3. BACKGROUND: WHAT OTHER STATES ACROSS THE U.S. ARE DOING

A) Summary of Initiatives and Reports

According to Michigan State University’s Center for Regional Food Systems, 36 states have developed or are currently developing state food system plans. In the Upper Midwest, Michigan and Iowa have updated plans that were originally launched over a decade ago — Michigan’s Good Food Charter, which was adopted in 2010 and updated in 2022, and Iowa’s Local Food and Farm Program, which was adopted in 2011. Meanwhile, Iowa’s Food System Coalition is in the midst of a four-year process to develop and implement its new Setting The Table For All Iowans plan, and Indiana is in the early stages of creating its Indiana Food Vision. Michigan’s robust specialty crop industry sets it apart from Iowa and Indiana, offering a unique model for food system planning. In contrast, the agricultural landscapes of Iowa and Indiana — like Illinois — are dominated by commodity crops, such as corn and soybeans, making their food system challenges more comparable to those faced in Illinois.

Some of the initial findings from other state plans include their respective visions for what they are working to change, including, for example, creating a state Department of Agriculture (Alaska); creating spaces for statewide coordination, reflection, and celebration (Colorado); fostering a food system that cultivates health, justice, and sustainability for all people, communities, and the environment (Iowa); and building a thriving food economy distinguished by equity, health, and sustainability (Michigan).

Among the many existing state food system plans, some have become inactive, while others are actively and effectively advancing their goals. A common challenge across all state plans is transitioning from the data collection and reporting phase to concrete action and implementation of the plans’ core initiatives. States like Alaska, Michigan, and New Hampshire offer strong models for this next phase. Alaska’s plan, for example, outlines a multi-year timeline with prioritized focus areas for each year, clearly defined needs, actionable steps to address those needs, and specific roles and responsibilities assigned to stakeholders. Michigan’s initiative, while coordinated by Michigan State University (MSU), is guided by their Good Food Charter Council. Additionally, through the “Michigan Good Food Charter” website, Michigan recruits new members on an ongoing basis to engage in a variety of ways to join the Charter process. New Hampshire’s Food & Agriculture Strategic Plan creates ‘“Action Teams” and employs a digital format that allows users to readily access actionable steps they can take in support of the state’s plan. These types of implementation-focused frameworks will serve as valuable resources as the Roadmap process moves into Phase II.

This spring, the Center for Regional Food Systems at MSU launched a National Food System Plans Community of Practice (NCoP). This initiative brings together food system planners from across the country to exchange knowledge, share resources, and foster collaboration. Members of the Roadmap Task Force have joined the group and are eager to learn from the experiences and insights of similar efforts in other states — both past and present. Our interest is primarily related to processes that NCoP members have undertaken or are currently implementing to develop their plans and to engage as many stakeholders as possible at every level, whether they be foundations and financial institutions, city, county, and state policymakers, or local residents and farmers at the grassroots level. The Task Force is also focused on learning about the infrastructures other states have developed to articulate their plans and required actions, connect and coordinate stakeholders, enable sharing of resources and knowledge, and track progress made.

B) Other State Reports and Programs

As noted above, many states have plans, charters, or roadmaps in place or under development. Below is a link to a list of them, including MSU’s “Overview of State Plans.”

Inventory of State Plans

NEXT PAGE
return to table of contents