A recently updated national study of Google Search terms highlights the importance of “Local Food.” Food supply chains are complicated and vary substantially across products and places. Still, several trends in people’s online searches are striking and may have important implications for farms and food businesses looking to position their products in the U.S. food market.
While “Local Food” had been experiencing a steady upward trend before the COVID-19 pandemic, search interest spiked significantly during the past three years. Similarly, “Cottage Food” experienced an even more significant spike in search activity, reflecting high interest in artisanal and specialty foods. Cottage foods are specific types of foods made in an individual’s home kitchen. Because many of these foods must be sold in person directly from the producer to the end consumer, they are also often locally produced and sourced. Over the past two decades, “Local Food” and “Cottage Food” reached their peak popularity in 2024 (Figure 1).
These trends may follow and motivate efforts undertaken by state departments of agriculture to promote local farm and food products in their respective retail settings. While not identifying the values driving these search choices, they point to potential opportunities for local food merchandising strategies that convey an authentic local connection to consumers.
Searches for “Online Groceries” and “Home Gardening” saw an uptick in 2020 as consumers sought a better handle on how and where to get food. Interestingly, the search interest for these terms has not continued, as consumers return to in-person grocery shopping, and time, financial, and other constraints continue the trend away from home gardening.
The underlying drivers motivating these searches may be inflation-conscious consumers’ desires to get the most out of their food dollars. The positive trend and recent popularity of “Food Waste” searches also point to potential opportunities for farms and food businesses to continue or improve their messaging around efficient production, upcycling, gleaning and food bank donations, and other efforts to help people access high-quality and nutritious foods.
The challenges associated with current labor shortages, availability of diverse job opportunities, and creation of employment pathways are well understood. Can the US deliver effective workforce development programs in ways that work for all? The answer is a resounding Yes! However, designing effective employment programs and pathways that work for employed and unemployed community residents is not obvious or straightforward. Skill gaps vary according to geography (Moretti, 2024). The propensity to look for jobs and the availability of job opportunities varies across states and cities. For instance, workers entering job markets in states with strong economies will likely find work. Further, labor markets for manual and unskilled work tend to be localized, while professional positions attract job seekers from everywhere.
Many jobs require skills training beyond high school but not a formal degree. This creates a misalignment of skills, and training opportunities for those in-demand skills are often inaccessible to the citizens who need them most. This is true for Texas and many other states. Skills training has emerged as a pressing demand to address the challenges facing workforce development in the nation today. Workforce development stakeholders typically consist of employers and federal, state, and local governments. Employed residents are sometimes included in some of the planning and implementation of workforce development programs. However, unemployed residents are often overlooked or left out in the planning and design of workforce development initiatives. Moreover, offering support services, such as childcare or eldercare, can increase the participation of women in the workforce. Underscoring these trends, it is becoming clearer as to why some regions and cities have prospered more than others.
Finding jobs that match our talent, pay well, and align with individual preferences significantly enhances our quality of life. Regions with strong economies offer a better quality of life. In contrast, low-resourced communities face more complex challenges in developing the local economy. Community members also face disparities related to health and well-being, access to public and private services infrastructure, and the quality of their physical and material environments (Bernard et al., 2022). For example, commuting to work daily or access to healthcare requires reliable transportation, and its absence can limit one’s ability to take advantage of existing resources. The availability of and access to resources and constraints to be overcome by community residents need to be examined from a region-specific and localized focus. Health and social inequalities play an important role in shaping well-being and employment challenges facing community members. Thus, the choice between workforce development and well-being is far from neutral.
My research shows that addressing the well-being needs of residents plays an important part in fostering a local ecosystem that, in turn, supports the community in addressing its workforce development needs. Thus, it is important to consider the well-being of community members to reshape and harness the full potential of our work environments. To succeed with workforce development programs, we need to refocus our priorities on well-being. When the health and well-being of community residents are fostered, they show up for work, take less leave, have the confidence to perform well in their jobs, and ensure the safety of their workplace. Investing in skills training enhances the health, quality of life, and economic success of residents and the broader community.
References
Moretti, E. (2024). Place-based policies and geographical inequalities. Oxford Open Economics, 3(Supplement_1), i625-i633.
National Skills Coalition. (2022, May 12). Skills mismatch. https://nationalskillscoalition.org/skills-mismatch/
Bernard, J., Steinführer, A., Klärner, A., & Keim-Klärner, S. (2023). Regional opportunity structures: A research agenda to link spatial and social inequalities in rural areas. Progress in Human Geography, 47(1), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221139980
A cooperative grocer is a store format that has been around for many years and plays a unique role in community food systems. These stores are shopper owned, shareholders that capitalize the stores initially and receive a patronage based on the amount of shopping the do. The National Cooperative Grocers Association reports 165 member co-ops managing 240 storefronts in 37 states – a combined sales over $2.5 billion (NCG, Oct 2024). While more stores tend to be located in the upper Midwest and coastal states, there are strong co-ops across the South.
Stores typically place a strong value on local sourcing, sustainability, wellness, and bulk buying – many had roots in older community buying clubs. And while they tend to be much smaller than regional or national chains, they are quite nimble as they seek to serve the community and local shopper-owners.
Table 1. Food Values from Different KY Shopper Segments
Source: Rossi, J., Allen, J.E., Woods, T.A. et al. CSA shareholder food lifestyle behaviors: a comparison across consumer groups. Agric Hum Values34, 855–869 (2017).
A recent study of shopper values in Kentucky reflects a common difference in food values seen in many food co-ops – a stronger emphasis on community, the environment, and wellness. This generally translates into unique retail product offerings and merchandising around these concepts, including a high value for local and sustainable food connections. Many of these stores, with their smaller size, are better suited to work with smaller supplier vendors and serve as great entry points into wholesale markets.
These grocers, while technically independent, often work together through the National Coop Grocers on issues like governance, capitalization strategies, and advocacy issues. Their commitment to their shopper-owners, vendors, and communities provides a unique platform for these ventures to bring value to the food world not generally found through other store concepts.
You can learn more about the National Cooperative Grocers Association and some of the food co-ops near you at their website: https://www.ncg.coop/about-us
The pecan is one of the most eaten fruit nuts in the USA, with a per capita consumption that increased in the past decade from 0.35 lbs. (2012) to 0.61 lbs. in 2021 due to its nutritional value and improved marketing strategies (USDA, NASS, 2024). Prior to the 2024 hurricane season, there was an 8% decrease in the production of the improved variety of pecan in 2023 compared to 2022 (USDA, NASS, 2024). Georgia, the established number one pecan producing state (USDA, 2019) was badly hit by Hurricane Helene in September 2024, which affected both production areas, crop loss, and tree loss concomitantly (Sawyer, 2024). Reports show that the state of Georgia suffered a loss of 36 million pounds, an estimated 75% pecan crop loss which is estimated at $6.46 billion loss to the Georgia Pecan Industry due to Hurricane Helene (Flood, 2024). With such a huge volume disappearing from the total production, both consumption and future production will be impacted.
Source: Sawyer (2024). Montgomery County GA.
Pecans have many health benefits (Royalty, 2024) and multifaceted uses including eating it raw or fresh as a snack, baking, salads, and cooking exotic cuisines such as pecan-crusted chicken, lamb, fish, and the famous pecan pie, etc.
Pecans have a key spot in the festive season. Decreased production area, crop loss, and tree loss translate into an immediate shortage in the domestic and export markets, respectively.
Consequently, consumers should expect higher pecan prices during the upcoming holidays and festive season. For instance, early-season pecan halves prices were $7 to $8 per pound this year, compared to $4.50 to $5.50 per pound last year (Haire, 2024). Moreover, the industry will also experience a long-term shortage due to the number of trees that were knocked down, losing about 36 million pounds, equivalent to 48,000 acres, with an estimated value of $6.46 billion loss to the entire Georgia Pecan Industry. Despite the USDA, ERS (2024) preliminary ending stock of slightly over 70 million pounds shelled, and the anticipated decrease per capita consumption of 0.51 pounds in 2024 compared to 0.67 pounds in the 2022/2023 crop season, the huge production decrease from Georgia due to Hurricane Helene will be felt in the pocketbook of pecan lovers and consumers this and next year. In addition, the injuries sustained by surviving trees will require time to fully recover, thus putting upward pressure on consumer prices due to persistent shortages (Towfighi, 2024; Haire, 2024).
With the US 2023 population of 334.9 million, the USDA, ERS (2024) preliminary domestic availability of 171 million pounds will be difficult to achieve and place upward pressure on prices paid for pecans across the pecan market value chain.
Haire, B. (2024). “Pecan farmers see high prices for meager crop”. CAES Newswire, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, UGA Cooperative Extension. Online: https://newswire.caes.uga.edu/story/2143/pecan-prices.html (November 04). Accessed December 5, 2024.
Royalty Pecan Farms (2024). “The Power of the Pecan: 7 Health Benefits That Make This The Best Nut on Earth” Online: https://royaltypecans.com/pages/the-power-of-the-pecan-7-health-benefits-pecans , Accessed December 5, 2024.
With the trend of increasing urbanization, Urban Agriculture (UA) has emerged as a key strategy to address challenges like food insecurity and social inequality in urban development. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the importance of UA by exposing weaknesses in the food supply chain and emphasizing the need for local food security (Clark et al., 2021). Community gardens, a common and impactful form of UA, provide spaces for residents to grow fresh produce in the community while offering environmental and economic benefits (Guitart et al., 2012; Kirby et al., 2021). In 2009, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiated the “People’s Garden” program to connect gardens across the U.S. that produce local food to address food insecurity and bring people together in their communities. Community gardens have become central to UA policies to enhance food security and environmental sustainability, particularly in low-income urban neighborhoods.
The need for such initiatives can be critical in the southern U.S., where food insecurity levels are significantly higher than in other regions. For example, although the South has less than half (45%) of the country’s total counties, it disproportionately represents areas with high food insecurity. Specifically, 84% of counties that experience high rates of food insecurity are located in the South (Feeding America, 2024). Community gardens and other UA efforts could play an essential role in alleviating food insecurity in these areas. The density of existing community gardens varies widely by region (Figure 1). Based on self-reported data from the American Community Garden Association, the Northeast has 7.8 community gardens per 1,000 square miles (green bar), while the South has fewer than 2 per 1,000 square miles (turquoise bar).
Figure 1: Distribution of Community Gardens by Region
However, there is growing interest in developing urban gardens in the South, particularly in Texas. For instance, Dallas was recently selected by the USDA as one of 17 cities for urban agriculture investment. The Houston Health Department recently launched the “Get Moving Houston Urban Gardens” initiative to promote healthy eating. Houston currently has over 160 community gardens, mostly in lower-income communities. While community gardens offer many benefits and can help address food insecurity and social inequality—especially in low-income, minority communities in the South—careful planning is essential to ensure these communities fully benefit.
There are important challenges to address when establishing community gardens in low-income, minority communities. First, it is essential to understand residents’ preferences for community gardens in these neighborhoods. Some studies indicate that the culture surrounding local and healthy food from UA is often associated with communities that have higher education levels and incomes (Bellemare and Dusoruth, 2021), while others find no significant differences in preferences for community gardens across income and racial groups (Li & Long, 2024). This variability highlights the need for community-specific assessments to tailor UA initiatives. Engaging residents in planning ensures that the gardens align with the needs of the neighborhood, promoting greater utilization and sustainability. Second, the impact of community gardens on these communities requires further examination. While these gardens can improve access to fresh food and green space, they may also contribute to rising property values (Voicu and Been, 2008), attracting more affluent households and potentially leading to gentrification and displacement of existing residents. Therefore, it is important for city planners to balance the benefits of community gardens with proactive measures to mitigate the potential displacement risks.
Reference:
Bellemare, M. F., & Dusoruth, V. (2021). Who participates in urban agriculture? An empirical analysis. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 43(1), 430-442.
Clark, J. K., Conley, B., & Raja, S. (2021). Essential, fragile, and invisible community food infrastructure: The role of urban governments in the United States. Food Policy, 103, 102014.
Guitart, D., Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2012). Past results and future directions in urban community gardens research. Urban forestry & urban greening, 11(4), 364-373.
Kirby, C. K., Specht, K., Fox-Kämper, R., Hawes, J. K., Cohen, N., Caputo, S., … & Blythe, C. (2021). Differences in motivations and social impacts across urban agriculture types: Case studies in Europe and the US. Landscape and Urban Planning, 212, 104110.
Li, L., & Long, D. (2024). Who values urban community gardens and how much?. Food Policy, 126, 102649.
Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241-283.
