How Can Middle-of-the-Chain Organizations Improve Farmer Livelihoods and Reduce Food Insecurity?

Abstract

In the United States, small and beginning (SB) farmers depend on institutional and elite customers to increase their farm income, whereas food-insecure communities lack alternatives for accessing and utilizing healthy local foods. This study examined two middle-of-the-chain organizations attempting to break the demand- and supply-related barriers faced by food-insecure consumers and SB farmers, respectively. The study suggests that deep engagement on both sides can facilitate the creation of a viable local food pathway. One organization serves as an aggregator for SB farmers while preventing the unrealistic expectations of institutional customers. A second organization activates food-insecure consumers’ agencies to conceptualize and transform locally sourced food into acceptable forms. It provides the necessary support to ensure the utilization of healthy, nutritious foods. When the two organizations’ missions are aligned, they can use an emergent, flexible, and adaptable approach with a continuous improvement mindset to increase SB farmer livelihoods and reduce food insecurity. Middle-of-the-chain organizations collectively should have more than one way to make local foods available, accessible, and utilizable by food-insecure consumers. A nonprofit social enterprise model of organizations in the middle seems central to the viability of the community-based food system. The system is still in its early stages. Further research is needed to examine its sustained viability.

1. Introduction

The current food system is incompatible with human and planetary health, with significant ecological impacts, farmer livelihood challenges, and food and nutrition-security-related problems. It is dominated by transnational corporations whose widespread influence makes it very difficult for small and beginning (SB) farmers, food businesses, and distribution enterprises to compete within the market economy [1,2]. Younger generations are shying away from farming as, according to USDA, SB farmers in the United States sell between $1000 and $250,000 annually in agricultural products, which means an inadequate level of personal income. A second shortcoming of the current system is its failure to deliver sufficient quality and variety of healthy and affordable foods to citizens of every nation, independent of economic standing [2,3]. On a global scale, malnutrition is the leading cause of poor health (obesity, undernutrition, and other diet-related diseases). In the United States, food insecurity, which can lead to poor health outcomes, exists within clearly defined racial and economic boundaries. In 2020, 28.6% of low-income households and a disproportionate amount of BIPOC households were food insecure. These disparities reflect differences in neighborhood conditions and geographic access to food (https://health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health/literature-summaries/food-insecurity, accessed on 20 September 2024). Social justice considerations are key to creating more sustainable, health-promoting, and localized food system solutions. Reimagining regional and local food systems is imperative to support SB farmers while increasing access to locally produced foods for communities facing food insecurity. There is a clear and urgent need to analyze our current systems and realign them with internationally agreed-upon goals associated with human and ecological health, well-being, social equity, and economic prosperity [2,4]. Values-Based Supply Chains (VBSC) are defined as local and regional food supply chains that share these values: all partners (farmers, processors, distributors, and institutional buyers) work together to optimize value for everyone, and maintain transparency throughout the supply chain [5,6]. VBSC emphasizes a community’s health and well-being while minimizing waste and protecting shared natural resources, and offer new lenses to transform and reimagine the current food system. They can help develop localized food system solutions that integrate the place-based and experiential knowledge of the producers and consumers they intend to serve.

1.1. SB Farmers, Markets, and Healthy Food Access

Examples of community-based approaches to link SB farmers to retail markets include food hubs, community-supported agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets [7,8]; food hubs, cooperatives, and distributors provide access to institutional markets [6]. Food banks make food available and accessible to food-insecure populations but rarely source the food from SB farmers. The aggregation of locally produced foods allows SB farmers access to markets that would be inaccessible otherwise, mainly due to the volume expectations of commercial customers [7]. Community-supported agriculture and farmers’ markets are other effective means for SB farmers to reach new market segments and incrementally increase their income. However, these approaches rarely make healthy local foods available and accessible to the most disadvantaged food-insecure consumers. CSA’s high up-front costs are a barrier for low-income consumers, and farmers’ markets are perceived to be racialized, classed, and othered spaces by this same demographic [7,8].

Approaches that aim to alleviate food insecurity for low-income communities, integrating Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments or other forms of subsidization, is a crucial distribution feature to improve economic accessibility [8,9]. For example, a CSA box that was fifty percent subsidized for low-income consumers resulted in increased fruit and vegetable intake relative to a comparable national average [10]. Similarly, the Tribal Elder Box program (https://feedingamericawi.org/tribal-food-security/, accessed on 15 January 2025) has improved access to Indigenous foods for Tribal Elders while helping build and expand the intertribal food systems and support. More recently, meal kits, or boxes of fresh and shelf-stable ingredients with step-by-step cooking instructions, have been explored as a novel way to increase food access and improve the healthy eating behaviors of low-income consumers. Experiments and pilot projects have found that these kits, traditionally marketed to high-income consumers, are highly utilized and accepted by low-income groups, especially when cost and cultural appropriateness have been addressed [11,12]. Meal kits, or food boxes, represent yet another viable pathway from SB farmers to food-insecure communities that can be explored in the context of VBSC [13].

1.2. Middle-of-the-Chain Organizations in VBSC

VBSCs have a short supply chain, cutting down the number of intermediaries between the producers and consumers and the distances the food travels from production to markets. A shared values-based approach is important to build resilient food systems and to improve local ecological and socio-cultural impacts [6,14,15]. However, the evolving discourse on VBSC focuses on food production and distribution, prioritizing farmers’ needs to gain market access and reversing the declining agriculture of the middle, while food insecure consumers’ considerations for accessing healthy local foods through VBSC remain secondary. We believe that these concerns are not mutually exclusive. Middle-of-the-chain organizations in VBSC are essential in eliminating a wide range of systemic barriers (cost, transportation, knowledge of cooking, and socio-cultural factors) and making local foods accessible to BIPOC and low-income communities. In addition to improving food security, centering agroecological principles in developing community-based alternative food networks may support SB farmers’ livelihoods and promote environmental health [16]. These considerations raise the question of the nature of middle-of-the-chain organizations that can successfully sit at the intersections of food and nutrition security, food justice, and agroecology within a market-based economy.

VBSC organizations exhibit characteristics that differentiate them from traditional supply chains. These include a focus on adding differentiated value to the farm products [17,18], committing to the welfare of all participants in the value chain with a shared value of the fair distribution of profits [18,19], and investing in creating strategic alliances with a wide range of stakeholders, with shared governance, transparency, and trust-building rather than operating as transactional partners [13,20,21,22]. Cohen and Derryck [22] emphasize the role of nonprofits when bringing low-income consumers into these value chains, as they deeply understand the communities’ needs. Their case study shows that including nonprofits with a shared mission of improving the community’s health can contribute to the success of a VBSC. Conner et al. [19] and Greco et al. [13] describe how intermediary partnering organizations in a short VBSC are adaptive, maintain transparency, and employ effective communication methods to succeed. Bloom and Hinrichs [20] caution that achieving fair and affordable pricing may be challenging, and discussing power distributions among various actors is essential to ensure that intermediaries like food hubs alone do not capture and retain the added value. Merritt et al. [23] suggest that social enterprises may be uniquely positioned for the middle of the value chain. Embracing business practices, social enterprises prioritize financial goals alongside social and environmental goals. They can simultaneously provide employment opportunities, increase social capital, and uplift marginalized voices in community-based food systems. Despite a growing body of knowledge about middle-of-the-chain organizations in alternative food networks, research providing a nuanced understanding of the nature and relationships of organizations in the middle (unlike producers and institutional consumers) is in its nascence.

This research aims to provide a fine-grained understanding of the middle-of-the-chain organizations of an emergent VBSC system in Duluth, MN. Its geographic location is significant as it is one of the Northernmost cities in the upper Midwest serving as a connector for many rural communities that are often disadvantaged due to the food systems market concentration, structural chokepoints [24,25], and the likelihood that SB farmers will disappear [14]. We look at two organizations, Food Forward (FF) and Community Action Duluth (CAD), which are at the heart of the VBSC, connecting local SB farmers with markets and making local healthy foods available and accessible to low-income food-insecure communities. Next, we outline the study settings and methods.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Setting

In their extensive community-based participatory research studying the food system for the region, Katre et al. [26] mapped the local food pathways. They identified missing linkages between SB farmers and food-insecure consumers (Figure 1a–c, pp. 12–13, [26]). FF and CAD have begun to build these links and a pathway in an emergent VBSC (see Figure 1). CAD and FF are associated with the region’s community-based Food Network, Northland Food Network. The latter is an association of member organizations across the spectrum of VBFS, ranging from farmers, intermediaries, processors, distributors, food banks, and sometimes consumers. They facilitate strategic discussions, knowledge-sharing among their members, and systems and policy-level changes needed to support VBSCs in the region.

CAD’s mission is to empower and engage the community to eliminate poverty. They operate two summer farmers’ markets in Duluth’s Healthy Food priority areas and a year-round mobile market in these and other areas to provide affordable produce, dairy, and canned and dried goods. They accept EBT at both places and run special programs to give a $25 match for SNAP participants. They also run a Power of Produce club, which provides $4 to children under 18 and adults over 60 to spend at the farmers’ market. Its deep winter greenhouse allows them to grow and sell food through the mobile market. It has a walk-in cooler and freezer storage. They have developed relationships with SB farmers and work with them closely in the planning and sourcing processes to establish forward contracts where possible. If needed, CAD connects the farmers with regional resources for technical support. Most of their food is sourced from local SB farmers during the growing season and from farmers extending the growing season, for example, using high tunnels and cold storage. Given that they operate mobile markets for low-income consumers, there is a need for foods that cannot be sourced locally. For this reason, they have established agreements with regional wholesale providers ensuring year-round food supply. Furthermore, keeping financial sustainability in mind, there are occasions when foods are sourced from wholesalers. In 2024, about 55% of their food purchases were local. The CAD program director mentioned that our joint Food Box LFPA grant has helped increase the percentage. All its services primarily focus on improving food security among vulnerable populations in the Duluth communities while helping SB farmers in the region.

FF’s mission is to make healthy foods accessible, affordable, and utilized by low-income consumers in Duluth’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods and help consumers acquire and sustain healthy food behaviors. It home-delivers partially prepared meal kits supported by instructions (see Figure 2) and easily accessible videos (Seasonal Hamburger Soup) by scanning a QR code tagged to their meal kits. FF helps consumers develop cooking skills and has begun to educate them on the nutritional value of meal kits. With recipes like Turkey BLT Wrap, Vegetable Stir Fry, and Loaded Veggie Mac and Cheese, the meal kits are designed to provide familiar meals to consumers while expanding their palates by incorporating unfamiliar ingredients. The meal kits are delivered on a fixed schedule using CAD’s mobile market van, and all customers get the same meal. FF uses multiple and diverse communication strategies such as email, text messaging, and social media to engage and broadly communicate with consumers. From its inception, the business model has centered the voices of those most impacted by food insecurity and prioritized economic and environmental sustainability, thus strengthening the local food system.

CAD and FF are nonprofit social enterprises that rely on various income streams, government and private foundation grants, individual donors, and paying customers to cover their operating expenses. In the case of FF, about a fourth of the clients have the means to pay full price for the meal kits helping cover food costs, and CAD’s summer farmers’ markets are open for all, while the mobile market primarily generates revenue through SNAP payments.

2.2. Research Design and Analytical Methods

We used an exploratory case study methodology [27,28] to study a pilot project carried out by FF for incorporating local and regional foods in their meal kits and food boxes. FF served as the primary entity for this case study and CAD to the extent of its interactions and exchanges with FF. This case study leveraged a mixed-methods approach to study these two organizations. The PI received one grant (from the University of Minnesota) for action research with FF to incorporate local foods into its meal kits and examine the viability of the pathway. The partnership between CAD and FF received a second grant (USDA’s Local Food Purchase Assistance Program) to deliver food boxes to FF’s clients. During the summer growing season of 2023, FF sourced almost all fruits and vegetables for the meal kits through CAD from SB farmers. In doing so, the business created a steady demand for local foods. It also increased the familiarity and comfort of FF’s client base with fresh, locally grown foods. CAD’s role as a consolidator of locally grown foods was crucial to the success of this pilot. Open lines of communication between the two entities allowed FF to develop its meal plans around what produce was available every week. A four-week food box pilot was conducted for the second grant in the Winter of 2024. The boxes included recipe suggestions (see Figure 3) and ingredients for two breakfasts and four dinners weekly. Portions and recipes were tailored to each household’s size, from one to four members. This pilot aimed to create new market opportunities for SB farmers.

Qualitative and quantitative data were collected for both projects from July 2023 to February 2024. Quantitative data included a list of meals, local and non-local items and quantities sourced, the cost for each category, and survey-based customer feedback for the meal kits and food boxes. Qualitative data were gathered through interviews with CAD’s program director, field notes and memos by the P.I. and collaborating authors while working with FF, and open-ended feedback from FF’s customers received through in-person conversations, phone calls, and text messages. Qualitative data about demand and supply coordination processes were gathered from interviews, field notes and memos, regular email communications, and updates to shared spreadsheets used by CAD and FF. Quantitative data were summarized to obtain the percentage of locally sourced fruits, vegetables, and proteins and the share of their cost compared to the total cost.

Since we are interested in the functioning of the middle-of-the-chain organizations, fragments of text from qualitative data were thematically coded into three groups: (a) those pertaining to CAD’s interactions with SB farmers, (b) FF’s with their customers, and (c) exchanges between CAD and FF. Historical information about CAD and FF was coded separately. These codes were studied in the context of the demand and supply of local foods and critical factors influencing the feasibility of this pathway. For example, enabling interactions and actions for maximizing local purchases or improving clients’ knowledge and acceptance of local foods. Narrative summaries were developed and are presented in the results section below.

3. Results

The study uncovered the crucial roles of a consolidator (CAD) on the supply end and, on the consumer end, that of FF by transforming the supplies into meal kits and food boxes. Our results demonstrate the central role of each entity in the emerging community-based alternative food network, and they further describe the critical function of each within the community.

CAD plays a crucial role in addressing important pillars of food security, ensuring a stable and reliable year-round supply of healthy food, and prioritizing local food supported by non-local food when needed. The region in this study has a short growing season, which presents inherent limitations for year-round supply in the absence of value addition, such as canning and cold storage. This limitation has heightened consequences for low-income food insecure consumers facing several other barriers, such as transportation to alternate venues like grocery stores. CAD’s relationship with SB farmers for their farmers’ markets and with wholesale distributors for mobile markets ensures a stable, reliable food supply.

On the distribution side, FF has developed a deep, trusting relationship with the community it serves. FF is characterized by frequent communication, face-to-face conversation during meal-kit deliveries, and sustained commitment to community engagement. Working to dismantle preconceived notions of who can access and consume fresh, healthy foods is at the heart of the business. Food Forward has disrupted and innovated the channels through which low-income consumers can access fresh, local produce. By adopting a multi-level approach, the social enterprise is simultaneously addressing several pillars of food security: availability, access, and utilization. Affordable local healthy food available at culturally appropriate farmers’ markets, community gardens, or mobile markets alone might be adequate for some low-income food-insecure consumers. However, FF has demonstrated that a segment of this community needs value addition through meal kits and food boxes, accompanied by video-based education and simple instructions to aid the cooking process, maximizing food utilization.

The findings are organized into three sections. The first focuses on the nuanced role of the consolidator at the farmers’ end, while section two explores this for the transformation and distribution of food at the consumer end. Sections one and two highlight the importance of deep engagement with their respective constituencies in building VBSC. The third section presents the nuances of the partnership between the consolidator and distributor.

3.1. Opening a New Channel for SB Farmers and Facilitating Reliable Supply

SB farmers face challenges entering business-to-business markets. Specifically, in the region in this study, SB farms, individually, cannot commit to volumes and year-round supply expected from larger venues such as grocery stores and healthcare or educational institutions. Katre et al. [26] found that there are challenges regarding the timing of growing crops, the inability to forecast harvest time, and issues such as a rapid growing produce season followed by a much slower year. Although there has been discussion about starting a food hub in the area, there is nothing of that nature in the region to date.

Like other studies, we found several limitations regional SB farmers face in expanding direct-to-consumer markets. The leading option in this category is to distribute the products through farmers’ markets, farm pick-up, and community-supported agriculture boxes. We found that SB farmers sell at community farmers’ markets, primarily in the initial stages of establishing themselves. While these markets are easy to attend, they do not provide farmers with sufficient income due to low sales volume and limited predictability. Often, the food remaining at the end of the day is wasted, once again becoming a drag on their income. Once SB farmers cultivate a customer base and are more widely recognized, they expand to community-supported agriculture to gain more stability and predictability through advance payments and guaranteed sales. The challenge from a community food system perspective is that farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture models often are not accessible for low-income consumers living in healthy food priority areas.

CAD has multiple distribution outlets primarily, but not exclusively, focused on low-income consumers—seasonal farmers’ markets, year-round mobile markets, and now FF. CAD has maintained a broad portfolio of SB farmers and engages with them regularly for farmers’ markets and their mobile market demands. The case study demonstrates that CAD serves as a specific kind of buyer, which, in some ways, is similar to institutional buyers when the demand across all distribution outlets is consolidated. However, CAD takes an approach where farmers can supply what they have available instead of committing to unachievable quotas. CAD can look at the projected supplies across farmers in their network, unsold food at farmers’ markets, and their urban farm and assess the needs across mobile markets and FF to match the demand and supply. As the CAD program director mentioned, “we tend to buy at least some of the produce the farmers are not able to sell at the end of the day at farmers’ markets. We try to use it in our mobile market and help the farmers”. Expressing the need to help SB farmers, they said, “a meal kit or food box program can be an added avenue to help improve the SB farmers’ sales”. This approach brings more sales certainty to SB farmers.

Specific to our study, CAD is the link between SB farmers and FF. An important question is, how does CAD match demand and supply? At the strategic level, sourcing from wholesale suppliers mitigates the risk of the availability of local foods when their farmer network is unable to supply. FF is an addition to their demand side arm, resulting in new sales for SB farmers in their supplier portfolio. CAD is now working with a new distribution channel that is community-focused and mission-aligned, leverages its assets like cooler storage and mobile van, and, in turn, relies on their ability to source much of the supplies. This partnership is different from adding a regular business-to-business relationship to increase sales. FF’s partnership with CAD has had monumental effects on SB growers. As one grower said, “We really appreciate the additional income supplying for the Food Boxes”. However, as the CAD program director described, there is room for continuously improving demand and supply management.

3.2. Value Addition to Overcoming Consumption Barriers

Low-income food-insecure consumers face many barriers to healthy eating, such as knowledge of how to prepare certain foods, time needed to prepare meals, insufficient equipment, and storage to keep food safe for extended duration, cost, and transportation. Providing raw food (fruits, vegetables, and proteins) does not reconcile these barriers. If we are to address food insecurity for all, fulfilling the needs of this specific segment of consumers is necessary. The most prominent barriers to eating healthy foods for these communities are cost, transportation, knowledge, and time availability. FF overcomes transportation barriers through its home-delivery model, cost barriers by providing meal kits and food boxes for free, knowledge barriers by providing simple and easy-to-access instructions and videos, and time barriers through pre-portioned and partially prepared items. Food Boxes have items portioned for an individual family and include step-by-step instructions on how to cut, peel, fry, or bake whatever items are in them. Preparing a healthy meal can be intimidating, but adequate portions and curated, easy-to-follow instructions make this task less daunting. FF transforms the food into forms that meet the consumers’ needs based on their knowledge, expertise, and experience in cooking and eating healthy.

During the grant-funded pilot, 67% of the fruits and vegetables were sourced locally from SB farmers. Concerning all ingredients in a meal kit, locally sourced fruits and vegetables constituted about 25% of the total ingredients. Both CAD and FF mentioned that better coordination and planning can help further optimize locally sourced fruits and vegetables and other supplies such as grains and proteins. Regarding the Food Box, they contained enough food for two breakfasts and four dinners per week and were delivered to 10 consumers who were more likely to make the meals from scratch. Serving sizes were curated to fit each family based on the number of adults and children in the home. In this four-week pilot, locally sourced items corresponded to about 80% of the total food box cost. Consumers are beginning to recognize which ingredients are sourced locally and are becoming more comfortable preparing those items. This information is conveyed to them through communication with Food Forward. For example, “knowing what a zucchini looks like and sharing that some tomatoes can look like this and be this color. Not all tomatoes are red and perfectly shaped depending on variety”. Consumers repeatedly inquired where they could find the pork provided in the food boxes. Many of FF’s consumers primarily rely on heavily processed meats (i.e., cold cuts, hot dogs, sausages, etc.) for dietary protein. The consumers expressed that what came in the food boxes tasted like no other pork they had ever had with regards to taste and quality. Based on the periodic feedback collected, low-income consumers clearly found a greater difference in taste for locally sourced meats and proteins and less in those of fruits and vegetables.

The findings from the local sourcing pilot program suggest positive perceptions and acceptability of local food by FF consumers. On a five-point Likert scale rating system, the average satisfaction rate for the meal kits was 4.1, while the average difficulty when preparing meals was only 1.4. These numbers convey that the consumers could prepare a healthy, satisfying meal with relatively little stress. We believe that the core to high acceptance of meals reflects the voices of a group of women from the community being served, who face barriers to eating healthy and are the force behind FF. For the food boxes that were delivered during the four-week pilot, when asked to share their reactions to the food box, a participant stated, “I felt so happy and amazed at the box! Grandson made the pork chops stuffed with wild rice! I thought that was creative! I started the overnight oats! Just seeing the fresh vegetables and plastic sheets for meal planning is so fun and helpful! Thank you! Still amazed and happy”! By sharing their enthusiasm about the meal, it is evident that the meals do not have to be complex to meet taste preferences. Further, all ingredients provided were used by the consumers during meal preparation, demonstrating the benefit of the thoughtful, participatory planning done by FF to ensure that ingredients are appreciated and utilized. To continue meeting the consumers where they are, FF has created a website with weekly videos to serve as a visual aid alongside the step-by-step written instructions. A QR code is sent out with every meal kit to access the instructions and videos. Regarding the delivery system and setup, one participant said, “Very thankful! Love every delivery”!

The findings from this case study suggest that meal kits play a positive role in increasing low-income consumers’ participation in the emerging local food system. This intentional interaction with positive food behaviors, such as creating more home-cooked meals and cultivating a greater understanding of locally sourced produce, allows the consumers to invest in their health and overall well-being. The effects for consumers can be enormous in terms of growth and learning around how to prepare and interact with local foods.

By meeting consumers where they are and slowly pushing them to expand their palates, the consumers receiving meal kits are learning to utilize fresh local foods and increasing acceptance of new ingredients, and FF is promoting the consumption of nutritionally balanced meals. When asked to share their reactions to the food box, one of the consumers responded, “Thank you for all you do! My daughter and I appreciate this program! I was surprised at how much food was in the box. So very helpful. I love all the healthy foods and so does my daughter. She likes to try new things and we’re all for healthier routes and portions. So, it’s been nice to have a meal plan and portions”. Oftentimes, consumers facing food insecurity may not know what to do with produce once they have it. They are learning from the meal kits to properly prepare healthy meals that feature increasing amounts of local produce.

3.3. Relationship Between Consolidator and Distributor in the Food Network

We discuss five key characteristics of the relationship between the two organizations.

3.3.1. Organic and Emergent Evolution of the Partnership

CAD and FF’s missions significantly overlap in promoting local healthy food consumption and prioritizing low-income food-insecure communities. Their conversations began in early 2023. The collaboration can be characterized as organic and emergent, beginning with FF sharing CAD-supplied cooler and freezer storage space, then discussions about leveraging their van for deliveries, and finally sourcing fruits and vegetables during the 2023 produce season. Both organizations see the potential for further collaboration, such as delivering meal kits to their mobile market customers and FF team holding cooking classes at their farmers markets. The organic approach has allowed both organizations to gauge mission alignment and carefully understand mutual resources, capacities, and constraints.

3.3.2. Flexibility

Rather than operating as a strict business partnership guided by contractual terms and conditions and consequences when violated, each organization prioritizes the common mission elements and long-term goals of establishing a sustainable community-centered VBSC. Decisions with this view embrace flexibility as a core value. For example, CAD recognizes that FF leverages a community kitchen for assembling the meal kit, limiting the days and times when their mobile van would be needed for deliveries, and vice versa FF acknowledges CAD’s schedule of the days their van and/or staff are occupied with other priorities. Further, even though a schedule is agreed upon, both organizations demonstrate flexibility and activate their backup plans when one cannot keep to the schedule or experiences last-minute interruptions.

3.3.3. Adaptability

The processes for coordinating demand and supply require adapting meal kit recipes to optimally leverage items added to stock last-minute, say from left-over food at farmers’ markets or sudden non-availability of items. Likewise, there have been occasions when FF had to add or delete items needed due to unplanned circumstances for which CAD had to adapt their procurement or sell excess items at other venues. This adaptability, once again, was crucial in building trusted relationships, especially in an organic and emergent situation and in the interest of the greater good. For example, the CAD program director described a situation: “FF had placed an order for kale for their meal kit. We could have ordered kale, but we had collard in stock and was available at a much lower price. We reached out if collard would work in place of Kale and they ended up taking collard”.

3.3.4. Continuous Improvement Mindset

Another facet of the partnership is keeping the long-term vision in mind and adopting a continuous improvement approach across all aspects of the partnership, including communication and operational processes. For example, their processes for communicating and discussing demand and supply and agreeing on order quantities started as a weekly email-based system, evolving to a shared spreadsheet but still focusing on the upcoming week. However, both organizations felt the need to plan and forecast the requirements and supply (especially during the growing season). The exchange system has evolved to a shared spreadsheet with four-week forecasts, i.e., a more well-defined process while keeping flexibility and adaptability at the core. More recently, FF has started conveying the demand in generic terms such as root vegetables rather than breaking it down to specific quantities of specific vegetables. This improvement has allowed CAD to better manage their sourcing and inventory.

3.3.5. Cooperate to Innovate

Within a short span of one year, the two organizations have creatively pooled their resources and core capabilities to conceptualize and experiment with new ideas, which neither of them could do individually. This approach enables them to bring new energy and draw more partners into the VBSC. For example, the two organizations conceptualized the unique Food Box program using FF’s deep understanding of their constituents’ food behaviors and CAD’s deep understanding of their SB farmer network. To the best of our knowledge, such a food box program has not been piloted in the region or potentially nationally (it is unclear if the Tribal Elder Food Box program portions the food box to family size and if it includes all ingredients needed for the recommended recipes). A Local Food Purchase Assistance grant from the USDA is funding the experiment. Given the size and duration of this pilot project, the PI was able to generate interest from the University of Minnesota’s Medical School faculty and students to assist with nutrition education and measuring health outcomes.

4. Discussion

Low-income, food-insecure individuals are often not front and center in community food systems conversations as they are primarily served by food shelves and free meal programs, which are inherently constrained when it comes to health and nutrition. This study demonstrates the role organizations in the middle can play in a VBSC, including local healthy food choices for low-income food-insecure individuals and simultaneously generating extra income for SB farmers. The results point to four main themes important for such systems—(a) agentic value addition in the middle, (b) recognizing preferences for improving local food utilization, (c) collaborative approaches in the middle, and (d) financial viability of the middle-of-the-chain organizations. Next, we discuss each of these themes.

4.1. Agentic Value Addition in the Middle

The findings of this case study align with the findings of the Tribal Elder Food Box program and those of Greco et al. [13] and Sweeney et al. [12], which found that when key considerations (cultural, information, etc.) are accounted for, meal kits are an acceptable intervention to promote healthy eating among low-income consumers. Customers’ positive perceptions of fresh, locally sourced foods suggest that the value addition where local foods are transformed into meal kits and home-delivered is essential for addressing food insecurity. Locally sourced foods made available via community-supported agriculture or farmers’ markets do not meaningfully address most of the barriers low-income consumers experience in modifying their food behaviors. Time, cost, knowledge, and transportation must be addressed, and the role of value addition in the middle in reducing these barriers cannot be overlooked.

The agency of marginalized communities, such as low-income food-insecure consumers, in improving their food security is important [29] but also least understood [30,31]. This case study suggests that participatory planning and execution, where meal kits are designed to meet the consumers where they are and slowly expand their palates, ensures that the meals prepared and delivered will be utilized and appreciated by its consumer base. In the context of VBSC, an intermediary directly involving marginalized communities in decision-making is required to ensure that all community members benefit from the development of local food networks. The intermediary, then, can address pillars of food security from a strengths-based perspective to ensure that the unique needs of marginalized groups are being addressed. As found in other community development contexts [32,33], leveraging community assets, partnerships, and the place-based knowledge of those most impacted by food security can facilitate the development of food access solutions that are an appropriate fit for the communities they intend to serve.

4.2. Recognizing Consumer Preferences for Improving Local Food Utilization

Local food movements are often considered exclusive to white people and privileged classes and critiqued for their failure to address equity [34,35]. Marginalized communities such as low-income and people of color lack economic and social power and are often excluded from these spaces [34,36,37]. As a result, there is a lack of knowledge about the preferences of marginalized communities for locally produced fruits, vegetables, and proteins as compared to the conventional versions of those products. Rather than providing available local food as-is, this research suggests that middle-of-the-chain organizations can expend effort in understanding food-insecure consumers’ preferences, introduce value addition, and improve food utilization, an important pillar of food security [38].

This research shows that low-income consumers prefer locally sourced proteins over the conventional, processed meats they have consistent access to. It is widely understood that the factory farming of animals to fulfill an ever-increasing demand for protein in the United States is detrimental to human and environmental health [2,3]. What this research suggests, however, is that consumers across all socioeconomic backgrounds may actually prefer to consume locally sourced proteins. Low-income consumers’ observed preference for processed and packaged food is, undoubtedly, shaped by the social, economic, and geographic contexts that shape their lives. We know that low-income and BIPOC neighborhoods are more likely to be divested, resulting in a lack of infrastructure, including grocery stores, schools, community centers, and other healthcare services. What often does not disappear from these neighborhoods are fast food restaurants and convenience stores, which, over time, shape the food behaviors of individuals, consumers, and communities. The downstream effect of these shifts in behavior is misinformed perceptions of the type of foods that these communities prefer. This case study uncovered that, when given access and choice, low-income consumers demonstrated a preference for locally sourced proteins. They clearly articulated the difference in taste between ultra-processed meats and those sourced locally, suggesting a market for locally produced proteins among low-income food-insecure consumers.

On the other hand, for low-income consumers who do not regularly consume fresh fruits and vegetables, the difference in taste and quality of locally sourced produce is not as easily recognizable due to reduced access. Although low-income consumers may not strongly prefer local produce, through programming and transformation of foods, intermediaries can create demand and convey the health and social benefits of locally produced fruits and vegetables. The case study findings suggest that consumers begin to appreciate the increased nutritional value of the local produce and realize the positive social impacts of supporting SB farmers. Marginalized individuals most involved in the operations of the middle-of-the-chain organizations begin even to express concerns regarding highly processed products produced and packaged with pesticides, herbicides, and various preservative agents. These individuals value the naturalness and freshness of the local food, and given that they represent marginalized communities, we believe this is a shared belief. Clearly, there is an opportunity for intermediaries to step up and meet the demand in the community.

4.3. Collaborative Approaches in the Middle

The VBSC literature exploring partnerships, collaborations, and relationships with intermediaries has primarily focused on those between farmers and institutions, for example, farm-to-school [19], farmers and food hubs or food hubs and consumers [1], and farmers and food distributors [21]. Examples of relationships and collaboration between two intermediaries that are neither farmers nor consumers, to the best of our knowledge, are lacking. This research suggests that two intermediaries can collaborate to improve SB farmer livelihood and make healthy foods accessible and utilized by food-insecure consumers. As evidenced in the case study, by virtue of the organizations being in the middle and not holding the perspective of the farmers or the consumers alone, they can prioritize values at both ends of the VBSC. This shared goal of developing a VBSC allows organizations in the middle to collaborate, embrace flexibility and adaptability, and maintain an organic and improvement mindset. While previous research has identified challenges partners face in maintaining pricing transparency—for example, Conner et al. [19]—this research suggests that shared goals of organizations in the middle can help overcome the barriers. For example, since both organizations shared the goal of minimizing waste when situations of unplanned excess food arose at either the supply or distribution end, the study demonstrated that the organizations quickly adapted and innovated to find alternate uses and prevent waste.

The unique nature of two nonprofit social enterprises in the middle of the chain combined in ways that increased SB farmer income without undue supply or pricing expectations such as those imposed by commercial entities. Their combined innovation abilities generated demand at a fair price for the farmers, an essential feature of VBSC [6,14,15], supporting the idea presented by Merritt et al. [23] that social enterprises can contribute to food justice. Likewise, as seen in this study, social enterprises can create employment, activate a vital pillar of food security, the agency of low-income consumers [38], and assist in designing services appropriate for the community. It is especially critical when attempting to increase the participation of low-income and other disproportionately food-insecure populations in the development of the VBSC. As was observed in this research, sustained engagement of middle-of-the-chain organizations within the community, over time, promotes feelings of trust and empowers marginalized community members to share their thoughts and concerns. Middle-of-the-chain social enterprises can provide an alternative pathway to make their voices heard, which might have otherwise gone unnoticed in traditional advocacy spaces like community forums, town hall meetings, or ballot initiatives.

4.4. Financial Viability of the Middle-of-the-Chain

Social enterprises are recommended to improve food justice and food sovereignty issues. However, in the systematic review by Merritt et al. [23], none of the social enterprise cases reviewed involved transforming farm food through food boxes or meal kits. Sitaker et al. [21] and Sweeney et al. [12] studied food box and meal kit interventions for low-income consumers. Exploring the financial sustainability of the Vermont-based food box study, Sitaker et al. [21] concluded the need for farmers and consumers to negotiate a viable price point, whereas the meal kit intervention studied by Sweeney et al. [12] was a pilot project and did not explore the financial aspects. Likewise, the Tribal Elder Food Box program is supported by grants. In short, this field of social entrepreneurial models where food is transformed for suitability for low-income consumers calls for urgent research. Our study opens the doors by showing a possible roadmap.

Cost considerations are an essential aspect of planning for social enterprise intermediaries that aim to connect SB farmers and food-insecure populations via a value-added approach, like a meal kit or food box. Even though consumers have a greater preference for local meats, they are significantly more expensive than what is sold at conventional venues, like grocery stores, and can be prohibitive for social enterprises.

For a social enterprise, nonprofit, or community-based organization that aims to increase healthy food access for food-insecure consumers, it is crucial to consider costs while keeping the mission and vision in mind. This case study suggests that from a financial perspective, the most feasible model is to initially focus on including local fruits and vegetables in meal kits and food boxes. Then, over time, through evolving and flexible partnerships, a model can be developed to incorporate more local meats and proteins into the service. For food-insecure populations who do not regularly consume the recommended quantity of fruits and vegetables, programs such as this should first aim to increase familiarity and comfortability with local produce. The consumers will readily accept the eventual addition of local meats and proteins because of their trust in and appreciation for locally sourced food.

5. Conclusions

This study builds on the research by Katre et al. [26] for the Duluth, MN region in the USA, highlighting the need to develop spaces where SB farmers and low-income consumers gather to facilitate alternative approaches in a VBSC capable of simultaneously addressing SB farmer livelihood and food insecurity among low-income individuals. We highlight the significance of the study but acknowledge that the VBSC is in its early stages of development. There is a need to explore the viability of middle-of-the-chain organizations as the social enterprises scale and increase the incorporation of local foods. Similarly, as the distribution of healthy foods to food-insecure consumers increases, there is a need to examine the sustainability of healthy food behaviors.

We looked at CAD and FF, two middle-of-the-chain nonprofit social enterprises, one serving as a consolidator at the supply end and the other transforming farm food and distributing it to low-income consumers. Together, the two organizations offer a pathway to accomplish multiple goals of a VBSC. It can create new market opportunities for SB farmers at fair prices, thus promoting food justice and agroecological practices while preserving indigenous generational knowledge. Middle-of-the-chain organizations, due to their social enterprise model and deep community roots, can activate the agency of food-insecure individuals to guide value addition and create demand. These organizations can create a VBSC that disrupts the dominant understanding that healthy local foods are primarily for the privileged and that low-income food-insecure communities must continue to rely on heavily processed or rescued food or food distributed for free through pantries and food shelves.