Detroit grown and made survey by FoodLab Detroit

Increasing Local Produce Procurement in Detroit

SURVEY

Benefits & Barriers of getting local produce from Farm To Shelf To Table

Table Of Contents

Foreword………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. vii Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 Quantitative Results Descriptive Statistics: businesses surveyed …………………………………………………………………. 4 Descriptive Statistics: businesses behavior ……………………………………………………..………….. 4 Correlation Coefficient for perceived benefits and barriers of buying local produce….… 5

Definition of local………………………………………………………………………………….……………………..… “City” as local vs. those who do not ………………………………………………………………………….... “State” as local vs. those who do not…………………………………………………………………………... Benefits and barriers of buying local produce………………………………………………………………

6 7 7 7

Qualitative Results ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 8

Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 9

Case Study: Brooklyn Street Local & Nosh Pit…………………………………………………………….…... 10 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 12

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Foreword At FoodLab Detroit, great food means local, seasonal food, and knowing the people who grew or raised it. During the five years of supporting food businesses in Detroit, our inherent understanding of the superior quality of local food has become an emphatic and politicized mission to support healthy, local agriculture and cuisine. Today, FoodLab supports 150+ good food entrepreneurs by providing them with greater access to hands-on education, access to sales opportunities to grow their good food business, connections to like-minded entrepreneurs, and the ability to participate in a powerful, vibrant good food movement in Detroit. Our social mission across all our services is to support a local farm and food economy that fosters a pure food supply. This starts with where our food comes from: FoodLab members are committed to sourcing the best ingredients to create healthy, beautiful, sumptuous and regionally-focused seasonal fare with inspiration drawn from many different cuisines of the world. FoodLab members demand local food not because we want to pat ourselves on the back for being conscientious business owners; it is about refusing to benefit from the exploitation of agricultural laborers and migrant laborers around the world who sow, spray, and harvest the crops, and for whom there is no minimum wage and no protections against injury or abuse. FoodLab members demand farmworkers’ rights and sovereignty, and support the farmers in our own community who have committed their lives to defying the power of the industrial food system. But where food comes from is only the beginning. We believe true sustainability in the food industry is also about where food goes – the whole food cycle from farm to postplate. FoodLab member’s courageous effort to change the business paradigm in Detroit - from a capitalist model focused only on growth, to one that heralds capitalism with values, and nurtures a triple bottom line is inspiring, because they are running their businesses with people, planet and profit in mind. There is a lot of work to be done to move away from our current industrialized, processed food system, and toward a system that is healthier for people and for our planet. But I am hopeful we can do it. The way we do business – and spend our money – can change the world. Devita Davison Executive Director FoodLab Detroit

vii

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Executive Summary In 2017, a total of 97 FoodLab member business participated in the inaugural Detroit Grown and Made survey. Detroit Grown & Made is a program created in partnership between FoodLab Detroit & Keep Growing Detroit that provides a framework for sourcing, collecting, and reporting on good food purchases between urban growers selling produce within the Grown in Detroit cooperative and food businesses supported by FoodLab Detroit. At FoodLab Detroit, good food is good for every link in the food chain: the environment, plants and animals, farmers, ranchers and fishermen, restaurants, and eaters. The following minimum thresholds need to be met in order to be considered good food purchases: • Bread, Flour and Grain: Produced using sustainably grown ingredients • Dairy and Eggs: Raised without the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics or added hormones, no cages or confinement • Fish and Seafood: Wild and sustainably farmed fish and seafood • Meat and Poultry: Raised without the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics or added hormones, no cages or confinement • Fruits and Vegetable: Grown using sustainable farming methods Ninety-seven participating food businesses in the Detroit Grown and Made survey reported spending a total of $48.1 thousand dollars on good food in the categories of bread and grains, dairy and eggs, fish and seafood, meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, and other miscellaneous food items. By food business type, close to half (38.5%) of the responses were café/coffee shops, followed by caterers (24.6%), restaurants (10.7%), specialty food processor (9.8%), pop-ups (6.6%) and food trucks (5.0%) and cottage food businesses (4.5%) recorded the smallest participation. For the survey, participating FoodLab member business owners were asked what are the perceived benefits and barriers to sourcing local produce? This question will help create a greater understanding of what needs to be addressed to increase the amount of locally sourced produce. There is currently plenty of literature on what consumers view as the benefits and barriers, as well as a smaller literature on the opinions of restaurants, but there is not a comprehensive look at different types of food businesses and how they may differ in their purchasing of local produce. A noteworthy study on FoodLab member businesses’ decision to purchase local food found that the perceived benefits were good public relations, the possibility of purchasing smaller quantities, the support for the local economy, fresher/safer food, and high customer satisfaction. The barriers were payment procedure conflict, reliable suppliers, year round product availability, lack of knowledge of local sources, and inconvenience.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Methodology To answer the research question, FoodLab Detroit worked with The Detroit Community Based Research Program (DCBRP), a summer internship program run through the University of Michigan Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program that places students with community based organizations in full-time research positions. Students conduct research projects addressing issues such as social and environmental justice, food security, human rights, urban development, public health, youth development, and sustainability that are initiated and identified by community based organizations in Detroit. FoodLab’s summer intern was Sophia Leon. She is currently a junior at the University of Michigan studying Program in the Environment and International Studies. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Ms. Loren designed a survey on Qualtrics that used mainly Likert Scale questions, asking how important certain factors, such as local, organic, price, etc. were when sourcing ingredients, and to what extent certain barriers and benefits impacted [the business’] buying of local produce. The survey also asked about the business’ 2016 purchases, what percent of them were on produce and of that, what percent were on local produce. The survey did not define local, rather asked the businesses how they defined local for themselves. This survey was distributed online through a weekly email sent out to all FoodLab member businesses. Further, a paper version of the survey was given out at events such as the Good Food Bazaar at the 20th Annual Detroit Tour of Urban Farms and Gardens. Ms. Loren analyzed the results of the survey using SPSS Statistics. To supplement the survey, Ms. Loren conducted qualitative research by interacting with many businesses, including owners and employees. Her first qualitative research was done at the Allied Media Conference in Detroit, Michigan, at which FoodLab had their Annual Network Gathering with over fifty businesses. Here, businesses were placed in small groups and asked to create a measurement tool for how they are considering the planet when making food. “Planet” is one of the three important principles to FoodLab businesses, the other two being “people” and “profit.” The measurement tool had questions, such as “What are your considerations when sourcing ingredients?” with blank spaces for the businesses to fill in. Ms. Loren was able to sit and listen to the conversations that the owners had about what they think about, all of which was enlightening. The questions that were relevant to the research question were: “What do you consider local,” and “How are you actively improving the planet [through your business practices]?” The other main qualitative research Ms. Loren conducted was profiling two FoodLab member businesses, Brooklyn Street Local and Nosh Pit Detroit, by spending a day with them at their respective restaurant and food truck. These two businesses were chosen because of the former’s commitment to sourcing locally and the latter’s commitment to being generally environmentally friendly.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Quantitative Results There were ninety seven responses to the Detroit Grown and Made survey. The breakdown of the type of business represented and their purchasing habits can been seen in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics: businesses surveyed Type of Business Percentage (%) Brick and Mortar 4.1 CafĂŠ/Coffee Shop 38.5 Caterer 24.6 Food Truck/Mobile 4.9 Full Service Restaurant 6.6 Specialty Food Processor 9.8 Pop-up and special events 6.6 Pre-launch business 4.9

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics: business behavior Total Produce Purchases (% of total food purchases in 2016) n = 93 Min: 0 Max: 92 Mean: 67.2 Mode: 71 Total Local Produce Purchases (% of total produce purchases in 2016) n = 92 Min: 0 Max: 92 Mean: 69.6 Mode: 76

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Quantitative Results The relationships between perceived benefits and barriers of buying local produce in order to see which benefits were more strongly associated with which barriers were examined. The results of found correlations p < .05, can be seen in Table 3. â&#x20AC;˘ The strongest correlation between benefits was between taste and profit. Other strong correlations taste and quality, supporting the local economy and taste, and environmental friendliness and quality. â&#x20AC;˘ The strongest correlation between barriers was between availability and seasonality, followed by availability and convenience. â&#x20AC;˘ The strongest correlation between a benefit and a barrier was between viewing supporting the local economy as a benefit of buying local produce and convenience as a barrier. Other strong correlations between benefits and barriers were between environmental friendliness as a benefit and seasonality as a barrier, and profit as a benefit and seasonality as a barrier. Table 3. Correlation Coefficient for perceived benefits and barriers of buying local produce Benefits Benefits Taste Profit (0.568**) Quality (0.558**) Supporting Local Economy (.432**) Environmentally Friendly (.414**) Barriers Availability Seasonality

Barriers Seasonality (.648**) Convenience (.483**) Convenience (.454**)

Benefits Supporting Local Economy Environmentally Friendly Profit

Barriers Convenience (.660**) Seasonality (.518**) Seasonality (.507**)

Correlations were examined between the important factors to the respondents when sourcing ingredients and what they perceived as the benefits of buying local. Strong correlations, p < .05 were found between seeing having a relationship with the producer as important when sourcing ingredients and quality as a benefit; seeing organic, seasonality, and having a relationship with the producer as important and profit as a benefit; and seasonality and having a relationship with the producer as important and taste as a benefit.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Quantitative Results Further analyzation was done to examine the differences between how the benefits and barriers impacted respondents that defined local differently. The breakdown of how respondents defined “local” can be seen in Table 4. Respondents could choose more than one answer for this question. Table 4. Definition of “local” Definition State Country City Region Other

Percentage 46.8 38.0 10.5 2.9 1.8

First, a variable was created for those who defined “City” as local, and compared people that defined city as local to all others. A test was ran comparing these two groups with how the benefits and barriers impacted their buying of local produce. These variables were coded from 1 as “Impacts Strongly” to 5 as “Does not impact”. Secondly, a variable was created for those who considered “State” as local compared to all those that do not. The significant results can be seen in Figure 1 and 2. It should be noted that those who defined city as local found convenience as less of a barrier to buying and taste, quality, environmental friendliness, and profit as greater benefits to buying.

The correlations between what percentage of the respondent’s 2016 purchases was on local produce with how strongly the benefits and barriers to buying local impacted them was examined. The benefit and barrier variables are coded from 1 being “Impacts strongly” to 5 as “Does not impact”. The significant results are summarized in Table 5, with the first two rows being barriers and the next two being barriers. It can be seen that as respondents bought more local produce, they saw availability as impacting them more and convenience impacting them less. With more local purchasing, they saw the benefits of quality and environmental friendliness impacting them more strongly.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Quantitative Results Figure 1. Perceived benefits and barriers of local produce, those who consider “City” as local vs. those who do not. Profit

Environmentally Friendly Quality Mean City Mean Not City Mean MeanCity Not City

Taste Convenience 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

0 = No benefit/barrier 1 = Slight benefit/barrier 2 = Benefit/Barrier 3 = Fair benefit/barrier 4 = Strong benefit/barrier Figure 2. Perceived benefits and barriers of local produce, those who consider “State” as local vs. those who do not Convenience Mean Not State Supporting local economy 0

Mean State 0.5

1.5

2.5

0 = No benefit/barrier 1 = Slight benefit/barrier 2 = Benefit/Barrier…

Table 5. Correlation between buying more local produce and perceived benefits and barriers Benefit Correlation Coefficient Quality .332** Environmentally Friendly .392** Barrier Availability Convenience

Correlation Coefficient .226* -.243*

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Qualitative Results

The first data collected qualitatively was at the Allied Media Conference in Detroit. Here, in a discussion with over fifty business owners, the question of “What are your considerations when sourcing ingredients?” was asked. The first answer mentioned was “Organic,” followed by “locally sourced.” When probed on what local sourcing meant, there were a variety of answers. One business said as close as possible, another said Michigan, and another gave the conventional definition of from under 200 miles away. The business owners related buying locally to buying more seasonally. It is easier to buy seasonally when you buy locally, and vice versa. Other considerations to the business when sourcing ingredients were price, acquiring specific foods, fair trade, and knowing and having a relationship with who runs the business that you are buying from. The other qualitative research was a case studies of businesses that source a good portion of their food locally. Sophia Loren, FoodLab’s intern, spent a day with the owners of Brooklyn Street Local, a brunch restaurant in Corktown, Detroit, and Nosh Pit, which is a vegetarianvegan food truck. • “I saw how they conducted their business, especially in relation to local food purchasing. I went with Deveri Gifford, the co-owner of Brooklyn Street Local, to Eastern Market, the largest farmer’s market in the United States. I observed as Deveri interacted with all of her usual vendors, and some that she does not shop from every week. Deveri knew many of the farmers by name and knew about their families and lives outside of their products. She was creating the menu for the next few days in her head as we perused the sheds at Eastern Market, coming up with the dishes that would be served based on what she was buying.” • “At Nosh Pit, I was able to notice their local food practices as well as other sustainability practices. Karen Schultz, one of three co-owners of the business, said that it could be hard to source local due to pricing and availability. She had a distributor that she was able to call up and tell exactly what she needed, which is less possible with local producers. But, Nosh Pit uses a lot of ingredients like sauerkraut that can be stored for long periods of time and serves a fully meatless menu, which is more sustainable. They try to source locally for the environmental benefits.”

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Discussion Many significant results came out of both the qualitative and quantitative data. It’s relevant that those who think “city” is local see convenience as less of a barrier and those who think “state” is local see convenience as more of a barrier. Those who consider “state” local have a broader pool to buy from than just the city, so in theory, it should be more convenient for them. However, the more local produce the respondent bought, the less they saw convenience as a barrier at all. It could be that those who consider “city” as local are a specialized group that is more local-conscious than the average buyer. This follows with the result that those who define “city” as local consider the factors taste, quality, environmental friendliness, and profit as stronger benefits than do other respondents. The group that consider “city” as local are enthusiasts and feel strongly about the vast variety of different benefits that can be gotten from purchasing local. This corresponds with qualitative data found with the case studies and observing dialogue at the Allied Media Conference. Some business owners are very passionate about “local” and all the benefits that this brings. It seemed also that if the business owners could handle the higher cost that shopping locally may have, they are more likely to embrace the benefits. Gifford stated many times that even though she may pay marginally more on food now, she is paying less in terms of harming the planet and healthcare costs, because she thinks her food is healthier. Further, especially in the city of Detroit, in which people care a lot about supporting Detroiters, “local” is seen as an important way to spend money on the causes that people care about. The relationship between buying more local produce and seeing availability of this local produce as a barrier and convenience as less of a barrier is interesting to analyze. Convenience means that it is not hard to get. The local food is more convenient for these respondents, sourced in grocers or at markets closer to where they live and/or shop. Availability is the issue of how often it is available. The section of people that bought more local produce are the ones that saw availability as a greater issue, which is because they are more are likely to notice if it is not available. Since it is more conveniently accessible for this group, it is more obvious when local produce is and is more at the places that they are shopping. This suggests that for this group, if local produce was always there, they would buy it. Other relevant results to discuss are the strongest correlations between a benefit and a barrier, viewing supporting the local economy as a benefit of buying local produce and convenience as a barrier and those who see environmental friendliness as a benefit and seasonality as a barrier. For those who want to support the local economy, which we have noted is more prevalent in those who define “state” as local, convenience is the main issue. It is sensible that those who are most concerned with environmental friendliness would be concerned with seasonality, because seasonally sourcing is an important way to be more environmentally friendly.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Case Study: Brooklyn Street Local & Nosh Pit

The qualitative research supports the same conclusions reached from the quantitative research. Brooklyn Street Local’s purchasing habits at Eastern Market showed the benefit of seasonality, as all of the produce bought was fresh and in season, as well as the benefit of having a relationship with the producer. Gifford would talk to the farmers she was buying from about their days, their families, and more. They obviously had a close relationship, which is what people are looking for when they say that they want a “relationship with the producer”. Brooklyn Street Local’s menu also showed how many restaurants and businesses would have to fully change their business model and/or priorities in order to source more locally. It was easy for Gifford to buy whatever local produce she could find because she based her menu off of what she was buying. She went into the market with an idea in her head of what she wanted to get, but was flexible in her dishes. Many chefs do not style their restaurants in this way, they have specific menu items that they serve. When a restaurant's menu is focused on consistent items that customers come there to eat, which is the model for most restaurants, they have a consistent demand for specific items. This makes it much more difficult to buy ingredients in the way that Gifford does. She has much more flexibility in purchasing. It is easier and cheaper to work in the manner that Brooklyn Street Local does, but many restaurants and chefs are not used to prioritizing locality with their ingredients. Nosh Pit was a restaurant that sourced locally for environmental friendliness, but expressed concerns of availability of produce and convenience of purchasing it, which were common among many businesses who did not brand themselves as offering seasonally available items. With their set menu and hectic work schedule, since it is a food truck and not a brick and mortar, it is harder for them to source from local producers due to the lack of consistency. Schultz, from Nosh Pit, talked about how it is much easier to buy from her distributor, which is not local produce, because she can call him up and ask for specific items, and she knows what she will be getting. In the research, it seemed like there were two main groups of food businesses. There are those that are very city-centric and gung-ho about the local food movement. Like Brooklyn Street Local, they notice the variety of benefits that the local label brings to their customers and their restaurant. Other businesses who see the benefit in purchasing local produce, but it is not part of their company’s branding. For these businesses buying local is less convenient, which greatly impacts their ability to purchase it. This group is more likely to express an interest in helping the local economy, but availability and convenience are making purchasing local produce difficult.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

Conclusion The future of food in Detroit and worldwide is at a critical inflection point. Many are concerned that our current food system will be unable to sustain the growing population in quantity and quality of food. Alternatively, others have argued that local food can provide an important alternative in communities that support it. As demonstrated by local food businesses in Detroit, there is an interest in buying local, especially if made more convenient for businesses that are interested. This research addressed a gap in the literature of what small food businesses see as the opportunities and challenges of buying local produce, as well as an analysis of how people that view local differently see these same benefits and barriers. For businesses that do not have “local” as part of their branding, it is especially important to consider what they think the difficulties in local sourcing are. This research shows that convenience is more of a barrier for businesses that source less locally and availability is more of a barrier for businesses that source more locally. • For businesses that want to start buying more local produce but do not already, helping them find convenient places to buy it would be the most helpful strategy. Stores that run as a “seven day a week farmer’s market,” such as Argus Farm Stop in Ann Arbor or The Farmer’s Hand in Detroit, may be able to help fill this niche for some businesses. • For businesses that want to source locally, it is vital that they bake into their cost structure a higher percentage of sales allowance for ingredients, supply chain transparency, marketing, recipe testing and menu development than if they were sourcing nationally from a few big suppliers. Obviously, that can have a bearing on their retail price, but, in general, consumers expect to pay more for locally-sourced products, particularly if they have other attributes, such as being organic or natural. • For businesses that already source locally, making produce more steadily available would be helpful. Showing techniques for storing fruits and vegetables, such as canning and pickling, may be beneficial to these businesses. Increasingly, consumers of all kinds (but especially Millennials) are becoming concerned about the environmental and sustainability footprint of the food they eat. When FoodLab member businesses adopt policies that are not only conducive to environmental protection, but also take account of the health, welfare and safety of the farmers that supply them, it places them at an advantage. This presents an opportunity, because they don’t have to explain themselves to the same degree, and at the same time, an added challenge for large multinational companies that are sourcing globally.

Increasing local produce procurement in Detroit

References

Aprile, M. C., Caputo, V., & Nayga, R. M. (2015). Consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Preferences and Attitudes Toward Local Food Products. Journal of Food Products Marketing,22(1), 19-42. doi:10.1080/10454446.2014.949990

Conner, D., Colasanti, K., Ross, R. B., & Smalley, S. B. (2010). Locally Grown Foods and Farmers Markets: Consumer Attitudes and Behaviors. Sustainability,2(3), 742-756. doi:10.3390/su2030742

Martinez, S. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Economic Research Service.

Onozaka, Y., Nurse, G., & McFadden, D. (2010). LOCAL FOOD CONSUMERS: HOW MOTIVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS TRANSLATE TO BUYING BEHAVIOR. Choices: The magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues,25(1).

Sharma, A., Moon, J., & Strohbehn, C. (2014). Restaurants decision to purchase local foods: Influence of value chain activities. International Journal of Hospitality Management,39, 130143. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.01.009

FoodLab Detroit is incredibly grateful for generous sponsorship and support of our following partners, without which this report would not be possible.