Make This Year's Farm Bill Count - Support Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act 2013

The Farm Bill. You know, that large (about $300 billion large) legislative package that rolls around every 5 years or so, intended to shape the future of our food system by setting standards for food production, food cost, nutrition, environmental health and rural development? Oh yeah, that one.

Five years have passed since 2008 when the last Farm Bill was implemented and while it was largely geared towards supporting industrial agriculture, progress was made to add new provisions that supported local and regional food systems in the United States. But like every Farm Bill, this one came with an expiration date of September 30th, 2012 and when Congress failed to agree on a new Farm Bill before that date (no surprise here) the bill was extended, returning the bill to it's permanent legislation and erasing those new provisions supporting healthy food and farms. Battle lost.

That is why supporting the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act is so important. It is a proposal to improve the upcoming 2013 Farm Bill and implement legislation that will allow for greater sustainable production of fruits, vegetables, and meats, expand access to healthy foods to consumers, and further improve the infrastructure and markets of regional and local food systems.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is one of the many organizations that is supporting this Act and is providing ways for you to take action as well. You can click here to show your support and tell Congress to cosponsor the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013!

Best,

Katie

You Can Take Control of the Food System Right Now

Food corporations aren't in business to help us eat healthier - they're in business to make money, since they are ultimately accountable to their shareholders. So when big food reassures us that they care about what's in our best interests - namely reducing lifestyle diseases like obesity and diabetes that stem from over-consumption of their products - that's really only a partial truth. It's a truth only in the sense that they care about how our interests will affect whether or not we purchase their products.  The idea that big food has any moral obligation to care about whether or not we get sick from their products is false, regardless of how their advertising might spin it. (Remember this ad by coke?  That's what I'm talking about.) And even that supposed "truth" that we as consumers are powerful enough to sway product development with our concerns could be considered a stretch.  Really, psychology is king in this industry, trumping public opinion and moral outrage, and the only thing we can do about it is to eat critically and move toward greater government regulation.

I was recently sent this article by a colleague that explains what I mean.  The article is long, but I'm glad I read the whole thing because it really gets into the nuts and bolts of how the food industry operates.  The fact that big food tries to create and optimize products for maximum addictiveness isn't all that surprising, but it does speak to the need for each of us as individuals to take control of our own health by making informed food choices, and to push for greater government oversight in order to regulate the production and marketing of these products.  Again, the industry isn't interested in pleasing the consumer; it's interested in pleasing its shareholders by selling product.  If the best way to sell product is to placate consumers with hollow reassurances while at the same time marketing them highly addictive and nutritionally poor goods, so be it.  There is no ethical compass here. In this system, the vast complexity of a human being is reduced to a set of psychological impulses.  If a company can capitalize on those impulses to make more money, all the better for them, but not necessarily all the better for you.

The point is, it's not about big food being good or evil.  Morally corrupt or not, they're looking after their best interests, and so should you.  It's easy to slip into eating unhealthy foods because we perceive them to be cheaper, tastier, and more convenient than their healthful wholesome cousins (I've fallen into that trap more than I'd like to admit) but when you're about to go for that prepared meal or snack because you think it's less expensive and less time consuming than making a real meal, consider whether or not that perception is really true, or if it's just the result of effective corporate marketing.  More and more I'm finding that I can make meals that are easily prepared and more delicious and satisfying than anything processed, despite what any food commercials tell me. There are thousands of variations on the sandwich, for instance, many of which are very quick and easy to make with local healthy ingredients, and are much cheaper and more delicious than fast food versions of the sandwich like burgers.  And if I really have no time for a full meal, or are just bored with the meal options I've been preparing for myself, I'll go the snack route, but not in the conventional chips and cookies way.  A combination of fruit, nuts, veggies, and cheeses makes a great on the go snack, and if you focus more heavily on the fruits and veggies it can be very affordable.

Regardless of your approach, buying locally produced food and preparing your meals yourself is a great way to feel empowered about your place in the food system.  On a larger scale, that empowerment means communities can work more effectively together to make lasting changes in government policy at all levels of the system, which translates into a better standard of living for everyone.  But it all starts with how we as individuals respond to the current food system, and who we choose to support with the one thing that big food cares about the most.  Money talks - how will you spend your opinion?

Have a great afternoon,
Melissa

GMOs, Industry Involvement, and Preemption - A Word of Caution

Photo via: planetmattersandmore.com

I read an interesting take on possible federal GMO labeling legislation today that cautioned against a potentially dangerous and irreversible situation known as preemption. This comes after a flurry of other articles like this one came out that discuss the possibility of big food supporting GMO labeling.  It might be hard to believe that conventional food retailers would support a federal labeling initiative, but when you look at it from the perspective of money, ease, and stability, it makes more sense.  After all, it's a lot easier for a multinational corporation like Walmart to have one labeling law to deal with in the United States rather than a host of different state laws, and putting an end to grassroots organizing helps their bottom line, reduces the possibility of PR trouble, and generally creates a more stable situation for their business to operate in.  Big food isn't supporting labeling to protect the consumer, however, and big ag isn't about to let the GMO labeling bill of our dreams get written up. That's where compromise and preemption come into play.  An excerpt from the article I first mentioned reads:

[There is an] ominous potential downside of federal GMO labeling: a sneaky legal concept known as preemption. Most advocates don’t find out about it before it’s too late.

Preemption simply means that a higher law trumps a lower law: so federal trumps state, and state trumps local. But in practice, it’s industry’s way of ensuring uniformity and stopping grassroots efforts. How I do know this? From years of experience of seeing it happen in various public health issues. It’s such a huge problem that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded an entire project called “Preemption and Movement Building in Public Health” to educate advocates about how to handle it.

Here is the pattern: a grassroots effort builds over time to enact local or state laws (such as gun control, indoor-smoking laws, or restricting alcohol sales), and industry fights these efforts for years, until they can no longer win. At that point, industry lobbyists turn around and either get their own weak bill passed, or work with advocates to pass a compromise version. In exchange, this law will preempt or prevent any state or city from passing a different or stronger law. Forever.

So if industry and grassroots efforts come to a compromise sometime in the future and produce a federal GMO labeling bill, preemption could prevent stronger legislation from being passed on the state level.  This effectively transforms the federal initiative from being a foundation for stronger more effective legislation into being a watered down action plan that stifles and oppresses future progressive initiatives.  That's not to say that a federal GMO labeling bill is a bad idea - it's a great idea if accomplished through care and caution.  Let's make sure that when a labeling bill is passed, whether at the state or federal level, it does what we want it to do.

Have a great evening!
-Melissa

Translating Cokespeak into English

The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently reported on a promotional video by Coca Cola that invites the American public to "come together" in the fight against obesity.  As a part of this report, the Center reposted Coke's video with edits and translations added that show the real meaning behind what Coke is saying.

When watching first the original Coke ad and then the translated version, I was reminded of how insidious and effective modern corporate advertising can be at using spin to bend the truth. It often requires substantial effort and knowledge to see past the glossy surface of a corporate public service announcement and get at the real core of what it means.  Despite working in a discipline that recognizes this, it's still sometimes hard to see through the smoke and mirrors, which is why responses like CSPI's video are important.

"Generally, when a company claims to be 'part of the solution' it means 'we know we're culpable so we must deflect the blame elsewhere,'" said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "So we thought it would be useful for consumers and policymakers to unpack similar examples of Coke's disingenuous corporate gobbledygook and present them in plain English."

Have a lovely, critically-minded evening,
-Melissa

PS, stay tuned for a report and photos from our Getting Started in Organic Farming Conference that just happened on Saturday January 26 - it was a wonderful event and we can't wait to tell you more!

Today is Food Day!

A Pig's Tail

Today represents a nationwide celebration and movement toward a more sustainable, healthy, and affordable food system. Celebrate Food Day today by attending one of the many Food Day Events located across the country and online. You can also participate by having a healthy dinner at home using one of the Food Day recipes or watching a film recommended in Food Day's Film Screening Guide.  At least two food-related films, including the Humane Society’s A Pig’s Tail and Anna Lappe’s Food Myth Busters, are having their premieres today online.

This evening, Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), one of the keynotes at the NOFA Summer Conference, is hosting a conference in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center in Washington D.C. on the Future of Food: 2050, during which panelists from Walmart, the Worldwatch Institute, the Institute for Alternative Futures and other organizations will speculate on what diets and agriculture might look like by the middle of the century.

In New Haven, the University of New Haven will celebrate Food Day today with a panel discussion and movie. Bill Duesing, our Executive Director, will be on the panel, and the movie, “Fresh,” will be shown at 1:30 p.m. “Fresh” is a documentary featuring Michael Pollan, the author of “The Omnivore's Dilemma.” The movie celebrates the farmers, thinkers and business people responsible for the country’s food supply. Additional information about the documentary can be found at here.

No matter what your tastes are, or how you'd like to get involved, there is a Food Day event out there for you.  Let's raise awareness for more sustainable food in our future!

Have a great day!
-Melissa

A Farm for the Future - a Documentary

The BBC series Natural World focuses on wildlife around the globe.  One 45 minute episode, titled A Farm For the Future, delves into the idea of low energy farming as compared to our current high energy model, and the reasons why an immediate change in agricultural methods is necessary.  In my opinion, it's a well-developed film that provides not only a clear wake up call for farmers and consumers, but also tangible solutions for the future.  Here is the BBC's synopsis:

Wildlife film maker Rebecca Hosking investigates how to transform her family’s farm in Devon into a low energy farm for the future, and discovers that nature holds the key.

With her father close to retirement, Rebecca returns to her family’s wildlife-friendly farm in Devon, to become the next generation to farm the land. But last year’s high fuel prices were a wake-up call for Rebecca. Realising that all food production in the UK is completely dependent on abundant cheap fossil fuel, particularly oil, she sets out to discover just how secure this oil supply is. Alarmed by the answers, she explores ways of farming without using fossil fuel. With the help of pioneering farmers and growers, Rebecca learns that it is actually nature that holds the key to farming in a low-energy future.

Check out there first ten minutes of the film below.  View the full film here.

The documentary goes on to explain that a food system based on permaculture can not only eliminate the detrimental effects of conventional farming, but also, if done correctly and with care, be more productive with less effort in the long run than conventional agriculture.  That notion may seem a bit far fetched until you start to think about the power of nature.  Conventional farming today is so labor intensive in large part because it works against nature instead of with it.  It takes a lot of time and energy to force a forest into pasture, for example, but it requires a much smaller input to work with that same forested space to produce an equal quantity of food in a manner more consistent with how the forest would have grown in the first place.  Nature does an excellent job growing plants and raising animals, so why not use that to our own agricultural advantage instead of fighting with it?

To ensure an agricultural model that can feed all of us in the near future, it is essential that we all become informed farmers, gardeners, and consumers.  If you watch the film and agree with the argument it makes, share it with your friends.  Let's start looking at agriculture from a new perspective, and be open to the more sustainable possibilities that are available to us.

Have a great weekend!
-Melissa

The Drought and Supporting Local Farming

These photos were taken by NASA satellites almost exactly one year apart.  The bottom photo shows the Mississippi river in August, 2011 and the top photo shows the same section of river in August, 2012.  The large tan areas visible in the 2012 photo are huge sandbars that are exposed by the drought.  The drought threatens drinking water near the Mississippi River delta as a wedge of saltwater slowly moves up the river against the weakening current, and has also impacted shipping along the river since barges can no longer carry as many goods for fear of running aground. You can read more about this unprecedented situation here.

As we are all becoming increasingly aware, the drought has also had a huge impact on the corn crop in the US.  The USDA has released this map that details the extent of the drought, showing it's spread across much of the corn belt and other highly agricultural states.  However, the vast majority of the corn affected by the drought isn't used for direct human consumption - most of it is ultimately consumed, but in a processed or changed form.  The corn in question is mainly used for conventional animal feed, with some also going to create ethanol and additives for processed foods, like corn syrup.

This infographic shows that the drought won't greatly affect food prices in the grocery store since 86% of retail food costs are from third party fees like packaging, transportation, and processing.  This brings up another issue tangentially related to the drought - the issue of supporting your farmer. An average of around 20 cents of every dollar spent on conventionally produced food goes to the farmer, with slightly higher amounts going to farmers and ranchers raising livestock, and much lower amounts going to farmers who produce grains.  For a six pack of beer that costs $7.19, the farmer who grew the grain to produce it only got paid $.05. 

In a conventional food system, the vast majority of the money you spend on your food supports transportation, packaging, processing, and marketing costs.  It's true that this money employs people in those industries, but a local food system creates many farming jobs near home while reducing fossil fuel consumption and increasing the nutritional value of the food grown.  This would connect people to their communities, making life better overall.  And in drought situations like the one we're in now, a local system made up of smaller more diverse farms growing many crops rather than monocultures would be much less susceptible to drought than the large one-crop farms we have now.

So what can you do?  The number one thing is to support your local farmer!  You can learn about farms, farmers markets, and CSA programs near you on our website.  Check them out, and make an effort to buy a significant portion of your food locally.  If you or someone you know is thinking about becoming a farmer, you can also check out our beginning farmer program which helps connect new farmers or people thinking about becoming farmers with the resources they need to become established. 

As a society, we can take control of our food system and make ourselves less vulnerable to extreme weather while ensuring a better future for our children - a future of better nutrition, a healthier environment, and a greater connectedness to the local community.  A future where farmers are an important part of every community, and receive just compensation for their hard work.  It can be done, one farmer and one consumer at a time.

Have a great Thursday,
Melissa

Oppositiion to California's GMO Labeling Initiative

Yesterday's blog post about the California GMO Labeling Ballot Initiative showcases a very important potential step toward eventual GMO labeling across the country.  California has the highest GDP of any state in the nation, a GDP higher than many countries, so passing a labeling initiative there is likely to cause a domino effect culminating in mandatory labeling across the US.  Because of this, one of the nation's largest food lobbies, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association, has made defeating the initiative - called Prop 37 - their "single-highest priority".

According to an editorial on Food Safety News,

In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is genetically modified), Grocery Manufacturers Association President Pamela Bailey said that defeating the initiative "is the single-highest priority for GMA this year."

You may not know the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but its members represent the nation's largest food makers -- those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling; for example, soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto.

According to state filing reports, so far GMA has spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Since Prop 37 poses a significant threat to many of the nation's largest food makers, corporations that make a lot of money from the production and sale of Genetically Modified foods, it makes sense that the lobbying group that represents those interests would be fiercely fighting back.  This backlash, however, is promising because it shows just how powerful Prop 37 really is. Lobbying groups might have a lot of money on their side, but no amount of money can compete with a large group of voices speaking out in unison.

Here in Connecticut we might not be able to vote on Prop 37, but that doesn't mean that we can't speak out in support of it.  The more people nationwide who show their support of mandatory GMO labeling, both publicly and to their friends and neighbors, the more likely those in California who can vote on it are to hear us.  After all, the Grocery Manufacturer's Association is a giant national lobbying firm that is currently influencing the outcome of the vote, regardless of whether or not it's employees can actually vote on the ballot itself.  So talk to those around you and be outspoken, because your voice makes a difference.  Let's show California that we support their right to know what's in their food!

Have an outspoken day!
-Melissa

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree on the politics and business of organic food

Check out this all-new episode of The Business Beat, which aired 7/29/2012 on WICN/90.5 FM. 

Steve D'Agostino interviews Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).  They talk about the politics and business of organic food.

In the 1970s, with a degree in human ecology from the College of the Atlantic, now- Congresswoman Pingree started an organic farm on the island of North Haven, Maine. By selling produce to summer residents and raising sheep for wool, she built a thriving mail-order knitting business that eventually employed 10 people in her small community.

Rep. Pingree is still a small-business owner, operating the Nebo Inn and Restaurant on North Haven, which features locally grown food. After serving on the local school board, and as the town’s tax assessor, she went on to serve eight years in the Maine Senate, become the national CEO of Common Cause, and in 2008 get elected as a Democrat to represent Maine in Congress.

As a member of the House Agriculture Committee, Congresswoman Pingree is committed to helping reform farm policy -- with interests of small farmers and consumers in mind. Last year, she introduced the Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act — a comprehensive package of reforms to agriculture policy that will expand opportunities for local and regional farmers and make it easier for consumers to have access to healthy foods.

Don't forget, Rep. Pingree is one of the keynote speakers at the NOFA Summer Conference on August 10 - 12 at Umass-Amherst. She will speak on Friday, August 10 at 7:30 p.m. at the Campus Center auditorium.  Register for the conference today to take advantage of the excellent keynotes and workshops the Summer Conference has to offer.

Hope to see you at the Conference!
-Melissa

DEADLINE TOMORROW: Sign up to Support Key Amendments to the Farm Bill

The Senate Food and Farm Bill Needs Your Help!

Please call your Senators - It's easy! The Food and Farm Bill is on the floor of the US Senate and your action is needed to make it better! Right now they are lining up support for amendments that are sorely needed in this bill. Please take action!

Please call your Senators and tell them what you want. If you are with an organization, please make calls and also sign on to letters.

Phone Calls: Just dial the Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121 Ask to be connected with one Senator from your state, and then call back and ask to speak with the other Senator. Once connected, introduce yourself and ask to speak with the agriculture staffer. Tell that staffer (or leave a message) what you support or opposes from the amendments, or other key points.

Key Senate Farm Bill Amendments:
Pick your issues and make the call! SUPPORT:

• Brown- (SA 2362) The amendment includes important programs to farmers and local food infrastructure, beginning and socially disadvantaged farmer programs, including: Value-Added Producer Grants, Rural Microentrepeneur Assistance Program, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program (Section 2501)

• Tester (SA 2234)- This amendment will set aside 5% of annual funding for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative for public cultivar and breed development.

• Grassley-Conrad (SA 2170) - This amendment will make it unlawful for a meatpacker to own, feed or control livestock intended for slaughter for more than 14 days before slaughter. This will reduce vertical integration of the livestock market and help independent and family growers compete.

• Merkley-Feinstein-Sanders-Kerry (SA 2382) - This amendment will address barriers to make crop insurance more accessible to organic farmers.

• Durbin-Coburn (SA2186) - reduces the federal premium support for farmers with Adjusted Gross Income of more than $750,000.

• Cardin -(SA2219) This amendment would ensure that farmers receiving taxpayer-subsidized premium subsidies for crop insurance do not drain wetlands or farm erosion-prone soil without conservation measures (eligibility only for the crop insurance federal premium subsidy and it only applies to highly erodible land.)

• Gillibrand (SA 2156) - This amendment restores the $4.49 billion cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). (Cuts made in the Committee Bill that is going to the Senate floor) The SNAP funding would be paid for by a cut to the amount the federal government pays to insurance companies to provide crop insurance to farmers. Gillibrand’s amendment will also provide an additional $500 million over 10 years to the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). This program provides fresh produce snacks to schoolchildren. The bill also grants authority to USDA to make bonus purchases for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) has submitted an amendment that would eliminate the fresh-only requirement in the FFVP by expanding this program to include frozen, dried, or canned fruits and vegetables.

• Sanders-Leahy (SA 2386)- Enables schools to purchase from local and regional producers.

• Udall (NM) (SA 2417)– Disadvantaged Producer Training – This amendment would restore funding for the Outreach and Assistance Program for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers and Veteran Farmers and Rancher (also known as the 2501 Program).

• Harkin (SA 2239) – Beginning Producer Training – This amendment would increase funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program.

• Harkin-Casey (SA 2245) – Microloans to Beginning and Veteran Producers – This amendment would allow FSA to make smaller "microloans" of up to $35,000, tailored to meet the needs of small, young, beginning, and veteran farmers and ranchers, streamline the application process, and provide discretionary authority to FSA to establish intermediary lender pilot projects. This amendment would also give FSA discretionary authority to establish a new pilot program to support micro-credit programs administered by non-governmental or community-based organizations.

Please call your senators or sign on to the letter by tomorrow to give these amendments a chance in the Senate!

Farm Subsidies and the Farm Bill

The new 2012 Farm Bill could move onto the Senate floor as early as this week, promising to shape federal agricultural policy for the next 5 years.  The bill allocates nearly a trillion dollars of funds into farm subsidies, conservation programs, and food stamp aid, with the vast majority of the funds that are directed to subsidies going into the pockets of large farms growing commodity crops.  When you think of farm subsidies, your initial reaction might be a negative one, conjuring up visions of large corporations draining taxpayer dollars into unsafe and unsustainable farming practices that hurt workers, the environment, and the health of the nation, while simultaneously diverting funds away from small growers who need the money the most.  But the thing is, farm subsidies were originally meant to help those same small farmers that are hurt by them today.  An editorial by Robert B. Semple Jr. in the New York Times explains:

The subsidies have always been controversial. A mix of direct payments, price supports, loans, subsidized insurance and disaster relief, these subsidies provided protection for millions of farmers in the New Deal and afterward against the vicissitudes of the weather and the market. But in recent years, they have mainly lined the pockets of big farmers of big row crops who don’t need help, while ignoring the little guys who do.

So the original intent of farm subsidies was to help small farmers to make a living in order to ensure that enough food was produced in any given year to adequately feed the nation.  But as a multitude of small growing operations began to merge into a few drastically larger ones, subsidies began to undermine the very goals they had been put in place to achieve.

The story of modern agriculture in this country is a story of concentration, of huge subsidies flowing to relatively few farmers who grow a handful of row crops — corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice — in a dozen or so Midwestern and Southern states. Because farm subsidies, old and new, have been tied to production, those cultivating the largest acreage get the biggest payouts. The top 20 percent of recipients from 1995 to 2010 got 90 percent of the subsidies; the bottom 80 percent just 10 percent. Many farmers — well over half the total, by some estimates — get no help at all.

It's time we made a concerted effort to promote local small scale production of the nutritious fruits and vegetables we need rather than siphoning our tax dollars into the hands of a small number of giants growing less nutritious commodities.  It's time we remembered as a nation what farm subsidies were originally put in place to do.  Please do your part to shift agriculture back to sustainability.

What You Can Do

• Buy Local - Check out our website for listings of farms, farmers markets, and CSA programs across the state.  Support a small scale farmer near you. 
• Grow Your Own -  Every year, we have many workshops designed for new gardeners and farmers.  Check our website often, and sign up for our eNewsletters to learn more helpful tips about growing food yourself.
• Learn More - Check out the American Farmland Trust website for information about the farm bill and how it affects you.
• Tell Your Friends -  No movement can exist in isolation.  Talk to those around you about the Farm Bill and what it means to them, because what happens on the Congressional floor affects all of us.

Managing the Non-GMO Message

If you are reading this there is a pretty good chance that you already know what a GMO is and it is likely that you also know the disastrous potential genetically engineered foods have for our food system, our economy, the environment, and our health.  You might have also found that it's relatively easy to talk about GMOs with other people who know about them, but it is much harder to discuss the issue with people who don't.  Educational groups like CT NOFA are always trying to avoid preaching to the choir, but with so much information to disseminate, trying to be concise when introducing the GMO issue to people who haven't been involved before can be overwhelming.

That's why the Non-GMO Project has developed a new Non-GMO Communications Toolkit.  This soon-to-be downloadable PDF describes how to communicate the non-GMO message effectively in order to maximize awareness and understanding, and push the non-GMO movement forward as a result.  The Toolkit will be available online this month, and also comes with supplemental webinars, the first of which is available now.  The Project writes:

Consumer concern about GMOs is increasing rapidly in the United States and Canada. As awareness grows, it’s essential for leaders of the Non-GMO movement to communicate effectively. Research shows that for the Non-GMO message to be successful, simplicity and consistency in communications are essential.

Every great movement in history has required a clear, concise, and compelling message in order to succeed.  Use this tool to help inform yourself and those around you as a means to making more informed food choices. After all, knowledge is power, but only if it can be understood.

Have an informed weekend,
Melissa

Join Right to Know CT for a GMO town hall meeting May 23

An important message from our Executive Director, Bill Duesing:  

Friends,

We can't let Monsanto keep control of our legislative process through threats and disinformation.
 
90 percent of Americans want to know if GMOs are in their food.  A pré vote tally of CT representatives indicated that 85 percent of them supported the labeling legislation.
 
Monsanto (and its biotech buddies) don't support labeling.
 
Look at the results in CT and VT (no labeling) and compare that to what you'd expect in a democracy.
 
Did you see the latest damnation of industrial food?
 
KPMG, a major accounting firm says that the food industry produces over $2 worth of environmental and resource damage for each $1 in profits.
 
Other information indicates that the industrial food system produces at least $1.50 in medical costs for each dollar of profit, just for the big three diet related diseases-obesity, diabetes and heart disease. We've been told that one in three children born in this century will develop diabetes and that currently many teenagers are developing this expensive and dangerous disease.
 
So just these two categories, which likely miss some things-like the cost of food related cancers and allergies-indicate that for each $1 for food system profits, humans and the environment pay $3.50 in costs.
 
The profits of the food industry are literally coming from destruction of the health of people and the environment.
 
It is time to get serious about our food system. Little else is so important.
 
Our food choices are powerful tools for change. Eating locally, organically and lower on the food chain are ways each of us can make a difference.

You are invited to join us at a Right To Know CT town hall-style meeting. 

Wednesday, May 23

Church of the Redeemer, UCC

185 Cold Spring Street, New Haven, CT 06511

10:20 am – 12:00 noon 

We will discuss a number of key campaigns and initiatives we will be undertaking over the next few months to educate and influence Right to Know CT's three main constituent groups: farmers, consumers and legislators. Leaders spearheading these efforts will briefly present them to the group and welcome members to volunteer to help. We will also discuss strategic partnerships and invite members to take ownership of and manage these relationships on behalf of Right to Know CT. During the communal share, members will have an opportunity to share with the group any program, event, initiative, project, etc. they are involved with and invite others to participate. We will also be organizing groups by geographical areas and encouraging attendees to sign up for Jeffrey Smith's Tipping Point Network. Representative Richard Roy, the original sponsor of the GMO labeling bill will be in attendance. We hope to see you there.

Borrowing Against the Future for the Present

Yield isn't the issue.  The issue is sustainability.

As an addendum to yesterday's blog post about the organic -vs- conventional debate, let's talk a little about our societal perspective on how to go about feeding ourselves.  Although we might not want to think about it, it's no secret that in the United States we often lack a forward thinking mentality, and that focus on the present has negatively manifested itself a lot in the last few years - the Bush-era tax cuts, the social security crisis, the medical emphasis on expensive treatment rather than preventative care, the list goes on.  And because this is a systemic problem, you might guess that it also makes itself apparent in our food system.  Well, you're right.

As Kristiane mentioned yesterday, the debate about whether organic can outperform conventional or vice versa is really beside the point.  During a really good growing season, conventional agriculture might increase your yields for a year or two, while simultaneously:

• degrading your soil and water
• producing less nutrient dense (and therefore less nutritious) food
• running the risk of failure should the affects of climate change rear it's head
• pumping tons of fossil fuels into the air to accelerate the risk of failure from climate change
• poisoning the wildlife (and people) of the surrounding ecosystems

You might get a few exceptionally good harvests, but at what cost? Is it really worth it in the long run, and when you look at it with that broader perspective, can you really consider it a success? Probably not.  In this way we have taken out a loan against the future of our food system in order to sustain an expensive, wasteful, unhealthy, and wholly unsustainable present-day food system.

And it's not just the environmental effects of conventional farming that show a consistent lack of forward thinking. An editorial response to yesterday's mentioned study about conventional -vs- organic yields begins,

A new a study from McGill University and the University of Minnesota published in the journal Nature compared organic and conventional yields from 66 studies and over 300 trials. Researchers found that on average, conventional systems out-yielded organic farms by 25%—mostly for grains, and depending on conditions.

Embracing the current conventional wisdom, the authors argue for a combination of conventional and organic farming to meet “the twin challenge of feeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and high-calorie diets, while simultaneously minimizing its global environmental impacts."

This statement assumes that it's reasonable to expect and tolerate an ever increasing demand for meat and high calorie foods, even though a diet high in meat and animal products is both less cost effective and less healthy than consuming mostly plants.  It takes more energy, both in fossil fuels and in feed, to produce enough meat to feed one person than it does to produce enough plants to feed that same person, and the person who ate the plant-based diet is much less likely to develop (and cause everyone to spend a lot more on healthcare to treat) lifestyle diseases like diabetes and heart disease. By continuing to emphasize a diet loaded with animal products, we are indulging in an unsustainable present at the expense of our economic and medical future.  This system is also exclusionary:

In reality, the bulk of industrially produced grain crops goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the 1 billion hungry. The call to double food production by 2050 only applies if we continue to prioritize the growing population of livestock and automobiles over hungry people.

So we are also taking out a loan against the future of the many in order to provide an expensive and unhealthy lifestyle for the few, an action that ultimately will adversely affect us all, regardless of our socioeconomic status. Continuing with a conventional food system affords us the possibility of a few years of questionably higher yields at the expense of our climate, our farmland, our money, and our health.  That's a tradeoff that isn't in anyone's best interest, so lets try to eat more plants and buy food that was produced sustainably and closer to home in order to promote a better future for us all.

Have a healthy afternoon!
-Melissa

Dieting vs Common Sense

Here in the United States we love to diet, which is ironic considering how high our levels of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are. With a society so attuned to the fat, calorie, antioxidant, and carbohydrate contents of our food, and so willing to try new, supposedly healthier options, you'd think we'd all be thin and fit.  But as as organicgardening.com notes in a recent post featuring good food guru Michael Pollan, our obsessive dieting culture tends to over-complicate the issue of proper nutrition.  In fact, the very words diet and nutrition conjure up a science experiment more than real food, and thus much of our food has succumbed to that mechanized, over-processed ideal.

"Good and evil foods are constantly changing roles," Denise Gee writes on organicgardening.com. "One month, our nemesis is salt; the next, it’s sugar. Now it’s high-fructose corn syrup. We’re all over the map. 'That should tell us something,' Michael Pollan says. 'We’re either eating the ruinous food and feeling guilty about it or we’re eating healthy food and feeling virtuous about it. But I submit to you that that’s a really bizarre way to think about food.'"

So what do we do when in the thick of this very complicated and confusing dilemma?  Pollan suggests that we take some advice from thousands of years of ancestors the world over:

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. And have a relaxed attitude about food. Don’t be a fanatic."

 

That's really all you need to know in order to live a healthy, happy life free of dieting and obsessive attention to nutrition.  If three short sentences isn't enough to live by, however, here is Michael Pollan's expansion on the above statement.

Pollan's Food Rules 
• “Avoid products containing ingredients a third-grader can’t pronounce.”
• “Don’t buy any foods you’ve ever seen advertised on television.”
• “Just imagine your grandmother, or your great-grandmother depending on your age, as you’re rolling down the aisle in the supermarket. If she would not recognize something as a food, it’s not a food.”
• “Shop the perimeter of the store. That’s where the live food lives.”
• “Don’t eat until you’re full. Eat until you’re satisfied. The Japanese have a rule called hara hachi bu, which means, “eat until you’re 80 percent full.” That’s a radically un-American idea. But if we adopted this, and had our children do the same, the positive results would be profound.”
• “If you’re not hungry enough to eat an apple, you’re not really hungry.”
• “Do all your eating at a table. And no, a desk is not a table.”
 
Want to boost your health and have some delicious plants on hand all season?  Sign up for our Organic Gardening Workshop at Common Ground High School on May 5! The workshop is just over a week away, so make sure to call into our office at 203.888.5146 to register.

What is "Pink Slime"?

A product the industry calls "lean, finely textured meat" has been a fixture in the ground beef served in the free school lunch program and fast food hamburgers for years. But after Chef Jamie Oliver demonstrated how "pink slime" is made on his TV show last year, and media reports suggested it may not be as safe as the government claims, alarm among consumers began surging.

This excerpt was taken from a recent NPR article that discusses both the bacterial health hazards of pink slime, as well as the process of making it supposedly safe for human consumption.  As is the case with so many industrial food products, at the root of the issue it all comes down to price.  Despite all the processing, pink slime is slightly cheaper than regular ground beef, and so is a significant component in free school lunches and much of the ground beef that's sold in grocery stores.  As consumers, however, we can't know for sure what ground beef has it and what doesn't, because the packages are not required to be labeled.


Sound familiar?  It should.  The recent initiative to label pink slime on ground beef is not entirely dissimilar from our efforts to label Genetically Modified Organisms.  It all comes back to us as consumers having a right to know what's in our food. We should not have to pay extra to have ground beef ground up in front of us so that we can know for sure that it doesn't contain ammonia treated trimmings.  We should not have to assume that every non-organic product that contains corn or soybeans has GMOs because we can't know for sure.  Proper labeling is necessary in order to make informed food choices, and being able to make those informed choices is our right.

To learn more about what I meant above by "ammonia treated trimmings", check out this video with Chef Jamie Oliver that explains the process behind pink slime.



Have a great afternoon,
Melissa

Big Food at the Yale Peabody Museum

The following 7 minute video gives a great introduction to the challenges and solutions surrounding America's current food system.  It also serves as an overview of a new exhibit at the Yale Peabody Museum, Big Food: Health, Culture, and the Evolution of Eating, that will be running from February 11 to December 2, 2012.  Open to the public, and great for adults and kids alike, this exhibit is a wonderful interactive resource to help you learn more about your food, where it comes from, and why that's important.  And the video even features our friends at Common Ground High School in New Haven!



Learn more about the exhibit here, and check out some interactive online food games related to the exhibit here.  Below is an excerpt from the Peabody Museum's website:

Food is fundamental to life. Yet, our eating habits have become incredibly complex, involving many aspects of daily life far beyond addressing simple nutritional needs. Our world is characterized by environments that promote increased consumption of unhealthy food and sedentary lifestyles; over-nutrition and obesity now surpass under-nourishment as the world’s leading food and nutrition problem.

So why is it that our current food system promotes larger portion sizes, unhealthier meal options, and less exercise?  As the video points out, the answers are complex, but there's certainly more to it than meets the eye.  A recent article on the Spirit of Change Magazine's blog points to farm subsidies and fossil fuels as major contributing factors in the prevalence of cheap unhealthy foods.  Of course, this is only another part of a much bigger picture, but it is an important part that's worth taking into account.  Here is a particularly compelling excerpt from that article:


The truth is, food in the grocery store is not cheap. We pay for it in advance with our tax dollars, which support farm subsidies that go to support an ecologically problematic industrialized food system. We pay for it with the lives of our soldiers and with the unfathomable military expenditures that support our national reliance on fossil fuels, upon which the industrial farming model is completely dependent. The prices only look cheap because we are paying for them someplace else: through our taxes, and via the destruction of our soil, water, and natural resources through irresponsible farming practices.

Our food system has traveled down a long and winding road to get to where it is today.  Because of this, the issues surrounding our food are fraught with complexities and ambiguities, but that doesn't mean that we have to get bogged down by them.  Just remember to buy local and organic as much as you can and really honestly know where your food comes from and who's behind producing it.  That's the easiest way to ensure that you are getting whole nutritious food for yourself and your family.  Check out our Winter Food Project webpage or CT Organic Farms webpage for information about farms, farmers markets, and CSA programs in your area at this time of year.

Have a great afternoon!

Can you have fair, green, affordable, and healthy food all at once?

What do you think?  The folks at Slow Food USA are vehemently divided on the subject.  Last August, after electing a new president, Slow Food started the "$5 Challenge", a pledge to share a fresh, healthy meal for under $5 per person as an alternative to a fast food value meal.  This marks a change in direction for Slow Food, as they were originally an organization that believed consumers should be willing to pay more for their food.  Proponents of this new outlook believe that the old way of doing things preached too much to the choir, and was often elitist, classist, and exclusionary.  Critics, however, argue that competing financially with fast food companies and big agribusiness is nothing more than a race to the bottom - an unsustainable effort that sacrifices the livelihoods of small scale farmers and food producers.  Personally, I can see both sides of the debate.  Not everyone can afford to pay more for the organic items sold in stores, but it's also dangerous to apply fast food economics to slow food situations.

However, you don't necessarily have to pay a lot more for healthy organic food.  Offset packaging and transportation costs by buying goods from your local farmer's market or CSA program.  Visit a farm and pick your own.  Or start a garden, either in your yard if you have one, or in containers if you don't.  You'll be supporting the local food movement, helping the environment, being kind to your wallet, and doing your health a favor.  Check out our Winter Food Project webpage and CT Farms and Food webpage to learn more about farms, markets, and CSA programs in your area all year round.

Read a Chow article here to learn more about the Slow Food debate and let us know what you think either here or on Facebook!

Wal-mart's threat to the food system

The Atlantic

"Eaters beware: Walmart is taking over our food system" by Stacey Mitchell, on Grist.com brought to light the power of Wal-Mart in the American food system.  I knew Wal-mart was becoming a considerable force in conventional and organic markets, but had not realized their pervasiveness in our food system, and how rapidly their presence has grown.

I won't ruin the article for you (you should read it), but here are some interesting facts I learned:

• The first Walmart supercenter (store with an included grocery store) opened in 1989
• By 1998 there were 441 supercenters
• From 1998 - 2012 that number has grown to over 3,000 super-centers
• Wal-Mart is targeting New York, Chicago and Washington DC for expansion
• This has set off a chain of mergers and purchases so food companies can grow to a large enough size to do business with Wal-Mart

Also this little statistic is some real food for thought: Walmart has also been linked to rising obesity. "An additional supercenter per 100,000 residents increases ... the obesity rate by 2.3 percentage points," a recent study concluded. "These results imply that the proliferation of Walmart supercenters explains 10.5 percent of the rise in obesity since the late 1980s."

This is a great reminder that there are many elements to the sustainable food debate - we aren't just looking for local and organic, we are looking for decentralization and where it is possible, completely removing the "food provider" middle-man part of the food supply chain that insures farmers are underpaid while customers over pay. 

Happy New Year!
Kristiane