Prepare

Establish Food Purchasing Guidelines

Food purchasing guidelines govern and inform an institution's food procurement. Successful implementation of values-based food procurement requires deliberate and intentional creation of food purchasing guidelines.
  • Public & Private
  • FSMC & Self-Operated
Prepare: 

Identify Who is Growing or Producing the Products

When implementing values-based procurement, institutions should consider the demographics, characteristics, and practices of the producers they seek to source food from. In addition, some food hubs and programs with a focus on supporting specific producers can be an important partner for institutions seeking to purchase from values-based producers. These hubs and programs may provide additional support and training to these producers while also reducing administrative burdens and challenges for both the institution and producers.

Elements to consider when considering who produces the institution’s food include:

  • Producer Type
  • Farm Size
  • Vendor Practices
  • Vendor Business Models

Producer Type

Food purchasing guidelines can express a preference for values-based producers, food hubs, and programs. Farming and ranching are demanding work, requiring long hours, major investment, technical skill, and tolerance for risk. Yet they are essential to society, and supporting them equitably and sustainably is important. Values-based food purchasing guidelines with preferences and priorities for values-based vendors is one method for ensuring and manifesting this support. Prioritizing purchasing from diverse producers incorporates and reflects various values in an institution’s food purchasing guidelines. The memorialization of these preferences in purchasing guidelines demonstrates institutional commitment to ESG, CSR, DEI, local economic investment, and resilience.

Common producer types to consider are beginning producers, BIPOC producers, women producers, LGBTQ+ producers, veteran producers, limited resource producers, and culturally significant producers. Prioritizing purchasing from these types of producers and others incorporates and reflects various values in an institution’s food purchasing guidelines. Some food hubs and programs with a focus on supporting specific producers provide an important and efficient partner for institutions seeking to purchase from values-based producers. These hubs and programs may provide additional support and training to these producers while also reducing administrative burdens and challenges for both the institution and producers.

Values implicated by a preference for certain producer types include:

  • ESG & CSR
  • DEI
  • Local Economic Investment
  • Resilience

Beginning Producers

As defined by the 2018 Farm Bill and used by the USDA, “beginning” producers are those who have not operated a farm or ranch or have not operated a farm or ranch for more than 10 consecutive years and materially and substantially participate in the farm operation. This includes first-generation producers. When crafting food purchasing guidelines, the use of “beginning producer” rather than “first-generation producer” tends to provide a simplified metric that can be easier to identify when considering potential vendors.

BIPOC Producers

BIPOC stands for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. As defined by the Congressional Research Service, BIPOC producers are “farmer[s] or rancher[s] who [are] member[s] of group[s] whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic discrimination.”[1] These producers are referred to as “socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers” by the 2018 Farm Bill and “producers of color” by the Congressional Research Service.[2]

Women Producers

These are farmers and ranchers who identify as women. Compared to male counterparts, women producers tend to be younger and are more likely to be beginning producers (41% of beginning producers are women).[3]

LGBTQ+ Producers

These are farmers and ranchers who identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community. Notably, in the Census of Agriculture, the USDA asks respondents to identify their sex but does not track sexual orientation or gender identity.[4] A 2022 survey conducted by the National Coalition of Young Farmers found that 24.2% of respondents (3,319 farmers ages 40 and under) identified as a sexuality other than heterosexual.[5]

“Historically Underserved” Producers

Defined in the 2018 Farm Bill and by the USDA as “communities [who] have been historically underserved by, or subject to discrimination in, Federal policies and programs.” This broad category encompasses socially disadvantaged, beginning, veteran, and limited resource producers.[6]

Culturally Significant Producers

These are groups that play an important historical and social role in a community. The term highlights the need to include and empower these groups to support thriving, equitable systems. Institutions using this term should clearly define it in their food purchasing guidelines, tailoring the definition to their location, community relationships, and history—for example, prioritizing Indigenous descendants or producers with existing community ties.

Food Hubs and Programs Committed to Supporting Values-Based Producers

Food hubs and programs with a focus on supporting specific producers provide an important and efficient partner for institutions seeking to purchase from values-based producers. These hubs and programs may provide additional support and training to these producers while also reducing administrative burdens and challenges for both the institution and producers.

Model Recommendation

Institutions may identify a particular type of producer or a combination of the types of producers. If the institution’s definition or group identification differs from the USDA or other governmental references, the food purchasing guidelines should include the institution’s specific definition.

The model recommendation is stating a preference for purchasing from designated groups or specific vendor types.

[Institution] prefers food from [insert vendor type or producer group(s)].

Options for vendor type or producer group:

  • Beginning producers
  • BIPOC producers
  • Women producers
  • LGBTQ+ producers
  • Historically underserved producers
    • Or, designate one or a combination of the producer groups included in this category: socially-disadvantaged; veteran; beginning; reduced resource.
  • Culturally significant producers
    • If using this term, the institution should provide a definition of what qualifies as a “culturally significant” producer for its purchasing. This definition should be informed by the producers identified as “historically underserved” but may also include particular considerations of the institution given its location, relationship to the community, and history.
  • Food hubs and programs focused on supporting [insert producer group from list above]
    • If available in the institution’s region, the food purchasing guidelines may refer to a hub or program by name.

Alternative: Producer Requirement

Institutions may consider requiring a certain number of vendors or a certain amount of purchasing to be from its designated values-based group. Unlike a preference for purchasing from these groups, the alternative options set a metric that must be met. These requirement alternatives will best serve institutions with:

  • specific goals or institutional mandates related to supporting values-based producers;
  • pre-existing relationships with producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • an understanding of the number of potential producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • more experience in values-based purchasing.

Options for Values-Based Producer Requirements

  • [X percent of vendors] will be [insert producer grouping(s)].
  • [Institution] will establish purchasing relationships with [X number] producers from [insert producer grouping(s)].
  • [Institution] will purchase [X percent; X pounds] from [insert producer grouping(s)].
  • [Institution] will spend [X amount of money] purchasing from [insert producer grouping(s)].

Real-World Examples: Institutions Identifying Producer Groups

Stanford Dining Prioritizes Purchasing Directly from Producers and Manufacturers

“Direct: We prefer to purchase food directly from independently-owned growers, producers and manufacturers. We value knowing who grows our food and having direct relationships with them so that we can improve and learn together. We also prioritize purchasing food from women and/or minority owned businesses.”

  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • Self-Operated
  • University
  • Vendors

Lehigh University Guidelines Specify Preferred Producer Groups as Sustainable Foods

In the breakdown of what products qualify as “Sustainable Foods,” Lehigh’s guidelines specify that all products from “Women and BIPOC-Owned Businesses” are eligible if the business can show that it is officially certified as an Economically Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Small Business, a Minority-Owned Business, or a Woman-Owned Small Business. The guidelines also provide that producers can qualify without official certification if they demonstrate adherence to the standards of one of those certifications.

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Farm Size

Institutions that prioritize “local” purchasing typically include purchasing from small and midsize farms. Specifying farm size in their guidelines supports an institution’s adherence to its purchasing guidelines. Farm size can be defined based on acreage or based on gross annual income. Studies conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a national nonprofit leveraging science for evidence-based policy creation and problem solving,[7] provide the following breakdown for farm size by acreage:

  • Small farms: 1-49 acres
  • Midsize farms: 50-999 acres
  • Large farms: 1,000 and greater acres [8]

Values implicated by a preference for small and midsize family farms and enterprises include:

  • Climate & Sustainability
  • Environment, Social, Governance (ESG) & Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
  • Land Conservation & Preservation
  • Local Economic Investment
  • Resilience

Model Recommendation

[Institution] prefers food from small and midsize farms. Small farms are defined as [insert definition]. Midsize farms are defined as [insert definition].

Small farm definition options:

  • Farms between [insert acreage range].
  • Farms earning less than [insert income range].

Midsize farm definition options:

  • Farms between [insert acreage range].
  • Farms earning between [insert income range].

Alternative: Farm Size Requirement

Institutions may consider requiring a certain number of vendors or a certain amount of purchasing to be from small or midsize farms. Unlike stating a preference for purchasing from these farms, the alternative options set a required metric that must be met. These requirement alternatives will best serve institutions with:

  • specific goals or institutional mandates related to supporting values-based producers;
  • pre-existing relationships with producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • an understanding of the number of potential producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • more experience in values-based purchasing.

Options for Farm Size Requirements:

  • [X percent of vendors] will be [insert farm size(s) and definition].
  • [Institution] will establish purchasing relationships with [X number] producers from [insert farm size(s) and definition].
  • [Institution] will purchase [X percent; X pounds] from [insert farm size(s) and definition].
  • [Institution] will spend [X amount of money] purchasing from [insert farm size(s) and definition].

Real-World Examples: Institutions Identifying Farm Size

Duke University Prefers Local Small and Mid-Sized Farms

“Duke Dining prefers to purchase food that is grown, raised, and/or processed within 250 miles or in the state of North Carolina in order to support local economies, especially small and mid-sized farms and companies, and to minimize transport, especially of fresh fruit and vegetables.”

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Emory University Prioritizes Small and Medium Farms Over Large Ones

“[T]he scale of production can contribute to a more vibrant and healthy farm economy and rural communities, and thus we prioritize small and medium farms over large farms.” 

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Lehigh University Includes Farm Size in its Sustainable Food Standards

In its “Measurement Standards” for food purchasing, Lehigh University lists what qualifies as “Sustainable Foods” and includes a designation for “Local and Community Based” foods. The breakdown of “Local and Community Based” foods includes farm size as one element in its definition of “single ingredient products.” The size standard states: 
“b. Size
i. Produce: Company, cooperative, or individual farms must gross $5 million/year or less 
ii. All other products: Company, cooperative, or individual farms must gross $50 million/year or less” 

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • University

Vendors with Equitable and Fair Labor Practices

Institutions can intentionally support producers, hubs, and food service companies with food purchasing guidelines that express preferences for fair and equitable labor practices to help eradicate unfair labor practices. As defined by the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), fair labor practices “provide safe and healthy working conditions and fair compensation for all food chain workers and producers from production to consumption.”[9] The GFPP outlines standards that promote fair labor including no forced or child labor, no workplace discrimination, and protection of workers’ right to organize. The most common fair labor practice certifications include: Equitable Food Initiative Certified,[10] Fair for Life,[11] Fairtrade International,[12] Fairtrade Federation,[13] Fair Trade USA/Certified,[14] Food Alliance,[15] and Food Justice Certified.[16]

Values implicated by a preference for vendors with equitable and fair labor practices include:

  • DEI
  • ESG & CSR
  • Local Economic Investment
  • Resilience
  • Workers’ Rights & Welfare

Model Recommendation

[Institution] prefers food from vendors that are [insert equitable and fair labor certification(s)] certified.

Common equitable and fair labor certifications include:

  • Equitable Food Initiative
  • Fair for Life
  • Fairtrade International
  • Fair Trade Federation
  • Fair Trade USA/Certified
  • Food Alliance
  • Food Justice Certified

Alternative: Include a Fair and Equitable Labor Certification Requirement

Institutions may consider requiring a certain number of vendors to have fair and equitable labor certifications or prescribe a certain amount of purchasing from vendors with these certifications. Unlike a preference for purchasing from fair labor certified vendors, the alternative options set a metric that must be met. These requirement alternatives will best serve institutions with:

  • specific goals or institutional mandates related to supporting values-based producers;
  • pre-existing relationships with producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • an understanding of the number of potential producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • more experience in values-based purchasing.

Options for fair and equitable labor certification requirements:

  • [X percent of vendors] will be certified in [insert equitable and fair labor certifications].
  • [Institution] will establish purchasing relationships with [X number] vendors certified in [insert equitable and fair labor certifications].
  • [Institution] will purchase [X percent; X pounds] from vendors certified in [insert equitable and fair labor certifications].
  • [Institution] will spend [X amount of money] purchasing from vendors engaging in equitable and fair labor practices.

Alternative: Include a Fair and Equitable Labor Practices General Preference

If the institution is less familiar with values-based purchasing or does not have a clear picture of how many producers may meet a preference or requirement for fair and equitable labor certifications, the standard can be crafted to state a general preference for fair and equitable labor practices.

Option for stating a general preference:

  • [Institution] prefers food from producers that utilize equitable and fair labor practices. Such practices include [insert specific fair and equitable labor practice(s)].

Examples of fair and equitable labor practices include but are not limited to:

  • Treat workers fairly with dignity and respect.
  • Implement and uphold principles of workers’ rights including the right to freedom of association, union organizing, and collective bargaining.
  • Distribute decision-making power across employees.
  • Comply with all labor laws.
  • Facilitate job trainings and professional development for employees.
  • Provide safe and healthy work environments.
  • Do not employ slave labor.

Real-World Examples: Institutions Identifying Equitable and Fair Labor Practices

Duke Dining Prefers Purchasing From Fairly Treated Workers.

“Duke Dining prefers to purchase food that is grown by businesses that treat their workers fairly, complying with all labor laws and providing safe work environments, and that do not employ slave labor.”

  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • Self-Operated
  • University

Lehigh University’s Sustainable Food Standards Include Fair Trade Guidelines.

In its “Measurement Standards” for food purchasing, Lehigh lists what qualifies as “Sustainable Foods” and includes a designation for “Fair Trade/Labor.” The guidelines specify eligibility for all products that are Equitable Food Initiative certified, Fair Trade certified (Fair Trade USA), Fair Trade Federation member, Farms unionized through FLOC (AFL-CIO), FUJ, PCUN, UFW, Food Justice certified (Agricultural Justice Project), or Worker-Driven Social Responsibility programs (Fair Food Program or Milk with Dignity). The guidelines also note that eligible multi-ingredient products with at least one of the primary ingredients (20% by volume) meet any of the certification criteria above.

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Stanford University Prefers Fair-Trade Certified Products

“Fair: We prefer food that is grown in environments that treat their workers fairly and respectfully, comply with all labor laws, provide safe work environments, and do not employ slave labor. We prefer Fair Trade certified products over those that are not certified.”

  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • Self-Operated
  • University

Virginia Department of Education Requires Vendor Compliance With Federal Labor Laws

“The FSMC shall comply with Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Act, 40 U.S.C. § 327-339, as supplemented by the Department of Labor regulations, 29 CFR, Part 5.”

  • Contract
  • FSMC-Operated
  • K-12 School
  • Public Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment

Vendor Business Models

Food purchasing guidelines can also express preferences for the vendor business models that the institution wishes to purchase from. There are a range of business models for producers and hubs, and prioritizing certain vendor models can further values-based goals. Common vendor business models are: 

  • B Corps: For-profit corporations that receive certification by B Lab by demonstrating their “high social and environmental performance”; a governance structure that is accountable to all stakeholders, and transparency with performance;[17]
  • Member-Owned Cooperatives: In “co-op” business models, producer- and user-owned businesses are controlled by and operate for the benefit of their members. Co-op business models can provide more adaptability, collaboration, and distribution of costs and needs among producer owners;[18]
  • Independent Producer: Includes a wide range of non-corporate producers, often small and/or family farms;
  • Non-Profit Organizations: These organizations are organized for purposes other than generating profit and the organization’s income is not distributed to members, directors, or officers.[19] Vendors that operate as nonprofits—especially food hubs and other programs—can be effective partners for institutions seeking to further values-based goals.

Values implicated by specific vendor business models:

  • ESG & CSR
  • Local Economic Investment
  • Resilience
  • Workers’ Rights & Welfare

Model Recommendation

[Institution] prefers food from [insert vendor business model(s)].

Vendor business models:

  • B Corporations
  • Cooperative farms
  • Independent farms
  • Nonprofit organizations

Alternative: Vendor Business Model Requirement

Institutions can require a certain number of vendors represent a specific business model, or a certain amount of purchasing to be from vendors that represent a particular business model. Unlike a preference for purchasing from these business structures, institutions can choose alternative options that instead set a required metric that must be met. These requirement alternatives will best serve institutions with:

  • specific goals or institutional mandates related to supporting values-based producers;
  • pre-existing relationships with producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • an understanding of the number of potential producers that meet the institution’s values-based qualifications;
  • more experience in values-based purchasing.

Options for Vendor Business Model Requirements:

  • [X percent of vendors] will be [insert vendor business model(s)].
  • [Institution] will establish purchasing relationships with [X number] producers from [insert vendor business model(s)].
  • [Institution] will purchase [X percent; X pounds] from [vendor business model (s)].
  • [Institution] will spend [X amount of money] purchasing from [insert vendor business model(s)].

Real-World Examples: Identifying Vendor Business Models

Emory University Prefers Independent Farms and Cooperatives over Corporate Producers

“[W]e recognize the community benefits to independent farms and cooperatives, and we have a general preference for them over corporate providers.”

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Lehigh University’s Sustainable Food Standards Include Business Type

In its “Measurement Standards” for food purchasing, Lehigh University lists what qualifies as “Sustainable Foods” and includes a designation for “Local and Community Based” foods. The breakdown of “Local and Community Based” foods includes business type as one element in its definition of “single ingredient products.” The ownership standard states, “Producer must be a privately or cooperatively owned enterprise.” 

  • FSMC-Operated
  • Private Institution
  • Purchasing Commitment
  • University

Footnotes

[1] Alyssa R. Casey, Racial Equity in U.S. Farming: Background in Brief, Congressional Research Service 1 (Nov 2021), https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46969.

[2] U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Guide to USDA Resources for Historically Underserved Farmers and Ranchers 5 (July 2022), https://www.usda.gov/guidance-documents/loans/fsa/get-started-guide-usda-resources-historically-underserved-farmers-and-ranchers.

[3] Alexandra Nseir, Honoring Female Farmers and Ranchers this Women’s History Month, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Mar. 15, 2023), https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2023/03/15/honoring-female-farmers-and-ranchers-womens-history-month.

[4] Bennet Goldstein, Queering the Family Farm: Despite Obstacles, LGBTQ Farmers Find Fertile Ground in Midwest, Wisconsin Watch (2012), https://wisconsinwatch.org/2022/12/queering-the-family-farm-despite-obstacles-lgbtq-farmers-find-fertile-ground-in-midwest/.

[5] Sophie Ackoff, et al., Building a Future with Farmers 2022, National Young Farmers Coalition 16 (2022), https://youngfarmers.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/National-Survey-Web-Update_11.15.22-1.pdf.

[6] U.S. Department of Agriculture, A Guide to USDA Resources for Historically Underserved Farmers and Ranchers 4, (July 2022), https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/FSA.Get%20Started%20A%20Guide%20to%20USDA%20Resources%20for%20Historically%20Underserved%20Farmers%20and%20Ranchers_final.pdf; see also 7 U.S.C. § 2279.

[7] Union of Concerned Scientists, About, https://www.ucsusa.org/about.

[8] The Union of Concerned Scientists’ breakdown is based on consolidation of the nine acreage classes assessed in USDA’s 2019 Census of Agriculture: one to nine; 10 to 49; 50 to 69; 70 to 99; 100 to 139; 140 to 179; 180 to 219; 220 to 259; 260 to 499; 500 to 999; 1,000 to 1,999; and 2,000 or more acres. Union of Concerned Scientists, Losing Ground 6 (2021), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/losing-ground-final-4-15-21.pdf; Union of Concerned Scientists, Growing Economies: Connecting Local Farmers and Large-Scale Food Buyers to Create Jobs and Revitalize America’s Heartland (Jan. 2016), https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/01/ucs-growing-economies-2016.pdf.

[9] Food Chain Workers Alliance & HEAL Food Alliance, Procuring Food Justice: Grassroots Solutions for Reclaiming Our Public Supply Chains (2023), https://procuringfoodjustice.org/.

[10] Equitable Food Initiative, EFI Standards, https://equitablefood.org/efi-standards/.

[11] Fair for Life, https://www.fairforlife.org/

[12] Fairtrade International, Fairtrade Standards, https://www.fairtrade.net/standard/fairtrade-standards.

[13] Fair Trade Federation, Fair Trade Federation Code of Practice, https://www.fairtradefederation.org/ftf-code-of-practice/.

[14] Fair Trade Certified, Why Fair Trade, https://www.fairtradecertified.org/why-fair-trade/.

[15] Food Alliance, The Certification Process, https://foodalliance.org/certification-process (select specific certification under “Step 1” and then explore the “Standard Evaluation Tool” and “Policy and Procedures Manual” to learn more about the requirements for safe and fair working conditions).

[16] Agricultural Justice Project, https://agriculturaljusticeproject.org/.

[17] B Corporation, About B Corp Certification, https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us/certification/.

[18] Annelise Jolley, The Co-op Farming Model Might Help Save America’s Small Farms, Civil Eats (Oct. 3, 2018), https://civileats.com/2018/10/03/co-op-farming-models-might-help-save-americas-small-farms/.

[19] Internal Revenue Service, Charities and Nonprofits, https://www.irs.gov/charities-and-nonprofits.