Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: civic engagement, health and local agriculture

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interest in and initiation of farm-to-school (FTS) programs have increased in recent years, spurred on by converging public concerns about child obesity trends and risks associated with industrialization and distancing in the modern food system. A civic agriculture framework that more specifically considers civic engagement and problem solving offers insights about variations in the development and prospects for FTS programs. Drawing on comparative case studies of two emerging FTS initiatives in Pennsylvania—one in a rural setting and one in an urban setting—this article examines the role of internal and external “champions” in launching FTS programs and fostering civic engagement. Farm-to-school community stakeholders across the two cases framed FTS in broadly similar terms of (1) redressing poor food environments; (2) improving student nutrition, health and well-being; and (3) revitalizing rural community through support of local agriculture. However, specific concerns and emphases differed across the rural and urban cases, illustrating the significance of local context for such programs. The article concludes by discussing the importance of frame bridging and frame extension as strategies for expanding the FTS movement, and also ensuring programs that correspond to the specific circumstances and possibilities of their social and geographic settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This has been reflected in the popular press with a number of recent publications addressing the broad social, health and environmental implications of a more industrialized and corporation-controlled food system. See, e.g. Nestle (2002), Patel (2007), Pollan (2006), and Schlosser (2001).

  2. Indicators of civic engagement used in one study were the percentage of population that belongs to a church and the percentage of population that voted in the most recent U.S. presidential election (Lyson et al. 2001).

  3. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania utilizes a definition of “rural” and “urban” based on population density. A school district is rural when the number of persons per square mile is fewer than 274, which is the mean number of persons per square mile in Pennsylvania based on 2000 Census data.

References

  • Allen, P., and J. Guthman. 2007. From old school to farm-to-school: Neoliberalization from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 401–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagdonis, J.M. 2007. Perceptions and organization of emerging farm-to-school programming in rural and urban Pennsylvania settings. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

  • Benford, R.D. 1993. Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces 71: 677–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 11–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blay-Palmer, A. 2008. Food fears: From industrial to sustainable food systems. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S., and C.S. Levy. 1999. Professions and civic engagement: Trends in rhetoric and practice, 1875–1995. In Civic engagement in American democracy, ed. T. Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina, 163–210. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Rural Pennsylvania. 2005. Overweight children in Pennsylvania. http://www.ruralpa.org/Overweight_child.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2008.

  • Delind, L.B. 2002. Place, work, and civic agriculture: Common fields for cultivation from the ground up. Agriculture and Human Values 23 (4): 401–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, A.H., and G.W. Gillespie Jr. 2000. Community food systems: Toward a common language for building productive partnerships. http://www.foodroutes.org/doclib/28/foodsystemdefs.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2008.

  • Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassanein, N. 2003. Practicing food democracy: A pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Studies 19: 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedley, A.A., C.L. Ogden, C.L. Johnson, M.D. Carroll, L.R. Curtin, and K.M. Flegal. 2004. Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. Journal of the American Medical Association 291: 2847–2850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgartner, S., and C.L. Bosk. 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology 94 (1): 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirshey, G. 2007. Local foods 101, with a school as his lab. New York Times, May 13.

  • Kalb, M. 2008. National farm to school network takes root. Community Food Security News (winter): 1, 12.

  • Kloppenburg, J., and N. Hassanein. 2006. From old school to reform school? Agriculture and Human Values 23: 417–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavizzo-Mourey, R. 2007. Childhood obesity: What it means for physicians. Journal of the American Medical Association 298 (8): 920–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A. 2000. Moving toward civic agriculture. Choices (third quarter): 42–45.

  • Lyson, T.A. 2004. Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A. 2005. Civic agriculture and community problem solving. Culture and Agriculture 27 (2): 92–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A., and A. Guptill. 2004. Commodity agriculture, civic agriculture and the future of U.S. farming. Rural Sociology 69 (3): 370–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyson, T.A., R.J. Torres, and R. Welsh. 2001. Scale of agricultural production, civic engagement and community welfare. Social Forces 80 (1): 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C.W. 1940. Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. American Sociological Review 5 (6): 904–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nestle, M. 2002. Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, P., and H. Johnston. 2000. What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. Mobilization 5 (1): 37–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olshansky, S.J., D.J. Passaro, R.C. Hershow, J. Layden, B.A. Carnes, J. Brody, L. Hayflick, R.N. Butler, D.B. Allison, and D.S. Ludwig. 2005. A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century. New England Journal of Medicine 352: 1138–1145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, R. 2007. Stuffed and starved: Markets, power and the hidden battle for the world’s food system. London, UK: Portabello Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollan, M. 2006. The omnivore’s dilemma. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satcher, D. 2001. The surgeon general’s call to action to prevent and decrease overweight and obesity 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafft, K.A., E.B. Jensen, and C.C. Hinrichs. 2009. Food deserts and overweight schoolchildren: Evidence from Pennsylvania. Rural Sociology. Forthcoming.

  • Schlosser, E. 2001. Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skocpol, T. 1999. Advocates without members: The recent transformation of American civic life. In Civic engagement in American democracy, ed. T. Skocpol and M.P. Fiorina, 461–509. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, S. 2005. Elementary eating. The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. F1, November 23.

  • Trainor, J.K. 2006. Stakeholder roles and perceptions in the creation and success of Farm to School programs. Appetite 47: 401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Census Bureau. 2001. Metropolitan areas ranked by population: 2000. http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/tables/tab03.pdf.

  • Vallianatos, M., R. Gottlieb, and M.A. Haase. 2004. Farm to school: Strategies for urban health, combating sprawl, and establishing a community food systems approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research 23: 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, R.A., and L.L. Kaiser. 2006. Perceived barriers and proposed solutions to farm-to-school programs in California. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 38 (4): S51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogt, R.A., and L.L. Kaiser. 2008. Still a time to act: A review of institutional marketing of regionally-grown food. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2): 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, M. 2005. Education for change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 305–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W., M. Score, and D.S. Conner. 2007. Food system makers: Motivational frames for catalyzing agri-food development through multi-stakeholder collaboration. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society 38 (3): 39–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a Health Thematic Initiative grant from the Pennsylvania State University Office for Outreach.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Clare Hinrichs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bagdonis, J.M., Hinrichs, C.C. & Schafft, K.A. The emergence and framing of farm-to-school initiatives: civic engagement, health and local agriculture. Agric Hum Values 26, 107–119 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9173-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-008-9173-6

Keywords

Navigation