1

Rachel Winch

ENVI 313: Sustainable Development Final Research Paper

December 9, 2005

Community Supported Agriculture: A Model for Combating Distancing Abstract “Distancing,” or the separation of producers and consumers, is at the center of some of the fundamental problems of the current food industry. As consumers become more disconnected from producers and the food that they are consuming, some people in developed countries have made a concerted effort to shift to more locally grown food products and embedded markets. One major component of this local food movement is the development of farming cooperatives known as Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs). The premise of CSAs is that members buy a share and then receive a portion of the produce grown throughout the season. In many aspects, CSAs have potential to improve environments, to bridge the disconnect between producer and consumer, to facilitate community organizing, and to provide people with fresh, healthy food which with they feel connected. This paper examines trends in CSAs and their potential for promoting sustainable development through focusing on two examples of CSAs in the Berkshires—Indian Line Farm in Great Barrington, MA and Caretaker Farm in Williamstown, MA. While CSAs have grown rapidly in the US over the past two decades, they have a limited potential for growth; they will not replace the current industrial food industry, but they may be one among many ways to improve the American food system. Distancing

Distancing, as defined by Thomas Princen, is “the separation between primary resource extraction

decisions and ultimate consumption decisions” (Princen 2002, 116). Put another way, distancing is the

separation between the producer and the consumer. This can be geographical, meaning that the good is

produced in a spatially distant location from the ultimate consumer. It can also be cultural, as barriers to

cross-cultural communication inhibit accurate flow of information. Cultural distancing can increase

consumer apathy about harming the people involved in production—a result of reduction of “sympathetic

identification” of consumer with producer (Conca 2002, 145). Monitoring is difficult across geographic

and cultural divides, and as more actors become involved, each new actor assumes less responsibility:

“diminished accountability via the distance of multiple agency also separates rights for resource use from

the responsibilities of that use” (Princen 2002, 124). Distancing the rights from the responsibilities for a

resource allows for easy exploitation. When there is a great geographical distance between producer and

consumer, producers generally sell to a single large-scale buyer. Because there is only one purchaser, the

2

purchaser holds considerable bargaining power over the producer, often driving prices artificially low.

This problem of distancing is not new; the “sugar colonies” and other sites of imperial exploitation of

natural and human resources in far off regions has been a significant site of distancing for centuries.

However, improvements in transportation, information, and communication technology as well as

increasing trade liberalization, opening up of new markets, and other aspects of globalization have

recently increased the frequency and impact of distancing.

Distancing can take place among people from the same country. For example, an urban dweller

who buys all of his or her food from a grocery store and has no conception of who produced it or how it

was produced may be culturally distant from a farm just twenty or thirty miles away. Recent trends in

agriculture in the US have led to a startling disconnect between the majority of Americans and the people

who produce food. In 1900, almost 40% of the US population lived on a farm. By 1980, that number had

dropped to just 2.7% and by 1990, just 1.9%. In 1993, the percentage was so small that the Census

Bureau declared that it was no longer significant enough to measure (McFadden 1997, 60). Over the past

century, agriculture has shifted dramatically away from small family farms to larger, more industrial ones.

Low prices for agricultural products (which is partially a result of government subsidies) coupled with

high land values for farmland because of its potential for real estate development are some of the sources

driving this decline in farming numbers (Stagl 2002, 76). This decline in the percentage of people who

are farmers has contributed to a disconnect between people, the land, and the food that they are

consuming. The Industrial Agriculture farms that these small family farms are replaced with are largely

untransparent. Even for people within the same community, it may be difficult to find out what the

specific practices of that farm are. This disconnect has played a part in the commodification of food and

an ignorance about the processes through which it is produced. This disconnect is compounded by

greater distances between producers and consumers.

The average food product consumed in the US travels 1300 miles to get there, and when it does

arrive it is often packaged in a manner that suggests that it never originated from the ground. As

Elizabeth Henderson articulates, “From the consumer’s point of view, the source of food lies hidden

3

behind an almost impenetrable wall of plastic and petroleum” (Henderson 1999, 17). Because food is

traveling such long distances, more energy is consumed for refrigeration and transport. Consumers are

often unaware of where their food came from or how it was grown, thus making the producers less

accountable for their practices. The true costs of agriculture production are not immediately apparent to

the consumer; what these consumers do not know about the way that their food is produced can

potentially harm themselves and the environment: “When purchasing strawberries in the winter, for

example, few consumers are aware of the highly toxic pesticides needed to grow that crop in a tropical

climate or the impact of those pesticides on wildlife, the environment, or farmworker health” (Spector

2002, 352). Using pesticides and chemical fertilizers has become standard practice in many farms to the

extent that agriculture accounts for a significant portion of groundwater pollution. A study done by the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found “Forty-six different pesticides and nitrates from nitrogen

fertilizers have been found in the groundwater of twenty-five states, with the largest residues in big

agriculture states, such as California and Iowa” (Henderson 1999, 14). Additionally, farm laborers may

be exploited without the consumers’ knowledge.

In addition to the exploitation and environmental degradation that the current industrial food

system lends itself too, it also homogenizes food; most large producers use monoculture techniques that

disrupt biodiversity. Not only does this have the harmful effect of losing species and degrading land,

monoculture carries over to American diets as the foods available for purchase become more limited.

Food quality is often of lower quality and not as fresh.

Buy Local

One way to decrease some of the harmful aspects of being disconnected from food, farmers, and

the land is to shift to a more locally based food system. In a local system the consumer is more likely to

know the producer and to share cultural values, thus removing cross-cultural borders involved in much of

the global food industry. Local farmers are held much more accountable for their actions since the

consumer—or local authorities, a reporter, an environmental inspector—can monitor the producer’s

practices. Additionally, in local food markets the producer cannot pass blame off to others within the

4

system because there are fewer actors: “They cannot be absolved from responsibility by, in effect, hiding

behind the backs of numerous agents” (Princen 2002, 123). At the same time, producers are less

vulnerable to exploitation because buying is decentralized; instead of one corporate buyer, there are often

several smaller-scale buyers. Thus the producer is not overly dependent on any one customer to the

degree that she or he can be significantly exploited.

When food is produced and consumed locally, it becomes more socially embedded.

Embeddedness is the concept (introduced by Karl Polanyi in the 1950s) that “economic decisions are not

made purely on the basis of supply and demand; rather, they are embedded and enmeshed in institutions,

economic and non-economic” (Polanyi 1957, 250 quoted in Hinrichs 2000, 296). In a highly embedded

market, other factors—such as the conditions under which the food was produced, the relationship

between the producer and consumer—are taken into account along with food price and quality. The local

food market, in contrast to large-scale international food corporations, is highly embedded in social

institutions; factors which are not directly economic can become motivation for consumers to buy locally

produced food. Some forms of locally produced food sources include Community Supported Agriculture,

farmers’ markets, and other forms of direct buying.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) have perhaps the most fundamentally different

approach towards food in comparison to conventional supermarkets. As the Sustainability Institute

articulates, CSAs represent “a whole new food system, one that uses dollars but is not ruled by

them…Here a new economics is being practiced, economics, as if…people mattered. As if the land

mattered. As if food were more than a commodity” (Hudson 2005, 12). Instead of forming an

“alternative market,” they are structured to actually decommodify food.

How does a CSA work?

Community Supported Agriculture is based on the principles of shared risk, connecting farmers

and CSA members, buying locally, and farming sustainably. While there is no single model for how a

CSA should be run, the basic premise is that members buy shares, often as one sum at the beginning of

the season. Throughout the season, members receive a share of the crop. By receiving funds at the

5

beginning of the season the farmer is guaranteed a salary regardless of crop outcome. Because individual

food items are not paid for directly, food begins to be decommodified. Beyond these basic principles,

CSAs vary in how these practices are actually implemented. Some require large time commitments of

work from members, others deliver the food right to your doorstep and do not require any farm labor.

The CSA model was started by a group of women in Japan in 1965. They called the movement

“tikei,” meaning partnership, cooperation, or “putting the farmer’s face on the food” (Lockridge 2005, 32).

Their original incentives were “to address their concerns about the way in which food was being grown,

the increasing disconnect with farmers, and the decreasing farm population (Henderson and Van En 1999:

xvi)” (Hudson 2005, 1). From Japan the idea spread to Europe and then to the United States. In 1986,

Indian Line Farm in Massachusetts became the first CSA in the US, followed by Temple-Wilton

Community Farm in New Hampshire. Today, there are over 1000 CSAs in the US (Hudson 2005, 2).

Case Study: Indian Line Farm

Indian Line Farm, the first CSA in the US, was founded by Robyn Van En in 1986. Van En, a

Waldorf kindergarden teacher, began farming “somewhat by accident, maybe more by providence” when

she and her young son David moved to western Massachusetts from California to “experience the seasons

and the heritage of New England” (Van En 1988). Robyn, like many CSA farmers, was new to farming

and took it up for personal, social, and environmental reasons rather than economic. Robyn’s interest in

farming stemmed more from her desire to be closer to food and to bring others closer to it as well than to

work in the market to earn money. She did not intend to buy a farm until she came across Indian Line

Farm, which needed an owner. Robyn bought the farm and began to grow organic produce, which she

sold through her existing social network at her local staples buying club. The members of this food club

served as an immediate market, but they still viewed food as a commodity that they would pay for once it

was produced. As Robyn describes, “My consumers were committed to buying whatever I could produce,

but not until or unless I produced. At least the marketing problems were eliminated, but I was still

personally left with all the capitalization expenses, all of the risk, and all of the work” (Van En 1988).

She began to seek a better way to meet her personal goals while still being able to support herself.

6

Indian Line Farm became a CSA in a similar manner to many CSAs—through personal

connections with other farmers. In 1984, Jan Vander Tuin visited Robyn Van En and shared with her the

idea of Community Supported Agriculture. Vander Tuin had just returned to America after co-founding

Topanimbur—a community-based agricultural project in Switzerland. Eager to spread this idea in the US,

he explained the basis of Community Supported Agriculture. For Robyn, this seemed to be an ideal way

to restructure Indian Line Farm to be more in line with her goals. She began to work with Berkshire

Village, a nearby facility for mentally handicapped adults, who became some of the first members and

recruited other members from her existing social circles at the staples food buying club and Waldorf

School. To make it truly community supported rather than an extension of a private farm, Robyn leased 5

acres of her land to the newly formed CSA association, with an option for the association to buy the land

at the end of the three-year lease (Henderson 1999, xv; Van En 1988).

Indian Line Farm is one of many CSAs that built alliances with other community-based

organizations; this was especially true after the death of Robyn Van En in January 1997 from an asthma

attack. Her son, who was still in his late teens, took over ownership of the farm, and nearby farmers and

friends Elizabeth Keen and Alexander Thorp rented and managed the land. At age 20, David Van En

decided to sell the land. While he wanted Keen and Thorp to continue to farm there, the combined value

of the land and property was appraised at $155,000, a price-tag far too high for the small-scale farmers.

In the spirit of the community effort that had been central to Indian Line Farm, David and others from the

Indian Line community turned to The Nature Conservancy and Community Land Trust (CLT). The

Nature Conservancy is a non-profit with a mission to “preserve the plants, animals and natural

communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to

survive” (Nature 2005). The Nature Conservancy contributed $50,000 to ensure that the 82 acres of

wetland areas of the farm were protected (Witt 2000). Keen and Thorp contributed $55,000 to go towards

the purchase of the buildings on the property. The remaining $50,000 came largely in the form of

personal donations raised by The Community Land Trust in the Southern Berkshires, Inc. To ensure

that this land will remain affordable for the next people who lease it, the CLT maintain a fixed price.

7

With the help of these non-profits the farm was purchased in 1999 for $155,000 and then leased the land

to farmers Elizabeth Keen and Alexander Thorp on a 99-year lease. This long-term lease guarantees that

the farmers will reap the benefits from their sweat equity and investments on the farm, while at the same

time remaining under the ownership of the community. As part of the lease agreement, the farmers are

obligated to maintain the land as an active farm, to make certain that all farming practices remain organic,

and to guarantee that the land will not be sold by the farmers. Additionally, the lease ensures that when

the buildings are resold, they are sold at an affordable price (Witt 2000, 3).

Indian Line Farm is dedicated to maintaining the connection between producer and consumer, to

environmentally sustainable practices, and to making good food available to everyone. Their farmers

regularly participate in conferences, train apprentices, and support the Robyn Van En Center for

Community Supported Agriculture, a resource center in Pennsylvania that supports farmers trying to

begin a CSA and helps to connect consumers to farms in their area. The current share prices are $475 for

a full share (early June through Thanksgiving), though they offer a working share for $300 and offer a

20% discount for anyone who is in need of financial assistance. They donate their extra produce to the

People’s Pantry in Great Barrington and support other organizations that support local agriculture (Indian

2005).

Caretaker Community Farm

Caretaker Community Farm, located in Williamstown, MA, was begun by Sam and Elizabeth Smith

35 years ago. Like Robyn Van En, they began to farm largely for personal reasons and to provide for

their own family. Though the farm did not begin as a CSA, from its inception the Smiths valued

connecting people to the land, each other, and to the farming process. Like Robyn at Indian Line Farm

and many CSA farmers, Sam and Elizabeth did not come from farming families. Sam had worked as a

banker in India and a high school teacher before buying the farm. Both have a college degree and, while

perhaps not especially wealthy, they were able to purchase the land for the farm. From the time they

established Caretaker, Sam and Elizabeth wanted the food that they grew to be for local consumption in

8

ways that are strongly in line with CSA ideals. As Sam explains, “We wanted whatever we produce from

the farm to be for local people. Local people, by eating locally, will relate more closely to the land. We

would think that it would follow, naturally, that they would care about how that land is cared for” (Smith

2005).

In their early years of running Caretaker, Sam and Elizabeth sold mostly to local restaurants. In the

early 1980s, Jan Vander Tuin visited the Smiths and told them about the Community Supported

Agriculture model that he had experienced in Switzerland. While they believed strongly in the ideals,

Sam and Elizabeth were not confident that they would find enough support. Sam described his reaction to

Vander Tuin’s ideas as positive, but skeptical: “the idea of the community coming and providing the

financial and social, creating a web of relationships between the farmer and the land. That sounded

wonderful but too idealistic. It was too far out.” The Smiths were already encouraging people to practice

self-service and to walk through the gardens, but they were not sure that such a fundamental shift would

be supported. In 1990, after the successful founding of 30-40 CSAs in the US showed that this model

could work, the Smiths began to transition to a CSA. By this point they had built a strong customer base

who would become the farm’s first members. Though their farm already practiced many of the CSAs’

ideals of sustainability, they decided that it was important to make the transition in order to support the

movement. For one, they feared that the farm would fall under if they had a period of illness.

Additionally, they had a vision of “restoring the Earth’s vitality and the soul of our communities” that

they saw as in line with CSA ideals (Smith 1997). By 1991 Caretaker Community Farm was operating as

a 100% CSA farm with 200 adult members.

Caretaker Community Farm is a 35-acre farm with 8-acres devoted to growing vegetables for the

CSA. The primary growing season is from the end of May until the 1st of November, during which time

members visit the farm once a week to pick up their produce. Much of the produce is already harvested

and members fill their own baskets with however much the share is that week. There is always one crop

that members harvest themselves; this both reduces the labor required for harvesting and also encourages

people to connect with the land and to socialize with each other. While the pre-harvested produce is

9

distributed in allotted amounts, the pick-your-own or pick-what-you-need allows the members to decide

how much they want. From November until supplies run out, members come twice a month to pick up

produce. There is a minimal work requirement of two hours per season for each adult in the household,

but members are encouraged to volunteer beyond these required hours. Caretaker’s annual crop yield is

around 95,000 pounds, or 395 pounds per adult. According to the USDA, average per capital

consumption is 266 pounds per year. Thus a share from Caretaker may far exceed an individual’s

consumption needs. This is in fact one of the biggest complaints about the CSA—shares that are too

large and food waste (Smith 1997, 178).

One of the central aspects of Community Supported Agriculture is maintaining responsible

environmental practices and not externalizing costs of environmental degradation. Caretaker is a prime

example of sustainable and environmentally responsible farming practices. It is the oldest continuous

running organic farm in Massachusetts and exceeds the organic standards in terms of environmental

sustainability. The farm has been certified as organic, which Sam and Elizabeth did before the switch to

the CSA model in 1991. Now that the farm is a CSA and the members know the farm practices, they find

the certification unnecessary. Sam asserts that organic is not the most useful term because “it’s a negative,

it’s what you don’t do” such as not using pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Rather than simply meeting

organic standards, the Caretaker community attempts to fulfill what Sam considers the three pillars of

good farming: promoting diversity, recycling everything, and conservation. One major way that they

promote diversity is through maintaining Caretaker as a mixed farm, one with both livestock and crops.

The caretakers of the farm help to promote mutually beneficial interactions between the different

lifeforms on the farm. They graze the cows and sheep together because the animals eat different plants so

they help to maintain a more even impact on the land. The caretakers then recycle the waste that these

animals produce as manure. They work to conserve the soil, largely by planting cover crops. By planting

these crops for the purpose of benefiting the land rather than for their harvest potential, the farmers work

to reduce soil erosion. Once the crops have grown, instead of harvesting them the caretakers cut them

down and leave them on the soil as green manure, which adds nutrients to the land. Caretaker is a

10

biodynamic farm, which means that the farmers seek to use the forces and actions of nature and the life

forms on the farm. Sam asserts that “Good farming is a system of farming in which the human being is

trying to mimic the natural system as closely as possible.” The farmers of Caretaker emphasize working

within a closed system, recycling everything, and not externalizing harmful effects on the environment.

For Sam and Elizabeth, a large part of Community Supported Agriculture is the community aspect.

Caretaker has 225 members. Sam and Elizabeth know most of these members, value human to human

connection and human to land connection. They do not want to get much larger, both because they want

to maintain personal relationships with the members and because they do not want to exploit resources by

exceeding the farm’s carrying capacity, which they estimate to be 240 households (Smith 1997, 178). All

the members know Sam, Elizabeth, and the apprentices:

[Members] know a lot about us. That’s extremely important aspect of CSAs. Community Supported Agriculture is about much more than food. It’s about making connections—human to human connections and human to the land connections…The farm is not just the farm, but the community too. The Earth and human beings are not separate communities—the natural communities and the human communities. It’s a single community to which we belong. (Smith 2005)

The Smiths view the farm as a community. Sam emphasizes that the consumers of the food from the

farm are not customers but members: “Sam was adamant that the CSA is a community, not a business;

that it has members, not customers; and that the farm workers are apprentices, not employees” (Power

1997, 26). Members are highly involved in the decision-making processes. A steering committee of 8-12

community members makes the budget, plans community gatherings, organizes fund raisers, works on

community outreach programs, and makes the day-to-day farming decisions. “The contributions of the

steering committee were and remain critical to the vitality of Caretaker Farm CSA and its spiritual and

educational impact on the wider community” (Smith 1997, 177). A newsletter distributed occasionally by

a group of members helps to keep members up to date with the activities on the farm as well as to provide

recipes for the some of the farm produce.

One of the major criticisms of CSAs is that they are elitist and inaccessible to the larger

community. The Caretaker community highly values making the farm accessible to a diverse community.

The cost of a share is $535 per season, which Sam emphasizes is comparable to the price of produce in

11

the grocery store. The Smiths have worked hard to be able to accept food stamps, and they allow member

to pay in installments. Around one-quarter of the members pay for the entire season’s share up front at

the beginning of the season, about one-third pay in two installments, and around forty percent pay

monthly (Power 1997, 28). Despite these efforts, they find that it is still hard to attract a diverse

membership. Sam emphasizes that while the cost of the share may not be prohibitively expensive, those

who do not have a car may have a difficult time getting to the farm every week to pick up their share.

Along the same lines, people working more than one job may not have the time to devote to picking up a

share every week. Another reason Sam cites for the limited number of low-income people in the CSA is

that they are not educated about sustainability and do not have exposure to a diverse diet.

Sam and Elizabeth are involved in the CSA movement beyond the activities on their farm. They

enthusiastically train apprentices, present at workshops, and work with the community. For them, the

CSA is not just about farming, it is also about working toward sustainability. The Smiths are highly

aware of issues of sustainability and are consciously attempting to work within a sustainable model that

does not exploit others or externalize costs. Sam criticizes the way that sustainability is portrayed today

and calls for a more sane vision of sustainability:

I think the word is corrupted by society, thinking that our way of life, our American way of life is the best, and we never questioned whether or not it is sustainable. And not only that, but we export it…Maybe we export it to sustain our way of life, which is not the same as sustainability. We’ve sustained ourselves beautifully at the expense of others. That’s not sustainability. Most people think if the economy is going along and the stock market is going along that that’s sustainability. (Smith 2005)

For Sam, it is also about reconnecting with food and fighting what he sees as the biggest problem of the

food industry today—commodification. As he explains: “Food is central to our connection to each other.

To have a food system that turns something that is so important spiritually and socially and to commodify

it degrades our senses. Commodification of food system leads to exploitation of the land and destruction

of the rural community” (Smith 2005). For Sam, the CSA model is significant factor to combat

commodification.

12

Community Supported Agriculture as part of a plan for a sustainable future

Community Supported Agriculture has significant potential to reduce problems of the industrial

food industry. By bringing producers and consumers closer together, it decreases the likelihood of

problems that are made possible or exacerbated by distancing. One such problem that it addresses is the

externalization of environmental damage, which most CSAs are actively working to avoid. CSAs have

played a part in fostering community and making people more empowered about their food decisions,

thus encouraging them to be more proactive in protecting the quality of their food, the people who grow it,

and the land on which it is grown. The movement is spreading rapidly, and has the potential to

significantly impact the food industry. There is a limit to the impact that CSAs can make, for they are

most effective when they keep their membership base at a level below carrying capacity and when they

are few enough in number that they do not have to compete with each other.

CSAs may empower people to be more proactive in their food decisions. In some CSAs,

members are encouraged to give their input as to how crops should be grown and which crops to grow

each season. A steering committee or core group of members may help to plan how the farm will operate

each season. In the case of Caretaker, 8-12 members (including the head farmers, Sam and Elizabeth) are

on the committee that sets the budget for the season, makes decisions about the farm, and reach out to the

community and other members. Short of farming themselves, in CSAs where core groups are highly

valued consumers have significantly more input into making decisions about how their food is grown.

By having the members and farmers set a budget together and keeping the budget transparent to

all members (Caretaker’s budget is sent to members in some of their periodic newsletters), members are

likely to be more willing to pay higher prices for shares because they know exactly where that money is

going and how it will be used. The market becomes significantly embedded: “CSAs, which directly link

agricultural producers and consumers, exemplify the search for market alternatives that are re-embedded

in their physical, social, and ethical context” (O’Hara 2001, 533). Instead of looking for the lowest price,

members take into consideration how the food is produced, what the environmental impacts are, and how

the farmer is treated and paid.

13

Community Supported Agriculture and Environmental Sustainability

Community Supported Agriculture has practices that are far more environmentally sustainable

than large scale-industrial agriculture or other forms of non-organic agriculture that require a large

external input and/or result in large external waste. One reason for this is that the consumer is much

closer to the producer and the product so she or he can monitor the farm. The consumer may be willing to

pay more to prevent driving the prices down to avoid forcing the farmer into exploitative practices.

Because the farmer has many buyers instead of just one, the farmer regains agency and is not subject only

to the price that a single or small number of consumers dictate. Additionally, by having a guaranteed

consumer base and a guaranteed salary, the farmer can focus on good farming that does not exploit the

land.

People who start CSAs, like Robyn Van En and Sam and Elizabeth Smith, are often concerned

with the environment and began their farms with environmental sustainability in mind. Today, 41% of

CSAs are certified organic and 94% use organic or biodynamic processes (Center for Integrated

Agricultural Studies 2004, 2). Less than half of all organic CSAs are certified organic because the

certifications, like brand names and advertising, are used to make up for a lack of firsthand knowledge of

the practices on the farm. On the CSA, these external verifications are not necessary because members

know how food is grown.

Because the cost of unsustainably produced food does not reflect its externalized costs, food from

a CSA may be somewhat more expensive than shopping in a grocery store. However, CSAs may actually

be more energy-efficient and produce far less waste. Crops are often harvested by hand, so they may be

harvested multiple times. In contrast, crops harvested using industrial agricultural methods may often be

harvested only once because the crops are destroyed afterwards. Additionally, food that may not be

considered to be as “perfect looking” will likely be given to a CSA member rather than wasted (Power

1997, 50). Community Supported Agriculture and other locally based food initiatives may cut down

dramatically in transportation costs and energy waste. It is estimated that food consumed in the US

travels an average of 1300 miles to get from producer to consumer (Hudson 5). In contrast, food from a

14

CSA generally travels 40-50 miles or less (Power 1997, 49). Some argue that CSAs just defer the costs of

transportation of trucks and planes to inefficient transportation of lots of cars for individuals to pick up

their shares. However, this argument seems to hold little validity. In a study of California CSAs, Gerry

Cohn found that 76% of CSA members surveyed traveled 5 miles or less to pick up their produce, and

that 58% live within 40 miles of the farm itself (Power 1997, 49). In this same study Cohn found that the

drop-off points were no further than the nearest grocery store. While CSA members may still make trips

to the grocery store, it is likely that they will visit the store less frequently because of the membership,

thus this does not seem to significantly increase transportation.

Waste from packaging materials is significantly less for food from a CSA than from most grocery

stores. Packaging material accounts for 6.6% of energy used in the current US food system (Center for

Sustainable Systems 2). Containers and packaging currently make up the largest portion of waste

generated in the US—about 75 million tons annually (EPA 2005, 7). Not only does the creation of these

packaging materials have costs environmentally, but dealing with their disposal after use is highly

problematic. While about 39% of packaging materials is recovered through recycling, the remaining 61%

is either combusted or ends up in landfills (EPA 2005, 8). These forms of disposal can have harmful

effects such as waste seeping into groundwater or emission of greenhouse gases. In CSAs, because food

is not individually packaged and processed, the use of packaging materials is drastically reduced.

Additionally, most CSAs do not use paper and plastic bags to carry groceries. Caretaker Farm is one of

many CSAs that uses sturdy cardboard boxes for members to pick up their share, which the farm reuses

week after week.

15

Figure 1: Municipal Solid Waste Generation Source: Environmental Protection Agency. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2003.

Fresh, Healthy, Diverse Food

CSAs provide members with healthy, fresh, diverse high-quality, organic produce. In studies of

consumer motivations to join a CSA, the desire to buy such produce is often one of the most commonly

cited reasons (Lang 2005, 65). In a study of factors motivating CSA membership in upstate New York,

researchers found that the desire for fresh vegetables, organic vegetables, and to support local farms were

the three highest responses for personal motivations to join (O’Hara 2001, 548). Many people may join

because they can be assured that harmful pesticides are not being used on their food. The effects of

pesticides are not yet fully known, but studies suggest that these chemicals used to kill pests are also

harmful to humans. Workers in the agriculture industry who are in direct contact with pesticides are most

at risk for experiencing harmful side effects, though those who consume food that has been sprayed may

be harmed as well. Pesticides may alter homeostasis by speeding up or slowing down body functions.

Possible adverse effects include headache, respiratory irritation, nausea, dizziness, rashes, miscarriage,

and even death, depending on the type and degree of exposure; most less severe effects are at least

partially reversible (Majid 1997). In nearly all CSAs, including Caretaker and Indian Line Farm, these

products are not used.

16

While food from a CSA may be limited according to the growing season and produce that can be

grown in that area, in other senses it can be much more diverse than that supplied in some grocery stores.

As food began to travel longer distances, agri-businesses developed seed varieties that would be more

durable for travel. These products were grown throughout various regions, which to a large extent

substituted what the existing seed varieties (O’Hara 2001, 537). CSAs are not limited to varieties that can

travel long distances, and many pride themselves on their biodiversity and variety of products that one

may not find in all grocery stores.

The Community in CSA Community Supported Agriculture can be a starting point to building other community-based

organizations. One type of organization that may be especially pertinent for CSAs to work with is the

Community Land Trust (CLT): “By offering long-term, low-cast leases under which ownership of

improvements rests with the lessees, conservation land trusts can help ensure that the farmland they

preserve remains actively farmed by local resident farmers” (Rossier 2000, 6). Both Indian Line Farm

and Caretaker Farm became involved with a Community Land Trust to help with their transition to new

owners. Many CSA farmers are new to farming and did not inherit land from their families. In the

Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems’ nationwide survey of CSA farmers, 43% of primary CSA

farmers reported ten or fewer years experience, with a mean of 5.4 years. Many of these farmers owned

little or no land; 27% reported owning zero acres and 17% reported owning 10 or fewer acres (Center for

Integrated Agricultural Systems 2004, 1-2). With rising costs of land, the price tag is often too high for

small scale CSA farmers to afford.

The Community Land Trust (CLT) is a non-profit organization that helps to facilitate community

ownership of land: “The CLT's primary function is to buy or accept gifts of land and lease it back to

members under a 99-year lease that is inheritable and automatically renewable. Through the 99-year land

lease, the trust removes land from the speculative market and facilitates multiple uses such as affordable

housing, agriculture, and open space preservation” (Community Land 2005). As illustrated in both the

case of Caretaker and Indian Line, Community Land Trusts can be an important part of maintaining land

17

to be used for good farming practices. The land trust requires that the land continue to be used for

farming and that it not be sold off to developers. By setting the lease at 99-years, farmers are given the

security of long-time rights to the land as if they owned it. This may encourage good farming practices

even more because they will be directly benefiting from their investments such as improving soil quality

(Rossier 2000, 5). By buying the land as and for a community, Community Land Trusts can further

empower the community to take an active part in shaping the community.

The Movement Many CSA farmers, including Sam and Elizabeth Smith at Caretaker Farm and Robyn Van En at

Indian Line Farm, are first-time farmers who began for ideological reasons. For CSA farmers like them,

Community Supported Agriculture is a social and environmental movement. This becomes especially

apparent through the highly collaborative effort amongst farms and many farmers work to further the

movement through helping each other. At least up to this point, cooperation has been far more central

than competition, and many farmers take the approach of “the more the merrier.” “As one advocate has

written, ‘Each new CSA is another little piece of liberated territory and a step towards the sustainable

world which is our only possible future’ (Henderson 1996: 29)” (DeLind 2003, 196). Many farmers

present and participate in conferences on topics in farming such as sustainable agriculture and biodynamic

farming where they share with other farmers their experiences. CSA farmers write articles, books, and

participate in studies that attempt to advance the movement. Jan VanderTuin, the farmer who is credited

with introducing the concept of CSA to America, made a video to educate others about CSAs titled “It’s

Not Just About Vegetables.” Robyn Van En wrote what was perhaps the first book on Community

Supported Agriculture in the US: Basic Formula to Create Community Supported Agriculture in 1988.

The book offered advice to farmers who may consider starting a CSA, including tips about outreach,

harvest and distribution, acquiring land, and budgeting. After Robyn passed away, The Robyn Van En

Center for CSA Resources was started in her honor. This center maintains a directory of CSAs in the US

and abroad and offers information for farmers and others interested in Community Supported Agriculture.

Sam Smith at Caretaker Farm publishes articles, wrote a chapter in Farms of Tomorrow, and, like many

18

CSA farmers, would be eager to help a new farmer. In a nationwide survey of CSA farmers, 312 out of

316 CSA farmers, or 99%, responded positively that they would participate in some form of assistance to

further the CSA movement (Lass 2003, 6).

Female farmers and people new to the farming occupation have been particularly active in the

CSA movement. Forty-three percent of CSA farmers have fewer than ten years of farming experience.

There are significantly more female CSA farmers than the general farming population. In the Center for

Integrated Agricultural Systems’ 1999 survey, 39% of CSA farmers reported being female, which is in

sharp contrast to the 8.6% of female farmers in the 1997 Census of Agriculture (Center for Integrated

Agricultural Systems 2004, 1).

The work of these activist farmers has paid off; Community Supported Agriculture has been

growing so quickly that The Sustainability Institute describes it as a movement “growing so fast that no

one can keep track of it” (Hudson 2005, 12). Since 1986 when the first CSA in the US began, there has

been a rapid growth in farms that are run at least in part as CSA. In 1990, there were already 30-40, in

1997 CSANA recorded 600, in 2004 the US Department of Agriculture recorded 995, and today there are

over 1000 (Smith 2005; O’Hara 2001, 549; Groh 1997, xvi). There is at least one CSA in all 50 states. In

2004, New York had the most CSAs (84) followed by California (77), Pennsylvania (61), Massachusetts

(59), and Wisconsin (58) (Lang 2005, 63). It is estimated that 100,000 households use a CSA share as

part of their food supply.

19

Source: Lang 2005, 64

Limits to Growth While the CSA model can be highly effective as a small-scale practice towards sustainability, it

has significant limitations to widespread growth. For one, the membership base is still limited to people

within a narrow demographic; expanding membership beyond these groups may be difficult. The current

membership base of CSAs in the US is predominantly white, educated, middle to upper class persons,

many of whom were explicitly concerned about the dominant system of industrial food production before

joining (Power 1997). It may be easier to convince people who are already environmentally and socially

conscious to join a CSA. Many members are vegetarian; vegetarians (who make up about 2% of the US

population) may be more likely to join both because motivations for vegetarianism are often highly linked

with environmental sustainability and because vegetarians may be looking for a greater variety of produce

to diversify their diets.

The farmers themselves constitute a narrow demographic group. In a study done by Nancy

Reisig Power in 1997, all of the primary producers of the CSAs she interviewed were white (Power 1997).

While her study had a limited sample of thirteen case studies, larger surveys such as the Center for

20

Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS) 1999 survey of 825 CSAs found that 97% of farmers questioned

answered that their ethnicity is “White/Non-Hispanic.” The next largest group were Hispanic farmers,

who constituted just over 1% (Lass 2003, 11). The majority of CSA farmers have at least a college

degree. The CIAS survey found that 77% of primary CSA farmers have at least a college degree, and

25% have a graduate degree.

Table 2. Levels of Education for CSA Farmers

Level of Education Number of Primary CSA Farmers

Percentage of CSA Farmers

Less than high school diploma 1 0.3% High School diploma 13 4.2

Some college 57 18.5

College graduate 159 51.6

Graduate degree 78 25.3

Total 308 100.0

Source: Lass 2003, 11

When compared to the levels of education of the general public in the US, these numbers suggest

that CSA farmers represent a limited segment of the population. In that same year (1999), the US Census

Bureau reported that only 25.2% of Americans had completed 4 years of college or more. This disparity

between the education of Community Supported Agriculture farmers and the general population is more

than a reflection of the racial disproportions of CSAs; that year only 27.7% of non-Hispanic Whites had

completed 4 years of college or more (US Census Bureau 2005, Table A-2.)

Table 3: Level of Education of CSA Farmer versus general US Population

Level of Education Percentage of CSA Farmers

Percentage of US Population

Percentage of Non-Hispanic White Population

Completed 4 years of high school or more

99.7% 83.4% 87.1%

Completed 4 years of college or more

76.9% 25.2% 27.7%

(Source: Lass 2003 and US Census Bureau)

21

The demographic statistics suggest that Community Supported Agriculture to date has largely been a

movement of middle to upper class, educated, white persons who are often knowledgeable about

environmental sustainability and more likely to be vegetarian. In order for the CSA movement to

significantly affect the problems of the industrial food industry, it would have to reach people outside of

this niche.

Other significant effects on demand are economic barriers. Shares may be expensive for some

people, and paying up-front for a season’s worth of produce may be next to impossible for people who are

living from paycheck to paycheck1. Many CSAs have tried to address this problem by offering shares for

a lower price, allowing people to pay the share price in installments, offering reduced or even free shares

in exchange for additional work hours on the farm, or by accepting food stamps. For example, at the

Genesee Valley Organic CSA in New York, some members voluntarily pay a higher price for their share

to help defer the price for people with a lower income (Power 1997, 51). Caretaker Farm in

Williamstown, MA worked hard to be allowed to accept food stamps. CSAs such as these that have a

core group of members that are involved in the decision-making on the farm are significantly more

involved in offering assistance to low-income persons to help them become members (Lass 2003). Sam

Smith asserts that he would like to see more diversity in the membership of Caretaker: “Like Williams,

we would accept people of different backgrounds. In order to make the farm as accessible as possible, we

have worked it so that people can use food stamps” (Smith 2005). Despite these efforts, few low income

people actually do become members. Sam Smith expressed with some regret that after their work to

1 This issue of Community Supported Agriculture being inaccessible to low-income families was examined in a recent study by Stagl and O’Hara (2002) who found that people living in low-income areas around Schenectady, New York showed as much interest in becoming members of a CSA as those who lived in the neighborhoods where there were already many CSA members. The neighborhoods where CSA members were currently living were 95.1% white, 38.34% with a college degree, and a per capita income of $20,073. The low-income areas of study were 59.15% white, 4.75% with a college degree, and a per capita income of $7,293. While it is often claimed that only wealthy, educated white people are interested in joining CSAs, Stagl and O’Hara found that the interest level was the same in both groups, with about 25% of the persons interviewed interested in becoming a member. “The empirical results allow us to address the seeming contradiction mentioned in the second hypothesis namely, that people living in low-income neighbourhoods were equally interested in the concept, while income proved to be a significant factor for membership” (Stagl 2002, 83). If the interest levels are the same, as Stagl and O’Hara claim, perhaps not being able to afford a share, lack of transportation, and lack of time are larger barriers to membership than lack of education about sustainability.

22

allow people on food stamps to buy a membership with food stamps only three or four people have used

food stamps to pay for their membership.

One reason why efforts to reduce costs of shares and accept food stamps has not resulted in a

significant increase in low-income membership is that these changes do not address other economic

related issues such as lack of transportation. Some CSAs have multiple drop-spots so people would not

have to go as far, and a few have door-to-door delivery, though this often comes with a premium price

that would be inaccessible to low income people. Additionally, by having home delivery, members may

lose the feeling of group cohesion and connection with the farmer, the land, the food, and each other. The

Genesee Valley Organic CSA facilitates transportation for members; this is all member-run and organized.

They have a ‘buddy system’ in which members without transportation are paired with members who do

have that access and they pick up their shares together (Power 1997, 51). This reduces the difficulties

associated with lack of transportation while at the same time facilitating community-building among

members.

Another barrier to membership is a lack of time. It takes time on the part of the member, who, if

he or she is used to one-stop shopping, may find the additional trip to the CSA inconvenient. In Stagl and

O’Hara’s study of consumer attitudes towards CSAs in upstate New York, they found that being

accustomed to doing most shopping at a supermarket inhibits people from joining a CSA (Stagl 2002, 82).

This barrier may intersect with economic barriers to a degree, for people who are working more than one

job may have less time to spend picking up produce at a CSA. Beyond the time spent picking up food,

working hours may make this factor more significant.

Another barrier to the growth of the CSA movement is actually one of its central tenets—

decommodifying food. While this in theory sounds unproblematic, in practice some of the main

complaints from CSA members are related to not being able to use the amount of food in the share and

having food that they are not used to preparing. In a food system where people are used to buying

specific items individually in the quantity desired, a major shift in the way that people think about food

may be necessary in order for them to be satisfied with CSA food distribution style. Similarly, many

23

people have grown accustomed to having the types of food that they want throughout the year. Seasonal

foods have become a novelty for many consumers, rather than a limitation, as many foods have become

available year round. In a CSA, a year-round supply of produce of all varieties is not possible as the food

is limited to the growing season. There are certain foods that consumers want to be available year round

and other crops that they will not want to eat or will not want to eat week after week.

Finally, CSAs themselves have limits to growth beyond limits in membership. Biodynamic and

organic farming techniques do not remove land of its limits to produce, and attempting to exceed this

carrying capacity by growing beyond a sustainable yield to meet the demands of increasing membership

attacks the foundation of sustainability on which CSAs are based. In addition to environmental carrying

capacity, CSAs also have a social carrying capacity. If farms grow too large, the connection between the

members and the farmer and between members may become less strong, weakening the function of the

CSA as a way to connect farmers and consumers. Trauger Groh relates too many members in a CSA to

having too many students in a classroom:

In education, a lower ratio of students to teachers means more meaningful education for each student. When you pass a certain number of students for each teacher, the education suffers in quality. Kids learn less. So, where is the threshold of meaningful relationship in a CSA?...the larger it gets, the greater the tendency to lose the personal relationships that make CSA a meaningful alternative to the anonymous and often suspicious supermarket. (Groh 1997, 84-85)

In order to maintain the goals of promoting environmental sustainability and connecting producers and

consumers, CSAs must work within their limits to growth.

In a similar manner as the organic food movement, the idea of the CSA itself may become

commodified; if CSAs are to grow in this manner, they will be at odds with the very ideals of the

intention to de-commodify food. This may seem to be an unlikely, doomsday scenario, but it is in fact a

substantial possibility. In the late 1990s, corporations acknowledged a growing market for “natural” or

“organic” products and capitalized on this: “if more people become educated about toxins in their foods

and choose organic foods in the marketplace, chemical-industrial agriculture could well be replaced by

organic industrial agriculture. For some, it’s just another market to exploit. And these forces may even

24

come to bear upon the CSA initiative” (Groh 1997, 70). Groh already sees some appropriations of CSAs

taking place:

‘Marketing specialists have identified a hunger in the human soul for contact with the land and for community. They have set up an artificial system to meet that hunger,’ [Jean] Yeager observes….‘The hunger is not manufactured, but the response often is—and it cannot possibly meet the true need.’ (Groh 1997, 70)

One example of such an exploitation of the idea of connecting people with the land is “U-pick pumpkins”

in some areas that are first harvested, then trucked to and spread throughout a local field so people can

participate in the façade of harvesting (Groh 1997, 70). This potential danger of mainstreaming CSAs

may be a significant factor in limiting growth.

At some farms that categorize themselves as CSAs, commodification of the CSA name is already

beginning to take place. Farmers who want to meet member demands have begun purchasing produce

from other farms to make up for crops that do not grow as well or that they do not have the capacity to

grow themselves. They have also begun to pre-wash produce and to allow members to pick the produce

that they want rather than to take a share of what is grown. As Laura DeLind asserts in Fighting for the

Farm, “This is commerce, not community; it is niche marketing and in most cases good short-term

management” (DeLind 2003, 199). One such farm is Mt. Laurel Organic Gardens CSA in Alabama.

Jerry Spencer, one of the lead farmers there began by having another farmer grow a back-up patch of

tomatoes, which is one of the more susceptible crops. From this he began buying produce from other

farms that was too labor-or land- intensive for Mt. Laurel’s to grow themselves, such as beans, peas, and

corn. Once the operation had gotten too large for members to know where everything had come from,

Spencer devised a system to reconnect the consumer with the producer—labeling the food and giving a

link to an internet site describing the farm: “Spencer’s goal is to help keep the connection between farmer

and consumer by labeling produce with the name of the farmer who grew it. Members can then read

more about the farmer by visiting the Grow Alabama website” (Lockridge 2005, 35). If labels are

necessary to feel a sense of connection to where produce was grown, then the CSA is no longer effective

in its role of connecting producer and consumer.

25

Another reason that there is a limit to the number of CSAs that can be maintained without losing

the purposes of the movement is that if there are too many then they may start competing. This is already

occurring in and around Madison, WI, where there is an extensive network of CSAs. While positive in

many aspects, members have begun having less of an attachment to the CSA where they are a member

and are more likely to change to another CSA if they are unhappy with some aspect, thus weakening the

sense of a committed community (Groh 1997, 94).

Conclusion

In the past century, as fewer Americans live and work on farms and as food travels greater

distances to get from producer to consumer, many Americans have lost touch with how food is produced,

and in doing so are inclined to view food as no more than a commodity. Focusing on food as a

commodity in a disembedded system without taking into account the costs of production on the

environment or the producer makes the food industry susceptible to being exploited or exploiting the land.

Community Supported Agriculture can mitigate many of the problems associated with industrial

agriculture. As illustrated in this paper, CSAs are generally far more environmentally sustainable than

most current sites of food production and they do not externalize their environmental costs to society.

CSAs serve as a forum for community development and can help to foster community development in

tangential areas such as purchasing land for the community with the help of a Community Land Trust.

While CSAs can make an important and powerful impact, they are most effective when they are small

enough for a real relationship with the farmer and other community members to develop and when they

have few enough members that they can produce food within the carrying capacity of the land. CSAs can

easily become a niche market rather than an alternative to the market, and already serve a niche consumer

base of mostly educated, mostly white, mostly middle to upper class persons.

The CSA movement may not be the solution to agricultural industrialization, but rather one step

in a multi-faceted approach. When operated within limits and while avoiding traps of commodification of

the CSA concept, CSAs are an important and effective way to combat the problems of distancing within

the food industry.

26

Works Cited

Center for Integrated Agricultural Studies. “Community Supported Agriculture farms: National Survey Results.” Madison, WI. January, 2004.

Center for Sustainable Systems. “U.S. Food System Factsheets.” University of Michigan. 2005.

Available on-line at http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS01-06.pdf. Community Land Trust in the Southern Berkshires. http://www.clandtrust.org/. Accessed November

2005. Conca, Ken. “Consumption and Environment in a Global Economy.” In Princen et al, eds, Confronting

Consumption (MIT Press 2002). Chapter 6, pages 133-153. DeLind, Laura B. “Considerably More Than Vegetables, a Lot Less Than Community: The Dilemma of

Community Supported Agriculture.” Fighting for the Farm. Edited by Jane Adams. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia: 2003: 192-208.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the

United States: Facts and Figures for 2003. www.epa.gov/msw/pubs/msw05rpt.pdf Groh, Trauger. “Essays on the Farms of Tomorrow.” In Farms of Tomorrow Revisited: Community

Supported Farms—Farm Supported Communities. Edited by Trauger Groh and Steven McFadden. Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association: USA. 1997.

Henderson, Elizabeth with Robyn Van En. Sharing the Harvest: A Guide to Community Supported

Agriculture.” Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Vermont. 1999. Hinrichs, C. Clare. “Embeddedness of local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural

markets.” Journal of Rural Studies. 16. 2000: 295-303. Hudson, Amanda. “CSA’s cropping up around the globe.” Critique: A Worldwide Journal of Politics.

Spring 2005. Indian Line Farm. Official website. http://www.indianlinefarm.com/about.html. Accessed November

2005. Lang, Brandon K. “Expanding Our Understanding of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA): An

Examination of Member Satisfaction.” Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. Vol 26 (2). 2005. 61-79.

Lass, Daniel et al. CSA Across the Nation: Findings from the 1999 CSA Survey. Center for Integrated

Agricultural Systems. Madison, WI. October, 2003. Lockridge, Deborah. “Community Supported Agriculture.” Small Farm Today. March 2005. 32-35. Majid, Isa Abd and Dr. Mohd. “Hazardous health effects of pesticides.”

http://www.prn2.usm.my/mainsite/bulletin/sun/1997/sun6.html. 1997. McFadden, Steven. “Essays on the Context and Scope of the Farms of Tomorrow.” In Farms of

Tomorrow Revisited: Community Supported Farms—Farm Supported Communities. Edited by

27

Trauger Groh and Steven McFadden. Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association: USA. 1997.

Nature Conservancy, The. “How We Work.” 2005. http://nature.org/aboutus/howwework/. Accessed

November 2005. O’Hara, Sabine U. and Sigrid Stagal. “Global Food Markets and their Local Alternatives: A Socio-

Ecological Economic Perspective.” Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Volume 22, Number 6. July 2001: 533-554.

Polanyi, Karl. Trade and Markets in Early Empires, with K. Conrad, K. Arensburg and H.W. Pearson,

1957. Power, Nancy Reisig. Case Studies of Community Supported Agriculture. Masters Thesis in Agriculture.

California State Polytechnic University. Pomona, CA. 1997. Princen, Thomas, Michael Maniates, and Ken Conca. Confronting Consumption. MIT Press: MA. 2002. Rossier, Jay and Susan Witt. “A New Lease on Farmland: Assuring a Future for Farming in the

Northeast.” Edited by Hildegarde Hannum. Originally published in 1990 by the E.F. Shumacher Society. Revised for second printing 2000. Great Barrington, MA.

Smith, Sam. Farmer at Caretaker Farm. Personal Interview. November 2005. ---. “Revisiting the Dream.” Paper presented at the Northeast Community Supported Agriculture

Conference III. December 7-9, 2001. ---. “Caretaker Farm.” In Farms of Tomorrow Revisited: Community Supported Farms—Farm

Supported Communities. Edited by Trauger Groh and Steven McFadden. Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association: USA. 1997: 175-180.

Spector, Rebecca. “Fully Integrated Food Systems: Regaining Connections between Farmers and

Consumers.” Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Edited By Andrew Kimbrell. Island Press: Washington. 2002: 351-354

Stagl, Sigrid and O’Hara, Sabine U. (2002). ‘Motivating Factors and Barriers to Sustainable Consumer

Behavior.” Int. J. Agricultural Resources, Governance, and Ecology. Vol 2, No 1, pp 75-88. US Census Bureau 2005, Table A-2. Percent of People 25 Years and Over Who Have Completed High

School or College, by Race, Hispanic Origin and Sex: Selected Years 1940 to 2004 page http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/education/tabA-2.pdf

Van En, Robyn. Basic Formula to Create Community Supported Agriculture. Indian Line Farm: Great

Barrington, MA. 1988. (unnumbered pages) Witt, Susan. “Group Effort Saves Nation’s First CSA Farm.” IN BUSINESS: Creating Sustainable

Enterprises and Communities. March / April 2000. Available online at the E.F. Shumacher Society website: www.smallisbeautiful.org