clover sitesstorage.cloversites.com/northwestohiofoodcouncil... · web viewfood system. assessment...

FOOD SYSTEMASSESSMENT OF

LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIES

Kurt Dieringer, Emily Knox, Eric Meyer, Glennon Sweeney, and Elizabeth Varanese

D r. J ill Clark: Food Systems Planning and the Economy The Ohio State University, 2013

FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT OF LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIES 1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….2

2. Study Area………………………………………………………………………………....3-5 Lucas County……………………………………………………………………….....3-4

Ottawa County…….…………………………………………………………………..4-5 Monroe County…………………..………………………………………………………5

3. Food Policy Council……………………...………………………………………………….7

4. Food Production………………….…………………….………………………………...7-11

5. Food Process and Distribution…………………...…….………………………………11-12

6. Retail…………………………………………………………...………………………..12-14

7. Consumption………………………………………………………………………...….15-20 Expenditures……….….…..…………………….………………………………………...15

Food Insecurity ……………………...….………………………………………………...16

Food Assistance..……………………………..………………………………..…….…17-20 A. Government Assistance………………………………………………….…..17-20

B. Private Assistance.....………………………………..………………..…............20

8. Food Access…………………………………………………………………………….20-22

9. Alternative Food System Practices & Projects………………………………………21-22

10. Food and Farm Policy…………………………………………...……….…………..22-27Lucas County……………………………………………………………………..22-24Ottawa County……….………………………………………………………………24Monroe County…………………………………………………………………...25-27

11. Gaps in Assessment………..........………………………………………………...………20

12. Conclusion...……………..………………………………………………………...…..28-29

13. Works Cited………....…………………………………………………………………30-32

14. Appendices….…………………………………………………………………...……..33-35


1. Food System Assessment Introduction

A food system consists of all the processes and infrastructure involved in providing food for a

population. Common components of a food system include cultivation, collection, refining, packaging,

distributing, marketing, consumption, and disposal of food and food related products. Food systems are

subject to the influence of economic, political, environmental, and social factors, and these influences

can affect how people, governments, and firms view each component of the system. Changes in

regulatory practices, consumer demand and preferences, and tolerance for environmental impact are

examples of how food systems are affected. A comprehensive food system assessment looks to

catalog and comment on all the components of the food system and the factors that influence the food

system (Freedgood, 2011).

Not all food system assessments study every part that makes up the food system. Food system

assessments vary in both the scope of food system components covered and in the extent of the targeted

geographical area. Some food system assessments are narrow in scope, often only covering a single city

or town, while others can extend to entire regions or countries.

Food system assessments can have several goals. Some food system assessments are designed to

help engage citizens in the planning of food system processes; others help communities and governments

address sustainability and food access issues. Still others evaluate the extent to which dietary needs are

met, and economic development is affected by the food system (Freedgood, 2011). Overall, food system

assessments give governments, organizations, and citizens evaluations and data from which problems and

successes in the food system become clear. The purpose of this food system analysis of Lucas, Monroe,

and Ottawa counties is to provide information to local governments, organizations, and citizens in a

format that facilitates the improvement of problem areas in the food systems in these counties, while

expanding on their positive practices. Without this understanding of strengths and weaknesses, no new

policies and strategies can improve the operation of the food systems.

This report begins by addressing Lucas County, followed by Ottawa County and Monroe County,

Michigan.


2. Study Area

Lucas County, Ohio

Figure 2.1.0: Map of Lucas County, Ohio Figure 2.1.1: Map of Ohio with Lucas County Highlighted

Lucas County is located in the northwestern portion of Ohio bordering Fulton and Henry

Counties to the west, Wood and Ottawa Counties to the south, Lake Erie on the East, and the State of

Michigan and Monroe and Lenawee Counties to the north, as shown above in figures 2.1.0 and 2.1.1. As

figure 2.4 on page 6 shows, Lucas County shares many characteristics with the state of Ohio. First, the

population of Lucas County (441,815) is larger than its neighboring counties, containing nearly three

times the population of Monroe County (152,021) and close to ten times as many people as Ottawa

County (41,428). The size of the county enables it to employ people in a broad range of sectors and a

more diverse population, like the state as a whole. It has a low rate of foreign-born inhabitants (3.6%)

and a small percentage of non-English speaking households (6.1%). Lucas County contains more African

Americans (19.4% compared to 12.4%), fewer Whites (76% compared to 83.6%), and a higher level of

poverty (19.5% compared to 14.8%) than the state of Ohio as a whole.

Lucas County’s inhabitants are of similar age demographics as the state of Ohio, with children

under five years of age comprising 6.6% of the county, people under the age of 18 comprising 23.7% of


the county, and persons sixty-five years and older comprising 13.4% of the county. Demographic trends,

particularly poverty rates and public assistance rates are helpful measures in determining where, how, and

what types of food are being consumed in the region.

Ottawa County, Ohio

Figure 2.2.0: Map of Ottawa County, Ohio Figure 2.2.1: Map of Ohio with Ottawa County Highlighted

Ottawa County is located south/southeast of Lucas County and shares a large eastern border with

Lake Erie, a southern border with Erie and Sandusky Counties, and a western border with Fulton County

as shown in figures 2.2.0 and 2.2.1. Ottawa County is the smallest of the three counties discussed in this

assessment in terms of population (41, 428), but Ottawa County is also the smallest geographically

(254.92 sq. miles) by over 100 sq. miles. Ottawa County is far less diverse than Lucas, Monroe, and the

state of Ohio, with a non-Hispanic white population (93.3%) dominating the vast majority of Ottawa

County. Ottawa County also has the lowest percentage of inhabitants under the age of five (4.8%) and

under the age of 18 (20.3%), as well as the highest percentage of inhabitants age sixty-five or older

(19.5%) when compared to Lucas County, Monroe County, and the state of Ohio. However, Ottawa

County does exhibit the lowest poverty rate (10.2%) of any county in this assessment and compared to the

state of Ohio as a whole (14.8%). Finally, Ottawa County is notable for a higher than normal rate of


homeownership (81.3%) both compared to the state of Ohio (68.7%), and to Lucas County (64.1%) and

Monroe County (80.4%).

Monroe County, Michigan

Figure 2.3.0: Map of Monroe County, Michigan Figure 2.3.1: Map of Michigan with Monroe County Highlighted

Monroe County, Michigan is located in the southeast corner of the state bordering Lake Erie to

the east, Wayne and Washtenaw Counties to the north, Lenawee County to the west, and Lucas County,

Ohio to the south, as shown in figures 2.3.0 and 2.3.1. Monroe County is the largest of the three counties

discussed in terms of geography (254.92 sq. miles) and is similar to the state of Ohio in terms of

population density (276.7 persons per sq. mile compared to Ohio’s 282.3). Monroe County is only

slightly more diverse than Ottawa, as Monroe has a high rate of non-Hispanic Whites (92.3%). Monroe

County’s percentage of inhabitants living below the poverty line (10.4%) nearly matches Ottawa

County’s low rate (10.2%) as well. Monroe parallels Lucas and the state of Ohio in terms of the

percentage of inhabitants under five years of age (5.7%), under eighteen years of age (23.7%), and sixty-

five and above (13.8%). Lastly, Monroe has the lowest level of inhabitants age twenty-five and older

who hold at least a Bachelor’s degree (17.2%) of any area included in this assessment.


People QuickFacts Lucas County Ottawa County Monroe County OhioPopulation, 2012 estimate NA NA NA 11,544,225Population, 2011 estimate 440,005 41,396 151,560 11,541,007Population, 2010 (April 1) estimates base 441,815 41,428 152,021 11,536,502Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 NA NA NA 0.1% Population, percent change, April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2011 -0.4% -0.1% -0.3% Z Population, 2010 441,815 41,428 152,021 11,536,504Persons under 5 years, percent, 2011 6.6% 4.8% 5.7% 6.2%Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011 23.7% 20.3% 23.7% 23.3% Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011 13.4% 19.5% 13.8% 14.3% Female persons, percent, 2011 51.6% 50.6% 50.7% 51.2%

White persons, percent, 2011 (a) 76.0% 97.4% 95.1% 83.6% Black persons, percent, 2011 (a) 19.4% 1.0% 2.3% 12.4% American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011 (a) 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% Asian persons, percent, 2011 (a) 1.6% 0.3% 0.6% 1.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, percent, 2011 (a) Z Z Z Z Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011 2.7% 1.1% 1.6% 1.9% Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011 (b) 6.2% 4.3% 3.1% 3.2% White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011 70.9% 93.3% 92.3% 81.0%

Living in same house 1 year & over, percent, 2007-2011 83.7% 88.3% 88.8% 85.3% Foreign born persons, percent, 2007-2011 3.6% 1.8% 1.9% 3.9% Language other than English spoken at home, percent age 5+, 2007-2011 6.1% 4.0% 3.8% 6.5% High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 87.3% 90.1% 88.2% 87.8% Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25+, 2007-2011 23.0% 19.8% 17.1% 24.5% Veterans, 2007-2011 31,572 4,087 12,271 914,971Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2007-2011 19.7 21.9 24.6 22.9

Housing units, 2011 202,272 28,009 62,749 5,133,446Homeownership rate, 2007-2011 64.1% 81.3% 80.4% 68.7% Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2007-2011 25.9% 13.0% 13.5% 22.9% Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2007-2011 $119,200 $141,900 $156,600 $135,600Households, 2007-2011 178,777 18,009 58,200 4,554,007Persons per household, 2007-2011 2.42 2.25 2.59 2.46Per capita money income in the past 12 months (2011 dollars), 2007-2011 $23,857 $28,404 $25,774 $25,618Median household income, 2007-2011 $41,949 $53,614 $55,826 $48,071Persons below poverty level, percent, 2007-2011 19.5% 10.2% 10.4% 14.8%

Business QuickFacts Lucas County Ottawa County Monroe County OhioPrivate nonfarm establishments, 2010 9,947 1,020 2,383 253,491Private nonfarm employment, 2010 188,403 9,962 34,678 4,352,481Private nonfarm employment, percent change, 2000-2010 -14.6 -18.6 -12.3 -13Nonemployer establishments, 2010 24,289 2,970 8,283 730,393

Total number of firms, 2007 30,867 4,723 10,419 897,939Black-owned firms, percent, 2007 7.1% F 1.7% 5.8% American Indian- and Alaska Native-owned firms, percent, 2007 0.8% F 0.7% 0.3% Asian-owned firms, percent, 2007 1.9% S 1.3% 2.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander-owned firms, percent, 2007 F F F S Hispanic-owned firms, percent, 2007 2.1% S 0.7% 1.1% Women-owned firms, percent, 2007 26.0% S 28.9% 27.7%

Manufacturers shipments, 2007 ($1000) 20,075,519 762,744 3,502,955 295,890,890Merchant wholesaler sales, 2007 ($1000) 4,943,587 71,776 D 135,575,279Retail sales, 2007 ($1000) 5,829,999 461,192 1,465,317 138,816,008Retail sales per capita, 2007 $12,493 $11,195 $9,555 $12,049Accommodation and food services sales, 2007 ($1000) 728,585 101,439 171,549 17,779,905Building permits, 2011 271 79 110 13,762

Geography QuickFacts Lucas County Ottawa County Monroe County OhioLand area in square miles, 2010 340.86 254.92 549.39 40,860.69Persons per square mile, 2010 1,296.2 162.5 276.7 282.3FIPS Code 95 123 115 39Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area Toledo, OH Metro Area Toledo, OH Metro Area Monroe, MI Metro Area

(a) Includes persons reporting only one race. X: Not applicable(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories. S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standardsFN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measureNA: Not available F: Fewer than 100 firmsD: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information Source: US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts

Figure 2.4: Fact sheet, Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties and Ohio, data from US Census.


3. The Food Policy Council

Eleven local representatives with a variety of backgrounds founded the Northwest Ohio Food

Council (NOFC) in the spring of 2011. Universities, hospitals, the YMCA, and faith-based organizations

represent the council. Initially, farmers and food retailers were not involved with the NOFC. However,

over time the council has grown to over 160 members, including farmers and food retailers. The

NOFC’s mission is: To promote a healthy, sustainable, and equitable food system in the Metropolitan

Toledo Area and the Northwest Ohio/Southeast Michigan Region. The NOFC plans to accomplish this

goal by:

• Fostering a network of collaboration throughout the local food system

• Initiating, supporting and promoting programs in the above areas

• Promoting local and state policies that support the local food system

Indeed, the NOFC has accomplished much during its short existence. Among the NOFC’s

accomplishments are several projects including the establishment of healthy corner stores and healthy

food pantries. The NOFC collaborates with the Toledo Farmers’ Market to support the “Double-Up

Food Bucks” program, and with Lucas County Extension to promote a Northwest Ohio Farm to

School initiative.

In the near future, the NOFC hopes to develop a local foods directory that will be available

online and in print form, and to continue to improve their website and their Facebook page, which serve

as outreach tools for local communities. In the future, the NOFC hopes to attract more business leaders,

and to establish a stronger presence of farmers and food retailers on the Council.

4. Food Production

Below is a brief summary of farm and crop production data in the study area, such as the number

and size of farms, total land in farming, farm type and productivity. Data are from the Agricultural

Census and reflect trends over a 15-year period. Direct sales have made changes that are even more

dramatic in the years prior. In addition, each county represented is a notable leader in the acreage

dedicated to vegetable production and may therefore have the capacity to expand direct markets for those

crops.

Acre

s


Figure 4.1 illustrates the number of farms by size in the three counties from 1992-2007. Figure 4.2

illustrates the number acres utilized for farming in the three counties from 1992-2007. Finally, figure

4.3

shows agricultural production by type for the three counties.

Number of Farms by Size

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

1,000+ acres

500 to 999 acres

180 to 499 acres

50 to179 acres

10 to 49 acres

1 to 9 acres

01992 1997 2002 2007

Figure 4.1 Number of Farms by Size in the three counties from 1992-2007 [NOFC]

250000

Land in Farms

200000

150000

100000

Lucas

Ottawa

Monroe

50000

01992 1997 2002 2007

Figure 4.2: Number of acres utilized for farming in the three counties from 1992-2007 [NOFC]


Types of NW Ohio Regional AgriculturalProducts

Corn

Soybeans

Milk

Cattle

Vegetables

Other Livestock

Other Crops

Figure 4.3: Agricultural products by type for the three counties [NOFC]

Lucas County Highlights (Agriculture Census 2007):

54 farms sold $1.1 million of food directly to consumers. This is a 46% increase in the

number of farms selling direct (37 in 2002) and a 101% increase in direct sales over 2002

sales of $529,000.

Direct sales are 2.2% of farm product sales, more than 5 times the national average of 0.4%.

Lucas County ranks 4th in Ohio for acreage of vegetables, with 2,260.

Monroe County, Michigan, highlights (Agriculture Census 2007):

114 farms sold $628,000 of food directly to consumers. This is a 2% decrease in the number

of farms selling direct (116 in 2002) and a 51% decrease in direct sales since 2002 sales of

$1.3 million.

Direct sales are 0.5% of farm product sales, more than the national average of 0.4%.

The county ranks 8th in Michigan for acreage of vegetables, with 6,707.

Monroe County ranks 1st in Michigan for aquaculture sales, with $1.4 million.


Ottawa County highlights (Agriculture Census 2007):

66 farms sold $472,000 of food directly to consumers. This is a 50% increase in the

number of farms selling direct (44 in 2002) and a 60% increase in direct sales over 2002

sales of

$295,000.

Direct sales are 1% of farm product sales, more than double the national average of 0.4%.

Ottawa County ranks 10th in Ohio for acreage of vegetables, with 1,412.

[NOFC]

Economic Productivity, 2007Lucas Ottawa Monroe, MI Ohio

Total Acres in Farmland 62,906 115,145 207,812 13,956,563Farmland as Percentage of TotalLand Area 28.8% 70.6% 58.9% 49.2%

Total Crop Sales (Thousands) $46,281.00 $43,886.00 $122,058.00 $4,109,722.00Total Livestock Sales (Thousands) $1,607.00 $2,239.00 $8,012.00 $2,960,490.00$/acre $761.26 $ 400.58 $ 625.90 $506.59Figure 4.4 Economic Productivity of Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties and the state of Ohio, 2007.

Figure 4.4 outlines the economic productivity for the three counties and the state of

Ohio in 2007. The chart provides data regarding total acres in farmland, farmland as a

percentage of total land area, total crop and livestock sales, and dollar per acre. The reason for

differences in land productivity for each county is unknown and inconclusive if not studied over

a multi-year period, although the high profitability of vegetable production may be responsible

for placing Lucas and Monroe Counties over the state average. The slight variations of direct

sales and product mix, as shown above, cannot account for the large differences in output per

acre, leading us to look also at soil characteristics. Weather is most likely comparable in each

county, but it is notable that in 2007, 39% of the region’s farms (5,355 of 13,635) reported net

losses. If due to an unusual weather season, this could have presented an issue for the higher

clay content of Ottawa County’s soil; if so, we would expect to find similar losses from that

year in other counties within the Great Black Swamp Region, shown below in figure 4.5.


Figure 4.5: Historic Map of the Great Black Swamp. Created by Gary L. Franks for "The Maumee & Western

Reserve Road: Its History and a Survey of the Milestones" published in 2008. The red line denotes the so-called

“Mud Pike.”

5. Food Processing and Distribution

Census of Agriculture, 2007 Lucas Ottawa Monroe, MIOhio

AverageRegionalAverage

Number of food processors 31 4 7 9.91 6.19Number of fruit and vegetablepreserving and specialty food manufacturers 2 0 0 0.66 0.40Number of fruit and vegetablecanning, pickling, and drying manufacturers 2 0 0 0.40 0.22Number of cheese manufacturers 1 0 0 0.22 0.26Number of animal slaughteringand processing manufacturers 0 1 1 1.51 1.21Number of perishable preparedfood manufacturers 1 0 1 0.24 0.14Number of breweries 0 0 0 0.09 0.09Number of wineries 0 1 1 0.50 0.29

County Business Patterns, 2010Number of food processingestablishments 27 4 7 9.75 N/ANumber employed in foodprocessing 997 20 to 99 100 to 249 569 N/AAnnual payroll in food processing($1,000) 44,939.00 N/A 1,795 23,736.00 N/AAnnual payroll per employee $ 45,074.22 N/A MAX $17,950 $ 41,715.29 N/A

Figure 5.1: Food Processing in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties with Ohio and Regional Averages.

2007 2009Lucas

2007 2009Ottawa

2007 2009Monroe, MI

WIC-authorized stores (2008/2011) 50 55 5 7 27 31SNAP-authorized stores (2008/2011) 371 459 16 28 69 118Supercenters & club stores 6 10 0 1 1 1Specialized food stores 48 36 5 6 16 9Grocery stores 74 70 12 11 25 22Convenience stores 230 238 26 23 53 48

Num

ber o

f Sto

res


The number of food processors is expectedly proportional to population, as shown below in

figure 5.1. Notable, however, is that the payroll distributed to these employees is staggeringly different

from Lucas to Monroe counties. Though the County Business Patterns data is flagged to protect certain

business’ information, the best-case scenario salary for a food-processing employee in 2010 is $17,950.

The Census Bureau makes no distinction of how many of these employees are part-time.

Additionally, Lucas County lost four food processors between 2007 and 2010, accounting

for over one quarter of the lost facilities in the sector statewide during that period.

6. Retail

Number of Food Retailers by Type

900800700600500400300200100

0

Figure 6.1: Food Retailers by Type, Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties

Food retail splits into two areas: those who sell food for home consumption (groceries) or for

consumption in an establishment (restaurants). Figure 6.1 reflects the number of grocers in each county,

separated by type. It should be noted, however, that many stores will overlap categories and should not

be considered additive. For instance, a convenience store may have authorization to sell under SNAP.

The number of SNAP and WIC authorizing stores together, however, is larger than all other categories

combined in some cases; therefore, data from the USDA cannot be verified. When examining these


charts, one should keep in mind that the three counties are contiguous and that political boundaries do not

constrain consumer purchasing.

At first glance, it appears that access to all types of stores in Lucas County is by far superior to

that of Monroe or Ottawa County. A more accurate picture emerges when looking at figure 6.2, which

is normalized by how many of each type of store is in the county per 1,000 people. SNAP- Authorized

stores are much more numerous in Lucas County than in Monroe or Ottawa, while Monroe County has

the most WIC-Authorized store per 1,000 people. Ottawa leads in the number of both Convenience and

Grocery stores per 1,000 people. One thing to keep in mind when contemplating these numbers is that

distance is not a consideration. The population in Lucas County is denser than in either Monroe or

Ottawa County; this means that many stores in Lucas County are serving larger populations. In

addition, Monroe County is in Michigan while Lucas and Ottawa County are in the State of Ohio. Both

the SNAP and WIC programs are federal programs, with resources filtered through the state government

to the counties. Therefore, the policies of both states and all three counties will differ in pressure put on

private industries and the amount of incentives they are able to offer.

Food Retailers per 1,000 Persons

21.81.61.41.2

10.80.60.40.2

0

2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009

Lucas Ottawa Monroe, MI

WIC-authorized stores(2008/2011)

SNAP-authorized stores(2008/2011)

Supercenters & club stores

Specialized food stores

Grocery stores

Convenience stores

Figure 6.2: Food Retailers per 1,000 Persons for Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties

2007 2009Lucas

2007 2009Ottawa

2007 2009Monroe, MI

Full-service restaurants 334 343 56 53 83 83Fast-food restaurants 370 350 36 36 80 96

Num

ber o

f Res

taur

ants


Restaurants reveal interesting trending in figures 6.3 and 6.4 during the period of oncoming

economic recession. Lucas County lost 20 fast food restaurants, but replaced almost half of

these with full-service restaurants. Monroe, MI on the other hand, added 16 fast food restaurants.

Ottawa County has more full-service than fast food restaurants, and has significantly more of each type

than surrounding counties. This may be due to its lakeside location and focus on tourism.

Restaurants by Type

800700600500400300200100

0

Figure 6.3: Restaurants by Type in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2007 & 2009.

Restaurants per 1,000 Persons

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

Full-service restaurants

Fast-food restaurants

02007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009

Lucas Ottawa Monroe, MI Ohio Average

Figure 6.4: Restaurants per 1,000 Persons in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2007 & 2009.

2009 2010 2011Away from Home 1,772.00 1,819.60 1,889.90At Home 1,965.10 2,000.00 2,100.10

Annu

al E

xpen

ditu

res


7. Consumption

This section examines food consumption in the three counties. Included is an

examination of per capita food expenditures at home and away from home as well as food

insecurity. In addition, this section examines the various forms of food assistance available

throughout the counties, the geographies and the populations they serve. Finally, this section

will examine access to food in each county. Together, these measures tell a story of how much

people spend on food, how easy or difficult it is to access and afford it, in addition to pointing to

populations that may be underserved in one or all of these categories.

Expenditures

Per Capita Food Spending Estimates inLucas, Ottawa & Monroe Counties

4,000.003,500.003,000.002,500.002,000.001,500.001,000.00

500.000.00

Figure 7.1: National per capita food expenditures, 2009-2011.

The US Census Bureau measures food expenditures at the per capita level. Unfortunately, this

data is only available at the national level; therefore, food expenditures for each of the three

counties are estimated to be the same. Above, in figure 7.1 are the calculated per capita food

expenditures at and away from home for the three counties in 2009, 2010, and 2011.


Food Insecurity

The USDA defines food security as “access by all people at all times to enough food for

an active, healthy life” (USDA Food Security in US Households). This definition takes into

account physical proximity and transportation to access food, as well as resources with which to

purchase or grow food. The index measures, the county averages, and the data years available

for Ottawa County differ from Lucas and Monroe in household food insecurity. Displayed

below in three tables are the averages and changes for the three counties. The first table, figure

7.2, reveals household food insecurity in Lucas and Monroe Counties. Since the data for Ottawa

County differed significantly from data retrieved for both Lucas and Monroe Counties, there is a

separate table for Ottawa County, figure 7.3. The third table, figure 7.4 illustrates child food

insecurity across the three counties.

Average HouseholdChange

Food Insecurity2009-11 2006-08 1999-01 1999-

2011

Lucas 15.5% 13.3% 9.1% 6.4%

Monroe 14.2% 8.1% 7.5% 6.1%

Figure 7.2: Household food insecurity in Lucas and Monroe Counties, 1999-2001;2006-2009; 2009-2011 [USDA

Average HouseholdFood Insecurity 2008-10 2005-07 Change

Ottawa 16.4% 12.2% 4.2%

Figure 7.3: Household food insecurity in Ottawa County,2005-2007; 2008-2010 [USDA]


Average Childhood2003-11 2001-07 ChangeFood Insecurity

Lucas 8.6% 8.2% 0.4%

Monroe 8% 7.60% 0.4%

Ottawa N/A 8.2% N/A

Figure 7.4: Average childhood food insecurity for Lucas, Monroe,and Ottawa Counties, 2001-2007; 2003-2011 [USDA]

As the above charts clearly illustrate, food insecurity in the region is rising, with the most

dramatic increases occurring at the household level in all three counties. Child food insecurity in

Lucas and Monroe Counties has risen only slightly compared to the rise in overall household

food insecurity. However, children make up roughly 24% of the population in both Lucas and

Monroe counties, which may indicate that children are disproportionately food insecure.

Food Assistance

US government-administered food assistance is through the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP), the Free and Reduced School Lunch Program, and the Women,

Infants and Children (WIC) Program. Private assistance comes from food banks and other

charitable organizations. This section first examines federal and state assistance programs.

A. Government Assistance

Perhaps the most well-known governmental food assistance program is the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps. The

data available for SNAP is averaged for each state, as is many governmental assistance

programs. When this is the case, data for Lucas and Ottawa Counties is together. Between

2009 and 2011, SNAP participation in both states increased with a 3.66% rise in Ohio and

4.98% rise in Michigan. The eligible student participation rate in the two states vary as well,

with Ohio’s rate at 79% and Michigan’s at 95%, as illustrated in figures 7.5 and 7.6.


SNAP Participation

Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP

2011

Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP

2009

ParticipationPercent Change

2009-2011

Eligible Student

Participation Rate 2009

Lucas & Ottawa 15.42% 11.76% 3.66% 79%

Monroe 19.53% 14.55% 4.98% 95%

Figure 7.5: SNAP participation percentages and rates for Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2009-2011 [USDA]

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP2009

Percent of PopulationParticipating in SNAP2011

0.00%Lucas & Ottawa Monroe

Figure 7.6: Percent of population participating in SNAP in Lucas, Ottawa, and Monroe Counties, 2009 & 2011 [USDA]

As mentioned above, children in the region appear to be disproportionately food

insecure, which makes the percentage of children participating in the federal school lunch

program a useful population to examine. Figures 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 detail the participation and

eligibility rates for the school lunch programs in Ohio and Michigan. This program has a

relatively low participation rate when considering the percentage of students who meet the

qualifications to participate.


County

School Lunch

Percent Participants

2009

School Lunch

Percent Participants

2011

CountyPopulation

2010

School Lunch Participant

Percent Change 2009-

2011

Percent Free Lunch

Eligible Students

2009

PercentReduced

Price Eligible

Students2009

Lucas 9.71% 9.83%91,032

0.12% 38.45% 4.58%

Ottawa 7,458

Monroe 9.15% 9.22% 32,113 0.08% 29.17% 6.71%

Figure 7.7: School lunch program participation rates with county populations for Lucas, Ottawa,

and Monroe Counties, 2009, 2010, 2011 [US Census]

School Lunch Program Participation andEligibility in Michigan

26% School Lunch Participants

74%Eligible Student's NotParticipating

Figure 7.8: School lunch program participation and eligibility in Michigan, 2011[US Census]

School Lunch Program Participation andEligibility in Ohio

23% School Lunch Participants

77%Eligible Student's NotParticipating

Figure 7.9: School lunch program participation and eligibility in Ohio, 2011 [US Census]


The final measure of government assistance that we will examine in this section is WIC.

Interestingly, participation in the program varied only slightly over the period from 2009-2011,

and Ohio’s participation declined while Michigan’s increased, as shown in figure 7.10 below.

WIC PercentWIC Percent Percent Change in WIC Participation

Participation 2011 Participation 2009-20112009

Lucas & Ottawa 2.64% 2.44% -0.03%

Monroe 2.45% 2.56% 0.01%

Figure 7.10: WIC participation rates in Ohio and Michigan, 2009, 2011 [US Census]

B. Private Assistance

In addition to the assistance the government offers, a number of private and non-profit

institutions assist people with their food needs. Private assistance typically covers specific

geographic areas with programs tailored to the needs of that service area. The appendix lists the

organizations that run community-based food distribution programs for each county.

8. Food Access

Access to food is measured by how close in proximity a person lives to fresh food. Figure 8.1

is a chart of the percentage of population by county with low access to food sources. This information,

gathered from the USDA’s website, details the percentage of the general population, as well as

specific population groups who experience food access problems. Included in the chart are children,

households with no car, low-income individuals, and seniors with low access to food in Lucas,

Monroe, and Ottawa Counties. In most categories, Lucas and Monroe counties are within a

percentage point of each other, but in the population with low access


category, Monroe County tops Lucas County by almost 4%. Ottawa County exhibits lower rates in

the population with low access, households with no car, and seniors categories than does Lucas or

Monroe County. These rates could perhaps be due to access issues inherent for the 700+ permanent

residents on the Bass Islands.

2010Children with

Low access to Stores

Households with no car & low

access to stores

Low income and low access

to stores

Population with low access to

stores

Seniors with low access to

stores

Lucas 4.20% 1.20% 5.24% 16.78% 2.28%

Monroe 4.87% 1.91% 4.72% 20.59% 2.75%

Ottawa 4.73% 3.74% 5.03% 22.29% 4.41%

Figure 8.1: Children with low access, households with no car and low access, low income and low access,total population with low access, and seniors with low access for Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties,

2010 [US Census]

9. Alternative Food System Practices and Projects

Among the trio of counties chosen from the Northwest Ohio Food Council’s membership, there are

stark differences in the level of development of alternative food system practices. One unifying factor

among the three counties is that each county has a prevalent Extension Service, which includes robust

programs in food access assistance and in nutrition education. Lucas County, Ohio has a thriving

community effort to bolster the local food system that includes several well-established organizations

such as Toledo GROWs, which promotes community gardening, and CIFT, which provides technical

assistance to various sectors of the food system economy with the end goal of promoting increased

access to healthy food. Monroe County, Michigan has a strong agricultural base that contributes to the

presence of numerous outlets for healthy food access for the county residents, such as numerous

farmers’ markets and CSAs. While Ottawa County also has a strong agricultural


base and a notable number of farmers’ markets, there appears to be room for the development of

alternative food system practices. Below, in figure 9.1 is a chart of the number of alternative food

system practices and programs in Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties.

Practice/Project Lucas OH Monroe MI Ottawa OHFarmer’s Markets 6 6 4Farm to School programs 1 1 0Farms selling directly thru CSA 4 6 3CSA 1 1 0Food Co-op 1 0 0Community Gardens 165 4 0Food Incubator/Community Kitchen (Parentorganization based in Lucas County)

1 0 0

Food Hubs 0 0 0Extension Service with food access assistance andnutrition education program

Yes Yes Yes

Figure 9.1: Alternative food system practices and programs in Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties(see works cited for source list)

10. Food and Farm Policy

This section examines comprehensive plans, zoning codes, land use plans and any other available

resources for the three counties to find policy or legislation concerning the food system. All

aspects of the food system are examined, including food waste and agricultural land use.

Lucas County

Lucas County’s planning commission partners with the City of Toledo to form the Toledo-

Lucas County Plan Commission. Often, the focus of the commission is upon Toledo, but the

organization represents and works in collaboration with all jurisdictions in the County. The

County does not have a comprehensive plan, but mentions several parts of the food system in

the land-use policy and zoning code.


The City of Toledo has zoning for urban agriculture in one of its twenty-four districts

(Englewood), and defines it as ‘moderate sized farming operations, including gardens, hoop

houses, green houses, orchards, fish farms and livestock (Toledo 20/20). The city’s policy also

mentions food safety issues, like the healthy raising and selling of livestock and poultry (Toledo

Municipal Code).

Policy also includes the distribution portion of the food system. It mandates the Toledo

Market must operate from April 1 until December 31, and must be closed from January 1 until

March 31. The market must remain open Monday through Saturday between 4:00 a.m. and

6:00 p.m. The Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry (Toledo Municipal Code) determines all

regulations for products sold within the market. The municipal code states that in areas

considered ‘Community Development Corporations’, convenience stores should be present,

and healthy food options should be encouraged by the mayor. The municipal code also offers

guidelines for food safety and waste disposal, as well as regulations for the distribution of

food from a vehicle and regulations for the preparation process of foods (Toledo Municipal

Code).

The city forbids raising or keeping hogs, cows, goats, geese or ducks within the

corporate limits, unless given a written permit from the Commissioner of Health. If given

permission, residents must keep animals within the confines of the premises of the owners.

The City of Toledo has its own comprehensive plan, entitled Toledo 20/20, but it makes

few references to the food system, apart from its recommendation that truck farming and bedding

should continue as an important agribusiness within the city, and expansion should be

encouraged (Toledo 20/20). Similarly, the 2011 Downtown Plan makes little mention of food,

agricultural land, or any other aspect of the food system outside of outlining areas for possible

food retail commercial development (Toledo Downtown Plan).


Other townships within Lucas County currently have food system legislation and

policy in place, including Monclova Township, Springfield Township, and Sylvania

Township. All three jurisdictions have comprehensive plans that include food system and

agricultural land policy. These zoning and planning commissions delve deep into agricultural

land use policy, food waste, the keeping of livestock and poultry, farms and orchards as they

see fit for the smaller townships. Preservation of agricultural land is a focal point. Outside of

Toledo, a large portion of the county is rural. These three townships recognize the importance

of developing greenfield and agricultural land, and in their plans, mention strategies to

preserve this land to improve food security and protect community heritage (City of Toledo

Plan Commission).

Ottawa County

Ottawa County has no county-level comprehensive plan. Of the twelve townships that

fall within the area, seven have their own zoning codes, including Allen, Benton, Catawba

Island, Danbury, Put-In-Bay, Harris and Portage Townships. Of these seven, Danbury and

Portage also have land use codes. Bay, Carroll and Salem Townships have no zoning or land

use codes in place (Ottawa County). The final two townships, Erie and Clay Townships, have

no websites according to the State of Ohio Township Directory, and therefore no data was

collected.

Similar to Lucas County, many of the township individual zoning and land use codes

include recommendations for different aspects of the food system and delve into specific

policy and land use, however, reviewing each township’s planning and zoning practices is

beyond the scope of the county-level food system assessment.


Monroe County

Monroe County is the only of the three counties to have a published Comprehensive

Plan. The plan not only addresses agricultural land use, but also addresses the food system and

the potential for a greater focus on creating a local food economy. It focuses on planning for

the future and the projected food requirements of the population, including balancing

development with the preservation of agricultural land. A large portion of the county is

considered ‘prime farmland,’ which the comprehensive plan recommends preserving. While

nationally, farmland use has been declining, in 2000, 63.5% of Monroe County’s land was

considered agricultural (Monroe County Plan Commission). The plan recognizes the benefits

of preserving agricultural land, as well as the issues and difficulties associated with doing so.

Most significant in the Monroe County plan is the recognition of a local food system.

The Food System Economic Partnership (FSEP) is a collaboration of five counties in

southeast Michigan, formed to help develop a local food economy, including the production,

processing, transportation, distribution and consumption processes (Monroe County Plan

Commission).

The Comprehensive Plan outlines methods with which to preserve farmland in the

area. These practices include identifying target preservation areas, reviewing and evaluating

applicable preservation tools, and implementing programs, policies, and regulation aimed at

meeting shared preservation efforts. The two techniques most often implemented in the area

are zoning/land development controls and voluntary development right agreements. The

former may include slide scale zoning, which limits the number of times an agricultural lot

may be split for another use, or quarter/quarter zoning, which limits the amount of

residential and non-agricultural development on an agricultural lot of 40 acres or more.

Extensive Agricultural zoning designations disallow all non-farm dwellings. Agricultural

buffer zoning requires including a buffer zone between agricultural land and higher-intensity

uses in order


to preserve the rural lifestyle (Monroe County Plan Commission).

The second technique outlined, Development Rights Agreements also comes in many

forms, but generally includes financial incentives to preserve farmland. Tax benefits and

exemptions from special assessments incentivize preservation for those involved in a

Farmland Development Rights Agreement. The State Purchase of Development Rights

Program in Michigan offers agricultural landowners cash payments for preserving their land.

The Agricultural Preservation Fund helps local governments put these programs into place

through grants (Monroe County Plan Commission).

The county’s plan recommends finding ways to implement these programs and

continue preservation efforts. They also recommend continuing to work with FSEP in order

to further the development of the local food economy. The plan addresses other portions of

the food system, stating that the county will strive to ‘encourage new and expanded markets

for locally produced agricultural products’ (Monroe County Plan Commission), which may

include attracting and retaining processing plants and agricultural support operations. The

Future Land Use Plan for the county includes both agricultural preservation land (prime

agricultural land) and secondary agricultural land (Monroe County Plan Commission).

Monroe County’s food systems work creates a great opportunity for Ottawa and Lucas

County to improve upon their local food network. Taking advantage of the work done by

FSEP, these two Ohio counties have a head start in improving their local food production and

distribution processes. As previously stated, this organization represents five contiguous

counties in southeast Michigan, to which Lucas and Ottawa counties are connected. Using

existing systems and strategies, Ottawa and Lucas County have the ability to develop a more

localized food system in conjunction with Monroe County. Their addition to the program

FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT OF LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIES 27could also potentially benefit and strengthen FSEP and encourage further development.

11. Gaps in Assessment

Although most information required for a thorough food assessment was accessible,

gaps do exist. One issue encountered in this food system assessment is that much of the

government assistance distributed was at the state level, rather than at the county level. Thus,

this report does not include a comprehensive list of all community-based food assistance

programs for the study area. Furthermore, data on zoning and land use plans in non-urban

areas, townships, and smaller cities was difficult to obtain due to the number of political

entities that could have policies and regulations in place. Determining the prevalence of

access to alternative food programs was troublesome as well, as this information was often

unavailable or incredibly time consuming and impractical to obtain.

In addition, this assessment lacks the resources to do mapping, which may identify

neighborhoods where many families strain to find food access. Production data for a good

variety of products could only be located from an already-completed food assessment at the

regional level, and any attempts to explain peculiar data are guesses at best. Furthermore,

the assessment might be much more valuable if it included specific anecdotal stories,

especially in alternative practices and policy creation.

12. Conclusion

In general, Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa counties are achieving moderate success in

some areas. Farmers are doing well in terms of selling their crops directly to consumers.

Although all three counties are above the national average, Lucas County experiences direct

farm sales to consumers at over five times the national average. High levels of food

processing in Lucas County should allow for access to locally produced food in all three

FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT OF LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIES 28counties. Ottawa County has a large number of convenience stores and grocery stores per

capita, although this may be a function of Ottawa’s small population.

Wide differences in income from agricultural production per acre between these

counties generate more questions than answers. Recent weather patterns, including flooding,

and differences in soil types across the counties explain some of the production differences,

yet the processes used in Lucas County to achieve the highest rate of income from agricultural

production per acre of the three counties in this study should bear additional examination. The

rise in each county’s food insecurity rate is troubling, as economic factors negatively impact

Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa Counties. There is little in terms of alternative food programs

across the counties, with the exception of numerous community gardens in Lucas County.

The large number of stores accepting SNAP per capita in Lucas County could be explained by

the county’s high population density, and Monroe County’s lead in WIC affiliated stores per

capita could be explained by policy differences between Michigan and Ohio. Meanwhile, the

general prohibition or lack of policies on agricultural land use in urban centers in Ohio

compared to Monroe County’s comprehensive land use plan is troubling.

Overall, differences exist in agricultural income per acre, food production, food

insecurity rates, lack of extensive comprehensive land use plans in Lucas and Ottawa

counties, and in usage of federal assistance programs. It is unclear what factors discussed in

this food system assessment explain the rising food insecurity rates experienced in all three

counties. Each individual county seems to be successful in certain areas of the food system,

such as Ottawa’s high rate of grocery and convenience stores, but not successful as a whole

system. In order to continue improving, this assessment recommends that greater

coordination and method sharing actions be undertaken across Lucas, Monroe, and Ottawa

counties in order to facilitate the sharing of successful food system methods and processes.

FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT OF LUCAS, MONROE, AND OTTAWA COUNTIES 29Engaging the local food policy council, which is actively working to improve access to

healthy foods, with the local governments would be a logical place to begin coordination

efforts.


13. Works Cited

Center for Innovative Food Technology Contact. (2013, March 14). [Electronic mail message]. Retrieved from http://ciftinnovation.org/contact

City of Toledo. (2013). Toledo Municipal Code. American Legal Publishing Corporation. Retrieved March 2013, from http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/toledo/toledomunicipalcode?f= templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:toledo_oh

City of Toledo Plan Commission. (2012). Codes. City of Toledo. Retrieved March, 2013, from http://toledo.oh.gov/Departments/Plan-Commission/Codes

Food System Economic Partnership. (2011). Farm to school. Retrieved from http://fsepmichigan.org/index.php/farm-to-school/

Food System Economic Partnership. Lenawee County Commissioners, (2006). Presentation to: lenawee county board of commissioners. Retrieved from website: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/113037202/The-Food- System-Economic-Partnership

Franks, Gary L. (2008) Historic Map of the Great Black Swamp. "The Maumee & Western Reserve Road: It’sHistory and a Survey of the Milestones"

Freedgood, J., Pierce-Quinonez, M. E., & Meter, K. A. (2011). Emerging assessment tools to inform food system planning. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(1), 90. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.023

FreeFood.org. (2013). Monroe county bank inc.food . Retrieved from http://www.freefood.org/l/monroe_county_food_bank_inc

Gleaners Community Food Bank of Southeastern Michigan. (2013). Nourishing communities by feeding people.Retrieved from https://thelordsharvestpantry.org

Hall, C., & Wigton, S. (2010). Local accessibility in monroe county 2010. Retrieved from http://fsepmichigan.org/index.php/farm-to-school/

LocalHarvest. (2012). Home. Retrieved from http://www.localharvest.org/search.jsp?m&lat=42.09497&lon=-83.887665&scale=8&ty=6&p=3

Lucas County. (n.d.). Health: toledo-lucas county health department. Retrieved from http://co.lucas.oh.us/index.aspx?nid=665

Meter, Ken. University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center. (2011). Northwest Ohio (and Southeast Michigan) LocalFarm & Food Economy. Retrieved from website: www.foodcouncil419.org

Maziarz, T. Ohio Department of Health, Healthy Ohio. (2012). 2012 lucas countycreating healthy communities interventions. Retrieved from website: http://www.healthyohioprogram.org/healthylife/createcomm/~/media/B479EDED4FF44594B8FC55E0580943E1.ashx

Monroe County Intermediate School District. (2013). Food banks. Retrieved from http://www.misd.k12.mi.us/about/localresources/foodbanks/

Monroe County Opportunity Program. (2012). Food programs. Retrieved from http://www.monroecountyop.org/food-programs.html


Monroe County Planning Commission. (2009). Monroe County Planning Department. Monroe County. RetrievedMarch,2013, from http://www.co.monroe.mi.us/government/departments_offices/planning_department_and_commission/index.html

MSU Extension. (2013). Nutrition. Retrieved from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/topic/info/nutrition

MultiFaith Grows. (2011). A garden for every faith space. Retrieved from http://gardens.multifaithjourneys.org/index.html

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, (n.d.). Food systems profile: lucas county, ohio. Retrieved from University of Wisconsin-Extension website: http://www.foodsystems.wisc.edu/documents/Lucas County,Ohio_39095.pdf

Onboard Informatics. (2012). Monroe, Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.city-data.com/city/Monroe- Michigan.html

OSU Extension-Ottawa County (2013, March 16). Welome to osu extension-ottawa county: Erie basin extension education and research area. Retrieved from http://ottawa.osu.edu

OSU Extension-Lucas County (2013, March 16). Welome to osu extension-lucas county: maumee county education and research area . Retrieved from http://lucas.osu.edu

Ottawa County. (2013). Welcome to ottawa county! Retrieved from http://www.co.ottawa.oh.us

The Applied Population Laboratory. (n.d.). North central region: County food systems indicators profiles . Retrieved from http://foodsystems.wisc.edu

The Lord's Harvest Pantry. (2013). The lord's harvest pantry: offering choice, preserving dignity. Retrieved from https://thelordsharvestpantry.org

Toledo Botanical Gardens. (2013). Toledogrows. Retrieved from http://www.toledogarden.org/?page_id=11

Toledo Downtown Plan. (2011) The City of Toledo. Retrieved March 2013 from http://toledo.oh.gov/Departments/Plan-Commission/Reports-Plans

Toledo GROWs, (n.d.). Our city in a garden: Growing produce, harvesting rewards. Retrieved from Center forInnovative Food Technology website: http://www.ourcityinagarden.org/attach/ociag.pdf

Toledo 20/20. (2010). The City of Toledo. Retrieved March 2013 from http://toledo.oh.gov/Departments/Plan- Commission/Reports-Plans

United States Census Bureau, (2012). American community survey. Retrieved from US Department of Commerce website: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

USDA Economic Research Service. (2012, December 11). Food environment atlas. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-environment-atlas.aspx

USDA Food and Nutrition Service. (2013). Wic prescreening tool. Retrieved from h tt p: / /w i c . f n s . u s d a . g o v /wp s /pa g e s / s t a r t . j s f

USDA Food Security in US Households. (2013) Retrieved from h tt p: / /ww w . e r s . u s d a . g o v / t o p i c s / f oo d - n u t r i t i o n - a s s i s t a n ce / f oo d - s ec u r i t y - i n - t h e - u s . a s p x # . U U Y G f 1 d W G J R


Alternative food system practices and projects citations:

Lucas County: Food Systems Profile Lucas County, Ohio h tt p :/ / ww w . fo o d sys t e m s . w i s c . e d u / do cu m e n t s / L u cas

% 20 C o un t y ,O h i o_39 0 95 . p d f Toledo GROWS Community Gardens h t t p :/ / w w w . t o l e do g a r d en . o r g / ? pa ge _ i d = 1 1 CIFT i n fo @ c i f ti nn o v a ti o n . o r g Creating Healthy Communities Program

h tt p :/ / ww w . h e a l t hy o h i op r o g r a m. o r g / h ea l t h y li f e / c r e a t ec o mm / 201 2 p r o j ec t s . as p x Lucas County Health Department h tt p : / / c o . l u cas . o h . u s / i n d e x . as px ? n i d = 6 6 5 ; MultiFaith GROWS Project of the MultiFaith Council of Northwest Ohio

h tt p : / / g a r d e n s .m u l ti f a it h j o u r n e y s . o r g / Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Map

h tt p :/ / w w w . l oc a l h a r ve s t . o r g / s e a r ch . j s p ? m& l a t = 42 . 094 9 7 & l o n = - 83 . 8 8 7 6 65 & sca l e = 8 & t y = 6 & p =3 Our City In A Garden http :// ww w. o urci tyi na ga rd en. o rg/ att ac h/o cia g. p df

Monroe County: Local Food Accessibility in Monroe County 2010

h tt p :/ / ww w . c o .m o n r o e .m i . us / g ov e r n m en t / d e p a rt m e n t s _off i ces / p u b li c _h ea l t h / do c s / L o c a l _ F ood_ A cces s i b i lit y 9_20 _ 10 . p d f

Food System Economic Partnership h t t p :/ / w w w . do cs t o c . c o m / do cs / 11 3 0 3 7 2 02 / Th e - F oo d - S y s t e m - E c o n o m ic- P a rt n e r sh i p Michigan Farm to School h tt p :// f se p m i c h i g an . o r g /i n d e x . p h p / f a r m - t o - sch oo l / ; Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Map h tt p :/ / ww w . l o ca l ha r v e s t . o r g / s e a r c h . j s p ? m& l a t = 42 . 0 9 4 9 7 & l o n = - 8 3 . 8 8 7 6 6 5 & sca l e = 8 & t y = 6 & p =3 ;

Ottawa County: Local Harvest Real Food, Real Farmers, Real Community Search Maph tt p :/ / ww w . l o ca l ha r v e s t . o r g / s e a r c h . j s p ? m& l a t = 42 . 0 9 4 9 7 & l o n = - 8 3 . 8 8 7 6 6 5 & sca l e = 8 & t y = 6 & p =3 ; Ottawa County Ohio website h tt p : / / ww w . c o . o tt a w a . o h .u s / ; Oak Harbor Chamber of Commerce h tt p :/ / ww w . o ak h a r bo r o h i o . ne t/ f a r m e r s % 27 m a r k e t o a . p h p


Appendices

1. Alternative Food Systems Practices and Projects

Lucas County

Farmers’ Markets

Downtown Toledo farmers market

Westgate farmers market

Mayberry Farmers Market

Farms selling thru CSA

Sage organics

Seeds of Hope farm

Shared Legacy Farms

Friendship farms

CSA

Claudia’s natural food market

Food Co-op

Phoenix Earth Food Co-op

Community Gardens

Toledo GROWs

Food Incubator/Community Kitchen

Center for Innovative Food Technology (CIFT)

Lucas County Extension

Monroe County

Farmers’ Markets

Bedford farmers’ market

Detroit beach farmers’ market

Dundee farmers’ market

Milan farmers’ market

Monroe county farmers’ market

Youth farm stand market


Farm to School Program

Name not known

CSA

Brenda Jo’s organic foods

Farms selling directly through CSA

Garden to Go

Smith Road Farm

Valley Family Farm

Zilke Vegetable Farm

Health matter herbs and more

Back to basics country market

Community gardens

Amber Garden Ministry

City of Monroe Community Garden Plots

St. Mary Organic Farm

Youth Farm Stand Project

Monroe County Extension

Ottawa County

Farmers’ markets

Oak harbor farmers’ market

Port Clinton farmers’ market

Genoa farmers’ market

Lakeside farmers’ market

Farms selling directly through CSA

Shared legacy farms

Ottawa County Extension


2. Lucas & Ottawa Food Resources – United Way of Northwest Ohio (attached)

Please consult the United Way of Northwest Ohio 211 before sharing this list

3. Monroe County Community Food Distribution Network

Gleaners Community Food Bank2131 BeaufaitDetroit, Michigan 48207866-GLEANER (45302637)

The Lord’s Harvest Pantry1140 S. Telegraph RoadMonroe, Michigan 48161734-224-TLHP (8547)htt ps:/ /t he lo r dshar vest pa nt r y. o r g/

Monroe County Food Bank, Inc.15513 Military StreetMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-6955

Monroe County Opportunity Program (MCOP)1140 South Telegraph RoadMonroe, Michigan 48161734-243-1520htt p://www. mo nr o eco unt yo p. or g/foo d- pro gr ams. ht ml

Monroe Outreach Ministries214 WashingtonMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-6955

The Salvation Army of Monroe815 E. First St.Monroe, Michigan 48161734-241-0440Mar y_t ho ma s @usc.s a lvat io nar my. o r g

St. Joseph’s Food Closet937 East Third StreetMonroe, Michigan 48161734-241-9590

Steward Road Church of God1199 Stewart RoadMonroe, Michigan 48162734-241-1000

clover sitesstorage.cloversites.com/northwestohiofoodcouncil... · web viewfood system. assessment...

Documents