Friday, January 27, 2012
Food, Farming, and Friends
Friday, December 9, 2011
Rick Santorum Solves Hunger! (Well, not really)
That’s right, folks, Santorum has reasoned hunger away and found a way to save some money without taxing the rich! Why didn’t anyone else realize it could be that easy?
Well, for starters, because it isn’t.
When Americans join the SNAP program, this means that they do not have the income necessary to feed themselves and their families. There is no shame in that. We believe (or at least many of us do) that not a single American should starve. Therefore, SNAP is meant to fill the gaps in household income so that every family can feed itself.
Unfortunately, hunger in American is not as simple as not having enough to eat. Many of our poorest and hungriest citizens live in food desserts, which are areas with minimal to no access to fresh food. In food deserts, corner stores are often the only locations where food stamps can be used, and their fare is often less than nutritious.
So, in one way, SNAP is a very good thing. It keeps Americans from starving. In fact, the number of Americans participating in SNAP has increased by approximately 20 million since 2007! Without a doubt, SNAP has saved lives.
But the program is also hindered by malfunctions in our food system, the prevalence of food desserts being only one of these. Therefore, we don't need to eliminate SNAP, we need to ensure that those who use food stamps have access to fresh and healthy food.
So, Rick Santorum should keep his well-fed mouth closed next time he thinks he’s reasoned hunger away. He just lost the support of the over 44 million Americans on SNAP, as well as all those who believe that America can, and should, eliminate hunger through real change – not sophistry.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Child Labor on America's Farms
This means that a careful regulatory balance must be struck, which ensures the safety of these young people without unduly inhibiting the operation and viability of family farms. The Department of Labor, which establishes such regulation, has recently proposed revisions to the federal agricultural child labor provisions. The Department feels that the current provisions are too lax, and has proposed stricter regulations which, among other things, would prohibit children under the age of 16 from operating most farm machinery, handling pesticides, and working with many types of livestock.
Of course, it is essential that the safety of child laborers be ensured. That being said, it is not clear that the proposed regulations are as wise as they first seem. The Department of Labor has long had an understanding with family farmers that the work of children on farms is a necessary part of the business. For one thing, the experience and practical knowledge required to run a farm can only be acquired on a farm. Because of this, the new regulations do not alter the current full exemption for children working on farms owned by their parents.
Nevertheless, many family farms today are incorporated and it is unclear exactly how the exemption would apply for them. Farmers across the country are therefore nervous that the proposed regulations could eliminate their most effective method of passing on the family business to their children.
But let’s take a step back from the issue for a moment. There is reason that the family farm is a disappearing phenomenon - for one thing, it is often unaffordable!
Federal regulations and policies often cater to large agribusiness ventures at the expense of small farmers. As such, many small farmers maintain their businesses tenuously and see children as an inexpressive source of seasonal labor. To put it bluntly, it is doubtful that parents would expose their children and the children of friends and relatives to possibly dangerous farm work if they did not feel that the money saved made the difference between keeping or losing the farm.
Now, does this excuse those farmers who expose child laborers to unnecessary risk? Certainly not, but it does demonstrate that the proposed regulations would be treating a symptom of the problem, rather than the problem itself. Just like the employment of tens of thousands of illegal aliens on our nation’s farms, child agricultural labor is an effect of our devotion to cheap food, which increasingly makes factory farming appear to be the only financially viable agricultural method.
Now, to return to the proposed regulations, is it the case that they will protect some children from injury or death? Probably, but the financial strain that leads small farmers to use child labor in the first place means that many may continue to employ children, even illegally. The real need, then, is not for stricter regulations but for policy that makes family farming profitable and child labor unnecessary.
Only on the surface is the question one of irresponsible farming versus responsible farming. In reality, it is far more a question of cheap food against the safety of children. Thankfully, this is an easy choice to make.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
A Food Revolution in Memphis City Schools?
If you haven’t heard already, there have been some big changes in Memphis City Schools Nutrition Services. They’ve hired a new director of nutrition services named Tony Geraci, who has already proposed a number of promising changes to what our school children eat and where it comes from. In fact, Geraci is calling for nothing less than a “farm-to-fork” revolution in city schools, which, if successful, will have students across Memphis eating healthier food that is locally grown in a garden devoted specifically to that purpose.
Mr. Geraci joins us from Baltimore, where he held a similar position, and promised similar transformations. As the Commercial Appeal has already explained, (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/oct/20/farm-to-fork/) Geraci turned 33 acres of abandoned city property in Baltimore into an organic “Great Kids Farm.” Here in Memphis, Geraci is on the same path, enlisting the support of local philanthropists and corporations to locate and purchase an even larger plot of land. In addition, Geraci has already started programs to bring federally-subsidized breakfasts and dinners to MCS. If all of this works according to plan, moreover, it is likely to inject a significant amount of money into our local economy, since MCS would be purchasing a significant portion of its food locally, rather than from more distant distributors.
But before we get too carried away, we should ask ourselves why Mr. Geraci left Baltimore. The Commercial Appeal writes that Geraci left Baltimore with “impatience,” and quotes him as saying: “I brought that program as far as I could.” In fact, a little research into the matter reveals that Geraci left Baltimore having accomplished a few of his goals, but with most of them unfulfilled or only partially complete. There appear to be a number of reasons for this.
To begin with, articles written around the time of Mr. Geraci’s departure from Baltimore in the summer of 2010 suggest that he was unable to secure the amount of funding and policy support that he needed from the city. As Geraci stated in one article, “I was told I'd have the support of the school system for my ideas, but it hasn't happened”(http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/baltimore/hard-to-swallow/Content?oid=1266356). Furthermore, it seems that even when Geraci was able to implement his initiatives, they were not always approved of by students and parents. For example, Geraci apparently received angry phone calls every “meatless Monday” from parents who disagreed with the idea.
What stands out the most from these articles, however, is that Geraci was never able to secure the funding to create a central kitchen for Baltimore city schools, which he saw as integral to his food revolution. In this respect Memphis has an advantage over Baltimore, as our city spent $22 million to build a central kitchen for MCS in 2003.
So, what are we to make of all this? More than likely, Mr. Geraci is a man who fully intends to carry out the vision that he has proposed. Because of this vision and his enthusiasm, Geraci has been featured in two documentaries, The Cafeteria Man and Angry Moms, honored by FoodService Director magazine, and presented with an award by the governor of Maryland, so there is good reason to believe that he is a true man of purpose. Nevertheless, Mr. Geraci will experience the same frustration here as he did in Baltimore if the city does not rally behind him. What Mr. Geraci said in Baltimore, then, remains just as pertinent in Memphis: “The reality is the citizens of this town need to stand up and say that they need these ideas to happen.”
Let’s do just that.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Harvard Law releases comprehensive review of Memphis Food Ordinances
Thursday, August 18, 2011
How to fix the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program in Shelby County, Tennessee
Food Fight: turmoil at the Memphis Farmers Market exposes flaws in Tennessee's food-voucher system, Cover story in the Memphis Flyer
Josephine Alexander: Making the senior farmers market voucher program work, Commercial Appeal Going Green blog post
Wendi Thomas: Farmers market has ugly underside
Ready for some solutions? Here are the concrete recommendations of GrowMemphis and the Food Advisory Council for Memphis and Shelby County: