Prepare
Institutions should define what “local” means for their purchasing requirements. The best practice for crafting this provision in the food purchasing guidelines requires that the term is defined in a manner that is effective, trackable, and feasible.
Effective. The definition of what qualifies as “local” must be reasonably bounded so that it actually encompasses the values the institution seeks to reflect in its purchasing and does not just claim the label of local.
Trackable. The definition of what qualifies as “local” must be identifiable such that the institution or its food service management company can track data to measure progress and conduct program evaluations.
Feasible. The definition of what qualifies as “local” must establish a sufficient supply of options to meet the institution’s needs and make progress toward its established values-based procurement goals.
Common origin metrics that satisfy these three requirements are based on: mileage from a designated point at the institution; designated county or counties of origin; and state or states of origin. See Table 1 for a full description of these common metrics.
Values implicated in an institution’s definition of “local” food:
Table 1: Common Metrics for Defining “Local” and “Regional” in Purchasing Preferences
| Metric | Explanation | Tradeoffs |
| Mileage from a designated point at the institution | The range of mileage may vary depending on the institution’s geographic location; however, most institutions define local within the range of 50-250 miles when defining by mileage. The institution must establish the point from which it measures distance, which is typically the institution’s kitchen, dining facility, or cafeteria. | Defining “local” by mileage provides a set distance that can be applied across purchasing and tracking. However, mileage may be more difficult to track compared to a state-based definition because state boundaries are clearer and easier to establish. Additionally, depending on the range of miles selected, a mileage definition may encompass a range of states or region that does not reflect or prioritize values-based procurement. |
| Designated county or counties | The institution may define local as the county the institution is located in or the surrounding counties. | Designating a single county or even range of counties significantly prioritizes local economic investment, relationships with farmers and producers in the community, and the reduction of food miles. However, it also limits the eligible food available to the institution due to the narrow geographic constraints and will make purchasing more susceptible to weather impacts in the area and other unexpected events. |
| In-State | Many institutions define local as grown or produced in the same state as the institution. | Defining “local” as in-state is a common choice because it is easily understood and tracked. Depending on your institution’s state, this definition may be too narrow to provide sufficient offerings (e.g. Rhode Island) or too broad to appropriately represent your institution’s prioritized values (e.g. Texas and California). |
| Network of States | Designating a number of states, usually neighboring states, that qualify as “local” or “regional” in food purchasing preferences. | Designating a network of states will expand food offerings and seasonal offerings but may dilute investment in local communities if it is not balanced through a tiered approach to purchasing preferences. An institution’s geographic location, state size, and agricultural offerings will be a factor in determining whether a network of states is a good fit as “local.” |
A two-tiered approach to defining an institution’s preference for “local” items creates a flexible guideline that is effective, trackable, and feasible, while also ensuring accountability and adherence to values. The first priority tier should reflect the institution’s narrowest definition of “local” and the second priority tier should allow for expanded options.
To support [insert relevant institutional values], [Institution] prioritizes purchasing food based on the following preference scale for local food:
Tiering Options:
Priority 1:
Priority 2:
To streamline tracking and purchasing decisions, institutions may utilize one definition for “local.” For institutions located in states or regions with significant agricultural presence and product variety, a single definition may adequately provide an effective, trackable, and feasible metric. Using a single definition can also contribute to streamlined decision-making and tracking as well as greater accountability. A tradeoff is that a single definition does not provide as much flexibility to adapt to changes in the market or unexpected events.
Common Single Definitions of Local:
Institutions may also consider expanding the tiered approach to incorporate more options in the scaled definition of “local.” This approach can provide more flexibility in purchasing and expands the reach of the definition. However, it may dilute accountability and adherence to certain values if decision-making begins to default to a lower-tiered option instead of spending more time and effort to develop relationships in the top tiers.
When expanding tiers, it may be useful to assign specific terms to each tier for clarity when making purchases and accountability when evaluating purchasing decisions and reports.
3+ Tiered Example:
[Institution] prefers food purchased from the following geographic designations (listed in order of priority):