A customer picks up her customized CSA share from Star Hollow Farms. (Image courtesy of The Washington Post)

If it’s February, it must be time to feel guilty.

It’s not because I’ve broken any new-year diet resolutions. (I don’t make any.) It’s because I will not join a CSA.

Community-supported agriculture programs, or CSAs, traditionally offer a weekly box of seasonal produce from a local farm. Customers pay upfront so the farmer has the cash on hand to buy seeds and equipment, and a guide for what and how much to grow. (Some plans also require that members put in a few hours’ work on the farm.) In exchange they receive an assortment of whatever is ready for harvest that week. That might mean a lot of greens in early spring and an overload of tomatoes in high summer — or if there’s a blight, no tomatoes at all. The benefit, or so they tell me, is that participation supports local growers and teaches families to cook with what Mother Nature provides rather than the global panoply of foods available year-round at the grocery store.

Maybe. But a model designed to serve the producer and not the customer will never be, well, sustainable. And in my experience, CSA customers get the short end of the stick. If I take a vacation in the summer, I pay for food I never receive. If I want more food one week to throw a party and less the next? Tough luck.

The good news, as I write in my latest Smarter Food column for The Washington Post, is that farmers and a new crop of food entrepreneurs are getting the message that, at least some of the time, the customer should have options. Flexible CSA models are sprouting up around the country, proving that subscription services can work for farmers and consumers. Some, dubbed multi-farm CSAs, offer produce from a network of small farms for more variety. Others let customers choose what and how much goes into their weekly box or use pre-paid credit at the farmers market or online.

Do you belong to a CSA? Do you think it’s fabulous? Or too restrictive? Check out my column and let me know what you think.

New grocery stores like Walmart may not help America eat better.

How can we change the way America eats? If there is one thing most people agree on, it’s that we need to make healthy food more accessible and affordable to low-income families.

Or do we? A new survey from Share Our Strength’s Cooking Matters program, challenges a piece of the conventional wisdom. The poll of 1,500 families reveals that most low-income families are satisfied with the availability of good food. Seventy-seven percent of urban families were satisfied with their options versus 69 percent of rural families. The greater obstacles to healthy meals are planning skills, time and, yes, price.

According to the survey:

• Families with a stay-at-home mom or an unemployed parent are far more likely to prepare healthy from-scratch meals. An at-home parent makes dinner from scratch 4.4 times per week versus 3.6 for families where the adult(s) are employed full-time. Homemakers, the unemployed and disabled were more likely to agree that that cooking healthy meals was a realistic goal than those that worked full time.
• Families that regularly budget and plan for meals before shopping, using a written grocery list, for example, are the same families who eat healthy, balanced or made from-scratch dinners most days of the week. Families that always or often plan are significantly more likely to provide healthy meals five or more times a week. However, overall 35 percent and 55 percent of survey respondents don’t regularly use written grocery lists or plan meals before going to the store, respectively.
• Price is a factor. One in four families report choosing less healthy foods often or always because of price. But, the report smartly notes that this can be overcome by educating families about the benefits of canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, which cost a fraction of fresh ones and don’t rot in the crisper drawer. While 81 percent of families said that fresh produce was extremely healthy, just 32 percent of parents rated frozen fruits and vegetables as extremely healthy and only 12 percent said that canned ones offered great nutritional benefits.

The study was funded by ConAgra, which has led some to be suspicious of the results. But the data reflect what my husband, Brent Cunningham, and I saw while reporting for six months in Huntington, West Virginia. Among the families we followed, the very poorest was the one most likely to cook healthy meals at home. But it required intense planning and basic cooking skills. The families least likely to eat well were the ones who, frankly, didn’t have to.  They had enough money to swing by Burger King for dinner on the way home instead of cooking family meals and eating leftovers. (See my recent post on the Atlantic: Fast Food’s Dirty Little Secret.) They shopped impulsively, instead of methodically, at the grocery store, which meant their carts were filled with frozen pizzas, chips and snacks.

It’s fashionable to blame a lack of access to good food for America’s lousy eating habits. It may be easier to plunk down a new Walmart in the inner city. (And the schemes also may help cash-starved politicians generate corporate campaign contributions.) But the Cooking Matters survey is more evidence that helping families to eat better is a lot more complicated.

It could have been a turning point in America’s war on obesity. This morning on the Today show, Food Network star Paula Deen—the queen of deep-fried Twinkies—admitted that she had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. But when asked whether fans should cut back on the “yummy, fattening” recipes she promotes, she told Al Roker: “Honey I’m your cook, not your doctor.”

Deen’s position is hardly a surprise. This is a woman known for fried chicken and broccoli “salad” that includes sugar, mayonnaise, cheese and bacon. Deen knows that even a mention of healthy, responsible eating could undermine her multimillion-dollar television-and-cookbook empire built on the glories sugar and lard.

Still, it was a grand disappointment. While everyone from Anthony Bourdain to Frank Bruni have called Deen a menace to a healthy society, I always believed that Deen, or someone like her, might be the key to change. Everyday Americans, including a large number that struggle with weight and diabetes, like Deen. They listen to her. As I wrote in a piece on the Atlantic in August, Deen, despite herself, might just be the secret ingredient to changing the way Americans eat.

If that sounds ridiculous, think again about the power of celebrity-awareness campaigns. Magic Johnson singlehandedly changed the debate about the AIDS virus when he public with his diagnosis of HIV. (It’s worth noting, too, that the move hasn’t damaged his career as a broadcaster and endorser.) Christopher Reeves, aka Superman, raised money for research on spinal cord injuries and public empathy for people with disabilities. Lance Armstrong, despite all the controversy over doping, has made supporting cancer research eminently cool

Deen has chosen a different path. Three years after her diagnosis, she’s signed on as a paid spokeswoman for diabetes drugs–her way, she says, of bringing something to the table. Moreover, she denies that her fat-and-sugar-laden recipes have any role to play in the skyrocketing rates of Type 2 diabetes. Fans may see her on TV twice a day swooning over cream pies and “Uncle Bubba’s Wings” but she only cooks and eats that kind of food while filming: “30 days out of 365 days — and it’s for entertainment.”

In the end, Deen told Al Roker: “You have to be responsible for yourself.” It’s advice that the fatty-food diva clearly and cynically has decided to follow herself.

Local Roots market manager, Jessica Eikleberry. (Ben Leitschuh for The Washington Post)

This month’s Smarter Food focuses on an innovative coop in Wooster, Ohio called Local Roots. The carefully conceived venture solves many of the issues faced by  small farmers and foodies who love them/

Here’s how it works: The coop rents shelf space to local farmers for the bargain price of $10 a month. They drop off once or twice a week. But, unlike at a farmers market, they don’t have to stand there and sell their wares. Instead, customers shop as they would at a grocery store. They can buy milk from grass-fed cows, eggs, locally baked walnut bread and produce from dozens of farmers but still check out at a single cash register, using cash, a check, a credit card, even food stamps.

Launched two years ago in a renovated warehouse off Wooster’s main drag, the market is thriving. On a recent visit, the shelves were stocked with potatoes, Jerusalem artichokes, arugula, nine varieties of apples, grass-fed milk, jam, maple syrup and locally milled flour. And this is the slow season.

Let’s hope this savvy model catches on elsewhere.

As Frank Brigsten, a renowned New Orleans chef and Nacio customer, told me: “The shrimping industry in America has been struggling for a long while. Lance saw the writing on the wall. He is a visionary in his profession.” (Frank also graciously contributed this delicious recipe for shrimp cornbread.)

Besides being an all-around feel-good story, Nacio is a model for small fisherman in the Gulf. Here’s to hoping many follow in his path.

But a new study to be published in the journal Population Health Management reveals the dirty little secret of the American middle class: It’s not cash-strapped Americans who are devouring the most Big Macs and Whoppers, it’s us! In my new piece on The Atlantic, I discuss why that shouldn’t be all that surprising.

The unpalatable truth is that fast food’s attraction has never really been just about price. For all you hear about the Dollar Menu, a buck at McDonald’s buys a small burger, or small fries, or a small drink — hardly a satisfying meal for most people. As Mark Bittman reported recently in the New York Times, a typical meal for a family of four at McDonald’s in Manhattan costs about $28 — far more than what it would cost to make a healthier meal at home. For someone who’s really pinching pennies, a trip to McDonald’s makes no sense.

What actually drives families to the drive-through are two simple truths. First, it’s convenient. Fast-food hours accommodate odd shifts and offer playrooms to appease screaming children and give moms a break. And, after years of calculated expansion, the restaurants are everywhere we are — in office buildings, department stores, rest stops, schools, Walmarts, airports, even hospitals — which makes fast food America’s default dining-out option. Second, people like the way fast food tastes. No matter how often or how loudly food crusaders preach about the nasty and ecologically disastrous bits that end up in those burgers, fast food’s carefully calibrated mix of salt and fat is hard for many to resist.

This is problematic for food reformers, in part because their advocacy on behalf of the poor has afforded them at least some political cover against charges of elitism. But it also deeply complicates the question of how to tackle the obesity crisis, which costs Americans $150 billion annually. The fact is that most people with means, even limited means, will opt for the easiest option come dinnertime. And that’s eating out, not shopping, cooking, and cleaning up at home, which foodies claim as the Holy Grail. In most places, hard as it may be for some to believe, eating out usually means some version of fast food. It’s often the only option.

Figuring out how to make healthier food rival the drive-through for convenience and taste will be hard enough. Convincing people to choose it over the bad stuff they love will require a monumental cultural shift, the kind that is likely to take generations. It will require a careful, clever mix of coercion — soda taxes or health-care penalties for the unhealthy — education, and persuasion. It gives a whole new meaning to the term “slow food.”

These corporate decisions say volumes about the most effective ways to change lifestyles. Programs that offered rewards, the article notes, were often ineffective. But initiatives that forced people to pay up for unhealthy behaviors made many reconsider whether that cigarette or trip to the drive-through were really worth it.

It should be noted that it’s not only “big, bad” corporations that are experimenting with such programs. In 2007, the Cleveland Clinic announced that it would no longer hire smokers at all. (Candidates who were refused employment were offered access to smoking cessation programs. Those who quit within 90 days were encouraged to reapply.)

These programs raise questions, of course. Is this simply cost-shifting by employers, like Wal-Mart, that already pay their employees minimal wages? Do they constitute discrimination? Will there be unintended consequences by marginalizing those whose health is already at high risk?

But these efforts show how the stick can – and must — be part of the equation in how we create a healthier nation. And the government should take a page from corporations’ playbook. That might mean soda taxes or restricting what families on food stamps can buy with their government benefits. Neither of these proposals is a silver bullet. And neither has got much traction, in large part because of fierce opposition by right-wingers who brand the efforts as one more example of Big Government. (Note the deafening silence, though, when corporations take the same tack.) The fact is that most people, like corporations, intuitively understand what it is their self-interest. To beat back obesity, leaders must use that to their advantage.

Courtesy of the Maine Farmland Trust

Interest in small-scale agriculture has soared over the last decade. But it’s still anything but easy for farmers to get in or stay in the game, not least because farmland itself is disappearing. I recently toured Maine, where 75 percent of farmland has vanished since 1950. And what’s left is often worth more as future house lots than as a farm—especially if it has panoramic views of the ocean. According to the Maine Farmland Trust, about 400,000 acres, or about one-third of Maine’s remaining farmland, will be in transition over the next decade as older farmers retire or die.

My latest story on GiltTaste, “How to Save Small Farms” looks at the role of land trusts in keeping farmland in farmers’ hands. These complex and seemingly rather dull legal contract called an agricultural easement. The arrangement, made with a land trust, allows farmers to be paid in return for stripping their land of its development rights – no new subdivisions or shopping malls allowed – and instead keeping it as farmland. As Penny Jordan, whose family helped to settle Cape Elizabeth, outside Portland, says: “We would not have kept the farm, let alone been able to invest in the business, without this.”

There is, of course, much more to learn about land trusts. Vermont has something like 30 percent of its agricultural land in trust. And I hear the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy does great work, too. Got a story about land preservation? Send it along.

My panel this morning focused on how to scale sustainability, a topic I think is the next big thing. It’s also a subject that I think should be of particular interest to chefs. In this economy, the opportunities to to charge high prices at white tablecloth restaurants are dwindling, and an increasing number of chefs are choosing to focus on serving pizza, burgers etc., at lower prices.

To succeed, they’ll need to figure out how to source greater quantities of sustainable food and how to market it to a new demographic. My panelists offered lots of smart insights.  Here are some highlights.

• Drew Robinson, executive chef of Jim n Nicks in Birmingham, Alabama, said that in his market, sustainability doesn’t sell. The customers are extremely price sensitive — the average check is $13. A message about supporting the local community or providing jobs might work better. But in the end, it comes down to taste. If customers don’t taste the difference in, say, a free-range chicken, they will not pay more.
• That’s true, even in Portland, Oregon, what I think of as ground zero for foodie consciousness. Piper Davis of Grand Central Bakery says that even there, sustainability isn’t what brings people in. It’s the taste of the food and the quality of their experience. What makes people pay that little bit more is a friendly atmosphere and good service.
• That customer loyalty helps Davis pay for higher quality ingredients. She buys directly from many farms. But she also taps into the existing distribution system. Her Shepherd’s Grain flour is milled and transported by railcar by agricultural giant ADM. The Sysco truck takes it to her door.
• Tom Philpott, food writer for Mother Jones, talked about the importance of working with old-school farmers for his CSA in North Carolina. They are key to bringing more growers into a market that still lacks supply. They also have a accumulated experience that can make them both successful and mentors to new farmers.

Much to my delight, this was not the only session focusing on these issues. Bob Perry of University of Kentucky led a discussion about finding the “value in value chains” and on Tuesday Corie Brown of Zester will tackle how to buy sustainably without breaking the bank.

Got thoughts on how chefs can learn to scale sustainability? Leave them here.

But as Connecticut-based nonprofit Wholesome Wave proves, basic capitalist incentives can still be a force for good. In a survey released today, Wholesome Wave showed that offering incentives to buy fruits and vegetables helps low-income families eat better and farmers in need.

Wholesome Wave, an organization I have long watched with interest, offers double-your-money coupons to those eligible for food stamps, now called SNAP, when they buy fresh fruits and vegetables at farmers market. The idea is to encourage more healthful eating through incentives, rather than cracking down on those with limited incomes through controversial taxes on junk food or regulations on what they are permitted to buy with their government dollars.

The results are outstanding. Eighty-seven percent of consumers that received Wholesome Wave’s Double Voucher coupons said it increased or greatly increased their consumption of fruits and vegetables and more than 90 percent agreed that the fresh produce they bought made a big difference in their family’s diet. Additionally, 73 percent said they would not have gone to a farmers market had the incentive not been in place.

This is good for families and good for the farmers. It leverages government funds to build new markets for small and mid-sized farms that have been pushed out of business over the last 50 years. On average, SNAP redemption doubled at markets after double voucher coupons were introduced. And in some markets, the rates were much higher. At the 61st Street market in Chicago, SNAP redemption went from $1,100 per season to more than $10,000 two years after the program was introduced. In Armory, Rhode Island, SNAP receipts jumped from $632 to $5,652 per season.

The growing demand allowed farmers to expand their businesses. About 15 percent of the 1,700 farmers surveyed said that they had increased acreage or production as a result of increased sales and 12 percent said they had diversified the number of crops they grew.

Wholesome Wave’s impressive results have drawn broad support.  This week, hospital group Kaiser Permanente announced a $1.2 million grant that will allow Wholesome Wave to  introduce or expand its incentive programs at as many as 30 more farmers markets across the country. As Michel Nischan, Wholesome Wave’s founder and CEO says, it’s simple math: “This is a two-for-one sale. The emotional marketing triggers are there,” he said. “It works because it’s capitalism.”