1. Mohawk Valley Food Action Network
Final Report on activities funded by Hunger-
Free Communities Grant (CFDA #10.583)
June 2013
Submitted by:
Jim Manning, Project Coordinator
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oneida County

2. 2
CONTENTS:
Page #
2 Background
5 Objectives
7 About Food Policy Councils
9 Activities Prior to the Grant Period
10 Related Activities During the Grant Period
11 Working Group Formation
13 Communications & Public Messaging
14 Indicators
15 Data Collection & Food Conversations
24 Food Insecurity Surveys
27 Formation of a Food Policy Advisory Council
36 Regional & Statewide Networking
37 Next Steps
Attachments:
Food Insecurity Surveys – Analysis
Agricultural Production and Capacity Data
Food System Business Directory
Food System Indicators for Oneida County, NY (Ben Helmes)

3. 3
BACKGROUND:
Oneida County encompasses 1,212.42 square miles located near the geographic
center of New York State, approximately 260 miles west of Boston; 246 miles
southwest of Montreal, Canada; 240 miles northwest of New York City; 95 miles
west of Albany; and 54 miles east of Syracuse.
The county includes three small cities (Utica, pop. 62,235; Rome, pop. 33,725;
Sherrill pop. 3,071). The remainder of the county’s 2010 population of 234,878
resides in suburban or rural areas. Census figures describe a historical trajectory of
overall population decline but also of suburbanization and spreading of the
population outside the urban centers.
1970 2010
Oneida County 273,037 234,878 14%
Utica (City) 91,611 62,235 32%
Rome (City) 50,418 33,725 33%
Source: US Census
Enriching this population picture is the establishment in 1979 of the Mohawk Valley
Resource Center for Refugees, as a result of which Oneida County now has the
fourth highest concentration of refugees in the US. Refugees now represent almost
12% of the population of the city of Utica.
The median household income in Oneida County from 2006 to 2010 was about
$46,700, lower than the state (excluding NYC) and national medians ($64,300
$51,900 respectively). Adjusted for inflation, the county’s income level declined 1%
from 2000 levels, compared to declines of 6% for the nation and 3% for the state.
The poverty rate in the county was 15%, compared to 11% for the state (excluding
New York City) and 14% for the nation. The poverty rate had increased 2 points
from 2000 levels. Poverty rates in the cities were higher, with the city of Utica at
29% and Rome at 15%. (Source: Leadership Alliance for a Vital Community –
Community Indicators Project)
On average, 13.3% of households in Oneida County were “food insecure” in the
2009-2011 period, an increase of 2 points from the prior period ((2006-2008). Over
the period 2003-2011, an average of 9.5% of Oneida County children were food
insecure. The USDA defines food security as “access by all people at all times to
enough food for an active, healthy life”. (Source: USDA Food Environment Atlas)
In 2008-09, 26% of adults in Oneida County were obese, compared to 25% for the
state (excluding NYC) and 27% for the nation. The county had lower proportions of
overweight adults, 32%, compared to 37% for both the state and nation. In 2010,
there were 187 deaths per 100,000 residents due to heart disease in Oneida County,
compared to 185 for the state (excluding NYC). This represented a 24% decline

4. 4
since 2000, less than the state’s 32% decrease. The mortality rate in 2010 from
stroke was 39 per 100,000 residents in Oneida County, compared to the statewide
(excluding NYC) rate of 32%. This represented a decline of 26% vs. 2000, compared
to a decline of 34% in the state. In 2010, the mortality rate from diabetes was 18
per 100,000 residents in Oneida County, higher than the rate of 14 for the state
(excluding NYC). This rate, while it has fluctuated significantly, was approximately
the same as the rate in 2000; over the same time period, the state rate declined
23%. (Source: Leadership Alliance for a Vital Community – Community Indicators
Project) As elsewhere in New York State, health care costs represent a severe
economic burden on the communities and families of Oneida County. The costs of
diet related disease in New York state are estimated at more than $6 billion in New
York State, largely paid for by Medicare and Medicaid. (Source: Food Works – A
Vision to Improve NYC’s Food System)
Approximately 25% of Oneida County’s acreage (192,232 acres) is employed in
agricultural production, according to the most recent USDA census. This is a
dramatic decline from historical levels (41% of the land base, or 319,806 acres were
farmed in 1969). Nonetheless, agriculture remains an essential driver of the
county’s economy, with $90,113,000 in sales in 2007, as well as providing a vital
part of the identity of most towns and villages in the county. Consistent with
historical patterns, the largest components of the county’s agricultural sector are
dairy (64%) and commodity feed crops (12%), but the county retains significant
vegetable, fruit, and nursery sectors producing relatively high value crops. (Source:
USDA Ag Census)
These broad statistics – which only begin to describe a complex and vibrant region –
provided the backdrop of challenges and opportunities that inspired a number of
Oneida County residents to begin to organize in 2010 around issues of the economy,
the environment and public health, and specifically to begin to explore solutions
that could strengthen the role of agriculture and the food system in solving local
problems and building a more sustainable future.

5. 5
OBJECTIVES:
In partnership with the City of Utica, the Resource Center for Independent Living,
Cornell University’s Rust to Green program, and more that two dozen community-
based partners, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oneida County proposed to
analyze the extent, causes, and impacts of hunger and food insecurity in the County,
and to develop a plan to address the problems of hunger and food insecurity with
the ultimate objective of achieving a hunger-free community.
The problems of hunger and food insecurity are complex, long-term, and systemic,
and solutions require the engagement of diverse sectors of the community over the
long term around a shared understanding of the issues and a shared commitment to
specific goals. These problems also are only partly the result of local conditions and
policies; they are also in part a function of broader societal conditions, statewide
and national policies, and a changing global environment.
Recognizing the complexity and long-term nature of the problems, as well as the
limitations of local approaches, we proposed to define a role for a local Food Policy
Council which would commit to a long-term activist function, to include: increasing
local understanding of the issues; strengthening local capacity; identifying local
solutions; and rallying local resources to implement those solutions. Our objective
was to ensure that our community had the best tools possible to address these
complex issues.
We further proposed to launch such a Food Policy Council on a sustainable footing
based on the work accomplished under this project. Our vision was that an
effectively functioning Food Policy Council would strengthen our community’s
ability to achieve many of the goals of the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of
2008, section 4405, including, but not limited to:
 Monitoring the effectiveness of existing services for food insecure residents,
and determining strategies to address unmet needs
 Bringing together public and private resources to address food insecurity
 Developing educational programming about food needs and the role local
citizens can play in alleviating food insecurity
 Increasing access to healthy foods through creative resources, including
community gardens, farmers, markets, and buying clubs
 Ensuring eligible residents are able to participate in federally assisted
nutrition programs.
In 2010, we applied for and received a USDA Hunger Free Communities grant, which
enabled us to begin our work, with the following enumerated objectives:
 Convene a Food Policy Working Group
 Define Preliminary Council Goals, Membership, and Outcomes

6. 6
 Conduct Research on Food Insecurity in Oneida County
 Perform Data Analysis and Assessment
 Formalize a Food Policy Council
 Plan for Implementation Activities

7. 7
ABOUT FOOD POLICY COUNCILS:
As noted in the USDA Hunger Free Communities Request for Applications to which
this project was a response:
Food Policy Councils have been successful in educating community leaders and
the general public, offering public policy ideas, improving coordination
between existing programs, and starting new programs.
In approaching this project, we explored the literature about Food Policy Councils,
with special attention to the publications “Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned”
(Food First) and “Doing Food Policy Councils Right: A Guide to Development an
Action” (Mark Winne Associates). Following are some of the essential elements of
the literature on Food Policy Councils that guided our work:
 Food Policy Councils take a systems view, and use that cross-disciplinary,
cross-jurisdictional approach to address issues that are not readily
addressed with more narrowly focused approaches. A food system is defined
to encompass five sectors:
o how and where food is grown
o the processing of food
o the distribution of food
o food marketing, delivery and consumption
o what happens to the waste created by the other four processes.
 Because of its unique perspective, a Food Policy Council can be a source of
information for policy makers as well as a means of developing community
consensus and, in some cases, helping to resolve contention between
competing interests. A council can help public entities, including government
agencies, better understand the impacts of their decisions on the food system
and focus their resources where they will have positive impacts.
 Food Policy Councils can also be a bridge between the public and private
sectors on food issues, and they can be a primary source of education for the
citizens at large, addressing such topics as:
o nutrition and food-related health issues
o environmental impacts and sustainability
o equitable access to healthy food
o economic development related to food
 Food Policy Councils foster local communication and civic action,
encouraging people to participate and influence a food system that can seem
distant and bewildering, even as it affects so much of their lives. We drew
particular inspiration from the following from Rich Pirog at Michigan State

8. 8
University’s Center for Regional Food Systems, who described the “power of
networks” as:
o Information and knowledge hubs
o Catalysts for cooperation - building trust and capacity across
organizations
o Magnets - leveraging funding to do the work
o Scouts - at the cutting edge of new ideas and innovation

9. 9
ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO THE GRANT PERIOD:
Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oneida County has had as its core mission
supporting local agricultural producers and related businesses as part of the
century-old statewide Cornell Cooperative Extension system. CCE OC has for at
least a dozen years been actively engaged in the development of farmers' markets,
buying clubs, and other alternative distribution channels that facilitate local
consumers’ access to local foods. CCE OC’s Agriculture Economic Development
program has led local and regional efforts to maintain and grow the agricultural
economy, from production and value-added processing through to distribution,
including to institutional, school and college purchasers seeking local products. CCE
OC convenes the Oneida County Farmland Protection Board and administers the
actions identified by the County’s 2000 Farmland Protection Plan. CCE OC also has
for many years been engaged in educational outreach to residents eligible for
federal food assistance, helping them make healthy food choices on a budget. More
recently, through the incorporation of childcare programming, CCE OC has been
active in the education of childcare professionals and parents in the importance of
healthy eating in child development.
In 2010, CCE OC connected with Cornell University’s Rust to Green project, an effort
to catalyze innovation and planning around concepts of design, sustainability, and
civic participation. The Rust to Green program was active in Utica, catalyzing
community initiatives on building a new, "green" future around the substantial
assets of this post-industrial city, including: strengthening connections between the
city and the surrounding productive agricultural communities; encouraging Smart
Growth planning for preservation of environmental and productive assets; and
engaging the large number of higher education institutions in the local civic
discussion.
Rust to Green Utica convened a series of events to engage local residents and
organizations in envisioning a “greener” future for their community. Emerging from
these events, among other areas of focus, was a vision of a stronger local food
system, connecting residents more closely with their natural environment as the
source of their food and celebrating the cultural diversity of the community through
food traditions.
In late 2010, CCE OC and Rust to Green, with the support of many of the community
partners who had participated in these early meetings, developed the concept of
food system assessment and the formation of a Food Policy Council which
eventually became the substance of this project.

10. 10
RELATED ACTIVITIES DURING THE GRANT PERIOD:
Database development: Shortly after submitting the application for the USDA
Hunger Free Communities grant that would support this project, CCE OC
successfully applied for support from the United Way of the Valley and Greater Utica
Area for the development of a database that would enhance the work of the USDA-
funded project. Specifically, we proposed to gather and organize the various types
of data that would fully describe the local food system: production, processing,
distribution and consumption, as well as the clusters of supporting businesses and
organizations necessary for the successful functioning of the system. That work
proceeded simultaneously with the Hunger Free Communities work, and in the
discussion that follows much of the food system assessment and planning was
supported by data collected with the support of the United Way funding.
Rust to Green initiatives: Throughout the project period, Rust to Green has pursued
related activities in the City of Utica, including: green municipal infrastructure
projects, reducing stormwater impacts; public greenspace and street redesign
projects, improving walkability and economic opportunities; curriculum
development and school garden design, integrating concepts of science, health and
environmental sustainability in the K-12 educational context. Rust to Green has also
continued to convene representatives of the many institutions of higher education
in the County to facilitate connections between these academic practitioners and
community partners. See www.rust2green.org for more details of these activities.
Graduate thesis Food System Indicators for Oneida County: Benjamin D. Helmes, a
candidate for a Master’s degree in Regional Planning at Cornell University, adopted
as his thesis subject the process and activities of the Mohawk Valley Food Action
Network. His final thesis, attached here, puts those activities in the context of the
academic and professional literature on the subject of food systems planning, and
suggests additional research and action steps that will allow Oneida County to build
on the work funded by this Hunger Free Communities grant.

11. 11
WORKING GROUP FORMATION:
The first formal meeting of the Food Policy Working Group took place on February
7, 2011, immediately after CCE OC received notification that our Hunger Free
Communities grant had been funded. The Working Group has continued to meet
almost every month since that date. Participants were invited from all of the
partner organizations, community groups, government agencies, and individuals
who had been identified through Rust to Green’s community engagement activities
and in the process of developing the grant proposal. Throughout the existence of
the Working Group, a number of additional individuals and organizations have
reached out or been identified by early participants, and all have been encouraged
to join and contribute their perspectives.
At each meeting, members have been asked to report on food system activities,
opportunities, and challenges that they have been involved with - as individuals or
organizations – that may benefit from wider community involvement. A sampling
of the topics that have been brought to these meetings by participants includes:
 Cornell University resources available for food system analysis and planning
 Local, statewide and national funding opportunities
 Development of a new farmers’ market at the historic train station in
downtown Utica
 Issues of food access, nutrition education and food security assessment in a
community with many recent immigrants and refugees
 Opportunities for development of a gleaning program, with input from recent
Cornell research
 The potential regional asset represented by the large cook-chill facility at the
Oneida Correctional Facility in Rome
 Opportunities to engage with local activities of AARP and their Drive to End
Older Adult Hunger
 The potential impacts of the pending Farm Bill legislation on food support
and emergency feeding programs
 The critical role that a volatile dairy pricing system plays in the viability of
Oneida County agriculture
 The recent arrival of a large number of Amish families in the region,
purchasing farmland and often looking to develop direct market farming
businesses
 The progress of New York State’s recently implemented Regional Economic
Development program, and the opportunities for food and agriculture to be
highlighted in this process which will determine the allocation of state funds
 Transportation issues faced by clients needing access to food pantry services,
and relatedly, the geographical distribution of food pantries across the
County, based on old data, and the need to consider whether that distribution
adequately addresses current needs

12. 12
 The challenges faced by school food service directors in managing tight
budgets and changing nutritional and caloric standards
 Transportation and safety challenges faced by low-income residents in
accessing full-service groceries and farmers’ markets
 Regulatory obstacles to entrepreneurs seeking to develop food-based
businesses for local markets
 Economic opportunities represented by national food processing enterprises
looking to source more products from New York State
 Negative public perceptions of conventional agriculture and the challenges
this poses for land use planning and farm-friendly local policy
 Work being done in other communities around the state and the country that
can inform our work
 The lack of a local food distribution infrastructure, making it difficult for
institutions (including schools) to buy from local producers
Many of the Working Group meetings also included the presentation of a topic or
project by an invited guest (or guests) to inform the development of the Working
Group’s thinking. Among those presentations were:
 Oneida Herkimer Solid Waste Authority presented the progress of the
authority toward mandated goals of diverting organic wastes from landfills,
and the opportunity for waste-generating institutions and businesses to
participate in this process
 South Central NY Food & Health Network presented the Food System
Assessment they had undertaken in the Southern tier of New York, a model
that helped inform our project’s identification of key indicators of food
system health
 New York’s Department of Agriculture & Markets explained the work of the
New York State Council on Food Policy and how our group could connect
with that statewide effort
 The Food Bank of Central New York presented the role of the Food Bank in
fighting hunger through community-based organizations and the emergency
food network
 The Oneida County Planning Department described the projects that his
department is involved in and the resources that they can bring to bear, in
particular on land use issues, transportation, and public health
 Farmshed CNY presented the online and smartphone directory of local food
producers they have created to bring consumers and producers together
 Martin Luther King Elementary School presented their proposed outdoor
classroom to incorporate science and related learning with activity and
community engagement

13. 13
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC MESSAGING:
The early meetings of the Working Group were professionally facilitated in order to
focus the efforts of the group on establishing a clear sense of mission and a message
that could be readily communicated through the media and in conversation with
community members. This process entailed consideration of the geographic scope
of the project. While our funding and many of our partners’ activities are limited by
political (city, county, multi-county) boundaries, it was acknowledged that many of
the issues we will be addressing have regional causes and impacts.
After much discussion, the group agreed to the following mission statement:
To engage the communities of Oneida County and the surrounding region in the
creation of a healthy and secure future based on a productive, resilient local
food system where affordable, healthy and nutritious food is available to all.
The group also recognized that for purposes of public communication it was
essential to adopt a name that would telegraph this mission, and eventually settled
on the name “Mohawk Valley Food Action Network”, under which all
communications and activities by the group would appear.
To complete the communications toolkit, the group sought assistance from a local
graphic design educator in the development of a logo that successfully incorporated
the new name and graphically conveyed the ideas behind it:
With these tools in hand, Working Group members developed publicly accessible
materials including a brochure, two publicly accessible websites
(www.mvfoodaction.com and groupspaces.com/mvfan), and a Facebook page
(http://www.facebook.com/mvfoodaction) to further engage the public and
community organizations in the project.

14. 14
INDICATORS:
The Working Group was also engaged in a facilitated discussion designed to identify
the key indicators of the health of the local food system. By identifying these
indicators we would be able to establish baseline conditions and goals by which to
measure the long-term success of the project. The indicators that emerged from
these discussions were as follows:
Healthy people, as measured by:
 Health outcomes
 Access to food
 Quality of food
 Healthy food choices
A healthy environment, as measured by:
 Physical resources and productive capacity
 Agricultural diversity
 Supportive policy
 Physical infrastructure sufficiency, especially transportation
 Self-sufficiency
A healthy economy, as measured by:
 Food sector economic impacts
 Food sector diversity
 Commitment to food sector economic development
 Food sector entrepreneurial opportunities

15. 15
DATA COLLECTION AND FOOD CONVERSATIONS
Having identified key indicators of a healthy food system, Working Group members
and CCE OC staff set about collecting benchmark data measurements, as well as
putting that data in the local context and identifying gaps in the knowledge that
would be needed to inform good planning and policy.
As a mechanism for developing this information, a yearlong series of “Food
Conversations” was implemented, each focused on themes of healthy people,
healthy environment, and healthy economy, engaging over the entire period almost
150 community members representing dozens of organizations and all categories of
food system stakeholders.
The results of that effort are summarized below:
Healthy People
Health outcomes: In 2012 Oneida County ranked 55 out of 62 in New York State in
overall health, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s County Health
Rankings (www.countyhealthrankings.org). Contributing factors to the County’s
poor performance are health behaviors; low access to clinical care; social and
economic factors; and the physical environment, including limited access to healthy
foods and easy access to fast food. According to the Oneida County Health
Indicators 2007-2010, both child and adult obesity rates exceed the average for New
York State and are significantly above New York State’s Prevention Agenda
objectives. (www.health.ny.gov). According to this same source, the rate of children
with diabetes in Oneida County is double the Prevention Agenda objective, and
other potentially diet-related diseases (coronary heart disease, congestive heart
failure, and stroke) significantly exceed both state averages and Prevention Agenda
objectives. Also according to the New York Department of Health, Oneida County’s
rates of overweight and obesity among middle and high school students are among
the highest in the state. Looking at the region, Excellus/Blue Cross Blue Shield
reports that the rate of adult diabetes in Utica/Rome and the North Country of New
York State increased by 48% between 2003 and 2008. This same source estimates
the annual medical costs attributable to adult diabetes in the region at $396.3
million. (www.nysblues.org/pdf/diabetestreatmentcost.pdf)
Access to food: There are significant geographic and economic barriers for access to
food in Oneida County; these barriers often lead to the consumption of poorer
quality food. According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, approximately
9,900 Oneida County residents live in food deserts, and of those approximately
5,500 have low access to quality food (www.ers.usda.gov). We noted that this data
does not recognize the geographic barriers of long travel distances to full-service
grocery stores in many of Oneida County’s outlying rural areas, and that these
barriers are especially significant for the many low-income and elderly residents of

16. 16
those areas. Public transportation options were evaluated and found to be very
limited, especially for residents in those rural areas. Regarding economic barriers
to access, Feeding America’s “Map the Gap” tool indicates that 12.5% of Oneida
County’s residents are food insecure, defined as “lacking access, at times, to enough
food for an active healthy life for all household members”. Even more troubling,
21.7% of the County’s children are food insecure, and 36% of them do not qualify
for federal nutrition programs based on household income.
(www.feedingamerica.org/mapthegap) Our analysis suggested that barriers to
access to food based on individual capacity – those barriers related to lifestyle
challenges (working parents; lack of food-related skills; aging) may also be
significant. The role of individual capacity barriers to food access is an area deserving
further data collection, as is further analysis of the capacity and future potential of
programs designed to address those individual capacity barriers (nutrition education,
gardening education, commercial responses such as selling pre-cut vegetables, etc.).
Availability of quality food: In order to assess this indicator, we agreed to consider
as measures of quality the following characteristics: freshness, diversity, and local
sourcing. We observed that conventional grocery outlets have been increasingly
interested in and effective at making quality food available. Oneida County also is
fortunate in having a significant number of traditional farmstands offering fresh
local produce in season. Morever, we observed that the County in recent years has
seen a flowering of creative alternative outlets for quality food, including farmers’
markets, CSAs, buying clubs, and more. These new outlets have created
opportunities for farm-to-consumer sales of a wider range of food products,
including meat, dairy, and processed foods. The economic sustainability of these
alternatives, and of the more traditional farmstands, is uncertain, however.
Commercial distribution opportunities for local producers selling to local
consumers are lacking, and limit the extent to which conventional retail outlets are
able to offer a broad area of local quality food. Additionally, the availability of both
the conventional and more recent outlets for quality foods in certain locations and
at certain price points does not fully address the geographic and economic barriers
to access identified above. While we were able to identify and map many of the newer
sources of quality food, much more data collection and analysis could be done to
support future planning and policies with regard to making quality food more widely
accessible.
Healthy choices: Our study in this area focused on understanding the many complex
factors – among others: culture, commerce, education, lifestyle, and psychology –
that influence how individuals make healthy eating choices. We observed that the
commercial environment provides by far the most pervasive messaging about food
choices, and that those messages are mixed. They include massive amounts of
conventional advertising – which tends to emphasize price and quantity over quality
– as well as scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific) promotion of nutritional and
other health benefits. Often the most scientific, and therefore presumably the most
helpful, information, such as that provided by mandated nutrition labels, is overly
simplistic or, alternatively, confusing. Worse, it usually fails to address the basic

17. 17
human desire to enjoy food, and therefore is in a losing battle against the much
more enticing commercial messaging. We also explored the important role of
schools in teaching children about healthy choices, and found that school food
service programs in Oneida County face serious challenges in helping to teach kids
to make healthy choices, including strict budget constraints and the requirement
that school lunch programs be self-funding. Similarly, in the classroom setting we
found that strict curriculum mandates present a serious challenge for educators
looking to incorporate lessons on food and health. We explored the role of school
wellness plans in this arena and found that in many cases these documents have
limited value in encouraging healthy food choices. On the other hand, we found a
great deal of enthusiasm among educators, administrators, and food service staff in
improving the contribution schools can make in this area. One school board
articulated their desire to change the school lunch program for three specific
reasons: to address childhood obesity problem; to model healthy behaviors for
children; and to more closely connect the school with the surrounding farm
community.
Healthy Environment
Physical resources and productive capacity: The MVFAN Working Group was able
to develop an extensive analysis of agricultural data from a variety of sources, not
only for Oneida County but for the neighboring counties over almost 40 years (1969
through 2007). Oneida County has a wealth of highly productive, or potentially
highly productive, soils. Over 80% of the soils in the County fall into Classes 1
through 4 of the Land Capability Classification system
(http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html). Over 31% of
the soils are identified as Class 1 or Class 2 soils, which have very slight or moderate
limitations that reduce their agricultural utility or would require moderate
conservation practices in order to mitigate potential negative environmental
impacts. Class 3 and Class 4 soils may also be productive for certain kinds of
agricultural production or with more extensive conservation practices. Oneida
County has ample precipitation year-round and ample supplies of clean
groundwater. This resource represents a substantial competitive advantage for
agricultural production, especially in light of predicted impacts of climate change on
major food-producing areas elsewhere in the US and the world.
Agricultural diversity: As of 2007, just under 25% of the total acreage in the County,
or 192,232 acres, was employed for a variety of agricultural uses:
2007 1969
Total agricultural land: 192,232 319,806
Commodity crops: 44% 34%
Pasture: 22% 40%
Woodland: 19% 8%
Specialty crops: 1% 2%

18. 18
Other agricultural land: 14% 16%
Over time, this represents a decline of about 40%, or 127,574 acres in agricultural
use since 1969. It also represents an increased concentration of agricultural activity
on commodity crop production, attributable in large part to changes in dairy
practices away from grazing. The increasing percentage of agricultural land devoted
to woodland uses may also correspond to increasing concentration of agricultural
activities on only the best farmland. Specialty crops, while for many years a small
portion of Oneida County’s agricultural land base, have declined further, from 2% to
1%.
Supportive policy: Our Working Group surveyed the local policy context with
regard to its support for agriculture and a strong local food system. Oneida County
has a Farmland Protection Plan, adopted in 2000 and due for renewal in the next
year or two. That plan articulates the value of preservation of farmland and the tax
base advantages of farmland uses as compared to residential uses. The County’s
Farmland Protection Program has actively sought to enroll acreage in the New York
State Agricultural District program, and as a result has significantly increased
participation in recent years. The primary benefit of enrollment in the Ag District
program as experienced by Oneida County farmers is the protection of their rights
to engage in sound agricultural practices against infringements by local regulations
or nuisance lawsuits. Oneida County’s Farmland Protection Plan has also supported
a very active Agriculture Economic Development program which has successfully
supported the farm-related businesses that are essential to a viable farm economy,
including a number of processing and distribution businesses supportive of a strong
local food economy. In recent years, CCE OC and the Farmland Protection Program
have sought to enroll farmland in New York State’s Purchase of Development Rights
program; unfortunately, New York State’s fiscal challenges have put that program
out of reach for the time being. Our Working Group also identified one private
initiative, the Tug Hill Tomorrow Land Trust, which has successfully used
conservation easement tools supported by state and national policy, to permanently
protect significant agricultural and other land resources in the County. Nonetheless,
as noted elsewhere, the County has experienced a long-term pattern of suburban
and exurban sprawl into land that was previously available for agriculture, while the
cities have contracted. New York State’s constitution devolves most land use
regulation to the cities, towns, and villages, with the result that land use planning
tends be done by civic bodies that have limited available expertise and a narrowly
defined geographic scope. Our survey of local land use regulations revealed that,
while most of the towns in the County have a Comprehensive Plan, in many cases
that plan is 20 or more years old; many lack a subdivision regulation that might
encourage less land-intensive development; and a number have no zoning
regulations at all. In New York State’s system, the County can play a role in
harmonizing local land use planning and development under Section 239-M of the
State’s General Municipal Law, which provides for County Planning Department
review of zoning and other land use regulations; but in Oneida County there is no

19. 19
specific guidance, as there is in numerous other New York counties, for local officials
in their application of the 239-M review process in the local context.
Physical infrastructure sufficiency, especially transportation: As noted elsewhere,
significant urban portions of Oneida County are formally classified as “food deserts”
due to a combination of distance from full-service groceries and insufficiency of
transportation services. In many rural areas of the County that are not formally
recognized as food deserts similar problems are reported, especially for senior
citizens and lower-income residents with mobility challenges. Working Group
members interviewing clients of a rural food pantry in the County identified this as
one of the most frequently cited difficulties in accessing quality food. Rural public
transportation is available just a few days a week, just a few times a day and to a few
locations. Awareness of this limited but valuable service is not widespread, and
many rural residents have little experience of public transportation or confidence in
its use. In both urban and less urban parts of the County, the Working Group found
ample evidence that the built environment was less supportive of access to quality
food than it could be; a salient example is the recently launched Oneida County
Public Market, located downtown at Utica’s historic Union Station. Despite the
Market’s location near food desert communities, a number of characteristics of
nearby streets and highways make both pedestrian or bicycle access unappealing to
many potential elderly or low-income customers. There is also a lack of signage or
other public messaging about how to get to the Market. Further study of the
opportunities of the potential role of public transportation and urban design in
increasing access to quality food in both rural and urban parts of the County, as well
as examination of successful models for such a role from other communities, would be
valuable.
Self-sufficiency: The ability of population centers to serve their own food needs has
been the subject of a number of recent academic studies, including research by
Cornell’s foodshed mapping project “Mapping Local Food Systems Potential in New
York State (http://css.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/foodshed-
mapping.cfm#project). That project looked specifically at the City of Utica and
concluded - based on population, dietary needs, and productive potential - that Utica
has the potential to produce all of its cropland foods from within 10 miles, and all of
its grassland foods from within 31 miles. This study and others of its kind explicitly
acknowledge that such potential self-sufficiency does not take into account the
many economic, social, cultural and other factors that produce a very different
result in practice. Nonetheless, this study does provide a benchmark that suggests
very significant potential for a more localized food system should those other
factors change over time. We found it very difficult to assess Oneida County’s actual
level of food self-sufficiency; much of the data that would be required is either for
such an assessment is either not collected or held in private hands and not publicly
available. The best available objective indicator of food self-sufficiency may be
USDA Ag Census data on the value of direct market agricultural sales and the
number of farms with direct market sales. In each case these numbers are small, but
there is some suggestion of an increase in self-sufficiency over time:

20. 20
1978 2007
Direct market sales
as percent of total ag sales: 1.3% 2.0%
Farms with direct market sales
as percent of total farms: 8% 13%
There are also significant additional indicators of increased food system self-
sufficiency in Oneida County, including: a rapid increase in the number and size of
farmers’ markets (from 5 to 10 since 2000); the emergence of two year-round
markets; an increase in the number of consumers seeking out local products,
reflected not only at farmers’ markets but also at traditional retail outlets; a greater
range of products being marketed directly to consumers, including specialty meats,
value-added dairy products, and prepared foods; and the development of new and
alternative distribution outlets including direct and online sales, buying clubs and
CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture). Developing a deeper understanding of
the market demand for local food in Oneida County, and identifying the best ways to
facilitate the ability of farmers and other businesspeople to respond to that demand,
should be a priority going forward.
Healthy Economy
Food Sector Economic Impacts: The value of agricultural products sold in Oneida
County exceeded $90 million dollars according the USDA’s 2007 Agricultural
Census. It’s well-established that “farm-gate” sales of agricultural products have a
ripple effect in an economy attributable not only to farm employment but also to the
economic impacts of those businesses directly involved in getting the product to
market – processors, distributors, marketers – and to those businesses that provide
necessary services and products to the farm industry – feed, seed and fertilizer
sales; equipment sales; veterinarians; insurance, accounting, and legal service
providers; banks, etc. Since the County’s agricultural production is dominated by
dairy and commodity crop production it’s difficult to directly track the economic
impacts of agriculture in the County. Rather than being a closed-loop system, milk
and many commodity products are exported from the County (and even the region),
while many if not most food products purchased at retail are imported from outside
the County or the region. While some local products may return as packaged or
processed products for local sale, with the exception of the small percentage of the
County’s agricultural production that is sold directly to consumers, it’s impossible to
trace with any certainty their local origin in order to track their local economic
impacts. However, a recent study from Cornell of the economic impacts of
agriculture (Agriculture-Based Economic Development in NYS – Trends and
Prospects [Schmit, Bills, - September 2012]) clarifies how “farm gate income”
translates to agriculture and food systems economic output. At the state level, this
study suggests that $4.5 billion in farm commodity production expands to $96.9

21. 21
billion in total economic input attributable to agriculture and the food system – a
multiple of more than 20 times the farm-gate value. The authors also estimate a
similar employment multiple between farm employment and downstream and
upstream employment related to agriculture and food production. Regionally, the
authors estimate the following impacts of the agriculture and food system in the
Mohawk Valley:
Employment: 24,376
Economic output: $3.0 billion
Value-added: $1.1 billion
One of the most important outcomes of our work in evaluating the economic
impacts of the food system in Oneida County was the development of a taxonomy of
local food system enterprises, including those directly involved in production,
processing, distribution and marketing (or consumption) of food, as well as the
supporting businesses essential to a healthy agricultural economy.
With this organizing structure, we were able to utilize and enhance existing data
sources to create a comprehensive database of Oneida County food system
participants, which will inform the work of the Food Policy Advisory Council going
forward.

22. 22
Food sector diversity: Diversity in the food system was identified as an indicator of
resiliency, or the ability to withstand and adapt to changes, which may range from
globalization and climate change to changes in consumer preferences and economic
conditions. Diversity is also valued as a contributor to community assets, including
working landscapes, viable small businesses, and a variety of job opportunities.
Diversity in the food system includes diversity of agricultural productive
enterprises, and takes the form of products produced, production practices, farm
scale, and market channels utilized. As noted above, agricultural production in the
County is dominated by commodity dairy and crop production, but even in those
sectors it includes a wide range of enterprise scales as measured either by acreage
or annual sales. The County also is home to a small but significant number of
specialty crop producers and nursery/greenhouse growers, whose financial impacts
are disproportional to their small scale, as well as Christmas tree, and non-
commodity livestock producers. Many of these producers utilize a variety of market
channels including substantial direct sales. Looking forward, the quality and
diversity of the County’s physical productive resources, as well as the proximity of
significant population centers with an expressed interest in supporting local
production and buying directly from farmers suggests an opportunity for an
increasingly diverse agricultural industry in the future.
Diversity in the food sector also encompasses the variety of essential enterprises
and agencies, from processing through distribution and marketing or delivery to the
end consumer, that a fully functioning food system requires. Oneida County’s
agricultural production sector is buttressed by a substantial service, supply and
support sector, ranging from livestock veterinarians and feed, fertilizer and
equipment dealers to lenders and government agencies. The processing sector is
somewhat less diverse, reflecting the historical trend toward increasing
consolidation of the food industry broadly, but even in this context Oneida County
has a range of processing businesses, and at least in the meat-processing arena the
trend in recent years has been positive as new businesses have emerged to serve
increased interest in the sale of USDA-inspected meat to local consumers.
The commercial distribution component of this system may be the most challenged,
as businesses operating on slim margins have found it difficult to serve niche
markets in competition with highly efficient national distributors. But even in this
area market demand and increasing supply of diverse local products has
encouraged a number of enterprises to develop lines of business to connect Oneida
County producers of unique products with institutional and retail buyers.
Commitment to food sector economic development: Mainstream economic
development efforts in Oneida County have in recent years emphasized the effort to
bring large, especially high-tech, employers to the region. Mohawk Valley EDGE, the
primary driver of economic development activities in the County, focuses on
manufacturing enterprises, which can include value-added components of the food
system. Recent attention at the state and regional level to the need for additional
food processing and distribution infrastructure have engaged MV EDGE, which has

23. 23
become a partner in the activities of the Mohawk Valley Food Action Network and
will be a member of the Food Policy Advisory Council. Since 2000 the County has
supported an agriculture economic development program within Cornell
Cooperative Extension, which has been active in the development and expansion of
food sector businesses as well as the creation of a supportive policy environment for
the food sector. More recently the Small Business Development Center at SUNY-IT
in Oneida County has actively pursued efforts to engage with food system
entrepreneurs and has increased staff focus on such projects. New York State’s new
Regional Economic Development Council program has allowed for a regional focus
on food system issues and infrastructure needs, as evidenced by the state’s support
for several “food hub” projects, including one in neighboring Madison County.
Looking forward, Oneida County should continue to develop supportive data and
analysis of the economic and job-creating benefits of an increasingly diverse and
localized food system to position the food system as an economic engine worthy of
becoming a primary focus for local and regional economic development resources.
Food sector entrepreneurial opportunities: An examination of recent history in the
County demonstrates that ambitious entrepreneurs have identified a range of food
system businesses as promising opportunities. Among the diverse food system
enterprises that have emerged in Oneida County and nearby in recent years are: an
aquaponic (fish and produce) business located in an aging industrial building;
several value-added dairy (cheese and yogurt) producers selling direct and through
distribution; a wide array of for-profit or not-for-profit alternative distribution
outlets, ranging from buying coops to online and physical farmers’ markets
(including the Oneida County Public Market, launched by County Executive with
support from USDA and New York State’s Department of Agriculture and Markets);
and at least two upscale restaurants with a heavy emphasis on their use of local
ingredients. Along with these, the County has seen the emergence of a new crop of
more traditional agricultural production enterprises, especially produce and meat,
whose business models depend on direct sales to customers or through some of the
alternative distribution outlets described above. As is typical with small start-up
businesses these are high-risk ventures and there have been casualties along the
way, but the pattern suggests that continued and increased support in the form of
local policy and economic development resources for these businesses will support
the goal of a more resilient local food system.

24. 24
FOOD INSECURITY SURVEYS:
In order to establish baseline data on the extent and characteristics of hunger and
food insecurity in Oneida County, we contracted with Cornell’s Survey Research
Institute to conduct 300 phone surveys and 200 in-person surveys of Oneida County
residents. The survey instrument used in both cases was based on the USDA
Economic Research Services U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module.
Phone surveys were administered to a random sample of Oneida County residents.
In-person surveys were administered to clients at food banks, food pantries and
soup kitchens in the County.
The results of this survey effort served in a number of ways to confirm statistical
indications of hunger and food insecurity in the County.
A significant number of County residents indicated in both surveys that they
sometimes or often do not have enough to eat:
Phone In-person
Sometimes 7.3% 26.1%
Often 3.7% 8.9%
When asked if they skipped meals due to not having enough money, 24.3% of phone
survey respondents and 49.3% of in-person respondents indicated that they did so
at least some months. Significant numbers in each survey also indicated that they
sometimes did not eat for a whole day due to not having enough money for food.
Many respondents indicated that they sometimes or often couldn’t afford balanced
meals:
Phone In-person
Sometimes 22.0% 53.7%
Often 11.7% 25.6%
Although in both surveys the number of respondents who indicated that they lived
in households with children were a minority, there were indications in both surveys
of significant child food insecurity in those respondents’ households:
Phone In-person
Households with children 74 97
Sometimes unable to
feed children a balanced meal 3 38
Often unable to
feed children a balanced meal 23 24
Unable to buy food for
children even when they were
hungry (sometime in last 12
months) 7 24

25. 25
These surveys also provided useful indicators of the characteristics of food
insecurity in Oneida County.
Quality and variety: Although a majority of respondents to both surveys indicated
they were satisfied to extremely satisfied with both the variety and quality of food
available to them, the in-person survey suggested some level of dissatisfaction with
the food available to those respondents. This dissatisfaction was more pronounced
among respondents who indicated that they usually buy food for their household at
either a convenience store or a discount store:
In-person survey – Not very satisfied/Not at all satisfied with the quality of food
available:
Usually buy at: Quality Variety
Grocery store (126) 11.1% 16.7%
Convenience store (15) 26.7% 26.7%
Discount store (48) 23.1% 25.1%
Transportation/physical access: A number of data points from both surveys
indicate the important role of transportation and physical accessibility in food
insecurity in Oneida County. In the phone survey, 3.7% selected “too hard to get to
the store” as a reason for not having enough food, while 6.3% gave the same reason
for not having their preferred kinds of food. Most (66.7%) of the respondents
indicated that they drive their own car to buy groceries, while the remainder rely on
borrowing a car, riding with someone else, ride public transportation (4.3%) or
walk (5.3%).
The corresponding numbers from the in-person survey suggest that this group is
more strongly affected by transportation and accessibility issues: 11.8% selected
“too hard to get to the store” as a reason for not having enough food, while 11.3%
gave the same reason for not having their preferred kinds of food. Less than a third
(31%) of the respondents indicated that they drive their own car to buy groceries,
while the remainder rely on borrowing a car, riding with someone else, ride public
transportation (18.2%) or walk (24.1%).
Lifestyle/household limitations: The surveys also provide suggestions of the role of
lifestyles and living situations in food insecurity. In the phone survey, small but
significant percentages identified such contributing factors:
Not enough food Not preferred kinds of food
Not enough time 1.7% 7.0%
On a diet 2.3% 9.0%
No kitchen equipment 1.3% 0.0%

26. 26
The respondents to the in-person survey gave similar reasons in somewhat larger
numbers:
Not enough food Not preferred kinds of food
Not enough time 7.4% 5.4%
On a diet 8.4% 5.4%
No kitchen equipment 4.9% 0.0%
Health prevents cooking 2.5% 0.0%
These are just a sampling of the results of this survey effort, details of which are
attached. While the project funding did not cover the cost of a complete
professional analysis of the data, we were fortunate to have the professional
assistance of a community volunteer who provided the analysis attached to this
report. There remain a number of interpretive questions that should be answered
in order to make full use of the survey data. In addition, as noted above there are a
number of suggestive indications that would merit further data collection and
analysis, in particular with regard to the access and lifestyle/household limitation
factors and their contributions to food insecurity in Oneida County.

27. 27
FORMATION OF A FOOD POLICY ADVISORY COUNCIL:
Throughout the project, MVFAN participants were encouraged to understand the
potential role of a food policy advisory council in Oneida County and to consider the
questions of composition and governance of such a council as well as the question of
affiliation with existing governmental and not for profit organizations.
As part of the process of building understanding and consensus around the role of a
food policy council, funds were raised for an in-person policymakers’ seminar with
Mark Winne (www.markwinne.com) which took place on October 15, 2012 and was
attended by 25 community leaders. This was followed on October 24, 2012 by a
community-wide event with over 40 participants entitled “Setting Our Own Table”
at which findings of the work of the Mohawk Valley Food Action Network were
formally presented, and a facilitated community visioning exercise was undertaken
resulting in a record of desired action steps to accomplish the goal of strengthening
the local food system.
As part of the development process for the council, members of MVFAN sought out
and consulted with directors of local organizations that perform similar cross-
disciplinary, cross-jurisdictional, community capacity-building functions. We
received especially valuable advice from Lara Sepanski Pimentel, Executive Director
of the Literacy Coalition of Herkimer and Oneida Counties, and Steve Darman,
Executive Director of the Mohawk Valley Housing and Homeless Assistance
Coalition.
As a result of this extensive outreach and engagement over almost two years,
MVFAN developed a set of guiding documents for the emerging Food Policy
Advisory Council:
1. Action Plan
2. Council Composition, Governance, and Affiliation
3. Food Policy Advisory Council – Member Job Description
These documents are reproduced on the following pages.
With this consensus and these documents in place, we set about recruiting the
membership of the Food Policy Advisory Council.
At a press event at the Oneida County Public Market on May 18, 2013 with County
Executive Anthony Picente and members of MVFAN the formation of the Food Policy
Advisory Council was announced. The Council will hold its first organizational
meeting on June 18, 2013.

28. 28
1. MVFAN ACTION PLAN
The Mohawk Valley Food Action Network (MVFAN) intends to act as:
 An information and knowledge hub
 A catalyst for cooperation, building trust and capacity across organizations
 A magnet, leveraging funding to do the work, and
 A scout, at the cutting edge of new ideas and innovation
MVFAN has identified key areas of action where community residents and
organizations can make a difference and create a healthier, more secure future
based on a resilient local food system where affordable, nutritious food is accessible
to all.
MVFAN Areas of action:
We will launch a Food Policy Advisory Council whose role will be to identify,
develop, promote, and support local efforts in three key areas:
Healthy people
 Increase access to healthy foods by overcoming economic and geographic
barriers
 Increase the quality of food available to all residents – defining quality as
fresh, local and diverse
 Encourage healthy food choices through education and outreach, and by
helping individuals overcome obstacles to choosing healthy food, including
lack of skills and lifestyle challenges
 Leverage the critical role that schools can play through teaching and
modeling healthy connections with the food system
 Strengthen emergency food systems and disaster preparedness
Healthy environment
 Strengthen local planning to support the viability of local farms and the
conservation of productive resources (farmland, soil, water)
 Build closer connections between producers and consumers, through
farmers’ markets, community gardens, urban agriculture, and other models
 Support the development of a more diverse local food system – as measured
by diversity of products, market outlets, and scale of businesses
 Improve the capacity of local transportation systems to support better
access to a more localized food system
Healthy economy
 Position agriculture of all kinds and sizes as a job-creating economic engine
 Advocate for economic development efforts that increase food system
business opportunities along the spectrum of commodity production, direct
sales, farm to institution sales, and specialty and value-added production
 Engage with regional and statewide food system initiatives
 Encourage food system careers for young people

29. 29
2. COUNCIL COMPOSITION, GOVERNANCE, AND AFFILIATION
The supporters of MVFAN’s work are in the process of empaneling a Food Policy
Advisory Council, modeled on successful community efforts around the US and the
world. The purpose of the Food Policy Advisory Council is to:
1. Identify within MVFAN’s enumerated areas of action
 specific projects
 data and research needs
 communication opportunities
2. Coordinate an approach to specific actions; and
3. Focus the resources of the community on making change happen
Composition of the Council:
The Council will strive to maintain a size of 12-14 members, with representation
from all food system stakeholder sectors in our community:
o Agriculture
o Consumers
o Economic Development Agencies
o Environmental Protection Agencies
o Faith-based Organizations
o Higher Education Institutions
o Food Industries
o Philanthropic Agencies
o Public Health Agencies
o Planning Agencies
o School systems
o Social Services Agencies
The initial composition of the Council will be recruited from the organizations and
individuals who have self-identified as committed stakeholders by their
participation or support of MVFAN activities since the launch of the network in
2011.
Council members are asked to commit to 3-year terms. To create balanced turnover
of the first class of members, a rotation schedule for replacement by new members
will be determined. Council members may serve for two consecutive full terms, after
which a one-year hiatus will be required before a member may be invited back onto
the Council.
Governance of the Council:
At its initial meeting, and annually at each subsequent January Regular Meeting, the
Council will elect officers, including:
 Chair (or two co-chairs), responsible for:
o Scheduling, setting the agenda, and leading Regular Meetings

30. 30
o Speaking for the Council to media, policymakers, and interested
members of the public
 Secretary, responsible for:
o Recording the proceedings of Regular Meetings
o Maintaining mailing lists, and
o Distributing the proceedings to the members.
 Communications lead, responsible for:
o Writing and distributing media releases
o Maintaining a Council website and social media presence, and
o Serving as the first point of contact for media inquiries.
At the same meeting, the Council will elect a Nominating Committee, responsible for
identifying, recruiting, and recommending to the Council prospective Council
members as positions become available.
Regular Meetings will be held monthly on the second Friday of each month at RCIL
(1607 Genesee Street) unless otherwise decided by the Council.
Regular Meeting agendas may include, but will not be limited to:
 Sharing food system-related news from each member’s perspective
o Examples:
 Efforts to improve nutrition in schools
 Local impacts of Farm Bill legislation
 Farmland protection planning
 New agricultural and health statistics
 Announcement of new funding opportunities
 In-depth exploration of a specific topic
 Updating on progress on previously identified projects, research, and
communications efforts
 Identifying priority activities for the upcoming months
 Identifying public communication opportunities for the upcoming months
 Identifying and pursuing funding opportunities by:
o Collaborating to develop a strategic approach to each funding
opportunity
o Identifying local leaders, including Council members, to pursue each
opportunity
o Sharing data and resources in support of funding applications
Decisions to take actions, to issue a public communication on behalf of the Council,
or to add a new member will be made by a majority vote of the Council, and those
decisions will be recorded in the proceedings of Council meetings. (Votes may be
cast by e-mail or in person but decisions will be ratified and recorded in the
proceedings of a Regular Meeting). The Advisory Council Chair may name interim
Council members to fill vacant seats, as needed, until the position can be filled
through the normal nomination and voting process. Fiscal sponsors, if any, may
designate a representative to participate as a non-voting member of the Council.

31. 31
The Food Policy Advisory Council will not at this time seek government affiliation,
but will take steps to be recognized as a significant voice in local policymaking by:
 Reviewing laws, policies and plans that affect the local food system;
evaluating them in light of the Council’s concern for strengthening that
system; and communicating written comments to the involved agencies in
the name of the Council.
 Seeking opportunities to introduce the work and concerns of the Council at
meetings of government agencies.
 Seek opportunities to communicate through the media on local laws, policies
and plans
The Food Policy Advisory Council will not at this time seek to establish status as an
independent 501 (c) entity. At its inception, the Council will have no paid staff;
however, it will likely seek affiliation with a community organization and financial
support for a full- or part-time individual to assist the Council with administration,
research and communication.

32. 32
3. Food policy Advisory council - Job Description
Food is fundamental. Issues of access and quality, hunger and obesity, healthy
choices, environmental impacts, and economic opportunity all flow from how we
produce, market and consume food. And yet, at the local level, as at the national
level, there is no “department of food”. Community actions to address food-related
issues are fragmented across agencies, jurisdictions, interest groups and industry
sectors.
Council members are community members who: want to effect substantial and
positive change in the food system of Oneida County and the surrounding region;
have civic influence; and are willing to utilize their influence to make change
happen. They also have a vision for how change will happen, capitalizing on local
strengths and existing partnerships.
The Food Policy Advisory Council is intended to bring to food system challenges and
opportunities:
 High level strategic vision
 Networks of influence
 Community respect and credibility
 Ability to broker partnerships
 Regional leadership
 Resource impact
Council members are asked to:
 Provide objective, constructive input on Council processes and projects
 Bring new ideas for how to approach our region’s food system issues
 Commit 1.5 hours monthly for in-person Advisory Council meetings
 Offer additional time as needed and able for committee work, projects,
networking, reading, idea sharing, etc.
 Keep food system issues visible in community
 Advocate for local policies and actions to improve the local food system
 Identify future Council members
 Assist with identifying potential funders to support Council activities
Members of the Council should understand the MVFAN Action Plan, share its vision
in the community, and encourage community members to work with the Food
Policy Advisory Council to accomplish food system change.
Council Size
The Advisory Council will strive to maintain a size of 12-14 members. The Advisory
Council Chair may name interim Council members to fill vacant seats, as needed,
until the annual organizational meeting.
Diversity of Representation

33. 33
Council members agree to strive for inclusive representation on the Council. In
addition to diversity in geography, gender, age, race, etc. that is reflective of the
community as a whole, the Council will strive to represent the concerns and
interests of all food system participants, including:
Agriculture
Consumers
Economic Development Agencies
Environmental Protection Agencies
Faith-based Organizations
Higher Education Institutions
Food Industries
Philanthropic Agencies
Public Health Agencies
Planning Agencies
School systems
Social Services Agencies
Frequency of Meetings
During the start-up year, (2013) the Council will meet monthly, including an initial
organizational meeting. The schedule of meetings thereafter will be determined by
the Council, and will always include an annual organizational meeting at which new
members may be elected.
Length of Term
Council members are asked to commit to 3-year terms. To create balanced turnover
of the first class of members, a rotation schedule for replacement by new members
will be determined. Council members may serve for two consecutive full terms, after
which a one-year hiatus will be required before a member may be invited back onto
the Council.
Sponsor Seats
Should a fiscal sponsor be identified, a non-voting seat on the Council will be
reserved for that sponsor’s designated representative.
Voting
A majority vote is required to approve any action of the Council. Members do not
need to be present to vote. Votes may be submitted by in writing or electronically to
the Council Chair or designated party.
Meeting agendas
Meeting agendas may include, but will not be limited to:
o Sharing food system-related news from each member’s perspective
 Examples:
 Efforts to improve nutrition in schools
 Local impacts of Farm Bill legislation

34. 34
 Farmland protection planning
 New agricultural and health statistics
 Announcement of new funding opportunities
o In-depth exploration of a specific topic
o Updating on progress on previously identified projects, research, and
communications efforts
o Identifying priority activities for the upcoming months
o Identifying public communication opportunities for the upcoming
months
o Identifying and pursuing funding opportunities by:
 Collaborating to develop a strategic approach to each funding
opportunity
 Identifying local leaders, including Council members, to pursue
each opportunity
 Sharing data and resources in support of funding applications

35. 35
Food Policy Advisory Council Initial Membership (June 2013):
Organization Name
SUNY-IT Small Business Development Center Kate Alcott
Oneida County Office for Aging & Continuing Care Carol Allen-Burdick
Oneida County Health Department Cathe Bullwinkle
Utica Community Health Center Cynthia Jones
Hamilton College - Levitt Center Chris Willems
Oneida County Planning Department Dana Crisino
Oneida County Public Market Beth Irons
CCE Oneida County Caroline Williams
City of Utica Jack Spaeth
The Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties Jan Squadrito
Oneida County Soil & Water Conservation District Kevin Lewis
Oneida County Farm Bureau Jake Schieferstine
Oneida CCE, AED Marty Broccoli
Mohawk Valley EDGE Peter Zawko
United Way of the Valley and Greater Utica Area Robin Robinson
Food Bank of Central NY Sarah Miller-Locke
Foothills Rural Community Ministry Fred Van Namee

36. 36
Regional and Statewide Networking:
Throughout this project the members of the Mohawk Valley Food Action Network
have recognized that food system issues cross geographical boundaries and political
jurisdictions, and that connecting with related activities in our region and across
New York State were going to be essential to the success of our efforts. We also
made an effort to seek out and learn from compelling models being developed by
similar networks around our region. Among the highlights of these networking
activities were:
New York State Council on Food Policy, November 2011: CCE Oneida County
and the Mohawk Valley Food Action Network hosted the statewide meeting of the
Council chaired by Commissioner of Agriculture Darrell Aubertine. MVFAN
members presented and received input on the project from statewide
representatives of social services, education, the food industry, and more. CFP
members toured the massive cook-chill facility at the Oneida Correctional
Institution as a potential resource for food processing needs beyond the state
correctional system.
Food & Health Network of South Central New York: MVFAN has networked
extensively with this food systems assessment project of the Rural Health Network
of South Central New York. Members of our group have participated in their
meetings, and they presented their work at and MVFAN working group meeting. In
October 2012 we were asked to present the work of MVFAN at the biennial
statewide Growing Health conference and to co-facilitate a discussion of local food
policy initiatives with Mark Winne.
Food Policy Workshop and Networking Sessions for NY: In May of 2012 MVFAN
members participated in this event co-sponsored by the Northeast Organic Farming
Association of New York and Cornell Cooperative Extension of Monroe County. The
meeting was facilitated by Mark Winne and Mark Dunlea of the Hunger Action
Network of NY, and resulted in the formation of a network for local and regional
food systems and food policy projects. This meeting was followed up with a session
at NOFA-NY’s 2013 winter conference in Saratoga Springs featuring a presentation
and discussion led by Samina Raja of the University of Buffalo, a leader in food
systems research. Through these meetings, as well as a visit to Buffalo in July of
2012, we have established connections with the very active food systems and food
policy activities in Western New York.

37. 37
Next Steps:
The project funded by the USDA Hunger Free Communities grant has enabled
Oneida County to develop a deep well of data and resources on the issues of hunger,
food insecurity, diet-related disease, and local food system resilience and
sustainability, as described in this report and its attachments and also embodied in
the many resources now accessible through the projects’ websites at
www.mvfoodaction.com and groupspaces.com/mvfan.
The project has also created a new consensus understanding of the related nature of
these issues, and of the feasibility of making positive steps toward addressing them
through local action.
And finally it has created a community-based and widely supported mechanism to
generate and support such action in the form of the newly launched Food Policy
Advisory Council.
Throughout this report, specific challenges and opportunities are highlighted. This
report will become a working document for the Food Policy Advisory Council to
utilize as it establishes its priorities, goals, and specific project or policy
undertakings. The Council will also no doubt find it valuable to extend, improve,
and build upon the work done under this project to continue to increase the
capacity of Oneida County and its neighboring region to address these complex and
critical issues.