Sowing Success: Local Food Purchasing Insights from 25 Years of the Farm to Fork Program

SOWING

SUCCESS

LOCAL FOOD PURCHASING INSIGHTS FROM YEARS

of the 25 FARM TO

FORK PROGRAM

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CREATING SOWING SUCCESS: LOCAL FOOD PURCHASING INSIGHTS FROM 25 YEARS OF THE FARM TO FORK PROGRAM

CONTRIBUTORS LEAD AUTHORS + PHASE 2 RESEARCHERS Hillary Swimmer Elise Kulers PHASE 1 RESEARCHERS Shira Kaufman Caroline Ferguson Claire Kelloway Shannon Tivona PROJECT LEADS Maisie Ganzler Kristina Todini, RDN Nicole Cardwell REVIEWERS Shira Kaufman Leigh Belanger William Persson Jenny Slafkosky Theresa Chester Terri Brownlee, MPH, RDN Danielle Pilarski Curt McClusick Peter Todaro

This white paper synthesizes research gathered between 2017 and 2023 by Bon Appétit Management Company’s Fellows, who are recent graduates of universities we service that spend 1-2 years as full-time food systems educators.

The first round of research was conducted in 2017 by fellows Shira Kaufman, Caroline Ferguson, Claire Kelloway, and Shannon Tivona.

The research results were for internal use only and were not shared publicly.

In advance of the 25th anniversary of our groundbreaking Farm to Fork program in 2024, the next phase of research was conducted by Fellow Hillary Swimmer in 2023. The report was then authored by Hillary and Fellow Elise Kulers.

A massive thank you to those that make our program a success day-to-day, including our passionate chefs with the support of our hardworking purchasing team. And to our Farm to Fork partners, we express our deep gratitude for making this program possible.

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY FINDINGS

INSIGHTS + CONCLUSIONS APPENDICES

6

9

12

16

34

39

Farm to Fork is a foundational program for our company and created a ripple effect in the industry when we launched it in 1999.

FEDELE BAUCCIO, CEO

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Farm to Fork (F2F), Bon Appétit’s groundbreaking local sourcing program, is the foundation of our company’s highly regarded suite of sustainability initiatives. Since 1999, our goal has been for operators to spend at least 20% of their annual food budgets on ingredients produced by small, owner-operated farms, ranches, and artisan food businesses located within 150 miles of their kitchens. To commemorate 25 years of this program, we explored the factors that contribute to successful F2F programs to share our expertise with others who have an interest in using institutional purchasing power to strengthen local food systems and serve fresh, local, and delicious food.

This study had two data collation phases, one from fiscal year 2017 (FY2017) (Phase 1) and the other from FY2023 (Phase 2). In both phases, we first collected data from account executive chefs and general managers with a written survey and phone interview.

After the interviews, the research team reviewed F2F purchasing distribution and scores. The results were analyzed with qualitative and quantitative data to identify trends for successful F2F programs.

KEY FINDINGS - PHASE I Purchasing: We found that when accounts focus on sourcing higher cost animal-based proteins — like meat, cheese, and other dairy products — they are more likely to have a higher F2F score.

Communication and Relationships: Strong, communicative relationships with F2F vendors also proved to be important. As a reflection of chef engagement, F2F scores tended to be higher in regions where chefs had a clear understanding and knowledge of the program. Client engagement did not seem to have an impact, but further research is required to draw strong conclusions. (Clients are key stakeholders from the institutions that hire us to be their contracted food service provider.) The creation of supportive networks, including our Regional Forager program, tended to positively impact local purchasing.

6

Seasonality: When comparing average F2F scores between the six regions, we were surprised to find that cold-weather locations had the highest scores, affirming the importance of year-round products and a defined F2F strategy.

Budget: Counter to expectations, the account size and amount of money spent per guest did not have any correlation with scores, an encouraging sign that procuring local food does not necessarily demand a bigger budget.

KEY FINDINGS - PHASE II Purchasing: We concluded that focusing on year-round high-cost animal-based proteins continued to be important to higher F2F scores, with emphasis on chicken and seafood for some accounts.

Sourcing Methods: Using a diverse network of sourcing channels — including aggregators, distributors, and purchasing directly from farmers — was more effective than relying on one method alone.

Communication and Relationships: Stronger relationships with F2F vendors and guests tended to align with higher F2F scores, showing that chef and guest engagement are key factors, yet client engagement did not appear to be as relevant. More research must be done to reach any firm conclusions.

Seasonality: As a departure from Phase 1, the region with the highest scores surveyed in Phase 2 had the longest growing season, suggesting that warmer weather may support higher scores in some regions, but this is by no means a generalizable finding across the country.

Account Size: Unlike Phase 1, Phase 2 suggested that larger accounts tended to have more robust local purchasing initiatives, particularly those with more staff that can support the program.

OVERALL LESSONS LEARNED Phase 1 surveyed 81 accounts across six regions to determine how local purchasing differs when accounts have the same access to vendors, yet different operational priorities at each account. Phase 2 looked more closely at 10 locations between two corporate accounts to assess how the program is impacted by geography when account priorities are consistent. Across both phases of this study, we were able to draw some parallels to establish overarching takeaways and lessons learned.

ENGAGEMENT: Engagement with all parts of the dining operation is important to strengthening F2F scores. Regular communication with farmers builds strong relationships and mutual trust.

Educating guests on the importance of local purchasing and highlighting particular vendors builds awareness and appreciation for community engagement through local food. Supporting chefs with training and employee support increases chef retention and creates stronger performance in the program.

PURCHASING: Prioritizing sourcing yearround ingredients makes it easier to increase local purchasing numbers.

Culinary creativity is essential when incorporating some of the more costly local ingredients while staying on budget.

REGIONAL VARIATION: Embracing regional differences strengthens local purchasing scores. Coming up with a unique strategy for each individual location when purchasing locally is more effective than a one-size-fits-all approach.

7

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

In 1999, Bon Appétit Management Company created a revolutionary, industry-changing local purchasing policy called Farm to Fork (F2F). We were motivated by the pursuit of flavor, seeking the freshest, best-tasting ingredients, which we learned often came from small, local farms. Our chefs noted that agribusiness efficiencies, such as tomatoes picked hard and green to survive shipping, often compromise taste. So, we began a concerted effort to support local farmers to preserve flavor on the plate. This was in the early days of the local food movement taking off in the food service industry, and we were years ahead of any other large food service company in terms of supporting local food systems (to the extent we see today). We didn’t think of this as a political act, but instead as the best way to source the highest-quality products.

BENEFITS OF SUPPORTING LOCAL FOOD SYSTEMS We quickly realized that local purchasing extends beyond just the best tasting food.

There are many environmental benefits to purchasing locally, including increased genetic diversity of plants and livestock, preservation of open spaces and farmland, and benefits for wildlife, pollinator communities, watersheds, and soil health. Supporting local farms also supports local economies, provides transparency for growing practices and labor conditions in our ever-consolidated and disconnected food system, and has implications for long-term food security.1

We didn’t think of this as a political act, but instead as the best way to source high quality products.

OUR COMMITMENT Our F2F commitment tasks our chefs with spending at least 20% of their annual food budget from small (under $5 million in annual revenue), owner-operated farms, ranches, and artisan food businesses located within 150 miles of their kitchens.

We were intentional in choosing our definition of local: small, owner-operated farms tend to be family farms guided by principles of sustainability, who are disadvantaged in the market at large. Large conventional farms and agribusinesses that grow cash crops are protected by price guarantees and federal agricultural subsidies, while small and mid-size farms are not given these same supports. The most recent USDA Census found that many of the farms that failed between 2017 and 2022 had farm sales between $100,000 and $500,000, or less than $10,000, providing evidence that smaller farms are continuing to fall further behind.2 The COVID-19 pandemic also deeply disrupted the farming sector due to labor and input shortages and shifting demand. As the industry slowly recovers, the need to support small-scale agriculture with 3 institutional purchasing is reaffirmed.

9

EXPANDING THE PROGRAM Since its inception, F2F has expanded to encompass additional purchasing categories beyond produce, meat, and dairy, which add nuance and reflect the spectrum of different kinds of local food. The additional initiatives are as follows: Locally Crafted: This program supports local businesses that align with our environmental or social values, allowing our accounts to source artisan goods like bread, tortillas, tofu, and more.

Fish to Fork: Local seafood requires its own definition, including a wider sourcing radius (500 miles or less), limits on how far the fishing boat travels (100 miles per trip), as well as preferences for underfished species.

Midsize Humane: In addition to very small-scale meat producers, we support mid-size meat producers that operate with humane practices, as they are most at risk of consolidation. The Midsize Humane Program allows for a wider radius (within 500 miles), a higher revenue cap, and a required third-party welfare certification that meets our high standards.

2024 marks 25 years of leadership in local purchasing within the food service industry. Farm to Fork was Bon Appétit’s first sustainability commitment and remains a cultural keystone of the company in alignment with our guiding principle of “food service for a sustainable future.”

Given our many years of experience, and the need to support local producers more broadly across the industry, we wanted to dive deep into our local purchasing data to examine indicators of success.

Looking at the factors that contribute to successful local purchasing programs at our accounts that meet or exceed our 20% commitment allows us to glean important insights while inspiring others to focus on the amazing potential of sourcing local food for their own operations across the country.

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

The goal of this research is to share the expertise built over 25 years of local sourcing in our kitchens across the country, and to dive into the range of Farm to Fork (F2F) scores in our accounts of various geographies, institutional values, and more.

F2F scores represent the percentage of the food budget, by dollar, spent on local purchases based on our definition of local.

The scores are based on purchasing performance in alignment with our standard to purchase at least 20% F2F, are tracked on our proprietary Food Standards Dashboard, and are reviewed regularly by our purchasing team and unit operators.

This project was completed by the Bon Appétit Fellows, a program for recent college graduates focused on educating guests at our accounts about our vision of what food service for a sustainable future truly means — and what goes into making it a reality.

12

STUDY PHASES Phase 1: An analysis of purchasing data from FY2017, which started October 1, 2016, looking at how and why F2F scores differ between accounts in the same region Phase 2: An analysis of purchasing data from FY2023, which started October 1, 2022, looking at how and why F2F scores differ from two corporate accounts with locations across the country

Phase 1: FY2017 Data Collection and Analysis In 2017, Bon Appétit Fellows set out to investigate variations in Farm to Fork (F2F) scores between accounts in the same region with similar access to F2F vendors. In this iteration of the study, we looked at the difference in accounts of the same region with different values or institutional goals, which can vary based on the guiding purpose of the account and dining program for educational institutions or corporate offices. Accounts may differ based on how much they prioritize sustainability, the type of food guests prefer to eat, budget considerations, focus on community engagement, and more.

We examined 81 accounts of all types (colleges and universities, corporate accounts, and specialty venues) in Los Angeles, the Mid-Atlantic, Minnesota, New England, Ohio, and Oregon. Accounts are defined as the entity or institution that hires our company as a contracted food service provider, and our team reports to a client at the account. The account may have more than one location — for instance, a corporate account may have several regional office locations.

For both phases of the study, our methods remained consistent. We used a mixedmethods approach, pairing quantitative analysis of purchasing data with the use of a survey questionnaire, alongside qualitative research via interviews. An extensive list of questions was created to test multiple hypotheses around why scores would be impacted, such as length of regional growing season, account budget, or chef engagement level (see Appendices 1 and 2).

Surveys and interviews were conducted with general managers and executive chefs at each account, who serve as the primary food purchasers. The general managers first completed an online questionnaire about their account structure, demographics, and purchasing practices.

After that, the research team conducted a 30-minute phone interview with the executive chef or chef manager at each account. The surveys were blind, meaning researchers didn’t have accounts’ F2F scores until after all interviews were completed to eliminate potential biases.

For the analysis of these results, the team used FY2017 purchasing data to find trends between F2F scores and the quantitative data collected. The qualitative data from interview notes were analyzed for common trends and anecdotal insights. Each account was analyzed within the context of its region, and all regions were compared amongst one another to investigate variations between regions.

To assess the relationship between F2F scores and other variables (food cost percent, guest engagement levels, seafood spend per guest, etc.), we calculated Rsquared values to measure the relationship significance between variables as an indicator for higher F2F scores. R-squared values between 0.7 and 1 are considered strongly correlated, between 0.5 and 0.7 are moderately correlated, and below 0.5 shows little to no correlation.4 With any correlation study, we cannot assume causation but are interested in data trends.

13

Phase 2: FY2023 Data Collection and Analysis Six years later in 2023, with the 25th anniversary of the F2F program approaching in 2024, we wanted to revisit and expand on this study by looking at local purchasing habits when account priorities are consistent but geography changes. We chose to focus our study on two corporate accounts with multiple campuses across the U.S. to assess variations of F2F scores when the client goals and industry type are controlled. In this iteration of the study, we were looking to see if location has an influence on F2F score, while controlling for client priorities. In total, 10 locations were surveyed — Corporate Account 1, with 6 locations, and Corporate Account 2, with 4 locations. As noted previously, the research questions and methods remain consistent with those in Phase 1 of this study.

STUDY LIMITATIONS While we strived for continuity in our research methods between the two iterations of the project, it is important to keep in mind that there was a global pandemic between the two testing periods, with disruptive implications for global and local food systems. Through anecdotal evidence from our teams, we understand that many F2F relationships were diminished during this time.

Additionally, we’d like to note that due to natural turnover on the Fellows team, there were different researchers for each phase of the study, which may have lead to variations in data collection and institutional knowledge of the project.

A notable difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study is the vast difference in sample size. In Phase 1, we looked at 81 separate accounts/locations, and in Phase 2, only 2 accounts with 10 locations in total were examined. With a smaller sample size, there tends to be more variability, and the findings may be less reliable and more difficult to generalize.5 This is particularly relevant with Corporate Account 2, as there were only 4 locations surveyed.

Last, it is important to note that while purchasing data is otherwise consistent, one of the locations tested from Corporate Account 2 submitted purchasing data from FY2024 because the location was not fully operating during FY2023. Because of this, the data was collected over a shorter time period and not representative of a full year.

14

FINDINGS

FINDINGS

Phase I Key Findings PURCHASING

Above all, accounts that focus on sourcing animal Farm to Fork products like YEAR-ROUND AVAILABILITY Above all, accounts that focus on sourcing meat, cheese, and animal F2F protein products like meat, cheese, and other dairy tended to have other dairy tended higher local purchasing percentages. This finding makes sense given their nature as higher cost and high-volume items. While the to have higher local importance of sourcing local fresh fruits and vegetables continues to be an inspiration and purchasing guiding force for the F2F program, an inverse trend was found with accounts that focus more exclusively on sourcing produce locally, percentages.

During Phase 1 of the study, we concluded that across all six regions surveyed, reliable access to year-round staples from local vendors served as important indicators of a higher Farm to Fork (F2F) score, which varied slightly by region due to proximity to F2F meat producers.

due to the significantly lower cost per volume and constant fluctuation due to seasonal availability.

For instance, in Minnesota and Oregon, we noticed a stronger correlation between F2F score and spend on F2F meat per guest, demonstrating a more positive relationship than any other purchasing category (Rsquared = 0.4159).

16

An account in Oregon even mentioned that they have a standing order of two whole local hogs every week and are excited about using their culinary skills to creatively use the whole animal across wide variety of dishes.

In Ohio, the average F2F scores for accounts that sourced F2F meat was 20% compared to a much lower average F2F score (5%) for the one account that didn’t source F2F meat.

While many chefs perceive F2F as a produce-oriented program, purchasing F2F chicken, beef, and pork clearly had the most pronounced effect on F2F scores. In Ohio, an executive chef said, “A good six months of the year there's not much available in terms of F2F products. It's challenging in that we're not in a heavy agricultural area where we can get things year-round. So, our meat vendor is one of the only F2F partners we can use yearround.”

For some regions where F2F meat is difficult to source, our data indicated that a focus on local artisan products was associated with higher F2F scores. This was the case particularly in Los Angeles, the Mid-Atlantic, and New England, where F2F coffee and Locally Crafted artisan products, including baked goods, were important in moving the needle toward higher scores in the absence of F2F meat producers.

20

This emphasis on meat purchases as an important factor in raising F2F scores seems at odds with the initial program intention and our plant-forward commitments. While the Farm to Fork Program was created to encourage chefs to seek out the freshest, most flavorful local produce, it has since expanded to encompass other purchasing categories including meat, seafood, and artisan goods.

At the same time, we recognize the relationship between food and climate change and have committed to reduce our carbon footprint by 38% per calorie of food by 2030, in large part by prioritizing plantbased proteins. While our finding appears contradictory to these initiatives, we acknowledge the necessity of reducing overall meat consumption while finding more humane, sustainable sources for the meat we do purchase, which aligns with the higher quality products we receive from F2F meat producers.

Average Regional Farm to Fork Score 2017

15 10 5 0

LA

MID-ATLANTIC

OHIO

MINNESOTA

OREGON NEW ENGLAND

Figure: Average spread of F2F scores from FY2017 from all regions in the first iteration of the study.

17

Relying on local products that are perennially available and always needed in our cafes — Next, relationships with vendors matter! like meat or roasted coffee beans — requires Unsurprisingly, when chefs have a strong less additional forethought with menurelationship with a few reliable partners they making, unlike the potential weekly or can count on for weekly orders, we found monthly fluctuation found with seasonal and that this supports a deeper investment in local produce. the entire F2F mission, which tends to align with higher scores. For instance, chefs in The importance of developing strong Minnesota and Ohio (which had the two relationships with F2F vendors held true with highest regional average F2F scores) LA-based accounts, where chefs who demonstrated the closest relationships with purchased directly from farms had an average nearby farm partners and a deeper F2F score that was twice as high as accounts connection to the F2F program. who purchased exclusively from a local distributor. This supports the notion that greater engagement with local vendors tends In addition, establishing purchasing to support a stronger commitment to local relationships or finding vendors who offer purchasing. products available year-round allows operators to have a consistent supply of local products without the extra effort required to adjust orders every week.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH VENDORS

18

ENGAGEMENT While the level of engagement is relatively subjective (since metrics are mostly selfreported or qualitatively assessed), it gives insight into the impact of excitement toward sustainability initiatives and local purchasing from the perspectives of chefs and clients.

CHEF ENGAGEMENT Across all regions in Phase 1, the accounts with the highest Farm to Fork scores had the highest chef engagement. Following our interviews, we evaluated the engagement level of the chef based on their awareness and enthusiasm towards the program, assigning “low,” “medium,” or “high” engagement to each chef. Assessments were made before we reviewed their purchasing data to promote an objective rating not influenced by F2F scores. Chefs who were aware of their F2F score also tended to have higher scores, which makes sense given the implied importance placed on maintaining or raising that score beyond the required 20%.

When accounts had lower engagement with sustainability commitments and a less clear plan for F2F, we noticed lower F2F scores. In LA, where there were lower average F2F scores, 75% of chefs had no clearly defined strategy for increasing their F2F score beyond “prioritizing” the program, and 36% of chefs had no clear process or hadn’t recently enrolled a vendor. Conversely, where accounts had a clear strategy (e.g., focusing on purchasing animal protein), such as in Ohio and Minnesota, we saw higher scores. Also in Minnesota, greater chef awareness of operational or menu changes needed to accommodate F2F product correlated with higher F2F percentages.

CLIENT ENGAGEMENT Client engagement is defined as client interest in sustainability, involvement in operations, and sensitivity towards operational costs, which was assessed on a scale of 1 to 5 by the chef or general manager within the survey. Counter to our expectations, client involvement and interest in sustainability did not have any meaningful correlation with higher F2F scores, but further research is required to draw any strong conclusions.

When accounts had lower engagement with sustainability commitments and a less clear plan for Farm to Fork, we noticed lower Farm to Fork scores.

19

REGIONAL VARIATION Our intent with Phase 1 was to understand the impact of variations within a given region (with similar access to local partners), but another important takeaway is what factors might contribute to variation between regions. Our findings challenge the assumption that longer growing seasons always lead to higher local purchasing numbers, and that predictably, regional collaboration and support play an important role in developing strong partnerships with local farms and producers.

LENGTH OF GROWING SEASON When looking at the average F2F scores of our six surveyed regions, the two highest F2F averages are Minnesota (20%) and Ohio (19%).

These are both Midwestern states with significantly shorter growing seasons in comparison to warmer climates in Los Angeles and Oregon. This finding presents the “lean times paradox,” demonstrating that regions where seasonality is a barrier tend to have higher F2F scores. And it dispels the notion that locations with colder winters do not have year-round access to high-quality local food.

In the Oregon region, an executive chef from a Portland account mentioned that they

work with local produce farmers who all tend to harvest large volumes of the same produce at the same time, and it can be challenging to deal with that surplus in the menu mix across campus. For instance, they may have to figure out how to accommodate excess zucchini in the summer or an abundance of beets in the fall. This shows that the reality of seasonal harvest fluctuations may not always align with the expectation for our accounts to provide a variety of produce options across campus at any given time of year.

In both Minnesota and Ohio, chefs achieved high scores by having a clear F2F strategy. In Minnesota, chefs compensated for “lean times” during the winter by purchasing a higher proportion of high cost/high volume items like F2F meat. Accounts in New England dealt with this seasonal challenge a bit differently, instead focusing on seasonal produce and supplementing with creative adaptations like freezing produce from warmer months to use during the winter.

As a comparison, accounts in the Los Angeles region did not face seasonality as a challenge in the same way. We found that they tended to direct more F2F spend on lower cost, lower volume items like produce and baked goods, which translated to the lowest average F2F scores (7.63%).

Our findings challenge the assumption that longer growing seasons always lead to higher local purchasing numbers.

20

REGIONAL SUPPORT Our Forager program at Bon Appétit has the mission of expanding the network of F2F suppliers across the country through regional positions held by especially passionate chefs, managers, or team members. Foragers are responsible for establishing new relationships and enrolling new F2F partners that can be utilized by other accounts in the region.

During Phase 1 of the study, the data indicated that highly engaged Regional Foragers aligned with higher average scores in their regions compared with areas that had a less engaged Forager or no Forager at all.

This finding reinforces the need for a designated role for chefs who are familiar with the region to take on the responsibility of ushering in new vendors to expand the

possibilities of what might be available to accounts in a given area of the country.

For instance, in Ohio, which had the secondhighest F2F average at 19%, teams were supported both by an engaged regional Forager and a unique regional sustainability support position. The Regional Forager had been with Bon Appétit for 22 years and was reported to truly care about the Farm to Fork Program and the farmers he works with.

Additionally, there was a Community Programs & Sustainability Support Manager position, unique to this region, who assisted Foragers and provided additional support in reaching our sustainability goals. This kind of regional support helps encourage a cohesive F2F or sustainability strategy and awareness of local farm partners that meet our definition of local.

21

ACCOUNT SIZE Larger account size or higher food costs did not have any relationship with higher F2F scores. We looked at several factors to come to this conclusion, including average food cost percentage per guest, size of the account, number of meals, and the number of hourly employees or managers. For example, in Ohio we found the R-squared value of dollars spent per meal served and F2F score to be 0.0914, suggesting that account size may not have an impact on score. We also did not find any trends for the account type (colleges and universities, corporate, or specialty venues).

In the figure below, we see that weekly spend per guest in both Oregon and Minnesota has no correlation (R-squared = 0.1585), supporting the finding that more money spent does not translate to higher F2F scores.

While initially surprising, this is important because it removes weight from the idea that local food always comes at a higher cost.

And as we serve millions of meals to college students, employees, and the public every year, we can provide our guests with the highest quality ingredients that also carry important benefits for the environment and local economy.

It’s important to note that there is nuance to this claim. Affordability is not the only barrier to equitable access to local food. But on the subject of price, local food can be more expensive than conventional, mainstream goods due to significant quality differences, government subsidies, externalized labor or environmental costs, or more efficient economies of scale.6 However, our finding is consistent with a study from 2018 in Massachusetts that found that a basket of an equivalent portion of produce would cost consumers an average of 25% less at farmers’ markets than it would at grocery stores.7 For our chefs who pay wholesale prices and set up long-term purchasing commitments, these practices create a realistic and symbiotic relationship between our farm partners and chefs without sacrificing financial viability.

Food Spend Per Capita 2017 35%

Farm to Fork Score

30% 25%

R² = 0.1585

20% 15% 10% 5%

22

0% $0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

Weekly Spend per Capita

$10.00

Figure: F2F Score by weekly food spend per capita in Oregon and Minnesota

We hypothesized higher purchasing costs would translate to higher scores, due to the accepted notion that local, more high-quality food tends to be more expensive.

Surprisingly, we did not find this to be the case.

Phase 2: Same Priorities, Different Regions PURCHASING As with Phase 1, when examining the different factors that influence F2F scores, we took a deep dive into purchasing distribution and reached many of the same conclusions as we did in the first iteration of our study in FY2017. Importantly, our data analysis shows that spending more money on all food is not an indicator for higher F2F score, which is consistent with our findings from Phase 1.

Also similar is that more seafood and meat purchases per guest at Corporate Account 1

were positively correlated with higher F2F scores (Seafood Per Capita R-squared = 0.7994 and Meat Per Capita R-squared = 0.7043).

This indicates that if accounts focus on these higher-cost local ingredients, they tend to have higher F2F scores. Because local seafood is less commonly purchased across the board, we are curious to see if this finding holds true across the country beyond this small data set. Produce purchases per guest are less strongly correlated, but still may have a moderate impact (R-squared = 0.6508), also like Phase 1.

Farm to Fork Spend 2023 Account 1

Account 2

40% 30% 20% 10%

Su nn yv ale Da lla s Ch ica Ne go w Yo M rk iss io n Ba y Se at Ne tle w Yo rk Ch ica So go ut h Sa Ba n Fra y nc isc o

0%

Figure 3: Spread of F2F Scores from FY23 from all accounts in the second iteration of the study. Account 1 and Account 2 refer to Corporate Account 1 and Corporate Account 2. Note that SF data is from FY2024.

24

Seafood Spend Per Capita Weekly Spend per Capita

$25 $20

R² = 0.7994

$15 $10 $5 $0

0%

10%

20%

30%

Farm to Fork Score 2023

40%

Figure 4: Corporate Account 1 seafood spend per capita and F2F score

SEAFOOD For this specific data set, we found that seafood purchasing has a strong correlation with higher F2F scores. The locations with the two highest F2F scores at Corporate Account 1 also purchased the most seafood per capita. The location with the lowest F2F score within Corporate Account 1 did not source any seafood locally. Many accounts noted that seafood is particularly expensive and hard to source locally due to lack of small vendors or healthy and accessible fish stocks. A general manager at an account location in Northern California with one of the highest F2F scores shared their strategy: “Seafood is usually too expensive to source, but if you can balance it in a dish with noodles or other things, you can get away with purchasing it in smaller quantities.” This strategy could be an important tactic in raising F2F scores by incorporating seafood purchasing in moderation, when available.

If you can balance it in a dish with other things, you can get away with purchasing [seafood] in smaller quantities.

25

MEAT When thinking about purchasing F2F products, it is impossible to ignore the significance of meat purchases. At Corporate Account 1, the location with the highest F2F score stated that they try to source all meat from F2F partners; 33% of their total F2F spend is on meat, which is a higher percentage than all other locations surveyed.

While finding a consistent F2F chicken supplier has its challenges, securing local chicken can make a significant difference in F2F scores. Accounts reported problems with delivery, communication, and proximity to a F2F poultry farm that is able to provide the quantity needed. However, because of the amount of chicken used in these accounts, the data and anecdotal evidence suggest that securing a reliable local chicken partner makes a difference in F2F scores.

At one location from Corporate Account 2, the chef hypothesized that the high demand for chicken would have a noticeable impact on F2F scores when it can be sourced locally, which we found to be true. The location with the one of the lower scores from Corporate Account 2 (17.5%) reported pain points with sourcing local poultry, largely because communication with their local chicken vendor is a struggle.

On the contrary, the location with the highest score from Corporate Account 2 (29.7%) has a consistent chicken vendor with whom they communicate regularly. This vendor also supplies them with other poultry and meat, like pork, duck, and turkey.

Meat Spend Per Capita 2023 Weekly Spend per Capita

$35 $30

R² = 0.7043

$25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0

0%

10%

20%

30%

Farm to Fork Score 2023

40%

Figure 5: Corporate Account 1 meat spend per capita and F2F score

26

Aggregators

40%

Distribution

Combination

30% 20% 10% 0% A1 Da lla A2 s Ne w Yo rk A1 Se att A1 le Mi ssi on Ba y A1 Ne w Yo rk A1 Ch ica go A1 Su nn yv A2 ale Sa nF ran cis co A2 So ut hB ay A2 Ch ica go

Farm to Fork Score 2023

Local Foods Purchasing Methods

Source

Figure 5: Sourcing methods for both corporate accounts and F2F score.

A1 and A2 refer to Corporate Account 1 and Corporate Account 2.

SOURCING METHODS While sourcing animal proteins locally seems to be an important factor, we also found that delivery methods can make a difference in scores as well. We noticed that chefs who used diversified delivery methods for receiving local goods tended to have higher F2F scores. Using a combination of procurement methods — which means using some sort of combination of aggregators, distributors, and purchasing directly from producers — seems to align with higher scores (21.95% average). The average score is higher in this case compared to when accounts source only directly from vendors (there are no accounts doing this), distributors (0.4% average), or only from aggregators (15.5% average).

RELATIONSHIP WITH VENDORS As we found in Phase 1, personal relationships with vendors seem to be an important indicator of success for the F2F program,

which makes sense; it’s easier to work with reliable, communicative partners.

For example, the two locations from Corporate Account 2 with the highest F2F scores were both located in Northern California, and both reported holding weekly meetings to learn about available products with a local aggregator. The executive chef at the San Francisco location for Corporate Account 2 shared that he talks to the head farmer at a local farm once a week. He explained, “It’s good to know who you’re dealing with and how they run their operation. You don’t come across many relationships like that very often — usually you’d talk to a sales rep, but in this case it’s someone that’s running the farm. We take great pride in working with them.” Both Northern California accounts have clear anecdotal evidence of communicating frequently with their F2F vendors, which is reinforced by their comparatively high scores in the context of the other locations within Corporate Account 2 and the study at large.

27

ENGAGEMENT CHEF ENGAGEMENT We looked at several metrics to determine how the engagement of chefs with both the company and the F2F program impacts their F2F scores. We looked at executive chef retention rates and assessed each chef’s engagement level after completing each interview. At some locations, high retention of executive chefs demonstrated a very strong correlation with F2F scores, showing that familiarity with our purchasing policies and a willingness to stay with the company or at one account is an important way to maintain relationships with local partners and build up F2F scores.

At Corporate Account 2, the number of years the executive chef worked at their current location was highly positively correlated with the F2F score, with an Rsquared value of 0.9179, which was one of the strongest relationships between two variables of our entire study. The number of years the executive chef worked at Bon Appétit Management Company in Account 2 also reflected a strong correlation with high F2F scores (R-squared = 0.8057), showing that retention at one location or within the company serves as an important indicator for success.

Executive Chef Retention at Account 2 No. of Years Executive Chef has Worked at Account

8

6

R² = 0.9179

4

2

0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Farm to Fork Score 2023

25%

Figure 6: Executive Chef years at Corporate Account 2 and F2F score

28

30%

GUEST ENGAGEMENT When looking at engagement from the guest perspective, the results were mixed.

Corporate Account 2 showed that higher guest engagement with sustainability is correlated strongly with F2F scores (Rsquared = 0.9067). Engagement is measured by asking the chefs and general managers to rank guest engagement on a scale of 1 to 5, and higher engagement reflects greater interest in sustainability and our purchasing policies. Further, locations within Corporate Account 2 with an active sustainability group had a slightly higher average F2F score of 25% compared to accounts without an active group (18% average). On the other hand, Corporate Account 1 showed a weak correlation between F2F scores and chefreported guest engagement, showing that guest interest in our programs may not always be a reliable indicator for F2F scores.

CLIENT ENGAGEMENT Neither Corporate Accounts 1 nor 2 showed any correlation between client engagement and F2F scores, which matched our findings from Phase 1. This suggests that the engagement of our Bon Appétit chefs has more of a positive impact on local purchasing than client interest, but further research is required to see if this finding holds true for our accounts nationwide.

High chef retention demonstrated that familiarity with our purchasing policies and a willingness to stay with the company or at one account is an important way to maintain relationships with local partners.

29

REGIONAL VARIATION SEASONALITY In Phase 1 of the study, we see a “lean times paradox,” where F2F partners in regions with shorter growing seasons had higher F2F scores. In Phase 2, we did not find this to be the case. All four locations in Northern California had the highest overall F2F scores of the accounts we surveyed in 2023, two of which were a part of Corporate Account 1 and two were from Corporate Account 2.

This upholds the assumption that local purchasing is easier in a place with milder climate variations and a longer growing season. It is also important to note that for both accounts, Northern California is the national corporate accounts' headquarters, which may align with stronger programs and initiatives because account leadership who sets priorities are actively involved in the daily operations of those Bay Area accounts.

The other regions surveyed (Seattle, New York, and Chicago) all had colder winters, shorter growing seasons, and reported lower F2F scores (11.1% average) compared to the California locations (29.6% average). One location from Corporate Account 1 in New York City reported that sourcing fresh produce seasonally is difficult after September, while the California locations didn’t report those same struggles with sourcing seasonally.

COMPARISONS WITHIN THE SAME REGION Another important question we considered when thinking about regional variation is what factors contribute to varying F2F

30

scores for locations in the same region, which experience the same weather conditions and similar access to F2F vendors.

In Chicago, both locations did not have significantly different scores (13.4% from Corporate Account 1 and 17.5% from Corporate Account 2). Both accounts also reported difficulty with finding a chicken vendor in the area. As previously mentioned, one of our key findings is that having a consistent local chicken vendor might be an important factor in achieving a higher F2F score. This location also reported an intentional strategy to only serve beef once per week using a local farm, which aligns with our reduction goals to reduce beef consumption to less than 0.5 ounces of beef per guest per meal period while strategically driving up F2F score with a more expensive local animal protein option.

When comparing the two accounts in New York City (17.2% for Corporate Account 2 and 4.1% for Corporate Account 1), we can see that ease of delivery seems to be one of the biggest factors. The NYC location for Corporate Account 1 is in a building with strict access protocols, making local deliveries difficult to impossible for local farms and businesses due to required security clearance and other barriers to entry. As another key difference, the NYC location for Corporate Account 2 demonstrated a higher level of engagement with a sustainability team that regularly works with our team in addition to significant involvement and interest in sustainability from the client.

LOCATION SIZE When looking at the impact of account size and budget for the accounts we surveyed, the results are mixed. For Corporate Account 1, the more salaried managers an account had was strongly correlated with a higher F2F score (R-squared: 0.7692), as was the number of meals served per week (R-squared: 0.71).

Greater total spend (R-squared: 0.6407) and the greater number of hourly employees (Rsquared: 0.6538) both demonstrated a moderate correlation with a higher F2F score.

This tells us that when larger accounts are supported with more salaried employees, the team may be more invested in growing their local purchasing potential over time. This could be because they have additional support and energy to put towards developing their F2F program. (Side note: total annual revenue is not a helpful measure of account size for this study because some of our locations surveyed are fully subsidized.)

Meals per Week 2023 14,000 12,000

Meals per week

10,000 R² = 0.71

8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Farm to Fork Score 2023 Figure 7: Corporate Account 1 meals per week and F2F score

31

Conversely, average weekly food spend per capita has no correlation with F2F score for both Corporate Accounts 1 and 2 (R-squared = 0.0905), supporting the finding that more money spent on food does not necessarily translate to higher F2F scores. This aligns with our findings from Phase 1, which also provide evidence that higher food costs per guest aren’t relevant in predicting local purchasing numbers.

Food Spend per Capita 2023

Farm to Fork Score 2023

40%

R² = 0.0905

30%

20%

10%

0% $0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00 $10.00

Weekly Spend per Capita

Figure 7: F2F Score by weekly food spend per capita in Corporate Account 1 and 2

32

More money spent on food does not necessarily translate to higher Farm to Fork scores.

Higher food costs per guest aren’t relevant in predicting local purchasing numbers.

INSIGHTS + CONCLUSIONS

INSIGHTS + CONCLUSIONS

After 25 years of building the Farm to Fork (F2F) program, we have learned a thing or two about what it takes to create successful local sourcing programs. Here are our top insights.

Institutional food service, when guided by tenets of values-based procurement, has the immense potential to strengthen local foodsheds, and Bon Appétit has been proud to lead the industry in the support for local sourcing for the last 25 years.8 Throughout this process of surveying nearly 100 Bon Appétit locations across the country during two phases of research, we gained valuable insights into what important factors have helped the F2F program thrive over the past 25 years. We hope these findings will help assist others in the industry in building their own successful local purchasing programs.

ENGAGEMENT: Cultivating strong relationships between farmers, chefs, and guests TALK WITH YOUR FARMERS Encouraging and maintaining mutual trust and relationships between chefs and farmers helps advance local purchasing goals and impact. Supportive regional networks for chefs, whether to help enroll new farm partners or establish leaders charged with developing new relationships in each region, are also important. When chefs communicate regularly with farmers, they can stay up to date with any important changes and reflect those in upcoming menus. And when farmers can rely on regular purchasing from our teams, local farms and

34

businesses are able to depend on regular wholesale orders, which can be incredibly valuable for any small business owner.

EDUCATE YOUR GUESTS Guest engagement is another key part of bringing everything full circle. Guests benefit from local partnerships via the quality of the food they’re eating, as well as having greater awareness and transparency of where their food comes from.

You might consider promoting your local purchasing commitment — how do you define local and why is it important? You can also highlight particular vendors by including signage accompanying a meal or station, hosting the farmer on campus to connect with guests, or organizing a visit to the local partner. These are all great ways of engaging guests with the amazing behindthe-scenes work by your chefs and the farmers they rely on, which helps inform their understanding of local food systems and how that might connect to the work of your organization.

SUPPORT YOUR CHEFS! Last, and perhaps most importantly, chef engagement plays a key role in the success of local purchasing. When team members are engaged and invested in Bon Appétit’s Dream and the F2F mission, this tends to align with higher F2F scores overall. This was shown by higher retention rates of executive chefs and hourly workers, and an awareness of their account’s F2F strategy and average scores.

A focus on retention might include regular training, adequate employee supports, and generous benefits, which may translate into more investment in the mission of your organization, a greater understanding of purchasing commitments, and higher local purchasing numbers.

PURCHASING: Commit financially SOURCE YEAR-ROUND INGREDIENTS LOCALLY WHEN POSSIBLE Sourcing ingredients locally that are available year-round (for instance, chicken, roasted coffee, bread, etc.) helps remove some logistical barriers of establishing brand new purchasing orders every week in addition to other distributors used by teams. This makes local purchasing the default rather than an add-on for certain products that are accessible in your area, making a higher volume commitment that makes a notable difference for the small farm partners that we rely on.

The takeaway that local meat purchases are one of the strongest indicators for higher F2F scores may be seemingly contradictory for

our accounts that are tasked with reducing their overall meat purchases (especially beef) based on our carbon reduction commitment, which encourages our chefs to take on a plant-forward approach and reduce the average amount of animal proteins per guest.

Upon further inspection of our results, we found that sourcing chicken locally was particularly helpful in raising scores because it is the animal protein served most often.

Since it is less expensive per pound than other types of meat, it allows our chefs to purchase a higher volume of chicken locally.

This is encouraging for both our local purchasing and carbon reduction goals, as chicken is a popular lower-carbon meat option, which contributes half as many 9 emissions as beef.

While reducing meat overall is our primary focus, having access to local, sustainable meat suppliers, especially more ubiquitous lower-carbon options like chicken, has been demonstrated as a successful component of the F2F program.

GET CREATIVE WITH BALANCING THE PLATE (AND BUDGET) Our findings indicate that more money spent on food per guest doesn’t correlate with higher F2F scores, dispelling the notion that local food requires larger food budgets. There are innovative ways to find reasonable price points, whether through annual purchasing agreements or strategically balancing higher cost items (like local seafood) on a plate with lower-cost ingredients.

35

REGIONAL VARIATION: Understand your local food system EMBRACE REGIONAL DIFFERENCES The variation of local vendors is one of the most exciting and defining parts of sourcing locally. For example, while you may struggle to find a local chicken farm that is able to provide the quantity and quality of chicken your account requires, you might also have a wonderful mushroom vendor located right down the road that is able to provide highquality and unique products that you can’t find on the regular market. Pursuing local purchasing in a meaningful way takes time to understand the landscape of local farms, see what products are accessible in your area, and assess tradeoffs where necessary to adapt to the reality of your surroundings.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach given the fact that “local” is defined by your unique geography.

The geographic location of an account seems to have an impact on F2F scores, but we concluded that length of growing season isn’t always the strongest indicator. In Phase 2, our locations in Northern California had the highest scores, known for their notably long growing season and fewer barriers to accessing local food year-round. In Phase 1, however, we found that Minnesota and Ohio accounts had the highest F2F scores, which have significantly longer, colder winters.

What these two regions have in common, however, is a defined F2F strategy and strong relationships with local partners.

36

OUR REFLECTIONS Supporting local farm partners is a foundational priority of our company, and it is well worth the additional effort, coordination, and (sometimes) money it takes due to the overwhelming benefits local food brings to our kitchens, local economies, and food systems at large.

Over these past 25 years, we have built up a strong network of over 1,700 currently enrolled F2F partners who have demonstrated resilience in the face of structural disadvantages, climate change, and a global pandemic.

These barriers have only reaffirmed our commitment to supporting local farms as essential assets in the communities we operate, ensuring a future of food that is more viable, transparent, delicious, and close to home.

Through Farm to Fork, Bon Appétit has built a culture around local purchasing that has had a tangible impact on the communities where we live and work. It brings meaning to what we do every day.

THERESA CHESTER, VP OF PURCHASING

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY QUESTIONS F2F VARIATION ANALYSIS SURVEY QUESTIONS BACKGROUND INFORMATION (for researcher to complete) Account name Campus location Is this account in a rural or urban area?

How long has this account been with Bon Appétit?

How many Farm to Fork vendors are registered in the account’s 150-mile radius?

How many Farm to Fork vendors are selected and showing on the accounts Café Bon Appétit F2F map?

Total food spend for FY2017 (Phase 1) or FY2023 (Phase 2) Total F2F spend in that same timeframe Breakdown of F2F spend by GL code in that same timeframe

ONLINE SURVEY (for General Managers) What was this account’s total annual revenue for FY2017 (Phase 1) or FY2023 (Phase 2)?

What percent of this account’s operating budget is food cost (aka food cost percentage)?

If your food cost (aka food cost percentage) is substantially different between revenue streams, please note that and elaborate here.

Is this account a fee/subsidized account or profit/loss account?

Campuswide, approximately how many meals per week do you serve (i.e. guest count)?

How many all-you-care-to-eat cafés does this account have?

How many retail cafés does your account have?

How many hourly Bon Appétit employees work at this account?

How many salaried Bon Appétit managers work at this account?

Describe your team’s culinary structure.

Is there an executive and a sous chef, executive and chef manager, director of operations, or some other combination of roles?

Who orders food at (account name)?

Executive chef, another chef, general manager, director of operations, other?

Who is most involved in the Farm to Fork program at (account name)?

How many different executive chefs has this account had over the past 5 years?

How many different general managers has this account had over the past 5 years?

How many stations does your main café have?

F2F @ YOUR ACCOUNT Are F2F ingredients used (Circle one below): in dishes throughout your café? or concentrated at a particular station or area within the café with a local focus?

Do you have any static menus that feature F2F ingredients?

39

Are there any staple items (for example: coffee, milk, bread/baked goods) that you need to source from a specific (non F2F) vendor because of a client request?

(Yes/No) If yes, what’s the product and vendor?

What is the age range of the majority of your guests?

Does your campus source any of the following “staple” products entirely (or the vast majority) from a F2F vendor?

Please select all that apply.

Coffee Milk Baked goods Chicken Pork Beef Turkey Other ________ At your account, what challenges do you face sourcing local food?

CLIENTS + GUESTS On a scale from 1 to 5, how involved is your client in your day-to-day operations and decision making? (1 being minimally involved and 5 being highly involved) On a scale from 1 to 5, how sensitive to cost is your client? (1 being not very sensitive and 5 being highly sensitive) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate your clients’ interest in sustainable and responsible food? (1 being uninterested, and 5 being extremely interested) On a scale of 1 to 5, how would you rate your guests’ interest in sustainable and responsible food? (1 being uninterested, and 5 being extremely interested)

40

Would you characterize your guests’ interest in sustainability as: (circle one) minimal, isolated to a few small groups of students or employees, or widespread?

Do you have a guest (employee) dining committee?

Is there a green council, sustainability team, etc. at your account? Do they work with dining?

At your account, what challenges do you face sourcing local food?

Not many enrolled F2F vendors in my area Extra time needed to order from individual F2F vendors Budget/money/cost Meeting minimum orders Distribution challenges (for example: your location is not on typical delivery routes) Increased prep time/extra labor needed to incorporate F2F products (i.e., washing greens, breaking down whole chickens, etc.)

Other ________ Avg. Food $/Guest (out of overall revenue and food cost) How many weeks in advance are your menus written?

Has your college or business made any sustainability commitments that overlap with dining?

F2F Spend/Guest

APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS PHONE INTERVIEW Hello! My name is _________ and I am a fellow for Bon Appétit. Thank you so much for your participation in this survey. There are 17 questions about the Farm to Fork program, and it shouldn't take more than 30 minutes of your time. Do you have any questions for me before we get started?

ABOUT YOU How long have you worked for Bon Appétit?

How long have you been at this account?

ABOUT F2F PROCESS If you were trying to find F2F vendors around you that are already enrolled in the program, where would you look?

Ok, now say that there’s a new vendor that you want to enroll as Farm to Fork.

How do you confirm that an unenrolled vendor qualifies for the program?

Now pretend you did your research and determined the quality. What is your process for enrolling that new Farm to Fork vendor?

Who at this account is highlighting and coding F2F invoices?

How do they do this?

How did you learn?

Have there been many local producers that you wanted to purchase from but haven’t been able to successfully enroll them in F2F?

ABOUT F2F PROGRAM AND CHALLENGES Do you purchase local foods: direct from vendors, through small-scale local aggregators through distributors/model market suppliers, or a combination of those? (And if they say a combination, ask: Roughly what percent of your F2F purchases in each category?)

Can you tell me about one of your Farm to Fork vendors at (account name)?

What is it like working with (vendor listed on their Café Bon Appétit map)?

At your account, what challenges do you face sourcing local food?

Local food is sometimes more expensive. How do you think about price in terms of Farm to Fork? In other words, how do you compare Farm to Fork products and non-F2F products?

Does it matter what kind of product it is — meat vs. produce, for example?

What local foods are typically too expensive for you to source?

Do you have any examples of an ingredient you’d like to source locally, but it’s too difficult to source for reasons other than cost?

Do you know your regional forager?

What’s their name? Have you worked with them in the past year? How helpful have they been to you?

Do you have a strategy or general best practices for meeting our 20% F2F commitment?

41

SOURCES

1. Vern Grubinger, “Ten Reasons to Buy Local Food,” University of Vermont, April 2010, https://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/buylocal.html.

2. “USDA Census: Smaller Farms Falling Further Behind,” Environmental Working Group, May 8, 2024, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2024/02/usda-censussmaller-farms-falling-further-behind.

3. “Farms and Farm Households During the COVID-10 Pandemic,” USDA, November 30, 2023, https://www.ers.usda.gov/covid-19/farms-and-farm-households/#income.

4. Calkins, Kevin G. “Correlation Coefficients.” Applied Statistics, July 2005. https://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/edrm611/edrm05.htm#:~:text=Correlation%20c oefficients%20whose%20magnitude%20are%20between%200.5%20and%200.7%20indicat e,which%20have%20a%20low%20correlation.

5. “Impact of Sample Size,” PennState: Statistics Online Courses. https://online.stat.psu.edu/stat200/lesson/4/4.1/4.1.2.

6. Rachel Carter, “The True Cost of Local Food,” UVM Food Feed, January 26, 2017, https://learn.uvm.edu/foodsystemsblog/2017/01/24/true-cost-of-local-food/.

7. “Local and Affordable: Massachusetts-Grown Produce Less Expensive than Grocery Store Produce,” Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, August 2018, https://mafoodsystem.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/LocalandAffordable2018.pdf.

8. Cinnamon Janzer, “Learn about the Fight for Values-Based Food Purchasing - and Recommendations from a New Report,” FoodPrint, July 10, 2023, https://foodprint.org/blog/values-based-food-purchasing/.

9. Stephen Leahy, “Choosing Chicken over Beef Cuts Our Carbon Footprints a Surprising Amount,” National Geographic, June 10, 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/choosing-chicken-over-beefcuts-carbon-footprint-surprising-amount.

42