_Orange County_Florida_Local Food Systems and Agriculture Sustainability Appendix - 083013 (2)[1]

Local Food Systems and Agriculture Sustainability Appendix

Introduction

While there are many things required for communities to flourish, food is essential to our very survival and among the most basic of human needs. Yet, unlike other necessities for survival that we derive from the earth like air and water, food is also a profound source of cultural identity and community interaction. Food is not simply that which fills our stomachs and nourishes our bodies. Preparing it and consuming it together is among the most significant of familial and cultural rituals. It has the ability to nourish not only our bodies, but our souls as well. From simple hunting and gathering, to cultivation of crops and animals raised locally, our food and transportation systems have evolved over time in complex ways fueled by scientific and technological innovation. Humans have brought their greatest ingenuity in chemistry, biology, and industrial processes to bear in an effort to make food more plentiful and less expensive. The advent of preservatives and refrigeration turned what had been predominantly a local activity limited by growing seasons into a vast global enterprise that supplies our local grocery stores with produce and packaged foods from around the world.

Economic Vitality – The nature of our food and agricultural systems has a profound impact on our economy. Orange County derives its name from the citrus growing and distribution industry that once dominated the region. Although many citrus fields gave way to subdivisions, the agricultural industry remains a vital part of our local economy. Businesses related to the production, distribution, and processing of food create jobs that diversify and strengthen our local economy. Chemical, mechanical, and biological technologies that help food growers produce their products using fewer natural resources are constantly being developed. According to a fact sheet prepared by the University of Florida (UF) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) based on a 2010 UF study, agriculture and related industries generate over 159,556 jobs (18.7% of the total) and produce $8.70 billion in revenues (a 13.4% contribution to gross regional product) in Orange County. The Food produced locally has the same positive effects that derive from other local economic production. Money produced by food grown and sold here leads to more dollars staying in our local economy than can be derived from imported food. A thriving local food system has the ability to contribute to the overall cultural and economic climate in a way that can attract businesses from other sectors. Local food production also contributes to the resiliency of our food system, making it less dependent on external factors that are more difficult for our community to control.

Environmental Stewardship – Food, like all the other commodities on which we base our existence, derives from the earth. The manner in which food is produced, transported, and disposed of has a monumental impact on the long‐term health of eco‐systems. Maintaining the fertility of soil over time is a process that involves careful and judicious cultivation of the land in a way that allows for restoration of vital nutrients without overdoing it in a manner that results in pollution. We have learned from experience that some agricultural chemicals like DDT that are remarkably effective in killing various pests can also have adverse ecological impacts. The runoff

of nutrients from agricultural operations can pollute and degrade surface water bodies, including local lakes and rivers as well as significant regional eco‐systems like the Everglades. Where our food comes from, what is raised, and how it is grown and harvested can have impacts on the production of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. How we extract life from the land and how we endeavor to maintain agricultural lands as a continual source of fertility is inextricably linked to local and regional eco‐systems. Orange County has amazing natural resources in terms of our rivers, lakes, and lands that provide for a diverse array of animals and plant life. Obtaining harmony between cultivated lands and the natural resources that surround them is vital to maintaining our natural legacy for generations to come. Food waste is a significant component of the overall waste stream entering our landfill. Much of this discarded food can be composted and become a rich and healthy source of soil nutrition rather than a waste. Local agriculture and food production also requires significant quantities of water. The source and quantity of water used for agricultural purposes is an important part of the overall framework of water management whether that water comes from the same Floridan Aquifer used to derive our drinking water, treated wastewater that is reclaimed for non‐potable uses, or “harvested” stormwater Among human endeavors, there are few activities that have as profound an effect on the environment as the manner in which we derive our food from farm or garden to table. Agricultural lands surrounding cities and towns provide open buffers for urban areas, permeable surfaces for the natural recharge of our aquifer by rainwater infiltration, and places of sanctuary for wildlife and plants.

Quality of Life – The effect of food on our overall quality of life can simply not be overstated. A sufficient quantity of quality, nutritious food that is free of harmful contaminants is essential to our health. The U.S. population has been described as overfed and undernourished. Both urban and rural areas can have “food deserts” where sources of fresh, healthy, and affordable food are not readily available to citizens within a reasonable distance from where they live. In contrast, sources of healthy food derived from home gardens, community gardens, school gardens, farmer’s markets, and locally produced food sold in grocery stores have the ability to enhance the quality of life for individuals and the community as a whole. This is the case whether the food is prepared at home or in local restaurants that buy food grown in our region. Beyond the nutritional and health benefits, activities that connect people to the land and local farmers that produce food are key in promoting wellness and sustainability. They help create more vibrant communities that contribute to a unique sense of place and belonging. Urban agriculture has become a tool to revitalize communities and to improve nutrition in lower income neighborhoods.

Key Challenges and Opportunities

Challenges

⎯ The number of farms and the acreage of land used for farming in Orange County have continued to decline for the most part over the last several decades. However, the loss of farms has slowed since 1977 and total annual farm income continues to rise.

2

⎯ Orange County’s population is expected to increase by 55% by 2040 based on mid‐range estimates. The need to provide housing for these additional residents will place greater pressure for conversion of agricultural lands to residential use.

⎯ From 2009 to 2011, an average of 15.4% of Floridians (14.9% in the U.S.) suffered from food insecurity (access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money or other resources) and 6.3% had very low food security (Household Food Security in the United States 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2012).

⎯ A series of severe freezes in the 1980’s significantly reduced the amount of citrus farming in Central Florida. In August 2004, Hurricane Charley further devastated the citrus industry by spreading disease and destroying crops and trees.

⎯ The average food item in the United States travels 1,500 miles from farm to family table and it takes 7.3 units of primarily fossil fuel energy to produce one unit of food energy in the U.S. system (Life Cycle‐Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, December 6, 2000, pages 40 and 42).

⎯ EPA reports that in 2011, approximately 36 million tons of food was wasted in the U.S, with 96% of the wasted food being disposed of through incineration or landfills. (http://www.epa.gov/smm/foodrecovery/)

⎯ In 2011, 26.6% of adults in Florida were obese (body mass index of 30% or above) and 64.2% were overweight (body mass index of 25% or above) according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Among adolescent Floridians, 14.7% were overweight and 10.3% were obese.

⎯ Estimated annual obesity‐attributable expenditures in Florida in 2009 totaled $8,079 million according to data from a study referenced on the National Conference of State Legislatures website.

⎯ A total of 8.8% of Orange County residents reside in census tracts that are characterized as food deserts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture because residents there do not have ready access to healthy food choices.

⎯ Critics of the modern industrial model of agriculture fault the industry and federal government policies for promoting and subsidizing an abundance of unhealthy foods. For example, our country’s most heavily subsidized crop, corn, finds its way into most foods commonly found in grocery stores in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

⎯ Water needed for agricultural use competes with water needed for all other uses. ⎯ Runoff of water from agricultural lands where fertilizer has been applied can lead to excess

nutrients entering surface water bodies and impairment of those water bodies in terms of several beneficial uses.

⎯ Zoning regulations, which are based on the strict separation of land uses, often are an impediment to urban agriculture projects.

3

http://www.epa.gov/smm/foodrecovery/

Opportunities

⎯ Orange County ranks second in the state and sixth nationally in annual sales of nursery and greenhouse crops. A 2005 study showed significant growth for this industry in Florida since 2000 despite the fact that few resources have been devoted to promoting and further developing this economic sector. There appears to be an opportunity to tap into niche markets or specialization (East Central Florida 2060 Plan, Chapter 11, page 10 and 14).

⎯ Florida’s climate makes it ideal for growing a wide variety of products. ⎯ The Orange County Board of County Commissioners recently approved undertaking the

revision of Orange County’s Land Development Regulations into a Unified Land Development Code and funding is available to commence that process. This provides a unique opportunity to address food issues at a local level, including zoning issues.

⎯ Good Food Central Florida recently formed and had its first meeting in June 2013. This local food policy council, which is sponsored by the Winter Park Health Foundation, provides a unique forum for addressing food policy issues on a regional basis.

⎯ The demand for goods that are locally produced, certified organic, or otherwise less resource intensive outpaces the supply. Central Florida growers are well suited to tap into this growing market with help from agricultural and technical assistance programs.

⎯ Community gardens are becoming more common and have the ability to have a positive impact on neighborhoods in a number of ways. The gardens often become a community focal point that can provide open space benefits to the entire community as well as fostering community cooperation and involvement. Crime rates in neighborhoods with community gardens often decrease and they also offer educational opportunities for children. Orange County and some municipalities within the county have developed programs to help support development of community gardens.

⎯ Recently, the Central Florida region has seen several advances in urban agriculture, including urban farms; community and home gardens; Community Supported Agriculture; and farmer’s markets.

⎯ Encouraging small scale agriculture in urban areas gives citizens an opportunity to learn about their food sources and local agriculture’s important contribution to the region.

⎯ The City of Orlando recently expanded its urban chicken pilot program and the City of Maitland is considering a similar program.

⎯ Urban agriculture is generally innovative and flexible. Planting of edible public landscapes and gardens located on rooftops (e.g., Green Sky Growers in Winter Garden), window sills, vacant lots, backyards, and other spaces can enhance such areas aesthetically and make them more productive as well.

⎯ The University of Florida’s IFAS in partnership with Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Division provide a number of educational classes and resources focused on local agricultural production for farmers and interested citizens. As just one example, a Local Food Systems and Urban Farming Conference is scheduled for October 22, 2013.

4

⎯ Farmer’s Markets can provide an outstanding cultural amenity as well as access to quality local food products.

⎯ Food hubs can play a vital role in helping local farmers and ranchers to differentiate their products and bring them to market in a manner that is more financially viable. East End Market in Orlando and Oak Ridge Market at Artgon are neighborhood markets and cultural food hubs that are expected to open in the near future.

⎯ A number of programs have recently been aimed at providing students with healthier food at school, including gardens located on school grounds. These programs have the potential to have a significant impact in helping students develop healthier lifestyles from a nutritional perspective. Inclusion of food and agricultural related (Ag in the Classroom) material in school curricula has afforded many students with a hands‐on educational experience that can serve as a meaningful component to science, health, and other aspects of education. The Farm to School program is also matching up local farmers with school lunchroom purchasers to increase local food availability in school cafeterias.

Indicators and Assessment Data

The data in this assessment is presented in a “cradle to grave” sequence. It begins with the land that is the origin for the production of food resources. It then looks at agricultural production that comes from those lands and their economic impact from the standpoint of both revenue generated and employment created. After agricultural commodities are produced on lands devoted to agriculture, the food is processed, often packaged in some way, and shipped for distribution to wholesale and retail markets. Businesses, institutions, families, and individuals buy, prepare, and consume food and in so doing make a variety of choices that impact their health and the environment. Lastly, food that is not consumed and the packaging that accompanied food becomes a waste that can be either recycled or end up in landfills or being combusted or otherwise transformed to reduce volume or produce energy. Each aspect of this food system has significance for making our community more sustainable.

Origin of Food Resources

Number of Local Farms

Figure 1 depicts the number of farms in Orange County between 1959 and 2007. During that period, the number of farms decreased by 68.3%. As can be seen from the figure, there was a steep loss of farms between 1959 and 1969. Since that time, the number of farms in the county has generally continued to decrease, but the rate of the decease has slowed. In 2007, there were 825 farms in Orange County.

5

Figure 1. Trend in Number of Farms in Orange County from 1959 to 2007

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1959 1969 1979 1987 1997 2002 2007

No. of F

arms

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, multiple years

Figure 2 depicts the decline in citrus farms within Orange County between 1978 and 2007. During that period, the number of citrus farms in the county decreased by 74.3%. A particularly dramatic decrease was observed between 1978 and 1987. In 2007, there were 191 citrus farms in Orange County.

Figure 2. Decline in Citrus Farms within Orange County, 1978 to 2007

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

No. of C

itru

s Fa

rms


As indicated in Figure 3 below, the number of cattle farms in Orange County decreased by over half between 1950 and 2007. However, the vast majority of the decline occurred between 1950 and 1964. Since 1969, the number of cattle farms has fluctuated between a high of 237 and a low of 176. From 1992 to 2007, the number of cattle farms steadily increased by 25.6%. In 2007, there were 221 cattle farms in Orange County.

6

Figure 3. Number of Cattle Farms in Orange County, 1950 to 2007

448309

246185

203207

237223

176180

202221

0 100 200 300 400 500

195019591964196919741978198219871992199720022007

No. of Cattle Farms

Source: East Central Florida 2060 Plan, which cited USDA Census of Agriculture

Land in Farms

The decrease in farm lands in Orange County has generally paralleled the decrease in the number of farms as depicted in Figure 4 below. Between 1959 and 2007, the amount of land in farms decreased by 61%. Again, the general trend has been a continued decline in farm land, but the rate of decrease has slowed. Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Census for 2007 there were 136,088 acres of land in farms in Orange County. In 2009, there were 152,076.5 acres of land with an agricultural use in Orange County based on a query of the Orange County Property Appraiser’s database for Department of Revenue (DOR) codes related to agriculture. The majority of this agricultural land was used as pastures for cattle, followed by crops (including citrus), and timberland (Food Production White Paper, page 4, Orange County Government, October 2009).

More than 80% of the agricultural land in Orange County is located within the unincorporated area. Most of the agricultural land within unincorporated areas is located within the County’s Rural Service Area and less than 2% is located within the County’s Rural Settlements. As of 2009, there were more than 15,000 acres of land used for agricultural purposes within the County’s Urban Service Area. In addtion, there are almost 22,000 acres of land used for agriculture purposes within the municipalities with 42% of the parcels within the City of Orlando. The Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Cities of Apopka and Winter Garden account for a majority of the remaining agricultural parcels within munipalities. The Orange County Food Production White Paper, which was published by Orange County’s Planning Division in October 2009, is the source of the data noted above. The white paper also provides maps depicting the distribution of agricultural lands within Orange County.

7

Figure 4. Trend in Land Farmed from 1959 to 2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

1959 1969 1979 1987 1997 2002 2007

Land in Farms (acres

)


Figure 5 depicts the percentage of land in farms by type of land. More than half the farmland in Orange County in 2007 was in pasture. Over 20% was in woodland and an additional 15% was in crop land. Other uses beyond the top three accounted for only 6% of farmland.

Figure 5. Land in Farms by Type of Land in Orange County, 2007

Pasture58%

Woodland21%

Crop Land15%

Other Uses6%

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007

Figure 6 below depicts the decline in citrus acreage in the county over time. The amout of land used for citrus production declined by 85.9% between 1978 and 2007. The steepest decline during that period occurred between 1982 and 1987. The decade of the 1980’s was a challenging period

8

for citrus farming in the region. In January 1981, Central Florida was hit by the first in a series of severe freezes that dramatically shrunk the industry by over 65% between 1978 and 1987. Most of the groves affected by the freezes were sold and developed (East Central Florida 2060 Plan, Chapter 11, page 6). The acreage of land used for citrus farming continued to decrease, but at a much slower pace between 1992 and 2002. However, in August 2004, Hurricane Charley caused significant damage both in terms of direct destruction of trees and spreading of citrus canker disease that required further removal of citrus trees. In 2007, the total citrus land farmed in the county was 8,165 acres of which 7,055 acres was related to crops of oranges of all types. Orange County ranked 19th in the state of Florida and 26th in the U.S. in terms of the acreage devoted to cultivation of oranges of all types in 2007 according to the USDA Census of Agriculture.

Figure 6. Decline in Citrus Acreage in Orange County, 1978 to 2007

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 2007

Citru

s Acrea

ge


Table 1 below summarizes the Future Land Use (FLU) designation for agricultural lands located within Orange County’s Urban Servcie Area. The majority of agriculural land within the Urban Service Area as of 2008 had a FLU designation of Planned Development (PD). Since parcels with the PD FLU have already been entitled to the submittal of a land use plan, it can be inferred that these parcels are just “holding” until they get developed. A similar argument could be made for properties with Activity Center Mixed Use and Activity Center Residential future land uses in the International Drive area, which can only be developed as PDs.

9

Table 1. Total Acres by Future Land Use for Land Classified as Agricultural within the Urban Service Area

Future Land Use Total Acres Planned Development 6,145.20 Industrial 3,069.73 Low/Low Medium Density Residential 2,645.54 Other/Mixed* 1,915.16 Activity Center Mixed Use/Activity Center Residential 1,180.05 Medium/High Density 374.23 Commercial/Office 117.21

* Includes parcels with more than one future land use category and parcels with Community Village Center (CVC) and Rural Future Land Use.

Source: Orange County GIS, 2008, published in Orange County Food Production White Paper, page 7, October 2009

Size of Farms

As depicted in Figure 7 below, the average size of farms in Orange County has fluctuated quite a bit over time, but the average size has generally stayed within the 150 to 200 acre range. The average farm size in Orange County in 2007 was 165 acres. Size of farms with regard to acreage does not always directly correlate with output due to better technologies, chemical advancements, and more efficient growing practices. Size of farms is not always measured strictly in terms of acreage, for instance with cattle, herd size is a common indicator, but for the purposes of comparison within this section, we will only focus on land area.

Figure 7. Average Size of Farms in Orange County from 1959 to 2007

0

50

100

150

200

250

1959 1969 1979 1987 1997 2002 2007

Ave

rage Size (A

cres

)


10

Figure 8 below summarizes the distribution of farms in Orange County by size as of 2007. In 1997 and 2007, the median farm size in Orange County was only 10 acres and the vast majority of farms in Orange County are less than 50 acres in size.

Figure 8. Number of Farms by Size in Orange County, 2007

050100150200250300350400

1 to 9 10 to 49 50 and over

No. of F

arms

Farm Size (Acres)


Community Gardens

Based on information primarily provided in the Central Florida Local Food Guide 2011‐2012, which is compiled by the Simple Living Institute, Inc. along with other sources there are at least 26 community gardens in Orange County (see Table 2 below). Of those, 16 are located in Orlando, six in Winter Park, and one each in Apopka, Eatonville, Ocoee, and Winter Garden.

Table 2. Community Gardens in Orange County

Name Street Address City

Apopka Billie Dean Community Garden 100 East 9th Street Apopka

Mountain Community Garden* 307 Center St. E. Eatonville

Ocoee Oaks United Garden 207 South Clarke Road Ocoee

Audubon Park Community Garden 1500 Falcon Drive Orlando

Avalon Park Community Garden 13460 Tanja King Blvd. Orlando

Colonialtown Community Garden 1517 Lake Highland Drive Orlando

Festival Park Community Garden 2911 East Robinson Street Orlando

First Christian Church Garden 2565 East Kaley Street Orlando

First Unitarian Church Community Garden 1901 E. Robinson Street Orlando

Florida School Of Holistic Living Herb Garden 622A North Thornton Avenue Orlando

11

Name Street Address City

Lemon Tree Community Garden 1017 20th Street Orlando

Orlando Willows Neighborhood Garden 4777 Silver Star Road Orlando

Parramore Community Garden 654 West Robinson Street Orlando

Peppermill Community Garden Peppermill Blvd. and OBT, Park #1 Orlando

Pine Hills Community Garden 6408 Jennings Drive Orlando

Reeves Terrace Community Garden 300 Victor Avenue Orlando

St. Joseph Garden Courts 1515 North Alafaya Trail Orlando

St. Paul’s Presbyterian Church* 4917 Eli Street Orlando

UCF Arboretum Community Garden 4000 Central Florida Boulevard Orlando

Winter Garden Community Garden 504 Pennsylvania Avenue Winter Garden

Calvary Towers Retirement Community 1099 Clay Street Winter Park

Depugh Community Garden 550 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park

Mead Garden Community Gardens 1300 South Denning Drive Winter Park

Our Whole Community Garden* 465 W. Welbourne Avenue Winter Park

Winter Park Presbyterian Church 400 South Lakemont Avenue Winter Park

Winter Park Towers Garden 111 South Lakemont Avenue Winter Park * Note: Not listed in Central Florida Food Guide

Agricultural Production

Agriculture Operations

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Agriculture, there are a variety of agricultural products produced in Orange County. Figure 9 below categorizes local farming operations by North American Industry Code System (NAICS). Each of the 825 farms in Orange County in 2007 were assigned only one NAICS code by the U.S. Census Bureau based on its primary activity (generally the activity that generates the most revenue for the establishment). Individual farms may be involved in multiple agricultural operations, so it is important to note that other references to farm numbers within this appendix (e.g., citrus and cattle operations) may be somewhat higher than those noted in Figure 9. The category with the largest number of agricultural operations in Orange County was the Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture sector (NAICS code 1114), which comprised 31.2% of all the agricultural operations in 2007. The next largest number of agricultural operations was in the Fruit and Tree Nut Farming sector (NAICS code 1113), which accounted for 22.8% of agricultural operations in 2007. The Beef Cattle Farming and Ranching sector (NAICS code 12111) was a close third with 21.1% of all agricultural operations within Orange County in 2007. Aquaculture and Other Animal Production (NAICS code 1125, 11290) ranked fourth with 17.2% of all agricultural operations. Other sectors were relatively minor contributors in terms of the number of agricultural operations and together accounted for only 7.7% of agricultural operations.

12

Figure 9. Agricultural Operations by NAICS Code in Orange County, 2007

6

188

257

12

174

2

16

13

15

142

0 100 200

Vegetable and Melon Farming

Fruit and Tree Nut Farming

Greenhouse, Nursery, and Floriculture

Other Crop Farming

Beef Cattle Farming and Ranching

Dairy Cattle and Milk Production

Hog and Pig Farming

Poultry and Egg Production

Sheep and Goat Farming

Aquaculture and other animal production

No. of Agricultural Operations

300


Table 3 below summarizes the number of operations in Orange County by food crop. In 2007, a total of 196 operations were related to orchards and the vast majority of those (191) were citrus orchards. Cultivation of oranges was predominant among citrus growers in the county with 182 operations in 2007. Tangerines and grapefruit ranked second and third in terms of citrus operations with 35 and 34 operations, respectively.

Table 3. Number of Operations by Food Crop in Orange County, Florida, 2007

Food Products Number of Operations*

Notes

Orchards 196 Citrus 191 A subset of orchards Oranges 182 A subset of citrus Tangerines 35 A subset of citrus Grapefruit 34 A subset of citrus Forage, hay 22 Tangelos 14 A subset of citrus Vegetables 8 Non‐citrus, excluding berries 5 Cabbage 4 Grapes 4 Temples 4 A subset of citrus Lettuce 3 Pecans 3

13

Food Products Number of Operations*

Notes

Pumpkins 3 Radishes 3 Squash 3 Tree nuts 3 Vegetable seeds 3

Vegetables, including fresh cut herbs, under protection 3

Cucumbers 2 Grain storage 2 Apples 1 Beans, snap 1 Mushrooms 1 Sweet corn 1 Tomatoes 1

* Note: Food products categories overlap in some cases. For example, “Citrus” is a subset of “Orchards” and “Oranges,” “Tangerines,” “Grapefruit,” “Tangelos,” and “Temples” are a subset of “Citrus.” Some farm operations may cultivate multiple food products, so numbers for subsets of “Citrus” category will not add up to total for that category.

Source: Orange County Food Production White Paper, October 2009, which referenced USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007

Table 4 below summarizes the number of operations by animal farm in Orange County as of 2007. By far the largest number of animal operations were cattle with hogs and sheep, goats, and products tied for distant second place.

Table 4. Number of Operations by Animal Farm in Orange County, Florida, 2007

Food Products Number of Operations

Cattle and Calves 221 Hogs and Pigs 30 Sheep, Goats, and products 34 Ducks 10 Chickens, layers 9 Poultry, other 8 Aquaculture 6 Alpacas 5 Chickens, broilers (meat) 5 Honey 5 Turkeys 5 Milk, including other dairy products 2

14

Food Products Number of Operations

Bait fish 1 Chickens, pullets (replacement) 1 Geese 1 Llamas 1 Pheasants 1 Pigeons and Squab 1

Source: Orange County Food Production White Paper, October 2009, which referenced USDA Census of Agriculture, 2007

Number of Cattle on Farms in Orange County

Figure 10 depicts the number of cattle on farms in Orange County between 1950 and 2007. During that timeframe, the number of cattle decreased by approximately 50%. However, from 1950 to 1969, the number of cattle dramatically increased by over 65%. Subsequently, during the five‐year period that followed to 1974, the number of cattle decreased by almost 48%. The next significant decrease occurred in 1987. Between 1987 and 2007, the cattle population in Orange County remained relatively stable with the exception of a spike in 1997. In 2007, there were 11,073 head of cattle in Orange County, which ranked 35th in the state of Florida.

Figure 10. Number of Cattle in Orange County, 1950 to 2007

21,94727,466

31,29436,305

19,05319,424

18,33511,396

10,37715,989

11,59211,073

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000

195019591964196919741978198219871992199720022007

No. of Cattle

Source: East Central Florida 2060 Plan, which cited USDA Census of Agriculture

Market Value of Agricultural Products

As indicated in Figure 11 below, the total market value of agricultural products sold in Orange County in 2007 was almost $270 million. From 1997 to 2007, total sales of agricultural products increased by 7.8%. Livestock sales accounted for only 2% of the total value of agricultural

15

products sold in 2007. Sales from the Nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, and sod commodity group predominated with sales of $237.6 million in 2007, which ranked second highest in the state of Florida and eighth highest in the United States in terms of the value of sales.

Figure 11. Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold in Orange County, 1997 to 2007

$220,000,000$225,000,000$230,000,000$235,000,000$240,000,000$245,000,000$250,000,000$255,000,000$260,000,000$265,000,000$270,000,000

1997 2002 2007Livestock Sales $3,704,000 $3,195,000 $5,443,000Crop Sales $246,694,000 $239,492,000 $264,477,000

Sales


Local Food Purchases in Florida and the Associated Economic Impact

On February 6, 2013, the University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department published a report entitled Local Food Systems in Florida: Consumer Characteristics and Economic Impacts. The report summarized the results of a survey that sought to document local food purchasing patterns and economic impacts as well as attitudes toward local foods in Florida. The authors noted that “Demand for locally produced food is rapidly growing in the United States, due to concerns about sustainability, nutrition, food safety and security, farmland retention, and economic development.” Although there is no standard definition of local food systems, a commonly accepted definition is that it is produced within a 100 miles of where it is consumed. Local food systems consist of a variety of direct‐to‐consumer market channels, including farmer’s markets, “U Pick” or self‐harvesting operations, roadside stands, and community supported agriculture (CSA) buying clubs. Locally produced food is also distributed via retail grocery stores, restaurants, institutional food service operations, consumer owned coops, and regional food wholesalers. Local Food Systems in Florida noted that the following potential benefits of local food and direct food marketing:

• Reduced marketing costs through less reliance on brokers, wholesalers, and tradional retailers

• Enhanced sustainability: reduced transportation costs and carbon footprint • Enhanced freshness and nutrition

16

• Reduced spoilage and increased shelf life • Consumers may have relationship to producer • Enhanced food safety, traceability, and accountability • Enhanced food security • Support local economic development, job creation, and business retention

Figure 12 below summarizes the weighted share of respondents purchasing food through various local channels in Florida. The highest percentage (61.7%) of respondents indicated that they purchased local food through Farmer’s Markets, roadside stands, and U pick operations. The second leading way in which Florida respondents indicated they purchased local food was via retail grocery stores (52.8%). Over one‐quarter of respondents (27.9%) indicated they purchased local food from restaurants. A total of 4.3% purchased local food directly from producers by special arrangement in advance. Only 1.1% of respondents indicated they purchased local food via CSAs.

Figure 12. Summary of Participation in Local Food Marketing Channels in Florida

61.7%

52.8%

27.9%

4.3%

1.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Farmer's Markets, Roadside Stands, and U‐pick

Retail Grocery Stores

Restaurants

Special Arrangement

Community Supported Agriculture

Weighted % of Respondents Purchasing

Source: Local Food Systems in Florida: Consumer Characteristics and Economic Impacts, A. Hodges and T. Stevens, University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, February 6, 2013

The total value of all foods purchased annually in 2011‐12 through local market channels in Florida was estimated at $8,314 million. Figure 13 below summarizes the breakout of purchases by local marketing channel. By monetary value, a total of 73.1% of local food ($6,079 million) was purchased at retail grocery stores. The second highest purchases total (21.8%) came from farmer’s markets, roadside stands, and U‐pick operations with $1,813 million. A total of $320 million or 3.8% of the total value in local food was purchased from restaurants in Florida. In addition, $91.2 million (1.1%) was purchased by special arrangement with producers and $11.4 million was purchased from CSA organizations.

Figure 13. Summary of Foods Purchased Through Local Market Channels in Florida, 2011‐2012

17

$6,079

$1,813

$320

$91

$11

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000

Local Foods at Retail

Farmer's markets, roadside stands, U pick

Local Food at Restaurants

Special arrangement with farmer/grower

Community supported agriculture

Millions of Dollars


Figure 14 summarizes local food purchases in Florida by type of food. In terms of market value, vegetables and fruits made up the highest percentage of local food purchased with 20.4% and 18.9%, respectively. Fish, beef, and poultry were the next highest contributors comprising 8.3%, 7.7%, and 6.8%, respectively, of local food sales.

Table 5 below summarizes local food purchases by region in Florida. The Orlando region had the highest value of local food purchases at $2,611 million followed by Miami‐Ft. Lauderdale with $2,357 million. The Orlando region’s local food purchases was well over twice that of the third highest region for local food sales, Tampa‐St. Petersburg. Figure 15 below is a map depicting how the regions were defined. The Orlando region included Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Hardee, Highlands, Lake, Marion, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole, Sumter, and Volusia counties.

18

Figure 14. Summary of Foods Purchased through Local Market Channels in Florida, 2011‐2012

$1,699$1,574

$686$641

$569$541$530

$489$439

$394$372

$314$66

$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800

VegetablesFruitsFishBeef

PoultryBeverages

Prepared FoodsDairy

HoneyPork, lamb, other meats

EggsNuts

Miscellaneous Other Foods

Purchases in Millions of Dollars


Table 5. Summary of Local Food Purchases in Florida Region, 2011‐2012

Region Purchases

(in Millions of Dollars) Orlando $2,611 Miami‐Ft. Lauderdale $2,357 Tampa‐St. Petersburg $1,143 Sarasota‐Bradenton $728 Jacksonville $643 Pensacola $267 Gainesville $265 Tallahassee $258 Panama City $18


The Local Food Systems in Florida report included calculations of the economic impact of local food using the IMPLAN regional economic model. A summary is provided in Table 6 below. The total economic impacts of local food purchases in Florida for 2011‐12 were estimated at 183,625 full‐ and part‐time jobs, $6.46 billion in labor income (employee wages, salaries and benefits), $10.47 billion in value added contribution to Gross State Product, $19.20 billion in industry output

19

or revenues, and $851 million in indirect business taxes to local, state and federal governments, expressed in 2013 dollars.

Figure 15. Functional Economic Regions of Florida

Table 6. Summary of Total Economic Impacts of Local Food Purchases in Florida, 2011‐2012

Economic Indicator Value Full‐ and Part‐time Jobs 183,625 Labor Income $6.46 billion Value Added Contribution to Gross State Product $10.47 billion Industry Output or Revenues $19.20 billion Indirect Businesses Taxes to Local, State, and Federal Government $851 million


Figure 16 below provides a summary of the importance of various attributes of local food systems in Florida from the perspective of consumers. The attributes of local food systems that were

20

indicated by respondents as “very important” were “freshness” (90.1%), “food safety” (78.2%), and “nutrition (67.7%), followed by “price” (60.8%), “food security” (56.7%), “pesticide free (49.7%), “shelf life” (44.0%), “reduced transportation” (24.7%), “organic certified” (22%), and “having relationship to producer” (13.8%).

Figure 16. Summary of Important Attributes for Local Food Systems in Florida

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%

FreshnessFood SafetyNutrition

PriceFood SecurityPesticide‐free

Shelf LifeReduced Transportation

Organic CertifiedHaving Relationship to Producer

Weighted % of Respondents

Not Important

Moderately Important

Very Important


Figure 17 below summarizes factors limiting purchases of local foods in Florida. The five factors that were regarded as potentially “very limiting” for local food systems by at least 20 percent of weighted respondents were “high price” (34.5%), “unavailability or limited selection of local foods in your area” (26.5%), “not knowing whether food is truly local as labeled” (24.5%), “farmer’s market days or times are inconvenient” (20.9%), and “seasonal availability only certain times of year” (20.3%).

Economic Impact of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and and Related Food Industries

Table 7 below summarizes the economic impact of “Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Food Industries” in Orange County in 2011 based on estimates developed by the University of Florida, IFAS Extension using the IMPLAN model. The industries group was responsible for 116,494 direct jobs (full‐time and part‐time positions) with a total employment impact of 155,653 jobs when indirect and induced impacts are taken into account. The total value added impacts from the “Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Food Industries” industries group was $8.31 billion in 2011. Value added is a broad measure of income representing the sum of employee compensation, proprietor income, other property income, indirect business taxes, and capital consumption (deprecitation). Value added avoids double counting of intermediate sales and is therefore a commonly used measure of the contribution of an industry to a regional economy.

21

Figure 17. Summary of Factors Limiting Purchases of Local Foods in Florida

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%

High Price

Unavailability/limited selection of local foods

Not knowing whether food is truly local as …

Farmer’s market days or times are inconvenient

Seasonal availability only certain times of year

Lacking stg. capacity or refrig. for qty. purchases

Congestion/parking at farmer's markets

Lacking transportation to market locations

Time required for preparation of raw foods

Lacking knowledge to prepare local foods

Not Limiting Moderately Limiting Very Limiting


Value added is a broad measure of net economic activity that is comparable to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). A University of Florida, IFAS fact sheet summarizing economic impacts of agriculture and related industries in Orange County based on a 2010 University of Florida study indicated that the industry group was responsible for 159,556 jobs or 18.7% of the total in Orange County. In addition, the fact sheet attributed $8.7 billion in revenues and a 13.4% contribution to gross regional product to the industry group.

As indicated in Table 7, the biggest contributor to jobs in the “Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Food Industries” industries group was “Food and Kindred Products Distribution.” The largest contributors to direct jobs within that industry were “Food Services and Drinking Places” (75,489 jobs), “Retail Stores – Food and Beverage” (11,833 jobs), and “Wholesale Trade, Food and Kindred Products” (6,319 jobs). The “Agriculture Input & Services” industry group was the second biggest contributor to jobs and the biggest contributors to direct jobs within that group were “Landscape Services” (11,873 jobs) and “Pest Control Services” (2,506 jobs).

In 2008, “Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Industries” ranked 4th among all industry groups in terms of output, 4th in exports, and 3rd in employment in Orange County (Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Industries in Florida Counties, 2008, M. Rahmani, A. Hodges, and R. Clouser, University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, October 20, 2010).

22

Table 7. Economic Impact of Agriculture, Natural Resoruces, and Related Food Industries in Orange County, 2011

Industry Group

Direct Employment

(Jobs)

Total Employment

Impacts (Jobs)

Direct Ouput (M$)

Total Output Impacts (M$)

Total Value Added Impacts (M$)

Crop, Livestock, Forestry & Fisheries Production 2,292 4,327 280.4 569.4 360.9 Agricultural Inputs & Services 15,649 22,045 1,178.0 1,965.0 991.0 Food & Kindred Products Manufacturing 3,570 8,414 1,558.8 2,306.6 725.9 Forest Products Manufacturing 488 1,231 139.3 235.8 100.5 Food & Kindred Products Distribution 94,089 118,865 6,511.1 9,679.1 6,079.7 Mining 148 400 31.9 64.3 22.8 Nature Based Recreation 258 371 20.6 35.1 25.2 TOTAL 116,494 155,653 9,720.1 14,855.3 8,306.0

Source: Economic Contributions of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Related Food Industries in Florida in 2011, A. Hodges, M. Rahmani, and T. Stevens, University of Florida, IFAS Extension, June 2013

Employment Related to Selected Agriculture and Food Related Industries

The agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining industry category employs 2,417 people in Orange County and accounts for 0.4% of the employment in Orange County (American Community Survey 5‐Year Estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau).

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for May 2012 indicated that 120,730 people in the Orlando‐Kissimmee‐Sanford Metropolitan Statistical Area were employed in “Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations” occupational group or a rate of 119.324 per 1,000 jobs with a median wage of $9.13 per hour, an average wage of $10.68 per hour, and an annual mean wage of $22,210. A total of 1,690 individuals (rate of 1.671 per 1,000 jobs) were employed in the “Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations” occupational group earning a median wage of $8.84 per hour, an average wage of $10.35 per hour, and an annual median wage of $21,530.

Of the 825 principal operators of farms in Orange County, 46.6% list farming as their primary occupation (USDA Agricultural Census 2007). The vast majority (87.7%) of farm operators in Orange County are White. The racial group with the second highest number of farm operators is Asian with 6%. Farm operators of Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino origin comprise an additional 3.8% of the total. Other racial groups constitute only a small fraction of the total number of farm operators in Orange County.

23

Food Processing, Packaging, and Distribution

Food Processing

Food processing or manufacturing involves the transformation of livestock and crops into products for intermediate and final consumption by humans or animals. The products manufactured in these facilities are sold to wholesalers and retailers for final distribution to consumers. In 2005, only seven percent of the manufacturing facilities in Orange County were food processing industries and most were small establishments. In addition, very little of the value of the food processing industry relies on locally grown produce. Depending on the type of food processing facility, significant quantities of water, power, and waste tend to be considerations.

As indicated in Figure 18 below, there were 47 food processing operations in Orange County in 2005 according to the InfoUSA database. The Other Food Manufacturing category accounted for the largest number of food processing operations in the county with 30 percent of the total. “The products include snack food, coffee and tea, concentrate syrup, condiment, and spices, and other miscellaneous products. All of the ingredients on these items come from distant places. Furthermore, these are often heavily processed food products” (Orange County Food Production White Paper, page 19).

The Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing category accounted for the second highest number of food processing facilities in Orange County with 19 percent of the total. This category includes businesses that produce fresh and frozen bread and other bakery products, but retail bakeries were not included in the Orange County Food Production White Paper because their items were mostly prepared for immediate consumption and sale.

More details and analysis of food processing operations in Orange County can be found in the Orange County Food Production White Paper dated October 2009.

24

Figure 18. Number of Food Manufacturing Operations in Orange County, 2008

8

5

4

7

9

14

0 5 10 15

Confectionary (3113) and Beverage (3121)

Fruit and Vegetable Preserving and Specialty Food (3114)

Dairy Product Manufacturing (3115)

Animal Slaughtering (3116) and Sea Food Preparation (3117)

Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing (3118)

Other Food Manufacturing (3119)

Source: Orange County Food Production White Paper, October 2009 (note that sources referenced in that paper included InfoUSA 2005 and Orange County GIS 2009)

Whole Sale Food Distribution

The food distribution system delivers food products from farms and food processing facilities located in many parts of the U.S. and several different countries to whole sale food suppliers, retail food establishments, and ultimately the individual consumer. In one sense, the system is highly efficient in delivering goods to market at a relatively low cost. The average food item and fresh produce in the U.S. travels an estimated 1,300 and 1,500 miles, respectively (Life Cycle‐Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System, M. Heller and G. Keoleian, The University of Michigan ‐ Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, 1‐60, CSS00‐04, December 6, 2000, page 40). Transportation accounts for an estimated 13.6% of the total energy inputs to the U.S. food system (Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2012. “U.S. Food System Factsheet.” Pub. No. CSS01‐06).

“Unlike with manufacturing, which is not a strong economic sector, the food wholesale sector contains a lot of operations in Orange County. Located in the middle of the state, Orange County has a strong wholesale distribution sector. Moreover, this sector has benefitted from being close to a the large hospitality and health care sectors, businesses that require the consistent supply of fresh food products to serve their customers” (Orange County Food Production White Paper, October 2009, page 21).

There were 122 establishments in Orange County dedicated to the wholesale distribution of groceries and other related products when the Orange County Food Production White Paper was

25

written in 2009. Figure 19 below breaks down wholesale distribution operations into four separate categories. The Confectionery and Other Grocery Products category accounts for 41% of wholesale distribution operations in the county. “Most of these establishments are engaged in the distribution of highly processed products, such as canned and dried foods, salted and roasted peanuts, popcorn, chips, soft drinks and syrups” (Orange County Food Production White Paper, page 21). The Dairy Products and Packaged Frozen Food and Fruit & Vegetables categories accounted for 24.6% and 23.8%, respectively of the food wholesale distribution operations in the county. Lastly, Meat & Meat Products, Fish and Sea Food and Poultry Products businesses made up 9.8% of food wholesale distributions in the county.

Figure 19. Food Wholesale Distribution Operations in Orange County, 2009

30

50

12

29

0 10 20 30 40 50

Dairy Products (42443) and Packaged Frozen Food (42442)

Confectionery (42445) and Other Grocery Products

Meat & Meat Products (42447), Fish and Sea Food (42446) and Poultry

Products

Fruit & Vegetable (42448)

Source: Food Production White Paper, Orange County Planning Division, October 2009

Farmer’s Markets

Between 1994 and 2012, the number of Farmer’s’ Markets in the United States increased exponentially by almost 350% as depicted in Figure 20 below. According to information provided in the Central Florida Local Food Guide 2011‐2012, there are a total of 18 Farmers’ Markets in Orange County (see Table 8 below). Twelve of the Farmers’ Markets are located in Orlando and 6 other muncipalities have one market each.

26

Figure 20. Number of Operating Farmers Markets in the U.S., 1994 to 2010

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

No. of O

perating Farmers Marke

ts in

U.S.

Source: USDA AMS Marketing Services Division

Table 8. List of Farmers’ Markets in Orange County

Farmers’ Market Name Location Audobon Park Community Market Orlando Avalon Park Farmers' Market Orlando Blues and Jazz Outdoor Market Orlando Central Florida Farmers' Market Orlando College Park Farmers' Market Orlando Colonial Farmers' Market Orlando Downtown Orlando Farmers' Market Orlando Lake Nona Farmers' Market Orlando Maitland Farmers' Market Maitland Ocoee Farmers' Market Ocoee Plaza Theatre Farmers' Market Orlando Sand Lake Farmers' Market Orlando Sustain Natural Farmers' Market Apopka Village Park Farmers' Market at Hunter Creek Orlando Waterford Lakes Farmers' Market Orlando Windermere Farmers' Market Windermere Winter Garden Farmers Market Winter Garden Winter Park Farmers' Market Winter Park

Source: Central Florida Local Food Guide 2011‐2012

27

Local Food Cooperative

Homegrown Local Food Cooperative has operated on the Community Supported Agriculture model since 2007. Its mission is to “ensure convenient access and consistent supply of locally grown foods that are ethical, organic and sustainable in production to the communities of Central Florida” and “to support the production, promotion and distribution of these foods throughout our region.” Homegrown also strives to educate the community about the products they sell (and choose not to sell) as their contribution to a healthier, better informed community. Homegrown seeks to inspire and empower its members to grow their own organic food as the way to a more sustainable future. Their vision is a transparent and decentralized food system where consumers connect directly with locally owned and operated, organic farms. Homegrown operates an online food distribution program (Farmers Market) that helps to connect its members with dozens of local farmers. Food orders are available for pickup two days per week at 2310 N. Orange Avenue in Orlando. The vast majority of Homegrown’s online market’s 1200+ offerings are organic and locally produced within 50 miles of Orlando by more than 50 independent farms. According to Dr. Richard Tyson, Manager of Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Division, when Homegrown opened they had five local growers and 10 members, and they now have 60 local growers and approximately 800 members.

Food Hubs

USDA’s working definition of a regional food hub is “…a business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution and marketing of source‐identified food products, primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail and institutional demand” (The Role of Food Hubs in Local Marketing, USDA Rural Development Service Report Number 73, January 2013). Food hubs can play a vital role in helping local farmers and ranchers to differentiate their products and bring them to market in a manner that is more financially viable. East End Market is a neigborhood market and cultural food hub that is expected to open in the near future in Orlando. In addition, Oak Ridge Market at Artgon is another food hub expected to open locally. Food Deserts

Food deserts are defined as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. These communities may have no food access at all or are served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food choices. The lack of access contributes to a poor diet, which in turn can lead to higher levels of obesity and other diet‐related illnesses, such as diabetes and heart disease.

USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that 23.5 million people in the United States live in food deserts. More than half of those people (13.5 million) are low‐income. Food deserts are often identified based on distance to groceries stores, supermarkets, etc. where access to fresh, healthy, and affordable foods is available. A one‐mile marker is typically used to define food deserts in urban areas while a 10‐mile marker is typically used in rural areas where the population is more sparsely distributed and where vehicle ownership is high.

28

As indicated in Table 9 below, 8.8% of the population of Orange County lives in census tracts classified as food deserts by the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. This is comparable to the U.S. as a whole where 8.4% of the population (23.5 million) lives in food deserts (Access to Affordable an Nutritious Food: Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences, Report to Congress, USDA Economic Research Service, June 2009).

Studies have indicated that minorities and low‐income families are disproportionately impacted by food deserts (Characteristics and Influential Factors of Food Deserts, P. Dutko, M. Ver Ploeg, and T. Farrigan, USDA Economic Research Report Number 140, August 2012). According to the USDA, more than half of the U.S. population living in food deserts (13.5 million) are low income (http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/foodDeserts.aspx).

Table 9. Orange County Census Tracts Classified as Food Deserts

Census Tract Population 011600 4,112 011701 5,155 011901 5,003 011902 795 012000 6,103 013200 9,027 014601 8,216 015104 4,537 016411 3,239 016506 7,689 016508 6,413 016902 4,687 016903 11,496 017300 8,958 017600 4,011 017703 3,893

Total Population in Food Deserts 93,334 Total Population 1,062,344 % of Total Population in Food Deserts 8.8% Food Desert Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service website http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/TractBreakdown.pdf

Population Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005‐2009 American Community Survey

Preparation and Consumption

Food Insecurity

From 2009 to 2011, an average of 15.4% of Floridians suffered from food insecurity (access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money or other resources) at some time during the year and

29

http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/foodDeserts.aspx

http://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/TractBreakdown.pdf

of that number 6.3% had very low food security. For the U.S. as a whole, 14.9% were food insecure in 2011 and of that number 5.7% had very low food security (Household Food Security in the United States 2011, U.S. Department of Agriculture, September 2012). So the rate of food insecurity for Florida is somewhat higher than the national average. The Food Research and Action Center’s Food Hardship in America 2012 report, which was published in February 2013, listed the Orlando‐Kissimmee Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as having the tenth highest food hardship rate in the nation with 21.5% of those surveyed indicating that there have been times during the past twelve months when they did not have enough money to buy food that they or their family needed. In Florida, only the Lakeland‐Winter Haven MSA had a higher reported food hardship rate for 2011‐2012.

Cost of Food as Share of Personal Disposal Income

As indicated in Figure 21 below, food expenditures by individuals and families in the United States as a share of personal disposable income decreased by almost 60% between 1930 and 2011. The percentage of disposable income spent on food decreased steadily from 1930 to 2000, but pretty much leveled off after that time to a little less than 10%. The percentage of disposal income spent for food away from home has held relatively stable over time with a low of 3.1% in 1930 and 1940 to a high of 4.2% in 1980. Between 1980 and 2011, the percentage of disposable income spent for food away from home ranged between 4.0 and 4.2%. Conversely, the expenditures of income for food at home have decreased dramatically over time from 21.2% in 1930 to 5.7% in 2011. As a percentage of all expenditures on food, however, the percentage spent away from home has increased substantially from 25.9% in 1970 to 41.8% in 2011. “While increases in away‐from‐home meals have fed a thriving restaurant industry that provides 7.6 million jobs [reference dated 1999], eating away from home makes it more difficult to monitor personal nutritional intake. Food consumed away from home typically has a higher content of fat, saturated fats, and cholesterol” (Heller and Keoleian, page 31).

Food in the U.S. is more affordable than in many other countries. The total of personal consumption expenditures spent on food consumed at home was significantly lower in the U.S. than in many other developed countries based on a 1994 comparison (see Figure 22 below). Relatively cheap food has social benefits in that it makes food more accessible to poorer members of society. However, the overall nutritional value and healthfulness of the food being consumed by many Americans is dubious based on trends in obesity, relatively low consumption of fruits and vegetables, and trends in diseases associated with dietary issues. In addition, there are other personal and societal costs that do not show up in the receipts people receive at the checkout counter. For example, tax subsidies for certain food commodities, medical costs asssociated with preventable diseases, impacts on long‐term soil fertility, greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change, potential for adverse impacts to surface water bodies from chemicals applied to agricultural lands, and a requirement for large energy inputs relative to the energy outputs are all costs that may in some sense be externalized, but which are significant nonetheless. Food systems are tremendously important from a sustainability perspective because of their far reaching and many faceted impacts. A holistic and systemic view is needed to consider the true costs of food and how to make our local agricultural and food systems more sustainable from an individual and community perspective.

30

Figure 21. Food Expenditures by Families and Individuals in the U.S. as a Share of Disposal Income, 1930 to 2011

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2011

Percentage of Disposable Personal Income

Year

At home Percent

Away from home Percent

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, Food Expenditure Series (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data‐products/food‐expenditures.aspx)

Figure 22. Portion of Total Personal Consumption Expenditures Spent on Food, 1994

7.411.214.614.814.917.317.620.5

24.424.527.5

31.738.2

51.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

United StatesUnited Kingdom

SwedenFrance

AustraliaGermany

JapanIsrael

SwitzerlandMexico

South AfricaGreece

VenezuelaIndia

% of Total Personal Consumption Expenditures Spent on Food, 1994

Source: Life Cycle‐Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System, M. Heller and G. Keoleian, The University of Michigan ‐ Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, 1‐60, CSS00‐04, December 6, 2000, page 31

31

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-expenditures.aspx

Obesity and Diet Related Health Concerns

The CDC ranks obesity as among our greatest national health concerns. Many of our most significant preventable diseases (e.g., high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea, and some cancers) are related to this growing epidemic.

In 1985, the obesity rate among adults in Florida was less than 10%. By 1990, the obesity rate among adults in Florida had shifted to the 10 to 14% range and by 1995 it had increased to the 15 to 19% range. By 2004, the prevalence of obesity among adults climbed to the 20 to 24% range. In 2009, it had climbed to the 25 to 29% range. The methodology the CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System uses and its exclusion criteria resulted in new baselines for estimated state adult obesity prevalence starting in 2011, so data before that year cannot be directly compared to what comes after. In 2011, 26.6% of adults in Florida were obese (body mass index of 30% or above) and 64.2% were overweight (body mass index of 25% or above) according to the CDC. In 2011, obesity rates ranged from a low of 20.7% in Colorado to a high of 34.9% in Mississippi. The South had the highest prevalence of obesity in 2011 at 29.5%. Among adolescent Floridians, 14.7% were overweight and 10.3% were obese. Figure 23 depicts the increasing trend in obesity rates in Florida between 1990 and 2011. Although the methodology used to calculate the data in the figure may have differed somewhat from the approach used by the CDC, for the most part, the trend in the data matches the historical summary information noted above that is available on the CDC’s website.

Figure 23. Obesity Rates in Florida, 1990 to 2011

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Obe

sity Rate (%

)

Source: America's Health Rankings, United Health Foundation (http://www.americashealthrankings.org/FL)

Figure 24 below compares the obesity rates in the U.S., Florida, and Orange County for the period from 2004 to 2009. From 2004 to 2009, Orange County’s obesity rate has been somewhat lower

32

http://www.americashealthrankings.org/FL

than for the nation as a whole. In addition, from 2004 to 2008, Orange County’s obesity rate was equal to or slightly lower than the average rate for Florida. However, in 2009, Orange County’s rate was slightly higher than the average for Florida.

The amount and type of food consumed along with the amount of regular exercise are the main contributors to obesity. Obesity is costly in both physical and economic terms. Estimated annual obesity‐attributable expenditures in Florida in 2009 totaled $8,079 million according to data from a study referenced on the National Conference of State Legislatures website.

Figure 24. Obesity Rates Among Adults in the U.S., Florida, and Orange County, 2004 to 2009

Source: County Health Rankings & Roadmaps website University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute, (http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/home#/florida/2013/orange/county/outcomes/overall/snapshot/by‐rank)

Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

According to the CDC, “A diet high in fruits and vegetables can reduce the risk for many leading causes of death and can play an important role in weight management.” (State‐specific Trends in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Adults – United States, 2000‐2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 10, 2010). Healthy People 2010, a national health promotion and disease prevention initiative, set targets of increasing to 75% the proportion of persons aged ≥2 years who consume two or more servings of fruit daily and to 50% those who consume three or more servings of vegetables daily. Table 10 below summarizes the trend in consumption of fruits and vegetables for adults in the U.S. and in Florida. In 2009, the percentage of adults in Florida consuming at least the recommended number of servings of fruits and vegetables was slightly higher than the national average, but still well below the Healthy 2010 goals. Only one‐third of

33

http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/home#/florida/2013/orange/county/outcomes/overall/snapshot/by-rank

Floridians consumed the recommended number of serving of fruits per day and somewhat more than one‐quarter consumed the recommended servings of vegetables. The CDC noted that, “These findings underscore the need for interventions at national, state, and community levels, across multiple settings (e.g., worksites, community venues, and restaurants) to improve fruit and vegetable access, availability, and affordability, as a means of increasing individual consumption.” (State‐specific Trends in Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Among Adults – United States, 2000‐2009, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 10, 2010).

Table 10. Percentage of U.S. and Florida Adults Aged ≥18 Years Who Consumed Fruit Two or More times per day and Vegetables Three or More Times per Day, 2000–2009 Fruit 2 or More Times per Day 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 National Target U.S. 34.4 33.5 32.2 32.8 32.9 32.5 75% Florida 36.1 36.7 34.5 35.4 36.1 33.3

Vegetables 3 or More Times per Day 2000 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 National Target U.S. 26.7 26.3 26.2 27.1 27.4 26.3 50% Florida 24.4 27.9 27.4 28.2 29.2 28.3

Source 2000‐2009: CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, September 10, 2010 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a1.htm?s_cid=mm5935a1_w)

Support for Healthier Food in Communities

The National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion published a State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 2013, which provides information for each state on fruit and vegetable consumption, and environmental and policy indicators of support for consumption. The report shows that fruit and vegetable consumption is higher in some states than others, but overall consumption in the United States is low.

Table 11 summarizes information on indicators of healthier food retail in communities. In terms of the percentage of census tracts with at least one healthier food retailer within a half‐mile of the tract boundary, Florida significantly exceeds the national average. However, Florida is not among the ten states in the U.S. that currently has a healthier food retail policy and Florida is not among the 19 states that authorize farmers to accept Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) cash value vouchers. Furthermore, the number of farmers markets per 100,000 residents in Florida is less than half the national average. Also, Florida’s percentage of farmers markets that accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and WIC farmers market nutrition coupons are significantly lower than the national average.

34

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5935a1.htm?s_cid=mm5935a1_w

Table 11. Summary of Indicators for Healthier Food Retail in Communities

U.S. Florida Percentage of census tracts with at least one healthier food retailer within 1/2 mile

of tract boundary 69.5 78.5

State‐level healthier food retail policy 10 No Number of farmers markets per 100,000

residents 2.5 1.1 Percentage of farmers markets that accept

SNAP 21 15.7 Percentage of farmers markets that accept WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program

coupons 25.8 5.4 States that authorize farmers to accept

WIC Cash Value Vouchers 19 No Source: State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 2013, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

The State Indicators Report on Fruits and Vegetables 2013 also summarizes summarizes three indicators related to what schools, child care, and early education facilities are doing to promote healthier food (See Table 12 below).

Table 12. Summary of Indicators for Healthier Food in Schools, Child Care, and Early Education Facilities

U.S. Florida Percentage of middle / high schools that offer fruits or vegetables at celebrations 33.6 35.3 State child care regulations align with national standards for serving fruits /

vegetables 10/4 Yes / Yes State‐level farm to school / preschool

policy 28 Yes Source: State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 2013, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

The percentage of middle schools and high schools that offer fruits and vegetables at celebrations is slightly higher in Florida than the average across the nation. Florida is one of only ten states where child care regulations align with national standards for serving fruits and one of only four states where child care regulations align with national standards for vegetables. Florida is one of 28 states with a state‐level farm to school/pre‐school policy. Based on the indicators above, Florida appears to be doing relatively well in promoting healthy food options in schools and child care centers.

35

The State Indicators Report also looked at selected indicators related to support for food systems (see Table 13 below). Florida has five of the 213 food hubs in the United States or 2.4% of the total, but Florida’s population is 6.2% of the U.S. total based on 2012 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. None of the food hubs on the USDA’s working list are located in Orange County. However, as previously noted, East End Market is a neigborhood market and cultural food hub that is expected to open in the near future in Orlando. In addition, Oak Ridge Market at Artgon is another food hub expected to open locally. The amount of Florida’s cropland devoted to growing fruits and vegetables is more than 17 times the national average. In addition, Florida is one of 27 states in the U.S. with a state‐level food policy council. Good Food Central Florida, a local food policy council for the Central Florida Region, recently held its first meeting in June 2013. There were only 7 local food policy councils in Florida when the State Indicators Report Fruits and Vegetables 2013 was written. Table 13. Indicators Related to Food System Support

U.S. Florida Number of food hubs 213 5

Percentage of cropland acreage harvested for fruits and vegetables 2.5 42.9

State‐level food policy council 27 Yes Number of local food policy councils 150 7

Source: State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables 2013, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) Food Service Programs – OCPS Food & Nutrition Services (FNS) serves 29.5 million meals and snacks annually (over 175,000 per day) to students at the nation’s 10th largest school district. OCPS, FNS has more than 1,200 employees. FNS administers the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and After School Snacks Program to all OCPS schools. A total of 65.4% of district students are eligible for free or reduced price meals with approximately 99,600 students eligible for free meals and approximately 12,800 eligible for reduced price meals. A total of 93 schools district‐wide are in Provision 2 programs that provide breakfast to 65,860 students, and 57 schools provide lunch to 37,163 students at no charge.

Provision 2 of the National School Lunch Act is an option for schools participating in the federal School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program that allows them to reduce the paperwork and simplify the logistics of operating school meals programs. Any school that participates in the School Breakfast Program or National School Lunch Program, which are overseen by the USDA, can opt for Provision 2. Provision 2 schools do not have to collect and process school meals applications, keep track of meal categories, or conduct verifications for three out of every four years. Schools that opt for Provision 2 serve meals to all students without charge. Provision 2 schools pay the difference in cost between serving the meals to all students

36

and the federal reimbursement. The significant administrative savings of Provision 2 is meant to offset the cost differential. Provision 2 simplifies paperwork by having applications collected and verifications conducted every four years at most. In the first year or base year of the program, schools track applications and meal categories (free, reduced price, paid). In years two through four, the percentages of free, reduced price, and paid meals collected during the base year are used to determine the federal reimbursement. At the end of the four‐year cycle, schools can continue under Provision 2 without collecting additional applications, if the income level of the school’s population has not improved by more than 5 percent. According to the Food Research Action Center, participation in Provision 2 has the following benefits: increases student participation in school meals; children who eat school meals have more nutritious diets, regardless of income level; better nutrition leads to better academic performance, behavior, and learning environments; and providing school meals at no charge promotes the value of good nutrition to all students.

OCPS, FNS tracks its performance in terms of Provision 2 and free and reduce price meal programs, and where possible makes comparison to the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS) benchmark values as indicated below.

Figure 25. Percent of OCPS Students with Access to Provision 2 or Universal Breakfast

Target: 30%

15%

32%30%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY12 FY13 YTD

Students With Access to Provision 2 or Universal Breakfast

Percent of students Target

Result: 32%

CGCS 75th Percentile Benchmark: 95.3%

The USDA program of Provision 2 or Universal allows schools to offer meals at no charge. The district must still pay for students not eligible for benefits and are only reimbursed for the percent of students eligible for benefits. This adds a financial consideration for the district of how many students with no benefits can be afforded through the reimbursement of students eligible for benefits. The threshold for the Provision 2 or Universal breakfast was lowered from 95% to 90% of students needing to document eligibility for benefits.

37

Figure 26. Number of OCPS Schools in Provision 2 or Universal Program

Target: 50% of all schools or 35 more schools participating

70

9350%

020406080100120

FY12 FY13 YTDNum

ber o

f Sch

ools

Number of Schools in Provision 2 or Universal Breakfast

Schools in Provision 2 or Universal Breakfast Target

Result: 93 schools paor 37% increase

rticipating

CGCS 75th Percentile Benchmark: None

A focused campaign to identify the students eligible for benefits increased the number of students with eligibility before the deadline of September 30th and increased the number of schools in the Provision 2 breakfast program to 93.

Figure 27. Percent of Free and Reduced Meal Applications on File for OCPS Students

105,304

115,042

5.0%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

FY12 FY13 YTD

Free and Reduced Applications on File

Percent of applications Target

Target: 5% or 113,449 applications

Result: 115,042 applications


Due to the current economy, over 60% of OCPS students are eligible for free and reduced priced meals. Therefore, it is important to eliminate the financial barrier to nutrition by ensuring all possible students have an application on file. The number of students qualified for free or reduced meal benefits directly relates to meal participation. In the current economy, eligibility for meal benefits is an increasingly important benefit for the families of OCPS students. Ensuring they assist the most families possible through the process of getting eligibility benefit is a high priority.

Students are made eligible for free or reduced priced meals through a variety of mechanisms. First, OCPS receives data from the State of Florida, called Direct Certification, indicating the students that are eligible for public assistance. It is an efficient and customer friendly method of determining eligibility for approximately 25.6% of OCPS’s eligible students per year. OCPS also has an internet application process. Paper applications are mailed home and also provided through the schools themselves. To promote the application process, Food and Nutrition Services

38

sent flyers home, and made direct phone calls to remind parents to fill out the applications and return them to the school. Table 14 below summarizes the number and percentage of students in OCPS schools that have been eligible for free and reduced price meals over the past three academic years. It also summarizes the number of students with access to Provision 2 (P2) breakfasts and lunches.

Table 14. Free and Reduced Price Meal Eligibility for Students in OCPS Schools

Academic Year Free Reduced Paid % Free &

Reduced

Total Free &

Reduced

Total Enrollment P2 Bkfst P2 Lunch

2010 ‐ 2011 87,182 12,219 67,806 59.45% 99,401 167,207 31,880 13,562 2011 ‐ 2012 97,723 12,691 62,749 63.76% 110,414 173,163 43,545 13,212 2012 ‐ 2013 100,675 12,799 59,788 65.39% 113,474 177,058 65,531 37,579 % increase in 3 years 14.16% 105.56% 177.09% Figure 28. Percent of OCPS, Food and Nutrition Services Revenue Spent on Food

Target: 40%

43.6% 43.6%40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY12 FY13 YTD

Revenue Spent on Food

Percent of revenue spent on food

* Please note: The financial data noted above is current as of July 12, 2013. It is anticipated further adjustments to the FNS financials will be done once the OCPS Finance Department “closes the books” in FY13.

Result: 43.6%* OCPS food costs increased over last year due to the new menu requirement that more fruits and vegetables be offered to students and they were required to take one serving. This is the first time in the history of the school meals program that students are required to take a fruit and/or vegetable serving, as past regulation allowed a choice. A total of $5.6M was spent on fresh product

39

or an increase of 60% from last year. Frozen fruits and vegetables purchases doubled this year at a cost of $361,000 and canned fruits and vegetables decreased by 30% for a total of $62,200. The district participates in the Department of Agriculture’s Farm to School initiative by meeting with farmers, identifying the peak season of Florida produce, and participating in the state wide menu with fresh produce. All elementary schools offer a salad bar twice per week and secondary schools offer a wide variety of salads every day. More information on the Farm to School program is provided in the Accomplishments and Current Initiatives section below. The OCPS, FNS has a departmental objective to use marketing tools and campaigns to increase student participation in school meals. OCPS benchmarks the type of marketing tool and documents increases in meal participation. More information on the OCPS marketing programs indicated in the table below is provided in the Accomplishments and Current Initiatives section. Table 15. Percent Increase in Participation with Each Marketing Campaign at the OCPS School Where Marketing Took Place


Program Target Result National School Breakfast Week

5% participation increase Elementary Schools: 18.6% Middle Schools: 20% High Schools: 23.8%

National School Lunch Week 2% participation increase 1% Chefs Move to School New menu items School based events increased

participation as much as 23‐36%

The OCPS Food Show New menu items tested and rated by students

45 new menu items

End of Life Disposal

In 2012, a total 27.8 million tons of municipal solid waste was collected in Florida. Food waste composed 7.2% of that total (2 million tons), which equates to 207 pounds per person collected during the year. In Orange County, 12.8% of the muncipal solid waste collected in 2012 was food waste, which is well above the state average and could likely be attributed to the county’s major tourism industry. In 2012, Orange County set another national record with over 57 million visitors. Of the total amount of food waste collected in Florida, only 81,367 tons was recycled, which equates to less than 1 percent. In Orange County, 240,173 tons of food waste was collected as muncipal solid waste in 2012 of which 56,641 tons (24% was recycled). On a per capita basis the amount of food waste collected in Orange County in 2012 would be nearly 400 pounds per person each year. However, the impact of the very large number of tourists as noted above would make a large contribution to the total, so per capita waste generations numbers are less meaningful from a comparison perspective. It does however emphasize that programs to address food waste generation and recycling in the tourism industry are important for the county.

40

During 2012, Orange County generated more municipal food waste than any other county in Florida, but it also had by far the highest recycling rate of any county in Florida. The next highest recycling rate for food waste was 19% for Baker County, which has a relatively small population compared to Orange County. Among the other four counties with the largest populations in Florida, the food recycling rate was 0 to 1 percent. Food composting in Orange County is provided by Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Vista Landfill in Apopka, which is operated by Waste Management, Inc.

Food waste that is not recycled is combusted or placed in landfills. Food waste placed in landfills will decompose and produce methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. Orange County’s municipal solid waste landfill collects a large portion of the landfill gas generated, which is sent to the nearby Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center of the Orlando Utility Commission for use as a fuel to produce electricity. Nevertheless, increases in composting by residents and businesses as well as use of anaerobic digesters by businesess where it is economically feasible would be a more sustainable approach than landfilling the waste. There are also a variety of waste to energy processes now available on the market, but the analysis of these processes from a sustainability perspective in relation to other options is beyond the scope of this assessment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s food recovery hierarchy is depicted in Figure 29 below.

Figure 29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Food Recovery Hierarchy

Second Harvest Foodbank’s efforts to feed hungry people using food donated by grocery stores and restaurants that would otherwise become a waste are good examples of the second tier of the

41

food recovery hierarchy shown above. A summary of those programs is provided below in the Accomplishments and Current Initiatives section.

In addition to the waste attributable to food itself, the packaging often associated with food can also be a significant contributor to solid waste generation. “About 10.3% (22.3 million tons) of the total municipal solid waste generated in 1997 can be directly attributable to food and beverage packaging; 30% of this was recovered. This number is an underestimate, however, because some of the packaging categories that could not be specifically attributed to food and beverages but likely contained food packaging materials (such as plastic wraps and corrugated boxes) were omitted.” (Life Cycle‐Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System, M. Heller and G. Keoleian, The University of Michigan ‐ Center for Sustainable Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, 1‐60, CSS00‐04, December 6, 2000, page 29). In June 2013 EPA and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced a collaborative effort, the US Food Waste Challenge to raise awareness of the environmental, health and nutrition issues created by food waste. Current and new EPA Food Recovery Challenge (FRC) participants can easily join the US Food Waste Challenge as well, simply by contacting EPA's HelpLine at 800‐EPA‐WISE (372‐9473) or [email protected].

Accomplishments and Current Initiatives

Planning and Policy

Orange County’s Comprehensive Plan – Orange County’s Comprehensive Plan includes a number of policies related to agriculture and local food systems. A summary of applicable policies is provided in Attachment 1.

Chapter on Agriculture in the East Central Florida 2060 Plan – The East Central Florida 2060 Plan was developed by the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Chapter 11 of the plan covers agriculture and details the importance of agriculture to the region’s overall economy and health.

Establishment of Local Food Policy Council – Good Food Central Florida (GFCF), a local food policy council for the Central Florida region, had their first meeting in June 2013. Establishment of a local food policy council is one of the recommended strategies that came out of the City of Orlando’s Green Works Community Action Plan development process. One of the City of Orlando’s seven sustainability focus areas was Local Food Systems. Round table meetings were held in November and December 2012 to discuss goals and strategies. Many of the individuals that served on the Green Works round tables are also serving on GFCF. Administrative support for GFCF is being provided by the Winter Park Health Foundation. For their next meeting, GFCF is planning a full day workshop to develop a strategic plan.

Green Works Orlando Community Action Plan – As noted above, the City of Orlando has drafted a community action plan, which includes various goals and strategies related to local food systems. The action plan is expected to include goals for 2018 and 2040 and will establish baseline

42

metrics to allow for tracking of progress toward the goals. In addition, the action plan is expected to contain several strategies to help make progress toward the goals.

Development of a Unified Land Development Code for Orange County – In June 2013, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners gave approval for Orange County Government’s Planning Division to begin development of a unified land development code. In October 2009 and September 2011, respectively, Planning Division staff developed a Food Production White Paper and a Food Zoning White Paper. The research that went into these documents should be helpful in considering how to address agricultural and food systems related issues in the revised code.

City of Orlando’s Urban Chickens Pilot Test Program – The City of Orlando conducted a one‐year pilot study to test the feasibility of allowing raising of chickens in urban areas within the city limits. The pilot test program, which began in May 2012, was considered enough of a success that it has now been expanded from 25 families eligible for permits to 75 families. The number of chickens allowable per household was also increased from three to four. Roosters are not allowed as part of the program. The City of Maitland is also considering adopting a similar program. According to an new article in the Orlando Sentinel, more than 300 cities allow urban chicken farming in the U.S. (“Orlando Approves Backyard Chicken Program Expansion,” Orlando Sentinel, April 9, 2013).

Educational Programs and Resources

Local Food Guide – The Simple Living Institute, Inc., a grassroots volunteer organization that promotes sustainable living through environmental education, published the Local Food Guide 2011‐2012. The guide provides lists of community gardens, farmer’s markets, farms, food co‐ops, and grow your own resources for Orange, Brevard, Lake, Osceola, Seminole, and Volusia counties.

Orange County Community Gardeners Guide – The University of Florida IFAS and Orange County Extension Education Center published the guide to assist community groups through the process of establishing a community garden. Although not meant to be exhaustive, the 68‐page guide provides a significant amount of detail on steps needed to start a community garden and includes a list of helpful reference resources as well.

Urban Farming Workshops – The first urban farming workshop in Orange County sponsored by IFAS/Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Divison was held on June 15, 2011 and was attended by 129 individuals. The second workshop was held on March 21, 2012 and had 1,039 attendees. Presentation slides from the conferences are available on the IFAS/Orange County Extension website. A Local Food Systems and Urban Farming Conference will also be held on October 22, 2013.

Central Florida Gardening Videos – Orange TV has filmed a number of Central Florida Gardening Videos that are available on the IFAS/Orange County Extension website. Topics

43

covered include: community gardens, edible landscapes, garden crafts, garden transplants, and square foot gardening as well as other titles.

IFAS/Cooperative Extension Educational Programs – University of Florida’s IFAS/Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Division provide a wide range of educational programs with dates and times listed on their website (http://ocextension.ifas.ufl.edu/), including: Organic Gardening in the Home Vegertable Garden; Vegetable Gardening in Florida – The Basics; Square Foot Gardening in Central Florida; and Plant Nutrition, Fertilizers and Irrigation for the Home Vegetable Garden.

Educational Programs for Organic Gardening and Community Gardens – The main focus of the Simple Living Institute, which has been in existence since 2002, is organic gardening and self‐sustainable lifestyle education. Their community events include educational programs at their monthly Organic Growers Meetings; garden start‐up assistance for schools and community gardens; and community outreach, including hands‐on workshops.

Florida Small Farms and Alternative Enterprises Annual Conferences – The purpose of the annual Florida Small Farms and Alternative Enterprises Conference is to provide farmers with up‐to‐date, research‐based, in‐depth educational information. The conference aims to facilitate solutions‐based collaboration by encouraging networking and an open dialog among members of Florida’s small farms community. Additionally, the conference is an excellent vehicle for increasing awareness of Florida’s small farms industry, which organizers accomplish by including participation from decision makers and supporting institutions, and partners from the public sector. The 2013 conference was held from August 2 to 4 in Kissimmee.

Reduce Obesity in Central Florida Kids (ROCK) – Since 2008, the ROCK Consortium has worked in Brevard, Orange, Osceola, and Seminole counties to educate, support training initiatives and provide technical assistance that address the causes and prevention of childhood obesity. ROCK identifies resources and grant funding opportunities; convenes, facilitates and attends meetings on childhood obesity and childhood health issues; and supports partner organizations and consults with media organizations. ROCK unites over 200 Central Florida stakeholders in healthcare, business, education, non‐profit and government agencies to address the causes and prevention of childhood obesity. ROCK’s mission is to ensure children living in Brevard, Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties have healthy lifestyles that eliminate their risk for childhood obesity through a collaborative community effort. ROCK’s accomplishments have included the following: identified and created a regional inventory of programs and policy resources about childhood overweight and obesity; developed social media platforms, including a listserv, Facebook page, and website (www.ROCKFL.org); established a Board of Directors with representation from each of the four counties served; provided training assistance for over 120 early learning providers and pediatricians regarding healthy habits for children; convened two stakeholder conferences on childhood obesity that highlighted important ongoing work in the region; assisted in development of surveys and questionnaires for medical providers about protocols and interventions for addressing childhood overweight and obesity; provided input and assistance to childhood obesity organizations, including Southern Obesity Summit, PreventObesity.net, and Obesity Action Coalition; and participated as an expert speaker at local, state, and national meetings and conferences.

44

http://ocextension.ifas.ufl.edu/

http://www.rockfl.org/

School Programs

Brochures and Print Resources for Kids, Students, and Teachers – The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) has developed a number of resources for kids, students, and teachers related to agriculture, aquaculture, nutrition, cooking, etc. The resources are available from the FDACS, Fresh from Florida website at: http://www.florida‐agriculture.com/brochures/category_kids.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Services Best Practice Award – In October 2009, FNS received this distinguished regional award that was given through the State of Florida’s Child Nutrition Programs for increasing participation in school lunch or breakfast. Orange County Public Schools increased high school lunch participation by 40%. Some of the innovative programs that the school has used are summarized below.

National Award for OCPS Food Services Director – In January 2011, the OCPS Senior Director of Food & Nutrition Services, Lora Gilbert, received the Golden School Foodservice Director of the Year Award by the National Foodservice Achievement Management Excellence (FAME) Award program. The award is the highest honor presented to a school nutrition professional at the FAME award ceremony during the School Nutrition Association’s (SNA) Child Nutrition Industry Conference. Under Ms. Gilbert’s leadership team, reimbursable meals increased by 51 percent in seven years. In addition, the goal of 40 percent of revenue spent on labor and food was met over the preceding four years. Additional revenue was generated by Ms. Gilbert’s staff by providing nutrition services to the community’s summer program, recreational programs, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA’s, the Rescue Mission and many church groups. A Cooperative Cart Program was developed to aid student organizations in fundraising over $800,000 by allowing them to “check out” mobile food carts from the food service program while still selling healthy, safe foods. Nutrition education opportunities for students, teachers and school food service staff are provided on an ongoing basis by Ms. Gilbert and her staff of three dietitians and two nutritionists. Student satisfaction is a key to the success Ms. Gilbert has had at Orange County Public Schools. No product is added to the menu without testing and approval from students.

Florida Healthy School District Award ‐‐ The Florida Coordinated School Health Partnership, Florida Action for Healthy Kids, and Florida Association of District School Superintendents recognized OCPS as one of 23 school districts designated as Florida Healthy School Districts. This recognition was determined by submission of the Florida Healthy District Self‐Assessment and a score rating at the bronze, silver or gold level. For the 2013‐2015 designation period, OCPS earned a Gold rating. For 2012‐2013 school year, OCPS had earned a Silver rating. The Florida Healthy School Districts are districts that have made a high level commitment to meeting the health needs of students and staff in order to remove barriers to learning and maximize district resources. The criterion for recognition as a Florida Healthy School District is the Florida Healthy School District (FHSD) Self‐Assessment Tool that focuses on district infrastructure, policy, programs, and practices identified from national and state guidelines, best practices, and Florida statutes

Chefs Move to Schools – An Orange County program called Chefs Move to Schools allows local chefs to test new culinary ideas on students in 15 schools. The partnership has resulted in foods

45

http://www.florida-agriculture.com/brochures/category_kids.html

http://www.florida-agriculture.com/brochures/category_kids.html

http://www.healthydistrict.com/assessment/self-assessment-tool/

http://www.healthydistrict.com/assessment/self-assessment-tool/

that are kid‐friendly and acceptable from a health standpoint. The third Chefs Move to Schools initiative was held at schools in academic year 2012‐2013 instead of a district event. Seven famous chefs with a love for feeding children healthy food volunteered to develop new menu items, approved by students in their adopted school. The schools chose the day to celebrate with the chefs and their new menu items, approved by their student tasters, were served to all students.

OCPS Food Show – The goal for the annual Food Show is to have students test menu items that have never been served in the schools before. In academic year 2012‐2013, two separate sessions allowed elementary and secondary students to taste and rate 117 potentially new menu items from 45 vendors. Only forty‐five items were approved by the students for the menu. When students pick their favorites from among healthy food items there is less waste and more excitement around the meals program.

National School Breakfast and Lunch Weeks – National School Breakfast Week and National School Lunch week include special menus and promotions for students. The National School Lunch week included a national promotion for writing essays regarding the need for eating healthy food. OCPS Food Services conducts focused marketing events and promotions planned to increase excitement around the meal time.

Farm to School – FDACS has partnered with the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences UF/IFAS to coordinate the Farm to School program which matches local growers with school food service buyers to put more local food into school cafeterias. Farm to School is broadly defined as a program that connects schools (K‐12) and local farms with the objectives of serving healthy meals in school cafeterias; improving student nutrition; providing agriculture, health and nutrition education opportunities; and supporting local and regional farmers. The FDACS, Division of Food, Nutrition and Wellness (FNW) provides statewide coordination of the program, including development of the invitation for bids and award of regional/district contracts. Each week, school districts are asked to feature a Florida grown product item in their classrooms and school cafeterias. Those featured products were incorporated into lesson plans, cafeteria menus, and other educational material for students and parents. The featured Florida produce items were designed to follow the Florida harvesting timeline as well as the statewide procurement schedule. Orange County Public Schools is a participating district in Florida’s Farm to School Program. According to information available on the state’s Farm to School webpage, ten schools in Orange County participate in the program, including one K‐12, five elementary, two middle schools, and two high schools. The participating schools have a total population of 6,900 with an average of 4,800 daily meals served. The food distribution system used to support the program includes weekly deliveries from the U.S. Food Service and the Power Buying Group. OCPS participating schools are interested in obtaining apples, bananas, broccoli, carrots, cucumbers, grapes, and oranges through the program.

New Federal Nutrition Standards for School Meals – Beginning in the fall of 2013, Florida school cafeterias must meet tough new federal nutrition standards for school meals, ensuring that meals are healthy and well‐balanced and provide students all the nutrition they need to succeed

46

at school. School meals offer students milk, fruits and vegetables, proteins and grains, and they must meet strict limits on saturated fat and portion size. Starting in School Year 2012‐2013, school lunches had to meet additional standards requiring the following: age‐appropriate calorie limits; larger servings of fruits and vegetables; a wider variety of vegetables, including dark green and red/orange vegetables and legumes; fat free or 1% milk; more whole grains; and less sodium.

Healthier US Schools Challenge. Orange County/University of Florida IFAS Extension is working with Orange County Public Schools to help make changes to the entire school environment as work toward becoming certified as an award‐winning school by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s voluntary HealthierUS School Challenge. The HealthierUS School Challenge nationally recognizes schools at the Bronze, Silver, Gold, or Gold of Distinction award levels for: 1) serving school lunches that reflect the Dietary Guidelines for Americans; 2) restricting the availability of foods and beverages at school to those that meet healthier guidelines of lower fat, added sugars, and sodium; 3) offering nutrition education for students to learn to make healthy choices; and 4) providing physical education and opportunities for students to be physically active during the school day.

Family Nutrition Program. Orange County/University of Florida IFAS Extension’s Family Nutrition Program provides nutrition education to limited‐resource individuals, families and youth within Orange County. This nutrition education primarily takes place in Orange County Public Elementary Schools where Kindergarten through Second Grade students receive free nutrition education in the classroom one time per month for the entire school year. To date this program has reached over 25 OCPS Elementary Schools. Additionally the Family Nutrition Program provides “Eating From the Garden” a nutrition and gardening program for fourth and fifth grade students at eight OCPS Elementary Schools. Children are encouraged to taste new foods and adopt healthier lifestyles while growing vegetables in an outdoor raised‐bed school garden. Research shows that school gardening may create self‐esteem, help students develop a sense of responsibility and ownership, increase test scores, foster relationships with family members, and increase parental involvement. This program may serve as a model for other Orange County Public Schools.

4‐H Healthy Living Programs. The Orange County/University of Florida IFAS Extension 4‐H Program provides hands‐on learning experiences to encourage young minds by providing school enrichment, classroom, and after‐school programs, materials, and curricula. 4‐H Healthy Living Programs support the physical, mental, and emotional health of Orange County’s youth and help them lead healthy and productive lives into adulthood. Programs address such critical issues as childhood obesity, substance abuse, and physical safety. Hi‐Five Kids Pack Program – The Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida’s Hi‐Five Kids Pack Program provides nutritious meals to needy children who do not have access to school cafeterias during the weekend. Hi‐five schools distribute shelf‐stable meal packs to needy students on Fridays for weekend consumption. Second Harvest started the Hi‐Five program when educators came to them looking for a solution to providing weekend food for the neediest

47

of their students. Some students were coming to school sick and unable to learn because they had not eaten since their school lunch the previous Friday. Second Harvest partners with elementary schools in three counties, including Orange County, that have a significant percentage of student participation in free and reduced lunch programs. During the previous fiscal year, the program provided 57,714 shelf‐stable food packs to 23 elementary schools in the three county area served (Second Harvest Central Florida website). Kids Cafe – The Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida’s Kids Cafe is a healthy snack and meal service program providing food to needy children in three counties during after school hours. In fiscal year 2011/2012, 167,853 meals were served to an average of 1,144 children daily (http://www.foodbankcentralflorida.org/site/PageServer). As of August 2013, 24 Orange County schools were participating in the program. School Food Pantries – The Love Pantry School Pantry Project is an initiative of the Christian Service Center in partnership with Orange County Public Schools (http://lovepantry.wordpress.com/). Each project school is provided with a cabinet stocked with emergency food and basic hygiene items, and is restocked weekly be volunteers. When a teacher identifies a student in need, the family can be provided with food and valuable community resource information. The process to help the student is completely confidential. Families of students receiving assistance are often facing extremely limited financial resources, and may be homeless, living in a shelter, in a hotel, or in the family car. A Christian Service Center brochure for the program indicated that 4,844 homeless students are in Orange County Schools. Since the Love Pantry project began in 2011, over 8,000 family members have received food and hygiene items as well as valuable community resource information. There are currently 63 Love Pantry Schools. Volunteers pick up bundled food inventory at the Second Harvest Food Bank warehouse and deliver the items to schools using their personal vehicles. Initial funding for the 13 in‐school pantry pilot project came from a generous donation from the Love Orlando fund, established by First Baptist Church of Orlando. First Baptist then committed to continue funding the 13 pilot schools’ Love Pantries for the Spring 2012 Semester. Funding to expand the project for the Spring 2012 Semester to add an additional 17 schools came from community partners such as Kiwanis Club of Orlando, Just In Queseo Foundation of Tijuana Flats, McCoy Federal Credit Union, Florida Hospital, the Chesley G. Magruder Foundation, Darden and private individuals. The Foundation for Orange County Public Schools is also sponsoring pantries in seven additional ‘high need’ schools and a central “Kid’s Closet” for all OCPS schools to utilize. The Maitland’s Mens Club sponsored three schools for the Fall 2012 with additional funding granted to the project from Universal Studios and the Orlando Sentinel Family Fund.

Community Gardens

Orange County Community Gardens Program – On February 2, 2010, Orange County’s Board of County Commissioners approved establishment of a Community Gardens Program. The program allows citizens that want to form gardening organizations to establish a site at a County park or community center through a license and funding agreement with the County. Extensive training from Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Division is a condition for gardening organizations to be able to establish gardens on County property. Grants for startup costs to establish community gardens can be applied for through Orange County’s Neighborhood Preservation and Revitalization Division, which provides direct funding to support citizens and

48

http://www.foodbankcentralflorida.org/site/PageServer

http://lovepantry.wordpress.com/

organizations in improving the physical and social quality of neighborhoods. Two community gardens have been established at Pine Hills Community Center and Orlo Vista Park. Orange County Neighborhood Preservation and Revitalization Division and the UF/IFAS Extension Education Center continue to work with residents who have expressed interest in future sites such as Barnett Park, Yucatan Park, and Downey Park.

Winter Park Health Foundation Grants for Community Gardens – In 2009, the Winter Park Health Founcation (WPHF) approved grants totaling $153,107 to support eight community garden projects in Eatonville, Maitland, and Winter Park as part of its Think‐Act‐Be Healthy Communities Initiative. The organizations that received the grants included the following: schools (Dommerich Elementary School, Brookshire Elementary, Hungerford Elementary, Winter Park 9th Grade Center), Winter Park Towers, Interfaith Council on Community Health (for Depugh Nursing Center in downtown Winter Park), Town of Eatonville Community Garden Project, and a collaboration of Orange County/University of Florida IFAS Extension Center and Friends of Mead Garden. The WPHF also provided some additional grant funding to support some of the community gardens above in 2010 and 2011.

Community Gardens Sponsored by Get Active Orlando – Get Active Orlando is a partnership serving the community by inspiring the public to make active and healthy lifestyle changes. They offer resources, influence policies, shape the environment, and create programs to benefit individuals and the community. Get active Orlando has sponsored the following community gardens: Nap Ford Community School, Parramore Community Garden, and Festival Park Community Garden.

Establishment of Community Gardens at Schools and Other Locations – Orange County’s Cooperative Extension Division assisted in establishing community gardens at 25 schools sites and 13 countywide large gardens with 350 participants during fiscal year 2010‐11 (FY 2011‐12 Community and Environmental Services Budget Worksession, July 12, 2011).

Green Sprouts Initiative – Orange County Health Department (OCHD) is one of 12 local programs receiving grant money from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida Foundation to help curb childhood obesity. The OCHD’s project for the grant is to implement the Green Sprouts Initiative, which stands for Sustainable Produce to Reduce Obesity Utilizing Teachable Stewardship (SPROUTS). More than one‐third of children in the United States are overweight. Obesity in children increases their risk for serious health conditions. The Green Sprouts initiative will focus on promoting health and educating children to reduce the risk of major chronic diseases. Green Sprouts will establish and sustain one to two school garden beds at 4 Head Start Centers and up to 4 Early Coalition Provider sites within the Parramore Community. The teaching garden beds will be used to foster healthy eating habits. Additional SPROUTS goals include, nutrition education, menu planning and the exploration of fun physical activity opportunities.

49

Community Programs Building a Healthier Parramore – The Building a Healthy Parramore Coalition is a network of residents, business owners, government and not‐for‐profit organizations working to promote nutrition education and physical activity. The Coalition was convened by the ROCK. Coalition members have been meeting at least monthly since 2010 when a community needs assessment revealed children living in Parramore/Holden Heights community were at high risk for developing childhood overweight and obesity and related health conditions. The Health Council of East Central Florida, acting as the lead agency, directed grant funds from the Florida Blue Foundation’s Embrace a Healthy Florida Initiative into the community to support the coalition’s efforts. Working together, Coalition members have developed strategies, programs, and services to address the causes and prevention of childhood overweight and obesity. During 2011‐2012, twelve community organization grantees provided services to more than 1,000 community residents. Activities have included the following: nutritional counseling for teens of local middle schools and high schools; working with day care centers to develop and adopt wellness policies; Parramore Community Gardens and teaching gardens at local Head Start and Early Learning Centers; nutrition and physical activity education for parents of toddlers at the Parramore Kid Zone Baby Institute; exercise, dance, and nutrition classes at churches and community charter schools; nutrition education and meal preparation at a community kitchen; a study of food behaviors, messaging, and preferences among local Haitian community residents, including children; and interactive and educational puppet shows that teach healthy choices to 300 students.

Food Collection and Distribution

Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida – Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida is a private, nonprofit organization that collects, stores and distributes donated food to more than 500 partner agencies in six Central Florida counties: Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Seminole and Volusia. Second Harvest’s mission is to fight hunger in Central Florida. They fulfill that mission by providing access to food and other grocery products to meet the need; promoting and supporting the development of their partner agencies’ ability to fulfill their missions; mobilizing leaders and communities by bringing visibility to the invisible problem of hunger and poverty; and developing more holistic and county‐specific solutions to hunger in Central Florida. In fiscal year (FY) 2011/2012, Second Harvest distributed over 36 million pounds of food, including over 3 million pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables. In FY 2011/2012, 24 million meals were provided through Second Harvest’s general distribution as well as programs ranging from a Mobile Pantry and Summer Feeding sites to dozens of school food pantries at the elementary, middle, and high school levels and even at universities (Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida, 2011/2012 Annual Report, pages 3 and 4). In 2009, 731,900 people in Central Florida received assistance through Second Harvest, which represents an 152% increase from 2006. Approximately 55,000 different people received assistance in any given week. Of the households receiving assistance, 47% of the members of households served were children; 26.1% had one or more children between the ages of birth to 5 years; 33% included as least one employed adult; and 19.3% had a member at least 65 years or older. In addition, among those served, 69% had income levels below the official federal poverty level during the previous month and 10% were homeless. The average income of those receiving assistance was $17,860 and 39.7% of clients had income less than $10,000 (Living Hungry: Hunger in Central Florida 2010, Second Harvest Food Bank of Central

50

Florida). In FY 2011/2012, Second Harvest had over 260 agency partners in Orange County. Across all counties, 11,147 volunteers contributed 42,256 hours — equivalent to more than 20 full‐time staff members. Some of Second Harvest’s programs beyond those noted under School Programs above include the following according to their 2011/2012 Annual Report:

• Summer Food Program – This program provides lunches and snacks to children 18 and under during summer recess. Since the program commenced in 2008, Second Harvest has provided more than 233,760 summer meals. In fiscal year 2011/2012, 65,935 meals were served at 30 sites in four counties. In addition, 8,900 take‐home, shelf‐stable food packs were provided for the weekends.

• Community Food Drives – A total of 993,355 pounds of non‐perishable grocery products were collected in fiscal year 2011/2012 through Second Harvest’s Community Food Drives. Several local groups helped sponsor the food drives.

• The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) – The Florida Department of Agriculture awarded Second Harvest TEFAP contracts for Orange, Brevard, Lake, Marion, Seminole, and Volusia Counties for its distribution program of government food commodities. In FY 2011/2012, a total of 6,876,436 pounds of these products were made available to Central Floridians in need.

• Produce Program – Second Harvest’s Produce Program worked with the agriculture and produce industry as well as organizations such as the Society of St. Andrew and the Florida Association of Food Banks to distribute 3,312,837 pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables in FY 2011/2012.

• Second Helpings – The prepared food rescue program collects and delivers donations from local restaurants, hotels, and resorts. In FY 2011/2012, the program distributed 1,226,863 pounds of food to agencies that provide on‐site meals for clients.

• Grocery Alliance – More than 300 retail store locations throughout Central Florida participate in this food recovery program that distributed 15,237,498 pounds of food in FY 2011/2012, which represented 42% of Second Harvest’s overall distribution. To date the program has distributed over 30 million pounds of food, including meat, produce, dairy, bakery, and dry goods, to those in need.

• Other Food Industry Partners – Over 1,000 local and national food companies donated over six million pounds of food and non‐food products that Second Harvest distributed to Central Floridians in FY 2011/2012.

Table 16 below summarizes the number of services agencies by type that receive food from Second Harvest.

Table 16. Second Harvest Food Bank Types and Numbers of Services Agencies Distributing Food

Type of Services Agency Number Distributing Food

Emergency 294

Soup Kitchen 9

Shelter 5

51

Residence 73

Day Care 6

Multi‐service 56

Senior 9

Rehabilitation 40

Youth Programs 12

Other Programs 60 Source: Feeding America Website (http://feedingamerica.org/foodbank‐results.aspx?state=FL)

Key References

1. East Central Florida 2060 Plan, Chapter 11 (Agriculture), East Central Florida Regional Planning Council.

2. Orange County, Florida, Food Production White Paper, Orange County Planning Division, October 2009.

3. Food Zoning White Paper, Orange County Planning Division, Orange County Planning Division, September 2011.

4. Central Florida Local Food Guide 2011‐2012, Simple Living Institute, Inc. 5. Local Food Systems in Florida: Consumer Characteristics and Economic Impacts, A. Hodges

and T. Stevens, University of Florida, Food and Resource Economics Department, February 6, 2013

52

http://feedingamerica.org/foodbank-results.aspx?state=FL

Attachment 1

Orange County Comprehensive Plan Policies Related to Local Food Systems and Agriculture

Reference Type of Comp Plan Element

Content

FLU4.1.13 Policies (Future Land Use)

Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). In order to encourage the implementation of the greenbelt requirements in FLU4.1.11, preserve other important uplands, agriculture areas, water reuse area, Floridian aquifer recharge, wetland connections and wildlife corridors, Orange County may allow the Transfer of Development Rights from these sending areas to receiving areas in Orange County. To provide rights‐of‐way for limited expressways or principal arterial roadways necessary to support the villages, Orange County will allow Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) from the rights‐of‐way to developable receiving areas. Transfer will be limited to the property on which the right‐of‐way is located or within 1/4 mile of the right‐of‐way sending area, whichever is greater. Net density in Village Centers and the Town Center may be increased from 5.0 DU/net developable acre up to 16 DU/net developable acre where TDRs are used. However, the implementation of the greenbelt requirements in FLU4.1.11 and the preservation of other important uplands, agricultural areas, water reuse areas, critical Floridan Aquifer recharge sites, wetland connections and wildlife corridors will not be limited to Transfer of Development Rights. Orange County may allow for purchase of these areas through special taxing districts and special impact fees for a specific Village to be used in the establishment of that Village. Orange County shall implement an ordinance implementing Transfer of Development Rights. The TDR ordinance shall enhance the preservation of ecologically sensitive areas and reinforce the defined village edge by identifying TDR sending areas within the Village Greenbelt as identified in FLU4.1.11. The use of TDRs also provides for protection of private property rights within the sending areas. Additionally, as identified by the SAP, limits will be placed on the amount of development rights that can be transferred within any neighborhood to ensure a compact and integrated development form that has a population density to meet the requirements of a neighborhood school while providing for a diversity of housing types. The TDR limits established in the SAP do not create entitlements for their use within any particular development. The use of TDR credits is subject to approval by

53


Content

the Board of County Commissioners on a case by case basis. In order to prevent urban sprawl and to be consistent with the residential densities provided for in FLU4.1.4 the County will evaluate the effect of the TDR program upon the average minimum density by January 1, 2011. If the TDR program has influenced the overall density in such a manner that may jeopardize the Village concepts, the County shall amend the TDR ordinance. The County shall also consider other incentives to promote higher densities. (Added 6/95, Ord. 95‐13; Amended 5/97, Ord. 97‐07; Amended 3/99, Ord. 99‐04, Policy 6.1.9)


Orange County shall promote agribusiness to accommodate uses such as vegetable and fruit packaging, ornamental horticulture operations, fish culture, and other new and innovative agribusiness and support functions. (Added 12/00, Ord. 00‐25, Policy 2.2.2‐r)


Orange County shall continue to promote the long‐term viability of agricultural uses, and agribusiness itself, as an economic asset. (Obj. 2.2‐r)

FLU6.1.12

Policies (Future Land Use)

Orange County will support the creation and availability of fresh food initiatives and efforts, including local farmers markets, community vegetable gardens, and other small scale agricultural efforts that promote local sustainability.


Land uses within the Rural Service Area portion of the Wekiva Study Area shall be limited to very low and low intensity uses to the greatest extent possible. Existing land uses are recognized but density and intensity shall not be increased through a future land use change unless there is substantial evidence that the change will satisfy a demonstrated need in the community or area. Any petitioner for a future land use map amendment must submit documentation that substantiates that a particular need exists in the community or area in which the change is being proposed. This documentation shall clearly identify the particular need and clearly describe how the proposed change is anticipated to satisfy that need. Evidence and documentation indicating need and indicating that the proposed development would satisfy that need must be submitted from a third party objective source. In preparing such documentation, the petitioner shall keep in mind that market demand does not necessarily constitute need. The following evaluation factors shall be used to determine consistency with this policy. To ensure environmental protection, projects shall identify whether a site is located in an environmentally sensitive area and whether locations in

54


Content

areas of lower vulnerability or areas that already allow the proposed land use are not available within a reasonable distance. Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed land use is compatible with existing land uses and community character and is the least intensive to meet the demonstrated need. Additionally, the project will be evaluated based upon whether community or economic benefits are derived from the proposed land use at that location, as well as whether the proposed use benefits the environment (such as projects that will be designed and constructed using conservation design and green principles). Residential projects shall demonstrate the need for additional residential development using analytical tools such as population projections and availability of existing or already approved vacant lots and/or units. Additional considerations will include housing affordability and impacts on public services and facilities. Non‐residential and mixed‐use projects shall demonstrate that the proposed land use will not generate hazardous materials and waste. Additionally, factors such as support for forestry, agriculture, fishing and natural resource‐based outdoor recreation industries, as well as dependence on site‐specific natural resources will be evaluated for the proposed land use. (Added Ord. 07‐20, Policy 4.5.5; Amended 6/10, Ord. 10‐07)

OBJ H1.7

Objective (Housing)

Orange County shall continue to promote and facilitate housing production, to serve the population with special needs including but not limited to farmworkers, senior citizens, those afflicted with AIDS/HIV, the homeless, and physically or developmentally disabled persons.

H1.7.14 Policies (Housing) The County shall continue to encourage the formation of public/private partnerships to aid in providing assistance to farm worker housing.

ICE1.10.6 Policies (Intergovernmental coordination)

The County shall continue to encourage the formation of public/private partnerships to aid in providing assistance to farmworker housing. (Housing Element, Policy H1.7.14)

C1.5.2 Policies (Conservation)

Orange County shall on an ongoing basis, assist the Soil Natural Resource Conservation Service with those activities directed at minimizing soil erosion, including the adoption and enforcement of Best Management Practices for agriculture and urban development. (Added 12/00, Ord. 00‐25)

OS1.3.4 Policies (Open Space)

Open space shall be primarily larger, contiguous parcels rather than in linear strips to encourage maintenance of rural views, lifestyles, and economies and shall be comprised mainly of existing undisturbed natural areas. To the extent possible, preserved open space shall be used to create

55


Content

corridors and larger parcels more suitable for passive recreation, low‐intensity agriculture, silviculture, aquifer recharge protection, or wildlife and habitat management, so that remnant open space areas are not created that are unusable or function as private open space to only a small percentage of the development. If a project is located next to off‐site open space whose primary function is conservation of natural resources, connection of open space with compatible functions is required. “Compatible” means similar or complementary such as uplands adjacent to OS‐4 wetlands or isolated wetlands within flatwoods or scrub areas. (Amended 6/10, Ord. 10‐07) Open space property shall be preserved through publicly recorded, permanent conservation easements or similar legal instruments to preclude future development or further subdivision of the land while ensuring maintenance of and appropriate access to the open space areas in perpetuity. Preserved areas shall be owned in common by a property owners’ association, a public agency, a land trust, or another appropriate entity. This open space shall be used for conservation, aquifer recharge protection, passive recreation, low intensity agriculture, or silviculture. Agriculture and silviculture operations shall adhere to the appropriate BMPs as adopted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

PW3.3.1 Policies (Potable Water)

Orange County shall coordinate with the St. Johns River Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District, and other entities to assist with implementation of goals and provisions of the Regional Water Supply Plans and other local/municipal water resource management and restoration programs, to evaluate the long‐term needs of the natural and built environments, to restrict activities that may result in the degradation or over‐utilization of potable water resources, and to assure adequate water supply for the competing needs of native ecosystems, agriculture, and domestic and industrial users.

WW3.3.1 Policies (Wastewater)

Orange County shall coordinate with the St. Johns River Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District, and other entities to assist with implementation of goals and provisions of the applicable Regional Water Supply Plans, and other local/municipal water resource management and restoration programs, to evaluate the long‐term needs of the natural and built environments; to restrict activities that may result in the degradation or over‐utilization of potable water and

56

57


Content

wastewater PW‐21 resources; and to assure adequate water supply for native ecosystems, agriculture, and domestic and industrial users.

ICE1.5.9 Policies (Intergovernmental Coordination)

Orange County shall coordinate with the St. Johns River Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District, and other entities to assist with implementation of goals and provisions of the applicable Regional Water Supply Plans, and other local/municipal water resource management and restoration programs, to evaluate the long‐term needs of the natural and built environments; to restrict activities that may result in the degradation or overuse of potable water and wastewater resources; and to assure adequate water supply for native ecosystems, agriculture, and domestic and industrial users. (Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Element, Policy 3.3.1)

_Orange County_Florida_Local Food Systems and Agriculture Sustainability Appendix - 083013 (2)[1]

Documents

Transcript of _Orange County_Florida_Local Food Systems and Agriculture Sustainability Appendix - 083013 (2)[1]