed that increased personal income translates to increased food access;
while financial capital is a key element of preventing hunger, is not a panacea. As
Rose (1999) notes, “[a]lthough we see strong relationships between income and
hunger indicators, and between poverty and likelihood of food insufficiency, a
one-to-one correspondence between measures of food insecurity and measures of
poverty does not exist” (518S). Complex systems of access converge to prevent
individuals from fully participating in the primary marketplace as food
consumers. Access to sociopolitical and environmental capital is equally
important. As food systems manage barriers to access, looking beyond income
will be crucial to end the cycle of maintained hunger within a community.
To measure the level of individual participation in a food system, it is
helpful to show avenues of access that exist in the United States. As seen in
Table 2, those in the primary marketplace have a variety of levels at which they
may enter and participate as a consumer. As agency increases in tandem with
increased capital, a person is able to purchase not only more food, but food of
36
their choosing. Defining what participation looks like for individuals within an
agro-food system is not always clear. Hungry individuals occupy a tenuous space
within agro-food systems due to their limited agency in participating as
consumers.
Table 2: Levels of Consumer Participation and Access in Agro-Food Systems
(US)
Marketplaces
Accessible entry into marketplace
Access level
Primary Market
Luxury Foods
High access
Specialty Grocers
Conventional Grocers/Food Co-ops
Discount and Conventional Grocers/Food Co-ops
Discount Grocers and WIC/SNAP Food Assistance
Secondary
Market
Combination of WIC/SNAP Food Assistance and
Food Bank/Food Pantry
WIC/SNAP Food Assistance
Food Pantry/Food Bank
Soup Kitchens
Illicit Behaviors/Foraging/Subsistence Growing
Low access
EFNs have a unique function within agro-food systems; they provide
financial and direct food resources to individuals who have limited access to food
or experience malnutrition. In the United States, the majority of food consumers
have the financial and social means to purchase food of their choosing. Hungry
individuals constitute what will be referred to in this paper as the “secondary
37
market”; this group of people have limited or no access to financial capital to
purchase foods of their choosing. Researchers have proposed that EFN
programming must be equally diverse as the challenge that clients face; this, in
turn, may increase the available choice of food options to hungry individuals,
increasing their capital within the primary marketplace (Maxwell, 1996).
As examined in Chapter 2, alternative agro-food claims to provide radical
change to our food systems; this critique will examine these claims through the
lens of planning challenges that have been identified in the literature.
Additionally, a discussion will be presented that explores how conventional
paradigms have been adapted by the alternative agro-food movement. This
theoretical critique seeks to move agro-food planning in a direction that prioritizes
hungry populations and the challenges that they face; it aims to guide alternative
agro-food practitioners and advocates in a direction that creates real, practical
change in food systems planning by utilizing the existing resources and felt needs
of the communities in question.
3.3 Examining Limitations: Systemic Traps in Agro-Food Planning and Policy
Agro-food systems have attempted to address chronic hunger, a significant
food system failure, through various emergency food assistance programs. EFNs
are deeply embedded within the culture of food as a commodity, and often
function in ways that mirror the broader conventional and historical agro-food
system (Goodman & DuPuis, 2002). The goals of EFNs are uneasily aligned with
the processes of conventional agro-food systems, as they exist as marginalized
38
institutions serving marginalized individuals. The culture of commodification
brings a host of problems to networks that have little to no financial capital to
provide food to hungry populations. Diverse forms of procurement have
prevailed in North America; charitable institutions have arisen to meet the needs
of hungry individuals in communities through the faith based organizations,
independent non-profits, and local coalitions. These groups are staffed and
financially supported almost exclusively by the private, voluntary sector. As food
is funneled through conventional channels of production, retail, consumption, and
eventual donation, EFNs often find themselves with food resources that have been
deemed “inappropriate” or “unusable” in the primary marketplace (Tarsuk &
Eakin, 2005).
It is essential to realize that the primary market takes precedence at almost
all levels of food system planning. Hungry people who population the secondary
marketplace are typically outside the realm reached by agro-food producers.
They hold no financial or political power that would make them desirable
audiences for growers or retailers. Food systems planning is typically focused on
this primary market when devising methods for improved production and sales.
Even holistic views of food systems planning focus primarily on the primary
market as the leverage for change; opportunities for “empowerment” for
disenfranchised individuals of the secondary market have not been consistent in
their successes or sustainability (Allen, 2010; Dixon, 1999). This analysis
contends that assumptions, manifested in systemic “traps,” have prevented real
change from occurring. Despite rhetoric emerging from alternative agro-food
39
narratives that claim to provide oppositional opportunities for producing and
marketing food, advocates of alternative agro-food frameworks utilize existing
traps, which exacerbate challenges and prevent change in the agro-food sector.
A systemic trap functions as a “clever story” or assumption that prevents
actual change from being implemented. Traps embed failing paradigms or
mechanisms within frameworks that claim to bring about change. Four traps have
been identified as barriers to change for alternative agro-food systems and
emergency food networks; they include the scale trap, the productivity trap, the
charity trap, and the neoliberal trap. This theoretical critique seeks to determine if
alternative agro-food models fall into these traps when attempting to present a
radical vision of improved food access.
3.4 Productivity trap
Increasing agricultural yield is a consistent focus of farmers at all levels of
production. Small to mid-scale farmers traditionally stored excess food and seed
material to prepare for lean years; however, as the growth of agro-business,
particularly in the industrial world, has created openings for both increased
production and risk on the part of farmers (Pimentel et al., 2005). Governmental
subsidies have allowed growers to expand their production at unprecedented rates,
introducing new elements of risk in the face of shifting economic and
environmental climates.
Historically, government food policies have been built upon the idea that
more food production will directly decrease hunger (Allen, 1999). In the face
40
growing malnutrition in the non-industrialized world, efforts to use agronomic
science to improve yield capacity was exemplified by the Green Revolution,
which was based upon the idea that genetically modified seed and the introduction
of mechanized agriculture would have the ability to replicate the success that
industrialized monoculture production in the US. However, the environmental,
economic, and sociopolitical realities of this type of production were not
successful, and in many areas of the world, created more reliance upon outside
systems to maintain agricultural stability and resource access (World Institute for
Development, 1990). However hopeful this approach was towards improving
food access, its success hinged upon increasing yields and the logistical
availability of commodities, and has created a host of environmental and political
challenges for areas in the non-industrial world.
In 1986, economist Amartya Sen, who later went on to win the Nobel
Prize in economics for his work, made clear links between food distribution and
hunger, dispelling the neo-classical models in favor of distribution/access models
(Anderson & Cook, 1999). Sen influenced the entire field of food systems
research with his work, driving new policy approaches to conventional
agricultural production. Sen put forth the idea of “entitlements” as a measure of
food access; entitlements to social, political and financial capital all play a huge
role in providing individuals with the agency they need to access food (World
Institute for Development, 1990). The idea of entitlements is echoed in
discussions of agency and participation earlier in this chapter.
41
Alternative agro-food networks typically work outside this trap; in fact,
productivity and large-scale yield is typically held up as the antithesis of the
alternative agro-food model. This may reflect the limited power that alternative
agro-food has held within larger food planning conversations; as organic
producers have gained traction and revenue, some successful alternative
producers have co-opted models of industrial production while still maintaining
the progressive rhetoric of alternative frameworks. Increased production by
alternative agro-food producers may increase financial stability in the long term,
but may undermine progressive ideals that reject neoliberal economic practices.
3.5 Neoliberal trap
Neoliberal economic policies have been the most significant driver of the
conventional food marketplace in recent history. Neoliberalized trade has
allowed previously untapped markets of regional food production to be leveraged
by retailers or transnational corporations in domestic markets (Timmer, Falcon,
and Pearson, 1983). Introduction into these markets has been hailed by some
economists as a significant opportunity for non-industrial or emerging industrial
nations to participate economically on the transnational level. Free market
economic practices are assumed to allow competition between producers, driven
by consumer pressures for particular goods. Capitalist assumptions of the role of
food as a commodity have engrained this economic system globally.
The agro-food marketplace in the United States has seen the impacts of
consumer desires for products that are not regionally produced; chocolate, coffee,
42
and bananas are only three examples of products that have emerged from colonial
pasts with a heavy human rights and ecological impact on producer communities
(Goodman, 1999). Small scale producers with stable trade relationships within
regional markets are often unable to retain their independence as transnational
corporations exert superior efficiency, capacity, and connections within the
marketplace. This shift in economic practices has virtually destroyed regional
markets in some parts of the world, leading to dependence upon foreign entities to
provide a marketplace for regional goods, which often allows corporate
dominance over smaller producers. Additionally, the importation of staple foods
once produced by regional markets underlines further the unsustainable and
narrow channels of access that are amplified by increased prices and monopolistic
control of trade. Free market economic practices have narrowed the producersupply chain immensely, aided by the productivity trap’s dually efficient and
destructive production measures.
Alternative agro-food policies have sought to counter neoliberal trade
policies by promoting personal connections with small, regional producers.
Additionally, fair trade policies have been trumpeted as ethical measures to
participate in globalized food trade and consumption of non-regional
commodities. At the local, domestic level, alternative programming emphasizes
purchasing power as a means to better access food. Consumption of “good food”
is encouraged through alternative markets such as farmers’ markets and CSAs
designed to incorporate marginalized populations. However, alternative agrofood systems utilize increased agency as a rhetorical mechanism, emphasizing
43
independence and freedom of choice that masks an existing context of production
and consumption assumptions. Again, consumption is a mechanism for identity
with a political narrative within this trap. Conventional and alternative
frameworks are unable to provide increased access to food for vulnerable people
through neoliberal measures of competition and purchasing power.
3.6 Charity trap
In the United States, emergency food networks rely upon a diverse group
of donors and donations to provide food resources to clients. Donations to antihunger organizations are a popular means for local, private charitable
contributions (Poppendieck, 1999). Individual donors frequently provide monthly
or yearly financial contributions or in-kind food donations through food drives or
direct contact with local food banks. Additionally, commercial businesses,
particularly corporate entities, provide direct food donations of items that are
reaching their expiration date, are damaged, or have been overstocked. EFNs
may purchase food commodities from non-profit organizations or government
programs, typically state agricultural agencies, to provide direct food resources to
clients.
Emergency food systems rely heavily upon these resources to provide
food to clients. This process is expedited through American cultural assumptions
around waste; waste is seen as a direct positive feedback loop within food
systems, embedding hunger with every meal left uneaten. In both conventional
and alternative frameworks, wasted food is seen as a direct driver of hunger
44
within communities. Waste may be seen as a distribution issue (unused food that
could be redistributed to hungry individuals) or an environmental issue (wasted
food breaks the “closed circle” of production). At both the procurement and
distribution points, food banks have uncertain space within this dichotomy. Food
donated by individuals or retailers has been deem unsuitable for primary market
use, but bypasses the landfill for burial within the secondary marketplace
(Poppendieck, 1999). Clients who utilize EFNs are not prioritized healthy,
nutritionally dense food, despite having the greatest need for it within
communities. Yet, within this process, retailers are able to claim a “sustainable”
façade by emphasizing their charitable donation of otherwise unsuitable food that
would typically be “wasted.”
There are significant issues that plague agro-food systems that are reliant
upon charitable donations from the private sector to provide relief for hungry
populations. Economic shifts create uneasy environments for funding and
donations, as more clients utilize systems that have tenuous financial and direct
food resource capacities (Andrews, 2010; Kaufman et al., 1997). Alternative
programming emphasizes community connections to support marginalized
populations, but rarely rises above conventional rhetoric of charitable giving into
the realm of real empowerment through increased agency and autonomy over
food purchase and consumption by hungry people.
45
3.7 Scale trap
Geographic scale is frequently used by alternative agro-food systems to
break from the conventional narrative of globalized agricultural production and
control. Since the rise of globalized trade and multinational agro-business,
researchers and advocates have examined how shifts in agricultural regionalism
could provide more consistent supplies of food for communities. Within this
framework, it is assumed that local agricultural production creates more
community resilience for food access, keeps financial gains circulating throughout
the community, and has an inherent positive value at a local level. However, this
idealization of the local has been cited by many researchers as an example of
“defensive localism,” which emphasizes perceived borders of a community that
may or may not exist (Hinrichs, 2003). Hinrichs explains, “[m]aking ‘local’ a
proxy for the ‘good’ and ‘global’ a proxy for ‘bad’ may overstate the value in
proximity, which remains unspecified, and obscure more equivocal and
environmental outcomes.”
Alternative agro-food advocates have sought to establish local markets as
a means to reestablish connections to the food production chain. Winter (2003)
states that “local purchase becomes a totem of localism, with local foods
performing the function of allowing people to ‘think’ their local social relations”
when in reality, “in most cases, food purchasing habits are highly conventional.”
The disconnect between radical narratives of alternative agro-food advocates and
practitioners and the grounded reality of food purchase and consumption engrains
the scale trap within alternative programming.
46
3.8 Radical Rhetoric in Alternatively Privileged Landscapes
Alternative agro-food practitioners and advocates propose a “radical”
alternative to conventional agro-food systems, which contain inherent inequalities
and challenges for individuals looking to participate as consumers, producers, and
retailers (Goodman, 1999; Kloppenburg et al., 2000). Food access is privileged to
those who have the financial, social, and political capital to choose their role
within a food system. While alternative frameworks claim to provide
opportunities for participation that break from the conventional system, this study
suggests that the rhetoric used does not match the outcomes generated. Case
studies have revealed limitations of alternative agro-food programming that
doesn’t explicitly address systemic pressures that transcend value-laden labels
(Alkon &Mares, 2012; Jarosz, 1997; Sbicca, 2012). The systemic limitations that
exist within conventional agro-food networks also limit alternative programming,
despite binary narratives of control versus autonomy or inaccess versus choice.
The topography of these limitations is mapped upon the landscape of privilege
that is exhibited at all scales.
Marginalized populations do not possess greater power within alternative
agro-food programming based solely upon its perceived distance from
institutionalized, conventional food production and consumption. Though
alternative agro-food systems have built a strong opposition to conventional
production by strengthening a political narrative that emphasizes progressive,
grassroots, and traditional means of producing food., Born & Purcell (2006)
discuss, an agro-food system’s values must be examined within their individual
47
contexts and outside of popular rhetoric. These narratives value alternative agrofood as a just, transparent, accessible, and wholesome choice in comparison to the
conventional system, which is painted as unjust, opaque, inaccessible, and driven
by profit. These values can be claimed or dismissed by various constituencies;
however, it is crucial for food systems planners to recognize when implicit value
is grounded in reality, particularly as it increases food access to hungry people.
The existing privilege that is embedded within conventional agro-food systems is
not absent in alternative frameworks; on the contrary, alternative frameworks do
not exist within a vacuum, and are equally susceptible to structural violence the
lays the foundation for hunger in communities.
In order to determine whether this rhetoric has produced results in shifting
agro-food systems, it is essential to apply them to the most vulnerable members of
these systems: hungry people. If alternative agro-food systems posit their
frameworks as inherently just, what level of success must they achieve to claim
this identity? To live up to the “good food” narrative claimed by alternative
programming, traps in planning must be examined as in any conventional food
system. Individual privilege within a food system is not dependent upon
conventional or alternative frameworks; it is dependent upon how the actors
within these systems work to end hunger in their respective contexts. The
privilege of the primary market transcends political rhetoric in all food systems,
and must be given theoretical weight as a mechanism for oppression and
embedded, cyclical hunger.
48
Chapter 4: Context for Case Study in Mason County
To ground the theoretical critique established in Chapter 3, a case study in
Mason County, Washington was conducted. There is a dearth of qualitative case
studies dealing with emergency food networks; this case study hopes to uncover
the felt needs of emergency food network providers in a rural Pacific Northwest
county suffering from high food inaccess. Appropriate indicators for food access
will be explored within the county’s context, with a brief discussion of the natural
resource and agricultural history of the area informing a better view of the
agricultural capacity of Mason County. Finally, a narrative of the various food
banks featured in this study will be presented. Exploring the unique communities
that make up Mason County sets the stage for discussion of case study results
within the context of the particular needs and strengths of its EFNs.
4.1 Geography of Mason County
The “Gateway to the Olympics,” Mason County lies at the base of the
Olympic Peninsula; its unique natural, agricultural, economic, and social
landscapes reflect its history as a major producer of natural resource extraction
products and jobs. Geographically, the county’s proximity to the Olympic
Mountains and its intricate shoreline, the longest of any county in the state, is
owed to the winding Puget Sound inlets and the deep cut of the Hood Canal. The
county’s landscapes shift between verdant farmland in the Skokomish Valley,
vast plantations of Douglas Fir in the Dayton-Matlock region, to steeply rising
49
hills above the Ports of Shelton, Hoodsport, and Belfair. The varied physical
features of the county have shaped its development; its cultural, economic, and
agricultural history is strongly connected to the county’s relationships with
timber, shellfish, and specialty agricultural crops.
Map 1: Mason County, Washington
50
The Coastal Salish, Skokomish, Squaxin, and Nisqually nations were the
first residents in the Mason County area; their populations were driven out by
disease and encroachment by white immigrants in the mid-1800s; today, the
Squaxin Island and Skokomish nations are found within the county boundaries
(Vleming, 2012). Native populations were dependent upon natural resources in
the region, particularly shellfish and salmon, to provide sustenance and support
economic trade. Complex systems of shellfish production and harvest typified
native settlements; floating production sites were used to maximize efficiency and
continued availability of species.
White immigrants arrived in the area in the early 1800s; the development
of small timber operations and homesteads lead to the establishment of the county
as a center of agricultural and natural resource production west of the Cascades.
The port of Shelton proved to be convenient location to export goods to regional
markets such as Seattle. In 1854, the county was established as a part of
Washington State, and maintained its position as the entry point for development
on the Olympic Peninsula for the next century.
4.2 Food Access Indicators
To better understand how individuals in Mason County access food, it is
helpful to examine specific elements of hunger. Population density, economic
prosperity, logistical capacity, and environmental and physical health are proxy
indicators of food access; these issues will be examined within a regional context
for a more complete picture of the health challenges of Mason County.
51
4.3 Demographics
Mason County is home to 61,019 residents; the population has been
growing consistently for several years (US Census, 2010). Per capita and median
income are well below the state averages; the poverty rate within the county is at
16.3%, in comparison with the state rate of 12.5% (US Census, 2010). One sixth
of the county's population lives below the federal poverty line (Washington State
Department of Health, 2011). Per capita personal income (PCPI) in Mason
County is $30,345, as reported in 2011; the county ranks 36th out of 39 counties in
the state for PCPI, a 12 rank drop since 2001 (US Department of Commerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011). 64% of residents live in a rural part of the
county, as reported by the 2013 County Health Rankings.
4.4 Health
Mason County residents suffer from high rates of health challenges. The
2013 County Health Rankings and Roadmaps survey, completed annually for
each county in the United States by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, reports that Mason County
ranks 33rd out of the 39 counties for overall health. This report takes into account
prevalence of chronic health disease, health behaviors, access to health care, and
environmental health factors. The reports finds that 31% of adults in the county
are obese and 17% suffer from inadequate social support (Mason County
Rankings, 2013).
52
The Washington State Department of Health also reports on significant
health challenges for Mason County residents. Nineteen percent of adults in the
county are reported to have unmet medical needs; only 79% of adults have
medical insurance (Washington Local Health Indicators, 2011).
4.5 Food Inaccess
The USDA's Economic Research Service reports Mason County residents
have high rates of food inaccess, termed “food insecurity” by the report; Food
Lifeline reports that 1 out of five county residents suffer from food inaccess
(2010). Additionally, individuals have high rates of government food assistance
benefits. 18% of county residents utilize SNAP food assistance program,
representing the 18th highest usage by county within Washington (Washington
Office of Financial Management, 2011). All school districts within the county
exhibit high rates of free or reduced lunch program participation by students; four
out of six districts have higher than 50% participation, with Hood Canal School
district reporting 100% of student participation (OSPI, 2012).
4.6 Economic Context and History
Mason County has relied economically upon natural resource extraction
and non-food agriculture since the first white immigrants moved into the region.
Logging and lumber mill operations grew in size and scale, with the Port of
Shelton providing easy rail and water transport to regions around the Puget Sound
(Vleming, 2012). Shelton, the county seat, boasts the moniker “Kristmastown,
USA” due to historic Christmas tree growing operations that have defined small
53
scale farming for many in the county (Fredrickson & Scroggins, 1997). The first
Christmas tree sales from the county were shipped by rail to California, where a
new market for seasonal agricultural goods was cemented. Within Washington,
Mason County is the third largest producer of cut Christmas trees (US Census of
Agriculture, 2007).
Outside of seasonal tree growing, the timber and shellfish industries have
remained employment strongholds throughout the county. Mason County is the
second largest producer of aquaculture products in Washington, and the seventh
largest county-level producer in the United States (US Census of Agriculture,
2007). Aquaculture sales totaled $33,846,000, easily representing the largest
agricultural market in Mason County. Taylor United Shellfish, one of the largest
businesses in the county and the largest producer of bivalves in the United States,
has sustained business in both regional urban markets such as Seattle, and
internationally (The Nature Conservancy, 2012).
Historically, the county was home to active logging operations that grew
continuously after the turn of the century. The Simpson Timber Company and its
subsidiary, Green Diamond, were strongholds for living wage employment
throughout the county (James, 1986). The Shelton-based company, founded in
1895, was once the largest employer in the state. Logging remains a key
component of local culture and identity, as exemplified in local festivals (Shelton
Forest Festival), high school sports teams (Shelton Highclimbers), and the
$50,000 restoration of Shelton’s iconic Paul Bunyan statue that occurred in 1996
(Sanders, 2004). The natural resource sector provides jobs for individuals who
54
bring diverse educational backgrounds and abilities; however, the seasonality of
the work can be a burden to those who unable to live on wages year-round.
Outside of shellfish and wood products, food crops and livestock make up
a small part of the county’s revenue. Overall, row crop and meat farms are
outnumbered by farms producing non-food goods; woodland makes up 42.86% of
farmland type within the county (US Census of Agriculture, 2007). Farm
employment does not represent a large sector of the Mason County labor market.
There are only 794 operators in the county; most farms are smaller than 50 acres,
with a significant number smaller than 10 acres. Farm size has decreased by 22%
between 2002 and 2007 county-wide. While 165 principal farm operators cite
farming as their primary occupation, almost twice as many (306) have an
additional source of primary income (US Census of Agriculture, 2007).
4.7 Food Banks
Food banks are the primary distributors of direct emergency food
resources within the county. There are numerous informal distribution programs,
usually run out of churches or faith-based organizations within local communities.
The establishment of the food banks was cemented by significant shifts in
economic activity and employment.
In the mid-1980s, the US Forest Service shut down many of the old
growth logging sites in the wake of the Endangered Species Act listing of the
spotted owl (Employment Security Department, 2012). Logging operations were
dismantled, leaving thousands for former timber employees out of work and a
55
deficit of living-wage jobs in the county (James, 1986). Populations who had
relied upon industry specific, seasonal work were left unemployed and unable to
maintain their existing levels of financial agency in Mason County. Out of this
growing community need, food banks and pantries that had previously been
focused on homeless populations expanded to provide consistent services for
households that were unable to regain employment.
Today, multiple community partners work together to provide services to
clients at each food bank. Communication and organization between partners is
characterized by its informality; the Coalition of Churches, a local faith-based
collaborative partnership, provides the main connection for all providers.
Government organizations and non-profit entities provide commodities, nutrition
counseling and education, information on government welfare programs, and
specific services for seniors, children, and mothers who have low food access.
The rural nature of Mason County dictates the informal connections between
groups that are separated geographically and organizationally. These partners
have mechanisms in place to provide improved services on short notice, but in
general, individual organization work autonomously and are aware of emerging
issues on a “need to know” basis.
Food banks in the county rely upon diverse groups to provide funding and
direct food resources for clients. The four food banks included in this study
represent four separate geographic communities in the county; these four
providers work with regional non-profits to receive Food Assistance Program
resources through the WSDA (WSDA, 2013). Specifically, these four food banks
56
are the only county recipients of funding through the Temporary Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP) and Emergency Food Assistance Program (EFAP)
programs, which respectively provide financial support for administrative
overhead costs and direct food resources to food banks. The Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) is an additional program that specifically
targets low income mothers or seniors, two populations particularly vulnerable to
food inaccess and hunger. Finally, brokers such as Food Lifeline, Coastal
Harvest, and Northwest Harvest provide donated and purchased food items to
food banks who participate in their programming; donations are based upon
reported client bases at each food bank.
There are four main food banks that serve specific regions of Mason
County; they include Saints’ Pantry Food Bank, located in Shelton, Hood Canal
Food Bank, located in Hoodsport, Matlock Food Bank in Matlock, and the North
Mason Food Bank, located in Belfair. These food banks operate independently of
each other, but collaborate on several levels to provide food resources to hungry
individuals. Clients access food banks that are within their region; individuals
self-select for participation. The boundaries for each food bank service area can
be seen in Map 2. Previous to 2000, all food banks were open to any county
resident; however, concerns about duplication of client services throughout the
county spurred the creation of boundaries.
57
Map 2: Mason County Food Banks, Distribution Boundaries, and Transit
Route
58
Each food bank is responsible for a designated area. Clients at all food
banks self-identify as hungry, and are only required to bring in documentation,
such as a lease or a piece of mail, that situates them within the food bank’s
distribution region. Additionally, clients must have some sort of documentation
to confirm dependent status for their families. Individuals who cannot produce
identification or documentation are provided food on their first visit, but are
required to bring documentation for subsequent visits. Clients who are homebound are able to receive food procured by family members or caregivers; some
food bank volunteers are also able to perform site visits or speak with landlords in
order to determine the status of a client’s residency. Boundaries are drawn along
a complex system of school district, zip code, and street centerline borders.
The four food banks featured in the analysis section were selected on their
geographic location, their size, and their relationship with food networks outside
the county. While there are many small food pantries throughout the county,
usually attached to church ministries, these four entities are the only recipients of
Washington Department of Agriculture commodities, which represent an
extremely large portion of direct food resources for food banks throughout the
state. Boundaries were determined by executive leadership of all four food banks;
however, as will be examined in the Discussion section, the actual service
boundaries are not universally known, even by current leadership at the food
banks. Matlock, Harstine Island, Allyn, Grapeview, and Pioneer are specific
regions where distribution designations vary according to provider. These same
areas have very limited access to public transportation.
59
4.8 Food Bank Profiles
Saints' Pantry Food Bank serves the Shelton, Southside, and Oakland
Bay area; it is the largest food bank in the county, and serves approximately 4,500
households each year. Saints’ Pantry has the most diverse client base;
specifically, Latino households who participate in migrant or seasonal work in the
region primarily utilize this food bank. Saints' Pantry grew out of a literal pantry
located in St. David of Wales Episcopal Church in downtown Shelton in 1981.
The food bank historically operated out of St. David's, with support from other
local churches. In 2009, the food bank became an independent non-profit agency.
Its board of directors is made up of members of the local contributing churches;
the board works under the leadership of the food bank director to purchase food,
manage client data, maintain partnerships with other organizations, and distribute
food to clients.
Saints' Pantry, with its high client volume, has the closest relationship with
corporate donors due to its large volunteer and administrative capacity to pick-up,
repackage, and distribute donations. Saints' Pantry is the sole food bank in the
county with a donor relationship with Walmart, one of the biggest corporate
entities in the county, and one of the biggest commercial donors of direct food
resources to the food banks. Saints' Pantry has contracted rights to salvage goods
through Walmart; food resources are then distributed to clients or passed along to
other food banks, particularly if the goods are nearing their expiration dates or are
perishable.
60
Saints' Pantry is open for distribution two days a week, Tuesdays and
Wednesdays, from 9:30am-12:30pm. Volunteers come on Mondays to set up for
distribution; tasks may include stocking food, picking up donations, repackaging
donations, cleaning and disposing of food, as well as administrative tasks related
to reporting, fundraising, and client database management. Saints’ Pantry is the
only food bank in the county with integrated nutrition education programming, a
CSO representative to facilitate participation in SNAP and WIC benefits, and
Spanish-speaking volunteers who act as interpreters.
The Hood Canal Food Bank is located in Hoodsport; the organization
takes in clients from the northwest part of the county along Hood Canal. The
Hood Canal region has a unique demographic mix of clients; most are white
seniors or retirees, single people with seasonal employment, and families. There
are few to no minority clients from the Latino community or the Skokomish
nation, which is located in the distribution region. There is no translator on staff
for Spanish-speaking clients. The administrative structure of the food bank is
strongly supported by volunteers from the nearby community, many of whom are
retirees who were recruited from social clubs in the surrounding colonies and
resorts.
Hood Canal’s donation base is strongly typified by individual and
community support through financial and direct food resources; year-round food
drives are present at the local bank, credit union, and post office. Distribution
occurs on the first and third Mondays of the month; clients are able to come
between 12-2pm; in the mornings, volunteers meet to debrief the day, organize
61
food resources, check in with the volunteer coordinators, and clean the site. Hood
Canal is unique, in that it supports a “shopping” model for clients. This model
encourages food bank clients to have individual choice over the foods available to
them. Additionally, there are special food sections available for those who are
suffering from chronic illnesses that feature low-sodium and low-fat options.
The Matlock Food Bank is located in a small, unincorporated community
in the western region of Mason County, approximately 20 miles away from any
micro- or metropolitan area. Shelton, Montesano, and Elma are the nearest
communities with access to grocery stores. Mary M. Knight, the local school
district, draws students from both Grays Harbor County and Mason County; 53%
of its student population is eligible for free or reduced lunch programs. Matlock
is locally known for its geographic isolation, logging history, and role as an
incubator for illegal employment. The timber industry has historically been the
primary employer in the area, providing jobs in logging operations and mills.
Simpson Timber and its subsidiary, Green Diamond, have been the primary
logging operations working in this region of the county; the Grisdale logging
camp, located outside of Matlock, was the last working logging camp in the
country when it closed in 1985 (James, 1986).
The Matlock Food Bank can be found in a small building on the site of the
Matlock Community Church. Historically, the church was located in a three
story, all-purpose building that was a bunkhouse for loggers. Over time, the
building was converted for various uses, including a tavern and a general store,
until it was torn down completely to make way for the community church.
62
Distribution hours occur once a week; the food bank structure itself has extremely
limited storage. Clients must stay outside of the building to receive food, often in
cold or rainy weather. Inside, there are several freezers and refrigerators that have
been donated by individuals and organizations in the county. There is no fresh
fruit or vegetable donations due to unavailable storage.
Volunteers are drawn from the local church and outlying community;
many of them are extremely elderly; as of late, several long-time volunteers have
passed away, leaving many vital positions unfilled. Distribution boundaries for
the food bank are vague, and generally disputed amongst various partners within
Mason County EFNs. Currently, the Matlock zip code region is the general
boundary, with clients arriving from Elma and Montesano, in addition to Matlock.
The North Mason Food Bank is located in Belfair, and serves the area
northeast of Shelton. North Mason differs from other food banks, in that their
client base has a higher concentration of seasonal agricultural workers, who are
often undocumented. Additionally, there is a large number of individuals who are
employed federally at the Port of Bremerton. There is some indication that the
current federal sequester could increase the client load at the food bank. Little
information is available about the food bank; at the time of this research,
reorganization was occurring for the administration and the board of directors for
the food bank. Currently, the South Kitsap Helpline Food Bank is helping
restructure the organization, strengthen the board, and continue to deliver services
to clients in the area.
63
4.9 Alternative Agriculture Programming
Mason County has a growing alternative agro-food network; small to midsized producers of food and non-food agricultural products exist within the county
and market goods within the region. Local alternative agro-food programming
also extends to the social service and health sector; increasingly, community
groups have established partnerships between various entities to support these
projects. Outside of formal farm operations, community gardening projects have
been a significant alternative agro-food program in the county. These projects
provide opportunities for individuals to have access to garden space, in addition to
providing food for certain EFN distributors.
The Washington Corrections Center is the largest alternative agro-food
program involved with county EFNs. Originally, the program provided produce
to all food banks in the county, but since 2009, Saints' Pantry has isolated the
relationship. In 2011, it is estimated that the WCC produced 18,000 pounds of
fresh produce to Saints' Pantry. Locally, the Washington State University Mason
County Master Gardener program and the Shelton Parks and Recreation
department have recently started the Catalyst Park Community and Food Bank
Garden, a public park that is maintained by the Master Gardeners to benefit
Saints' Pantry. Food grown in the 2,500 square foot food bank garden is tended
and harvested by Master Gardener volunteers; in addition, a 12 plot community
garden within the park actively recruits food bank clients to grow their own food.
Mason General Hospital, the Mason County Health Department, and Mason
Matters, a local nonprofit organization, have worked together to establish the
64
HOPE garden, which aims to provide garden space for individuals with high
levels of food inaccess. In Hoodsport, the local Kiwanis organization has
established an informal garden space to provide fresh produce at the food bank
during the summer, but has not been successful as of late due to environmental
limitations, such as flooding.
Outside of gardening programs, local Extension agents work to provide
nutrition education at Saints’ Pantry and the Shelton Behavioral Health Resources
center. These programs are also established in schools with rates of free/reduced
breakfast and lunch programs above 50%. Nutrition educators provide onsite
demonstrations of recipes and information on government benefits such as SNAP
and WIC. Recently, efforts have been made to provide SNAP and WIC clients
access at local farm stands and the Shelton Farmer’s Market.
65
Chapter 5: Analysis of Mason County EFNs: Case Study Interviews
Interviews with informants from various emergency food network
providers in Mason County revealed several themes related to the state of
emergency food networks and alternative agriculture. These themes addressed
challenges for both staff and clients utilizing services, in addition to mapping
partnerships and practices between organizations. Key quotes are used to
illustrate these themes; they will be analyzed in the context of the theoretical traps
explored in the preceding chapters. Following this, a discussion on how food
access challenges can be addressed by avoiding traps in planning and practice will
be provided.
Themes identified in the interviews were consistent. Informants included
food bank administrators, social service providers who administer WIC and
USDA/WSDA commodities, and nutrition/SNAP-Ed educators working with
local Extension services and county school districts. While there are four
participating food banks in Mason County who work with these partners, the
North Mason Food Bank, located in Belfair, did not provide an interview
informant. During the researcher’s field work, the North Mason Food Bank
experienced organizational restructuring that prevented interviews from being
performed. Some information was collected from collaborating stakeholders
through personal communications. The use of the word “Belfair” in other
interviews refers to the North Mason Food Bank. Generalized statements about
66
all four food banks represented takes into account information gathered about the
North Mason Food Bank from other interviews.
All participating informants cited bartering and sharing, capacity, social
networks, and vulnerable populations in their interviews. A brief summary of
involvement with alternative agriculture and perspectives on food access will also
be examined. These themes will be explored within the context presented in
Chapter 4.
5.1 Food prices
The price of food for both clients and distributors was cited by multiple
informants as a limiting factor in programming. Additionally, food prices were
cited as a driving factor for poor nutritional intake by clients utilizing EFNs
within the county. Low-income clients of EFNs typically do not have financial
capital to purchase food of their choosing; when they do, they often choose lowcost, low-preparation foods. Multiple informants cited co-morbidity factors
amplifying the effects of chronic poverty on food access for clients of EFN in the
county. Mental and physical health, along with the logistical ability to access
transportation, was frequently mentioned as possible barriers to accessing food.
INF 10: “I think some patients are depressed, and they are not always
able to cook for themselves. Some people can’t necessarily prepare
meals for themselves any more, or they just can prepare has to be
quick stuff, which isn’t as good for them. And I think that there are
some low-income folks, the cheaper food, is the food that cheap isn’t a
good for you, and they tend to go for the prepackaged, cheap stuff.”
This tendency towards low-cost foods was seen as a choice by some informants;
they believed that low-income clients of EFNs preferred food that is satisfying,
67
rather than nutritionally dense. There was little indication that preference of this
type of foods may be dictated by multiple systemic pressures upon individuals,
including proximity to fresh produce, personal income or welfare benefits, and
psychological dependence upon food with low nutritional value. This perceived
preference was derided by one informant, specifically.
INF 11: “They don’t really like the food, I get that from some elderly
patients, from senior nutrition. I had a very obese patient, who, [sic]
here had suggested Healthy Choice meals, and she cussed at me,
because they tasted so bad. Because I had gone in to just reinforce
that, to show her when there were sales, and she was very angry.”
Again, the same informant reiterated the idea that clients purchase low-cost “junk
foods” because of their ease and taste. There was no acknowledgment of lack of
nutrition education or lack of access to healthy foods as a potential contributing
factor of low-nutritional intake.
INF 11: “People like junk food. (laughs) It’s easier to grab something
than to make something yourself. And it’s yummier for them, if they
haven’t gotten used, if you tell someone who is 500 pounds to eat a
salad. (laughs) This country is junk food addicted.”
Within EFNs, food prices are a significant limiting factor for distributors.
Food price fluctuations reduce the purchasing power of food bank administrators.
As in-kind donations decrease according to local charitable donations, food banks
rely upon strong relationships with food retailers and brokers to maintain a
consistent level of resources for clients.
INF 7: “Uh, I think they kind of balance each other, in other words,
commodities, because they are a non-perishable versus a perishable,
they meet kind of that end, where we can focus more of our resources
on, and we have to buy more than we have in years past, just as an
68
example, mac 'n cheese, that's like a dollar a box. But through Food
Lifeline, we can get three boxes for a dollar. So, the money in some
respects is equally or even more important than people providing food
items, because we can make the dollar go farther than they can
because of our contacts.”
5.2 Bartering and sharing
Sharing, bartering, or negotiating resources was a consistent activity that
was cited by all informants as a significant part of maintaining distribution
operations. Connections to donors and to direct food resources were shared
between food banks; additionally, financial support was provided by community
partners to bolster food bank buying power.
INF 13: “We might be short of one thing, and then we'll have a glut of
it the next. Like I say, the things that we have to buy, like coffee,
cereal, Top Ramen is another on that we have to buy, we buy chili we
buy refried beans, and so, when we are requesting things from people,
we bring these things that we have to buy out of pocket.”
Outside of government assistance, Mason County food banks rely heavily
upon community financial and in-kind donations to maintain adequate food
resources for clients. Seasonality affects donations, with greater need and greater
donations occurring during the holiday giving season (between Thanksgiving and
mid-January). Holiday food drives and fundraising outreach increases during this
period to support increased client need. Summer brings new clients to food banks
throughout the county; families with children that depend upon free or reduced
breakfast and lunch programs begin to utilize food resources at food banks as
school ends. Single male clients frequently find seasonal work in the spring and
summer, which decreases their usage of EFN programming. While seasonality
may affect both food and financial resource flow at the food banks, all informants
69
expressed concern for managing a sufficient amount of appropriate food at all
times.
INF 1: “... so we can get things coordinated a bit and so we can know
who to refer people to. Otherwise, everybody's out there, we're trying
to avoid duplication, which is very expensive, and nobody has any
money, so we're trying to solve that problem.”
Corporate donations are another significant portion of food and financial
resources at all four food banks. Walmart was a commonly cited partner, in
addition to other corporate franchises with local franchise stores, such as Fred
Meyer, Safeway, and IGA. Discount stores such as Grocery Outlet and Big Lots
are frequent donors or partners, providing discounts on goods purchased by food
banks. Saints’ Pantry has an exclusive contract with Walmart, which is located in
Shelton.
INF 13: “We are the only food bank that receives food from
Walmart. The other food banks get basically what we get in
accordance to how many people they have, they allot it by the
numbers. But then, they don't get the opportunity to get things like
eggs from Walmart.”
Hood Canal, Matlock, and North Mason food banks are prevented from receiving
donations from the retailer, even if redistributed through Saints’ Pantry.
INF 1: “Well, there is one thing we’re participating with that’s
helping us out a lot, and that’s the grocery rescue plan, from Feed
America, and locally it’s done through Walmart. And every day, we
go up to Walmart and go pick up groceries and food items that would
have probably been discarded. Uh, however, these are not items that
are not still nutritious, still not, you know, they’ve reached, some of
the items have reached their sell-by dates, which doesn’t mean that
they’re nutritionally damaged or anything like that, but we get almost
all of their fresh vegetables from them in the winter, various other
items, eggs, meat, and they uh, take off the shelf for various reasons.
Well, that’s a tremendous help to us.”
70
INF 2: “Originally, they were trying to get it so we, I guess, the three
food banks could go in a couple of days and get food, but Walmart
only wanted to work with one food bank.
INF 1: And since we’re the biggest, by contract, we work together,
that’s contract. And there are certain restrictions in that contract,
we’re not supposed to give it to anyone else, except what we give away
here. But that’s just the nature of the beast.”
Walmart was seen as a crucial partner for the largest food bank in the
county; their donations were seen as an extension of their influence in the
community, as the largest non-government employer. Informants were extremely
grateful for the donations, despite the fact that the food would typically be
destroyed and is not deemed appropriate for the primary market consumer.
INF 13: “You’ve got to hand it to Walmart, I’ll say this, Walmart
opened their doors, they used to throw everything away because they
thought if they were giving it away, they were competing against
themselves. Then, when the times got tough, they opened their doors
to food banks.”
Donation partnerships with alternative agro-food programming in the
county do exist, but is not a significant part of consistent food resources. The
longest and most extensive relationship cultivated within the county in relation to
alternative agriculture is the Washington Corrections Center garden, which
provides produce during the spring and summer periods to Saints’ Pantry Food
Bank. Originally, this partnership was shared by both Hood Canal and Saints’
Pantry; however, the prison only works with Saints’ Pantry to streamline transport
and communication. This results in trades between food banks when there is no
capacity for storage or distribution at Saints’ Pantry.
INF 1: “We would still rely upon corporate donations. Uh, because,
the uh, quite honestly, it's not enough. We, give you an example, we
would go out, we will get a telephone call from the prison out there,
71
they've got stuff for us, and we'll go out there to pick it up, and we'll
go to the commercial side to go pick it up, and right up underneath
the tower, and you're libel to get two big pickup loads of things, and
we'll get it and bring it back and bag it up and do whatever with it,
process it, and you may have two or three tons of produce, and it will
be gone in two or three days. So, uh, we still have to have any support
we can get. One of the things that we do here, is, uh, if we have an
abundance of things like that, and we can see, for example, that we
have two truckloads full of tomatoes, and we're not going to get rid of
two truckloads full of tomatoes. So what we'll do is, we'll look out
around us, and we'll try to find other people like us, and we'll help
them with it, we'll help the other food banks if we have enough.”
Financial bargaining was a key component of procuring and managing
food resources at each food bank. Limited financial resources and fundraising
capabilities require food providers to negotiate discounts with individuals who
represent local retailers. Financial resources are leveraged using personal
connections and donor relationships with conventional and discount grocers and
producers. Without discounts on goods, financial resources are not able to cover
the purchasing needs of the food banks.
INF 13: “But [sic] is a good bargainer. Since [sic] has taken over [sic],
he probably saves about 40% from buying from, … we used to get it
all from Red Apple, I mean, the guy was a nice guy, but gosh, when
you can go out and get this same stuff at Costco or Walmart of some
store like that, and get it for 40% less, that is not a good way to run a
food bank. And he and [sic] really shop around for what they can
get.”
Bargaining between food banks is another common practice. Due to
contract limitations with some donated food items, some goods are not allowed to
be traded outside of the recipient food bank. Northwest Harvest, a large nonprofit
organization that procures and donates food to food banks in Washington, donates
72
food resources according to the number of clients that are reported by each food
bank. These food resources are not allowed to be traded or used by outside food
banks or soup kitchens. Additionally, Walmart’s grocery rescue program contract
with Saint’s Pantry prevents donations from the retailer from being distributed to
other food banks.
Regardless, food resources are traded among food banks in the county to
prevent perishable food from being wasted. Capacity limitations, specifically
freezer and refrigerator space, limit the amount and type of food that is stored at
each food bank. Fresh produce, eggs, milk, and proteins may be shifted to other
locations that have more storage or a greater client need.
INF 1: “For example, I will get a call from [sic], or I will call [sic], or when
[sic] was out there at Matlock, and now it's [sic]. So I will call [her] up, or
vice versa, and we'll say, I've got a gazillion of this stuff, and I'm not going to
be able to get rid of this. Do you need some? Well, yeah, and while I got you
on the phone, I've got a bunch of this, so I said, ok. So, she'll bring down,
what was it, someone closed down an adult daycare center, and they had a
bunch of diapers, so I said, hey, we'll take ‘em, we'll find a place for them.
And right now, I've got a bunch of this stuff (probably eggs), do you need it?
So, you know, you got some now. So we help each other.”
Specifically, the Matlock food bank has no refrigeration capacity to store
fresh produce, and is therefore dependent upon donations from other food banks
on distribution days. The negotiations and bartering are informal and take place
between directors, usually over the phone. Additionally, food drives that are held
at local schools and retailers are frequently designated for specific food banks or
split between them, depending upon the location and goal of the fundraiser.
INF 13: “I try to help him out in accordance, if we have a glut of eggs,
I'll give him those to take over there, if we have some extra salmon,
we'll give him that to take along.”
73
INF 12: “Hoodsport, mostly with Hoodsport, because we work
together, if we have extra stuff, we divided it up, and if they have food
drives, we kind of divide it up. And um, like, uh, sometimes she has
an area where they're picking up milk, and we'll divide it up, so we
work together. As far as Saints' Pantry and Belfair, they're up that
end, so they work together or something, I don't know.”
5.3 “Take what you can get”
INF 1: “We don't turn down anything, and we can never get enough
of everything we need.”
The inconsistent nature of donations, client use, and financial resources
can put significant strains on EFN providers. None of the informants interviewed
indicated that they were in a comfortable place financially; on the contrary, all
providers reported that their most consistent task as a food bank director or
volunteer is procuring food and financial donations.
INF 7: “[I]t’s an ongoing thing, it’s not just, well gee, I donated
money, I donated food items, that’s great, we appreciate that, but it’s
ongoing, it’s 24/7, it’s not just, there will always be a need out there,
that’s just the way it is.”
Providers indicated that “there would always be a need” in communities; hungry
individuals will always be present and represent a consistent presence at the food
bank, sometimes for decades.
INF 12: “What we give out, people will take, and whatever we get …
[sic] … I just don’t know how to put it, but at any rate, whatever we
get, we give out, it’s gone. Uh, as far as my thinking, should we get
more of this, should we get more of that, no what we do, we kind of
even it up, give it out evenly, that way we’re not giving out too much
of one stuff and not enough of the other stuff.”
The month-to-month nature of resources puts a significant strain on both
staff capacity and resource availability at EFNs. Food banks within Mason
74
County frequently compete for, regional and county funding resources,
particularly through community grants sponsored by United Way. Competition
between providers requires further cultivation of relationships with other
administrators to maintain a balance of resources at each food book. Overall,
providers feel little control over resource availability, and are constantly working
to maintain existing partnerships and develop new avenues of funding and
collaboration.
INF 1: “It’s like beating a dead horse. We need food, we need money,
we’ll take it from anyone who wants to give it.”
5.4 Transportation
INF 9: “I would say transportation is a huge road block for some
folks. Especially since a lot of this area is rural.
INF 8: And our buses don't go everywhere.
INF 9: So that can be an issue of access for folks. I notice there are a
few little communal groups that come down to the food bank, and
they share that car, they have to get very coordinated so they can all
come down together and get their box.
INF 8: … I mean, it's a pretty big county and the bus is pretty
limited.”
All informants cited transportation as a major barrier for clients in
accessing food bank and food assistance services. Mason County Transit
Authority (MTA) provides public transportation along the Highway 101 and
Highway 3 corridors. Routes within the county are free to all individuals; routes
outside of the county cost $1.
75
INF 3: “For some people who don’t have transportation that could be
an issue. It’s a large county, it’s so spread out. A lot of people use
public transit. All the transit is free, throughout the county. Dial-aRide, too. I think we’re the only county that’s like that. It’s only a
dollar to get to Olympia, to cross the county line.”
Individuals, particularly those who live west of Highway 101, may utilize
MTA’s Dial-a-Ride bus, which provides free pick-up and drop-off from any
location in the county. This service requires a two hour call in advance to
schedule a pick-up or drop-off. In October of 2011, MTA established an
additional Dial-a-Ride service known as Link Routes; these routes were
established to serve populations that were previously cut off from regular
transportation services. Rural areas in the eastern part of the county, specifically,
Harstine Island, Lake Limerick and Mason Lake, and Cole-Arcadia-Lynch roads,
are able to access this service Monday through Friday. Pick-up and drop-off is
still required to be scheduled by phone at least two hours in advance. Some
informants did not seem aware of these services for clients, but knew that finding
appropriate transportation was a serious issue for some individuals.
Public transportation to area food banks can require clients to spend 30
minutes to 2 hours one-way to arrive in time for distribution. This is a significant
challenge for elderly individuals and extremely rural residents, who were cited as
specific groups that have difficulty in accessing both transportation and food bank
services.
INF 2: “We work quite a bit with Mason Transit, too, we had a
secretary call us up the other day and asked if there was a gentleman
who was way out close to Elma, and it's a three hour, if they were to
go out and pick him up and take him to the food bank at Elma and
wait for him and take him back, that's about a three hour trip, and so
76
because they were out in Elma, he wouldn't be considered a client
here, but they asked if we could accommodate him, and we said yes,
and that has happened quite a bit. They call us quite a bit.”
INF 1: “And we know that there is a need out there, that there are
people out there that can't get in on the bus, and they use the Mason
Transit as their transportation, and some of them are very elderly,
and they have trouble getting their food on the bus, and some of them
have trouble scheduling to get in here on time for our hours, and so
we know that that area is in need of having someone help them out
there.”
INF 2: “Well, for example, out at Pioneer, we cover a huge area, we go
all the way to the Thurston county line, we go way out to Matlock,
then up towards Union, then out towards Grapeview, as so, gosh,
that's a really large area, and one of those areas is the Pioneer area,
and um, out there, we have 267 head of households in that area, that's
way over a 2,000 individuals in that area, just in Pioneer. And we
know that there is a need out there, that there are people out there
that are can't get in on the bus, and they use the Mason Transit as
their transportation, and some of them are very elderly, and they have
trouble getting their food on the bus, and some of them have trouble
scheduling to get in here on time for our hours, and so we know that
that area is in need of having someone help them out there. And
there's a food bank out there now. It's a big need.”
Clients carpool, hitch-hike, or plan trips around food bank distribution.
This is a particular challenge in the southwestern area of the county, where there
is no public transportation, save for Dial-a-Ride services. Community members
work together to provide transportation for those that live in isolated areas,
particularly in the Matlock food bank region.
INF 12: “Transportation, a lot of them'll catch Mason Transit, there's
a bus that'll come, they catch rides with neighbors, we have some
volunteers that come in and they've brought in people, and when they
leave, they wait to bring the people home with them, when they finish
volunteering, we have taken people home, if they've walked and it's
77
raining or bad weather, we will take them home. But we haven't
really had a problem with transportation too much, very little.”
INF 12: “We used to have people from Dayton, people from Dayton
would come up, they would ride the ride bus, the Dial-a-Ride, they
would dial them up and pick them up, but that's kind of stopped, I
guess nobody's asking for it, so they – we used to have 3 or 4 people
come on the Dial-a-Ride and then they'd have to wait for the Dial-aRide to pick them up.”
For low-income rural residents, budgeting gas is a major task. Gas
stations can be very far away from households, and clients in rural areas of the
county may own larger, older vehicles that are appropriate for the rough terrain of
logging roads; unfortunately, this means that most vehicles get very poor gas
mileage. Many food banks work with partners to provide gas vouchers to clients
who are otherwise unable to access sufficient gasoline to make the trip to the food
bank; these vouchers are distributed through two organizations run of out
Olympia, WA and are extremely limited (recipients may only receive a $20
voucher every three months).
INF 12: “Some of them come in with others, relatives, and we give out
vouchers from the Salvation Army – propane and gas. That helps
them out with the gas situation, because a lot of them don't have
enough gas to come up. And they don't come up every week,
probably some of them will come up every week, others will,
depending on whether they need food or not.”
INF 12: “Well, it doesn't make any difference, because no matter
where you are, it's 22 miles to Elma, or Shelton, or Montesano. So,
where ever they go, it's still 22 miles. Of course, what a lot of people
do, I'm sure, is they buy just enough gas to get them into town, buy
whatever they have. If you stay at the store, you know what a country
store is, out here, it's much higher than what you would pay in the
city, so even the gas is expensive, so. But that's why we give out gas
vouchers. When we give out the gas vouchers, the young lady that
78
takes care of it, we have to have three months in between before you
can get another one. There's so many of them, she has a list, and she
goes through that, because otherwise, they'll be back every week. And
you can't do that. A voucher is 20 bucks. And that has to be limited,
too.”
Homebound residents are a vulnerable population that are unable to access
services due to poor access to sufficient transportation, poor health, or few
community connections. Delivery services are utilized informally in the Hood
Canal distribution area, but this is not a common practice at any of the food
banks.
INF 1: “See, we don't have the capability to do delivery service, and
we know that there are a lot of people out there who need that. But
we don't have the time for that, the money for that, the capability to
do that. And it's a sad, sad thing. So we try to reach out to
everybody we can, whether that's a church or another food bank,
or any way we can try to help people, and someday maybe there be a
solution to that.”
Transportation within the county is an extremely limiting factor for lowincome clients of EFNs in Mason County; this challenge is compounded by the
additional hardship of limited hourly distribution by the food banks, which does
not align well with existing transportation options.
5.5 Capacity
Interview informants consistently cited capacity as a significant challenge
for food banks and food access outreach. All four food banks have grown in size
since their inception in the mid-1980s, usually emerging from an expressed need
in the community due to economic stagnation or downturn. Since this time, client
bases have increased while the capacity of the food banks has lagged behind.
79
Challenges with staffing, storage, refrigeration, and hourly availability were cited
as consistent problems that existed at all food banks.
5.6 Staff
Both logistic and staff capacity are stretched by emergency food networks
in the county; programming is primarily provided by volunteer support. Food
Lifeline reports that 37% of food banks in Western Washington have no paid
staff; on average, food banks in the region employ 2 paid staff members and
maintain a consistent volunteer base of 30 or more individuals (2010). In Mason
County, food banks typically employ 1-2 staff members full or part time.
Volunteer support was consistently mentioned as an essential element of
operations; volunteers with the physical ability to move heavy loads are
particularly coveted. Volunteers bring varied skill sets and interests to
emergency food networks; the vast majority of volunteers are retirees or seniors,
some of whom are clients of the food banks. Administrators are heavily reliant
upon these volunteer to provide day-to-day operations.
INF 7: “The beauty of volunteering is that you're putting something
into the community that you live in, which is great.”
The ability to pay staff members is extremely limited; most paid employees of
food banks in the county are employed part time, but put in full time hours
procuring food, maintaining storage systems, developing community partnerships,
and finding financial support. Volunteers usually represent individuals with few
time and financial limitations, although some volunteers are also clients of the
food bank. These volunteers work closely with non-recipient staff and receive
food before or after distribution hours.
80
INF 5: “It’s something that we're kind of committed to that we want
them to be able to do it, because we understand that some people
don't want to take food unless they're doing something.”
5.7 Storage
Storage is a significant challenge for EFNs; all food banks have extremely
limited availability to refrigerate, freeze, or store dry goods at food banks. The
Hood Canal Food Bank has worked to develop partnership in Hoodsport and
Shelton to improve storage availability. Food resources may arrive at
inconvenient times; having access to storage that is both sanitary and dry is
essential.
INF 5: “And then the biggest deal in recent years has been Mason
Transit. With our being able to rent, we started with commodities,
but then we ended up using them for all the food banks, and they
charge us rent, but it's minimal, and that's a really, really big deal.
Storage is one of the hardest things, you know.”
Food bank administrators expressed need for more accessible, convenient, and
expansive storage, but were limited by food bank space. Some food banks, such
as Hood Canal, utilize storage at outside locations. Others, like Saints’ Pantry,
have worked to rent space that adjoins the main distribution area. The Matlock
Food Bank has extremely limited storage; the entire structure is housed inside a
converted trailer with no window and no walk-in refrigeration or freezer space.
INF 6: “Well, I'd like to have a bigger storage area, but I don't think
that's possible, I mean out here, out here, we have a bigger storage area in
Shelton, but um, I don't know how we could expand on this here, there's no room
to add on, um, that's the only thing that would
be nice to have.”
5.8 Refrigeration
Saints’ Pantry and Hood Canal food banks recently received grants from
Green Diamond, the local corporate timber entity, to build walk in refrigerators
81
and freezers. This has greatly aided the two food banks; previously, multiple
freezers and refrigerators were used to house donations, themselves donated
items. This leads to inconsistent and insufficient storage for perishable items.
The Matlock food bank currently has little capacity for refrigeration and freezing;
multiple appliances are utilized for dairy and protein products. During the time of
fieldwork, a freezer had broken during the weekend, leading to a loss of frozen
meat for the upcoming distribution.
5.9 Hours
A significant challenge for clients of food banks in the county is accessing
services during formal distribution hours. Distribution times are dependent upon
staff capacity and the number of clients utilizing services. Distribution times are
based primarily on the availability of volunteers, which is usually during weekday
work hours. Weekend and evening distributions are not currently occurring at
any food bank; additionally, Saints’ Pantry is the only food bank in the county
with weekly distribution. Hood Canal and Matlock have bi-weekly distribution
times.
INF 8: “Well, it would be nice if some of the food banks were open
more days than just two days a week, you know, some of the, it's all
volunteer run, but it's hard if it's just those two days.”
Distribution hours at all food banks are during the workweek and in the mornings;
distribution hours are typically 2-3 hours long, with time spent for set-up and
break-down by volunteers. Unfortunately, accessing distribution at the food
banks can be difficult for clients who work or are not able to utilize public
transportation.
82
Attempts have been made in the past to provide alternative hours for
clients that work during weekday distributions. This, however, was not
something that was embraced by all staff members of the food bank in question;
eventually, the weekend distribution was stopped.
INF 13: “But, uh, there, I would say, the bad situation is that we are
open Tuesday and Wednesday 9:30-12. Whereas we have so many
people who can't come in at that time because they're working, maybe
at a minimum wage, and they can't get away from the work to get the
food, and I told them, why don't we open up on Saturdays, and I- and
his bunch came down from his church, and, but the other [sic]
wouldn't let them advertise it, he says, “word of mouth.” Well, we
started on a Saturday, and we had nine people, and that came in for
food, and we had 13 behind the counter, setting up, and you know …
and so, after about six weeks we did this, and it only got up to about
15-16 people, so they cut it off again. And so, that's something that I
think we should make an effort do, the working poor.
KEW: Why do you think that Saturday distribution was encouraged
as word of mouth only? Fear of too many people coming?
INF 13: I think that was it, it was idiotic, but it was his theory.
Consequently, after six weeks, it shut down.”
Informants were very aware of the issue of distribution hours for clients.
Additionally, challenges for the working poor, a specific vulnerable population
identified by informants at all food banks, were of particular concern This quote
illustrates a specific example of a client, employed by Walmart (both the largest
donor to the food banks and the largest retail employer in the county), who
experienced difficulties in accessing food, both in spite of and because of her
current employment situation.
83
INF 14: We had one woman who came in here who does work, and
she was able to come down because she was on medical leave. She was
having a hard time getting help.
INF 13: We have a lot of people, I mean, you think it's the homeless,
but it isn't that, a lot of people just don't get the advantage of coming
down here simply because we aren't open.
INF 14: I mean, the only reason she could come down was because she was
on medical leave. I mean, they don't make that much wages down at the
Walmart.”
5.10 Social networks
A significant strength that emerged from informant interviews was
cultivation of and reliance on social networking for food distribution and
communication. The low population density of the county isolates certain
individuals and, to a certain extent, organizations themselves. Mason County has
no centralized anti-hunger coalition, and must rely upon relationships between
providers to maintain resource and service continuity. Direct work with clients
requires that providers have personal connections with individuals using services
at food banks. This is especially important for those who are living in areas that
are not accessible by public transportation. Aging populations in this area are of
particular concern, as they may become more susceptible to being homebound or
unable to communicate with other individuals in the community, much less access
vital social services.
The importance of social networks cannot be understated in agro-food
systems analysis; entire frameworks have been developed around the premise that
social connections are the actual links that move food within a community
84
(Jarosz, 2000). Informants cited various ways that social networks are maintained
and utilized within their respective communities and the county at large.
INF 6: “I think more communication, like through the paper, Hood
Canal communications provides excellent service to us with their spot
announcements, where people can get assistance, so I think it’s
adequate in terms of up, people themselves are really our best
spokespersons in terms of learning something.”
Some informants believed that these social networks encouraged clients to utilize
services and for food banks to become a solid part of a community’s EFN.
INF 5: “So all the people started coming to our food bank because
they liked ours, and so that's why we have such a strict set of
boundaries, because we're such a small community, to try to get
enough money for our food bank is what we have to do. Really, it's
very similar, because the community hasn't really changed. They're
always very excited when they get a job, they'll tell us that they have a
job, so there are other people that are trying to get jobs, and there are
older people that wouldn't be trying to get jobs, and they have been
with us and will be with us for their life.”
Social networks at the food banks are significantly driven by volunteer
commitments. Often, volunteers at the food banks have worked at their location
for decades; the vast majority of volunteers are retirees who have existing strong
community relationships through local churches, businesses, government
agencies, or social clubs. These connections help foster donation and volunteer
partnerships within the community by leveraging long standing relationships.
Informants cited friendly competitions between individual volunteers in
communities to raise money for the food banks; in another case, a local medical
marijuana dispensary and a retired port commissioner worked together to provide
up to $300 in fresh produce for a specific food bank. Volunteers consistently and
enthusiastically emphasized that working at the food bank with other people who
85
shared similar values and community networks was the most enjoyable part of
being a part of an EFN. Friendships between volunteers were cited as a huge
driver of consistent participation.
INF 6: “I think that, it's very, very good for a community of this type
to be able to reach out to everybody in the community, and people do
that. And people know that we care, and they make come for
something else, because I happen to be at the church too, and over the
years, that has been helpful. It was helpful for me to able to minister
to kids in the tribe, there's something about being able to help
someone in need, they see you in a different light. They see you as a
person that's like them. I think, that's the way I think. So, and,
hopefully, and I say to some people, you know, they say, I've never
done this in my whole life, they're in their 60s, and I say well, that's
what we're here for. We're here for you when you need food, we're
here for you. And I said, you probably helped other people
throughout your life. And, so that's what we're trying to do, you
know, I happen to have time, so I come and do this. So, um, it's a,
giving is a good thing.”
Social networking is not limited to institutional or business connections;
Mason County’s rural networks require that all individuals, whether they are
clients of the food banks or not, maintain strong connections to neighbors and
relatives to maintain communications and services during periods of inclement
weather or other disruptions. Informants discussed the importance of families and
neighbors coming together to make sure that all individuals’ food needs are taken
care of. In some cases, this might be as simple as calling and checking in with a
regular client who has not been coming to distribution days. This may extend as
far as setting up deliveries or rideshares for clients.
INF 6: “I think one of the things in terms of access is that since we’re
so into the community, there’s like this gal who goes around and ask
about her neighbor, people are kind of keeping an eye out for the
other people and they know that we’re here. So they know that we’re
86
here to donate to, they know that we’re here if they need food. And I
think that’s a big part of the success.”
However, social networks become more strained as communities become more
isolated between households and from general services. Matlock and Pioneer
were cited as two regions that have poor access to communication and
transportation. Individuals involved with the Matlock region expressed the
difficulty of maintaining social networks in the most rural part of the county, even
while emphasizing informal connections that are maintained regularly throughout
the community.
INF 12: “I’m not out in the area as much as I should be because I’m
tied in with that, also tied in with the church, so I have my neighbors,
in fact, I have a neighbor that I take care of, so between all that, I’m
not out in the community, so once in a while, they’ll have things going
on at the school, … so we’ll do that.”
Education is another area where community connections are leveraged in order to
share skills and knowledge about nutrition and social services in the county.
Currently, nutrition education is only available at school districts in the county
with free/reduced lunch rates higher than 50%, Saints’ Pantry Food Bank, and the
Shelton Behavioral Health Resources center. These opportunities for education
and connection are seen as a way to educate entire families or communities. This
type of social networking is more formalized, but it based upon a similar belief
that creating connections with individuals will help change behaviors and
encourage empowerment through nutritional education and future participation in
welfare programs.
INF 8: “Now the biggest thing is we’re going to do our approach
differently, we’re using more of a social ecological model. So in the
past, we’ve been more on the individuals level, we’ve been giving
87
information to individuals, and now we’re trying to get out to make a
difference in policies, and in the environment, and social norms and
culture. So we’re going to try whole school approaches, we’re going
to start piloting these next year, having parent newsletters available in
three different formats, so electronically, paper copies, … But we’re
doing a whole school approach, a whole community approach, so it
will be the same message given to everybody, in different ways, trying
to bridge it from the individual to get bigger changes county wide.”
INF 9: “[T]hen just talking to people! Talking them up and getting a
feel for their personal life and nudging them towards making better
choices, you know, emotionally engaging them, you know, just getting
into their life first and then getting the conversation directed towards
what we're featuring that week, that nutrition topic, and it's great,
because over time, we have people sharing their ideas, and changes
that they're making, and you know, they're really pleased to share
that back with me.”
Social networking may be the most important asset that EFNs possess
within Mason County; it is unclear if formal channels of communication would
improve these existing connections, but it is certain that maintaining personal
relationships with both clients and other EFN partners is a vital aspect of retaining
funding, developing trust, and establishing transparency within distribution
regions.
5.11 Vulnerable populations
EFNs in Mason County work with vulnerable populations that experience
marginalization on multiple levels; this is often expressed in decreased agency
and reliance upon emergency food provisions for basic nutrition. Informants cited
specific populations that have special food access needs; these included seniors,
students eligible for the weekend backpack supplemental food program, and the
working poor. Additionally, each food bank cited specific groups of clients that
have been utilizing services for decades (“regulars”).
88
INF 9: “Um, well, we're always working with a diverse crowd, there's
always the regulars every week, and then there's the ones where it's
their first time, or they’re just moving through, transients just moving
through the community, and the way its' set up that they pass by our
table, you only get a few minutes with them, so it's like, how do you
get the most of those few minutes. And, most of the crowd I receptive
to what I'm doing, you know, it's food, I jazz it up and make it fun,
and you know, I'm very engaging and friendly, and then as they get to
know me, as they're regulars, we have all this personal conversation
and go around, but you know, you get a few folks in there, that,
there's so much stress in their life that they can't, they just can't be in
that space for that education They're worried about where they're
going to sleep tonight, you know, their car's broken down, how are
they going to get their food box home? You know, that sort of thing,
so that's a challenge.”
5.12 Seniors
As previously discussed, Mason County has a significant population of
retirees and seniors. This demographic represents both a niche for volunteers and
clients. Seniors are a significant population that utilizes food banks, as well as
one that is growing at certain locations. Despite special programming through
Meals on Wheels and the Senior Nutrition Program that run throughout the
county, older clients are still in need of direct foo resources. Several informants
cited rising healthcare and medication costs as a barrier to food access for seniors.
INF 1: “One thing that we are seeing are more senior citizens, more
people that are retired and are living on social security and pensions,
because they aren't going as far anymore. And after the recent
financial crisis, things aren't going as far anymore.”
Illness and injury at food banks are of particular concern, as food bank volunteers
must life and stack extremely heavy loads during set-up and break-down. One
informant, a senior himself, noted that his involvement with the food bank was a
direct result of volunteers passing away.
89
INF 12: “And from there, one of the persons there died, so I started
from the ground floor, so to speak, and we had one fellow who did the
pick-ups, but he got sick, so I had to take over his part, and then one
of the fellows dies, and then made some extra work.”
Seniors, particularly those who are in need of caregivers or live alone or in
isolated parts of the county, have difficulty access services, often due to physical
limitations.
INF 6: “Well … I suppose the hardest thing for me, and this is just my
opinion, and we haven't dealt with it too much, but I know that,
there may be shut-ins that aren't being helped, and how exactly we
can handle that, I don't know. Basically, we allow a caregiver to
go around as if they were the person.
KEW: Is this a unique situation to this area?
INF 6: I think it isn't, but I think when you're in a smaller
community, it's more obvious.”
5.13 Youth
Youth enrolled in local school districts who participate in free/reduced
school breakfast programs are specific concern to EFNs within the county. These
students do not typically interact directly with EFNs outside of their schools.
Instead, they rely upon their family’s ability to procure supplemental food
resources. Unfortunately, these youth often suffer from lower food access during
the weekends and summers when school breakfast and lunch programs are not
available. The “backpack program” that is run through Saints' Pantry and Hood
Canal was cited as a critical function of the food banks to address this problem.
Youth facing food inaccess are eligible to pick up backpacks that are filled a
90
weekend's worth of food; these youth are eligible or participating in the free or
reduced breakfast and lunch programs in their school district.
INF 1: “It's also by the free lunch program, that's one of the key
elements, but also by the counselors and teachers weigh in on it.
There's a scale and there is a, [sic] would know better, but there is a
scale that is used to determine it.
KEW: The food is intended for the individual or the family?
INF 1: Well there's the rub.
INF 2: There's the rub.
INF 1: We know, because it's been reported to us, we received a
whole bunch of letters, thank you letters, that we have on the wall
now. And some of the letters were from the parents, thanking us for
the food, because it was a basis for their food as a family for that
weekend.
INF 2: I know there were a couple of, it was a child, and they said,
thank you for helping my family, it helps my mommy and daddy until
we get our food stamps.
INF 1: So, it was an eye opener for us, you know, we're not that naïve
that we didn't think it was helping other people, but when you have a
child thanking us because it's helping their family, and this child is
probably 8, 9 years old, it's quite an eye opener. We knew of one
instance, for example, where the family was actually living in their
car, and living off the food we were giving them through the backpack
program. [The school representative] will come in on Wednesday
afternoon to pick them up, and they bring them to the school, and
they'll distribute them to the students on Friday.”
The backpack program is currently only available to students in the Shelton
School District, which is a significant issue for students in outside, more rural
districts that have equally high or higher free/reduced breakfast and lunch rates.
Need in the Shelton School district was only made known by a representative of
91
the middle school in recent years. The program aims to be discreet, but
distribution practices have prevented students in need from taking full advantage
of the program.
INF 9: “They get together and they bag up specifically a weekend's
worth of food because what happens is the kids are eligible for the
breakfast and lunch programs, so Monday through Friday, they're
getting at least two meals a day, but on the weekends, for whatever
reason, they don't have access for food. And sometimes this food is
not just feeding the child, it's also feeding the parents, or whatever
other adult guardian is in their life. Some of the kids are homeless,
they bounce around, the older kids, they some of them bounce around
from couch to couch, they live in cars, they live in parents' cars, they
live in tents in the woods, you name it. Others, they call it the
backpack program because on Friday, they line the bags up in the hall
on Friday, and the kids go by, and they can choose to pick up a bag
and put it in their backpack. The problem is that some of the kids
have a social stigma, and they won't pick up a bag of food, and they're
worried that other people are going to be making fun of them and
stuff like that.”
Even while the backpack program remains a crucially needed and chronically
underfunded program within the county, distributors are unclear as to the
program’s intent and goals. This can cause problems as school districts attempt to
build partnerships in especially low-income school districts with less food bank
capacity.
INF 12: “No, we don't have a backpack program. I don't know why
they started that backpack … then, what do you put in it, you can't
make sandwiches, we don't have an area to make sandwiches. The
only thing we have is canned food.”
92
5.14 Working Poor
INF 2: “The working poor, we've noticed that a lot of families, not
just individuals who are homeless or are in a shelter.”
Informants cited the “working poor” as a group of individuals who were in
need of increased food access within the county. These individuals may be
working full time, but do not have enough income to cover the costs of food for
themselves or their families. These individuals may be the head of households or
single people who are engaged in seasonal work. Difficulties accessing food
during normal distribution hours was cited as a barrier to access for this specific
demographic.
INF 1: “As I go around in the community here, as I purchase food and
various other things from the food bank, I've been approached
several times by people who are gainfully employed on how they can
get food, whether it's from the largest retailer here or the smallest.
We're you know, people are hurting, all over the place.”
Barriers to distribution for employed individuals with low food access were
acknowledged by informants at all levels of participation. EFN partners
understand that individuals working full time might not be able to access
government benefits or direct food resources due to their work commitments.
Nutrition educators see their work with students in schools as a way to
communicate with families who have low food access and low visibility within
EFNs in Mason County.
INF 8: “And so trying to get them through their children, trying to get
them at the CSO office and DSHS, but you know, people are busy, I
mean, it's hard to manage when you don't have enough food to eat
and you've got to jump through hoops, I mean, an hour a week for
four weeks, it's tough.”
93
INF 8: “They want to work so they can buy their food and take care
of their own food instead of negotiating and navigating through the
whole system that you have to do, it's a full time job, and some of the
paperwork you have to fill out, I don't know how some of the people
do it, because it's very complicated.”
The systemic nature of food access within the county was not discussed by
many informants during the interviews; most indicated that hunger was an
inevitable part of the local agro-food system, with one informant claiming it was
“the nature of the beast.” However, one informant who has spent several years
working as a nutrition educator at Saints’ Pantry gave illustrated the general
trends and attitudes that clients were expressing, particularly in light of the recent
economic recession.
INF 9: “Well, some of the things I hear down at the food bank is more
and more growing frustration with folks, because the lines are getting
bigger and longer, and more and more people are coming down to use
the food bank, and you know, some of these folks it's their first time
ever having to come to a food bank, and more and more of them are
in their late 40s, early 50s, so they've spent the bulk of their adult life
working, and because of the economy in this area the past few years,
that there's layoffs, people losing their jobs, losing their homes, etc.,
and it just spirals downwards, and I think people are embarrassed
coming to the food banks, so that's what's great about our little demo
station, is that right away we welcome them and we have this caring
and personal relationship with them, you know, because everybody
deserves to have integrity and be treated with honor and respect, and
people are getting really frustrated, because you know, because they
feel like, this is great, they're so thankful to have the food bank,
they're so thankful for the churches and the volunteers, but they're
frustrated because they're also in need of other assistance services,
and you know, they're just treated like a number, they have to spend
a lot of time in line, and forms, forms, forms, and they feel like
nothing is really being done to address the real issues, the real issues
of why they do they need food, they can't afford food, you know, not
just having access to food, it's just … go back even farther, why do so
94
many people need food, what's going on with our economy, and
people are getting really frustrated with the government, not just
local, but the Federal, you know, the whole US system, you know, and
there's just this real growing depression and real growing concern,
just this ennui that's sort of forming. People feel like they're getting
poorer and yet they're working harder.
INF 8: And they feel like there's no way out.
INF 9: Yeah. They feel like the government's broken and our social
system is broken. Because these people don't want to need food, they
want to work.”
5.15 Discussion of Results
The above case study revealed many challenges and benefits that exist
within Mason County EFNs. While capacity and resources are scarce and
transportation is limited, strong social networks attempt to bridge these gaps by
creating opportunities for collaboration between members of EFNs. Two main
points are revealed from the case study; alternative agro-food programming is not
a major component of EFN resources or partnerships, and perceptions of food
access do not reflect the actual need in the Mason County community. A
discussion of these unique characteristics of Mason County EFNs will be
followed by a brief connection to the theoretical analysis provided in Chapter 3.
Examining the challenges presented by interview informants can help identify
areas where planning traps are being used; subsequently, they may be avoided in
an attempt to efficiently and effectively decrease hungry populations in the Mason
County community.
Mason County EFNs reflect conventional frameworks of procurement and
distribution of food, which is based upon government, corporate, and individual
95
donations of financial and food resources. Alternative agro-food programming
does not play a significant role in providing food or opportunities for further
access. The existing capacity with the food banks is extremely limited; from the
perspective of informants, most alternative agro-food programs were seen as
experiments or extra opportunities for volunteer enrichment. Food bank gardens
and alternative donation partnerships were exclusively initiated and organized by
volunteers who had special interest in growing food or access to additional time
or land for such projects.
The only alternative program given priority within Mason County EFNs is
the organic garden at the Washington Corrections Center. The success of this
project is an excellent illustration of the requirements for alternative programming
to be maintained and successful; inmates and prison administrations need
opportunities for work. Access to a low-paid work force, financial support with
sustainability initiatives through the Washington State Department of Corrections,
and equipment and land are three main reasons the Washington Corrections
Center has been successful in producing greater yields than other citizen initiated
alternative agro-food programs in the county. The ironic use of prison labor to
supply food bank clients, all of whom are marginalized and prone to food
inaccess, is a significant finding that bears further research and examination by
alternative agro-food activists and ethicists.
Other alternative agro-food programs that interact with the county food
banks have had difficulty in gaining the same amount of traction, influence, and
sustainability. The food bank garden associated with the Hood Canal Food Bank
96
has experienced significant setbacks; flooding, followed by a year of drought,
prevented harvests from being completed for the past three years. Additionally,
the HOPE garden, located at Mason General Hospital and aimed at high risk
patients who suffer from food inaccess, was not identified as a potential
mechanism for change by social workers associated with the hospital. Limitations
of the part of clients were cited as a major block for success.
INF 10: “I see that gearing more towards young families, families with
young kids. I don’t think I would refer a 70 year old who is using a
walker to go out and get a garden if they have never done that before.
But I think a young mom, that would be a real benefit to her if she can
get a plot and learn how to garden.”
Catalyst Park, a unique partnership between the local Extension office, the
City of Shelton, and Saints’ Pantry Food Bank, has not had success in recruiting
food bank clients to participate in its community garden program. Despite the
fact that the garden is located above downtown Shelton and less than a mile away
from the food bank, transportation and time limitations have been cited as barriers
to client usage. Gardening and nutrition projects are not given support, outside of
limited financial help from some food banks, by providers. This may be due to
the fact that capacity, interest, and volunteers support exists at a consistently low
level for providers within their own organizations. They may be unable or
unwilling to entertain projects that require oversight, daily maintenance, and
community organizing experience that has not been traditionally associated with
food bank services. Overall, alternative agro-food programming was often more
indicative of volunteer desires and capacity than expressed need on the part of the
clients.
97
Another important factor limiting the success of programming in the
county can be attributed to EFN perceptions of need. All interview informants
were asked the question, “Do you feel there is sufficient food access for all
hungry individuals in Mason County?” at the end of each interview. Out of 14
informants, only two, who hold administrative positions at a single food bank,
answered ‘no.’ The 12 other informants answered ‘yes’ or ‘yes’ with some
qualifiers (i.e., more transportation is necessary, or further outreach into the
schools). These informants are acutely aware of the need facing the county; each
one cited both specific anecdotes and a broad knowledge of the pervasive
challenge of hunger in their communities. Yet, access was not seen as a problem
for clients. There are several realities that may be feeding this perception, even
for those who are on the front lines in the fight against hunger within Mason
County.
First, providers may be satisfied with providing enough food for the
clients that are coming to the food banks; they may not be concerned with issues
that clients face that they are unable to directly change. This was indicated
indirectly by the fixation on pounds of food distributed as a measure of success at
all food banks, despite the fact that increasing amounts of food distributed also
indicates increasing client loads. Challenges that clients face in accessing food
were perceived as chronic and intractable. Providers did not readily provide
recommendations for change within their food banks, outside of increasing
storage and refrigeration capacity. This also may be an indicator of the strength
of social networking as a measure of food access; close relationships with
98
volunteers and clients of the food bank may be unconsciously valued above
decreasing services by decreasing overall hunger in a community.
There were few ideas for systemic change, outside of opening up
transportation options. Mechanisms for increased access outside of systemic
change were generally alternative in nature, and focused on grant money that
would be able to fund projects for further research or capital costs on new gardens
or greenhouses. These projects have been implemented on and off over the past
five years, but suffer from an inconsistent funding environment that exhibits
increasing requests for money and decreasing donations to be distributed
throughout the community. In summary, providers that indicated there was
enough access in the Mason County community for all hungry individuals
measured access solely by amount of food distributed to clients. If all clients
were able to equally receive a significant amount of food at each distribution time,
access was not perceived as an issue. Clients were praised for their ability to find
ways to work around limitations that existed at the food banks.
INF 12: “You know, there's a lot of people out there that just don't get
enough food, and that's why they come back every week. And then
there are other people who are working, and can afford to buy extra
stuff, and they do ok. And you know, we have children that are not
fed as well as they should be. So that, you know, we'd have to ... and I
think you'll have that no matter where you go. As far as we're
concerned, there aren't too many of them.”
Before coalitions may be built to improve access at Mason County EFNs, the
extent to which clients are vulnerable to hunger must be universally
acknowledged and internalized by providers. Until this occurs, hunger is
maintained in communities through the continued presence of agro-food systems
99
planning traps that are embedded in both services provided and general attitudes
towards the seemingly “wicked problem” of hunger.
Traps in planning were exhibited at all levels of provision within Mason
County EFNs. Informants, who have the power to shape policy and planning
within county agro-food systems, showed preference towards certain traps. The
production trap, as illustrated in the “take what you can get” and bargaining and
negotiating themes, was emphasized by informants. More food was perceived to
reduce hunger, despite the fact that pounds of food are neither indicative of
quality nor correlated rhetorically with increasing client bases. The neoliberal
trap was briefly touched on by informants who expressed the need for clients to
take responsibility for their state of food inaccess through self-directed purchasing
or choice of foods within EFNs. In reality, this agency is either extremely limited
or nonexistent for most clients of Mason County EFNs, and does not reflect a
realistic mechanism for shifting hungry populations into the primary marketplace.
Neoliberal policies were acutely felt by providers who struggle to maintain
appropriate amounts of food for clients due to fluctuating food prices and the
continuing economic recession, which has also driven new demographics of
clients into county EFNs.
Strong social networks and relationships with donors hold a curious
position within the charity and scale traps; while private charitable contributions
are generally unsustainable in the long run, they also maintain essential personal
relationships between community members concerned with poor health and
poverty rates in their neighborhoods. This trap is transformed into a boon for
100
EFNs, much as the perceived “localization” of fundraising efforts. Local food
was framed in a relatively alternative way by informants, but interestingly, was
almost always purchased conventionally through local corporate grocery
franchises. Perceptions of what constitutes local food is an interesting point of
discussion that should be explored further to better understand how the scale trap
becomes embedded in agro-food systems.
All traps in planning in present in Mason County EFNs; however, the
charity and scale traps could be potentially transformed into leverage points for
action to combat hunger by utilizing the strong community connections that
embrace these traps as a means for personal enrichment and community
cohesiveness.
101
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
In order for agro-food systems to avoid failures in production and
consumption, hungry individuals must be given priority when implementing
planning and policies. Without strengthening the most vulnerable populations
that fall within an agro-food system’s bounds, systemic limitations that exist for
all populations will never experience change. Alternative frameworks of access
have provided the rhetoric necessary to begin mobilizing individuals towards
action. Yet, until these actions are universally accessible within their community
contexts, hunger will still be a major problem that undermines social service work
of all kinds.
Understanding the privilege that is leveraged by progressive advocates of
alternative agro-food means providing mechanisms for changing food systems
that mirror the realities of the communities to which they are applied. Further
research must be conducted to determine how EFN clients, specifically those that
have been identified as particularly vulnerable to food inaccess, perceive their
own place within local agro-food networks. The felt needs of the client
community should be a primary source of research when conducting agro-food
planning on multiple scales.
Reframing many of the narratives of alternative agriculture to reflect
actual community need could strengthen both the goals of alternative agro-food
advocates and the level of food access within a region. Assets such as social
102
networks are inherently localized, and may be incorporated effectively into
political action through informed constituencies (Hinrichs, 2002). The Mason
County Health Department has set the lofty goal of making the county the
healthiest in the state; in order to do so, it is essential that increased food access is
made a priority within funding and programming plans.
Recommendations for improved services to hungry clients are tailored to
the needs of Mason County EFNs. While traps in planning may be generalized
for alternative agro-food programming in the United States, their application to
food systems planning must be contextualized to the community in question. All
challenges faced by people existing within an agro-food network are unique the
communities they live in; therefore, these recommendations take into account the
felt needs and the regional realities that are faced by individuals facing hunger or
attempting to provide further food access in the county. Based upon the
theoretical framework developed in this thesis and the information gathered and
analyzed from informants, the following recommendations are made for increased
food access in Mason County, Washington.
Recommendation 1: Establish a county-wide anti-hunger network for greater
transparency and communication.
Currently, there is no formal opportunity for inter-agency dialogue
between EFN partners. Providing a formal network that meets consistently and
has open communication will increase the ability for EFNs to bargain, negotiate,
and strengthen existing connections. This may also help organize clients within
communities by sharing resources and information between food banks and
103
outside agencies. Increased transparency is key to maintain the existing integrity
that has been built up within food bank distribution regions. This coalition should
incorporate existing semi-formal partnerships that have evolved organically
throughout the county. A single network may also decrease competition for
funding and duplication of services and create more efficient avenues for funding
distribution.
Recommendation 2: Provide more consistent opportunities for community
education and participation in an attempt to “renormalize” hunger.
Informants consistently cited community members as the most vital aspect
of EFN functions through financial and volunteer commitments. Reaching out
into the community may diversify the funding and volunteer base that is needed to
sustain EFN programming. Making the public aware of the need within their
communities may serve to “renormalize” hunger as a part of all communities in
Mason County, bringing it out of the seasonal giving sphere and into the
quotidian. Again, further community involvement as a whole establishes “buy-in”
and greater accountability for EFN providers.
Recommendation 3: Increase capacity at all food banks, specifically with
refrigeration, hourly availability, and staff.
Clients who need direct food resources but are working full time need to
have the chance to utilize EFNs. This may be accomplished through alternative
hourly availability, particularly on the weekends. Matlock and North Mason
Food Banks are in need of improved storage capabilities, particularly improved
refrigeration. The Matlock Food Bank is also in need of an indoor distribution
area for clients to stay out of the weather. Creating a space that is sanitary, safe,
104
and convenient for all clients is essential in providing respectful, efficient
services.
Recommendation 4: Immediately improve client agency through
opportunities for contact with CSO representatives at all food banks at least
once a month.
By providing information and resources to clients about SNAP, SNAP Ed,
and WIC at EFN locations, clients may feel more confident and comfortable
applying for government food benefits, which adds to their ability to purchase
food and fully express themselves as agents within the primary food marketplace.
Recommendation 5: Provide dedicated transportation options to isolated
areas on food bank distribution days.
Limited transportation is a universal barrier to individuals who live in
rural regions of the county. Providing dedicated routes through Mason Transit
Authority could streamline access and decrease inefficiency with current Dial-aRide usage. Current close relationships between MTA and county EFNs make
this partnership ideal.
Recommendation 6: Tailor alternative agro-food programming to the felt
needs of the community and the resources available.
Alternative agro-food programming is currently underutilized and
unsustainable for most food banks. Asking clients and providers for input and
suggestions may increase the success of gardening projects and create more
community buy-in. Successful programming should be sustained through serious
planning for funding and staff capacity.
Recommendation 7: Leverage engaged social networks within the county to
build a strong anti-hunger constituency at the county level.
105
Mason County EFNs are generally staffed by retirees with strong ties to
the local community; formerly, many held political office or worked as prominent
business owners. Decades of networking and personal connections may be able
to transform EFN funding, visibility, and political influence in order to tackle the
issue of hunger at both the distribution and institutional level.
The universality of food as physical, spiritual, and social sustenance for
communities underlines its potential as a unifying banner for various
constituencies looking for increased agency in sociopolitical and economic
spheres of influence. Methods for uniting at the table may require serious thought
on the part of alternative agro-food leaders to craft partnerships and programming
that address both specific community needs and larger systemic changes that need
to be made to end hunger domestically. Until then, EFNs in communities in local
communities need to focus on strengths to address the challenges that are ever
present within communities with significant hungry populations. Efforts to end
hunger will need the implementation of creative, realistic solutions that harness
the ideals of the alternative agro-food movement with the realities of globalization
and economic pressures at all scales.
106
Bibliography
"Profile: Bill Taylor." Washington: Connected to Nature. The Nature
Conservancy, n.d. Web. 09 June 2013.
Alkon, A. H., & Mares, T. M. (2012). Food sovereignty in US food movements:
radical visions and neoliberal constraints. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(3),
347-359.
Allen, P. (1999). Reweaving the food security safety net: Mediating entitlement
and entrepreneurship. Agriculture and human values, 16(2), 117-129.
Allen, P. (2010). Realizing justice in local food systems. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 295-308.
Anderson, M. D. (2008). Rights-based food systems and the goals of food systems
reform. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(4), 593-608.
Anderson, M. D., & Cook, J. T. (1999). Community food security: Practice in
need of theory?. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 141-150.
Andrews, M. (2010). More Americans relied on food assistance during recession.
Amber Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources and Rural
America. Retrieved from
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/121434/2/08FoodAssistance.pdf
Averill, J. B. (2008). Getting started: Initiating critical ethnography and
community-based action research in a program of rural health studies.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 17-27.
Barham, J. (2011). Regional Food Hubs: Understanding the scope and scale of
food hub operations. Washington, DC: USDA AMS.
Barrett, C. B., Bell, R., Lentz, E. C., & Maxwell, D. G. (2009). Market
information and food insecurity response analysis. Food Security, 1(2), 151-168.
Beuchelt, T. D., & Virchow, D. (2012). Food sovereignty or the human right to
adequate food: which concept serves better as international development policy
for global hunger and poverty reduction?. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(2),
259-273.
Blasbalg, T. L., Wispelwey, B., & Deckelbaum, R. J. (2011). Econutrition and
utilization of food-based approaches for nutritional health. Food & Nutrition
Bulletin, 32(Supplement 1), 4S-13S.
107
Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the local trap scale and food systems in
planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(2), 195-207.
Campbell, M. C. (2004). Building a Common Table The Role for Planning in
Community Food Systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23(4),
341-355.
Carlson, S. J., Andrews, M. S., & Bickel, G. W. (1999). Measuring food
insecurity and hunger in the United States: development of a national benchmark
measure and prevalence estimates. The Journal of nutrition, 129(2), 510S-516S.
Carolan, M. S. (2009). Do You See What I See? Examining the Epistemic
Barriers to Sustainable Agriculture*. Rural sociology, 71(2), 232–260.
Chilton, M., & Rose, D. (2009). A rights-based approach to food insecurity in the
United States. Journal Information, 99(7).
Cochrane, W. W. (1993). The development of American agriculture: a historical
analysis (No. Ed. 2). University of Minnesota Press.
Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2011). Household
food security in the United States in 2010. USDA-ERS Economic Research
Report, (125). Communities. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(6),
492–504. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2011.05.006
Davis, M. (2002). Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of
the Third World. Verso.
De Marco, M., Thorburn, S., & Kue, J. (2009). “In a Country as Affluent as
America, People Should be Eating”: Experiences With and Perceptions of Food
Insecurity Among Rural and Urban Oregonians. Qualitative Health Research,
19(7), 1010-1024.
De Schutter, O. (2008). Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil,
Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to
Development: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De
Schutter: Building Resilience, a Human Rights Framework for World Food and
Nutrition Security. United Nations General Assembly.
Dean, W. R., & Sharkey, J. R. (2011). Food insecurity, social capital and
perceived personal disparity in a predominantly rural region of Texas: an
individual-level analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 72(9), 1454-1462.
Dixon, J. (1999). A cultural economy model for studying food systems.
Agriculture and Human values, 16(2), 151-160.
Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’in local food
systems. Progress in human geography, 31(1), 23-42.
108
Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from
the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(2), 99-106.
Fidler, M. (2012). Preferring Rabbits To Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of
Marxist and Local Food Movement Critiques of Capitalist Agriculture. Intersect:
The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 5. Retrieved from
http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/intersect/article/view/313
Food Lifeline (2012). Hunger in Mason County. Annual Report.
Frederickson, K., & Scroggins, L. Evergreen State College. (1997). Christmas
agriculture and worker homelessness: solutions for Mason County, Washington.
Fung, F., Lopez, A., & New, M. (Eds.). (2011). Modelling the impact of climate
change on water resources. Wiley-Blackwell.
Garasky, S., Morton, L. W., & Greder, K. A. (2006). The effects of the local food
environment and social support on rural food insecurity. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 1(1), 83-103.
Gee, G. C., Lively, K. J., Larsen, L., Keith, J., Stone, J., & MacLeod, K. (2007).
Hungry for respect: discrimination among adults using emergency food services.
Goodman, D. (2002). Agro-Food Studies in the “Age of Ecology”: Nature,
Corporeality, Bio-Politics. Sociologia Ruralis, 39(1), 17–38.
Goodman, D. (2008). Ontology Matters: The Relational Materiality of Nature and
Agro-Food Studies. Sociologia Ruralis, 41(2), 182–200.
Goodman, D., & DuPuis, E. M. (2002). Knowing food and growing food: beyond
the production–consumption debate in the sociology of agriculture. Sociologia
ruralis, 42(1), 5-22.
Goodman, D., & Goodman, M. (2007). Localism, livelihoods and the “postorganic”: Changing perspectives on alternative food networks in the United
States. Constructing alternative food geographies: Representation and practice,
23–38.
Goodman, D., & Watts, M. (1994). Reconfiguring the rural or fording the divide?:
Capitalist restructuring and the global agro-food system. The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 22(1), 1–49.
Gross, J., & Rosenberger, N. (2005). Food insecurity in rural Benton County: An
ethnographic study. Collections.
Grussing, J. D., & Edwards, M. (2006). Non-metropolitan hunger and food
insecurity in the Northwest. Collections.
109
Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the
politics of difference. Cultural anthropology, 7(1), 6-23.
Harper, A., Shattuck, A., Holt-Giménez, E., Alkon, A., & Lambrick, F. (2009).
Food policy councils: Lessons learned. Institute for Food and Development
Policy.
Hassanein, N. (2003). Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of
transformation. Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1), 77-86.
Hendrickson, M. K., & Heffernan, W. D. (2002). Opening spaces through
relocalization: locating potential resistance in the weaknesses of the global food
system. Sociologia Ruralis, 42(4), 347–369.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types
of direct agricultural market. Journal of rural studies, 16(3), 295-303.
Hinrichs, C. C. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization.
Journal of rural studies, 19(1), 33-45.
James, D. A., & Mason County Historical Society (Wash.). (1986). Grisdale, last
of the logging camps: a photo story of Simpson camps from 1890 into 1986.
Belfair, WA: Mason County Historical Society.
Jarosz, L. (2000). Understanding agri-food networks as social relations.
Agriculture and human values, 17(3), 279-283.
Jarosz, L., & Qazi, J. (2000). The geography of Washington's world apple: global
expressions in a local landscape. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 1-11.
Kaufman, P. R., MacDonald, J. M., Lutz, S. M., & Smallwood, D. M. (1997). Do
the poor pay more for food? Item selection and price differences affect lowincome household food costs (No. 34065). United States Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Kloppenburg, Jr, J., Lezberg, S., De Master, K., Stevenson, G. W., &
Hendrickson, J. (2000). Tasting food, tasting sustainability: Defining the
attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human
Organization, 59(2), 177-186.
Koc, M., & Dahlberg, K. A. (1999). The restructuring of food systems: trends,
research, and policy issues. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), 109-116.
Lawson, V., Jarosz, L., & Bonds, A. (2008). Building economies from the bottom
up:(mis) representations of poverty in the rural American Northwest. Social &
Cultural Geography, 9(7), 737-753.
110
Lawson, V., Jarosz, L., & Bonds, A. (2010). Articulations of place, poverty, and
race: Dumping grounds and unseen grounds in the rural American Northwest.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(3), 655-677.
Lentz, E. C., & Barrett, C. B. (2008). Improving Food Aid: What Reforms Would
Yield the Highest Payoff? World Development, 36(7), 1152–1172.
Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements.
Agriculture and Human Values, 23(1), 89-98.
Lichtfouse, E., Navarrete, M., Debaeke, P., Souchère, V., Alberola, C., &
Ménassieu, J. (2009). Agronomy for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy
for sustainable development, 29(1), 1–6.
Lock, K., Stuckler, D., Charlesworth, K., & McKee, M. (2009). Potential causes
and health effects of rising global food prices. BMJ, 339.
Lockie, S., & Kitto, S. (2002). Beyond the Farm Gate: Production-Consumption
Networks and Agri-Food Research. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(1), 3–19.
Mader, E., & Busse, H. (2011). Hungry in the Heartland: using community food
systems as a strategy to reduce rural food deserts. Journal of Hunger &
Environmental Nutrition, 6(1), 45-53.
Management, O. of F. (n.d.). County and City Data for Mason County,
Washington | OFM. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/localdata/maso.asp
Marsden, T., Banks, J., & Bristow, G. (2000). Food Supply Chain Approaches:
Exploring their Role in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 40(4), 424–438.
doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00158
Marshall, A. (2000). Sustaining sustainable agriculture: The rise and fall of the
Fund for Rural America. Agriculture and Human Values, 17(3), 267-277.
Mason County Rankings. (n.d.). County Health Rankings & Roadmaps. Retrieved
June 10, 2013, from http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app
Mason, M., Jaskiewicz, L. J., & Christoffel, K. K. (2010). Learning from Program
Participants: Obtaining Participant Input on Service Development in an
Emergency Food Program. Journal of Applied Social Science, 4(2), 1-16.
Maxwell, S. (1996). Food security: a post-modern perspective. Food policy,
21(2), 155-170.
Mechlem, K. (2004). Food Security and the Right to Food in the Discourse of the
United Nations. European Law Journal, 10(5), 631-648.
111
Morton, L. W., Bitto, E. A., Oakland, M. J., & Sand, M. (2008). Accessing food
resources: Rural and urban patterns of giving and getting food. Agriculture and
Human Values, 25(1), 107-119.
NASS, USDA. (2007). Census of agriculture. Available from:,(accessed July 16,
2011).
Niles, D., & Roff, R. J. (2008). Shifting agrifood systems: the contemporary
geography of food and agriculture; an introduction. GeoJournal, 73(1), 1-10.
Nutriton, U. of W. C. for P. H. (n.d.). Nutrition Objective 2 Reduce Food
Insecurity in Washington - Washington State Nutrition & Physical Activity Plan.
Retrieved June 3, 2013, from
http://depts.washington.edu/waaction/plan/nut2/index.html
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Washington State Report
Card: Free/Reduced Breakfast and Lunch Participation. 2011-2012.
Peters, C. J., Bills, N. L., Wilkins, J. L., & Fick, G. W. (2009). Foodshed analysis
and its relevance to sustainability. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
24(01), 1-7.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2005).
Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional
farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573-582.
Pollack, A. (2013, February 15). Supreme Court to Hear Monsanto Seed Patent
Case. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/business/supreme-court-to-hear-monsanto-seedpatent-case.html
Poppendieck, J. (1994). Dilemmas of emergency food: A guide for the perplexed.
Agriculture and Human Values, 11(4), 69-76.
Poppendieck, J. (1999). Sweet charity?: Emergency food and the end of
entitlement. Penguin.
Qazi, J. A., & Selfa, T. L. (2005). The politics of building alternative agro-food
networks in the belly of agro-industry. Food, Culture and Society: An
International Journal of MultidisciplinaryResearch, 8(1), 45-72.
Riches, G. (1999). Advancing the human right to food in Canada: Social policy
and the politics of hunger, welfare, and food security. Agriculture and Human
Values, 16(2), 203-211.
Rose, D. (1999). Economic determinants and dietary consequences of food
insecurity in the United States. The Journal of Nutrition, 129(2), 517S-520S.
112
Rosen, S., & Shapouri, S. (2008). Rising food prices intensify food insecurity in
developing countries. Amber Waves, 6(1), 16-21.
Rukuni, M. (2011). NEW DYNAMICS OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
SECURITY IN THE WORLD. In Sixth GCHERA Conference Proceedings.
Sanders, Angela. "The Paul Bunyans." Portland Magazine June-July 2004: n.
pag. Web
Sbicca, J. (2012). Growing food justice by planting an anti-oppression foundation:
opportunities and obstacles for a budding social movement. Agriculture and
Human Values, 29(4), 455-466.
Selfa, T., & Qazi, J. (2005). Place, taste, or face-to-face? Understanding
producer–consumer networks in “local” food systems in Washington State.
Agriculture and Human Values, 22(4), 451-464.
Smith, C., & Miller, H. (2011). Accessing the food systems in urban and rural
Minnesotan communities. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(6),
492-504.
Smith, C., & Morton, L. W. (2009). Rural food deserts: low-income perspectives
on food access in Minnesota and Iowa. Journal of Nutrition Education and
Behavior, 41(3), 176–187.
Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O'Brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008). Creating
healthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches.
Annu. Rev. Public Health, 29, 253-272.
Stracuzzi, N. F., & Ward, S. (2010). What's for dinner? Finding and affording
healthy foods in New Hampshire communities.
Tarasuk, V., & Eakin, J. M. (2005). Food assistance through “surplus” food:
insights from an ethnographic study of food bank work. Agriculture and Human
Values, 22(2), 177–186.
The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment (June 2009). Washington
Climate Impacts Group. University of Washington.
Timmer, C. P., Falcon, W. P., Pearson, S. R., & World Bank. Agriculture and
Rural Development Dept. Economics and Policy Division. (1983). Food policy
analysis (Vol. 1983, pp. 1-301). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
United Nations Centre for Human Rights. (1989). Right to adequate food as a
human right (No. 1). New York: United Nations.
113
US EPA, C. C. D. (n.d.). Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts & Adaptation.
Overviews & Factsheets,. Retrieved May 17, 2013, from
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html
USDA Economic Research Service - Food Security in the United States. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 15, 2012, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/foodsecurity-in-the-united-states.aspx
USDA Economic Research Service - Key Statistics & Graphics. (n.d.). Retrieved
May 17, 2013, from http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutritionassistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx#.UZWfbcqS_to
Vleming, Jim. "Mason County Profile." Mason County Profile. Employment
Security Department, Washington State, Aug. 2012. Web. 03 June 2013.
Western Washington Hunger in America 2010 Study. Food Lifeline. Web. 2010.
Wilde, P., & Nord, M. (2005). The effect of food stamps on food security: a panel
data approach. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 27(3), 425-432.
Winter, M. (2003). Embeddedness, the new food economy and defensive
localism. Journal of rural studies, 19(1), 23-32.
World agriculture: towards 2015/2030: an FAO perspective. (2003). London:
Earthscan.
World Institute for Development Economics Research. (1990). The Political
economy of hunger. Oxford [England] : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford
University Press.
Wu, S. H., Ho, C. T., Nah, S. L., & Chau, C. F. (2012). Global Hunger: A
Challenge to Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Sciences. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition, (just-accepted).
114