Comments Steph Larsen has made
While you're at it...
While you're on the phone with your legislative delegates about Vilsack, don't forget to weigh in with Change.gov and with your Senators about other positions at USDA! For ideas on what each position does (to help you think of qualified people) see this post.On Brushing aside pressure, Obama taps a big-ag man as USDA chief posted 11 months, 1 week ago 16 Responses
Co-opting the message
I had a slightly different take on the disapproval of the crowd during the politician's talk.
I understood the unrest to be not just about the G8's reaction to the food crisis, but to food and farming as a whole as it currently exists. The economic policies of the WTO and IMF have driven farmers off the land and into starvation. Instead of growing food to sustain themselves, they are largely exploited by unfair trade agreements.
I thought this was why people were angry, and it was because of the injustices perpetuated by the G8 that caused many to rise in protest.
I could be wrong though...it was pretty noisy in there.
My greater concern, though, was Carlo Petrini's response. I thought he stepped dangerously close to losing some trust by suggesting that Slow Food present to the G8 and scolding people who protested the speech. People have a right to disagree with the G8, and he said he understood that. What he failed to recognize however is that by accepting an invitation to speak at the G8, Slow Food opens its new-found political and food justice messages being co-opted.
I have a lot of faith in Vandana Shiva, whom Patrini said may have a chance to speak to the G8. In a workshop at Terra Madre, she said (and I'm paraphrasing) to only make alliances where you do not have to compromise your principles. I couldn't agree more.
I wonder if the G8 is an alliance Slow Food can join without having to compromise. Having gained a level of standing as an organization, I would like to see Slow Food continue to push for an equitable food system as an independent voice instead of an insider. I think that's when true change will come.On Via video, Italian official announces Slow Food will have a G8 audience posted 1 year ago 2 Responses
Chickens eat anything
Having grown up in the city, I used to think that chickens had a particular diet. It wasn't until visiting a farmer in New Mexico that I learned differently. They had 3 buckets under the sink: one for paper to go in the compost pile, one for coffee grounds and citrus peels to put around the orange trees (the soil was too basic), and all other food waste they fed to the chickens. I never would have believed chickens would eat a banana peel, but they did. Of course, they didn't have lots of chickens, but they were definitely well fed.On Small-scale slaughterhouses are vital to the health of local food economies posted 1 year, 2 months ago 2 Responses
Changing the dynamic
I agree with JC's assessment that big ag is using nutrition as a shield. One possible way to change this dynamic would be to deconstruct the omnibus. The food stamp program (or SNAP, as it may soon be known as) wasn't always in the Farm Bill, and separating it would definitely change the dynamics.
I'm sure there are many other ways that the power dynamics of the Farm Bill could shift. We should seriously consider what these might be, analyze the consequences, and chart a course that could make it happen. There doesn't seem to be much long-term planning or strategy in my corner of the farm and food world at least...we should do something about that.On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses
What a damn mess
In the complexity that is the Farm Bill, I wish we didn't have to boil it down to a simple yes or no answer. This is one of many problems of omnibus bills -- there are often just enough good provisions that not passing it can be argued as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I've been in Washington working on this bill for two and a half years. I've pounded as much pavement for progressive farm and food issues as almost anyone else, and what I say now, I say as an individual and not as an advocate within an organization whose priorities gained some traction.
I say veto, override be damned.
We CANNOT let the idea of whether we can do better next time or not enter into the equation. It is morally wrong for me, and all of us, to support a bill that will do overall harm to farms, rural communities, and people who eat.
We are playing right into the hands of the opposition. Make no mistake, it is a trap. They have given us just enough so that we won't scream bloody murder and mobilize our people. But nothing the opposition GAVE us is worth our support of a bad bill, and what we were able to TAKE isn't enough to tip the scales. We've fallen for this trap before, thinking that maybe they'll listen to us next time. They won't, and that's why we have to keep fighting.
As I write this, I'm actually surprised that this is my conclusion. But this bill is a bad one, and it will hurt rural communities and family farmers because it doesn't include meaningful structural reform. THAT is what we have to go to the mat for, because all the piddly programs in the world - including the Community Food Projects that I worked my ass off for - won't make up for the fact that under this bill, we will have fewer farmers in 5 years than we do now and more unhealthy people with no more access to healthy, sustainably-produced foods.
Big agriculture will never give us these structural reforms because they profit too much from the status quo. So we flex some muscle now and show them that small programs cannot bribe us into complacency. Our momentum and our relationships are a hell of a lot easier to carry over for a year than five.
I don't want to look back at this bill and know that Big Ag. had more stamina and outlasted me. I've fought as hard as anyone, and I won't deny that I'm tired and I'm sick of this bill. But I can't in good conscience say that this is a bill I want to support. On How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 25 Responses
Why save rural?
There are a lot of answers to the question "Why care about rural communities?" One might be that with 55 million Americans living in these communities, it would be undemocratic to categorically ignore their voices. Another would be equality--we routinely spend tax dollars revitalizing run-down parts of urban areas, and rural areas deserve similar treatment. While it's possible that our food production has not decreased dramatically, it has also gotten more consolidated and unsustainable, adopting many practices that are arguably much worse for the environment than ever before. As an advocate for local organic food, I personally make sure that as much of my food as possible comes from local organic sources, but I speculate that every major urban area does not have the space for profitable local organic farmers to feed all the residents in the nearby city, especially with rampant urban sprawl. In addition, if even a majority of rural residents suddenly moved to the city, there would be a huge strain on infrastructure and resources, not to mention that an influx of labor would likely not do good things for wages and working conditions.
There is one argument, however, that I think we can all relate to, if you can bear with me for a moment. I want you to picture the place you consider home. Perhaps you are in that place now, and can look around, and feel how good it is to be there. Then, imagine what you would feel or do if someone told you that you couldn't, or shouldn't, live there anymore. Approximately 20% of Americans live in small towns and rural areas, and many of them are passionate about protecting their homes and communities. I think it's unfair for folks to suggest that rural residents leave the places in which they want to live.
Many of us, whether we realize it or not, have rural roots or depend on rural areas. I think the idea of allowing rural communities to go to waste would have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I admire that our country still allows for equal opportunity to all our residents, and I hope that these opportunities would not be denied due to geography.On How legislators can help the rural posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses
Passed without a word...
That preemption language should scare the bejezus out of ALL of us. I'm not being overly dramatic, this is evil corporate badness. People should be able to have a choice and control their local environment to the extent that it protects the public welfare. On Democracy in jeopardy posted 2 years, 6 months ago 3 Responses
Effective lobbying
There are lots of ways for the public to influence the Farm Bill. If you're not in Peterson's or Harkin's district, you can still talk to your legislators about Farm Bill issues you care about because even if they aren't on the Agriculture Committee, they might be able to use political power in other ways. Other important committees include Budget, Ways and Means, Finance, etc.
Other ways to lobby include:
- Calling friends and colleagues in districts or states with Ag. Committee members and asking them to call their legislators. When I do this, I try to give them talking points.
- Supporting organizations with your time or money that are working on Farm Bill issues in ways you believe in
- Writing letters and FAXing them to Harkin and Peterson (otherwise it takes 2 months for them to get it) or calling their offices and asking to speak with the person who works on agriculture issues. You don't have to live in their district. Heck, I don't live in their districts and I call them frequently.
- Calling friends and colleagues in districts or states with Ag. Committee members and asking them to call their legislators. When I do this, I try to give them talking points.
Pelosi and amendments
Ken Cook's post was a good one, and there was another good analysis by Dan Owens on Center for Rural Affairs blog. Dan makes a good point that in the past, the Rules Committee was "owned" by the Republican leadership, and I think we have yet to see what the Democrats will do. I think we all deserve a (small d) democratic process for a bill that controls so much of what we eat.On Now is the time to harangue your reps about farm and food policy. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses
where to start?
The content in here is so rich that I feel the need to do some line-by-line. Items with * are David's original content.
*Do what the EU has at least to some extent and outlaw all GMOs. A-L-L O-F T-H-E-M.
Amen. Though I might argue that we can do this with our dollars. There are examples of consumers doing this with GMOs, like the GM potato. McDonald's was going to have all their fries come from GM spuds, and when consumers had a fit, they quietly canceled every contact they had to purchase GM. If you haven't heard of that story, it's probably because they kept a tight lid on it. Wouldn't want Americans to actually act on something, we might go the way of Europe. (Insert appropriate amount of snark, directed at the people who don't want you to hear the failure of GM potatoes).
*Outlaw Terminator technology.
What's interesting is that from a practical standpoint, we did this already. There was such an outcry about Terminator genes that they were never developed. And just because you outlaw something doesn't mean it won't eventually pop up. Better to turn the public against it.
*Protect farms in suburban areas from property tax
increases and from pressure to sell out for more subdivisions, convenience stores, streets named for golfers and golf courses, and big box chain stores.I've been thinking a lot about encouraging mixed-use rural land, kind of an intentional community style, where the majority of the land is still farmed but a small amount goes to houses where people want to be close to farms or dabble in growing things.
*Set up loan program for small farms to get better financing on materials, equipment, irrigation, transportation, insurance--everything.
These already exist, but there's not a lot of money in them. Also, don't forget about how important beginning farmers are! The average age of a farmer is like 57 or more, we need to get young people interested in farming. Which means they need to earn a fair price for their products, yet another issue the FB needs to tackle in meaningful way.
*Increase by at least two magnitudes the number of food inspectors to reduce Escherichia coli, Salmonella, avian flu, pesticide potential in food.
How about instead of increasing inspectors, we make sure that animals are raised in conditions that aren't conducive to bacteria growth and don't need pesticides, hormones, or antibiotics? I would also make a friendly amendment to increase the number of inspectors delegated to small processing facilities, and outlaw ones that are big and dangerous and exploitative.
*Put state-of-the-art irrigation technology to work to reduce irrigation demand, and its negative cascading effect on biodiversity. Use some of the former Pentagon budget to push new research into sustainability in agriculture, starting with irrigation.
What about, instead of using technology, we use less water? Grow crops that work WITH the land, not against it. I think we get used to trying to fight the earth in so much of what we do. If lettuce can't grow in Arizona without ridiculous amounts of water, maybe we shouldn't grow it there. There are plenty of crops that work with Arizona's climate, and we know this because people have lived there for thousands of years and they didn't just eat sand. :)
*Outlaw CAFOs.
There is nothing good about CAFOs. Let's not buy our meat from them, and then they might cease to exist.
*Pay premiums to farmers who will raise/produce heritage species.
Already happening in the private sector too. Nymen Ranch, for example. I'm sure there are other examples, and not sure this would be the role of the federal government.
*Support increases in organic farming.
Especially with policy changes that help farmers transition and changes to the insurance market so that it's not a burden for farmers to insure their organic crop.
*Add, oh, I don't know, a 20% surcharge on every processed or fast food sold in the U.S., and use the proceeds to promote natural organic whole unprocessed slow foods.
The sad thing is, consumers wouldn't even notice the increase on the 99 cent menu. I think that's a great idea.
*Add a rating system to chicken eggs for the brightness of the yolks, based on how many leaves, flowers, seeds, and bugs the chicken ate.
In fact, the entire livestock rating system is based on industrial agriculture. Marbling in meat is "good" according to USDA, except it only gets created when cows eat corn instead of grass. Let's toss it all out for all animals and start over, based on what they're supposed to eat.
*Increase farm wages so Americans can and will work on farms again. This one simple action will solve so many other problems, such as crime, the medically un- and under-insured, local economic recessions, education, etc.
Also encourage local ownership so that the money stays in the community. Oh, and universal health care, but that's not exactly a Farm Bill issue :)
*Put a progressive fee on farm produce based on the distance it travels to the market. Use that fee to finance local agriculture.
This one is a little dangerous in my opinion, because rural areas could be adversely affected if they don't have a high enough concentration of farmers to people, making their produce even more expensive. It could also adversely affect land prices near cities. Of course I love the support of local ag though, so don't filibuster me :)
I'm still thinking about my ideas, but this comment is way long already...On Reps. DeLauro and Gilchrest want to invest in local infrastructure. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses
Recognizing Respect
No worries David. Most of the time on the phone I get called "Beth", and no one spells my last name right on the first try.
I'll give some serious thought to your request, though obviously the Farm Bill is so big that I can't possibly have expertise on all of it. And maybe that's the first thing I would do...break it up! The Farm Bill, that is. Omnibus legislation is scary. It's too easy to hide things in the complexity, and too hard to get something out once it's in.
Broadly, I would want farm and food policy to reflect the profound respect I have for the Earth, the people who have anything to do with producing the food, and anything to do with eating the food. I have yet to see a marker bill that would do this, maybe because you can't legislate respect. Perhaps all we can do is provide people with the information they need to recognize respect when they see it, and the ability to access food that respects Earth, producers, and eaters.
Every morning, I drink from a mug that says "What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?" You've got me thinking about what kind of farm and food system I would create if I knew together we could make it happen. Thanks for offering the question, and I invite everyone to offer their expertise on what such a piece of legislation would look like.On Reps. DeLauro and Gilchrest want to invest in local infrastructure. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses
Two sides to every coin
The DeLauro Bill does have some good things in it, as you point out. Strengthening infrastructure for local food systems is great. Direct marketing for farmers brings them a higher percentage of the food dollar, which is always good. The Farm Bill can and should do more to support family farmers and increase access to healthy, affordable food that doesn't cause obesity or other diet-related diseases.
On the down side, the bill would nearly double EQIP funding to $2 billion per year. EQIP helps to clean up or prevent pollution from agriculture, but it's lately been used by huge Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to comply with laws they are currently breaking. EQIP should have limits to this kind of usage, but the DeLauro bill will have no change to its high payment limitation or CAFO production subsidy features, eliminate a current provision which prevents multi-millionaires from receiving conservation payments, and weaken current conservation features of the Farmland Protection Program. The bill also includes a controversial and expensive dairy title and other things that many really good farm groups oppose.
There are parts of this bill that will help farmers and consumers. There are other parts that hurt one or both of those groups, and we're all part of one or both of those groups. I think instead of asking legislators to support the whole bill, we should be asking them to support the concepts and ideas that make sense for farm and food policy.On Reps. DeLauro and Gilchrest want to invest in local infrastructure. posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses