This is old, published in the summer 2002 issue of Human Organization. But it's worth noting here because it's a thorough, well documented sociological study of consumer-vendor dynamics at a farmers market, based on interviews with nearly 500 farmers market shoppers. It's also interesting because of the type of market that it critiques: a state-owned operation housed in a large structure and open every day of the week. The authors, led by Susan Andreatta, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, focused on one of five such markets in North Carolina, the Piedmont Triad Farmers Market, located half way between Winston-Salem and Greensboro.
The market, operated by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, sure plays the locally-grown card to the hilt on its Web site.
"This state-of-the-art facility which opened in 1995, provides space for local bona fidegrowers to set up store under a 21,120 sq. ft. retail shelter where anyone can purchase fresh, local fruits, vegetables and ornamentals directly from the farmer who grew them. They are as fresh as picking your own, but without getting dirty. Talk face-to-face with the individual who grew it, and enjoy shopping in a friendly 'down on the farm' atmosphere."
The study raises serious questions about whether the market delivers on that hype. Evidently, if just a penny more than half of sales involve North Carolina produce, a vendor can sell at the farmers market. Some farmers seemed to question whether even that loose standard is enforced.
"In one-on-one interviews and in the focus groups farmers commented on their concern with the misrepresentation of the products sold at the market. There are vendors at the market who resell each other's products, or who buy in Virginia, South Carolina, or Georgia to resell at the PTFM. A further concern is what is sold. According to management, 51 percent of what is sold needs to be produced on-farm by the growers whose farms are being represented by the products, but they do not have to identify what is theirs and what was purchased."
Many shoppers were satisfied with the experience, and loved mingling with folks they had reason to believe were real farmers, but were oblivious to concerns about whether the produce they were buying was local or not. Other shoppers smelled a rat.
"Some people expressed concerns about the freshness and 'localness' of the food sold at the PTFM. Consumers making these remarks wanted to see signs and permits at the food stands confirming that the food ... was grown locally. These consumers wanted to make sure they were purchasing the freshest produce from local farmers, especially if they were driving a long distance to buy local foods and support the local farming community (20%)."
In the final analysis, the report pans the North Carolina model of state-run daily market, at least if the objective really is to support real local farmers. One of the problems inherent to the model is that only the largest producers can maintain a daily presence, and they, the anchor tenants, end up dominating the venue.
"A farmers market that tries to mimic the patterns of food availability at a supermarket-as PTFM does with its retail building and preferential treatment accorded to anchor vendors-- is unlikely to be supportive of local, seasonal agriculture, and efforts to do so will not educate consumers about the seasonality of food or the labor involved in its production and marketing. Consumers come to the market to purchase fresh, quality farm products from multiple vendors and to support a local farm economy, rather than to save money. Creating a market that alters that experience transforms the market into something consumers might not support as strongly."
Recent Comments