Integrating Family Farming into School Feeding: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Potential Solutions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
2.3. Studies Selection
2.4. Data Extraction
2.5. Summary of Results
3. Results
3.1. Studies Included
3.2. Studies’ Characteristics
3.3. Quality Analysis
3.4. Difficulties in Acquisition of Food from Family Farming for School Feeding
3.4.1. Production
3.4.2. Support
3.4.3. Consumption
4. Discussion
4.1. Challenges We Need to Overcome to Sustain the Supply of Local Food from Family Farming in School Meals
4.2. Possible Pathways for Rebuilding the Link between Family Farming and School Feeding
- Invest in support policies that improve access for family farmers to markets (institutional or otherwise) and essential public goods.
- Design laws for the local procurement of school foods with clear objectives, reducing biases for diverse interpretations.
- Increase investment in family farming and ensuring sustained political commitment to inclusive governance at the local, national, and international levels.
- Invest in public-private partnerships to offer different market opportunities.
- Create linkages between farmers and school meal services to strengthen direct and responsive communication.
- Increase the diversity of school meal menus by including local foods, to ensure better quality meals for students.
- Strengthen farmer organizations (formal or informal) and improve the logistics of the food supply chain for schools through cooperatives and associations.
- Invest in national/regional/local research to assess the state of family-origin acquisitions in school feeding programs, from a holistic perspective.
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO; IFAD. United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019–2028. Global Action Plan; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/ca4672en/ca4672en.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2022).
- United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Pocketbook 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowder, S.K.; Sánchez, M.V.; Bertini, R. Farms, Family Farms, Farmland Distribution and Farm Labour: What Do We Know Today? FAO—Agricultural Development Economics Working Paper: Rome, Italy, 2019; ISBN 978-92-5-131970-3. [Google Scholar]
- Shete, M.; Rutten, M. Impacts of Large-Scale Farming on Local Communities’ Food Security and Income Levels—Empirical Evidence from Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 282–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tscharntke, T.; Clough, Y.; Wanger, T.C.; Jackson, L.; Motzke, I.; Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J.; Whitbread, A. Global Food Security, Biodiversity Conservation and the Future of Agricultural Intensification. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 151, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, D.F.; Muraoka, R.; Otsuka, K. Why African Rural Development Strategies Must Depend on Small Farms. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 10, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tittonell, P.; Fernandez, M.; El Mujtar, V.E.; Preiss, P.V.; Sarapura, S.; Laborda, L.; Mendonça, M.A.; Alvarez, V.E.; Fernandes, G.B.; Petersen, P.; et al. Emerging Responses to the COVID-19 Crisis from Family Farming and the Agroecology Movement in Latin America—A Rediscovery of Food, Farmers and Collective Action. Agric. Syst. 2021, 190, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sibhatu, K.T.; Qaim, M. Rural Food Security, Subsistence Agriculture, and Seasonality. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2014—Innovation in Family Farming; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014; ISBN 978-92-5-108536-3. [Google Scholar]
- Graeub, B.E.; Chappell, M.J.; Wittman, H.; Ledermann, S.; Kerr, R.B.; Gemmill-Herren, B. The State of Family Farms in the World. World Dev. 2016, 87, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Food Programme. State of School Feeding Worldwide 2020; WFP: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-92-95050-00-6. [Google Scholar]
- Scialabba, N. Food Wastage Footprint & Climate Change; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: https://www.fao.org/nr/sustainability/food-loss-and-waste (accessed on 27 November 2022).
- Global Panel. Healthy Meals in Schools: Policy Innovations Linking Agriculture, Food Systems and Nutrition. Policy Brief; Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020: Transforming Food Systems for Affordable Healthy Diets; The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI)—FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN 978-92-5-132901-6. [Google Scholar]
- Botkins, E.R.; Roe, B.E. Understanding Participation in Farm to School Programs: Results Integrating School and Supply-Side Factors. Food Policy 2018, 74, 126–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellani, A.L.D.; Trentini, T.; Nishida, W.; Rossi, C.E.; Costa, L.D.F.; de Vasconcelos, F.D.G.; de Andrade Castellani, A.L.; Trentini, T.; Nishida, W.; Rossi, C.E.; et al. Purchase of Family Farm and Organic Foods by the Brazilian School Food Program in Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Braz. J. Nutr. 2017, 30, 651–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Triches, R.M.; Schneider, S. School feeding and family farming: Reconnecting consumption to production. Saúde E Soc. 2010, 19, 933–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chaves, V.M.; Pinheiro, L.G.B.; das Neves, R.A.M.; de Araujo, M.A.D.; da Silva, J.B.; Bezerra, P.E.R.; Jacob, M.C.M.; Chaves, V.M.; Bacurau Pinheiro, L.G.; das Neves, R.A.; et al. Challenges to Balance Food Demand and Supply: Analysis of PNAE Execution in One Semiarid Region of Brazil. Desenvolv. E Meio Ambiente 2020, 55, 470–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, D.M.; Barbosa, R.M.S.; Finizola, N.C.; Soares, D.d.S.B.; Henriques, P.; Pereira, S.; Carvalhosa, C.S.; Siqueira, A.B.F.S.; Dias, P.C. Perception of the Operating Agents about the Brazilian National School Feeding Program. Rev. Saude Publica 2019, 53, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bramer, W.M.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kleijnen, J.; Franco, O.H. Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tong, A.; Sainsbury, P.; Craig, J. Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ): A 32-Item Checklist for Interviews and Focus Groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 2007, 19, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for Prevalence Studies; The Joanna Briggs Institute: Adelaide, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lo, C.K.-L.; Mertz, D.; Loeb, M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: Comparing Reviewers’ to Authors’ Assessments. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NMKL. Analytical Quality Control—Guidelines for the Publication of Analytical Results of Chemical Analyses in Foodstuffs; Nordic Committee on Food Analysis: Bergen, Norway, 2011; Available online: https://studylib.net/doc/18260137/analytical-quality-control---guidelines-for-the-publicati (accessed on 4 July 2022).
- Jacob, M.C.M.; Araujo de Medeiros, M.F.; Albuquerque, U.P. Biodiverse Food Plants in the Semiarid Region of Brazil Have Unknown Potential: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0230936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Izumi, B.T.; Rostant, O.S.; Moss, M.J.; Hamm, M.W. Results from the 2004 Michigan Farm-to-School Survey. J. Sch. Health 2006, 76, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baccarin, J.G.; Triches, R.M.; Teo, C.R.P.A.; da Silva, D.B.P. Indicadores de Avaliação Das Compras Da Agricultura Familiar Para Alimentação Escolar No Paraná, Santa Catarina e São Paulo. Rev. Econ. Sociol. Rural 2017, 55, 103–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonanno, A.; Mendis, S.S. Too Cool for Farm to School? Analyzing the Determinants of Farm to School Programming Continuation. Food Policy 2021, 102, 102045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, C.L.; Rombach, M.; Haring, A.M.; Bitsch, V.; Braun, C.L.; Rombach, M.; Haering, A.M.; Bitsch, V. A Local Gap in Sustainable Food Procurement: Organic Vegetables in Berlin’s School Meals. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carvalho, A.S.; e Silva, D.O. Prospects of Food and Nutritional Security in the Tijuaçu Quilombo, Brazil: Family Agricultural Production for School Meals. Interface Commun. Health Educ. 2014, 18, 69–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christensen, L.O.; Jablonski, B.B.R.; O’Hara, J.K. School Districts and Their Local Food Supply Chains. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 34, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colasanti, K.J.A.; Matts, C.; Hamm, M.W. Results from the 2009 Michigan Farm to School Survey: Participation Grows from 2004. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2012, 44, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silverio, G.d.A.; de Sousa, A.A. Organic Foods from Family Farms in the National School Food Program: Perspectives of Social Actors from Santa Catarina, Brazil. Rev. Nutr. 2014, 27, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Souza, V.M.G.; Villar, B.S. Acquisition of Family Farm Foods in Municipalities of São Paulo State: The Influence of the Management of the School Feeding Program and Municipal Characteristics. Rev. Nutr. 2019, 32, e180083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos Anjos, I.A.; Lopes, J.D.; Horta, P.M.; dos Anjos, I.A.; Lopes Filho, J.D.; Horta, P.M. Factors Associated with the Purchase of Family Farming Products for National School Feeding Program in Minas Gerais in 2017, Brazil. Cienc. Rural 2022, 52, e20200776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elolu, S.; Ongeng, D. Community-Based Nutrition-Sensitive Approach to Address Short-Term Hunger and Undernutrition among Primary School Children in Rural Areas in a Developing Country Setting: Lessons from North and North-Eastern Uganda. BMC Nutr. 2020, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fitzsimmons, J.; O’Hara, J.K. Market Channel Procurement Strategy and School Meal Costs in Farm-to-School Programs. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 2019, 48, 388–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giombi, K.; Joshi, A.; Rains, C.; Wiecha, J. Farm-to-School Grant Funding Increases Children’s Access to Local Fruits and Vegetables in Oregon. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2020, 9, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greer, A.E.; Davis, S.; Sandolo, C.; Gaudet, N.; Castrogivanni, B. Formative Research to Create a Farm-to-School Program for High School Students in a Lower Income, Diverse, Urban Community. J. Sch. Health 2018, 88, 453–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Izumi, B.T.; Wynne Wright, D.; Hamm, M.W. Market Diversification and Social Benefits: Motivations of Farmers Participating in Farm to School Programs. J. Rural Stud. 2010, 26, 374–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izumi, B.T.; Alaimo, K.; Hamm, M.W. Farm-to-School Programs: Perspectives of School Food Service Professionals. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2010, 42, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehnerd, M.E.; Sacheck, J.M.; Griffin, T.S.; Goldberg, J.P.; Cash, S.B.; Lehnerd, M.E.; Sacheck, J.M.; Griffin, T.S.; Goldberg, J.P.; Cash, S.B. Farmers’ Perspectives on Adoption and Impacts of Nutrition Incentive and Farm to School Programs. J. Agric. Food Syst. Community Dev. 2018, 8, 147–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, A.B.; Jablonski, B.B.R.; Costanigro, M.; Frasier, W.M. The Impact of State Farm to School Procurement Incentives on School Purchasing Decisions. J. Sch. Health 2021, 91, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, A.C.; Steiner, A.S.; Houser, R.F. Do State Farm-to-School–Related Laws Increase Participation in Farm-to-School Programs? J. Hunger. Environ. Nutr. 2017, 12, 466–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hara, J.K.; Benson, M.C. The Impact of Local Agricultural Production on Farm to School Expenditures. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2017, 34, 216–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hara, J.K.; McClenachan, L. Factors Influencing ‘Sea to School’ Purchases of Local Seafood Products. Mar. Policy 2019, 100, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinard, C.A.; Smith, T.M.; Carpenter, L.R.; Chapman, M.; Balluff, M.; Yaroch, A.L. Stakeholders’ Interest in and Challenges to Implementing Farm-to-School Programs, Douglas County, Nebraska, 2010–2011. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2013, 10, E210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rockett, F.C.; Corrêa, R.d.S.; Pires, G.C.; Machado, L.d.S.; Hoerlle, F.S.; Souza, C.P.M.D.; de Oliveira, A.B.A. Family Farming and School Meals in Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil. Cienc. Rural 2019, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plakias, Z.T.; Klaiber, H.A.; Roe, B.E.; Plakias, Z.T.; Klaiber, H.A.; Roe, B.E. Trade-Offs in Farm-to-School Implementation: Larger Foodsheds Drive Greater Local Food Expenditures. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020, 45, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schafft, K.; Hinrichs, C.C.; Bloom, J.D. Pennsylvania Farm-to-School Programs and the Articulation of Local Context. J. Hunger Environ. Nutr. 2010, 5, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaibu, A.F.; Al-Hassan, R.M. Accessibility of Rice Farmers to the Ghana School Feeding Programme and Its Effect on Output. AGRIS Online Pap. Econ. Inform. 2015, 7, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaibu, A.F.; Al-hassan, R.M. Analysis of Factors Influencing Caterers of the Ghana School Feeding Programme to Purchase Rice from Local Farmers in the Tamale Metropolis, Tolon-Kumbungu and Karaga Districts. AGRIS Online Pap. Econ. Inform. 2014, 6, 77–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, S.; Wleklinski, D.; Roth, S.L.; Tragoudas, U. Does School Size Affect Interest for Purchasing Local Foods in the Midwest? Child Obes. 2013, 9, 150–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soares, P.; Suárez-Mercader, S.; Comino, I.; Martínez-Milán, M.A.; Cavalli, S.B.; Davó-Blanes, M.C. Facilitating Factors and Opportunities for Local Food Purchases in School Meals in Spain. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, P.; Caballero, P.; Davó-Blanes, M.C. Purchase of local foods for school meals in Andalusia, the Canary Islands and the Principality of Asturias (Spain). Gac. Sanit. 2017, 31, 446–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, P.; Martinelli, S.S.; Melgarejo, L.; Cavalli, S.B.; Davó-Blanes, M.C. Using Local Family Farm Products for School Feeding Programmes: Effect on School Menus. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 1289–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, P.; Martinelli, S.S.; Melgarejo, L.; Davó-Blanes, M.C.; Cavalli, S.B. Strengths and Weaknesses in the Supply of School Food Resulting from the Procurement of Family Farm Produce in a Municipality in Brazil. Ciênc. Saúde Coletiva 2015, 20, 1891–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thompson, J.J.; Brawner, A.J.; Kaila, U. “You Can’t Manage with Your Heart”: Risk and Responsibility in Farm to School Food Safety. Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 683–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virta, A.; Love, D.C. Assessing Fish to School Programs at 2 School Districts in Oregon. Health Behav. Policy Rev. 2020, 7, 557–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nehring, R.; Miranda, A.; Howe, A. Making the Case for Institutional Demand: Supporting Smallholders through Procurement and Food Assistance Programmes. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 12, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HLPE. Investing in Smallholder Agriculture for Food Security. A Report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security; High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Birner, R.; Resnick, D. The Political Economy of Policies for Smallholder Agriculture. World Dev. 2010, 38, 1442–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maiellaro, J.R.; dos Reis, J.G.M.; Palacios-Argüello, L.; Muçouçah, F.J.; Vendrametto, O. Food distribution in school feeding programmes in Brazil. In Food Supply Chains in Cities: Modern Tools for Circularity and Sustainability; Aktas, E., Bourlakis, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 265–288. ISBN 978-3-030-34065-0. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, H.H.; Selfa, T.; Janke, R. Barriers and Opportunities for Sustainable Food Systems in Northeastern Kansas. Sustainability 2010, 2, 232–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelli, A.; Masset, E.; Folson, G.; Kusi, A.; Arhinful, D.K.; Asante, F.; Ayi, I.; Bosompem, K.M.; Watkins, K.; Abdul-Rahman, L.; et al. Evaluation of Alternative School Feeding Models on Nutrition, Education, Agriculture and Other Social Outcomes in Ghana: Rationale, Randomised Design and Baseline Data. Trials 2016, 17, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belik, W.; Fornazier, A. Chapter three—Public policy and the construction of new markets to family farms: Analyzing the case of school meals in São Paulo, Brazil. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability; Barling, D., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 2, pp. 69–86. [Google Scholar]
- Palacios-Argüello, L.; dos Reis, J.G.M.; Maiellaro, J.R. Supplying school canteens with organic and local products: Comparative analysis. In Advances in Production Management Systems. Smart Manufacturing and Logistics Systems: Turning ideas into Action; Kim, D.Y., von Cieminski, G., Romero, D., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vo, A.; Holcomb, R.B. Impacts of School District Characteristics on Farm-to-School Program Participation: The Case for Oklahoma. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2011, 42, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filippini, R.; De Noni, I.; Corsi, S.; Spigarolo, R.; Bocchi, S. Sustainable School Food Procurement: What Factors Do Affect the Introduction and the Increase of Organic Food? Food Policy 2018, 76, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soares, P.; Davó-Blanes, M.C.; Martinelli, S.S.; Melgarejo, L.; Cavalli, S.B. The Effect of New Purchase Criteria on Food Procurement for the Brazilian School Feeding Program. Appetite 2017, 108, 288–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teo, C.R.P.A. The partnership between the Brazilian School Feeding Program and family farming: A way for reducing ultra-processed foods in school meals. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahern, M.B.; Thilsted, S.H.; Kjellevold, M.; Overå, R.; Toppe, J.; Doura, M.; Kalaluka, E.; Wismen, B.; Vargas, M.; Franz, N. Locally-Procured Fish Is Essential in School Feeding Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Foods 2021, 10, 2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beintema, J.J.S.; Gallego-Castillo, S.; Londoño-Hernandez, L.F.; Restrepo-Manjarres, J.; Talsma, E.F. Scaling-up Biofortified Beans High in Iron and Zinc through the School-Feeding Program: A Sensory Acceptance Study with Schoolchildren from Two Departments in Southwest Colombia. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 1138–1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Milán, M.A.; Davó-Blanes, M.C.; Comino, I.; Caballero, P.; Soares, P. Sustainable and Nutritional Recommendations for the Development of Menus by School Food Services in Spain. Foods 2022, 11, 4081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- FAO. Nutrition Guidelines and Standards for School Meals. A Report from 33 Low and Middle-Income Countries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/CA2773EN/ca2773en.pdf (accessed on 14 November 2022).
- World Food Programme. State of School Feeding Worldwide 2013; WFP: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.wfp.org/publications/state-school-feeding-worldwide-2013 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
- Cupertino, A.; Ginani, V.; Cupertino, A.P.; Botelho, R.B.A. School Feeding Programs: What Happens Globally? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lutz, J.; Smetschka, B.; Grima, N. Farmer Cooperation as a Means for Creating Local Food Systems—Potentials and Challenges. Sustainability 2017, 9, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mossmann, M.P.; Teo, C.R.P.A.; Busato, M.A.; Triches, R.M. Interface between Family Farming and School Feeding: Barriers and Coping Mechanisms from the Perspective of Different Social Actors in Southern Brazil. Rev. De Econ. E Sociol. Rural 2017, 55, 325–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kehinde, A.D.; Adeyemo, R.; Ogundeji, A.A. Does Social Capital Improve Farm Productivity and Food Security? Evidence from Cocoa-Based Farming Households in Southwestern Nigeria. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oluyole, K.A.; Taiwo, O. Socio-Economic Variables and Food Security Status of Cocoa Farming Households in Ondo State, Nigeria. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2016, 9, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeulen, S.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Ainslie, A.; Angelone, C.; Campbell, B.M.; Challinor, A.J.; Hansen, J.W.; Ingram, J.S.I.; Jarvis, A.; Kristjanson, P.; et al. Options for Support to Agriculture and Food Security under Climate Change. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 15, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPCC—Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Food security. In Climate Change and Land: IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 437–550. ISBN 978-1-00-915798-8. [Google Scholar]
- Paloviita, A.; Järvelä, M. Climate Change Adaptation and Food Supply Chain Management; Routledge: London UK, 2015; Volume 1, ISBN 978-1-315-75772-8. [Google Scholar]
- Verguet, S.; Limasalle, P.; Chakrabarti, A.; Husain, A.; Burbano, C.; Drake, L.; Bundy, D.A.P. The Broader Economic Value of School Feeding Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Estimating the Multi-Sectoral Returns to Public Health, Human Capital, Social Protection, and the Local Economy. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 587046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bundy, D.A.P.; de Silva, N.; Horton, S.; Jamison, D.T.; Patton, G.C. Re-Imagining School Feeding: A High-Return Investment in Human Capital and Local Economies; Child and Adolescent Health and Development; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Dyngeland, C.; Oldekop, J.A.; Evans, K.L. Assessing Multidimensional Sustainability: Lessons from Brazil’s Social Protection Programs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2020, 117, 20511–20519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Study No. | Publication Date (Authors, Year, and Journal | Setting | Objective | Study- Type | Participants | Data Collection Technique | Variables/Categories Analyzed | Important Outcomes | Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Baccarin et al., 2017, Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural [30] | São Paulo, Paraná, and Santa Catarina, Brazil | Standardize indicators to evaluate the purchases from family farming for school feeding. | Cross-sectional | Not applicable | Documentary research—bidding processes, supplier contracts, and rendering of accounts | Number of bidding processes, quantify of products of animal and vegetable origin, degrees of processing, delivery frequency, number of active farmers, number of receiving units. | Properly conducted bidding processes can favor the participation of farmers. Lack of information and transparency hinders the organization of family farmers and the efficiency of the process. | Moderate |
2 | Bonanno, Mendis, 2021, Food Policy [31] | United States | Understand the factors that are associated with the repeated participation of school districts in the Farm to School Program. | Cohort | 6798 school districts | Secondary Data—Farm to School Census, 2013–2017 | Size of schools, % of students eligible for school meals, cost of food, race. Specific variables about Farm to School and state policies. | School districts that participate in the Farm to School, when they prefer local food procurement, are about 5% more likely to stay in the program. The number of implemented activities is positively associated with the decision to remain in the program. | Strong |
3 | Botkins, Brian, 2018, Food Policy [17] | United States | Analyze the factors associated with the decision of school districts to participate in the Farm to School Program. | Cross-sectional | 9.643 school districts | Secondary Data—Farm to School Census, 2013 | Supply data, food environment, school characteristics, location, and race. | Schools in areas with more districts that have already implemented programs tend to have fewer difficulties in implementing and executing the program, and the probability of participation increases (spillover effect). | Strong |
4 | Braun et al., 2018, Sustainability [32] | Berlin, Germany | Investigate the value chain in providing organic food to schools. | Case study. Qualitative | 14 actors at different levels of the supply chain | Interviews | Internal structures: actors’ perception, values, and attitudes towards the local/organic; practices in the value chain: marketing, purchasing, collaboration; context analysis; structural factors (price, purchasing policy, local food demand). | Although purchasing policies have increased the availability of organic foods in school meals, the value chains for locally produced foods are limited and undervalued (lack of incentives and resources). | Moderate |
5 | Carvalho, Oliveira and Silva, 2014, Interface—Botucatu [33] | Cidade do Bonfim, Bahia, Brazil | Analyze the symbolic and social perceptions of quilombolas, in the offer of agricultural food, to the National School Feeding Program, to promote food and nutritional security. | Ethnography, qualitative | 14 actors interviewed | Participant observation and interview | Land regulation provides conditions for permanence, income generation and belonging. At the same time, young people are disenchanted with rural work. School feeding enabled the reduction of hunger and the cultural perpetuation of culinary practices and local foods. | The community conceives and values the “natural” food from the land as a source of survival and local development, seeing in school feeding an opportunity to guarantee food security. | Moderate |
6 | Castellani et al., 2017, Revista de Nutrição [18] | Santa Catarina, Brazil | Describe purchases of food from family farms and organic foods by the National School Feeding Program. | Cross-sectional | Nutritionists and education secretaries from 293 municipalities | Questionnaire | Acquisition of family farming products and organic food, purchase percentage, difficulties in purchasing organic products. Data such as the size of municipalities, Municipal Human Development Index (MHDI), and number of students were also associated. | Half of the municipalities purchased organic food for school meals, and a third did not reach the minimum percentage required for family farming purchases. Those with the lowest MHDI and the lowest number of students had more difficulty both in the acquisition and organic products. | Strong |
7 | Christensen et al., 2017, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems [34] | United States | Analyze how school districts source local foods and the relationship to local non-dairy food expenditures per student. | Cross-sectional | 2.689 school districts | Secondary Data—Farm to School Census, 2015 | Supply chains used by school districts for local food purchases, the size of school districts, types of products purchased, and % of students getting free meals. | Schools that purchase local foods from traditional distributors are likely to have higher average spending per student compared with schools that purchase local foods directly from farmers or non-traditional distributors. | Strong |
8 | Colasanti et al., 2012, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior [35] | Michigan, United States | Investigate changes in the perspective of school food-service directors in Michigan in a 2004 survey and the factors facilitating the expansion of the Farm to School. | Cross-sectional | 270 food service directors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Feeding Program | Questionnaire and interviews | Behaviors, interests, motivations, concerns, and barriers in purchasing local food for schools. | Participation in Farm to School was 3 times higher than in 2004. Food service directors’ motivations for buying local food were as follows: supporting producers, ensuring better quality food, and supporting the local economy. | Strong |
9 | Silverio, De Sousa, 2014, Revista de Nutrição [36] | Santa Catarina, Brazil | Analyze suggestions from social actors of school feeding in municipalities of Santa Catarina to facilitate the use of organic food from family farming. | Qualitative, exploratory | 1st stage: 293 municipalities; 2nd stage: 52 municipalities | Questionnaire and a semi-structured interview with relevant social actors | 684 suggestions from 446 social actors were identified. Changes in logistics, quality control, menu planning, government incentives, and methods of encouraging the consumption of organic foods were suggested. | Farmers suggested less bureaucracy and outsourcing, fewer taxes and more management involvement. Problems were identified with the supply of specific foods, low diversity of organic foods, and lack of certification | Moderate |
10 | De Souza, Villar, 2019, Revista de Nutrição [37] | São Paulo, Brazil | Describe and analyze aspects of implementing the purchase of food from family farming in the National School Feeding Program. | Cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical | 25 municipalities and 105 schools | Questionnaire | Percentage of purchase, type of management, number of students, number of schools, size of the municipality, aspects of implementing purchases from family farming. | The type of management of the PNAE and characteristics such as the size of the municipality, number of students, and public schools, can influence the implementation of the purchase of food from family farming for schools. | Strong |
11 | Dos Anjos, Lopes Filho, Horta, 2022, Ciência Rural [38] | Minas Gerais, Brazil | To identify sociodemographic, economic, and agricultural characteristics and associate them with compliance with the 30% requirement in municipalities in Minas Gerais in 2017 | Cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical | 848 municipalities | Secondary data | Purchase percentage, per capita, number of inhabitants, territorial area, number of students, Municipal Human Development Index (MHDI), agricultural data. | Evidence associates characteristics of agricultural management (such as policies to support family farming) with meeting the goal of acquiring food. | Strong |
12 | Elolu, Ongeng, 2020, BMC Nutrition [39] | Uganda | Examine the feasibility of a community-based action research to empower rural food vendors to use local foods to produce nutritionally enhanced products for school feeding. | Mixed-method action research and experimental study | 1st phase: women food vendors, school administrators and teachers, and community members (parents). 2nd phase: 180 students between 10 and 14 years old. | Focus group, analysis of nutritional composition (macronutrients and micronutrients), sensory and acceptability evaluation | Perceptions of school feeding—local alternatives (community gardens), improvement of local food resources, community-level partnerships, nutritional interventions for local application. Correlation between the nutritional composition of original and improved gari (cassava-based product). Application of hedonic scale and sensory attributes. | Community-sensitive nutrition innovation provided alternatives for rural vendors to address schoolchildren’s hunger. The action research resulted in a highly accepted, nutritionally improved product with superior nutritional properties. | Moderate |
13 | Ferreira et al., 2019, Revista de Saúde pública [21] | Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | Identify the perception of operating agents in the National School Feeding Program. | Cross-sectional | 100 program agents from 38 municipalities | Semi-structured questionnaire | Percentage of purchases and types of food from family farming, difficulties encountered in implementing the program, educational activities, and performance of the School Feeding Council. | Need to hire nutritionists to meet the demands of the PNAE; investment in educational activities on healthy eating in schools; training of counselors in School Feeding; and assistance to family farmers to facilitate participation and diversify food. | Moderate |
14 | Fitzsimmons, O’Hara, 2019, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review [40] | United States | Verify whether market channel procurement strategies for local food affect schools’ perceptions and whether meal costs decrease as a result of participation in the Farm to School. | Cross-sectional | 2102 school districts | Secondary Data—Farm to School Census, 2013 and 2015 | Location, school, implementation, acquisition challenges, food environment, acquisition strategy. | They found that market channel acquisition strategies can contribute to reducing school lunch costs. The probability of schools obtaining local food from intermediaries is influenced by the number of direct marketing producers in the municipality. | Strong |
15 | Giombi et al., 2020, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development [41] | Oregon, United States | Evaluate the opt-in acquisition feature (name of feature) of the Oregon Farm to School grant program during the 2015–2016 period. | Cohort | 212 school districts and 1485 schools | Secondary data—Oregon Department of Education 2014–2015 (baseline) and 2015–2015 (intervention) | Demographics—district size, district income status, % of non-white students, % of students eligible for free or discounted lunch. Key local shopping data—total food expenditure, fruit and vegetable expenditure. | The opt-in approach to the grant program facilitated greater participation from low-income districts that otherwise would not have accessed the grant program. Under the opt-in program, 89% of children eligible for free and reduced-price meals attended schools in participating districts compared with 39% of children eligible under the competitive program. | Strong |
16 | Greer et al., 2018, Journal of School Health [42] | Bridgeport, Connecticut, United States | Examine opportunities to promote local products and consumption among high school students in an ethnically diverse, low-income urban community. | Qualitative | 53 students from 3 high schools | Focus group and questionnaire | Students’ understanding of locally produced products, their benefits, and the quality of food; costs of consuming local products and the importance of promoting them. | Students concluded that local products were of higher quality than non-local ones. Students also pointed out that the consumption of local food is associated with care for the environment. | Moderate |
17 | Izumi, Wright, Hamm, 2010, Journal of Rural Studies [43] | In the Midwest and Northeast regions of the United States | Evaluate the motivations of farmers who participate in Farm to School programs. | Qualitative | School districts with participation from farmers, school feeding service professionals, and food distributors | Semi-structured interviews and data from menus, requests for proposals, price lists, and other documents | Quantitative data: farm size, produce grown/animals raised, packaging facility, outlets, % sales for Farm to School. Qualitative data: strategies adopted by farmers, social and environmental benefits. | Findings suggest that farmers sold their products to schools for two main reasons: diversifying their marketing strategies and contributing to social benefits through direct actions. | Moderate |
18 | Izumi, Alaimo, Hamm, 2010, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior [44] | In the Upper Midwest and Northeast regions of the United States | Explore the potential of Farm to School programs to simultaneously improve children’s diets and provide viable market opportunities for farmers. | Qualitative, case study | 18 participants (school food service professionals, farmers, and food distributors) | Interviews and documentary research | General characterization of the districts that participated in Farm to School—location, population, free and reduced lunch participation rate, distribution strategy, student perception, food quality, interaction with farmers, food prices. | Students’ preference for locally grown food was related to food quality, the influence of school staff, and relationships with farmers. Buying food directly from farmers and wholesalers was associated with lower prices and flexible specifications and “feeling local.” | Moderate |
19 | Izumi et al., 2006, Journal of School Health [29] | Michigan, United States | Investigate the interest of Michigan school food service directors and the opportunities and barriers to implementing a Farm to School program | Cross-sectional | 664 food service directors representing school districts | Questionnaire | Degree of interest in obtaining local foods, motivation to serve local foods at school, most purchased foods, concerns about purchasing local foods, limitations that prevent buying directly from local producers. | Main interests in school farming: supporting the local economy and community, access to better quality food, and encouraging the consumption of fruits and vegetables by students. Reported concerns included cost, federal and state purchasing regulations, reliable supply, fruit and vegetable seasonality, and food safety. | Strong |
20 | Lehnerd et al., 2018, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development [45] | Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, and Washington DC, United States | Explore farmers’ perceptions, barriers to adoption, and impacts of the Nutrition Incentive, and Farm to School programs. | Cross-sectional | 155 farmers | Questionnaire | Farm and farmer characteristics—location, income, farm size, ownership status, sales, marketing, or production management, age, and years of cultivation. | Farmers have realized that both programs provide beneficial social impact and economic opportunities. The most significant barriers relate to issues with product pricing, customer engagement, and logistics. | Strong |
21 | Long et al., 2021, The Journal of school health [46] | Colorado, United States | Evaluate how the number of local fruits and vegetables purchased in 3 northern Colorado school districts might change in response to a statewide policy that provides reimbursements for food purchases. | Cohort | 3 school districts | Receipts for food purchases for schools | Socioeconomic characteristics of schools and districts. | An optimization model was built that mimics the decisions made by Food Services Directors. The results of this optimization model reveal that local food purchases can increase by 11–12% in response to a Colorado policy that provides a refund of USD 0.05 per meal for local food purchases. | Strong |
22 | McCarthy, Houser, 2017, Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition [47] | United States | Determine if school districts in states with local food laws for schools have significantly higher participation in Farm to School programs and if they serve local food more often compared with districts in states without laws. | Cross-sectional | 9.887 school districts | Secondary data—2011–2012 Farm to School Census | Presence of law, presence of the Farm to School program, frequency of serving local foods according to 12 food groups, other factors associated with school districts (number of students, location, region). | The presence of local food-related laws was associated with a greater likelihood of having Farm to School programs and serving local foods at higher frequencies in school feeding programs. | Strong |
23 | O’Hara, Benson, 2017, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems [48] | United States | Estimate the responsiveness of local food supply by schools in response to changes in local agricultural production. | Cross-sectional | 12.585 school feeding authorities | National secondary data—2015 | School district expenses for local non-dairy products; school district spending on local dairy products; agricultural direct-to-consumer sales within 100 miles of the district; per capita income. | Increasing local agricultural production increases the likelihood that schools will purchase local produce. Poorer schools and schools in poorer counties are less likely to purchase food locally. | Strong |
24 | O’Hara, McClenachan, 2019, Marine Policy [49] | United States | Identify attributes that influence school purchases of local seafood at both the US school and regional level. | Cross-sectional | 4719 school-feeding authorities with farm to school initiatives | National secondary data—2013–2015 | Characteristics of seafood served (types and quantity) and characteristics of school districts participating in school feeding programs (number of students, income, etc.). | Three factors emerged as strong influences on local seafood procurement: proximity to seafood ports, outreach and promotion efforts, and the geographic region of the school feeding program. | Strong |
25 | Pinard et al., 2013, Preventing Chronic Disease [50] | Douglas County, Nebraska, United States | Assess the feasibility, interest, and barriers to implementing farm to school activities in 7 school districts. | Cohort | 7 directors of the school food service, 5 distributors, and 57 local producers | Questionnaire | This research evaluated: school meal programs, facility capacity, food purchasing, local food practices, and barriers to offering these foods. In terms of the producer, it evaluated the type of production, sales practices, and willingness to participate in the program. As for the distributor, it evaluated distribution and service area practices, sales to schools, and willingness to participate in the Farm to School program. | The participation of school feeding services in Farm to School improved after the intervention, showing increases in interest in purchasing local foods. They reported difficulty in finding farmers to purchase from with (1) food safety standards, (2) inability to provide throughout the school year, (3) inability to produce enough volume of product, and (4) with more competitive prices. | Moderate |
26 | Rockett et al., 2019, Ciência Rural [51] | Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil | Examine the profile of family farming food acquisition for schools in municipalities of Rio Grande do Sul. | Cross-sectional | 371 municipalities | Questionnaire | Data on resource management, percentage of acquisition of food from family farming for school feeding, criteria considered in the development of food menus, social actors involved, financial resources used, challenges and obstacles faced, the origin of purchases, delivery, and socio-biodiversity products were analyzed. | Only 1.1% of the municipalities did not purchase from family farming. Nutritionists, farmers, and formal organizations had the highest participation in the process. The main challenge cited was the disorganization of farmers, low capacity to meet demand, and the variety of products. | Strong |
27 | Plakias, Klaiber, Roe, 2020, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics [52] | United States | Investigate the relationship between local food storage capacity and length of the local food supply chain with local food expenditure in districts. | Cross-sectional | 4242 school districts | National school-based study using questionnaires | Local food expenses, number of students in the district, free lunch, local food storage area, number of farm to school policies enacted in the state, purchase of local fruit, vegetables, and meat. | Increasing the food spillover radius by 50 miles and obtaining intermediaries increase the average district’s local spending by 8% and 26%, respectively. District actions increase student access to local foods by expanding local definitions or obtaining through intermediaries, and, therefore, have the potential to reduce localized benefits for nearby farmers and community members. | Strong |
28 | Schafft, Hinrichs, Bloom, 2010, Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition [53] | Pennsylvania, United States | Examine the current forms, organization, and needs of the Farm to School program policy in the state of Pennsylvania. | Cross-sectional, quantitative, and qualitative | 378 school food services directors | Questionnaire | The interviewee’s familiarity with the Farm to School program, opinions on the benefits and challenges of local food purchasing, food purchasing practices, and the structure and capacity of the school district’s food service were assessed. | Only 10% of directors reported familiarity with the program. The challenges for local food purchasing were as follows: seasonal availability of local fruits and vegetables, inadequate supply, and inconsistency in local foods’ quality and delivery. | Moderate |
29 | Shaibu, Al-Hassan, 2015, Agris Online Papers in Economics and Informatics [54] | Tamale, Tolon-Kumbungu and Karaga, Northern Region of Ghana | Analyze the accessibility of rice producers to Ghana’s school feeding program and its effect on production in three districts. | Cross-sectional | 100 rice farmers | Questionnaire | The dependent variable was the amount of rice production, and the independent variables were the use of pesticides, agricultural labor, total farm size, farmer age, application of fertilizers, extension visits, and access to the school feeding program. | Agricultural labor, farm size, and applied fertilizer were important variables in increasing production among farmers, while accessing the market through Ghana’s school feeding program was not significant. | Strong |
30 | Shaibu, Al-Hassan, 2014, Agris Online Papers in Economics and Informatics [55] | Tamale, Tolon-Kumbungu and Karaga, Northern Region of Ghana | Evaluate the factors that influence suppliers of the Ghana School Feeding Program to purchase rice from local farmers. | Cross-sectional | 100 rice farmers and 50 suppliers of the school feeding program | Questionnaire | The processing cost, distance from the supplier to the school, availability of storage facilities, price of milled rice, the student population at the school, and the ease with which the supplier can locate the rice farmer were considered. | Factors that influenced suppliers include the availability of storage facilities, other work carried out by the suppliers, price of rice, ease of locating rice producers, and delays in payment for food vouchers. Payment and availability of storage are essential to addressing the issue of purchasing directly from farmers. | Strong |
31 | Smith et al., 2013, Childhood obesity [56] | Southern Illinois, United States | Investigate the influence that school size has on the perceptions of elementary and secondary school food service staff on the benefits and barriers, and their attitudes towards purchasing local food. | Cross-sectional | 78 food service buyers and 62 school food services employees | Questionnaire | The benefits of buying local foods, obstacles to buying local foods, attitudes towards buying more local foods, and information about the school food service program was evaluated. | Buyers consider the seasonality, volume, quality, and safety of local foods as challenges to buying. The benefits of buying local foods are better in large schools compared with small and medium ones. | Strong |
32 | Soares et al., 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [57] | Spain | Explore the facilitating factors and opportunities that can promote the implementation of local food purchases in the Spanish school lunch program according to key informants. | Qualitative | 14 participants: consumer/producer organizations; buy-local supporters for government schools, academics | Interviews | The analysis of the interviews resulted in five categories: social fabric, policy, public agenda, regional characteristics, and regional context. These categories were divided into 14 subcategories. | Overlap between social and political demands was seen as facilitating factors for purchasing local food. The presence of health and sustainability issues on the public agenda, the existence of a structured production system, and political changes represent an opportunity to implement these purchases. | Moderate |
33 | Soares, Caballero, Davó-Blanes, 2017, Gaceta Sanitaria [58] | Andalucía, Canarias and Asturias, Spain | Explore and compare the characteristics of primary education centers in terms of purchasing local food for school meals. | Cross-sectional | 139 directors of primary education centers and 47 other professionals linked to teaching, and administrative sectors responsible for canteens | Online questionnaire | Location (urban/rural), center size, number of meal-serving students, percentage of students receiving free meals, the average cost of the school menu, presence of a healthy meal program, food management responsibility, infrastructure, purchase of organic products, benefits, difficulties, and purchased products. | Primary education centers in rural areas are more likely to purchase local food. Centers with a lower average cost of the school menu purchase more local food, and most of them have healthy eating programs, self-manage their diners and their kitchen, and purchase more organic food. Most schools that purchase local food identify the productive capacity of the region as a challenge, as well as seasonal variation and lack of support from public institutions. | Moderate |
34 | Soares et al., 2017, British Food Journal [59] | Santa Catarina, Brazil | Investigate the effect of using food products from family farming on the school menu of the School Feeding Program in a municipality in southern Brazil. | Cross-sectional Quantitative and qualitative | 16 key informants involved in the school feeding program or agricultural production | Interviews and document analysis | School menus, purchase and sale of food products, menu composition, distribution and transportation, quantity and quality of products from family farms, production method, and support from other food programs. | The direct supply of local family farming food resulted in an improvement in the school feeding program of the municipality. Along with an increase in the quantity and variety of fresh and organic foods, there was a reduction in the supply of industrialized foods. | Moderate |
35 | Soares et al., 2015, Ciência & Saúde Coletiva [60] | Santa Catarina, Brazil | Evaluate the compliance with the recommendations of the school feeding program for the acquisition of products from family farming. | Qualitative | 7 managers and employees of the school feeding program, 5 managers and employees of the secretary of agriculture, and 4 representatives of the farmers’ organization | Semi-structured interviews | Characterization of school meals, menu planning, supplier selection, purchasing system, product receipt, activities carried out by counselors, characterization of agriculture in the municipality, production planning, supplier selection, delivery of products, characterization of farmers participating in the cooperative. | It was identified that the delivery of products and meeting demand were being carried out in accordance with recommendations. Non-conformities were identified in the preparation of the public call and sales project, as well as in the adherence to product quality standards. It was observed that regular food supply was facilitated by the diversity of suppliers and the exchange of food between the cooperative and neighboring municipalities. | Moderate |
36 | Thompson, Brawner, Kaila, 2017, Agriculture and Human Values [61] | Georgia, United States | Investigate the perceptions of food security as an emerging barrier in farm to school efforts to bring local food to schools. | Ethnographic study, qualitative | 17 program operator agents | Semi-structured interviews | Food safety data (hygienic-sanitary quality risk) | Program agents resort to purchasing through national supply chains or local producers who sell through conventional channels due to issues with the safety of local food, despite their ideology of supporting the purchase from small local farmers. | Moderate |
37 | Virta, Love, 2020, Health Behavior And Policy Review [62] | Oregon, United States | Identify how Fish to School Programs are implemented, their impacts, and the factors that enable support for these programs | Formative research, qualitative | 2 school districts, 6 interviews | Exploratory interviews. Respondents included seafood processors, Oregon Seafood Commission leaders, school district food service leaders, and school kitchen managers. | Information about fish species, quantity, price, percentage increase compared with the base price, and the total cost was collected. General characteristics of the school districts such as the number of students and schools, race, and percentage of the population below the poverty line was also considered. | The factors that facilitated the School to Fish programs included strong program leaders and partnerships, funding from Farm to School subsidies, and creative use of resources. Challenges in maintaining the program included sustainably funding the program, seafood distribution networks, recipe development, and higher cost per portion of seafood compared with other proteins. | Moderate |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Chaves, V.M.; Rocha, C.; Gomes, S.M.; Jacob, M.C.M.; da Costa, J.B.A. Integrating Family Farming into School Feeding: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042863
Chaves VM, Rocha C, Gomes SM, Jacob MCM, da Costa JBA. Integrating Family Farming into School Feeding: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Potential Solutions. Sustainability. 2023; 15(4):2863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042863
Chicago/Turabian StyleChaves, Viviany Moura, Cecília Rocha, Sávio Marcelino Gomes, Michelle Cristine Medeiros Jacob, and João Bosco Araújo da Costa. 2023. "Integrating Family Farming into School Feeding: A Systematic Review of Challenges and Potential Solutions" Sustainability 15, no. 4: 2863. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042863