Thurston Food System Report 2014 FINAL · 4 Food and Community Health Excerpt from Food Systems and...

2014 Food System Report

Thurston Thrives Food Action Team October 2015

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 2014 Food Action Team Members ............................................................................................................................ 3 Food and Community Health .................................................................................................................................... 4 Food Action Team Strategies .................................................................................................................................... 5

Access to Healthy Food .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Food Secure Seniors ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Consumptions of Fruits & Vegetables ........................................................................................................................... 8 Consumption of Healthy Meals ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Promotion of Healthy Foods ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Food Utilization ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 Local Production of Healthy Food ............................................................................................................................... 14 Food Safety .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Consumption of Healthy Meals ................................................................................................................................... 17 Food Education ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 Home Food Production ................................................................................................................................................ 19 Infant Nutrition: Breastfeeding ................................................................................................................................... 20

3

Introduction Thurston Thrives is a community based initiative focusing on how healthy people are today and the factors that influence how healthy the community will be in the future. These factors are: health behavior, the physical and built environment, health services, and local social and economic conditions. Together, these factors directly impact how long local residents live and the quality of life they experience during their lifetime. Thurston Thrives was established by the Thurston County Board of Health and is now overseen by the newly formed Thurston Thrives Coordinating Council, comprised of leaders from local business, education, government, and philanthropy, as well as representatives from each of the ten action teams. Action Teams led by community members are empowered to develop a common agenda on how best to address their topic area locally and are asked to report their recommendations to the Thurston Thrives Coordinating Council. The Food Action Team consists of community members representing non-profit organizations, local business owners, and government departments. Over the past two years, the team has established shared strategies like food production, processing, distribution and consumption of healthy foods, as well as a common commitment to education, outreach, sufficient food access and food safety, and appropriate food policy. Ultimately, our goal is to ensure that the residents of Thurston County eat healthfully, while also working to continuously strengthen and invest in our capacity for local food production and distribution, as well as wise food waste management. In 2013, we began collectively measuring progress toward the stated objectives from the Food Strategy map and in spring of 2014, we published our first food system report. Though we are still refining the process, a common template is used by members to collect data sets and tell the story of current actions/efforts underway. The templates align with specific elements of the Food Action Team’s Strategy Map and create benchmarks to measure ongoing successes. During the development of our second report, our team realized that several measures were too broad, with limited and infrequently updated relevant data sets, to accurately represent the health of our complex food system from year to year. In turn, we have put more energy into our combined data collection capacity for key objectives and are working to begin tracking new data that will better reflect the priorities of the community as we move forward. At present, there are still many objectives that have been identified as priorities that we cannot yet measure, for example, the percentage of local foods purchased by local institutions like schools, hospitals, casinos and corrections facilities. From 2013 to 2014, updated data reflects overall progress toward shared objectives, including increased distribution and consumption of healthy foods, increased food production and an increase in the number of people being trained in safe food handling, as well as participating in cooking and nutrition education.

2014 Food Action Team Membership Katie Rains (Co-Chair) - GRuB, Cathy Visser (Co-Chair) - Senior Services for South Sound, Judy Jones - Thurston County Food Bank, Paul Flock - Olympia School District, Bob Gibson - Tumwater School District, Scott River - Olympia Parks Arts & Recreation, Sammy Berg - Thurston County Public Health and Social Services, Peter Guttchen - Thurston County Solid Waste, Karen Parkhurst - Thurston Regional Planning Council, Lisa Smith - Enterprise for Equity, Zena Edwards - WSU Thurston County Extension, Peter Witt - Friends of the Olympia Farmers Market

4

Food and Community Health Excerpt from Food Systems and Public Health Disparities Neff, R.A., Palmer A.M., Lawrence R.S. – July 2009

In the U.S., there is a national goal to eliminate health disparities. Food systems, which have only in recent years begun to be recognized as complex and interrelated systems in the public eye, generate and worsen key health disparities in the United States. Innovators in the field of food justice have begun to conceptualize new models to describe a set of pathways by which food systems affect health and can increase disparities. These models offer promise that can inform future research and policy that can address and shift these pathways.

A food systems approach begins with the recognition that the roots of health disparities include and are greater than individual choice, nutrition, or price. They reach outwards to community factors like access and deeper to broad social, economic, and political forces that impact food supply, nutrient quality, and affordability. Further, some of the health disparities are driven by the environmental and social impacts of food production and processing. The roots and pathways are not linear but rather reflect complex processes and feedback loops such as that of consumer demand. A shared understanding of this work relies on a few common definitions:

• Health disparities refer to the gaps in health status (e.g., life expectancy, infant and maternal mortality rates, obesity and diet-related disease, and other measures) among groups of people based on differences in factors such as socioeconomic status (SES), race, ethnicity, immigration status, environmental exposures, gender, education, disability, geographic location, or sexual orientation.

• Food systems are systems comprised of all of the processes involved in getting food from farm to table to disposal, including production, processing, distributing, preparing, marketing, accessing, consuming, and disposing. Food systems also involve people, farms, businesses, communities, interventions, policies, and politics.

• Healthy food: although there is no single accepted definition, generally we use the term to refer to food high in nutrients and low in calories, fats, sodium, and additives/processed ingredients—particularly fruits and vegetables (FV) that are among the foods encouraged in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

• Good food: as defined by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, is food that is “healthy, green, fair and affordable.”

A food systems approach supports attention to multilevel strategies for addressing food system health risks and disparities. Such an understanding is critical in designing and implementing effective interventions, including those primarily targeted at individuals, communities, broad food systems, or multiple levels at once. Read the full article and learn more at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489131/

5

Food Action Team Strategies – Last updated November 2014

6

Access to Healthy Food

Food Action Team Objective: Increase quantity and quality of food distributed at food banks

Reported By: Robert Coit, Thurston County Food Bank

Measure: Volume of Healthy Food (nutrient dense) provided to low-‐income households Pounds of healthy food captured from: Grocers 650,000 lbs. Growers 117,000 lbs. Restaurants 52,000 lbs. Pounds of healthy food from other sources: Federal Programs 443,000 lbs. Distribution Networks 152,000 lbs. Pounds of healthy food purchased locally Produce 15,000 lbs.

TCFB’s gleaners bring in fresh produce from local farms

The Thurston County Food Bank, both on site and through its satellite/mobile food bank system, served 49,000 individuals in 2014. This is roughly 20% of the county’s population and is a statistically representative sample, although made up primarily of low to moderate-‐income households. The Food Bank had 284,000 visits distributed over 6 million pounds of food of which 4 million pounds were nutrient dense foods including fresh produce, proteins and whole grains. Currently, the Food Bank distributes 125,000 pounds of fresh, local produce at its downtown location. The balance of the food distributed is combination foods, prepared foods, cereals and non-‐perishable foods.

“The nutrition lessons were about having a balanced meal… I was surprised how many of the kids were excited. Perhaps naively, I expected it was going to be a lot harder to engage kids in the lesson and activities but they were honestly excited.”

– a TCFB intern’s on classroom nutrition education

Recommended Actions and Opportunities for the Year Ahead This benchmark is quantitative and has no local comparable but efforts to create a statewide metric have begun. The food Assistance Program WSDA uses 16 lbs of food per person as its benchmark

• Focus on gleaning from local farms, and support funding for Farm to Food Bank efforts • Increase awareness among community gardens and promote end of harvest donations • Promote development of new best practices around increased availability of fresh foods • Promote donations of perishable foods

Food Action Team Objective:

7

Food Secure Seniors

Food Action Team Objective: All seniors are food secure and healthy; Increase the volume of locally grown fruits and vegetables served through senior meals programs

Reported By: Cathy Visser, Senior Services for South Sound

Measure: Funding will be adequate to provide Meal On Wheels (MOW) to all eligible homebound seniors in need in 2015 and to prevent re-‐implementing a waiting list in Thurston County. All five community dining sites in Thurston County will remain open in 2015. Additional funding will be secured to purchase more fresh, local organic produce. Continue to track and increase the amount of locally grown organic produce used in our meals.

Debra prepares lunch for the Senior Nutrition Program

In 2014, Senior Services for South Sound served 66,700 meals to 1620 seniors in Thurston County through community dining and the Meals On Wheels (MOW) program. We also provided every MOW client with emergency food supplies and printed nutrition information. We taught 15 nutrition education classes, reaching nearly 300 people. In addition, our Registered Dietitian provided individual nutrition education and counseling to over 50 older adults in Thurston County. Our meals provide 1/3rd of a senior’s nutritional need for the day; however, nearly half of the seniors we serve report that it is their main meal for the day – providing 50% or more of their daily food intake. Our meals also help the government save money. According to a 2013 study by the Center for Effective Government, every $1 invested in the MOW program saves $50 in Medicaid expenses alone.

“I love the vegetables and how healthy the meals are!” “I eat that meal everyday; some times it’s the only meal I eat. Thank you.”

-‐ reports from seniors who are fed by Senior Services for South Sound

Recommended Actions and Opportunities for the Year Ahead

We know we are only serving about 30% of eligible community seniors and this population is growing; hence, we need to triple our current budget to serve all seniors in need. We also need at least an additional .25 cents per meal, or $16,675 per year, to allow us to buy more organic produce from local farmers. In addition, we seek to establish community gardens for senior meals such as the one that Thurston County Public Health & Social Services helped start at the Lacey Senior Center.

8

Consumption of Fruits & Vegetables

Dollars spent on local fruit and vegetable was lower in 2014 than 2013 due to reduced Department of Defense fruit and vegetable allowance. This fund is an ordering system that buys only local through their farmers. We increased overall spending because the cost was higher this year for fruits and vegetables.

Talk about stretching your food dollar -‐ Together, OSD and TSD serve 1,170,000 meals each school year – about 1,500 daily breakfasts and 6,500 lunches. For each student who qualifies for free lunch, schools receive $2.98 in reimbursement from the National School Lunch Program. Schools use about half of this reimbursement, or $1.48, to purchase food. The remaining half helps cover labor and supply costs. School kitchens are highly regulated with more complex reporting requirements than the federal tax code.

Freedom Farmers Program -‐ In school year 2012-‐13 the OSD offered students attending Olympia High School a Career and Technology Education (CTE) block course through the Freedom Farmers Program, in partnership with GRuB. This integrated CTE course places students off-‐campus at OSD’s Muirhead Farm. Students earn credit while engaging in community work that provides fresh produce for the district’s cafeterias and Safeplace. Approximately 10,000 pounds of high quality, locally grown produce was donated by this student-‐driven program for OSD’s feeding programs during their last growing season. The estimated commercial value of the donated produce is $8,500. Conversations have begun within Tumwater School District to launch a farm-‐based GRuB program to engage students and increase access to local produce in Tumwater school meals.

Food Action Team Objective: Increase fresh fruits and vegetables purchased for school lunch in

Thurston County Public Schools Reported by: Paul Flock, Olympia School District (OSD) and Bob Gibson, Tumwater School District (TSD)

Measure: Percentage of the total food costs for Thurston County K-‐12 public schools that schools spend on fresh produce and the percentage of the total we spend to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables from local sources. Local: within 100 miles. In the 2013-‐14 school year, OSD and TSD spent $235,699 or 12.5 percent of their food budgets on fresh produce -‐ about 20 cents per student per meal. About 13.4 percent of the produce budget purchased fresh fruits and vegetables from local sources.

At this time, we only have data from the Tumwater and Olympia Districts.

Olympia High School’s Freedom Farmers grow fresh produce that is served in salad bars and meals throughout the district.

Percentage of Total Food Costs Spent on Fresh Produce

for the 2013-‐14 School Year

School District Name

Total Food Cost

Total Produce Cost

Fresh Produce as a % of

Total Food Cost

Local Fresh Produce Cost

Local Produce as a % of

Total Produce Cost

Tumwater $795,235 $103,380 12.9% $8,270 7.90% Olympia $1,077,517 $132,319 12.2% $23,389 17.6%

Total $1,872,752 $235,699 12.5% $31,659 13.4%

9

Consumption of Healthy Meals

Food Action Team Objective: Objective: Students enrolled in Thurston County Public Schools have

access to healthy foods during the course of an academic day. Reported by: Paul Flock, Olympia School District (OSD) and Bob Gibson, Tumwater School District (TSD)


Two state agencies, OSPI and the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), have taken the lead to ensure students receiving Basic Food benefits automatically qualify for school meal benefits. OSPI’s Child Nutrition Department estimates that statewide, 83 percent of students on Basic Food are directly certified into a school district’s student data system. Meeting the program goal of 95 percent and creating a process that allows households to apply confidentially for school meal benefits if they are not directly certified, will ensure all eligible students attending Thurston County Public schools can access to the National School Meal Program.

School District Name Meal Codes

Free/Reduced % Student Count

Lunch Eligible

F&R Eligible

YELM BL 5,595 2,450 43.8%

NORTH THURSTON BL S 14,687 6,246 42.6%

TUMWATER BL 6,260 2,019 32.3% OLYMPIA BL S 9,255 2,699 29.2%

RAINIER BLC 806 435 54.0% GRIFFIN L S 671 111 16.5%

ROCHESTER BLC 2,209 1,208 54.7%

TENINO BL 1,214 597 49.2% COUNTY TOTALS 40,697 15,765 38.7%

Code Key: B=Breakfast, L=Lunch, S=Snack, C= District Contracts Meal Service

Enrollment data as of May 2014: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (OSPI) web site report card link.

Food insecurity refers to the lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active healthy life for all members of a household and limited and uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate food. “Food insecure children” live in households experiencing food insecurity. Several studies show that food insecurity affects cognitive development in young children and can result in poorer school performance and increased illness. Thurston County public schools actively participate in the National School Meal Programs. All districts offer National School Lunch Programs (NSLP). Most also provide breakfast. Griffin, a K-‐8 school district, has the lowest free and reduced priced meal participation in the county, and does not offer breakfast. New federal school lunch rules require schools to offer more fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains, and limit sodium and fat content. Now school meals provide an even healthier option for Thurston County households. The NSLP guarantees a set reimbursement for each qualifying meal or snack served. Schools can provide reduced-‐price or free meals to low-‐income children. Children in households with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level or those receiving SNAP or TANF benefits qualify for free meals. Those with family incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty line qualify for reduced-‐price meals. In 2014, for a family of four, that was between $31,005 and $44,123 a year.

According to Feeding America, one in five children in the U.S is food insecure. For many, their only reliable source of food is that served

at school.

10

Promotion of Healthy Foods

Food Action Team Objective: Objective: Vending machines in Thurston County Public Schools only stock

healthy foods & beverages. Reported by: Paul Flock, Olympia School District (OSD) and Bob Gibson, Tumwater School District (TSD)

Measure: # of Thurston County School Districts with Nutrition and Wellness Policies that ensure vending machines in schools only stock healthy foods and beverages. % of vending machines in Thurston County schools that only stock healthy food and beverages. The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) will conduct a comprehensive school meal and snack program review in the 2014-‐15 school year. This review has not been completed yet. We’ll gather baseline data for these measures during that review.

The vending machines in Tumwater and Olympia follow the healthy eating guidelines set forth by the National School Lunch Program. They did last year also so we did not increase but we did not decline.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced their Smart Snack Nutrition Standards in 2013. The standards limit the amount of calories, sugar, sodium, and fat in snack items sold in public schools. The Department designed these standards to allow variation by age groups to account for factors like portion size and caffeine content. The standards also provide flexibility for important traditions like birthday parties, holidays, fundraisers, and bake sales. The requirements do not apply to foods sold at after school sporting events or other activities. New Standards: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-‐meals/smart-‐snacks-‐school

Washington state legislation passed in 2004 requires schools to adopt policies that address the nutritional content of foods and beverages (including fluoridated bottle water) that are sold or provided throughout the school day in competition with the federal school breakfast and lunch programs. Currently, school nutrition policies vary among school districts -‐ largely due to differences in the input school districts receive from local advisory committees.

In 2010, researchers from the National Institutes of Health surveyed nearly 6,000 students in 152 schools to study the impact of vending machines on children’s food choices. Eighty-‐three percent of the schools surveyed sold foods with little nutritional value in vending machines. Soft drinks were the most common item sold. Until 2013, when the UDSA released their Smart Snack Nutrition Standards, no federal nutrition guidelines applied to these foods which are often referred to as Foods of Minimal Nutritional Value (FMNV). FMNV s refer to "those that provide low amounts per portion of specified nutrients."


Thurston County public schools will assume responsibility for implementing the USDA’s Smart Snack Nutrition Standards in July 2014. OSPI’s Child Nutrition Department will offer guidance and review school nutrition policies and snack standard implementation as part of their comprehensive school meal program review. The new flexible USDA standards allow significant autonomy by only establishing minimum requirements for schools. We have the opportunity in Thurston County to work with local school district advisory committees to develop model policies and standards that exceed what’s required under the new federal rule.

§ Flexibility for state and local communities. Allowing significant local and regional autonomy by only establishing minimum requirements for schools. States and schools that have stronger standards than what is being proposed will be able to maintain their own policies.

11

Food Utilization

Food Action Team Objective: Objective: Increase food utilization

Reported By: Peter Guttchen, Thurston County Solid Waste

Measure: Pounds of food waste per capita collected for disposal and composting in Thurston County. Data is calculated from these sources:

ü Total landfilled tons per year generated in Thurston County – Data collected by TC Solid Waste annually.

ü Thurston County Waste Composition Studies -‐ Conducted every 5 years by TC Solid Waste.

ü Total tons of food waste hauled to the Waste and Recovery Center – Data consolidated by TC Solid Waste annually.

ü Thurston County population – TRPC’s Annual Profile.

In 2014, the Thurston County population was estimated to be 264,000 while the total estimated food waste was 28,515 tons, or 216 lbs. per capita. The total estimated edible food waste was 15,445 tons, while the inedible food waste was 13,070 tons.

The total amount of all waste per capita in Thurston County decreased between 2000 and 2014. However, the total amount of food waste per capita rose by about 4% -‐ from 208 to 216 pounds per person. For our 2014 study, we measured the amount of inedible food for first time. It showed that about 45% of the food that was collected to be landfilled or composted was edible at some point before it was discarded. This data reflects a gross estimate of the waste stream during the year we collect the information, and does not include food composted on-‐site at homes or businesses, or food donated to local service agencies.

Although this measure can only be fully calculated every five years, it provides the best indication of longer-‐term trends and the impact of efforts to increase food utilization. Between waste composition studies, the County and others will gather data on the impact of specific programs like Food Rescue on food utilization. This will help us identify what is working and not working and allow us to adjust our programs to increase effectiveness.

ü In the U.S., we waste $165 billion annually on groceries, and spend another $750 million landfilling the wasted food. The average family throws away 25% of the food they buy -‐ about $1,600 a year for a typical family of four.

ü 1 in 6 Americans lack a secure supply of food. Reducing food loss in this country by just 15 percent could help feed more than 25 million Americans every year.

ü According to a recent report, producing food in America takes 10 percent of the total U.S. energy budget, 80 percent of all consumed freshwater, and 50 percent of U.S. land.

ü The production of a single burger requires 2,500 gallons of water and 16 pounds of grain. It takes 52 gallons of water to produce one glass of milk! When we waste food, we’re not just wasting food.


In March 2014, Thurston County Solid Waste launched its Waste Less Food (WLF) campaign. Initially, we focused on increasing awareness of the social, environmental, and financial impacts of wasting food. We are conducting school and community workshops and programs and asking households to take pledges to take specific steps to reduce food waste. In 2015 we have also started to expand our outreach to institutions and businesses. Community partners can assist by helping to promote the WLF campaign.

12

Food Utilization



small image/photo, source, description

One unexpected benefit of using milk dispensers: Students consume more water at lunch because they have a cup!

During the 2014-‐15 school year, 10 (or about 14%) of the 72 K-‐12 public schools in Thurston County were serving milk in bulk. Collectively, they have eliminated about 350,000 milk cartons from the waste stream each school year. In the 2013-‐14 school year, 12 schools were using milk dispensers. Two schools in the Rochester District removed their dispensers from service temporarily during the 2014-‐15 school year because the District selected a new food services contractor. They expect to put these dispensers back in service next school year. We estimate that Thurston County schools throw away or recycle about 5 million milk cartons each school year. This equates to about 8,000 gallons of milk saved across the 10 schools in the program. Some of the benefits of using bulk milk dispensers include:

ü A lot less milk is wasted on a per student basis than at schools that serve milk in cartons. ü Students used their durable cups to get water from the water fountain. ü Less spillage -‐ the custodian and other lunchroom staff thought there would be more spills. ü Students report the milk tastes better, so they drink more. ü The sort line goes faster because students do not have to spend as much time dumping out their

milk. ü Participating schools generate much less material for recycling, resulting in lower collection costs.

A typical elementary school that serves 350–400 lunches a day throws away about 1,000 gallons of milk each school year. Schools with milk dispensers generate 70 to 80% less milk waste, save money on their recycling collection costs, and conserve energy and other resources. Olympia High School’s combined savings in collection and energy costs total more than $1,900 a year. To learn more about the benefits of milk dispensers, visit Thurston Solid Waste’s You Tube page at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7VZWDQcYGw


Up until now, Thurston County Solid Waste has been the primary advocate for installing milk dispensers. We recommend working with other partners to reach out to schools to highlight the larger community and health benefits of installing milk dispensers in schools.

Measure: Number of K-‐12 Schools serving milk and/or juice in bulk in Thurston County.

Number of milk cartons eliminated from school cafeterias.

Gallons of milk waste eliminated.

At the end of each school year, Thurston County Solid Waste will collect and analyze this data. We will also update the data every time a school adds a new dispenser.

13

Food Utilization

Measure: Percentage of elementary schools in Thurston County that schedule at least one lunch period after recess and the % of total elementary school lunch periods scheduled after recess (LaR).

For the 2014-‐15 School Year

• Total # of elementary schools: 42 • # and % with at least one LaR: 13 or 31%

• Total # of lunch periods: 157 • # and % of LaRs: 39 or 25% No change from the 2013-‐14 school year


Studies show that kids who eat lunch after recess eat more, waste less, get sick less often, and go back to class ready to learn. According to research done at schools in New Jersey, Arizona, and Montana, scheduling recess before lunch can result in many benefits. They include:

ü Fewer behavior problems. ü Higher consumption of milk, water, and fruit and vegetables. ü Less food and milk waste. ü Decrease in the number of visits to the school nurse and fewer headaches and stomachaches.

Given all of the things that we squeeze into a student’s schedule each day, holding recess before lunch, especially at crowded schools, can be difficult. However, many schools that have made the shift have found the benefits outweigh the costs. More information: PlayThenEat.

ü Less time required for kids to “cool-‐down” and get back to their academic work. Some schools with recess before lunch reported an increase of 10 to 15 minutes per day in instruction time.


Up until now, Thurston County Solid Waste has been the primary advocate for rescheduling lunch and recess. We recommend working with others to reach out to schools and highlight the health and educational benefits of making these changes. Organize and support pilot programs at selected elementary schools in Thurston County during the 2014-‐15 school year. As part of this effort, we could gather “before” and “after” data to demonstrate the impact of these changes.

Scheduling lunch AFTER recess is a powerful way to get kids to waste less food and drink more milk at school.




14

Local Production of Healthy Food

Food Action Team Objective: Objective: Increase volume of produce grown locally

Reported By: Lisa Smith, Enterprise for Equity

Measure: • # of local farms listed on South Sound Direct Sales Farm Map – 60

• # of farms – 1,336 • % of farms in crop production – 30 • # Total acres in production – 76,638 acres • Average Size of Farm – 57 acres • Crop Sales – $48,843,000 (40 percent) • # of Food Processors – unknown in 2014 • Volume of locally processed food products – unknown • Annual product sales for local food processors -‐ unknown

Olympia Farmers Market

Our region’s capacity to grow more food is predicated on available land, skilled willing farmers, access to markets, financing and other business support services. The indicators above represent pieces of this puzzle and show the bounty our region offers in natural resources, entrepreneurship and business activity.

Unfortunately, farm work is not often profitable so diligence among public and private partners is required to harness resources for the farmer including public support for training workers, opportunities to access land and financing, aggregation facilities, commercial processing options that add value to what farmers grow.

Food processor data and metric measures were not included for 2014 but will be included in future years as another indicator in meeting the stated objective above.

“Some 300 commodities are produced commercially in Washington with $49 billion in revenue. Food and agriculture industry represents 13% of the state’s economy”

-‐Washington State Department of Agriculture


• Develop a pipeline of new and emerging farmers in the South Sound Region; • Ensure business support services including financing is available to farmers; • Grow demand for food grown and processed in the region; • Increase percentage of institutional purchases of local food; • Collaborate with farmers, WSU extension and other partners to develop shared measurements to

better assess the volume of locally produced food, as well as the institutional demand for local foods.

15

Food Safety

In 2014 there were 14 restaurant re-‐inspections. This is a very small fraction of the over 1,300 food inspections done that year. The number of re-‐inspections has been stable over the last nine years (years with available data), ranging from 7-‐22 re-‐inspections. These average about 1% of the food inspections done each year. Problems or violations noted during any inspection are corrected as soon as possible and most are taken care of while the inspector is there. The re-‐inspection is a chance for the inspector to confirm that the problem(s) stay fixed. For example, that equipment is working at the right temperature, or more importantly, that any unsafe food practice has been corrected and staff have been re-‐trained not to repeat the error.

“Over half of US foodborne illness outbreaks come from food fixed at a restaurant or deli.” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. Surveillance for foodborne disease outbreaks—United States, 2009–2010. Morb.

Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 62(3):41–47)

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS & OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE YEAR AHEAD:

Although we know that most restaurant operators work hard to provide safe and delicious food for Thurston County residents, we also know that food safety problems at restaurants can potentially expose many people to illness. Conducting restaurant inspections is one way we confirm restaurant employees are making food safely, and re-‐inspections confirm that serious problems are corrected.

Food Action Team Objective: Fewer Thurston County restaurants receive poor health inspection scores

Reported By: Sammy Berg, Thurston County Public Health & Social Services

A proper hand wash station, supplied with soap and paper towels.

MEASURE: Number of restaurants requiring a re-‐inspection due to poor inspection scores.

If a restaurant exceeds 45 red or 65 total violation points during an inspection, we will re-‐inspect within 10 days to verify that they fixed the problems. Some re-‐inspections are also due to repeat violations.

Common violations include not washing hands as needed, touching food with bare hands, and not keeping food at the proper temperature.

16

Food Safety

MEASURE: Number of county residents taking the Washington State Food Worker Course.

A total of 13,537 food worker cards were issued to Thurston County residents in 2014. That is an increase of one thousand cards more than last year. 741 (5%) were delivered though in-‐person classes, while the rest were taken on-‐line. Food workers with recent food safety training should result in good restaurant inspection scores and fewer foodborne illnesses in Thurston County.

Thurston County offers food worker training for safe food handling in two ways, either through an in-‐ person class offered weekly or on-‐line at www.foodworkercard.wa.gov . State law requires all food workers to take this training, which must be retaken every 2-‐3 years. The hour-‐long class covers many food safety topics, including hand washing, proper hot and cold temperatures for food storage, and how to avoid cross-‐contamination (i.e., keeping raw meat juice from getting onto other foods).

On-‐line food worker manual (in ten languages): www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/Food/FoodWorkerandIndustry/FoodWorkerManual.aspx

“As a food worker, you will be making food for other people. They trust you to do all that you can to keep their food safe. It is your responsibility to safely prepare and serve

food to them so they will not get sick.” Preface – Washington State Food & Beverage Workers’ Manual

Food Action Team Objective: More people trained in safe food handling

Reported By: Sammy Berg, Thurston County Public Health & Social Services

17

Food Action Team Objective: Increase the consumption of healthy meals

Reported By: Scott River, Olympia Parks, Arts & Recreation

Consumption of Healthy Meals

Measure: Number of meals served in summer nutrition program. 2013 20

Sites hosted Lunch Served Parks & Recreation 6 23,940 Thurston County Food Bank* 15 12,000 TOTALS 21 35,940 In 2014, 21 sites served 35,940 lunches.

Full bellies and full smiles The total sites hosted represent 4 rural locations and 17 in the urban areas. Summer nutrition programs help feed children during the months when schools do not provide free and reduced fee lunches. Numerous studies link good health with good nutrition. Good health can also predict student success. When we keep our youth well fed throughout the year, we provide short-‐term comfort and health to children, but also build a strong next generation of leaders. Nutrition programs take many forms, from site based hot lunches served at school cafeterias or community centers, to sack lunches delivered to satellite locations. In many instances, organized recreation will bridge the gap from lunch to a mid-‐afternoon snack, keeping kids physically active and socially engaged. “ I do alright during the school year. The meal programs at school are a real help

with my boys. Summer break is a real challenge for us financially. I struggle keeping them busy, and fed. Everything is a help and a short walk to a program

where they can get a meal is a bonus.” -‐ Reflection on the Summer Meals program from a parent


Serving more meals not only benefits kids, but also keeps programs financially sustainable for hosts. Local school districts make great partners for both facility and food preparation needs. Access to schools that double as hosts for day camp programs can also build in a daily customer base. We recommend expanding services in rural communities. Strategies could include additional operational days, programs running the entire summer, or new programs in underserved communities.

18

Food Action Team Objective: Increase the quantity of nutrition education courses offered

Reported By: Scott River, Olympia Parks, Arts & Recreation

Food Education

Measure: Increase the number of nutrition education programs in Thurston County 2013 2

2014 2014 Courses Participants

Parks & Recreation 18 39 Senior Services 15 300 Thurston County Food Bank 14 600 School Nutrition Sessions 24 300 GRuB 17 133 TOTALS 88 1,372

In 2014, organizations submitting data identified 88 courses. We define a course as one unique registration opportunity regardless of the number of meeting dates, length of workshop, or whether or not the event was cancelled. Courses include cooking classes, and dietary and gardening workshops. This data may include duplications as not all organizations track unique registrations. For example, one participant may register for three workshops with Senior Services for South Sound, resulting in a participant count of three.


The data collected indicates approximately 15.6 participants per offered course (including cancellations). Using improved marketing methods, such as sharing opportunities within the Thurston Thrives Food Action Team, should increase registration numbers. This would maximize the current resources provided for nutrition education classes. As a best practice, we recommend that organizations partner on classes, leveraging marketing, facility, and instructor resources.

19

Food Action Team Objective: Increase the quantity of community, school and kitchen gardens

Reported By: Katie Rains, GRuB

Home Food Production

MEASURE: Number of gardens by type

In 2014, Thurston County was home to: • 30 School Gardens • 11 Community Gardens • At least 75 New Kitchen Gardens via

GRuB’s KGP

Community Garden data provided by Olympia Parks & Recreation and Thurston County Public Health & Social Services. School Garden data provided by the Thurston County Food Bank and GRuB; Kitchen Garden Project Data provided by GRuB

A local family comes together to admire their garden’s bounty.

Thurston County has embraced the growing movement to diversify food production by forging partnerships (Olympia Parks & Recreation, local schools, GRuB, Sustainable South Sound, the Thurston County Food Bank, and many others) to create spaces for gardens in both urban and rural parts of the county. In 2014, Thurston County boasted 11 community gardens, 30 school gardens, and 75 new Kitchen Gardens. Through a network of partnerships, our community has increased access to and consumption of healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables.

“The Kitchen Garden Project recognizes all of their community members and works on transforming this image of ‘you’re a victim in need and I am your resource’ and turns it into a passionate partnership that encourages sustainability and health. These two forces are the catalyst that drives a community in need into a prosperous more viable community.”

– Jacqueline, KGP Gardener


Thurston County has a rich agricultural history and many individuals who aspire to transform underutilized vacant land into food-‐producing gardens and farms. Community partners need assistance organizing and facilitating this transition. Working with GRuB, Olympia School District is cultivating an acre of school district-‐owned property -‐ creating an outdoor classroom that supplies food for the district. If community partners such as the Thurston County Food Bank, WSU Master Gardeners, and GRuB could coordinate their curriculum, local gardening and nutrition education would produce greater collective impact by ensuring consistent, reinforcing messages.

20

Food Action Team Objective: Increase the initiation and duration of breastfeeding

Reported By: Kateri Wimsett, South Sound Breastfeeding Network

Infant Nutrition: Breastfeeding

Percentage of women breastfeeding their infant at birth: Thurston County and Washington State 2013 Thurston County: 90% Washington State: 93% Data Source: Birth Certificates

The international breastfeeding symbol

The health benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and babies are well documented and numerous. For mothers breastfeeding lowers their risk of developing type two diabetes, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and postpartum depression. For babies it protects them from serious diseases like asthma, obesity, diabetes, childhood leukemia, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Breastfeeding is also the ultimate local, fresh, economic and ecological choice food for babies.

“One of the most highly effective preventive measures a mother can take to protect the health of her infant and herself is to breastfeed.”

-‐The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding, 2011


In Thurston County the rate of initiation of breastfeeding at birth is a good indicator of the understanding by mothers that breastmilk is the best nutrition that they can give their newborn child. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months followed by continued breastfeeding with the introduction of foods for at least 12 months. In WA State only about 30% of women are able to meet the AAP goal for breastfeeding to 12 months. The South Sound Breastfeeding Network (SSBN) is made up of volunteers from medical professionals to parents who strive to promote breastfeeding by providing a positive support network and making accurate, consistent breastfeeding information available. The passage of the 2010 Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a private, non-‐bathroom space for an employee to express breastmilk for one year after the child’s birth. The SSBN is committed to supporting employees and employers in this effort locally.

Thurston Food System Report 2014 FINAL · 4 Food and Community Health Excerpt from Food Systems and...

Documents

Transcript of Thurston Food System Report 2014 FINAL · 4 Food and Community Health Excerpt from Food Systems and...