Monday, October 25, 2010

Food Policy Working Group Notes


Memphis and Shelby County Food Policy Working Group
Meeting Notes, October 21, 2010

In attendance:  Josephine Williams (GrowMemphis), Otho Sawyer (Shelby Co Health Department), Rosalie Bouck (Delta Directions Consortium), Nathan Cook (Christ Community Health Services), Christian Man (Knowledge Quest), Erica Christensen (community member), Robin Rodriguez (Slow Food Memphis), Melissa Petersen (Edible Memphis Magazine), John Paul Shaffer (urban planner)

A.  Discussion of Lessons Learned from the Community Food Security Coalition Conference in New Orleans

Robin Rodriguez gave a synopsis of the Food Policy Council short course and gave Josephine her handouts which have been scanned and emailed to the group list.  Robin discussed
1.     Different strategies for relationship with government:
a.     Statute/Resolution/Ordinance calling for or establishing the council
b.     Executive Order – ties the council to a particular administration
c.      Independent
d.     Hybrid of independent and government affiliated
In the opinion of the presenter, Mark Winne, who leads the FPC program at the CFSC, option a. is best because official ties to policy makers gives the councils necessary clout and often assured funding.
2.     Right-sizing.  Typically 15-20 is the right size with good sector representation
3.     Better public education to build a common vocabulary  and transparency of the council, having open meetings, posting minutes and agendas online
4.     Naming the council.  Some policy makers are put off by having the word “policy” in the same of the council because it implies that the council makes policy, while it’s role is to research, recommend, educate and possibly advocate for policies.   
5.     Representation.  Is this group representative of the people we intend to serve?
Conference attendees Josephine Williams, Melissa Petersen and John Paul Shaffer discussed the following
  1. a.     community based vs. commodity based food systems
  2. b.     evaluation and assessment; showing you made a difference vs. demonstrating success; telling stories; visual representations
  3. c.      media and public relations
  4. d.     mapping and data collection; involving youth, civic groups and students; sharing data in a legible form; greenmaps.org

B.  Conference Follow-Up and Next Steps – based on the above these items warrant further discussion:

1.  Name of council and geographic scope.  Discussion followed.  Should the group be Memphis or include Shelby?  Metro Memphis and Greater Memphis were also offered.  Loose consensus that Shelby should be retained for strategic political reasons, and outside Shelby is really beyond our current scope.  How do we work with other groups in TN?  How do we work with other groups in our foodshed (MS and AR)?  Challenges of having a foodshed that overlaps so many state lines. 
The group also reached informal consensus that the word “policy” be dropped from the name.  Proposed names are Memphis Shelby Food Advisory Council, or Food Advisory Council for Memphis and Shelby County.  No official decisions were reached on this item, members will continue to mull it over. 

2.  Defining and Mapping Food Deserts.  Although the term “food desert” is getting used often in relation to specific neighborhoods in Memphis, no one has defined criteria for labeling areas as food deserts nor mapped where those areas are located.  Discussed facilitating a community conversation about Food Deserts to come up with an acceptable definition for stakeholders and then create some maps of where food deserts are located in Memphis.  This can also be an opportunity to grow the group, invite other stakeholders, and conduct outreach.   Ellen Holtzman of the Food Trust also shared some interesting maps of “areas of greatest need” in Memphis during her presentation at the Community Foundation.  Making an action plan for this item will be on the next meeting agenda.

3.  Outreach, Representation, and Relationship to Government.  Some group members expressed that we should grow the group before attempting to answer question of relation to government.   We will work on getting the blog out and getting agendas and notes on the blog. 

NEXT MEETING, Wednesday November 17th, 3pm to 4:30pm at the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center

Meetings are open to the public, but please let us know in advance if you plan to attend.

For more information contact Josephine Williams, josephine@midsouthpeace.org or 901-725-4990

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Commodified or Common Land

With many factors contributing to the United States’ concern that the nation’s economy is “out of control”, many have noticed a trend in which Americans want to revert back to a nostalgic time. Consumer society hit a chaotic peak after the attacks on September 11, 2001 according to Annie Leonard’s short Internet film The Story of Stuff. According to Leonard, Americans were encouraged to keep the economy flourishing by spending. Stuff, as Leonard calls it, was purchased, more troops left home, and due to the lack of support from the French in the United States’ war on Iraq, congress wanted to change the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries. The United States’ mood is expressed through its food much of the time as shown in the previous example. In the current recession which began in 2008 with outrageous foreclosure rates, the States is wanting to readopt the ways of the past and opt for a simpler time (McWilliams). They want to, “look back to an earlier era when there was enough time, even if living standards were less opulent” (Holt viii). The local food movement is a case where this nostalgic desire is expressed through the choice of food. Foods that are “natural” and “fresh” are preferred to be bought from an open air local farmers market rather than a square supermarket. The local food movement is essentially an expression of the desire for stronger communities and decentralized sources for food. This post will examine and explain what “local” means pertaining to food sources, that this movement is the beginning of an environmental change and not a trend, and how to secure the integrity of this change.

Many areas do not have a legal definition of what a local food source or vendor is (this will be explained in further detail later in the post). New adjectives describing foods have been advertised heavily in the food industry within the past five years. Organic and natural are preferred for some Americans, but others still eat fast food which undoubtedly is an American invention. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu writes in his ethnography Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, food is a form of social distinction. In the modern French bourgeois society, food can be like fashion. It will distinguish a person’s taste and whether their taste is “good” or “bad”. It can even distinguish a person’s gender. Normally women do not eat heavy red meats such as beef nor drink a rich robust Bourdeaux. Bourdieu defines this as a person’s habitus: which a person’s taste due to external reasons like their wealth, social status and gender. A habitus usually has no rationale behind it and in this case separates people.

Applied to the United State’s most recent and current culture, the Organic movement was and is somewhat more for the higher socioeconomic classes. It is their habitus. The food was grown free of harmful chemicals and pesticides which would endanger an individual’s health. Usually healthier people are wealthier people, because they can afford institutional health care (sick care) and nutritious food which is a form of health care (well care). Marketers even began to advertise that this was better for the workers’ health also that actually picked the produce. So now people can buy their charity also. The price per calorie of the produce is extremely unbalanced in comparison to “fast food” and other high caloric manufactured foods. Not everyone is able to buy this revolutionary healthy food. And in this case, food separates, again. Community Food Assesments (which can be found on the Food Environment Atlas www.ers.usda.gov/foodatlas) have identified areas where there is not an adequate amount of fresh produce (these are also known as food deserts) most likely due the fact people cannot afford the produce. People who cannot afford sick care, cannot even practice their own preventative well care. With the national legislation claiming to secure organic farming methods in U.S. agriculture (2008 Farm Act), many local organizers still see flaws within the Organic produce industry: the price is too high and only available to higher socioeconomic classes and consumer behavior is still too centralized in this industry.

The local food movement was a reaction to the organic movement. Local foods are usually grown by organic farming methods and are supposedly cheaper. But food grown locally can be free and COMMON due to the rise of community gardens. Community gardening is also a tool for reducing areas known as food deserts. This rising trend of community mending via food sources is due to the social disconnect of "shopping malls replacing community centers" (Chomsky 65). Americans are identifying, “the acceleration of daily life, often for purposes of consuming, contributes to a feeling that things are out of control… Many long for a simpler, more authentic, less materialistic past. Balance has become the defining mantra” (Holt viii). New York Times blogger James McWilliams states it is a trend for Americans to idealize a “primitive golden age lifestyle” when the economy is unstable (McWilliams). Although in my opinion McWilliams is cynically examing this trend, maybe the desire for simplicity during tumultuous finincial times suggests something IS not right within our system.

The local food movement, is not a fashion statement or a class statement but an assertive political expression (not passive aggressive like the freedom fries). It is not a fashionable statement conspicuously displaying your financial ability to buy “natural” or “organic” produce. The reason is, because it is mostly either cheaper or free and designed for all socioeconomic classes; it is common. If local food purchasers are conspicuously consuming (consuming to display or distinguish), it is because they are displaying their dissatisfaction with the food industry and other national social problems. This food movement is also not a fashion statement because most people are not aggressively competitively consuming local produce. On the other hand, it is very fashionable now to be socially aware. With the rise of non-governmental organizations and non-profits, it is more politically fashionable to start one’s own charitable organization than a band. So, some individuals are consuming local produce to keep up with the good-hearted Joneses. But at least the Joneses have good hearts now.

Fashion trends, though, are designed to distinguish people from other people. Traditionally, people wear exclusive name brands displaying they have the monetary capability to buy it (another example of conspicuous consumption). Even recycled fashions can be commodified into trendy products. According to the article from the New Yorker, The Coolhunt authored by Malcolm Gladwell in 1997, suburbanites want the image of the inner-city and urban areas. In fashion, companies will hire hunters to go into these areas to find fashion that is not commodified nor mainstream but "original" in order to mass produce it and make it mainstream for the folks that are able to afford it. This concept of outsourcing can be applied to the local food movement, because it is heavily composed of urban inner city agriculture. But in that case these trends will be sold to the higher classes. Urban agriculture also differs from this because typically the urban agriculturalist's vision is to provide nutritious free food for people and create COMMON LAND.

Many in academia and in the not for profit sector are seeing this phenomenon as a not a trend but an environmental change that needs to happen and be secured as part of our nation’s common habitus, not a trend. The United States has been undergoing an obesity epidemic. Many blame it on the lack of self control and a person’s conscious decisions. Others see the injustices and problems as interconnections of our current system. Towns and cities are spending too much money buying produce many miles away while there is potential to grow it in their own back yards, literally. In Memphis, TN, the Memphis and Shelby County Food Policy Council Working Group has been teaming up with urban and regional planners to codify urban agriculture and secure it by this codification within Shelby County. This will reduce conspicuous consumption (which many Americans are beginning to identify as a problem), provide preventative well care and reduce grocery lists. For establishments that need to buy in order to provide for their customers, employees, residents etc… buying locally will stimulate local economies. In Dane County Wisconsin, the Dane County Food Council authored the Local Food Purchase Program Policy to give strong support for institutions buying local produce (www.countyofdane.com/foodcouncil). This will help small scale farmers. Legally defining what is “local” in the context of agriculture is also extremely important and will be further discussed in a later blog.

With the over saturated advertisements and predatory marketing contributing to the United States’ economic recession and health problems, local agriculture and food are binding communities together, not separating like it has in many situations before. Seeing the benefits of many local food sources scattered throughout a community has been contagious through light marketing and educating the public of their alternative options. The nation’s rising interest in charitable buying also has contributed to the strong support of the local food movement and urban agriculture. The question is will this movement be secured as way of life or will it fade away and become uncool like other trends? The answer to this is the land has always been common for people who choose for it to be common.



Works Cited

McWilliams, James. "The Persistence of the Primitive Food Movement." Freakonomics. The New York Times, March 9, 2010. Web. 11 Oct 2010. .

Gladwell, Malcolm. "The Coolhunt." New Yorker. (1997): 119-131. Print.
Noam, Chomsky. Profit over People:Neoliberalism and Global Order. New York, New York: Seven Stories Press, 1999. 65. Print.

Holt and Shor. Introduction: Do Americans Consume Too Much?. viii. Print.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of Judgement and Tase. Harvard University Press, 1984. Print.

"Accomplishments." Dane County Food Council. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct 2010. .

raw milk debate: should the government decide what we consume?

Here is a clip from The Colbert Report, where Colbert satirically reports on how local, state and national governments are banning raw milk. What led him to cover this was an incident in Venice, CA where a privately owned co-op was raided by armed governmental officials. All of the raw milk was confiscated.

Representatives of the FDA claim that milk if consumed will cause e. coli, salmonella and a number of other diseases, which can be prevented if the government would just not allow raw milk to be sold. On the other hand, raw milk advocates claim that people should be allowed to consume whatever they choose, which Colbert says "puts the 'dumb' in freedom". Raw milk advocates, like politician Ron Paul, claim that unpasteurized milk has a number of benefits because it is a live, whole food containing probiotics, live cultures, vitamins and other minerals. Probiotics and live cultures are now heavily advertised in yogurts. This leads many to believe that the FDA has struck a deal with the dairy industry which only manufactures pasteurized milk. They also claim that only organic milk from grass fed cows is the kind people should drink. In the film "No Impact Man", one dairy farmer did not agree with giving antibiotics to cows, because he wanted to able to take care of his cows if they are sick.

I am not a microbiologist and have no expertise in dairy, but I do not understand why governments are banning raw milk and not banning foods which have chemical flame retardants, the cancer causing sodium nitrate (commonly found in packaged meats) and the potent nerve toxin aspartame (found in diet sodas).

Monday, October 11, 2010

Ban Sugary Drinks from Food Stamps?

On Thursday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he had asked the US Department of Agriculture to allow the city to exempt soda from the permitted list of items its 1.7 million food stamp recipients can purchase with their benefits. This ban would last for two years, enough time to assess its effects and determine whether the ban should be continued on a permanent basis. New York City food stamp recipients spend an estimated $75 million to $135 million of their $2.7 billion in food stamps annually on soda.  read more

Should taxpayers be subsidizing the purchase of soda and other sugary drinks, and thus the obesity epidemic?

What are we doing to make nutritious food and drink more affordable?  Is there a way to create an incentive to purchase healthy food, rather than a disincentive to purchase unhealthy food?

Should the government be dictating what types of food low income people have access to?

How to we make the healthy choice the easy choice for all Americans?

To what extent will powerful corporations that have a vested interest in the sales of unhealthful food influence the decision of the USDA?  Is it really about human dignity, or is it about money?

I don't have answers.  Only a lot of tough questions.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Too Many Cabbages: Why Zoning Code must address urban gardening

Why bother changing Memphis and Shelby County zoning code to include neighborhood gardens?  People have already been creating home and community gardens throughout the city without problems from Code Enforcement.  Why does it need to be codified?

These articles in The Economist and Atlanta Magazine are why.  This man from DeKalb County in Georgia is being fined over 5,000 dollars because he grew too much organic broccoli and for having workers that were not permitted on his land.  Specifically, his R-85 zoning allowed for livestock and riding stables, but not "crop production" as his vegetable garden was interpreted to be.  Additional fines accrued even though he ceased gardening and sought a zoning change to R-200, which would allow "crop production".  So, what is Code Enforcement saying here? That is is illegal to grow organic veggies in an urban zone? When did this departure from common sense happen?

Did the planners who wrote this code and the legislative bodies that passed it really intend it to be used to crack down on urban market gardeners, or is this a misinterpretation of the intent of the code?  This example of zoning laws not matching up with the preservation of one's well-being is exactly why the Unified Development Code is extremely important to the city of Memphis and Shelby County. Not only will the UDC make the Memphis and Shelby County friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists, but also for agriculture and urban agriculture, providing REAL food to residents in a city that desperately needs it and protecting urban gardens from the DeKalb County fiasco.

Zoning code can be dense, abstract, and boring - but it is extremely important.  We need to make sure we think through all the "what if's" of urban agriculture so that the code does not have unintended consequences.  We can close our eyes and picture a home garden, and we can picture crop production, but what DeKalb County failed to picture is the differentiation point between the two.   That leaves too much open to interpretation and in that case, some silly consequences.  

The Memphis and Shelby County Food Policy Working Group is working with Planning and Development to "clean up" the urban agriculture sections of the Unified Development Code by thinking through all the possible scenarios for chickens, gardens, and farmers markets.  Remember, however good the intentions of the people writing the code now, they will not be the ones interpreting and enforcing it in the future.

One example is that in the UDC prohibits farmers markets in some zones that allowed for corner stores.   Do we really want our zoning code to give more access to corner stores than outlets that sell fresh fruits and vegetables?  Do planners disagree?  No, it just hadn't been looked at in that way.  The suggestion was made, and that will be one of several changes proposed when the clean-up of the UDC goes through the legislative process. In order for individuals' lives to become healthier, there needs to be a great environmental change within our food system. And one way to do this is through zoning.