Buying into Community Supported 
Agriculture: Strategies for Overcoming 
Income Barriers
Authors: Cristin B. Forbes & Alison H. Harmon
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Journal of Hunger & Environmental 
Nutrition on April 15, 2008, available online: 
http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/19320240801891479.
Forbes, Cristin B., and Alison H. Harmon. “Buying into Community Supported Agriculture: 
Strategies for Overcoming Income Barriers.” Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition 2, no. 
2–3 (April 15, 2008): 65–79. doi:10.1080/19320240801891479.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, Vol. 2(2/3) 2007
Available online at http://jhen.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1080/19320240801891479
Buying into Community Supported 
Agriculture: Strategies for Overcoming 
Income Barriers
Cristin B. Forbes, BS Candidate
Alison H. Harmon, PhD, RD, LN
ABSTRACT. Community-supported agriculture provides benefits to
members, including improved nutrition, economic savings, increased food
security, and knowledge about the source of one’s food. Unfortunately,
membership may seem out of reach for limited-resource consumers
because a lump sum membership fee is generally required at the beginning
of the season. This article examines the strategies being used by CSA farms
to help potential limited-resource members overcome income barriers.
Those strategies include acceptance of government food assistance, payment
plans, working shares, subsidized low-income shares, low-cost shares,
transportation assistance, bartering, outreach efforts, and connections to
emergency food assistance.
Cristin B. Forbes is a B.S. Candidate, Foods and Nutrition, Department of
Health and Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.
(E-mail: Cristin.forbes@myportal.montana.edu).
Alison H. Harmon is Assistant Professor, Foods and Nutrition, Department of
Health and Human Development, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.
(E-mail: harmon@montana.edu).
The authors thank the community-supported farm operators who participated
in this research, and especially those who seek ways to overcome barriers to
improving access to fresh nutritious food for all.
Address correspondence to: Alison H. Harmon, Assistant Professor, Foods
and Nutrition, Department of Health and Human Development, Montana State
University, 119 MH H & PE Complex, Bozeman MT 59717. (E-mail: harmon@
montana.edu).
 KEYWORDS. Community-supported agriculture, limited 
resources, food insecurity, community food security
INTRODUCTION
Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a food marketing and
distribution model in which consumers pay a membership fee to a farm at
the beginning of the growing season in return for a weekly share of the
harvest.1 Members therefore become “shareholders” in the CSA. The
money generated early in the season helps cover food production and dis-
tribution costs while providing a living wage for the farmer. CSA mem-
bers share risk with the farmer, having no guarantee of a certain amount
of produce. Many CSAs also provide eggs, dairy products, flowers, or
fruit to their shareholders, in addition to vegetables. CSA is a relatively
recent development in the food system of the United States. The Indian
Line Farm in Massachusetts and Temple-Wilton Community Farm in
New Hampshire have been credited as establishing the first CSA pro-
grams in the United States, both around 1986. The inspiration for CSA is
said to have come from the biodynamic farming tradition in Europe, even
though there were similar community food programs in Japan and South
America in the 1960s and 1970s.2
Shareholder benefits include improved nutrition, economic savings,
increased food security, and knowledge about the source of one’s food,
among other benefits. In a study comparing dietary intakes between CSA
members and non-members, members had higher intakes of fiber and
vitamin A than non-members, as well as a slightly lower intake of satu-
rated fat.3 In a separate study, CSA members consumed more dark green
and yellow fruits and vegetables, as well as fiber and vitamin A.4 Speaking
generally, vegetables and fruits contain high amounts of antioxidants and
phytochemicals—substances that have been shown to protect against
many cancers. Foods with modest to high levels of anticancer activity
include vegetables that are often part of a CSA share such as carrots, pars-
nips, onions, broccoli, cauliflower, tomatoes, peppers, and cabbage.5
Furthermore, unlike produce bought in a supermarket that may have trav-
eled more than 1000 miles and stored for a significant period of time, pro-
duce received in a CSA box is very fresh, often harvested the same day
the consumer receives it.1 Although studies of declining nutritional value
in stored produce are lacking, one analysis determined particular nutrient
losses of 30 to 50% in fruit and vegetables 5 to 10 days after harvest.6
Even though membership fees may appear expensive, a study comparing
CSA share prices with the retail value of equivalent amounts of produce
showed significant savings for the shareholder. For the 3 CSA farms eval-
uated, the retail value of the produce received was 120, 160, and 250% of
the cost of the share price. Even when share price was compared with
conventional produce, the CSAs still provided substantial savings and
better value. CSA members saved $44.54, $227.47, and $334.62, respec-
tively. The differences in savings reflect different farm sizes, CSA philos-
ophy, and the composition and amount of produce received.7
Another benefit of CSA membership is greater access to fresh produce.
Several studies have found that lower-income urban neighborhoods have
considerably fewer supermarkets and chain stores than higher-income
suburban areas.8–11 In comparison, one study found 3 times as many super-
markets in wealthier neighborhoods in several areas across the country.8
Many retail grocery stores avoid or even vacate densely populated urban
areas citing the difficulty in acquiring enough land for the building and
parking, and higher costs of operating due to crime, an unreliable work
force, and higher insurance premiums.12,13 Therefore, residents of inner-
city neighborhoods are left to shop primarily at convenience stores, liquor
stores, food bodegas, and small, independently owned grocery stores,
where fresh produce is significantly less available and prices tend to be
higher.9–11 The CSA model of agriculture can contribute significantly to
community food security by offering a non-emergency source of fresh
produce, and perhaps other high-quality foods, at below retail prices and
in areas that may lack reliable sources of nutritious foods.14
CSA shareholders also benefit from knowing the source of their food.
Learning and appreciating where food comes from and how it is produced
is generally lost within an industrialized food system that relies on impor-
tation, transportation, and processing.
The CSA model reconnects consumers and food production; it can
protect consumers as well, as demonstrated by the E. coli outbreak in
September of 2006. Spinach grown in California was contaminated with
E. coli from cattle feces and caused more than 200 illnesses in 26 states
and one Canadian province. Three deaths were attributed to E. coli
intoxication.15 All bagged spinach and products containing raw spinach
were pulled from supermarket shelves. In outbreak situations, consum-
ers who rely on local food systems including CSAs have a distinct
advantage in knowing where their produce came from. CSA members
could still enjoy their locally grown spinach in spite of the national
scare.16
Given the value of CSA membership in terms of nutrition, economics,
food access, and food safety, it seems important not to limit membership
to certain populations. Studies have shown that CSA members are typi-
cally Caucasian, younger, and better educated than the general popula-
tion, although no significant difference in income between members and
non-members has been demonstrated.3,17 Still, consumers with limited
resources may have difficulty participating in CSAs. Results from a study
of a low-income neighborhood with an urban CSA suggested that cost
was a major barrier for residents who chose not to participate.18 For many
limited-resource families, budgets are already stretched thin, and making
a $300 to $600 payment for membership is not feasible. Many farms have
begun to address this problem by introducing strategies for making CSA
membership and associated benefits a reality for limited-resource con-
sumers. These innovative strategies will be the focus of this article.
METHODS
The authors used a variety of methods to gather information including
literature review, direct contact with CSAs through both electronic mail
correspondence and personal interviews, and an inquiry posted to the
electronic Listserv of the Community Food Security Coalition with
follow-up communication, and a review of related Internet Web sites.
Existing literature on CSAs is limited. Reports from the Hunger Action
Network of New York State proved most relevant to this research. Internet
Web sites of various organizations and CSAs currently running or devel-
oping programs that improve limited-resource consumers’ access to
membership provided a substantial amount of information.
The authors established direct correspondence with CSA managers
through a survey sent via electronic mail to CSAs listed on LocalHarvest.org,
chosen to represent different states and geographical areas. In addition to
obtaining a broad perspective, the same survey was sent to all 6 of the
CSAs currently located in the state of Montana. The authors then posted
an inquiry to the Community Food Security Coalition Listserv. Responses
came from CSA owners as well as other knowledgeable individuals. The
primary author conducted 2 personal interviews. The results of the inter-
views were consistent with the previous information collected. Further
interviews and personal contacts were discontinued given that no new
information had been provided. A total of 17 CSA operators provided
data for this study.
The authors manually sorted data from personal interviews, electronic
correspondence, relevant Web sites, and existing literature into catego-
ries. Each category represented a strategy to provide opportunities for
limited-resource families and individuals to enjoy CSA membership.
RESULTS
Government Food Assistance
One strategy CSAs use to make participation more feasible for limited-
resource consumers is to accept government food assistance in the form
of food stamps, WIC coupons, and Farmers Market Nutrition Program
(FMNP) vouchers. In the past, CSAs have not been allowed to accept
food stamps, because paying for food before it is harvested is considered
speculating on the food rather than purchasing it.19 Regulations vary by
state and some CSAs have become authorized to accept food stamps.
New York State, for instance, established that food stamps or WIC
coupons can only be used to pay in biweekly installments for a CSA share,
instead of the typical preseason one-time payment.20 To overcome this bar-
rier, some New York CSAs have created revolving loan funds (discussed
under Payment Plans), so that they are able to accept food stamps and pro-
vide the farmer with money at the beginning of the season simultaneously.
Another example is Washington State, where regulations stipulate that the
value of the produce received must meet the value of the food stamp vouch-
ers redeemed, even in the event of crop failure.21 Further potential barriers
to accepting government food assistance are the amount of paperwork
required on the part of the CSA to become certified to accept stamps and a
lack of the appropriate equipment—an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
Point of Sales (POS) device, along with access to a standard 110-volt
power source and a telephone line.21,22 Wireless technology might facilitate
expanded use of government food assistance for CSA membership fees.
Payment Plans
One way CSAs help ease the financial burden of an initial one-time
payment is to offer the choice of making smaller, multiple payments
throughout the season. Some CSAs extend a 2-installment payment plan,
while others offer monthly or even weekly options.
Many farmers rely on membership fees at the beginning of the growing
season in order to cover production expenses. Allowing payments in
smaller installments can create a financial deficit for the farmers.
At Future Farm in New York, the farmer has outside employment, and
thus more capital to rely upon.20 Others have created a revolving loan
fund, in which the farmer uses the fund money (generated from grants and
donations) for initial costs, while monthly payments received later in the
season replenish the fund. Both Chelsea CSA and Canticle Farm in New
York established revolving loan funds using grants from the Hunger
Action Network, a nonprofit organization.20 Similarly, The Partner Shares
Program of the Madison Area Community Supported Agriculture Coalition
(MACSAC) raises money for a revolving loan fund through fundraising
events and community donations. People with limited financial resources
can borrow money from the fund to pay for membership in any of several
participating CSAs. The Partner Shares Program requires that half of the
money borrowed be paid back, in addition to allowing monthly payments
from the limited-resource shareholder. Thus, the shares are subsidized as
well.23
Working Shares
Another commonly cited method for making CSA membership more
feasible for limited-resource families and individuals is working shares.
In exchange for a discount on the share price, members donate work time
on the farm. Gallatin Valley Botanicals, located in Belgrade, Montana,
offers members an option of working one 4-hour shift per week for 15 out
of the 18 weeks of their growing season in return for a 50% discount
(M. & J. Rothschiller, oral communication, April 2006). This provides a
considerable price reduction; from $360 to $180. Many farms offer simi-
lar programs. Some, like Homestead Organics Farm, Inc., in Hamilton,
Montana, extend free shares to people who commit to work (L. Garber &
P. Madeen, oral communication, October 2006).
There are considerable limits to how much a working share could help
a limited-resource family or individual become a CSA member. Working
members must have transportation to the farm, be able to perform physi-
cal work, and have the time available to dedicate to the task. Low- and
middle-income individuals and families often have too many demands on
their time between work and household duties to allow participation in
additional activities.19 The time commitment required by Homestead
Organics Farm, Inc., is 4 to 6 hours per week for the 20-week season. Of
the 4 families who chose this option during a recent season, only 2 fami-
lies finished the work commitment. The other 2 families bought their way
out, having underestimated the amount and intensity of the physical labor
(L. Garber & P. Madeen, oral communication, October 2006).
As an alternative to a physical work requirement, Angelic Organics, a
CSA in the Chicago area, gives a $100 discount to members willing to
provide their garage or shed as a pick-up location for their neighborhood.1
Administrative work is another way for members to contribute, especially
if they have physical limitations.24
Subsidized Low-Income Shares
Several CSAs across the country have discovered ways of offering
subsidized low-income shares by using one or more of the following
methods or sources: a sliding scale payment system, grants, donations, or
collaboration with community organizations.
A sliding scale system operates by allowing those who earn less to pay
less for a share and requiring those who earn more to pay more. Therefore,
the higher priced shares subsidize the lower priced shares. At some CSA
farms the price difference between the lowest and the highest price is less
than $125 (S. Schlotzhaurer, written communication, April 2006).20 How-
ever, Homestead Organics Farm, Inc., operates on a sliding scale system
in which the CSA member chooses the price he can afford given the
options of $300, $500, or $1000 per share and then receives a box size
determined solely by the number of people in his household. A limited-
resource family of 6, for instance, may only be able to afford $300, yet
they still receive the amount of food determined for 6 people. Alterna-
tively, a couple will receive a 2-person-sized box regardless of whether
they choose to pay $300 or $1000 (L. Garber & P. Madeen, oral commu-
nication, October 2006).
Further methods of subsidizing low-income shares are perhaps best
described by example. The Full Plate Collective of Tompkins County,
New York, involves 4 farms working with Cornell Cooperative Extension
to enable the CSAs to offer a small number of subsidized shares. The pro-
gram is in its first year, so details are still solidifying. Already, though, the
Ithaca Health Alliance and the United Way have agreed to subsidize 5
shares each. The Health Alliance will recruit participants through its free
health clinic, while the United Way plans on recruiting people through
WIC clinics. Limited-resource participants will receive the shares at
almost half price and be allowed a weekly payment plan at $10 per week
for the 12-week trial season this summer. The Full Plate Collective also
offers approximately 150 regular CSA shares. On the sign-up form for the
regular-priced shares there is the option of paying more than the required
price, the extra money going to fund the low-income shares (L. S. Gerhart,
written communication, April 2006). Sometimes referred to as a scholar-
ship fund, several other CSAs also make use of member donations to
support subsidized shares.
A program that specifically targets limited-resource seniors is the
Senior FarmShare program, a project operated by Community Involved in
Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) of South Deerfield, Massachusetts. Senior
FarmShare offers fully subsidized shares for qualifying seniors. The pro-
gram runs for 10 weeks in the middle of the growing season, so the shares
are only partial, yet seniors are still able to receive $100 worth of fresh
produce over the course of the program. CISA relies on donations from
the community and grants from more than 7 different agencies.25 The
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT) runs a
program nearly identical to the one operated by CISA. The Senior Farm
Share of NOFA-VT has more than 500 limited-resource seniors partici-
pating in the program and connects senior housing sites to specific
farms.26
In 2004, CISA and NOFA-VT were 2 of several nonprofit organiza-
tions to receive a Community Food Project Grant, funded by the US
Department of Agriculture and administered by Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service.27,28 The grants support
projects that help to increase food security with awards of $10,000 to
$300,000 for 1 to 3 years. Each year, a few more of these grants are being
given to CSA-related projects (E. Henderson, written communication,
April 2006). The Community Food Project Grants seem to be the greatest
source of funding from the federal government associated with low-
income access to CSAs.
One example of cooperation between community organizations and
CSAs is a project called “That’s My Farmer,” which John Pitney coordi-
nates in Eugene, Oregon. Fifteen faith communities and 11 local CSA
farms participate in the program. Ongoing donations from the faith
communities help pay for shares for those who cannot afford the full price
at any participating CSA. In addition, proceeds from a large fundraising
event are donated to a low-income fund for the CSAs. In 2006, CSAs
received approximately $3000 from the fund (J. Pitney, written communi-
cation, April 2006).
Holcomb Farm in Granby, Connecticut, is fundamentally different
from previous examples because instead of taking an existing farm and
making it more available to families and individuals with limited
resources, the farm was founded with the purpose of including people
with lower incomes into the membership along with regular paying mem-
bers. The farm developed a model in which participating community
organizations buy CSA shares and then distribute them to the low-income
residents of Hartford. The organizational shares are heavily subsidized
through support from the Hartford Food System, a nonprofit organization
itself, as well as through a slightly higher regular member price. As of
2005, 30 to 40% of the farm’s harvest was going to people of lower
incomes.13
Low-Cost Shares
Future Farm in Chemung County, New York, established a unique pro-
gram called Solidarity Food Network, with the exclusive mission to offer
low-cost shares to the working poor. Although the program is currently
aided through subsidies, the ultimate goal is to use low-input, sustainable,
minimal-labor agricultural practices to eliminate the need for a high mem-
bership fee. For example, the farm relies on a compost-heated green-
house, bio-diesel for all equipment, free fertilizer from a cooperating local
horse farm, and raised beds for increased productivity. Plenty of volunteer
assistance also contributes to the low share price of $200 for 26 weeks.24
Transportation Assistance
The issue of a lack of transportation is primarily dealt with through
offering several different pick-up locations. Some CSAs offer home deliv-
ery but usually charge a significant fee for the service, thus eliminating
any real benefit for people with limited resources.
Genesee Valley Organic Community Supported Agriculture
(GVOCSA) in Rochester, New York, a particularly socially conscious
farm, developed a “buddy” system to accommodate members without
transportation. The farm has a member work requirement to keep share
costs low, but acknowledging that this may prevent people without reli-
able transportation from joining the CSA, they created a program where a
new member without transportation is paired with a seasoned member.
The seasoned member familiarizes the new member with the CSA and
can provide rides to the farm.20
Bartering
Bartering is an innovative strategy for increasing access to fresh, high-
quality food for those with limited resources. At a barter-based CSA in
Portland, Maine, members can pay for shares in Time Dollars rather than
cash. Time Dollars are a sort of currency earned by providing services to
others. Nearly any type of helping counts toward Time Dollars—babysitting,
providing transportation for a neighbor, etc.—with 1 hour of service
equaling one dollar.29 When an individual enrolls in a Time Bank, a com-
puter program tracks the Time Dollars he earns and generates monthly
statements. Participants can spend Time Dollars on goods and services
from participating programs in the Time Bank network, such as Cultivating
Community, the nonprofit group responsible for managing the CSA in
Maine. The potential for low-income involvement in CSAs thus increases
significantly since people are able to exchange their time and effort,
instead of money, for a CSA share. Efforts to start up more time bank
programs are being seen in many states in the United States as well as in
several foreign countries.29
Outreach Efforts
Many CSAs serve as innovative models for increasing access to
membership by limited-resource individuals and families. Yet because
most CSAs market themselves simply through word of mouth, potential
participants are unaware of their existence. Several strategies have
emerged to address this situation. At Canticle Farm in New York, an out-
reach coordinator position recruits families to join the CSA, especially those
with limited resources who can take advantage of Canticle’s revolving loan
fund and working share options. The coordinator creates informative
materials and uses local newspapers, television stations, and community
groups to publicize the program and increase participation.20 Some CSAs
strategically place limited advertising, thus increasing its effectiveness.
Leonard Pollara, operator of a CSA in New York, advertises in blue-collar
community advertising periodicals, through different churches, and posts
flyers on the street in urban neighborhoods (L. Pollara, written communi-
cation, April 2006).
Just Food, a nonprofit organization in New York City, works to
connect CSA farms in the region with city groups and low-income neigh-
borhoods. For example, Just Food partnered Norwich Meadows Farm
with the nonprofit organization Common Ground, whose goal is to solve
homelessness. Together they established a CSA program for the residents
of The Prince George Hotel, a supportive housing development. Resi-
dents of The Prince George gained access to fresh, organic produce that is
otherwise difficult to find in the city, and the CSA boxes were delivered
directly to the housing development. Common Ground is responsible for
recruiting members from the neighborhood, setting up the weekly share
distribution at a central neighborhood site, and communicating with the
farm. Many other similar programs have been established with the help of
Just Food. Payment options vary from program to program but include
most of the strategies already discussed.30
Connections to Emergency Food Assistance
Several CSAs across the country make significant contributions to
their area food banks. The Food Bank Farm in Hadley, Massachusetts,
has over 600 CSA shareholders and donates 40 to 50% of its produce to
the Western Massachusetts Food Bank. Over one million pounds of pro-
duce have been donated since 1992.31,32 Although food bank clients do not
receive a full share or membership in the CSA, the donations effectively
increase access to fresh, quality produce for families and individuals with
limited resources. Waterpenny Farm in Rappahanock County, Virginia,
not only donates extra produce to the Food Bank but provides CSA shares
to selected Food Bank clients and for use in the Food Bank’s education
outreach programs.33 The Gazy Brothers Farm in Oxford, Connecticut,
also gives shareholders who go on vacation the option of donating their
share to a food bank for that particular week (L. Gazy, written communi-
cation, December 2006).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A prominent theme from many of the CSA operators surveyed was a
lack of defined programs to accommodate low-income members but a
willingness to work with anyone to arrange a payment plan. This willing-
ness was especially true of the larger, more established CSAs from which
responses were received. These farms, which have been in operation for
several years, already have a membership base on which to rely. A few
farm operators made comments about having a profit margin that is too
slim to allow for much flexibility with low-income members (M. &
J. Rothschiller, oral communication, April 2006; L. Gazy, written com-
munication, December 2006). It is important to consider that many farm-
ers are striving to make a decent living wage from their CSA operation.
Nevertheless, all but a single CSA encountered through research
employed at least one strategy for making membership more economi-
cally feasible; usually by offering payment plans or working shares.
While the price of a CSA share can be a significant barrier for many
individuals and families, several other factors beyond economics can also
serve to dissuade people from becoming or remaining CSA members. For
example, although several CSAs offer recipes or cooking classes to their
shareholders, many people lack the cooking skills or knowledge about
how to prepare or consume different vegetables, which could detract from
full enjoyment of a CSA share. Additionally, in a study of CSA share-
holders’ satisfaction with their membership, many shareholders reported
too much food and cited food waste as a primary disadvantage or short-
coming of CSA membership. The inconvenience of going to the farm was
also high on the list of disadvantages.3 People who have limited resources
may not have a reliable source of transportation, so even traveling to a
neighborhood pick up location may be difficult. Furthermore, the CSA
model of food marketing is a relatively new concept, with many consum-
ers still unaware of what a CSA is and how it operates.
Membership in a CSA seems to require a certain amount of belief in
and commitment to the philosophical ideals of the CSA concept. In an era
when consumers can simply go to the grocery store and buy prewashed,
precut, out-of-season vegetables any time they desire, it seems that mem-
bers must value things other than acquiring fresh produce when buying
their produce from a CSA. By being part of a CSA, a consumer supports
local farmers and sustainable agricultural practices, translating into less
reliance on fossil fuels, less pollution, and reduced use of pesticides,
among other positive contributions. While these less tangible benefits
may not motivate every CSA shareholder, many may find that these bene-
fits outweigh the inconvenience associated with buying vegetables with
traces of soil, driving out of the way to pick up a share, and spending
more time in food preparation. Furthermore, eating a healthy diet is not a
top priority for many consumers. Even though a CSA share offers signifi-
cant savings when compared to an equal amount of store-bought produce,
a person who relies primarily on convenience foods and rarely or never
buys produce may find a CSA membership of limited value.
CSAs and other concerned groups have taken valuable steps in helping
limited-resource families afford membership, yet much work remains to
be done. Of the CSAs offering options of reduced payment or payment
plans, most reported only around 5% or less of their members taking
advantage of these options. Other barriers such as excessive food waste, a
lack of cooking skills, or time for food preparation must also be consid-
ered when looking for ways to include consumers of all economic levels.
Still, CSAs are employing a variety of methods to extend the benefits of
CSAs to limited-resource individuals and families such as acceptance of
government food assistance, payment plans, working shares, subsidized
low-income shares, low-cost shares, bartering, and outreach efforts. Many
nonprofit organizations are creating new and exciting ways of reaching
out to include people with limited resources in CSA memberships, and
individuals and community organizations are donating their money and
time to this effort. Perhaps additional strategies will emerge as people
begin to discover and appreciate the value of community-supported
agriculture.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Dietetic professionals and nutrition educators will find rich opportunities
related to community-supported agriculture for modeling healthy con-
sumption of fresh produce, learning about local agriculture, connecting
with local producers and the landscape, and making positive recommen-
dations for their clients of various income levels. Community nutritionists
can become involved in local efforts to increase community food security
and, in particular, access to nutritious fresh foods by partnering with a CSA
operator to develop programs similar to those discussed in this article.
Future research might further address the relationship between CSA
membership and diet quality, stress levels related to food acquisition,
attitudes about food and agriculture, and relationship to the community.
Additionally, researchers can explore the impact of the growing number
of CSAs on community food security and national food security, espe-
cially in light of future food production challenges that will likely result
from climate change.
REFERENCES
1. World Hunger Year. Food Security Learning Center Web site. Available at: http://
worldhungeryear.org/fslc/faqs/ria_041.asp?section=2&click=1. Accessed April 6, 2006.
2. McFadden S. The history of community supported agriculture, part I. Community
farms in the 21st century: poised for another wave of growth? The New Farm [serial online].
2005. Available at: http://www.newfarm.org/features/0104/csa-history/part1.shtml. Accessed
June 14, 2007.
3. Cooley J. Community Supported Agriculture: A Study of Shareholders’ Dietary
Patterns, Food Practices, and Perceptions of Farm Membership [master’s thesis].
Amherst, Mass: University of Massachusetts Amherst; 1996.
4. McCullum C. Using sustainable agriculture to improve human nutrition and
health. J Community Nutr. 2004;6:18–25.
5. Craig W. Phytochemicals: guardians of our health. J Am Diet Assoc.
1997;97(suppl 2):S199–S204.
6. Klein BP. Nutritional consequences of minimal processing of fruits and vegetables.
J Food Qual. 1987;10:179–193.
7. Cooley J, Lass D. What’s your share worth? Some comparisons of CSA share cost
versus retail produce value. Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts
Web site. Available at: http://www.umass.edu/resec/faculty/lass/csa2.html. Accessed
September 10, 2006.
8. Morland K, Wing S, Diez Roux A, Poole C. Neighborhood characteristics associ-
ated with the location of food stores and food service places. Am J Prev Med.
2002;1222:23–29.
9. Lee RE, Baxter M, Regan G, Reese-Smith J, Booth KM, Howard HH. Urban res-
taurants differ by neighborhood socioeconomic factors. Ann Behav Med. 2002;31:S056.
10. Lee RE, Regan G, Reese-Smith J, Booth KM, Howard HH. Availability of health-
ful foods in stores in urban housing development neighborhoods. Obes Res.
2004;12:SA30.
11. Chung C, Myers SL Jr. Do the poor pay more for food? An analysis of grocery
store availability and food price disparities. J Consumer Aff. 1999;33:276–296.
12. Curtis KA, McClellan S. Falling through the safety net: poverty, food assistance
and shopping constraints in an American city. Urban Anthropol. 1995;24:93–135.
13. Winne M. The food gap. Orion. Sept/Oct 2005;60–67.
14. Kantor LS. Community food security programs improve food access. Food Rev.
2001;24:20–26.
15. Nationwide E. coli 0157:H7 outbreak: questions and answers. US Food and Drug
Administration Web site. Available at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/spinacqa.html.
Accessed November 6, 2006.
16. Palmer S. The E. coli outbreak—lettuce learn a lesson. Today’s Dietitian.
2007;9:28–32.
17. SARE. An economic analysis of community supported agriculture consumers.
Report # LNE95–053. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Web site.
Available at: http://www.sare.org. Accessed June 25, 2007.
18. Chung K, Thomas BJ. Vegetables and values: understanding participation in
community-supported agriculture in a low-income urban community. J Nutr Educ Behav.
2005;37(suppl 1):S36.
19. Allen P. Reweaving the food security safety net: mediating entitlement and
entrepreneurship. Agric Hum Values. 1999;16:117–129.
20. Profiles of model CSA projects in NY state. Hunger Action Network of New York
State Web site. Available at: http://www.hungeractionnys.org/commfood_csa.htm.
Accessed April 3, 2006.
21. The handbook of regulations for direct farm marketing, “The Green Book.”
Washington State Department of Agriculture, Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program
Web site. Available at: http://agr.wa.gov/Marketing/SmallFarm/greenbook.htm. Accessed
September 19, 2006.
22. McMillan T. The action diet: get better food in our neighborhood. City Limits. 2004.
Available at: http://www.citylimits.org/content/articles/viewarticle.cfm?article_id=3088.
Accessed April 6, 2006.
23. About the Partner Shares Program. Madison Area Community Supported Agricul-
ture Coalition Web site. Available at: http://www.madison.com/communities/psp/.
Accessed June 14, 2007.
24. Donaker G, Shute B. REACHING OUT: community supported agriculture in
New York State. Hunger Action Network of New York State Web site. Available at: http:/
/www.hungeractionnys.org/CSAReport.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2006.
25. FarmShare information sheet. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture
[CISA] FarmShare Web site. Available at: http://www.buylocalfood.com/FarmShare.htm.
Accessed June 14, 2007.
26. Vermont Farm Share Program and Senior Farm Share Program. Northeast Organic
Farming Association of Vermont Web site. Available at: http://www.nofavt.org/programs/
farm-share.php. Accessed June 14, 2007.
27. Veneman awards $4.6 Million in grants for community food projects [news
release]. United States Department of Agriculture Web site. Available at: http://
www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/news/2004news/cfp.html. Accessed June 14, 2007.
28. Community food project competitive grants. Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service Web site. Available at: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/food/
in_focus/hunger_if_competitive.html. Accessed April 20, 2006.
29. Time Banks weave community one hour at a time. Time Banks Web site. Avail-
able at: http://www.timebanks.org/. Accessed July 14, 2007.
30. Community supported agriculture: connecting farmers and New Yorkers. Just
Food Web site. Available at: http://www.justfood.org/csa. Accessed October 25, 2006.
31. Food Bank Farm. National Center for Appropriate Technology Web site. Available
at: http://attrainternships.ncat.org/internDetail2.asp?id=1446. Accessed June 14, 2007.
32. The Food Bank Farm. The Food Bank Farm Web site. Available at: http://
www.foodbankwma.org/farm. Accessed October 26, 2006.
33. Capital Area Food Bank, Northern Virginia Branch. Waterpenny Farm Web site.
Available at: http://waterpennyfarm.com/blog/?page_id=8/. Accessed October 26, 2006.