Vachon 1

Jen Vachon
Jen Dolan
CSP: Organizing
13 December 2016
Against the Grain: Challenging the Funding of Food Systems in Massachusetts
Introduction
The Massachusetts Department of Higher Education system is composed of 29 campuses
consisting of 15 community colleges, nine state universities, and the five University campuses.1
In fiscal year 2015, 10.4 percent of the states 55 billion dollars spent went to education.1 Clearly,
Massachusetts state higher education holds immense purchasing power, including food
purchasing. The food systems which state funded higher education institutions support contribute
to larger scale community, health, and environmental systems. The mission of the Massachusetts
System of Public Higher Education is to meet the individual and societal needs for education
while being committed to, continuous improvement and accountability in all aspects of teaching
and learing.1 Maintaining access to nutritious and holistically purchased food which positively
impacts the global food system aligns with this goal. Any higher education facility in the state of
Massachusetts receiving state funding must commit to sourcing food from sources which provide
nutritious, environmentally conscious, and socially responsible food in a transparent way.
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst has exemplified how a large higher
education facility can commit itself to the proposed policy change. UMass Dining is the largest
campus foodservice program in the nation with a $90 million budget serving six million meals

Vachon 2
annually.2 Nearly 83 percent of the over 22,000 undergraduate students at UMass are on one of
the eight different meal plans offered.2 The university prides itself in its standing as the number
one campus food provider in the United States according to The Princeton Review.3 Since 2013
the university has been ranked among the top three schools. In May of 2013, Chancellor Kumble
R. Subbaswamy signed the Real Food Challenge requiring 20% of the universitys food
purchases to come from food systems which strengthen local economies, respect human rights,
ensure ecological sustainability, and facilitate community involvement and education by the year
2020.4 These foods are known as real food. This national campaign seeks to harness the
purchasing power of universities to make strides towards a more just world within the food
industry and beyond. As of the 2015 fiscal year, UMass was sourcing 13.5% Real Food.5
A 2014 grant from the Kendall Foundation valued at $485,000 is being used to increase
local produce from its current 32% use.6 The university aligned with Food Solutions New
Englands regional goal to source 50% local food by the year 2060.7 Over the past fiscal year the
university invested over $4.5 million in local and sustainable foods with over half sourcing
directly from New England farms, cooperatives, and vendors.8 An estimated $3.2 million will be
invested in sustainable foods annually.6 UMass Dining executives also intend on using the
Kendall grant to add more free-range eggs and local and regional meats, dairy, and fish to their
operations. Just this year, UMass partnered with Walden Local Meat, a New England based meat
share which focuses on fully traceable, better tasting, healthier, sustainable, local, ethical, and
economical beef, pork, lamb, and poultry.9 Walden Local Meat Company maintains partnerships
with 75 farms across New England. It is a great step towards a more holistic food purchasing
system.

Vachon 3
Despite these improvements, even the changes at UMass do not positively influence the
entire food system. The food system consists of food production, distribution and aggregation,
food processing, marketing, markets and purchasing, preparation and consumption, and resource
and waste recovery. The state needs to support all aspects of holistic food systems in order to
promote equity.
Problem Statement
There are currently no regulations dictating how the states money is spent. This has
resulted in a lack of consistency in the quality of food service across the state. Massachusetts
should use its budget to support holistic food systems which promote nutrition, community, and
the environment.
Evidence
In Massachusetts, higher education consists of 10.4% of the budget. This is equivalent to
fifty-five billion dollars.1 Since there are no specifications to how the budget must be spent in
terms of food service, there is a significant lack of consistency in the quality of food provided.
Quality encompasses the nutritional, environmental, and social quality of a food item in all
stages of the food system. For the purposes of this policy proposal, a quality food is considered
one with substantial nutritional benefits which was produced in environmentally conscious ways
while working to support equitable and just social systems.
As a whole, the purchasing power of universities and colleges is immense. In 2012
Technomic, a Chicago-based food service industry research firm, found that food and
nonalcoholic beverage purchases by United States colleges and universities totaled 6.6 billion

Vachon 4
dollars. The revenue from these purchases totaled 15.3 billion dollars. Ken Tong, the Executive
Director of Auxiliary Enterprises at UMass, cites that food service generates 78 million dollars in
revenue for the university. From 2007-2012 the campus food industry grew at 4 percent
annually.7 At this rate it is clear to see that universities provide a significant market. The question
is whether higher education institutions are willing to make investments in real food markets as
opposed to outsourcing to a food service provider.
Over seventy percent of universities outsource their dining operations to food service
companies. Ninety percent of that seventy percent are contracted with one of three major
companies: Aramark, Sodexo, or Compass Group. The remaining thirty percent of universities
are self-operated but exist within the same system as contracted dining. One of the issues with
this system is that it requires universities to adhere to compliance numbers with specific large
scale food distributers in accordance with their contracts. Even self-operated systems source
from large vendors in order to remain price-competitive, according to a report on university food
policy out of the University of California system.10 This creates barriers for universities to
purchase locally sourced real foods since the school systems must first meet the contracted
purchasing requirements of their vendors.
The Big 3 corporations precipitate issues relating to fair labor, animal welfare,
hormones and non-therapeutic antibiotics, genetic modification of crops and livestock, toxicity,
water conservation and quality, soil conservation and health, global warming, protection of
wildlife, local economies, food quality and safety, and nutrition related health concerns.11
Aramark and Sodexo provide food to Ole Miss and the University of Colorado respectively.
Recent student run grassroots movements at these institutions have urged the universities to end

Vachon 5
contracts with their industrial food service providers. Proponents cite that the companies provide,
poisons with meals of fake industrial food manufactured from their chemically intensive,
industrial, commodity monocultures flavored with human and animal suffering, environmental
degradation and community destruction leaving behind sickness and disease, the once good
stewards of our lands and livestock broken and discarded.12 These concerns are justified as
evidenced below.
The environmental impacts of large scale agriculture and food distribution are immense.
Eighty four percent of freshwater is used for agriculture according to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencys studies.13 Agriculture is also identified as the leading source of surface and
ground water contamination. The reliance on pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides threatens
human and environmental health. Soil degradation as a result of monoculture practices provide
nitrogen sources which contribute to global warming. Other large scale agriculture operations
contribute to global warming via methane from animal waste, ozone-depleting chemicals, carbon
dioxide released from farm equipment and food transportation, and the energy required to store,
process, and refrigerate massive supplies of food. Products are imported from across the globe, a
process which furthers environmental depletion with the use of fossil fuels for transportation. It
is no surprise that, the agricultural sector constitutes the second highest source of greenhouse
gas emissions in the United States.5 Additionally, ninety percent of threatened wildlife species
are known to spend some portion of their life cycle on agricultural lands.13 The use of dangerous
chemicals on these lands further threatens this wildlife.
Beyond the scope of environmental concerns as a result of larger scaled food service
operations are public health concerns. With a thirty three percent projected increase in the rate of

Vachon 6
obesity within the next two decades, it is imperative that consumers begin to increase
consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables while reducing their consumption of processed and
fatty foods.14 The food provided by industrial monoculture is nutritionally deficient due to soil
depletion and poor soil practices. Nutritionally deficient foods are less prone to help prevent
chronic disease in the humans consuming them.5 Food additives intended to extend shelf lives,
enhance color or flavor, and prevent food borne illness may pose further negative health effects.
These include hormones, antibiotics, and genetically modified crops.11
The exploitation of labor is another unfortunate reality of the food system. The Big 3s
Sodexo, Aramark, and Compass Group have repeatedly encountered issues with labor and
workers rights. These multinational corporations, make massive profits from both cutting
corners on food quality and exploiting workers.15 This is evident in sub-poverty wages, fierce
union busting, sweatshop-like working conditions and a tendency to strip workers rights during
economic downturns.15
Food is a basic human need. Across the country nearly 20.5 million students in the United
States alone are expected to attend universities.16 These students deserve to have access to real
food which nourishes producers, consumers, communities, and the earth .17 The University of
Massachusetts at Amherst has taken strides by agreeing to use their purchasing power to promote
real food by the year 2020. As of the conclusion of 2015, UMass reports to sourcing 13.5% real
food. The university is on track to achieve its 20% real food target by 2020.5 A written food
policy will ensure that the university upholds its commitment to the healthy, local, and ethical
purchasing of foods.
Criteria

Vachon 7
An effective food purchasing higher education policy would meet the following criteria:
nutrition, environment, social implications, transparency, sustainability, and economic feasibility
of the universitys entire food sourcing and purchasing process. Nutritious food involves
providing healthy wholesome food free from antibiotics, genetically modified organisms, added
hormones, artificial ingredients, and excessive sugar, fat, and salt additives. In the wake of rising
nutrition related health concerns having access to foods which benefit health is essential. Four of
the top ten causes of mortality across the globe are chronic diseases linked to diet.18 Coupled with
the growing obesity crisis, the country is now facing an unprecedented phenomenon in which
todays adults may outlive their children.19 A focus on purchasing nutritionally dense food would
work to counter the growing public health crisis.
The current food system in the United States has direct and indirect environmental
effects. Particular contributors are large scale farms which represents a mere four percent of total
farm population yet are responsible for over two thirds of the agricultural production in the
United States today.20 The negative environmental consequences of the current food system can
be categorized into environmental contaminates/pollutants, depletion and replenishment of
natural resources, and population and community disruption. In particular, farms with large
concentrations of livestock, known as concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs, can
cause health and food safety concerns. CAFOs may contaminate water supplies or downstream
agricultural fields with pathogens, dust, odors, flies, or gaseous emissions particularly if animal
waste is not properly managed. Other contaminants of the agriculture system include nutrients,
pesticides, pharmaceuticals, pathogens, ammonia, methane, nitrous oxide, and reduced sulfur all
of which are contributors to climate change. These pollutants can also leach into the water
supply. Net resource depletion is also a common environmental influence of agriculture

Vachon 8
specifically the disruption of the soil erosion and formation balance.20 A focus on local,
environmentally friendly agricultural practices reduces the negative environmental impacts of
large scale industrialized agriculture.
Social implications of the current food system affect food producers (farmers, ranchers,
and fisher folk), people involved in other levels of the food system (food processing,
manufacturing, food service, and retailing) and consumers. Income levels, wealth, and
distributional equity are major social concerns for food system workers and consumers. Quality
of life including working conditions, job satisfaction, and ability to organize into unions are other
social implications of the current food system. Poverty rates are among the highest of any
occupational category in the United States for farm workers and are estimated between 30 to 40
percent.20 Noncitizen farm worker poverty rates are nearly triple these estimates.21 The insecure
citizenship and immigration status of many farm workers often results in a lack of economic and
political power and leaves them vulnerable to exploitation.22 As a university it is important to
use food purchasing power to support those who are treating all employees in an equitable
manner with fair wages, access to health care, appropriate living conditions, and the right to
establish unions. The importance of social responsibility should be expanded to also include the
fair and humane treatment of the animals used in the food system.
Transparency of the implemented policy is essential in order to keep both the state and
food producers accountable for their commitment to the above three criteria. A national nonprofit known as The Center for Food Integrity is committed to increasing consumer trust in the
food system. In 2015 the CFI completed a consumer truth research project which revealed that,
including information on product labels, offering engagement opportunities through company
websites and protecting whistleblowers all ranked as important practices in demonstrating

Vachon 9
transparency.23 In terms of higher education food purchasing, publishing details of where all
food is being sourced from is essential to increasing accessibility and transparency of food
purchasing. Current food purchasing data at UMass has been inaccessible to the very people
consuming the food.
In order for a policy implement long lasting and effective change it must be sustainable.
Changes to government regulations at the federal, state, or local level could at any point affect
the outcomes of a policy. For this reason it is important to have a sustainability factor which
indicates how such policy changes would be reflected on the initial intentions of the original
policy. The terms of a policy should also be revisited on a regular basis in order to assure the
policy outcomes are still fulfilling a need. Policy is not meant to be stagnant because the
populations policy serves are not stagnant. To counter this, a policy should have long lasting
implications which are assessed, evaluated, and altered as necessary.
The establishment of a policy is larger based upon its economic feasibility. A policy could
be wonderful but if it is not affordable it cannot be implemented. The final criterion is economic
feasibility both in the long and short term.
Policy Alternative One
The Real Food Challenge is a national initiative aimed at shifting one billion dollars of
existing university food budgets from industrial farms to local community based, fair,
ecologically sound and humane real food sources by the year 2020. In an effort to rectify some
of the food systems issues, the national Real Food Challenge campaign is guided by six core
principles: The Real Food Principle, The Movement Principle, The Youth Principle, The
Partnership Principle, The Multi-Cultural Principle, and The Participatory Principle.24 The focus

Vachon 10
of the campaign is to encourage a one billion dollar shift of university food budgets from
industrial food production to real food from local community based operations by the year 2020.
The Movement Principle recognizes that the Real Food Challenge is one facet of a larger
globally scoped movement towards a more just and sustainable world. Young people, primarily
students, are a driving force in this campaign. Students are paying for the food their campuses
provide. In this way they are directly affected by the food purchasing which their university
partakes in. A student run campaign is an excellent way of keeping university administrators and
food service operators accountable to the people they serve.
Collaboration is another guiding principle. In order for the Real Food Challenge to
succeed, there needs to be collaboration within administration, dining services, producers,
community groups, students, and faculty. This provides an opportunity to increase transparency
across all levels which would further encourage a campus to community connection.
Another issue with the current food system is that it is rooted in historical and current
oppression. The Real Food Challenge aims to work towards dismantling these systems of
oppression in accordance with The Multi-Cultural Principle. The campaign seeks to build a
multi-cultural movement which thrives on and utilizes difference. Providing food which meets
the needs of a diverse student body in terms of both culture and religion is essential. The
Participatory Principle details that the campaign will focus on hearing all voices with respect in
order to inspire leadership, planning, and decision-making among participants. Aspects of each
of these guiding principles will be incorporated into the written Real Food Challenge policy at
UMass.

Vachon 11
Emphasis is placed on purchasing foods which reflect the values of Real Food. Purchases
are assessed based on how closely they meet the Real Food Standards. Local and community
based standards are characterized as foods which are produced at nearby farms, ranches, boats,
and businesses which are small to medium in size. These food businesses challenge
consolidation trends while supporting local economies.25 This category is assessed with
independent research into the distance of the purchaser from the producer. Shorter supply chains
enable these direct relationships and increased transparency. Fair food indicates that individuals
involved in that food items production are ensured safe and fair conditions, fair compensation,
the right to organize, equal employment opportunity, and the right to a grievance process.25
Meeting the standards involves being certified by one of the approved third party certifications:
Ecocert Fair Trade, Fairtrade America, Fair Trade USA, Fairtrade International Fair Labeling
Organization, Fair For Life Institute for Marketecology, FairWild, Hand in Hand, Equitable Food
Initiative, Food Justice Agricultural Justice Project, Milk with Dignity, Fair Food Program
Coalition of Immokalee Workers. Ecologically sound indicates the food production process
practices, environmental stewardship that conserves biodiversity and ecosystem resilience and
preserves natural resources, including energy, wildlife, water, air, and soil. Production practices
should minimize toxic substances, direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions, natural resource
depletion, and environmental degradation.25 Meeting the standards involves being certified by
one of the following third party certifications: ANSI/LEO-4000 the American National Standard
for Sustainable Agriculture by Leonardo Academy, Biodynamic by Demeter, FairWild, Food
Alliance Rainforest Alliance, Salmon Safe, USDA Organic Standard, and Bird Friendly by
Smithsonian (coffee only). Humane indicates the animals involved in the food production are
able to express natural behaviors amidst low stress environments free from added hormones or

Vachon 12
non-therapeutic antibiotics. Meeting the standards involves being certified by one of the
following third party approved certifications: Animal Welfare Approved/Certified AWA by A
Greener World, Biodynamic by Demeter, Certified Humane by Humane Farm Animal Care (all
species except swine), AWA Grassfed by A Greener World, Global Animal Partnership steps 45+, Pennsylvania Certified Organic 100% Grassfed by USDA, and American Humane Certified
Free Range (Eggs only).
Outcome of this policy would be a minimum of 20% of the existing higher education
facilitys food budget is allotted to the purchasing of foods which meet these real food criteria
by the year 2020. It is a policy with long term goals included. Food purchased would be
nutritious, environmentally conscious, socially responsible, and encourage transparency.
Trade-offs of implementing the Real Food Challenge on campuses are that it still leaves 80%
of food purchasing open to industrial foodservice providers and outsourcing contracts with food
companies. The real food purchase may come at an increased food cost to the university which
would likely deflect this cost to students by increasing the meal plan costs. A major trade-off
with the Real Food Challenge is that it focuses on the foundational step in the food supply chain:
production. The real food standards do not extend to the slaughterhouse, distributer, or cafeteria
where many real food standard digressions could occur. Real Food certification may be
inaccessible to some food producers especially smaller scale producers because of the
challenges reliance on third party certifications which often are expensive and cannot
independently encompass all of the Real Food Challenges values.
Policy Alternative Two

Vachon 13
The Good Food Purchasing Program encourages large institutions to redirect their food
purchasing power towards fulfilling five core values: local economies, environmental
sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare, and nutrition.26 The values are held in equal
measure. Local economy standards include supporting small and mid-sized agricultural and food
processing operations within the local region. It is based on a combination of farm size by
acreage and farm driving distance from the purchasing institution. The vision for nutrition
involves promoting health and well-being through large vegetable, fruit, and whole grain
portions as well as offering minimally processed foods low in salt, added sugar and saturated
fats. Artificial additives should be eliminated. A focus is to improve, equity, affordability,
accessibility, and consumption of high quality culturally relevant Good Food in all
communities.26 In order to measure the nutritional quality of food a 25-item checklist is used
which includes procurement targets as well as food service environment targets. Valued
workforce compliance is measured by adherence to institutional labor laws. Higher credit is
given when compliance is met by the Equitable Food Initiative, Fair Food Consumer Powered
Worker certified, Fair Trade certified, Food Justice certified, Fair for Life Fair Trade certified by
IMO, United Farm Workers certified, and United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives
certified. Environmental sustainability involves sourcing from producers who employ:
Sustainable production systems that reduce or eliminate synthetic pesticides and
fertilizers; avoid the use or hormones, routine antibiotics and genetic engineering;
conserve soil and water; protect and enhance wildlife habitats and biodiversity; and
reduce on-farm energy and water consumption, food waste and greenhouse gas
emissions; and increase menu options that have lower carbon and water footprints.26

Vachon 14
Certifications in this standard include American Grassfed, Animal Welfare approved, School
Food Focus Responsible Antibiotic Use certified, Demeter certified, Food Alliance Producer
certified, Marine Stewardship Council, Non GMO Project verified, Protected Harvest certified
sustainable, Seafood Watch, and USDA organic. The Good Food Purchasing Standards for
animal welfare include American Humane association, Animal Welfare approved, School Food
Focus Responsible Antibiotic Use certified, Global Animal Partnership, Certified Humane
Raised & Handled, and USDA organic. There is also a focus on establishing supply chain
transparency from farm to fork.
The outcomes of implementing this policy at a state wide higher education level would be
ensuring that the food purchased would fulfill the five above values of The Good Food
Purchasing Program. Food purchased would be nutritious, environmentally conscious, socially
responsible, and encourage transparency. There are indications that transparency would increase
as a result of shorter supply chains from farm to fork.
As with the Real Food Challenge trade-offs, this policy has trade-offs. The Good Food
Purchasing Program would likely increase food costs. Increases in university food costs would
likely be reflected in increase meal plan costs for students. The Good Food Purchasing also relies
on a variety of other certifications which are expensive and inaccessible to smaller scale food
operations.
Policy Alternative Three
The Responsible Epicurean and Agricultural Leadership (REAL) certification was created by
the United States Healthful Food Council, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization.
Certification is intended to serve as a, nationally recognized mark of excellence for food and

Vachon 15
foodservice operators committed to holistic nutrition and environmental stewardship.27 REAL
certification is based on four core tenets which withhold the USHFCs mission to transform the
food system by increasing the production and consumption of healthful and sustainable food for
all communities.24 The tenets, responsible, epicurean, agricultural, and leadership, establish the
framework for the criteria required to be REAL certified. Responsible indicates a food is
providing substantial nutritional benefit. Epicurean indicates that the preparation enhances the
food quality and experience. Agricultural indicates the food comes from the safest and highestquality sources. Leadership enables better choices for all types of food. Each tenet is evaluated
based on a real index point system in order to quantify how well a foodservice operation is
adhering to the criteria.
Outcomes of enacting this policy would be that food purchased would be healthful and
environmentally conscious. Food purchased would have substantial nutritional benefit. It would
be from the safest and highest quality sources. Consumption of the food would lead to an
enhanced food experience with better food choices.
The REAL certification model has several trade-offs. Primarily, it fails to assess the rights of
the workers involved in the production of the food. It is based on the purchasing, preparation,
and consumption stages of the food supply chain rather than on food production. There is a focus
on nutritional and environmental factors primarily in a restaurant setting rather than a university
foodservice operation. Another trade-off of the REAL certification is that there is a cost
associated with becoming REAL certified which may be an economic barrier to some.
Certification also only requires that one meet 50% of the total indicators in order to achieve
certification.28 This could lead to foods which disproportionately support certain characteristics
from becoming certified even if they perpetuate other negative characteristics.

Vachon 16
Policy Recommendation
The best, most effective policy solution is the Real Food Challenge supplemented with
public health components of The Good Food Purchasing System. The Real Food Challenge
offers the most holistic food purchasing guidelines. It meets each of the four established criteria
to some extent. There is heavy emphasis placed on environmental and social implications. There
is little mention of transparency except that engaging with smaller farms results in shorter supply
chains which in turn can increase transparency. Ideally, the higher education facility would need
to be committed to enhancing this transparency.
The Real Food Challenge lacks in its commitment to promoting nutrition. While it does
ensure quality foods will be purchased it does not include a community education component
which encourages the consumption of nutritious foods. This is why the policy should be
supplemented with The Good Food Purchasing System. The promotion of health and well-being
is one of the systems core values. By implementing a promotion of the nutritious foods already
being purchased, The Real Food Challenge can expand outreach while encouraging healthy
eating habits and positive holistic relationships with the food system.
Gaining Support
A key target for gaining support for this policy would be the students and faculty who
regularly use their institutions food services. These individuals are interacting with food systems
on a daily basis and the food they are exposed to affects their health outcomes. Students are
paying the price for the food they are eating in an economic and nutritional sense. By appealing
to the students who pay for food which does not support holistic food systems, a grassroots
movement similar to the Real Food Challenge campaign could be established. The negative

Vachon 17
health outcomes associated with consuming poor quality food would be emphasized as well as
the economic burden of purchasing foods which are not supporting of holistic food systems.
These students and faculty groups could then appeal to their own institutions to adopt the policy.
Once a portion of the Massachusetts funded higher education institutions have already
implemented regulations to their food purchasing, the state would have no reason to support
these changes with a policy ensuring their sustainability through multiple administrations.
Reflection
One take away I will have from the course if the importance of sustainability in policy. In
order for a policy to implement long lasting change it must be flexible with the changing nature
of the communities and systems it addresses. From the state house visit, I realized how
frustrating work in public policy can be. Despite many wonderful ideas for policy actually
implementing those changes is often a painstakingly long process. That fact can be extremely
discouraging since changes will not necessarily be made quickly. I also think it is important to
recognize any disconnect between the people writing policy and the people affected by the
policy. Far too often there are policies being written and enacted by individuals who will never
feel the negative effects of the policies they worked so diligently to pass. This can be especially
discouraging particularly in the dawn of a new political administration in this country.

Vachon 18
References
1. Massachusetts Department of Higher Education. (2016). About the Public Higher Education
System. Retrieved from: www.mass.edu/system

2. Hernandez, P. (10 September 2013). Campus dining is a big industry, especially at UMass
Amherst. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/fooddining/2013/09/10/campus-dining-big-industry-especially-umassamherst/uaMpTMXSVy5Qh3euuv7mLL/story.html.

3. The Princeton Review. (2016). Best Campus Food. Retrieved from

http://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=best-campus-food.

4. The Real Food Campus Commitment. The Real Food Challenge. Retrieved from
http://www.realfoodchallenge.org/commitment.

5. Local UMass. Why Local? Retrieved from http://www.localumass.com/why-local1.html.

6. Chesin, C. (19 October 2016). Question Three: The egg debate. Amherst Wire. Retrieved
from: http://amherstwire.com/16967/campus/question-three-the-egg-debate/
7. Tong, K. & DiStefano G. (2016). Making Local, Healthy, Sustainable Delicious: The How-to
Guide for Foodservice Operations. p 6.
8. The Local, Healthy UMass Food System Initiative. (2016). Local UMass. Retrieved from:
http://www.localumass.com/
9. Walden Local Meat: What is a Meat Share? (2016). Retrieved from:
http://waldenlocalmeat.com/#/standards/

Vachon 19
10. University Food Policy in Americas Breadbasket. University Food Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-system.

11. A Guide to Developing a Sustainable Food Purchasing Policy. Food alliance. Retrieved from
http://www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org.

12. Callicrate, M. (29 October 2012). BIG FOOD- hiding within the walls of our institutions of
higher education. No-Bull Food. Retrieved from
http://nobull.mikecallicrate.com/2012/10/29/big-food-hiding-within-the-walls-of-ourinstitutions-of-higher-education/.

13. U.S. EPA (2014). FreshwAter Agriculture Studies. Retrieved from http://epa.gov.

14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015
2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. December 2015. Retrieved from
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/.

15. USAS U. Washington Kicks Out Sodexo! D.R. Workers Struggle Gains Momentum as U.S.
Workers Win Unions. (14 December 2011). Seattle Times. Retrieved from
http://usas.org/2011/12/14/uw-kicks-out-sodexo/.

16. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Fast facts back to school statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372.

Vachon 20

17. Real Food Challenge. (2014). About Real Food Challenge. Retrieved from
http://realfoodchallenge.org/about-real-food-challenge.

18. Pollan, M., & Go Big Read (Program). (2008). In defense of food: An eater's manifesto. New
York: Penguin Press. Retrieved from: http://michaelpollan.com/videos/in-defense-offood-on-pbs/
19. Chapman, J. & Utton, T. Parents may soon outlive obese children. Daily Mail UK. Retrieved
from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-137523/Parents-soon-outlive-obesechildren.html
20. Committee on a Framework for Assessing the Health, Environmental, and Social Effects of
the Food System; Food and Nutrition Board; Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources; Institute of Medicine; National Research Council; Nesheim MC, Oria M, Yih
PT, editors. A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System. Washington (DC):
National Academies Press (US); 2015 Jun 17. 4, Environmental Effects of the U.S. Food
System. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK305182/
21. Kandel W. Profile of hired farmworkers. A 2008 update. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; 2008. (Economic Research Report No. ERR60).
22. Hall M, Greenman E. International Migration Review. 2014. [November 23, 2014]. The
occupational cost of being illegal in the United States: Legal status, job hazards, and
compensating differentials. Retrieved from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imre.12090/pdf.
23. Arnot, Charlie. Transparency Is No Longer Optional: How Food Companies Can Restore
Trust 2016. Retrieved from:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2015/11/30/transparency-no-longeroptional/#513a103a7705
24. United States Healthful Food Council. (2016). Mission Statement. Retrieved from:
http://ushfc.org/about/mission/
25. The Real Food Guide (2016). The Real Food Challenge.
26. Center for Good Food Purchasing (2016). The Good Food Purchasing Program. Retrieved
from: goodfoodpurchasing.org
27. United States Healthful Food Council. (2016). FAQ. Retrieved from: http://ushfc.org/faqs/

Vachon 21
28. Eat REAL (2016). FAQ. Retrieved from: https://eatreal.org/faq/