Making The Food System Ours

States around the country with large conventional farming operations are attempting to put a stop to the recent spike in undercover videography at factory farms.  Animal welfare activists have captured a number of short videos from inside these farms in the effort to expose what they perceive to be abuse and illegal mistreatment of farm animals.

In response, the Iowa legislature has already passed a bill making it illegal to enter a farming operation under false pretenses, and other states are following suit.  You can find the details, as well as one of the videos, here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/29/147651002/states-crack-down-on-animal-welfare-activists-and-their-undercover-videos

Although these laws raise important legal questions about privacy rights and whistle-blowing, the real issue is more fundamental.  These videos raise basic questions about our (inter)national industrial food system: namely, is such treatment of animals inevitable in this system, and who is responsible for the conditions inside of these factory farms?

It is tempting to condemn the farm owners and workers at these operations as cruel and perhaps even heartless, but the truth is more subtle.  The actions depicted in the videos are disturbing, but we need to see them not as the result of individual cruelty, but as symptomatic of a food system that is built around producing and moving massive amounts of food over enormous distances as quickly and as cheaply as possible.  If this description sounds familiar that's because it should - what I've described is the basic operating formula of any manufacturing industry.  After all, there's a reason these operations are called factory farms!

When farming loses its respect for the environment and its relationship to the local community it ceases to be agri-culture and instead becomes agri-business.  And the final step in this process - the one that we are now experiencing - is that farming transforms from agri-business, to agri-manufacturing.  In such a situation, it is inevitable that animal welfare be neglected in favor of the "bottom line."

The industrial food system belongs to all of us.  Every time, for instance, that we purchase pork from one of these factory farms we are funding this system.  Not only are we making profitable the poor treatment of animals at these factory farms, we are also validating the large-scale production of genetically modified corn, soy, alfalfa, and other crops, the great majority of which harvest goes toward feeding factory farmed animals instead of people.

But it's difficult not to fund this system.  The meat and produce produced by the industrial food system are cheap, and when you're on a budget they're almost impossible to turn down.  That's why the Food Policy Working Group continues to advocate for the food justice of Memphis and Shelby County, with an important focus on local farmers and farmers markets.

There are few things as basic and as vital as the food that we eat.  It's time that we take control of the food on the dinner table and it make ours.

Two Exciting Bills in the TN General Assembly

The Tennessee General Assembly has taken initiative in the effort to guarantee food security and good food for all Tennesseans. As I write this, two bills, one for the House and one for the Senate, are making their way through the legislature. Both the House bill (HB 2260), and the identical Senate bill (SB 3487), aim to facilitate community gardening throughout our state.

We owe our thanks to Representative Hardaway from district 92 here in Memphis for proposing the original House bill, and to Senator Tate from district 33, also in Memphis, for proposing the Senate bill. These brief but important bills provide, among other things, an updated definition of community gardens and enable municipal and county governments to convey property to nonprofits for the purpose of cultivating these gardens. The bills prioritize collaborative gardening between senior citizens, who often are a wellspring of gardening knowledge, and our youth, who have the power to ensure that our communities continue to move toward greater food security.

Just as importantly, both bills call for the creation of programs to involve school children in community gardening, possibly for academic credit.

In proposing these bills of their own initiative, Representative Hardaway and Senator Tate demonstrate how far the movement for food security has come in Memphis. Questions remain as to some of the specifics of the bills - especially the provision which disallows community gardens from using the proceeds of sales for anything other than maintenance and upkeep - but the bills are encouraging nonetheless!

The status of the bills can be followed here: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2260

And you may find this glossary of terms helpful in understanding the sometimes cryptic abbreviations employed by our state legislature: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislation/billabbrev.html

Our Food Stamp President

Newt Gingrich is a man with some rather peculiar ideas. In addition to calling for the colonization of the moon, Gingrich has taken to labeling Obama the "food stamp president." Now, it's not entirely clear what Gingrich means by that phrase. If in calling Obama the "food stamp president" Gingrich is suggesting that Obama has personally caused the massive increase in food stamp (or SNAP) enrollment, then he is committing some questionable reasoning.

To begin with an obvious point, Obama does not decide who receives SNAP benefits or who is eligible for them - That is the job of Congress. SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is designed to fluctuate with the economy. This means that in times of recession (like the one we are currently experiencing) SNAP automatically increases in size, in order to accommodate the increasing need.

Granted, it is true that Obama's 2009 stimulus package included increases to SNAP benefits, but is that a bad thing? The USDA certainly does not think so. In fact, according to the USDA, SNAP increases economic growth in this country by a factor of 1.79. This means that for every dollar spent on SNAP, our economy experiences $1.79 of growth. This makes SNAP more effective at growing the economy than unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending, and federal aid to states! And it's really pretty obvious when you think about why that's the case. What do Americans do with food stamps? Well, they buy food! The money spent on SNAP goes back into the economy, and with a substantial increase. (1) (2)

But let's be serious - we know Newt isn't doing any number crunching. He's not really concerned with SNAP's effectiveness. He's concerned with getting elected. In fact, it's clear that in calling Obama the "food stamp president" Gingrich is attempting to play off racial tensions in order to get votes, just as his idol Ronald Reagan did through the misguided notion of the "welfare Queen." And as always, the facts tell a different story than what the demagogues would have us believe. The majority of SNAP recipients are not black. African Americans don't even make up the largest group of SNAP recipients by race. That title belongs to non-hispanic WHITE Americans, who make up 35.7% of the households receiving SNAP benefits. In contrast, African American households make up 22% of the total. While we're at it, we should probably point out that 47% of SNAP recipients are children and 8% are over the age of 60. Oh, and 41% of SNAP recipients live in a household in which at least one member of the household has a job. (3)

And just for good measure, and in the continued interest of dispelling the welfare queen myth, which Gingrich seems to be echoing. Let's recognize that the average SNAP household consists of 2.2 persons.

SNAP isn't the problem. It grows the economy, and even more importantly it helps feed children, seniors, and other Americans in need. Besides, Gingrich should realize that if America is going to colonize the moon we're going to need a well-fed and healthy population...

(1) http://slopefarms.com/blog/2012/01/23/food-stamps-feed-the-economy-and-people-too/

(2) http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR103/ERR103.pdf

(3) http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/2010Characteristics.pdf

(4) http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdf

Food, Farming, and Friends

Are you a farmer? A community gardener? A food entrepreneur or activist? Do you just love delicious, local, Mid-South food?

If you answered "yes!" to any of those questions, then join GrowMemphis on Monday, February 6th at the Farm to Table Conference for Mid-South Producers at the Memphis Bioworks Foundation. It will be a day of friendly and meaningful discussion on our local food system, followed by a screening of the film, Cafeteria Man, and a Q&A with the star himself, Toni Geraci. There will also be ample opportunity to build new partnerships in our local food system and to catch up with old ones at the networking lunch, which will be provided by local farmers and the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Garden.

The movement to build a better food system in and around Memphis has made great strides over the past few years and we have the ability to keep the momentum going, and to increase it! The Farm to Table Conference presents an excellent opportunity to do just that. No one who is serious about improving our local food system should miss it!

Buy tickets at: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/216675

The breakout session topics will include "Community Supported Agriculture 101," "Growing Vegetables in the Mid-South," "Farmer and Chef Perspectives on Selling to Restaurants," "Farm to School," and many more. See the full schedule on our facebook page.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Rick Santorum Solves Hunger! (Well, not really)

America’s hunger crisis has been solved, and from the most unexpected of sources! Just this past Tuesday Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum informed us that hunger is no longer an issue for our nation. With a bit of deft logical reasoning, Santorum concluded that hunger is not a problem, and therefore food stamps are superfluous, because so many Americans are obese. Furthermore, Santorum told us that this clearly justifies his plans to eliminate the food stamp, or SNAP, program.

That’s right, folks, Santorum has reasoned hunger away and found a way to save some money without taxing the rich! Why didn’t anyone else realize it could be that easy?

Well, for starters, because it isn’t.

With that one statement, Santorum demonstrated his complete misunderstanding of poverty and hunger. It’s simply a well established fact that the same population can suffer from obesity and hunger simultaneously. Memphis, unfortunately, is a good example of this phenomenon. As we’ve stated before on this blog, Memphis tops the nation in hunger and obesity. This seems paradoxical at first, but it’s actually not that complicated.

When Americans join the SNAP program, this means that they do not have the income necessary to feed themselves and their families. There is no shame in that. We believe (or at least many of us do) that not a single American should starve. Therefore, SNAP is meant to fill the gaps in household income so that every family can feed itself.

Unfortunately, hunger in American is not as simple as not having enough to eat. Many of our poorest and hungriest citizens live in food desserts, which are areas with minimal to no access to fresh food. In food deserts, corner stores are often the only locations where food stamps can be used, and their fare is often less than nutritious.

So, in one way, SNAP is a very good thing. It keeps Americans from starving. In fact, the number of Americans participating in SNAP has increased by approximately 20 million since 2007! Without a doubt, SNAP has saved lives.

But the program is also hindered by malfunctions in our food system, the prevalence of food desserts being only one of these. Therefore, we don't need to eliminate SNAP, we need to ensure that those who use food stamps have access to fresh and healthy food.

So, Rick Santorum should keep his well-fed mouth closed next time he thinks he’s reasoned hunger away. He just lost the support of the over 44 million Americans on SNAP, as well as all those who believe that America can, and should, eliminate hunger through real change – not sophistry.

Child Labor on America's Farms

Farming has always been one of those stereotypical family businesses in the American imagination. Although today family farms are disappearing at a disheartening rate, especially in Tennessee, many do still operate. In fact, many of the vendors at our area farmers markets work small family farms. These farms, and those like them, involve the work of the whole family, often including children.

This means that a careful regulatory balance must be struck, which ensures the safety of these young people without unduly inhibiting the operation and viability of family farms. The Department of Labor, which establishes such regulation, has recently proposed revisions to the federal agricultural child labor provisions. The Department feels that the current provisions are too lax, and has proposed stricter regulations which, among other things, would prohibit children under the age of 16 from operating most farm machinery, handling pesticides, and working with many types of livestock.

Of course, it is essential that the safety of child laborers be ensured. That being said, it is not clear that the proposed regulations are as wise as they first seem. The Department of Labor has long had an understanding with family farmers that the work of children on farms is a necessary part of the business. For one thing, the experience and practical knowledge required to run a farm can only be acquired on a farm. Because of this, the new regulations do not alter the current full exemption for children working on farms owned by their parents.

Nevertheless, many family farms today are incorporated and it is unclear exactly how the exemption would apply for them. Farmers across the country are therefore nervous that the proposed regulations could eliminate their most effective method of passing on the family business to their children.

But let’s take a step back from the issue for a moment. There is reason that the family farm is a disappearing phenomenon - for one thing, it is often unaffordable!

Federal regulations and policies often cater to large agribusiness ventures at the expense of small farmers. As such, many small farmers maintain their businesses tenuously and see children as an inexpressive source of seasonal labor. To put it bluntly, it is doubtful that parents would expose their children and the children of friends and relatives to possibly dangerous farm work if they did not feel that the money saved made the difference between keeping or losing the farm.

Now, does this excuse those farmers who expose child laborers to unnecessary risk? Certainly not, but it does demonstrate that the proposed regulations would be treating a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Just like the employment of tens of thousands of illegal aliens on our nation’s farms, child agricultural labor is an effect of our devotion to cheap food, which increasingly makes factory farming appear to be the only financially viable agricultural method.

Now, to return to the proposed regulations, is it the case that they will protect some children from injury or death? Probably, but the financial strain that leads small farmers to use child labor in the first place means that many may continue to employ children, even illegally. The real need, then, is not for stricter regulations but for policy that makes family farming profitable and child labor unnecessary.

Only on the surface is the question one of irresponsible farming versus responsible farming. In reality, it is far more a question of cheap food against the safety of children. Thankfully, this is an easy choice to make.

A Food Revolution in Memphis City Schools?

If you haven’t heard already, there have been some big changes in Memphis City Schools Nutrition Services. They’ve hired a new director of nutrition services named Tony Geraci, who has already proposed a number of promising changes to what our school children eat and where it comes from. In fact, Geraci is calling for nothing less than a “farm-to-fork” revolution in city schools, which, if successful, will have students across Memphis eating healthier food that is locally grown in a garden devoted specifically to that purpose.

Mr. Geraci joins us from Baltimore, where he held a similar position, and promised similar transformations. As the Commercial Appeal has already explained, (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/oct/20/farm-to-fork/) Geraci turned 33 acres of abandoned city property in Baltimore into an organic “Great Kids Farm.” Here in Memphis, Geraci is on the same path, enlisting the support of local philanthropists and corporations to locate and purchase an even larger plot of land. In addition, Geraci has already started programs to bring federally-subsidized breakfasts and dinners to MCS. If all of this works according to plan, moreover, it is likely to inject a significant amount of money into our local economy, since MCS would be purchasing a significant portion of its food locally, rather than from more distant distributors.

But before we get too carried away, we should ask ourselves why Mr. Geraci left Baltimore. The Commercial Appeal writes that Geraci left Baltimore with “impatience,” and quotes him as saying: “I brought that program as far as I could.” In fact, a little research into the matter reveals that Geraci left Baltimore having accomplished a few of his goals, but with most of them unfulfilled or only partially complete. There appear to be a number of reasons for this.

To begin with, articles written around the time of Mr. Geraci’s departure from Baltimore in the summer of 2010 suggest that he was unable to secure the amount of funding and policy support that he needed from the city. As Geraci stated in one article, “I was told I'd have the support of the school system for my ideas, but it hasn't happened”(http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/baltimore/hard-to-swallow/Content?oid=1266356). Furthermore, it seems that even when Geraci was able to implement his initiatives, they were not always approved of by students and parents. For example, Geraci apparently received angry phone calls every “meatless Monday” from parents who disagreed with the idea.

What stands out the most from these articles, however, is that Geraci was never able to secure the funding to create a central kitchen for Baltimore city schools, which he saw as integral to his food revolution. In this respect Memphis has an advantage over Baltimore, as our city spent $22 million to build a central kitchen for MCS in 2003.

So, what are we to make of all this? More than likely, Mr. Geraci is a man who fully intends to carry out the vision that he has proposed. Because of this vision and his enthusiasm, Geraci has been featured in two documentaries, The Cafeteria Man and Angry Moms, honored by FoodService Director magazine, and presented with an award by the governor of Maryland, so there is good reason to believe that he is a true man of purpose. Nevertheless, Mr. Geraci will experience the same frustration here as he did in Baltimore if the city does not rally behind him. What Mr. Geraci said in Baltimore, then, remains just as pertinent in Memphis: “The reality is the citizens of this town need to stand up and say that they need these ideas to happen.”

Let’s do just that.