‘BUY LOCAL’ FOOD IS OFTEN FAR FROM LOCAL
Programs largely unregulated and can deceive consumers
As local-food sales grow into a $20 billion industry, a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found that state branding programs designed to inform consumers and support local farmers are deceptive and virtually unregulated.
These “buy local” programs purport to connect shoppers with food from their states by affixing logos and stickers.
Yet most state food-branding programs certify products as “local” even if half the ingredients come from another state or country. Many states have no minimum ingredient requirement.
Think of it like this: Coffee beans don’t grow in Utah. They must be imported. “But if you roast the beans here, you’re qualified for the program,” said Wayne Bradshaw, marketing and economic development division director for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, which runs the Utah’s Own program.
The same is true for tea brewed in Alabama, peanut butter processed in Oklahoma and potato chips cooked and bagged in Virginia.
The main ingredient can come from around the world or across the country.
Over the past four months, USA TODAY NETWORK reporters reviewed food-branding programs in the 45 states that have them. They analyzed rules, enforcement and the criteria each state requires to be considered local. They found:
❚ 18 states set no minimum on the percentage of locally grown ingredients a product must have to get a state brand.
❚ 20 states brand food as local as long as the company making it is headquartered within the state.
❚ 36 states have no formal annual review process to check whether companies are following program rules. About two dozen states let companies sign up and call their food local without verifying the source of ingredients.
❚ 40 states have no record of enforcement actions in the past five years and no record of removing specific companies from their programs.
Program officials in nearly every state say they aren’t trying to fool consumers by tapping the farm-to-table movement. But they acknowledge the programs are more about marketing to promote the local economy and create jobs.
“It’s a way for small- to mediumsized businesses to inform consumers that their products are locally made,” said Lori Panda, director of the Ohio Proud program. “It’s a good way for consumers to feel good about supporting the local economy.”
But many programs emphasize food in slick marketing campaigns that food and farm researchers say make shoppers believe they are buying products made with local ingredients or come from local farms.
‘Fresh’ concept has appeal
Across the country, 20 programs use the words “grown” or “fresh” in their names. The rest of the programs trade on that concept with “made,” “proud,” “taste” and “preferred” in their titles.
Brochures and websites often picture crisp produce, cultivated fields and profiles of farmers.
Click on the Georgia Grown website and you are transported to an agricultural display of in-season crops, farmers market bulletins and directories about Georgia pecans.
“Georgia Grown is also a brand with deep roots in sustainability, quality and integrity,” according to the website.
The program requires that produce be grown in the state to use the label. But Georgia officials do not annually inspect farms or verify food sources. The Georgia Grown label can be put on products manufactured in the state, so long as the “key ingredient” or at least 50% of ingredients in processed food comes from Georgia.
The visibility of these state brands depends on where you live. Shoppers in Arizona might have trouble finding branded items in stores. In Kentucky, however, some stores feature kiosks crammed with branded products.
The overwhelming majority of state branding programs rely on taxpayer money and are managed by state departments of agriculture.
Budgets are supported primarily through a combination of state money and membership fees paid by farmers or businesses that use the labeling.
Some food researchers say the lack of uniform regulations and the number of food-branding programs not only un- dermine consumer confidence but also devalue the meaning of “local” food.
“The word ‘local’ is chic; it sells things,” said Cindy Fake, horticulture and small-farms adviser for the University of California Cooperative Extension. “So it’s used by everybody and anybody.”
Fake said the word “local” has no clear definition, and consumers are easily misled.
“They are likely to be deceived,” she said. “Consumers are thinking one way, and the marketers know that. They know consumers want local, so they say it’s local.”
Most states allow food products to be labeled “local” even when ingredients are trucked in from elsewhere.
Milo’s Tea Co. in Alabama makes iced tea. A lot of it. The family-owned company distributes as many as 100 truckloads of tea across the country every day. Its gallon jugs with the company’s distinctive red labels can be found in most major stores.
The company’s signature sweet tea has three key ingredients: water, pure cane sugar and tea. Every day, it goes through 7 tons of tea leaves, which are recycled and turned over to the city of Bessemer for composting.
But Milo’s doesn’t get its tea leaves from Alabama farmers.
The leaves come from South America and India, according to company brand manager Alison Pierce.
That’s not a problem for Buy Alabama’s Best, the state branding program, which promotes Milo’s on its website and provides the company a logo to use in store displays.
Local ingredients are not a requirement to be a member of Alabama’s program. Because Milo’s makes its tea in Alabama, it qualifies for membership.
Shoppers, do your homework
Alabama is not unique. Each state imposes its own standards and minimums on ingredients, from none to 100%. “There is a huge diversity across states about what is local,” said Gail Feenstra, deputy director of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program at the University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Feenstra said there is more transparency on fresh produce because it’s easier for consumers to identify where it came from and recognize regional products on store shelves.
But shoppers need to do their research, she said.
State programs maintain that buying local helps to create jobs, build sustainable communities and protect agriculture resources.
But slick marketing efforts to capture revenue risk alienating consumers, according to researchers.
“The idea of relatively homogenized programs seems counterproductive to the motives of why people turn to local food,” said Matthew Mars, assistant professor of agricultural leadership and motivation at the University of Arizona.
“It creates an inherent conflict,” Mars said, and the lack of uniform regulations and guidelines undermines consumer confidence. “From that you could say they are deceived.”
“The word ‘local’ is chic — it sells things. So it’s used by everybody and anybody.” Cindy Fake University of California Cooperative Extension