Objective With political support from the Danish Organic Action Plan 2020, organic public procurement in Denmark is expected to increase. In order to evaluate changes in organic food procurement in Danish public kitchens, reliable methods are needed. The present study aimed to compare organic food procurement measurements by two methods and to collect and discuss baseline organic food procurement measurements from public kitchens participating in the Danish Organic Action Plan 2020. Design Comparison study measuring organic food procurement by applying two different methods, one based on the use of procurement invoices (the Organic Cuisine Label method) and the other on self-reported procurement (the Dogme method). Baseline organic food procurement status was based on organic food procurement measurements and background information from public kitchens. Setting Public kitchens participating in the six organic food conversion projects funded by the Danish Organic Action Plan 2020 during 2012 and 2013. Subjects Twenty-six public kitchens (comparison study) and 345 public kitchens (baseline organic food procurement status). Results A high significant correlation coefficient was found between the two organic food procurement measurement methods (r=0·83, P<0·001) with measurements relevant for the baseline status. Mean baseline organic food procurement was found to be 24 % when including measurements from both methods. Conclusions The results indicate that organic food procurement measurements by both methods were valid for the baseline status report of the Danish Organic Action Plan 2020. Baseline results in Danish public kitchens suggest there is room for more organic as well as sustainable public procurement in Denmark.
- Organic food
- Public procurement
- Measurement methods
- Organic food conversion
Sørensen, N. N., Lassen, A. D., Løje, H., & Tetens, I. (2015). The Danish Organic Action Plan 2020: assessment method and baseline status of organic procurement in public kitchens. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2350-2357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980015001421