Just a short post today, in response to an interesting article from the New York Times on the safety of organic foods. This article was partially in response to the big salmonella outbreak in peanut butter and peanut products, and the recent consumer freak-out that followed. This outbreak has hilighted some of the seriously dangerous flaws in our food system, and I completely sympathize with worried consumers. Heck, I am one of them! I love peanut butter, but unfortunately most pb is made in huge factories where there is really no traceability for the processed stuff that ends up in each jar.

Realistically, the food most americans eat is greatly untraceable. I try to mostly get “whole foods” and then cook them myself, but even a can of black beans is hard to trace. Where did these things come from, and how do we know they’re safe? I am drawn to organic foods mainly for their environmental benefits, but also for the benefits to human health. Organic foods are regulated during growth and processing in terms of the chemicals purposefully used to treat it (chemical pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, etc), but this really says nothing about the safety of organic foods.

Considering the e. coli outbreak in organic spinach last year, I was actually surprised to learn that many people assume that organic foods will be free of pathogens. According to the recent NYT article, however, many Americans think organic foods are much safer. The article describes a bit of the process for organic food to be certified (see the government’s program on this here), and then dives into the controversy over the peanut scandal. Essentially, the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) did not have a state health certificate,  and therefore was unjustly given organic certification. Many organizations have called on the PCA to give up its organic certification, and that the certifiers should carefully consider the health standards that must be met. But organic standards and health standards are not the same thing, as the article quotes:

“It’s a reassurance that they have another set of eyes, and more eyes is always a good thing,” said Jane Baker, director for sales and marketing of California Certified Organic Farmers, a nonprofit certifying organization in Santa Cruz, Calif., and one of the largest and oldest in the country. “But let’s not confuse food safety controls with the organic side of things.”

The article closes with a woman who tries to buy organic local as much as possible, but when her organic peanut butter was pulled from the shelf and the Peter Pan wasn’t, she bought the national brand. Like her, I am unconvinced that the organic label is the be-all end-all of good food. Being conscious of the risks and benefits of eating various foods is important, and organic is only one of many sides of the “good” food concept in my head. This whole peanutty debacle just provides one more reason to shop local and know where my food is coming from!

Short update on the last post! I just read a great article from the Washington Post about the role that Tom Vilsack will be playing in a new era of American politics. They always do such a great job talking about food and agriculture issues in a journalistic way. Here is most of the interview:

Wow, I have fallen off the blogosphere! It has been over two months, but I realize that the more I write the more I will keep up with the news and articulating my takes on various agrissues. So I’m going to make an effort to at least write once a week, and also continue working on film projects and posting them soon. So much has changed in the USA over the last months (–I know, I haven’t written since November–), but here are the most relevant pieces of news that have struck me:

We have a new president!! Now I don’t want to sound cheesy, but I am absolutely giddy with pride and hope for the future. For many years, I watched US domestic and foreign policy spiral away from where I feel we should stand. In particular, I was increasingly disgusted with our international policies on energy and trade, and our domestic policy on environmental issues and agriculture (of course). For my entire voting life, I have had a president whose principles were far from mine, who embarrassed me when I traveled abroad, and whose country I saw on a dangerously downward trend. I wanted to move out of the United States, away from my home and my family and my friends, and to a state whose government more closely matched my values. But now, with Obama in the White House, I can say that (gulp) I would be thrilled and honored to work for the government! It is going to be less of an uphill battle for people working in “green collar” jobs, and I am so proud to be an American for the first time in a long time. Sure I’m worried about the economy, but on the upside, desperate times are a great incubator for innovation. Hooray for a new chapter in American history!

Obama at an Iowa farm in July 2007

With the new president, a new Secretary of Agriculture has been appointed. On December 17, 2008, President (then President Elect) Obama named Tom Vilsack the next Secretary of Agriculture. On January 20, 2009, the Senate unanimously confirmed this appointment. Looks like my prediction in a post last year that Obama would shy away from Vilsack as his main agrisqueeze wasn’t too accurate!

In a Gristy look at the Vilsack appointment, David Murphy references Lincoln’s act of creating the Department of Agriculture. In Lincoln’s day, this was called “the people’s department.” He reviews the current state of big agribusiness and agripolitics, closing with the interesting reflection that

During Lincoln’s day nearly 58 percent of Americans were farmers. Today that number has dropped to less than 1 percent. If Obama/Vilsack want to stem to blood loss in rural America they’re going to have to appoint some serious agents of change.

Wikipedia tells me that (surprise surprise) Vilsack is supported by the Corn Refiners Association, the National Grain and Feed Association, the National Farmers Union, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The Organic Consumers Association, on the other hand, vehemently opposed Vilsack’s appointment, and in November 2008 they released a report citing reasons Obama should not appoint him (this is also from the wiki page):

• Vilsack has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for large industrial farms and genetically modified crops; as Iowa state governor
• He originated the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, effectively blocking local communities from regulating where genetically engineered crops would be grown
• Vilsack was the founder and former chair of the Governor’s Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry lobbying group.

Yeah, so Vilsack is really into corn. Take the bad with the good...

Vilsack has been the governor of Iowa since the late 1990s, and as such has plenty of support for big agrindustry, particularly in the corn arena. On the upside, he is a democrat who is committed to renewable energy (even though he mostly supports corn-based ethanol), understanding the human side of climate change (from FarmWeek: “I want this department to be a national leader in climate change mitigation/adaptation efforts…This will involve conservation, greater efficiency with the energy we have, and new technologies and expanded opportunities in biofuels and renewable energy”), and he also is very familiar with sustainable agriculture research. Iowa, though deep in the corn belt, is also a big player in the organic farming movement (check out the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University).

Frederick Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center, stressed that Vilsack focus on the issues of nutrition, energy and freshwater in an Ames Progressive article. Kirschenmann recommends a systems approach to solving the myriads of problems facing the Department of Agriculture: “since systems are complex and multi-faceted, I would urge Secretary Vilsack to insist on full life cycle analysis in assessing whether any innovation actually produces the economic, environmental or social benefits it purports to provide.”

In January on a US Food Policy blog, I read that Vilsack promises to promote local food systems and thinks fruits and vegetables shouldn’t just be grown in rural areas, but everywhere. Vilsack met with Health and Human Services nominee Tom Daschle and is quoted as saying, “It’s going to be important for us to promote fresh fruits and vegetables as part of our children’s diets. . .that means supporting those who supply those products” and making it easier for consumers to buy locally grown products.

In his first weeks as Secretary, Vilsack is already making big changes. Vilsack has recently appointed 48 key USDA posts, which you can read about in this AgriPulse file. He also reversed two nasty policies from the Bush administration, as described in a recent Gazette article. In one, Vilsack restored funding for a healthy food program, and in the other he extend the comment period on contentious rules limiting crop subsidy payments. Way to go, Tom!

The Washinton Post nodded towards foodies’ raised eyebrows about the Vilsack appointment, but went on to commend his commitment to farmers and even more to child nutrition programs.

He added that educating school administrators, parents and children is essential in effecting change. To that end, he said, he supports establishing school and urban community gardens, long at the top of the wish list for activists.

“We want to make a better connection between what kids eat and knowing where it comes from,” he said. “I’ve seen it in my own family. If you educate kids at an early age, you can have a tremendous impact.”

It is certainly a step in the right direction. OK, we didn’t get what the NYT’s Nicholas Kristof called a Secretary of Food. Alright, we don’t have a Farmer in Chief (yet). And sure, it’s not a flying leap like us sustainable food advocates would have hoped. But it’s much better than what we’ve had in this last decade! In a NYT article, Vilsack is quoted as writing:

Let us build a 21st-century rural economy of cutting-edge companies and technologies that lead us to energy and food security…Such an investment will revitalize rural America, re-establish our moral leadership on climate security and eliminate our addiction to foreign oil.

And another great bite from the Washington Post, from VIlsack on the Department of Agriculture:

This is a department that intersects the lives of Americans two to three times a day. Every single American…So I absolutely see the constituency of this department as broader than those who produce our food — it extends to those who consume it.

Only time will show how much Vilsack will follow through on these commitments, but I am hopeful that things will be moving in the right direction. Or rather, towards the left.

What a month! It has been almost two weeks since the American people voted in a new president elect, Barack Obama. I am thrilled, to say the least. It is an exciting coincidence that I moved to Chicago, specifically to Hyde Park, just two months before the community’s most prominent resident was voted into the white house. When McCain made his concession speech, my friends called me and we rushed into the streets and (two blocks from my house) to Obama’s street, where at least 50 other Hyde Parkers had gathered to celebrate. One man had brought a big boom box, and we all danced and laughed and…I can’t describe the positive vibe on that block that night. It was infectious. The rest of the week, people walked around as if on clouds, smiling at strangers and not even frowning on the rainy winter days. But this blog is about food and agriculture, so let me share a bit of what I’ve learned about Obama’s stance on these issues.

On Ethicurean, a great foodie website (they define the word as “Someone who seeks out tasty things that are also sustainable, organic, local, and/or ethical - SOLE food, for short”), I read an article a few months ago pointing me to an interview with Barack Obama from the Missoula Independent. I’d highly recommend reading the full interview, which includes Obama’s famous chili recipe, which supposedly is one of the only dishes he can cook!

I was particularly happy to read mention of a great documentary, The Real Dirt on Farmer John, which is all about one of the Illinois farms serving urban farmers markets in Chicago, Angelic Organics. Here are some of the most provocative bites Obama gives on his food and agriculture policies:

Given the busy lives that working parents lead, I know it’s easier to take your children to a fast food restaurant than it is to cook a balanced meal at home using fresh fruits and vegetables. But the eating habits that children develop when they are young will last them for their entire lives. As president, I would use the bully pulpit of the office to encourage parents to devote more time to ensuring that their children are eating healthy meals

On Angelic Organics:

These types of farms can provide an important source of fresh fruits and vegetables to inner city communities that do not have easy access to grocery stores that sell organic foods. Moreover, farms like Angelic Organics that sell directly to consumers cut out all of the middlemen and get full retail price for their food, which increases the financial viability of small family farms. As president, I would implement USDA policies that promote local and regional food systems, including assisting states to develop programs aimed at community-supported farms. I also support a national farm-to-school program and am pleased that the Farm Bill provides more than $1 billion to expand healthy snacks in our schools.

On ethanol production:

I have been a long-time supporter of home-grown biofuels, but I believe that corn ethanol should be a transitional fuel source as we move towards more advanced cellulosic ethanol, which can be made from agricultural waste products, switchgrass, sustainably harvested forest biomass and other renewable feedstock.

On his future choice for Secretary of Agriculture:

I would select a Secretary of Agriculture who shares my commitment to America’s farmers and ranchers, and to developing the rural economy, yet who is not afraid to challenge entrenched special interests in Washington.

My favorite quote from the Missoula Independent interview:

I believe that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from. For that reason, I support the immediate implementation of the Country of Origin labeling law, which will require meat products to indicate their country of origin.

More recently, Time’s Swampland interviewed Obama just a few weeks before his campaign ended. The full transcript is very interesting, especially when Obama mentions the Michael Pollan article I wrote about a few weeks ago. Here is an interesting quote about the economic crisis and how it relates to energy, and in turn, to food:

Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.
I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

According to an article from ScrippsNews, Obama’s capaign website said that he wants to promote regional, local, and organic food systems “by helping organic farmers afford to certify crops, as well as change crop insurance so they’re not penalized.” While I couldn’t find the specific part of the website they referred to (it has probably changed since then), he did say some of those things in the above quotes as well. The article also contrasts Obama’s stance on agriculture with that of Mccain, whose campaign website said he wanted “to foster a “21st Century green revolution,” his campaign Web site said. That calls for research to develop higher yields and more production per acre.” Of course, this would also mean promoting pesticide and herbicide and fertilizer use, and all the other nasty parts of Green Revolution agriculture. Good thing he didn’t win!

Another great site, Family Farmed, as a great PDF factsheet on Obama’s support of local, family farms. I didn’t know he spoke at one of the Farm Aid concerts! He just keeps getting cooler, right?

On Obama’s website, there was a great page that featured a quote about the challenges facing downstate Illinois, as many other places:

I’ve fought these battles for rural Americans - and for ethics reform in our government - in Springfield and in Washington. And I know that what we’re talking about here is not just one policy - it’s about the future for these kids who are going to graduate from Tama High. It’s about whether they can find opportunity here at home. It’s about whether they’ll have a government that fights for them, so they can dream without limit.

In an article from OpEdNews, the author Jim Goodman argues that “Globalization, industrial farming and high tech agriculture have not brought us into a golden age of agriculture, they have given us a food crisis. While Obama has fundamental flaws in his farm policy, he has at least, tried to move beyond the failed policies of Reagan, Clinton and Bush.” At least Obama has food and agriculture on his radar screen, and he is pushing for more sustainable and regional systems of agriculture. He prompts the reader to participate in the public discussion on food policies, and that we must push for change.

A fabulous (as usual) Grist article last month looked at Obama and McCain’s takes on food and agriculture policy. The section on Obama first praises his plan to challenge big agribusiness and the meat industry, and his promise to promote local, organic food. But then the article bashes Obama’s ethanol subsidy plans, and his less-than-novel plan for a $250,000 cap on farmer payments. The article also talks about the Pollan article, and how our next president will be forced “to deal with food issues in ways that break radically with past policies”.

I think our country is moving in the right direction. I’m less apt to move to another country in the coming years. Things are changing, and I have a renewed faith that the future of food and farming is looking brighter every day.

Another brilliant article by Michael Pollan was published in the New York Times this week. In this, he writes “An Open Letter to the Next Farmer in Chief,” a list of reasons our next president should care about food policy. Michael Pollan has perhaps done more to shift the general public’s perceptions and knowledge about food and agriculture than any other popular journalist.

While working at the Student Organic Farm, I heard Pollan’s name dropped in conversations a few times before I finally read one of his articles in the NYT. In the article I thought he came off as a somewhat elitist gourmet foodie, but also hit on a number of interesting reflections about our food system. In 2006 I read one of his many books, The Omnivores Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. His witty style and use of history as well as politics to teach had me hooked. In this book, one of his main arguments is that “the way we eat represents our most profound engagement with the natural world.” He illustrates how things have changed on our plates throughout history, and gives us a laundry list of reasons we should make conscious decisions about the food we eat. A recurring theme in his writing is that food is very political, and that our food and agriculture system affect our lives in more ways than most people realize. His most recent book In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto gives more of a how-to guide for the public. As a general prescription for the eaters of the world, he gives a simple mantra:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

But in his latest article, he lists reasons why food matters and needs to be discussed more in politics:

• Health care, energy, foreign/trade policy, and climate change are all hot issues in the campaigns. Our food system is rarely discussed, yet it intimately relates to all these issues
• Health costs have risen dramatically, and 4/10 deaths in the US are related to diet-related chronic diseases. “You cannot expect to reform the health care system, much less expand coverage, without confronting the public-health catastrophe that is the modern American diet.”
• Our food system uses ~29% of US total energy supply, and is highly inefficient
• Trade policies and food security are increasingly important, as the world prices of food continue to rise

Pollan argues that in this tumultuous food climate, sustainable agriculture has found a rapidly growing audience, and not just among liberals:

Markets for alternative kinds of food — organic, local, pasture-based, humane — are thriving as never before. All this suggests that a political constituency for change is building and not only on the left: lately, conservative voices have also been raised in support of reform.

Throughout whirlwind history of food and agriculture policies in the US, Pollan remains focused on reducing reliance on fossil fuels in food production as one of the ways we can dramatically change our country for the better. Polyculture/Permaculture systems can be utilized across large areas of land, he argues, and if our policies/customs changed we could restructure the farm systems across the Midwest! He cites a number of articles showing that polyculture systems can produce much more food per acre than conventional agriculture. Of course, he thinks we need to invest more into research and training in sustainable agriculture.

Pollan argues for large-scale composting and use of more perennial crops to help lower emissions and provide a richer soil too! He also says we need to completely restructure our meat industry. Perhaps most profoundly, our food system needs to become decentralized, or what he calls “reregionalized.”

No, we don’t know if it will work. But Pollan is a believer that we need to figure out what kinds of sustianable agriculture will work before it’s too late. Soon enough, we won’t be able to have seemingly unlimited cheap fossil fuels. Food is one of our most basic necessities, and yet it is currently produced under a system that is not sustainable economically, environmentally, for human health and perhaps most importantly, in using energy. He lists a number of ways the government can create this new food system, and a number of ways we as a society must change our food culture.

I particularly enjoyed his idea of putting in an organic garden at the White House, and encouraging a revitalization of what Eleanor Roosevelt called “victory gardens”. I highly recommend taking the time to read his article and think about how you think government and society could be doing more to work towards sustainable food!

Whew, what a long day! Tuesdays are my longest days at school, but tonight I reached home just in time to catch the last hour of the Presidential Debate. I feel inspired to include a few blogs during these highly political weeks on -what else- agricultural policy!

A good place to dive into US policies on food and farming is the 2008 Farm Bill, or the “Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008,” which was passed into law this past June. This five-year bill allocated $307 billion to various programs and funds, and provides dramatically different policies than its predecessor, the 2002 Farm Bill [[I looked into old farm bills here]]. You can also cut to the chase and look at the 2008 “side by side” with the old legislation on Title X: Horticulture and Organic Agriculture. Look at all the brand new provisions! I was also happy about the $18 million for the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program over the next five years, at least 10% of funds for food stamps and Federal nutrition programs at farmers’ markets. But it wasn’t easy getting this bill passed into legislation.

The new bill (originally written in 2007) made it through the Senate Agricultural Committee in late 2007, and jumped through many political hoops, but was eventually vetoed by President Bush. After an emergency effort via many grassroots networks and lobbyists to have individuals and institutions contact their legislators, the House and Senate came to the rescue. The Senate voted for the bill 81 to 15, which is 14 more than the 67 needed to override a Presidential veto. So now it’s a law!

As a member of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, I have been receiving email newsletters for the last few years informing me about upcoming events and collaboration to develop policies that promote sustainable food and agriculture. They have broken the NCSA network into various zones across the United States, working on projects at the local, regional, and national level

I wrote in to my legislators in Michigan a number of times on Farm Bill issues, and I have mixed feelings about some aspects of the new Farm Bill. As taken from a fact sheet on NCSA’s website, here are a few key points of the farm bill (to use funding over five years) as NCSA spells them out:

• More organic farming support, and specifically a boost for the organic certification cost share of $22 million
• Landowners/farmers can receive payment while transitioning and practicing organic farming under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
• A new program called the organic data collection initiative will initiate and fund new research
• $70 million for farmers who grow annuals or perennials for the Biomass Crop Transition Assistance Program
• USA consumers will easily learn where (at least what country) their meats, fish, fruits and vegetables are coming from thanks to the bill’s Country of Origin Labeling provision
• There are specific funds allocated for new and marginalized farmers: a 90% cost share rate under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and $75 million over 4 years through the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program
• The Value Added Producer Grant program was cut to $15 million over 4 years, but it provides special attention to local food projects, smaller farms, and new or marginalized farmers and ranchers
• The Community Food Project program works on the grassroots level on hunger, nutrition and access issues, including a provision for school cafeterias to allow purchasing preference to locally grown/made foods
• Plenty of grants will be available to provide healthy/local food in “underserved communities” via the new Healthy Urban Food Enterprise Development Center program
• The USDA’s Rural Business and Industry Loan Program will give 5% (~$50 million per year) in loans to businesses focused on local food systems

A New York Times article noted that in this time of soaring global food prices, many critics say the new Farm Bill should not offer increasing subsidies to many of these farmers. The United Nations and WTO criticize the role of extensive subsidies for American farmers as well, as do many other international venues. I have mixed feelings about this, as I’ve been in Trinidad and seen the direct results of free trade regulations on farmers beyond our borders. And while I disagree with much of the legislation that has been passed, I must make a note about subsidies: there is increasing emphasis in these farm bills on sustainable agriculture ventures and decreasing funding for “conventional”/industrial style farms. As the NYT article mentions, these bills are always a compromise. An opinion page article the next day noted unsustainable added measures like a racehorse breeder tax break, but I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs for those who are interested in a more sustainable agriculture system.

Understanding the complexities of our Farm Bill is important for anyone who is, or wants to be, involved in US agriculture in any way. And it is of particular interest to those with agrosustainability in mind, because policies like these provide grants or funds for projects that would not otherwise exist. It is also illustrating how more sustainable agriculture is becoming more accepted not just by the public media and average consumer, but also by our laws! Way to go, USA. Maybe I won’t move to Canada after all:o)