Un-Occupy Big Banks: Move Your Money on Saturday, November 5

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Take a Bite News & Events

Monday, November 7th, 2011, 1:18 PM

Cross posted at Civil Eats on November 4th, 2011

Last weekend, I joined more than 30 people who braved blizzard-like conditions to assemble in a square across from Occupy Wall Street’s encampment at Zucotti Park to speak up about connections between big food and the Occupy movement. There was a food activist from Iowa, a farmer from upstate New York, students and professors from NYU, a union electrician, a nutritionist (who said she was there because “if the food system isn’t working, I can’t do my job”) and more.

Many carried plastic-covered signs with slogans like “Beat the System” and, my favorite, a line from Tom Philpott’s excellent article: “Our Food System is a Big Fat Monopoly.” As the rally ended—cut short by 30-degree temperatures, blinding snow, and 30-mile-an-hour wind gusts—I shared my commitment to do one, easy thing this week in support of the 99 percent: To move my money out of the hands of Citibank.

This week, tens of thousands of people are pledging to move their money out of the pockets of the financial institutions that got us into this mess and into the hands of credit unions and banks we can believe in.

When I first heard about this campaign, spearheaded by grassroots activists along with national groups ranging from the Rainforest Action Network (where I’m on the board of directors) to MoveOn.org, I thought—and I admit this with a good dose of embarrassment—“Good idea, but what a pain. I mean, I’d have to change all my automatic bill payments and open new accounts.”

But, of course, it’s probably a bit more than a pain to spend cold, wet nights—like last Saturday—sleeping on the hard cement of outdoor parks. If hundreds of people can make that sacrifice—all day, all week, for weeks—I think I can handle doing some busywork to move my money. And so I am. On Saturday, November 5, the national day of action to move your money, I’m closing my Citibank account, the one I opened 15 years ago on the same block as my first Brooklyn sublet. And I’m joining tens thousands of others when I do.

And it’s going to feel good. See, I’ve had twinges of regret for years, every time I heard about some new act of egregious Big Bank behavior. I just got used to turning a blind eye. But then the financial meltdown, the Big Bank bailout, and now this collective call to action and my attitude started to change and my eyes started opening.

Consider, for instance, that Citibank just agreed to pay $285 million to settle a lawsuit, essentially admitting to misleading investors about toxic mortgage-backed securities, although the bank officially neither admitted nor denied that it had done anything wrong. How convenient. Meanwhile, ProPublica, which has been digging into the machinations of Citi and other Big Banks, argues that the bank is on the line for much more and much worse.

But also keep in mind what Citibank has been doing with my, and our, money all these years and what it has to do with the food movement that turned out at Occupy Wall Street this past weekend. Turns out, Citibank has been busy. Here’s a taste. The bank has been:

– Investing in major agricultural projects in developing countries, what many critics call a modern-day land grab;

– Financing the leading Chinese agribusiness company and development of China’s chemical industry;

– Underwriting $300 million to finance expansion of “land grabs” in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia for agricultural commodities and livestock production.

Bank of America customer? Keep in mind the bank is one of the lead underwriters of the coal industry. Rainforest Action Network is encouraging people to close their accounts and let BofA know that the bank should be moving its investment dollars away from dirty coal and toward clean, green renewable energy. Says RAN:

The bank routinely underwrites hundreds of millions of dollars in loans to…two of the biggest coal mining companies in the Powder River Basin that are desperately trying to secure a… facility to ship coal overseas…

As if all this weren’t enough to push us over the edge, I got a letter from Citibank several weeks ago—maybe you got a similar one from your Big Bank?—in which the bank informed me that clients who keep less than a $6,000 account balance—that’s me—would start seeing a monthly $15 fee on their statements. In other words, if you’re not rich enough to keep a big balance, you have to pay Citibank to keep your money while they spend it in their bailout-resulting, environment-destroying financial decisions.

I haven’t even been giving $15 a month to my favorite social action organization, yet I was sitting quietly while Citibank informed me they were going to take it from me and my captive bank account? (If you think Citibank’s policy was egregious, Bank of America announced it would start charging $60 a year to use its ATMs, a policy, which, thanks to public outcry, the bank just reversed).

Enough. I am done. Done with Citibank, done with feeling guilty when I get my monthly statements in the mail; done with feeling bad when I see my ATM card in my wallet. So on November 5, I plan to join with others across the country as I walk into my local Citi branch and close my account. I’ll tell them why, add my voice to the pledges here, and cut up my card. Then, I’ll head home to check out my new bank accounts online at Amalgamated Bank, the bank of the labor union movement. (You can find community-oriented banks and credit unions near you here and tips about how to move your money and not mess up your finances here.)

Finally, I’ll commit to giving that $15 a month (which, mind you, Citibank was going to take from me) to one of my favorite groups working on behalf of the 99 percent. All this will take a little paperwork and a little time, but nothing I can’t handle. And then, I’ll be free—and it’ll feel great. I hope you’ll join me.

Comments (0)

Food Day is here.

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food, Organic Food & Farming

Monday, October 24th, 2011, 11:55 AM

After months of organizing by countless people, there will be more than 2,000 events from coast to coast—ranging from small house parties to massive festivals — for Food Day. Local governments are seizing the opportunity to announce new food policy initiatives. The National Archives will be hosting a Food Day Open House just feet from our country’s most important founding documents. There will be an “Eat In” in Times Square, with guests like Morgan Spurlock, Mario Batali, and Marion Nestle, and with a meal prepared by Ellie Krieger of the Food Network.

But more important, Food Day is poised to inspire hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans to change their diets for the better, and to push for improved food policies.

If you are already planning to participate in a Food Day event, this is what I ask you to do: Please take still photos of your event, tag them with “Food Day” on Flickr and join our Flickr group. And, if you can take a short video of your Food Day event, please upload them to YouTube and tag them with the words “Food Day.” The Food Day staff will favorite these videos so they show up on the Food Day YouTube Channel. You can also collect signatures for the Food Day petition asking Congress for better food policies.

If you haven’t found a Food Day event near you, visit FoodDay.org use the map or type in your zip code. (Be patient as events take time to load in the map—a lot of people are visiting right now!) And of course you can keep up with Food Day by liking it on Facebook, following CSPI on Twitter, or by using the #FoodDay hashtag to participate in the national conversation.

Food Day continues to get great publicity, such as these articles in The Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Minneapolis Tribune, and the Portland Oregonian or in the Atlantic. You may have also seen this TV spot-featuring Morgan Spurlock-from our friends at the Cooking Channel, or this one from our friends at the wellness cable channel Veria Living.

Comments (0)

What? Food and Farm Bill Over in 13 days?

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Forests, Hunger & Food Crisis, Local Food, Meat Industry, Organic Food & Farming

Friday, October 21st, 2011, 11:12 AM

October 20th, 2011

National Sustainable Agriculture
Only once every 5 years do you have the opportunity to truly transform our food and farm system through the federal farm bill.

On Monday the Agriculture Committee leadership proposed to rewrite the food and farm bill in 2 weeks from today – yes you heard that right, 2 weeks – this is usually a year plus process and they want to do it in 2 weeks?! This would be the fastest food and farm bill decision-making process in history.

Please act today for a chance you have only once every 5 years to reform our food and farming system and protect our natural resources.

If you care about the health of America’s soil, water, and land; promoting organic practices and conservation; helping a new generation of struggling small and mid-sized farmers get their start; rebuilding local and regional food systems; or developing new markets and healthy food access – now is the time to speak up. If you want to see a healthier, more secure, environmentally sustainable, and prosperous America – now is the time to speak up.

This proposal would wipe out over 40 percent of the funding increases for conservation and environmental initiatives achieved in the 2002 and 2008 food and farm bills, setting the clock back and “un-greening” the farm bill. Moreover, it is unclear what the proposal would do to the fair and healthy farm and food system programs won in 2008 with your help, but in need of being renewed in the new farm bill. It could potentially wipe out all of those gains as well.

It just takes a minute to call:
• First check if your Senator and/or Representative sits on the Senate Agriculture or House Agriculture Committee
• If your Senator or Representative sits on either of these three committees: call the Capitol Switchboard and ask to be directly connected to your Senators’ and Member of Congress’s office: 202-224-3121. Or go to Congress.org and type in your zip code, then click on your Senators and Member of Congress’s name and the contact tab for their phone number.
• If the line is busy, please leave a brief message on the voicemail.

The Message: I am a constituent, calling Senator/Representative _____ to deliver this message (use one or more of these talking points):

• The proposed farm conservation cuts are too big and should be reduced. In particular, the Conservation Stewardship Program funding should be retained and Wetlands Reserve Program funding should be restored.
• Farm commodity program reform should include caps on the amount of subsidy any one farm can receive. Loopholes allowing multiple subsidy payments to single farms should be closed. Conservation requirements should be attached to all forms of revenue and crop insurance subsidies.
• The farm bill must reinvest at least $1 billion a year in innovative, job-creating programs for rural economic development, local and regional food systems, renewable energy, organic farming, and young and beginning farmers.

*According to published accounts, the leaders of the Agriculture Committees are proposing cuts of $6.5 billion to conservation programs, $5 billion to nutrition programs, and $15 billion to commodity subsidy programs. The conservation cuts would be on top of the $2 billion already made by Congress in the appropriations process.

——————–

From Hunger Action Network

Call you Congress member today (202 224-3121) and tell them:

No deficit reduction plan can work if it does not rebuild our economy by protecting Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and other basic safety net programs. And it must create jobs. Such a plan must have increased revenues from upper-income households and profitable corporations, and savings from cutting unneeded military spending.

The Senate is about to take up a Agriculture Appropriations bill, in which the Republicans will seek to make cuts to the food stamp / SNAP program. Senator Gillibrand, whom we talked to last week, is leading the fight nationally to protect SNAP, so all she needs is a call to thank her (202 224-4451). Sen. Schumer, whose staff we met with this week, says he is also opposed, but a call to him would help convince him to take more of a leadership role. He is not signing onto a letter that Gillibrand is circulating to protect SNAP(202 224-6542)

The tougher fight is expected in the House, where the House leadership supports steep cuts in food stamps and other low-income programs.

You could also include in your message support for a Farm Bill that invests in healthy food, strong conservation programs and family farms, not corporate agribusiness.

———————–

The Farm Bill Is a Food Bill

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-narayan/the-farm-bill-is-a-food-b_b_1020469.html

Where the farm bill allocates resources to funding food stamps on one hand, it also incentivizes the purchase of unhealthy foods. In the most recent farm bill updates, it appears as though the back-room appropriations are moving in the favor of subsidies. While both direct payment programs and nutrition programs are looking at cuts, a mechanism for replacing subsidy cuts with a new funding regime has already surfaced. Unfortunately for the food side of the farm bill, it’s become increasingly difficult to advocate for change. In the past, the farm bill has been traditionally held to industry interests. Now, the super committee process may shut out democratic input altogether if the bill is written in the coming weeks by a handful of legislators for the purpose of bypassing floor debate.

Because the farm bill is so rarely written, it becomes important to reclaim its status as a food bill. Even if parts of the package are at odds with the part of the bill that works to create a healthy food system, the latter still comprises 70 percent of the legislation. It remains to be seen whether the super committee process will allow some food for thought.

——————————————————–

Farm Bill Battle Heats Up

http://www.kfgo.com/agri-business-news.php?ID=9424

WASHINGTON (DTN) – Fights began breaking out Tuesday among agriculture interests over what the super committee might do with the farm bill, even though no one knows how the leaders of the House and Senate agriculture committees are planning to move ahead with the proposal that they sent to the super committee on Monday.

One of the fights over super committee ag cuts and farm bill plans is whether to cut spending on food programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Senate Agriculture ranking member Pat Roberts, R-Kans., House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and House Agriculture ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., sent the super committee a letter Monday saying they would agree to up to $23 billion in farm program cuts over 10 years, and that they will send the super committee a more detailed proposal by Nov. 1 on what they are seeking.

———————–

Key farm groups back revenue plan

DANIEL LOOKER 10/19/2011 @ 4:58pm Business Editor

http://www.agriculture.com/news/policy/key-farm-groups-back-revenue-pl_4-ar20037

Three influential farm groups Wednesday urged the House and Senate agriculture committees to replace the main existing commodity programs with a revenue-based risk management plan that would pay for some losses not covered by crop insurance.

Today’s letter to the chairs and ranking minority members of the ag committees was signed by the American Soybean Association, National Corn Growers Association and National Farmers Union.

All three have their own farm bill proposals but they’ve united behind the idea of replacing existing farm programs, including the often criticized direct payments, with a program helps farmers only when they have losses in revenue.

The groups said that federal budget realities “make it imperative to find a viable risk management approach that can replace several existing programs, including Direct Payments, Countercyclical Payments, SURE, and the ACRE program.”

“…under a revenue-based program, compensation for losses that exceed a certain threshold would only be made as they are incurred, on all production, and only on a portion of the loss,” the groups point out. “This stands in contrast with the current Direct Payment program under which farmers receive payments regardless of whether they produce a crop or incur a loss. Also, many producers participate in the crop insurance program at levels that require losses of 30 percent or more before they are compensated. With the elimination of other elements of the farm safety net, a program is needed to offset part of these losses should they occur.”

They also voiced “strong support” for keeping the existing crop insurance program. Any revenue program “should be designed to complement rather than overlap or replace this key part of the farm program safety net,” they said.

Comments (0)

Don’t Let Industry Kill the Healthy Food Marketing Guidelines

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics

Friday, October 7th, 2011, 2:19 PM

Please consider signing onto this petition!

In 2009, Congress directed several federal agencies to form the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to Children to develop guidelines for companies that market food to kids. The IWG proposed a strong set of guidelines earlier this year.

Unfortunately, the food industry and media companies are lobbying the President, his Administration, and Congress to prevent the IWG from finalizing the marketing recommendations. Yet, with the help of advocates like you, over 28,000 parents, health organizations, and others submitted comments supporting the proposed guidelines.

While the First Lady and the Administration have made childhood obesity a priority, they are considering pulling the marketing guidelines given the significant political pressure from the food and entertainment industries.

Please write to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama (and the IWG agencies) today to encourage the Administration to finalize and release food marketing guidelines as Congress requested.

Recipients

President Barack Obama
First Lady Michelle Obama
Secretary Thomas ‘Tom’ J. Vilsack
Director Thomas R. Frieden
Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg
Chairman Jon Leibowitz

Comments (0)

The Harder They Spin: What USFRA Wants Us to Believe and Why It’s Still Not the Truth

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, October 5th, 2011, 12:48 PM

Cross-posted at Civil Eats

October 5th, 2011 By Anna Lappé

I recently wrote about attending the Food Dialogues, a national “conversation about food” hosted by the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), a new trade association funded by some of the biggest players in the food industry—including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Dupont, and Monsanto. There have been a number of comments on my post. I wanted to respond to one in particular from Hugh Whaley, USFRA’s General Manager.

Whaley takes issue with how I characterize the makeup and mission of the USFRA, writing:

Contrary to those who suggest, imply or state otherwise, USFRA is NOT a policy organization. USFRA is America’s farmers and ranchers who are committed to continuous improvement in how food is grown and raised to provide healthy choices for people everywhere. Our mission is to build consumer trust in today’s agriculture…all forms.

The farmer- and rancher-led organizations that are affiliates of USFRA have all sizes, shapes and production methods represented by their members. Small, medium, large; organic, natural, conventional.

To understand Whaley’s spin on who and what USFRA stands for, it might be helpful to share a little background on Whaley himself and how USFRA fits the mold of a common food-industry PR strategy.

For nearly 13 years, until March 2009, Whaley was an executive at the communications firm Osborn & Barr, founded in 1988 by former executives at Monsanto. While the company was its founding client, the firm has brought on other agricultural clients, including John Deere, United Soybean Board, the Cattlemen’s Beef Board/National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the National Pork Board—all of which are current USFRA affiliates.

During Whaley’s tenure, Osborn & Barr helped to launch American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT). Like USFRA, AFACT describes itself as a group “organized by farmers.” In the case of AFACT it was allegedly created “to defend members’ right to use recombinant bovine somatotropin,” or rbST, Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone sold to dairy farmers under the brand name, Posilac.

Though it was presented as a group speaking for farmers, AFACT was created in part by Osborn & Barr, which had been handling the Posilac account since 2007. AFACT’s formation came at a time when Monsanto was reeling from campaigns by real farmers and consumer advocates against the artificial growth hormone. Responding to concerns that ranged from the health of dairy cows pumped with the hormone to possible human health effects rbGH, Yoplait, Dannon, Cabot Cheese, and other companies had by 2009 stopped sourcing milk produced with Posilac. Grocery chains had started to eliminate it from their store-label milk, according to Food & Water Watch.

Similar to the spin about AFACT, Whaley describes the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance as “farmer- and rancher-led,” with affiliates of “all sizes, shapes and production methods.”

Yes, USFRA technically represents a range of farmers and ranchers, but only because much of its total budget—$11 million a year or $30 million depending on who you ask—comes from federal “check-off” commodity marketing programs. These programs, now covering 19 different commodities, compel all or most producers of these commodities, no matter the size, to pay into promotion programs. Beef ranchers for instance must pay $1 per head on domestic sales. The money adds up: In 2007, beef check-off programs spent more than $90 million.

You might not have heard of these programs, but you’ve probably seen their ads. Check-off dollars fund campaigns like “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner?” “Pork: The Other White Meat” as well as dubious marketing efforts like the 2010 dairy industry partnership with Domino’s Pizza to amp up cheese use on its pies.

So because USFRA gets a good chunk of its budget from the biggest commodity check-off programs—like beef, cotton, eggs, and pork—Whaley is technically accurate: Farmers of all sizes do pay into this marketing campaign, but whether the Alliance represents diverse interests is a different story.

When I asked Laura Batcha, the Vice President of the Organic Trade Association whether the Alliance reflects their members’ interests she said: “We don’t believe the Alliance is communicating the benefits of organic agriculture.”

The bottom line is the USFRA is being funded, in part, with organic producers’ money without their consent or participation, since many organic producers are required by law to pay into these check-off programs. “While organic producers and handlers have been paying into these check-offs for years, we have yet to see the funds be used to promote organic food and agriculture,” said Batcha. “It’s essentially taxation without representation.” In fact, sustainable and small-scale farmers have been fighting in the courts against the legality of check-off programs, for precisely this reason.

Fred Stokes, founder of the Organization for Competitive Markets and a cattle rancher in Mississippi, concurred. The Alliance doesn’t “‘represent all farmers and ranchers,’” he said, “These are the people who put family farmers and ranchers out of business! This is an alliance only of groups that preach ‘get-big-or-get-out’ and ‘efficiency through vertical integration.’”

It’s also an alliance, Stokes noted, that gets a healthy portion of its budget from big business, too. As members of USFRA’s “Premier Partner Advisors Group” Monsanto, John Deere, and chemical giant Dupont each have pledged $500,000 a year.

So what is the platform USFRA is pushing? Whaley says I missed the mark here, too, writing:

None of the issues discussed during the Food Dialogues can be answered strictly in black and white terms. That’s why continued dialogue is so important. Making grandiose (positive or negative) statements about any form of agriculture won’t achieve solutions or help Americans make sound and informed food decisions.

I agree with Whaley in one sense: Food systems are complex and more dialogue is certainly needed to figure out the best approaches to creating a safer, more affordable and sustainable food supply. But, I would argue that some food issues are black-and-white and taking a clear stand on these issues is the only way we will achieve such solutions.

To give several examples directly relevant to USFRA membership:

I believe everyone should have a right to know if the food they’re eating contains genetically engineered organisms (GMOs). So do most Americans who overwhelmingly want the right to know what’s in their food. Yet, USFRA’s industry partner Monsanto has been leading the fight against GMO labeling in this country, despite the fact that most other countries with commercialized GMOs require it, even China.

I believe we should be doing everything possible to protect the effectiveness of antibiotics—one of the most important tools in our public health toolbox. So do most Americans. Yet, as much as 80 percent of antibiotics in the U.S. are used not for human health but in factory farms, often for growth-promotion. A broad coalition is calling for restrictions on these non-therapeutic uses of antibiotics, citing mounting concerns about antibiotic resistance, while many USFRA affiliates have been spearheading the fight against such restrictions.

I believe we should be actively working to phase out the most toxic pesticides in agriculture, those known to cause cancer, disrupt hormones, or impair brain functioning. So do most Americans. Yet, members of the Alliance, including the National Cotton Council and the National Corn Growers Association, have been actively fighting against regulations that would help us move in that direction.

I believe our tax dollars should be incentivizing healthy food production and healthy food access. So do most Americans. Yet, members of the USFRA are among the key forces lobbying for payments to commodity producers, including those, like corn growers, that are not even producing food for people. Forty-four percent of corn last year went to ethanol production; nearly half was diverted to animal feed; much of the rest went to high-fructose corn syrup. (Thanks in part to the success of this lobbying, from 1995 to 2010 the 15 members of the board of the National Corn Growers Association—a USFRA board member—received subsidies totaling $12,048,167, while 62 percent of American farmers, and nearly all organic producers and fruit and vegetable growers, received no federal subsidies at all).

Finally, I believe that protecting our nation’s water is one of the most important issues of our time. So do most Americans. Yet, many in USFRA leadership roles are among the key players fighting federal policy that would promote tighter regulation of water pollution, especially from “conventional” agriculture’s nitrogen fertilizer runoff and industrial livestock waste.

Many of USFRA’s board, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council, Cattlemen’s Beef Board/Beef Checkoff, and the National Corn Growers Association, as well as USFRA partner, The Fertilizer Institute, work together under the auspices of the Waters Advisory Council. The Council may sound like an environmentally minded organization, but as The New York Times reports, it’s a “lobbying outfit” for some of the country’s “largest industrial and agricultural concerns.”

These are just some of food’s “black-and-white” issues. Without indication otherwise, we’re left to assume the USFRA’s position on these critical food issues reflects that of its membership—and is out of step with the real concerns of many, and in many cases most, Americans.

Whaley also suggests I misrepresented who was able to ask questions at the Food Dialogues at the four sites, noting:

Questions were taken for all four of our panels from in-person audience members, from people on Twitter and from questions posted on our two websites. It is really unfair to say questions for the event only came from industry. The questions represented many voices…

Questions may have come in from Twitter and Facebook, but, as I wrote in my original post, at the New York City event I attended, and where we in the media were asked to write down and hand in questions for the panel, only one person got to ask a question: He was a rep from the National Pork Council, a USFRA affiliate. Only one attendee got to ask a question from the D.C. event that was shown at our venue: It was Jay Vroom, head of the agrochemical trade group, CropLife America. Whaley may contend questions represented many voices; it didn’t seem that way to me. But see for yourself. The Food Dialogues are available online at http://www.fooddialogues.com.

Comments (0)

Who’s Behind the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance and Why It Matters

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics

Monday, September 26th, 2011, 2:24 PM

Cross-posted on Civil Eats, September 23rd, 2011 By Anna Lappé

On Thursday, September 22, the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), a new trade association made up of some of the biggest players in the food industry—including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Dupont, and Monsanto—hosted what they called “Food Dialogues” in Washington D.C., New York City, U.C. Davis, and Fair Oaks, Indiana.

The USFRA describes the Food Dialogues, and their broader multi-million dollar media campaign, as an effort to amplify the voice of farmers and ranchers and help consumers know more about “how their food is grown and raised.”

Sounds good, on first blush.

Most of us are in the dark when it comes to the story of our food. And, farmers and ranchers—the people working hard every day to bring us our food—are nearly invisible in mainstream media. But dig into the Alliance’s membership, and its impetus for forming, and you start to wonder whether it truly represents the voices of grassroots food producers or whether this well-funded media campaign is agribusinesses latest attempt to push back against well-documented and well-publicized concerns about the environmental and health consequences of industrial agriculture.

When I asked a rep from Ketchum—the public relations firm hired by the Alliance—what motivated these groups to come together, without skipping a beat, he answered: Food, Inc. and movies like it. “People see Food, Inc.,” he said, “And think everything in that movie is accurate.” But, he continued, the film only presents one side of the issue and USFRA members feel they didn’t “have a voice in it.” Now, as the Ketchum rep put it, USFRA wants to “clear the air” and “get a national dialogue, a conversation, going.”

There are two big holes in this argument: Robert Kenner, the director of Food, Inc. did try to get industry voices into the film. And, while USFRA members may not like it, Food, Inc. is an accurate, if unpleasant, account of our industrial, toxic food system.

When I mentioned that Kenner approached many food companies to get their perspective, and they refused to go on camera, the PR rep said: “I’ll be honest with you: this is a change with how they’ve done things in the past. They’re trying to open their doors up.”

While these industry players may be saying they want to “open their doors up,” it seems only on their terms. Certainly the Food Dialogues yesterday gave a semblance of impartiality: Highly-credentialed journalist Claire Shipman of Good Morning America moderated from a satellite location in D.C. and celebrity chef John Besh hosted the panel in New York City.

But the reality was an orchestrated framing of the message about “modern agricultural production” from the perspective of big business. In the staged kitchen set at the New York City, the questions from the “audience” included only one: a pre-arranged question from the head of the National Pork Board. In D.C., Jay Vroom, from the agrochemical trade association CropLife America, was handpicked to join in the “conversation” and lob a softball question to John Besh about chefs and portion control.

Earlier this year, a trade publication explained that this image campaign, and others like it, not only aims to counter Food, Inc.’s “misconceptions” about food, but also to convert all those “Pollan-ated” minds. (Reading Michael Pollan is apparently unnerving to the food industry and it should be to the rest of the public, too.)

This media campaign, the industry publication continued, is also intended as a “preemptive strike” against “a long list of new regulations and restrictions coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food & Drug Administration, ranging from tighter rules on pesticide applications to a potential ban of routine, preventative use of animal antibiotics.”

Take a look at the policy priorities of USFRA members and you’ll see exactly that: Most of its affiliates are hard at work, lobbying on Capitol Hill to weaken the very regulations that the consumers the USFRA itself surveyed say they care most about: Pesticides and antibiotics, for instance, as well as artificial hormones in animal production, and air and water pollution.

As one of its current policy priorities, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a USFRA board member and the marketing organization and trade association for the beef industry, is fighting for the Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act. If passed, the Act would limit the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet, as many in the environmental community have pointed out, the EPA’s regulation of carbon dioxide pollution is key to addressing global warming in the absence of strong climate policy. This USFRA member attack on climate legislation shouldn’t be surprising considering the Alliance is working with Frank Luntz, the political strategist who has helped foster climate change skepticism. In a strategy memo leaked to the media in the early 2000s, for instance, Luntz advised Congressional Republicans that the best tactic to undermine public support for climate legislation is to cast doubt on the “scientific certainty” surrounding the issue.

To give you another sense of where USFRA membership stands, consider that the NCBA, along with other Alliance members, is actively fighting a policy that would reign in antibiotic abuse in livestock production. Called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, and sponsored by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the Act, according to the Cattlemen’s Association, is unnecessary: The industry already uses antibiotics “judiciously” to prevent disease.

Rep. Slaughter and other backers of this policy stress that research shows most antibiotics in livestock production are not given for disease prevention, but delivered at “sub-therapeutic levels” to speed growth—and therefore increase profit. And, as experts at the Government Accountability Office reported earlier this month, the inaction of the USDA and FDA to regulate antibiotic use, especially in animal production, is a serious threat to public health. It was chillingly ironic that the study came out on the heels of another major recall of Cargill ground turkey linked to antibiotic-resistant Salmonella.

Lest you think the Cattlemen’s Association is out on its own on this fight, other USFRA affiliates that are vocal opponents of regulating antibiotics in livestock production include the Dairy Farmers of America, National Pork Producers Council, American Egg Board, U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.

Another USFRA affiliate and board member, the National Corn Growers Association, is also battling policies that would help us protect public health. In a May 2011 statement delivered to the House Committee on Agriculture and on Natural Resources, Rod Snyder, the Corn Grower’s Policy Director and chair of the Pesticide Policy Coalition, dismissed the use of the Endangered Species Act’s to control toxic pesticides, describing the policy as “dysfunctional.”

He called for the Administration to “immediately suspend implementation” and continue with business-as-usual, regulating pesticides under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). But stress the importance of using the Endangered Species Act, explaining that FIFRA is “notoriously weak” and “industry-friendly.” According to advocates, the pesticide lobby, including USFRA members like the Corn Growers, wants to keep regulation under FIFRA because they know how to “sidestep and subvert it.”

While I believe the majority of our nation’s ranchers and farmers are respectful stewards of the land with the public’s best interest at heart—they’re working hard to reduce their environmental impact and address pesticide, artificial hormone, and antibiotics overuse—the USFRA clearly is not representing them. Instead, a look at the Alliance affiliates reveals that it is made up of, and funded by, the biggest players in the food industry, including those who profit most from toxic agricultural chemicals, polluting farming and food processing practices, and concerning animal welfare policies. No wonder, then, that that limiting protections from toxic pesticides and pushing back against antibiotic regulation are just two of the current policy priorities of USFRA affiliates.

The USFRA is working hard to present itself as a voice of farmers and ranchers interested in a conversation with consumers. I’m all for open, honest conversation, but let’s not be duped by polished PR into thinking that’s what the Alliance and its inaugural Food Dialogues is intended to be.

Comments (0)

Call on NYS lawmakers to create a Food Policy Council

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010, 1:20 PM

Food policy advocates in New York State are urging lawmakers to pass legislation to create a NYS Food Policy Council (bill A7528/S6893). The idea behind a state food policy council is to pull together the various stakeholders in NYS that are concerned about food policy – farmers, community food advocates, anti-hunger activists, environmentalists, low-income NYers – to discuss what needs to happen to create community food security throughout the state. While there are lots of great ideas, and many New Yorkers and elected officials have been speaking out on these issues, actual progress at the state level has been slow.

Phone calls to the two key sponsors would be helpful to thank them for their support and to urge them to push the bill: Assemblymember Felix Ortiz (518-455-3821) and Senator Liz Kruger (518-455-2297).

The bills are presently in the Assembly Government and Operations Committee (RoAnn Destito is chair, 518-455-5454) and the Senate Finance Committee (Sen. Carl Krueger, 518-455-2460).

Call these lawmakers today and urge them to pass bill A7528/S6893.

We need a strong Food Policy Council in New York!

Comment (1)

Eat less meat, help the climate?

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry

Friday, April 23rd, 2010, 10:40 AM

The research says yes.

A new report concludes that reduced-meat menus in hospital food service led to reduced greenhouse gas emissions and substantial cost savings.

“One of the most compelling aspects of this evaluation is the greenhouse gas emissions reductions,” says co-author of the report, Roni Neff, PhD, MS, Research and Policy Director at the Center for a Livable Future and a faculty member at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “If the four included hospitals continued what they were doing for a year, they would collectively cut over 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from meat purchases. That’s like saving over 100,000 gallons of gasoline or growing over 23,000 trees for 10 years.”

Health Care Without Harm and the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, released the report this week. “Balanced Menus: A Pilot Evaluation of Implementation in Four San Francisco Bay Area Hospitals,” is the first US examination of the impact that reduced-meat menus in hospital food service have on climate change.

- posted by Kate

Comments (0)

Shining the spotlight on healthy food

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food

Thursday, March 25th, 2010, 10:53 AM

Today the New York Times editorial board rightly praises Michelle Obama’s initiatives to combat childhood obesity. Her recent efforts, including the White House garden, the Let’s Move campaign and even an appearance before the Grocery Manufacturers Association bring welcome attention to the notion that our nation needs to be eating more fresh, healthy and local foods.

Comments (0)

FoodNYC report is out today!

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food

Thursday, February 18th, 2010, 1:25 PM

FoodNYC: A Blueprint for a Sustainable Food System was released by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer this morning.

It’s full of ideas that came out of the fantastic food and climate conference held in December. The report is the first unified and comprehensive set of “food policy” proposals aimed at improving health and the environment, and creating jobs – good news for New Yorkers.

It’s inspiring to see real work and tangible proposals coming out of the summit in which so many people participated!

Comments (0)

Year of Urban Ag Kicks off in Seattle

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food, Organic Food & Farming, Urban Agriculture & Community Gardening

Friday, February 5th, 2010, 1:39 PM

Exciting times for the sustainable food movement in Seattle.

Mayor Mike McGinn and Seattle City Councilmembers just announced a campaign to promote urban agriculture and increase community access to locally grown food.

Dubbed “The Year of Urban Agriculture,” the initiative comes with it’s own nifty web portal, chock full of information and resources and events going on throughout the year.

This campaign comes out of efforts around Seattle City Council Resolution 31019–the Local Food Action Initiative–which was passed in April 2008 and outlined actions to promote local and regional food sustainability and security.

We’re excited that Anna is headed to Seattle for a stop on the DHP book tour. We look forward to meeting the folks behind the policies and no doubt it will be inspiring to be on the ground in a place where so much exciting work is taking place.

–Kate

Comments (0)

“What’s on Your Plate?” Coming to national TV this February 7, 2010!

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food, Organic Food & Farming, Take a Bite News & Events

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010, 10:00 AM

“What’s On Your Plate?” is a new food doc following two eleven-year-old New Yorkers as they explore their place in the food chain. With the camera as their companion, the girl guides talk to food activists, farmers, new friends, storekeepers, their families, and the viewer, in their quest to understand what’s on all of our plates.

I had a great time participating in the film—talking with the girls in front of the camera and hanging out behind the camera on the advisory team—and can’t wait to watch the national screening on Sunday, February 7th.

Check it out and join us in the “What’s on Your Plate?” Family Cook-In! to accompany the screening.

Here’s a great toolkit to help you plan a screening and cook-in event:

CookInToolkit

Comments (0)

Indian Farmers in Crisis– Great Reporting on the Green Revolution

Topics:

Biotechnology, Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Organic Food & Farming

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 12:36 PM

Read/watch this two-part series by NPR, which illustrates the current crisis facing Indian farmers.

Veteran NPR journalist Daniel Zwerdling gives a brief history of the Green Revolution, which encouraged Indian farmers in the ’60’s and ’70’s to abandon traditional farming methods in favor of input-responsive seeds, that were high-yielding when combined with high levels of chemical use and heavy water irrigation.

According to Zwerdling, “Government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year… [So farmers] keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper…” The soil is being gradually destroyed by the drilling and salt levels. The costs of drilling, and remedying the damage that’s been done, is incredibly expensive– prohibitive, in fact, for many Indian farmers, who are already overwhelmed by their debt and are struggling to support their families.

Read the article and share your thoughts. You can find more resources in the Oakland Institute’s Voices from Africa report or in Vandana Shiva’s writings– both share examples for how we can build solutions in the wake of the Green Revolution.

–Deepa

Comments (0)

The Oakland Institute Launches “Voices From Africa”

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Hunger & Food Crisis, Organic Food & Farming

Friday, April 10th, 2009, 4:21 PM

The Oakland Institute has created an new online community called Voices From Africa, a supplement to the report on alternatives to the New Green Revolution in Africa. The Oakland Institute Reporter describes Voices from Africa as “a new online clearinghouse to share information on and promote alternatives to the New Green Revolution in Africa. Featuring articles, press releases, commentary, and reports from African NGOs and partner organizations and individuals around the world, Voices from Africa is set up as an interactive web community and will also serve as a resource for media and policy makers to hear the perspective of the African civil society groups on plans for a New Green Revolution in Africa.”

Join the Voices From Africa community today.

Members will be able to create their own account, access articles and documents on these issues, participate in forums, and strategize with policy-makers, activists and other stakeholders from all over the globe. Make your voice heard in this critical debate.

–Deepa

Comments (2)

A Victory for Grassroots Action!

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Thursday, March 5th, 2009, 8:47 PM

The Capitol Power Plant in Washington, DC is under intense pressure to switch from burning dirty coal to a more climate-friendly operation. The coal burning plant, which powers the surrounding area (including many government buildings) has been barraged by a series of actions: a hugely successful peaceful demonstration on March 2nd, a major action initiative by the Capitol Climate Action Coalition which encouraged supporters to flood Congress with letters, and direct support from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Pelosi and Reid support a switch to 100% natural gas.

This article by the Youth Climate Movement berates the plant for “being the largest source of pollution in Washington DC… This plant symbolizes the stranglehold coal has over our climate, our environment, our communities, and our political process.”

Read the letter Pelosi and Reid sent to Stephen Ayres, Acting Architect of the Capitol, in which they state, “Taking this major step toward cleaning up the Capitol Power Plant’s emissions would be an important demonstration of Congress’ willingness to deal with the enormous challenges of global warming, energy independence and our inefficient use of finite fossil fuels. We strongly encourage you to move forward aggressively with us on a comprehensive set of policies for the entire Capitol complex and the entire Legislative Branch to quickly reduce emissions and petroleum consumption through energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean alternative fuels.”

Support the Capitol Climate Action Campaign, and celebrate this victory, as grassroots action works to mobilize our political leaders.

– Deepa

Comments (0)

The World in 2101?

Topics:

Biotechnology, Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Hunger & Food Crisis, Organic Food & Farming

Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 2:13 PM

The WorldWatch Institute has published a new report which investigates an “imagined future:” State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World highlights the potential fate of the planet if scientists, consumers, producers, and politicians act quickly and effectively now, in 2009, to combat the energy and climate change crises.

According WorldWatch, “The questions addressed in the State of the World 2009 are many: how do we adapt- not just as communities and nations, but as a species-to the warming that is headed our way, no matter what we do now? How will the world deal with the fact that the climate burden will fall heaviest on countries whose contributions to climate change have been the most modest? And even as we struggle to adapt, how does society maintain focus on slashing emissions to a pale shadow of their current levels?”

The report selects specific challenges (land use, energy, emissions, etc.) and proposes innovative alternatives. Some of the Innovations highlighted in the Land Use section are:
>> In Parana, Brazil, farmers have developed organic management systems combined with no-till. No-till plots yielded a third more wheat and soybean than conventional plowed plots and reduced soil erosion by up to 90 percent. (p. 36)
>> In 2005, a Pennsylvania dairy farm invested $1.14 million in a project to process the manure from 800 cows, using a digester and a combined heat and power unit. Now the farm makes a profit using biogas to generate 120 kilowatt-hours of electricity to sell back to the local utility. (p. 41)
>> Both India and China have large national programs to revegetate millions of hectares of forest and grasslands-seen as investments to reduce poverty and protect watersheds. (p. 44)
>> In Morocco, 34 pastoral cooperatives with more than 8,000 members rehabilitated and manage some 450,000 hectares of grazing reserves. (p. 44)
>> In Rajasthan, India, community-led watershed restoration programs have reinstated more than 5,000 traditional johads (rainwater storage tanks) in over 1,000 villages. (p. 44)
>> Some countries are redirecting subsidy payments to agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services, some of which explicitly include carbon storage and emissions reduction. (p. 46)

If you’re interested in reading more, download chapters or purchase a copy of this critical report here.

– Deepa

Comments (0)

European Union Parliament Joins the Climate Change Conversation

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry

Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 2:12 PM

The European Union’s Parliament joined a growing debate when they assembled in early February: how to combat climate change and livestock emissions while ensuring adequate food supplies for their 27 member-nations.

According to an article on “The Pig Site,” the EU Parliament said “changes in behavior by consumers and the consideration of targets for reducing agricultural emissions should accompany regulations to cap industrial greenhouse gases and improve energy efficiency.” The 80-page report also reiterated the EU’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020.

A step forward, right? Well, the assembly also took a huge leap backward when they decided to DELETE a piece of the report that demanded a cut in global meat consumption, especially in wealthy countries. Why the hesitation? Read the article and tell us what you think.

– Deepa

Comments (2)

Just Food’s 2009 Summit on Food and Climate Change

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics

Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 2:10 PM

SPECIAL EVENT!

Support Just Food’s 2009 Summit on Food and Climate Change! The Summit “will help build a more educated, informed and politically involved network of urban and rural communities in the New York City region to influence food, farm and environmental policy. It will be structured to inform and educate participants, generate ideas and strategies, and build coalitions to create and mobilize around a concrete platform for action on Food and Climate Change in 2010.” Just Food’s conference coincides with the United Nations Climate Change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

For more information about this critical event, contact Nadia Johnson, the Food Justice Coordinator at Just Food. She can be reached at nadia@justfood.org or at 212.645.9880, ext. 237.

– Deepa

Comment (1)

The First Lady Takes on Food

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Local Food

Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 2:09 PM

We’ve been delighted by all the food news coming out of the White House lately.

First, we heard that Michelle Obama presented Agriculture Department employees with a seedling from the Jackson magnolia, which the New York Times reports has been “growing on the west side of the south portico of the White House for 180 years… Andrew Jackson planted the tree in memory of his wife, Rachel, who died before he entered the White House.”

Then, last week Mrs. Obama and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack broke ground outside the USDA offices in the first step toward building an office garden to help feed the local community–and set an example for locals, who the Obamas and Vilsack hope to encourage to start growing their own food.

Next, on February 22nd, before the Obama’s first state dinner, Mrs. Obama invited a group of reporters and culinary students into the White House kitchens, to watch and sample the food being prepared. According to an article published by the New York Times, Sam Kass (the Obamas family chef from Chicago), executive chef Cristeta Comerford, executive pastry chef, Bill Yosses and others were inside preparing a veritable feast.

Mrs. Obama has repeatedly advocated for eating healthy, locally grown and sustainable foods, saying, “My kids are more inclined to try different vegetables if they are fresh and local and delicious.”

Hey, keeping the First Family healthy and on their toes is a tough job, but someone’s gotta do it.

-Deepa

Comments (0)

Lucas from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers Addresses UN

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Organic Food & Farming

Tuesday, February 10th, 2009, 2:13 PM

Lucas Benitez, our good friend and ally from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, gave an inspired speech on behalf of farmworkers and laborers at the United Nations on First World United Justice Day on February 10, 2009.

In his speech, he suggested state interventions for aid to farmworkers, while emphasizing the ground-up approach that has made the Immokalee movement so powerful.

He advocated for the dignity and respect of farmworkers around the world, stating, “With this sort of practical and political support from elected leaders, consumers and the corporations that purchase produce will be able to demand a new product from the US agricultural industry — not just good, cheap, and safe food, but fair food, food that respects human rights and doesn’t exploit human beings.

Food is at the very heart of any society. The workers who plant, pick, and pack food throughout the US — and around the world — have yet to receive the respect and honor they so deserve. generations of poverty and degradation. On this day, the very first World Social Justice Day, let us recognize the fundamental dignity of farm labor and the men and women who put the food on our tables.”

Read the entire speech and support the Coalition’s work here.

– Deepa

Comments (0)

Supermarkets and Climate Change

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 5:46 PM

A new study from Environmental Investigation Agency reveals the global warming impact of supermarkets.

Comments (0)

London, Food, and Climate Change

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009, 5:44 PM

London’s Food Sector: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A Report for the Greater London Authority

Comment (1)

RAN and the World Social Forum

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Forests

Monday, February 2nd, 2009, 9:56 PM

We wanted to post part of a letter from our colleague, Leila, Agribusiness Campaign Director at Rainforest Action Network. If you want to get in touch with Leila or learn more about the campaign visit RAN.
——
Good Evening All! I thought I’d share a little more details on our participation and plans at the World Social Forum (WSF) in Belem, Brazil beginning tomorrow. (Read RAN staffer Andrea’s blog here.)

For the first time ever, the World Social Forum is being held in the Amazon, and will gather the largest Indigenous delegation in the history of the forum. Levana and Andrea are representing RAN on the ground at the WSF and will be taking an active role within an international Amazon delegation, comprised of Indigenous allies/networks such as COIAB, COICA and international NGO allies such as Amazon Watch, Amazon Alliance, IFG (International Forum on Globalization, BIC (Bank Information Center) and many others. We’re very excited to be participating and co-coordinating one of the most visible actions at the forum—the “Human Banner.” (see below)

Our participation in the WSF is a great opportunity to launch the year by reconnecting with allies from all around the world, frontline communities impacted by soy, palm oil and agrofuels, as well as playing a crucial role in bringing attention to the Amazon, Indigenous rights, rainforest issues generally, and the importance of making forests a top priority in the upcoming climate negotiations.

Here’s what we’ll be doing on the ground:

Human banner:
Prior to the mass march of nearly 100,000 people that officially opens the WSF, we will be supporting our Indigenous allies in sounding the alarm in defense of the Amazon and its inhabitants. We are working with the Amazon delegation to organize at least 1,000 people or so to participate in a human banner near the Amazon River. We will be using human bodies to spell out “SOS Amazonia”, indicating the need to focus on protecting the Amazon, and its inhabitants, particularly given its fundamental significance in climate stabilization. This will be photographed by award-winning photojournalist, Lou Dematteis and videographed by Antoine Bonsorte, from a helicopter. Joining them in the helicopter and on the ground will be photographers and journalists from major media outlets/wires such as AP, AFP and Al Jazeera, as well as Brazilian media.

Other events and meetings at the World Social Forum:
The Amazon delegation is sponsoring several events and workshops at the World Social Forum. We’ll be actively participating and/or recruiting our allies to participate in the following events:

· Jan 28, “State of the Amazon”, panel and a media briefing where Andrea will serve as a spokesperson and talk about the Rainforest Agribusiness campaign and agribusiness impacts in the Amazon.

· Jan 29, Challenging IIRSA (Integration of South American Regional Infrastructure) Workshop, where Levana and Andrea will be leading a session on corporate campaign strategies to use in challenging national and regional “development” projects

· Jan 29, Indigenous Rights in Action Workshop focusing on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

· Jan 29, Brazilian Amazon Now and Forever focusing on the Amazon and Climate Change

· Jan 30, Action for the Amazon, a strategy session to prepare for the Amazon Forum taking place in Manaus, Brazil in July.

Andrea will be speaking at a couple of other workshops, including:
· REDVIDA panel on food, water and climate change

· The launch of a Global Women’s Network on Right to Livelihood which is seeking to link issues of agriculture, food sovereignty, seeds, climate change, land, water and forests to issues connected with livelihoods.

If you have any questions about our work at the WSF or after, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks!

Leila

Comments (0)

Who’s the (Ag) Man?

Topics:

Biofuels, Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, 5:50 PM

Sitting here listening to the confirmation hearings for Vilsack, Obama’s pick for Secretary of Agriculture. I’m only 68:00mins (by the video’s account) into the hearings (which are a total of 161 minutes long), but so far I’ve heard a lot of talk about the wonders of biofuels and corn-based ethanol to meet our renewable energy needs and boost the economy of rural America. The questions (so far at least) on biofuels have been softballs.

Check out the reports from Food First about biofuels folly. Renewable? Ha. Among the other realities of biofuels are the environmental costs of producing the water-thirsty and fertilizer-addicted corn crops, with huge amounts of natural gas required to produce the manmade fertilizer used on our fields.

Comments (0)

Food Democracy Now

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Hunger & Food Crisis

Monday, December 15th, 2008, 12:28 PM

On the brink of a new administration, we stand a chance to shift how our government sets policy about food and farming policy by speaking up for a new leader of the USDA who would put the environment, human health, and worker welfare above the narrow interests of the biggest producers.

With this spirit in mind, I have added my name to a letter to the President-Elect framing the values we share about food and farming in this country and offering the names of candidates who would be wonderful leaders at the USDA.

If you haven’t already, take a look at the Food Democracy letter to the Obama administration. We have already tallied 48,000 signatures. If we could top 100,000 that would certainly put us on the map!

Comments (0)

What if We Had a President Who Cared about the Climate Crisis? Wait, Looks Like We Do

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008, 7:48 PM

Check out this surprise video from President-Elect Obama to the governors gathered to discuss climate change policy.

Comments (0)

Oprah on Prop 2 and Conscious Consumption

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 11:21 AM

We wrote a while back about Oprah’s foray into veganism, now she’s taking viewers into the heart of the livestock industry with an in-depth show on Prop 2 (the California animal welfare proposition on the ballot) and the state of livestock production.

Oprah’s show includes speakers from across the spectrum, including Wayne Pacelle (president of the Humane Society of the United States and the original sponsors of the Proposition 2 legislation) as well as Prop 2 critics. Proponents of the bill say Prop 2 would ensure more humane treatment of poultry in the state. Opponents counter that it would make production more expensive, putting farmers out of business and driving up costs.

Pacelle sums up Prop 2 this way: “This is just about basic decency,” he said. “It’s about, if animals are going to be raised for food—and that’s certainly the case in this country—then the least we can do for them is allow them to move. I mean, what’s more basic than allowing animals with legs and wings to move around?”

The average American consumes approximately 254 eggs a year. 95% of egg-laying hens are raised in caged facilities. Human decency and common sense indicate that we should care about the quality and size of these cages, to ensure a better quality of life for food-producing animals and a better quality of the food we’re consuming.

You can watch a really great online slideshow about the show and learn how to be ever-more “conscious” consumers.

Comments (0)

Obama and the American Farmer

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008, 11:14 AM

“America’s farmers are America’s future.” ~ Barack Obama, Indianapolis, IN, 10/23/2008

Comment (1)

Imagine if Our President Said This.

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Thursday, October 23rd, 2008, 6:10 PM

Well, he just might.

Read on for an excerpt from Obama’s recent interview posted at TIME.

Barack Obama: 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.

For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation.

Comments (0)

New Study Shows Media Overlooked the Connection between Climate Change and Food

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Hunger & Food Crisis

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 12:23 PM

We’re excited to announce the publication of a new study on the media coverage (or lack of it!) about the connection between climate change and food. Led by Roni Neff, from Johns Hopkins University, the study analyzed media coverage of climate change in the country’s top 16 newspapers for their inclusion of the links between global warming and agriculture and the food system. You probably wouldn’t be too surprised to hear that despite the food system contributing to nearly one-third of the global warming effect, the media barely mentioned it, but now you’ve got the numbers.

Says research director and friend to Take a Bite, Roni Neff, PhD:

Greater public awareness could lead to consumer demand for food with lower greenhouse gas emissions. Greater awareness could also spur action from policy makers and the food and agriculture sectors toward reducing food and agriculture-related emissions. The more we know about climate change news coverage, the more effectively we can help to ensure the important facts regarding the food systems’ contribution receive the attention they deserve.

See the full press release and link to the report Yesterday’s dinner, tomorrow’s weather, today’s news? US newspaper coverage of food system contributions to climate change.

Comments (0)

Getting out the Vote

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008, 11:45 AM

This site is about food, about where it comes from, how it’s made, and how that affects everything from our waistlines to our weather. It’s also about policies and politics, about the decisions made in cities across the world and on the national and international level that affect what (and how) food is grown.

With this in mind, I decided to head out to swingstate Ohio to help get-out-the-vote in Columbus, Ohio. Now that I’m back in Brooklyn, I want to share just a couple of the sweetest moments of working with Vote from Home. (I was connected to them through friends at Vote Today Ohio who were also mobilizing to get people to register and vote early.)

On our last day in Columbus, my boyfriend John and I were tasked with heading out to track down problem cases – missing registrations, no social security numbers, no date of birth, that kind of thing. Our first stop was at Grant Hospital downtown—the maternity ward. When we got to Room 543 we knocked and a quiet voice invited us in. A young woman was sitting up in bed, beaming. Between her outstretched legs was her 12-hour old baby, Julian, bundled in blankets. As she signed her voter registration form, we chatted with her friend, cooed over her Buddha-esque baby, and thanked her for calling us. She would be out of the hospital Monday evening at the earliest, she said, and if we hadn’t shown up, she would not have been able to register. Thank you for helping me vote, she said.

Leaving the hospital, we headed out to an address on Kelton Street. From the partially filled out registration, we noticed that Virginia, the woman we would be meeting, was born in 1932. In a neighborhood east of downtown, we pulled up in front of a modest house. Through her screen door, I could see Virginia sitting on her couch. She was surrounded by stacks of opened mail, magazines, a can of soda. AMC was playing quietly on an old television. Her walker was at her feet. She called for me to come in. Visibly shaking, Virginia started apologizing for her condition –Parkinson’s, they think, she told me. Then, she gestured for me to sit down beside her and together we finished filling out her voter registration and her request for an absentee ballot. When it was time to sign, I held the clipboard, and slowly – letter-by-letter – she shakily signed: Virginia Alston. (The Vote from Home people plan to follow up and help her with her ballot).

Another favorite moment was when my younger brother Matt and I went to one of the halfway houses, this one for women coming out of jail. When we got to Alvis House, the manager said there was only one woman who wanted to get taken down to the early voting and registration center. So Matt and I piled back into our 9-seater van with a forty-something woman from the shelter named Candace—or Candy as she said we should call her. On our way to the voting center, we talked about the economy as we drove by some of the boarded up houses on Bryden Road. We waited with the van, while Candy went inside to register and vote. As we were driving back to Alvis House, I have to admit a part of me was feeling like maybe we hadn’t really done much, just clocking one vote. But that’s when she said, leaning in from the back seat: I just really want to thank you two. You just helped a first-time voter.

I suppose in an abstract way I’ve always understood that the voting laws are designed to make it hardest for poor people to vote, but I only have come to really understand it through this experience in Columbus.

Since voting registration is tied to your address, who are the people who have to re-register every election? They’re the people who get evicted, who get foreclosed on. They’re the mothers who have to head to battered women’s shelters, or the young people who bounce for apartment to apartment. They’re the men and women convicted of big crimes (and little ones) who find themselves in and out of jail. These are the people who have to re-register every year, not the families with 30-year mortgages who live in one home their whole lives.

During the whole week we were in Columbus–visiting halfway houses and barber schools, staffing community barbeques in low-income communities and going to homeless shelters–nearly 100 percent of the people we met wanted to get registered to vote. (A few took more persuading than others). Many of them didn’t realize that they had to re-register because their address had changed, and many of the rest of them thought they were already in the system and were surprised when we would check online with our iPhones and learn that weren’t.

Until we have a fundamental overhaul of our voting laws so that it’s as easy for the wealthy as it is for the rest of us to get registered (and stay registered!), this experience has made me commit to taking time every four years to help register people to vote. It seems like the least any of us could do to make our democracy less of a sham.

Comments (0)

UN Climate Change Expert Says: Eat Less Meat!

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry

Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 9:40 AM

Taking a page out of our Take a Bite out of Climate Change playbook, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says tackling climate change through our diet choices is an easier adjustment to make than changing our modes of transportation, if we want to personally address global warming.

He told The Observer that we should each practice a non-meat diet at least one day a week, and then gradually reduce our meat intake over time.

(See #3 on our list Ten Ways to Take a Bite out of Climate Change.)

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that meat production is responsible for one fifth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and that at the rate consumption is increasing we will double that production by 2050.

“In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,” Pachauri told The Observer. “Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there.”

Pachauri also stressed that we need to make changes in every sector the economy in relation to climate change. Diet is just a starting point.

Comments (0)

Important New Paper on China’s Rising Consumption and Production of Meat and Dairy

Topics:

Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry

Friday, August 22nd, 2008, 7:47 PM

Our friend and colleague, Mia MacDonald, has written a powerful new report on factory farming in China.

Check out the full report in English (China translation coming soon): www.brightergreen.org/files/brightergreen_china_print.pdf

Here’s Mia’s press release:

New York–based policy action tank Brighter Green’s new report, Skillful Means: The Challenges of China’s Encounter with Factory Farming, explores the emerging superpower’s “livestock revolution,” which is having serious impacts on public health, food security, and equity in China—and the world. The Beijing Summer Olympics are showcasing a resurgent nation, which only two generations after a devastating national famine is eating increasingly high on the food chain. In the past ten years, consumption of China’s most popular meat, pork, has doubled. In 2007, China raised well over half a billion pigs for meat.

Given that every fifth person in the world is Chinese, even small increases in individual meat or dairy consumption will have broad, collective environmental as well as climate impacts. Increasingly, what the Chinese eat, and how China produces its food, affects not only China, but the world, too.
“When I was a child, every person was allotted one pound of pork a month,” says Peter Li, a professor of political science at the University of Houston in Texas who grew up in Jiangxi province in southeast China says in Eating Skillfully. “We could not eat more than that. You could not get it. Now, though, more people have access to more meat and want to eat a lot of it.”

In yuan terms, meat is the second largest segment of China’s retail food market. China has also opened its doors to investments by major multinational meat and dairy producers, as well as animal feed corporations, including Tyson Foods, Smithfield, and Novus International. Western-style meat culture has gone mainstream. Fast food is a U.S. $28-billion-a-year business in China. McDonald’s, a major sponsor of the Olympics, had more than 800 restaurants in China, with at least a hundred more set to open by the time the games began. Four McDonald’s are operating in Olympic venues, including the press center and the athletes’ village.

“China is not yet a bone fida “factory farm nation” like the U.S.,” says Mia MacDonald, Brighter Green’s executive director and co-author of Skillful Means. “But the strains of its fast-growing livestock sector are becoming harder to ignore. In the U.S., a re-examination of the multiple human, environmental, economic, and ethical costs of factory farming is taking place. Such a process needs to get underway in China—before it’s too late.”

Although these realities won’t be fully obvious to the millions of people cheering on the Olympic athletes in China and across the globe, they demand attention:
• China’s livestock produce 2.7 billion tons of manure every year, nearly three and a half times the industrial solid waste level. Run-off from livestock operations have created a large “dead zone” in the South China Sea that is virtually devoid of marine life.
• In northern China, overgrazing and overfarming lead to the loss of nearly a million acres of grassland each year to desert.
• Diet-related chronic diseases now kill more Chinese than any other cause, and nearly one in four Chinese is overweight.
• More than 90 percent of some bacteria in Asia can no longer be treated effectively with “first-line” antibiotics like penicillin—due to their overuse in farmed animals.
• China can still feed itself. But this is likely to change as its meat and dairy sectors expand and intensify. The Chinese government is looking abroad, not only to international food markets but also to Africa, Latin America, and other parts of Asia for land on which to produce food for people and feed for livestock.
• In 2008, China surpassed the U.S. to become the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). Per capita emissions of CO2 in China have more than doubled, from 2.1 tons of CO2 equivalent in 1990 to 5.1 tons today. Meat and dairy production have a direct relationship with global climate change: fully 18 percent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions stem from the livestock industry.

Even though the Chinese government seems set on emulating industrialized nations’ meat and dairy culture, a small but growing number of Chinese non-governmental organizations and individuals are questioning this path. To them food quality, not quantity, is important, along with issues of sustainability and animal welfare.

Comments (0)

The USDA Has Made Their Assesment, Now Make Yours

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Friday, August 8th, 2008, 1:14 PM

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced yesterday their “major scientific assessment” of the effects of climate change on the nation’s agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. Now the public has been given 45 days to comment on the “Strategic Plan for Climate Change Research, Education, and Extension.” Read the plan for yourself, and speak up! Comments must be received by September 19, 2008.

Comments (0)

Michael Pollan at P.F.1 Tonight!

Topics:

Blog, Food Industry News & Trends, Food Policy & Politics, Organic Food & Farming

Friday, August 8th, 2008, 1:14 PM

Want to check out one of New York City’s coolest art museums, the city’s latest urban farm, and see Michael Pollan talk all in one night? Well, tonight is your night: In collaboration with The Horticultural Society of New York, Michael Pollan, will be speaking tonight at P.F.1 (Public Farm One) in Long Island City’s P.S.1, Queens.

The urban farm installation will serve as a mouth-watering backdrop for Pollan, author of most recently In Defense of Food, who will talk about the importance of seeing the world from a “plant’s point of view.”

Comments (0)

Ground-Breaking Lecture from Nobel Prize Winner on Diet and Climate

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics, Meat Industry, Organic Food & Farming

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 11:31 AM

We were so excited to learn that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC and joint-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, will deliver the Compassion in World Farming’s annual Peter Roberts Memorial Lecture, named after the organization’s founder, this September, in London.

In the talk, “Global Warming: The Impact of Meat Production and Consumption on Climate Change,” Pachauri will focus on industrial farming’s impact on the environment and the impact of our industrialized diet on climate.

In London in September? Get your tickets now: here.

You can read more about the impact of agriculture on climate change in CIWF’s report ‘Global Warning: Climate change and Farm Animal Welfare.’

We’ll report more in September!

Comments (0)

Action Alert: Bunge, Brazil, and Protecting Small Farmers

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics, Forests

Friday, June 20th, 2008, 10:43 AM

from take a bite contributor Jeanne Hodesh

Last week, thousands of indigenous people and small farmers in the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul peacefully blocked roads, railways and invaded dams to draw attention to the global food crisis and policies that favor agribusiness over small farms. Despite the non-violent nature of their actions, six of the participants protesting in front of a Bunge soy-crushing facility were attacked with tear gas and rubber bullets, suffering severe injuries.

Rainforest Action Network is calling on us to take action and hold Bunge accountable for these actions.

You can click here for more information on how to take action, including joining the RAN action to fax Bunge CEO Alberto Weisser’s office, demanding that he take action to prevent attacks on peaceful demonstrators.

Comments (0)

Inspiring Food Policy Action

Topics:

Blog, Food Policy & Politics

Thursday, June 12th, 2008, 6:59 AM

From take a bite contributor Deepa Ranganathan…

It looks like one of the most progressive cities in North America, environmentally speaking, isn’t a city at all. The town of Markham, Ontario (pop. 262,000) claims it’s the first municipality in Canada to craft a policy for buying more food from local farms.

In a speech at the 2008 Smog Summit in Toronto, Markham mayor Frank Scarpitti was categorical: “These actions will help support Ontario’s farm economy, address climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pesticide use, curb urban sprawl, protect Ontario farm lands and promote sustainable farming practices.”

The specifics: Markham has partnered with Local Foods Plus, a nonprofit that certifies local farmers and processors and connects them with buyers. In future contracts, the town will work with LFP to source at least 10 percent of its food from Ontario farmers and will increase that target by 5 percent per year. The new policy will apply to Markham’s community centers and civic center.

The town is already Ontario’s recycling capital, diverting 70% of municipal waste from landfills. And it just adopted a Zero Waste policy for its facilities, boosting biodegradable cutlery and 10% recycled paper products while eliminating plastic water bottles and polystyrene foodware.

All of which makes Toronto – located 19 miles directly south of Markham – look kind of bad. That city recently shelved a similar proposal, citing cost concerns and worries that elderly residents would have to forego bananas. According to a story in the Toronto Star, estimates suggest such a plan would boost costs by just 10 percent, and there would be no banana ban. “We don’t want to eliminate bananas,” Franz Hartmann, executive director of Toronto Environmental Alliance, told the Star. “Rather, we want the city to choose Ontario apples instead of apples flown from halfway around the world.”

Comments (0)

Big Day for Big Ag: The Farm Bill Vote

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, May 14th, 2008, 9:40 AM

Check out our friend Tom Philpott’s lively discussion about whether the sustainable agriculture community should have encouraged a veto of this Farm Bill.

Comments (0)

Tyson, the Farm Bill, and Lobbying

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Saturday, May 10th, 2008, 1:14 PM

Since 1995, a federal law has required that lobbyists must disclose any activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches. Thanks to that law, we now know that Tyson Foods, the world’s largest meat producer, spent nearly half a million dollars in the first quarter of this year alone to lobby on agricultural, trade, immigration, tax, and other issues. (From Jan 1 to end of June last year, the company spent an additional $550,000 of lobbying dough).

The focus of their big-bucks lobbying? Well, the Farm Bill, of course.

As you probably know, the nearly $300 billion hunk of legislation will set the stage for the next five years of food and farming policy and government subsidies. And it’s looking like thanks to the muscle of industry, this legislation (and our tax dollars) will still ensure big windfalls for companies like…drum roll please…Tyson.

Among the specific issues Tyson was going to the mat on: fighting against country of origin labeling that would require meat and other fresh foods be labeled with their source country. To me, Country of Origin Labeling is a no-brainer. To companies like Tyson, expanding quickly into Eastern Europe and China, the measure could be a big hit to biz.

(Tyson and other meat companies have been fighting COOL labeling, as its known, for years, including setting up organizations like the “Meat Promotion Coalition” to fight against the policy.)

Tyson was also actively engaged with lobbying the USDA and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to improve access for U.S. beef to markets in China, Japan, South Korea, and Mexico.

Tyson’s foray into aggressive lobbying is not new, nor has it always been entirely legal.

In 1997, the company pleaded guilty to charges of giving illegal gifts to USDA Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy, including tickets to Dallas Cowboy football games and scholarship funds to his girlfriend.

Reading the lobbying reports disclosed, by law, at http://soprweb.senate.gov, reveals that Jack L. Williams of Little Rock, one of Tyson’s s lobbyists indicted during the 1990s Espy scandal, is still on company payroll today.

Now, who said politics was dirty?

Comments (0)

The World Food Crisis Dissected

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics, Hunger & Food Crisis

Thursday, May 8th, 2008, 10:28 AM

Unless you’ve been stuck in a soundproof vault the past couple of weeks, you’d know the world is faced with one of the worst global food crises in history. Almost every day, the Financial Times on my doorstep has some new article about it.

I’ve been on radio, TV, and quoted in some papers about the roots of the crisis and have been scouring the news outlets for other views that help us make sense of it.

To date, one of the best pieces I’ve read is by John Nichols of The Nation magazine.

This morning, NPR’s Marketplace had an excellent segment about the food crisis in Haiti as part of a series they’re doing all week.

Comments (0)

Communing about Food at the Food and Society Conference

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics, Take a Bite News & Events

Thursday, May 1st, 2008, 11:18 AM

I’m offline for a couple of days communing with more than 500 people from around the country. This year’s Food and Society meeting is housed at the conference center in the Gila River Indian Community.

In her welcome, one of the community leaders told us about the ways the community is rebuilding its ability to feed itself and tapping its deep agricultural traditions. As a result of the decimation of local farming and water systems and the onslaught of American-style processed foods, the community has one of the worst rates of diabetes in the world: nearly 90 percent of the population is afflicted with diabetes. Dialysis for teenagers is just beginning.

Community leaders shared with us how reconnecting with traditional foods is helping reverse this trend. And after decades of struggle, the community just won one of the longest battles over natural resources in American history, reclaiming their power over their water and their ability to determine the fate of the land. So this location seemed a particularly apt place to bring together a community of people working to bring to life food sovereignty and making the connections between food, health, and justice.

Here’s a tasting of some of the wonderful people I’ve been hanging out with in the hot, hot desert outside of Phoenix:

- Claire Cummings, whose new book about the corporate control of the seed supply, Uncertain Peril, I read on the flight here and is now dog-eared and pock-marked with traces of my yellow highlighter. No surprise, then, that I highly recommend it!

- Sam Fromartz, of Organic Inc. fame, and I compared notes about our experience talking with folks in the food industry. He keeps an up-to-the-minute blog at ChewsWise.

- Bonnie aka “The Dairy Queen” — the beauty, brain, and braun behind The Ethicurean — was in full form and brought together an ad hoc group of food bloggers and media makers. We’re plotting. Stay tuned.

- I got a sneak peek of the table of contents for Bryant Terry’s new cookbook. He’s my good friend and co-author of Grub, and while, therefore, I may be a little biased, his book looks phenomenal! With a nourishing vegan reinterpretation of more than 100 soul food dishes, the recipes looks delicious and totally in line with our mission here to take a savory (or sweet) bite out of climate change.

- Curt Ellis, the filmmaker behind King Corn, which is now in wide release, and I discussed the creative power of documentary film. If you haven’t seen his King Corn yet, you have no excuse.

- I got to meet all of my fellow fellows.

- Brahm Ahmadi was inspiring as ever and it was great to hear the latest news about how his work at People’s Grocery is taking off.

- My dear friend, maverick farmer, and Grist food editor, Tom Philpott made an experience and we schemed about various Take a Bite and Grist partnerships.

- Over lunch one day, I learned about the secret behind the best compost in the world (shh: it’s the worms) from one of our country’s leading urban farming luminaries, Will Allen, founder of Growing Power

- On the way home, I got to hail a cab with another Will Allen, this one the author of War on Bugs, who was proudly sporting his Farms Not Arms t-shirt at JFK.

It was amazing to see everyone and to get recharged by the work everyone is doing. The starry night sky and steaming hot tub weren’t bad either.

Comments (0)

Farming: The Original Green Collar Job

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics, Organic Food & Farming

Thursday, April 24th, 2008, 12:33 PM

The candidates are overlooking the ultimate green-collar job
First posted on Grist.org | 22 Apr 2008
Amid the din of the Pennsylvania primary and Earth Day, it seems a fitting time to talk about where the Democratic candidates stand when it comes to Mother Earth. [more]

Comments (0)

Food Policy Council Training in Santa Fe, NM

Topics:

Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008, 9:31 AM

Food policy councils have become one of the most powerful ways to shape our food system. I recently attended the New York State Food Policy Council listening session and it was inspiring to see representatives from so many of the different public sectors that are involved with food — from health and human services, to education, to agriculture, to labor.

If you want to learn more, there is still room available for people who wish to participate in the food policy council workshop on May 5th in Santa Fe, NM co-led by Mark Winne and Keecha Harris.

The workshop is appropriate for those who are in the early stages of food policy council development as well for those who have some experience in food policy council operation.

To register go to www.swmarketingnetwork.org.

Comments (0)