Making The Food System Ours

States around the country with large conventional farming operations are attempting to put a stop to the recent spike in undercover videography at factory farms.  Animal welfare activists have captured a number of short videos from inside these farms in the effort to expose what they perceive to be abuse and illegal mistreatment of farm animals.

In response, the Iowa legislature has already passed a bill making it illegal to enter a farming operation under false pretenses, and other states are following suit.  You can find the details, as well as one of the videos, here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/29/147651002/states-crack-down-on-animal-welfare-activists-and-their-undercover-videos

Although these laws raise important legal questions about privacy rights and whistle-blowing, the real issue is more fundamental.  These videos raise basic questions about our (inter)national industrial food system: namely, is such treatment of animals inevitable in this system, and who is responsible for the conditions inside of these factory farms?

It is tempting to condemn the farm owners and workers at these operations as cruel and perhaps even heartless, but the truth is more subtle.  The actions depicted in the videos are disturbing, but we need to see them not as the result of individual cruelty, but as symptomatic of a food system that is built around producing and moving massive amounts of food over enormous distances as quickly and as cheaply as possible.  If this description sounds familiar that's because it should - what I've described is the basic operating formula of any manufacturing industry.  After all, there's a reason these operations are called factory farms!

When farming loses its respect for the environment and its relationship to the local community it ceases to be agri-culture and instead becomes agri-business.  And the final step in this process - the one that we are now experiencing - is that farming transforms from agri-business, to agri-manufacturing.  In such a situation, it is inevitable that animal welfare be neglected in favor of the "bottom line."

The industrial food system belongs to all of us.  Every time, for instance, that we purchase pork from one of these factory farms we are funding this system.  Not only are we making profitable the poor treatment of animals at these factory farms, we are also validating the large-scale production of genetically modified corn, soy, alfalfa, and other crops, the great majority of which harvest goes toward feeding factory farmed animals instead of people.

But it's difficult not to fund this system.  The meat and produce produced by the industrial food system are cheap, and when you're on a budget they're almost impossible to turn down.  That's why the Food Policy Working Group continues to advocate for the food justice of Memphis and Shelby County, with an important focus on local farmers and farmers markets.

There are few things as basic and as vital as the food that we eat.  It's time that we take control of the food on the dinner table and it make ours.

Two Exciting Bills in the TN General Assembly

The Tennessee General Assembly has taken initiative in the effort to guarantee food security and good food for all Tennesseans. As I write this, two bills, one for the House and one for the Senate, are making their way through the legislature. Both the House bill (HB 2260), and the identical Senate bill (SB 3487), aim to facilitate community gardening throughout our state.

We owe our thanks to Representative Hardaway from district 92 here in Memphis for proposing the original House bill, and to Senator Tate from district 33, also in Memphis, for proposing the Senate bill. These brief but important bills provide, among other things, an updated definition of community gardens and enable municipal and county governments to convey property to nonprofits for the purpose of cultivating these gardens. The bills prioritize collaborative gardening between senior citizens, who often are a wellspring of gardening knowledge, and our youth, who have the power to ensure that our communities continue to move toward greater food security.

Just as importantly, both bills call for the creation of programs to involve school children in community gardening, possibly for academic credit.

In proposing these bills of their own initiative, Representative Hardaway and Senator Tate demonstrate how far the movement for food security has come in Memphis. Questions remain as to some of the specifics of the bills - especially the provision which disallows community gardens from using the proceeds of sales for anything other than maintenance and upkeep - but the bills are encouraging nonetheless!

The status of the bills can be followed here: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2260

And you may find this glossary of terms helpful in understanding the sometimes cryptic abbreviations employed by our state legislature: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/legislation/billabbrev.html

Our Food Stamp President

Newt Gingrich is a man with some rather peculiar ideas. In addition to calling for the colonization of the moon, Gingrich has taken to labeling Obama the "food stamp president." Now, it's not entirely clear what Gingrich means by that phrase. If in calling Obama the "food stamp president" Gingrich is suggesting that Obama has personally caused the massive increase in food stamp (or SNAP) enrollment, then he is committing some questionable reasoning.

To begin with an obvious point, Obama does not decide who receives SNAP benefits or who is eligible for them - That is the job of Congress. SNAP, which stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, is designed to fluctuate with the economy. This means that in times of recession (like the one we are currently experiencing) SNAP automatically increases in size, in order to accommodate the increasing need.

Granted, it is true that Obama's 2009 stimulus package included increases to SNAP benefits, but is that a bad thing? The USDA certainly does not think so. In fact, according to the USDA, SNAP increases economic growth in this country by a factor of 1.79. This means that for every dollar spent on SNAP, our economy experiences $1.79 of growth. This makes SNAP more effective at growing the economy than unemployment benefits, infrastructure spending, and federal aid to states! And it's really pretty obvious when you think about why that's the case. What do Americans do with food stamps? Well, they buy food! The money spent on SNAP goes back into the economy, and with a substantial increase. (1) (2)

But let's be serious - we know Newt isn't doing any number crunching. He's not really concerned with SNAP's effectiveness. He's concerned with getting elected. In fact, it's clear that in calling Obama the "food stamp president" Gingrich is attempting to play off racial tensions in order to get votes, just as his idol Ronald Reagan did through the misguided notion of the "welfare Queen." And as always, the facts tell a different story than what the demagogues would have us believe. The majority of SNAP recipients are not black. African Americans don't even make up the largest group of SNAP recipients by race. That title belongs to non-hispanic WHITE Americans, who make up 35.7% of the households receiving SNAP benefits. In contrast, African American households make up 22% of the total. While we're at it, we should probably point out that 47% of SNAP recipients are children and 8% are over the age of 60. Oh, and 41% of SNAP recipients live in a household in which at least one member of the household has a job. (3)

And just for good measure, and in the continued interest of dispelling the welfare queen myth, which Gingrich seems to be echoing. Let's recognize that the average SNAP household consists of 2.2 persons.

SNAP isn't the problem. It grows the economy, and even more importantly it helps feed children, seniors, and other Americans in need. Besides, Gingrich should realize that if America is going to colonize the moon we're going to need a well-fed and healthy population...

(1) http://slopefarms.com/blog/2012/01/23/food-stamps-feed-the-economy-and-people-too/

(2) http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR103/ERR103.pdf

(3) http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/2010Characteristics.pdf

(4) http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/SNAP/FILES/Participation/2010CharacteristicsSummary.pdf

Food, Farming, and Friends

Are you a farmer? A community gardener? A food entrepreneur or activist? Do you just love delicious, local, Mid-South food?

If you answered "yes!" to any of those questions, then join GrowMemphis on Monday, February 6th at the Farm to Table Conference for Mid-South Producers at the Memphis Bioworks Foundation. It will be a day of friendly and meaningful discussion on our local food system, followed by a screening of the film, Cafeteria Man, and a Q&A with the star himself, Toni Geraci. There will also be ample opportunity to build new partnerships in our local food system and to catch up with old ones at the networking lunch, which will be provided by local farmers and the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital Garden.

The movement to build a better food system in and around Memphis has made great strides over the past few years and we have the ability to keep the momentum going, and to increase it! The Farm to Table Conference presents an excellent opportunity to do just that. No one who is serious about improving our local food system should miss it!

Buy tickets at: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/216675

The breakout session topics will include "Community Supported Agriculture 101," "Growing Vegetables in the Mid-South," "Farmer and Chef Perspectives on Selling to Restaurants," "Farm to School," and many more. See the full schedule on our facebook page.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Rick Santorum Solves Hunger! (Well, not really)

America’s hunger crisis has been solved, and from the most unexpected of sources! Just this past Tuesday Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum informed us that hunger is no longer an issue for our nation. With a bit of deft logical reasoning, Santorum concluded that hunger is not a problem, and therefore food stamps are superfluous, because so many Americans are obese. Furthermore, Santorum told us that this clearly justifies his plans to eliminate the food stamp, or SNAP, program.

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.

With that one statement, Santorum demonstrated his complete misunderstanding of poverty and hunger. It’s simply a well established fact that the same population can suffer from obesity and hunger simultaneously. Memphis, unfortunately, is a good example of this phenomenon. As we’ve stated before on this blog, Memphis tops the nation in hunger and obesity. This seems paradoxical at first, but it’s actually not that complicated.

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.

Child Labor on America's Farms

Farming has always been one of those stereotypical family businesses in the American imagination. Although today family farms are disappearing at a disheartening rate, especially in Tennessee, many do still operate. In fact, many of the vendors at our area farmers markets work small family farms. These farms, and those like them, involve the work of the whole family, often including children.

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.

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.

Harvard Law releases comprehensive review of Memphis Food Ordinances

A new report from the Health Law and Policy Clinic of Harvard Law School recommends that Memphis’s food code be largely eliminated. 

The report comes at the end of a comprehensive review of the Memphis city ordinances pertaining to food businesses from grocery stores and restaurants to produce trucks and farmers markets.  The report represents a collaborative effort between the Harvard Law School Health Law and Policy Clinic, the Shelby County Health Department, and the Food Advisory Working Group for Memphis and Shelby County. 

“Though they served Memphis well when first passed, with the current system of state food safety regulations, major portions of the Memphis ordinances are now unnecessary,” says Emily Broad Leib, Senior Clinical Fellow at Harvard’s Health Law and Policy Clinic. “Moreover, some of these outdated or duplicative portions of the Memphis Food Code may lead to wasted resources, reduced access to healthful foods, and stifling of economic activity among food industry entrepreneurs.”

Although Harvard Law found the current code to be largely unnecessary, the code has in no way impacted the ability of the Shelby County Health Department to protect public health and safety.  Because local health departments contract with the state to conduct many inspections, the Shelby County Health Department has continued to inspect to the high standards of the Tennessee food code, even with outdated local ordinances.   

The connection between Harvard Law and the Shelby County Health Department was made when Josephine Alexander, program coordinator for GrowMemphis, was working with a group of community members starting a farmers market in Midtown, now the Cooper-Young Community Farmers Market.  Once she started looking at the ordinances related to food establishments, including farmers markets, it was clear that there was significant overlap and even contradiction with state law.

Concerned that inconsistencies between state and local laws might be a barrier to new businesses and community food initiatives, the Food Advisory Working Group wanted to get a better understanding of the local laws.  It quickly became apparent that reviewing the entire food code was a monumental task.

Enter the Food Policy Initiative of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School. The Food Policy Initiative was established in 2010 in order to link Harvard Law students with opportunities to provide pro bono legal assistance to individuals and communities on various food policy issues.  They were interested in taking on the Memphis food code project, “We just got lucky,” says Alexander, “we knew someone who had worked with this project in Mississippi and were able to make a connection.”

Alexander also knew from the beginning that the success of the project hinged on the full participation of the Shelby County Health Department. “Sure, we can read the laws,” says Alexander, “but the Health Department really knows how regulations are actually playing out on the ground, for example, which ordinances have not been enforced because they are outdated or inconsistent with state law.”

Fortunately, the Health Department was equally eager to engage the law students.  “We’ve been wanting to update the food code for years,” said Phyllis Moss-McNeill, Manager of Environmental Sanitation Services at Shelby County Health Department, but a comprehensive study like the one conducted by Harvard Law would have taken a huge amount of resources. 

Starting in September 2010, Harvard law students talked and met with Shelby County Health Department staff, as well as numerous restaurateurs, farmers, small processors, farmers market managers, and other food entrepreneurs.  

The 175-page report, titled “Creating a More Efficient and Effective Food Safety System in Memphis and Shelby County,” represents the work of 21 law students over the course of ten months.  The report discusses problems with the current food code and presents a comparative analysis with sixteen other cities.  The bulk of the report is a provision-by-provision analysis that discusses each individual ordinance.  

The full report is available online at: http://deltadirections.org/programs_initiatives/initiative.php?id=45

About the Food Advisory Working Group

GrowMemphis, a local non-profit devoted to turning vacant lots into thriving community gardens, received a grant in 2010 from the Healthy Eating, Active Living (HEAL) Initiative of the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis for the purpose of developing a Food Advisory Council for Memphis and Shelby County.  Since spring of 2010, a Working Group has convened to research food advisory councils across the country, outline the plan for such a council, and advance policy initiatives. The Memphis and Shelby County Food Advisory Council Working Group is a collection of individuals and agencies interested in using public policy as a vehicle to ensure that all Memphis and Shelby County residents have adequate healthy food available, and to promote the development of sustainable local food in our community.

For more information see http://www.memphisfoodpolicy.blogspot.com

# # #

How to fix the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program in Shelby County, Tennessee

If you need some back story on the Senior FMNP or how how it has played out this summer in Shelby County, let me direct you to several recent bits in the local media:

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:

Recommendations to improve the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program in Shelby County and the State of Tennessee.

The Problem:  There are insufficient retail outlets in Shelby County to serve senior citizens participating in the Senior FMNP.  The result is that many seniors must go through considerable difficulty to use their vouchers.   

Recommendations to the Tennessee Department of Health

Under the federal legislation, states have considerable leeway in how the Senior FMNP is administered.   Key changes in the way the program is run in Tennessee would both increase the number of eligible farmers, and make it easier for those farmers to participate in the program. 

1.     Allow farmers from adjoining states to participate.  For example, allow out-of-state farmers within 100 miles of Shelby County to be eligible.

2.     Make it easier for farmers to get trained by allowing for multi-year contracts with farmers and remote training, for example by webinar or video conferencing.

3.     Provide clear explanation of the criteria an applicant must meet in order to be considered a “farmer”, and work with farmers markets, which often visit farms on an annual basis, to conduct farm inspections.

4.     Work with advocates to explore certifying farmers markets in addition to individual farmers.

5.     Work with advocates to explore other barriers to farmer participation, such as financial losses from unpaid SFMNP checks.

Recommendations to the Shelby County Health Department

Work with farmers markets to conduct outreach for the Senior FMNP including, but not limited to, the following strategies:

1.     Schedule farmer training earlier in the season and hold the training at an easily accessible location such as the Agricenter

2.     Notify farmers markets of the training with sufficient time for markets to conduct outreach to the farmers that attend those markets

3.     Invite farmers market staff to attend trainings.  Seniors and farmers often have questions that market personnel are ill-equipped to answer

4.     Provide phone numbers for the Health Department in information distributed to senior citizens

Have an initial meeting with farmers markets and advocates by December 2011 to develop a time-lined outreach plan for 2012.   

New program doubles value of food stamps at farmers markets in Memphis

Memphis, Tenn. – August 1, 2011 – GrowMemphis announced today the start of a new program to give shoppers using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as Food Stamps, more purchasing power at two Memphis farmers markets. The new program, called Double Green$, will provide a dollar-for-dollar match up to $10 when shoppers spend their SNAP benefits at participating farmers markets.

Earlier this year, the Cooper-Young Community Farmers Market, South Memphis Farmers Market, and Urban Farms Market became the first farmers markets in Memphis, and among the first in Tennessee, to accept SNAP benefits market-wide. Now, the Double Green$ program will go even further toward increasing access to fresh, healthy, and affordable foods, especially in the food desert areas surrounding or nearby these markets, by making locally grown fruits and vegetables more affordable.   

Both the Cooper-Young and South Memphis farmers markets are participating in Double Green$.  The Urban Farms market is waiting for a determination of their eligibility.  All three markets currently accept food stamps.

“We’ve been slowly ramping up this program with our SNAP customers for the past few weeks, and the response has been overwhelmingly positive from vendors and shoppers alike,” said Sue Easley, organizer of the Cooper-Young Community Farmers Market. “It’s been a great experience working with GrowMemphis and our other local farmers markets as a team to bring something to Memphis that has the potential to really help our low-income residents, our farmers, our neighborhoods, and our rural communities, all in one swoop.” 

How does it work?  Shoppers can go to the market booth and swipe their EBT card, receiving tokens that can be spent with vendors.  Double Green$ will match, dollar-for-dollar and up to $10, the amount that they put on their EBT card with tokens that can be used to buy fresh fruits and vegetables.  

“Double Green$ gets more people to the markets, increases revenue for farmers, and increases access to healthy foods for low-income residents” says Josephine Alexander of GrowMemphis, “We know that food stamps make Tennessee stronger.  Now, food stamps can make farmers markets stronger, too.”

By increasing attendance and sales at farmers markets in areas with limited access to healthy food, those markets become stronger and more successful, so that they can continue to serve neighborhood residents with much needed access to healthy and affordable food choices. 

In order to bring this program to Memphis, GrowMemphis partnered with Wholesome Wave, a Connecticut-based non-profit working with partners in 26 states to implement  double value coupon programs like Double Green$ that benefit consumers in under-served communities and the farmers who provide for them.

The program is expected to run through the end of October.  Funds for Double Green$ have been provided by the Wholesome Wave Foundation, Whole Foods Market, the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis, and Seedco.

About GrowMemphis

GrowMemphis is a non-profit organization that fosters the creation of robust community food systems that eliminate hunger, promote health, and further social justice.  GrowMemphis provides support and assistance for over 25 community gardening projects in Memphis as well as convening the Food Advisory Council working group to inform public policy in order to create a healthier food system for our region.  For more information please contact Josephine Alexander, josephine@midsouthpeace.org or 901-725-4990.

About Wholesome Wave

Wholesome Wave is a nonprofit, 501(c)3 organization dedicated to supporting small- and mid-sized farmers and making fresh, healthy, locally grown fruits and vegetables available to all people, regardless of income.  With the help of more than 45 partner organizations, Wholesome Wave has expanded to more than 170 markets in 26 states, Wholesome Wave's highly successful Double Value Coupon Program gives participating farmers markets the tools they need to welcome SNAP benefits (formerly known as Federal Food Stamps)—as well as the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Farmers Market Nutrition Programs (FMNP) and the Senior FMN—and allows recipients of those benefits to buy more fresh, healthy foods for their families. With the goal of influencing public policy and shifting federal funding to support innovative, market-based programs that meet its goals, Wholesome Wave develops and implements systems and processes that track program success and the health and purchasing habits of the people it serves. For more information, visit www.wholesomewave.org.

The Attraction of Unhealthy Foods: Price, Choice, and What our Government is (Not) Doing About It

It has become common knowledge that many Memphians don't eat well. We top the charts for the hungriest city and the most obese city in the nation. This means that an unbelievable number of Memphians do not have enough to eat, and when they do eat they are doing so unhealthily.

Unfortunately, these problems are not restricted to Memphis alone; Americans in general eat poorly. In an attempt to gain more insight into why this is true, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (ERS) recently conducted a survey of food prices across the nation. This report, which is entitled Geographic Differences in the Relative Price of Healthy Foods, was released just this past June. It compares the regional prices of 100 grams of a number of individual healthy foods like whole grains and fruit with 100 grams of corresponding less healthy choices in 35 "market groups," which were defined by the ERS based on census divisions. Memphis, along with Nashville, Birmingham, and Louisville falls into the "Metro South 2" (MS2) market group.

The MS2 group ranked in the top half in 6 of the 9 food categories and the top third in 5. This is not quite as encouraging, however, when we consider the prices themselves and the state of poverty in Memphis and Shelby County. Let's take a closer look at the numbers in order to gain a fuller understanding of the situation.

• To begin with, whole grains were priced nationally between 23% to 60% higher than less healthy refined grains, although the price of whole grains decreased about 5% during the period of the survey (1998-2006). MS2 ranked 11th best (meaning that in 24 market groups the difference between the price of whole grains and refined grains was greater than in MS2). Even so, whole grains in MS2 were approximately 35% more expensive than refined grains.

• When comparing dark green vegetables (e.g., broccoli, kale, and spinach) with less healthy starchy vegetables (e.g., corn and potatoes) the ERS found that the former were roughly 23% to 85% more expensive throughout the country. MS2 came in at 5th best at approximately 27%.

• The comparison between healthy orange vegetables (e.g., carrots, sweet potatoes, and various kinds of squash) and starchy vegetables was a bit better. Nationally, orange vegetables ranged from 20% less than starchy vegetables to 22% more. In this category MS2 ranked 1st, with orange vegetables costing roughly 20% less!

• When ERS compared the price of whole fruit with the price of "commercially prepared packaged sweets" (e.g., candy, cookies, ice cream cones, marshmallows, chocolate, and refrigerated pudding) they found that whole fruit was nationally 30% to 40% cheaper. Unfortunately, MS2 was 24th in this category, at approximately 33% less expensive. This ranking is not too damning, however, when we consider that the difference between the best and the worst market group was only 10%.

• The price comparison between whole fruits and "commercially prepared savory packaged snacks" (e.g., pork rinds, potato chips, pretzels, crackers, trail mix, and granola bars) was similar. Nationally, the price of whole fruit was 55% to 68% cheaper. Again, MS2 ranked poorly at 26th, but this range was also quite small.
  

• In all but one of the market groups, the price of low fat milk (skim and 1%) was less than that of 2% and whole milk. MS2 ranked 12th best at roughly 18% below the price of 2% and whole milk.

• The price difference between low fat milk and soda was quite wide, ranging from low fat milk costing 30% less than soda to it costing 45% more. However, low fat milk was more expensive than soda in 29 of the market groups. In this category MS2's performance was dismal. We came in at 4th worst, with low fat milk costing 35% more than soda.

• Nationally, the price of bottled water ranged from 33% less than soda to roughly 15% more. In all but one of the market groups, however, bottled water was less expensive than soda. This was the case in MS2, in which bottled water was about 21% less. This put us right in the middle of the groups.
  

• When comparing the price of fruit juice with the price of less healthy fruit drinks, the ERS found that fruit juice nationally was 32% to 90% more expensive than fruit drinks. MS2 came in at 7th best, with fruit juice priced 50% higher than fruit drinks.
  

OK, that was quite a few numbers, but what can we take from this? The ERS rightly points out that price differences between healthy and less healthy foods "may have more of an effect on low-income households, whose share of income spent on food is higher than among households with greater income." When given the choice between cheap unhealthy food and more expensive healthy food, many Americans can afford to chose the latter. Poorer Americans, however, must often make such decisions based on price. In fact, some of the prices of healthy foods are simply prohibitive to low-income Americans. If you are living below the poverty line and struggling to feed a family, do you even have the luxury of choosing between whole grains and refined grains, or between fruit juice and fruit drinks?

Indeed, when considering how these price differences affect Memphis and Shelby County we must remember the state of poverty in our area. According to the US Census Bureau's "Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates" for 2009, Shelby County has a median household income of $41,880, which is compared to a national median household income of 49,777 (1). This puts Shelby County just barely into the top half of counties nationwide for median household income. Furthermore, Shelby County has an individual poverty rate of 20.9%, which is compared to a national rate of 14.3%. When compared with the poverty rates of all other counties, this places Shelby County in the worst fifth...

The numbers for Memphis, of course, are even bleaker. Our city has a median household income of $36,535 and an individual poverty rate of 24.2%, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's "American Fact Finder" (2). Thus, when our market group, MS2, ranks in the top fifth for the price of fruit juice vs. fruit drinks or even the top seventh for the price of dark green vegetables vs. starchy vegetables, we must remember that a fifth of Shelby County's population (and a quarter of Memphis') is living in poverty and likely still must choose the less healthy option.

True, the ERS report found that whole fruit is less expensive than packaged sweets and savory snacks across the board, and yet Americans still eat too little fruit and too much sugar and fat. This led the ERS to note in the report that "factors other than the relative cost of healthy foods may be more important in determining geographic differences in diet and related health outcomes than just the choice between fruit and other less healthy snack options."

Well, how about food deserts? One does not have a choice between fresh fruit and savory snacks if one does not have a grocery store or market at which to buy fruit. In neighborhoods where the only "grocery" options consist of overpriced milk, canned fruit swimming in syrup, and cheap soda and chips at the corner store, whole fruit is more expensive, because it requires a significant investment of resources, time and energy simply to reach a store where it is sold.

Of course, this is not to say that Americans are wholly blameless for poor personal health. We all make some poor dietary choices for reasons other than affordability and location, and some of us do so chronically. The ERS is likely correct when it writes that "looking at relative prices between two food groups cannot, in itself, be used to draw any firm conclusion about the link between healthy food prices and consumption trends."

Nevertheless, the price of food certainly influences what Americans buy, particularly what low-income Americans buy. It is one factor among many, including availability of food, knowledge and resources for food preparation, and knowledge of proper nutrition - but it is a critically important one. Indeed, when we stop to think, isn't it absurd that our government invests in health programs like the First Lady's "Let's Move" campaign or the initiative to replace the food pyramid with the new "MyPlate" diagram, but ignores the prohibitive cost of many healthy foods?

In fact, worse than doing nothing, the federal government spends billions of dollars subsidizing corn and other commodity crops, while only negligible amounts go to fruits and vegetables. According to the EPA, only 12% of corn grown in the U.S. ends up in foods that are consumed directly. The remaining 88% goes into feeding animals or into feeding cars (i.e. ethanol). Now, this does not mean that 12% of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten off of the cob. No, much of that 12% is consumed in products like tortilla chips or is converted into high fructose corn syrup, which, of course, sweetens so many unhealthy foods (3). Thus, by subsidizing corn, our government is effectively subsidizing the production of candy and soda!

So, while Michelle Obama tells us, "Let's Move!" her husband and his party continue to subsidize unhealthy foods and to ignore the healthy ones. The irony would be laughable if it weren't so harmful...


__________

1) http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2009.html

2) http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=16000US4748000&_geoContext=01000US|04000US47|16000US4748000&_street=&_county=memphis&_cityTown=memphis&_state=04000US47&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

3) http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/cropmajor.html

Exciting News on GM Labeling

You've probably never heard of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, but yesterday this oddly named organization agreed on new groundbreaking standards for the regulation of GM foods.

Although its name conjures images of a clandestine medieval cult straight out of a Dan Brown novel, the Codex Alimentarius Commission has the far more mundane distinction of being a committee for the world's food safety regulatory agencies. For the past two decades, the CAC has been struggling to reach a consensus concerning the regulation of foods containing genetically modified organisms. It has been unable to do so, in large part, because the United States' delegation has opposed the labeling of GM foods. On Tuesday, however, the US delegation reversed its position and allowed the proposed GM regulatory document to pass.

This document makes it legal for nations to label GM foods. Until the passage of this document, national governments which adopted GM food labeling could be accused by the World Trade Organization of creating a barrier to trade.

Does this mean that GM food on the shelves of American grocery stores will soon be labeled? Almost certainly not. The lobby of agribusiness and GM corporations such as Monsanto, Bayer, and Du Pont is even more influential at home than it is internationally. The numerous ties between Monsanto, for instance, and our government have ensured that GM foods remain unlabeled in the US.

To point out just one of these ties, consider that Michael Taylor, the current deputy commissioner for foods at the FDA, was an attorney for Monsanto and its former vice president for public policy (1). According to the FDA's website, Taylor's duties as deputy commissioner for foods include "plan[ing] for new food safety legislation," and "ensur[ing] that food labels contain clear and accurate information on nutrition" (2). What a joke!

Monsanto is rightly concerned that labeling GM foods would cause consumers to be skeptical of these products, the safety of which has not been proven through exhaustive independent research. Regardless of Monsanto's corporate interests, however, Americans have the right to know what their food consists of and where it comes from.

Although the new CAC agreement does not mandate the labeling of GM foods, it is still momentous and deserves to be celebrated. Hopefully, as more nations around the world adopt GM labeling, our government will no longer be able to deny the right to such simple, and yet vital, information to the American people.


__________
1) http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OC/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

2) Ibid.

The Folly of Georgia's Immigration Law

This past May, Georgia passed a new immigration law which makes it illegal to, among other things, knowingly transport illegal immigrants. Furthermore, it gives police the authority to demand immigration documents from criminal suspects and, if suspects do not produce these documents, the new law grants police the power to jail them, thus begining the federal deportation process.

Declaring that "states must act to defend their taxpayers," Georgia governor Nathan Deal made it clear in May that the law was meant to rid his state of the scourge of illegal immigration (1). The line of reasoning is not a new one: illegal immigrants are a drain on all law abiding citizens, because they draw on public services without paying all of the taxes required of legal residents.

Of course, the issue is not nearly as simple as such reasoning makes it out to be.

As lawmakers in Georgia have painfully discovered, illegal immigrants also bring a number of direct benefits to legal Americans, and when you chase illegals away these benefits disappear too. Georgia is now suffering a dire shortage of farm labor, causing produce to literally rot in the fields for the lack of manpower necessary to harvest it. In fact, it is estimated that Georgian farmers are now short by at least 11,000 workers (2).

"But wait!" you may find yourself thinking as Republican lawmakers in Georgia did, "there must be more than enough unemployed legal residents to take the place of these illegal immigrants. That's the problem with illegals: they take our jobs! Now that we've chased them out, good, honest, law-abiding Gerogians can finally find employment again."

Not so.

The fact is that most of these 11,000 jobs pay 7, 8, or maybe 9 dollars an hour for exhausting work done in the blistering heat. Almost none include health insurance and only a third offer some kind of worker's compensation (3). Legal Americans are simply unaccustomed and largely unwilling to work that hard for such little compensation. If Georgian farmers were to raise the pay rates of these positions it would not allow them to compete with farmers from other states who, surprise, rely on illegal labor to minimize costs.

Today, a federal judge in Atlanta proclaimed an injunction on the two provisions of the law listed in the first paragraph of this post. Georgian lawmakers had earlier vowed to appeal any such decision, so the outcome remains to be seen.

What is already clear, however, is that illegal immigration brings with it a complex web of advantages and disadvantages. One of the greatest of these advantages is the incredibly cheap price of food in the United States relative to most other countries. While global food prices continue to rise, contributing to riots and revolutions throughout the world, Americans have, for the most part, dogged the bullet. This is because we rely on illegal and often abused labor throughout our food production system. To categorically villanize illegal immigrants is to display an embarrassing lack of understanding of our nation's economy.


__________

1) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/us/14georgia.html

2) http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/17/gas-farm-labor-crisis-playing-out-as-planned/

3) Ibid.

Rising Food Prices Around the World

A global opinion poll conducted by the independent research firm GlobeScan and released by Oxfam on June 14th found some disheartening results having to do with hunger and rising food prices. The survey, which was conducted in 17 countries and had 16,421 respondents, reported that 54% of people questioned globally answered that they were not eating the same food as they did two years prior. Of this 54%, 39% reported that their diet had changed because of the rising cost of food and 33% identified health reasons. In the U.S., 56% of those surveyed said that they were not eating the same food as two years ago, and 31% cited food prices while 49% cited health reasons. Furthermore, 8% of Americans surveyed answered that they sometimes, rarely, or never had enough food to eat on a daily basis (1).

While it is encouraging that a considerable number of people are changing their diet with health in mind, it is clear that rising food prices are seriously affecting people's access to food, both domestically and globally. This should not be shocking to anyone - rising food prices have been a significant issue recently. Remember the riots in Haiti in 2008, or, in current events, the so-called "Arab Spring"?

Increasing food costs are changing the world, and this will likely remain the case over the coming years. According to a joint report released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, high global prices are expected to persist for at least the next decade (2). This report predicts that the real prices of cereal will be 20% higher, and the real prices of meat will be 30% higher in the coming decade than they were in the last.

Yesterday, the agricultural ministers of the G-20 met in Paris and reached an accord to combat these rising food prices. They agreed to create a transparent market for tracking global food supplies, establish emergency food reserves, further research new wheat strains, and create a rapid response system for dealing with drought in producer countries (3). This is an important agreement, especially because the new transparent market will hopefully prevent panic induced price spikes by providing better information on food supplies. Oxfam, however, has criticized the accord for being too minimal. As Jean-Cyril Dagorn of Oxfam said, "Fixing the global food system and ending the food price crisis requires major surgery, yet the G-20 produced little more than a sticking plaster" (4).

It is not clear specifically what Mr. Dagorn has in mind in the way of "major surgery," but it is clear that our global food system can only be fixed through a multifaceted approach. A number of factors are contributing to the rise in food prices, not the least of which are severe weather and the rising price of oil.

There are other less visible factors, however, that are not mentioned along with such hot-button issues. For example, as many residents of Memphis know first-hand, food is far more expensive in food deserts than in communities that have grocery stores. Without a grocery store nearby, residents of food deserts turn to corner stores, which are always more expensive.

Furthermore, we must consider that not only our problems, but also our solutions should be multi-faceted. For example, one way of alleviating the strain put on food prices by higher oil prices is, of course, to work to lower oil prices in the short term and develop alternate energy technologies in the long term.

Another solution, however, is to cease transporting our food over vast distances when it could be grown locally. Or, even more importantly, we can use less energy in our food system by avoiding processed foods. The large majority of energy costs in food production actually come from processing and packaging, not from transportation.

Increased supervision of our food system, no matter how "transparent," is not enough to remedy its most pressing problems. We need fundamental change.


__________

1) http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/pressreleases/globescan-survey-rising-food-prices-are-changing-what-we-eat

2) http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/109150/

3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=137363032

4) Ibid.

The Good Sense of South Korea

Even if our government is ignoring the most pressing health risks posed by industrial agriculture, it's nice to see that other nations are being proactive...

South Korea recently passed a complete ban on the mixing of antibiotics with animal feed (1). Feeding animals with low levels of antibiotics has become widespread practice throughout the agriculture industry because of the unhealthy conditions that most livestock are raised in. In order to stave off the disease and infection that would otherwise result from grossly overcrowded living conditions, many farmers maintain a steady supply of antibiotics in their animal feed. Rather than make our food safer, however, this practice creates an even greater danger: the cultivation of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.

The CDC has linked this practice of feeding animals on sub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics to the rise of antibiotic-resistant pathogens. Furthermore, it has found that these pathogens affect humans as well as animals (2).

To understand just how frighteningly prevalent this practice is, consider that eighty percent of antibiotics used in the U.S. go to animals rather than humans, and that North Carolina alone uses more antibiotics on animals than the entire country does on humans (3).

Of course, the bad news for South Koreans is that despite their good sense, this ban on antibiotics in animal feed won't do much to prevent the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens world-wide. As long as the United States continues this practice, not only our country, but the whole world is endangered. It is time that we recognized the part we play in advancing this common peril to humanity.


__________

1) http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/south-korea-to-ban-antibiotics-in-animal-feed-11846.html

2) http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/04-0403.htm

3) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?src=me&ref=general

German E. Coli Update

Well, the German authorities have changed their minds once again. They are now certain that the E. Coli outbreak originated at the same organic sprouts farm that they had just recently cleared of any involvement in the issue. Tests have still NOT found E. coli on any sprouts from the farm, but German health officials claim that enough epidemiological evidence exists to link the outbreak to the sprouts. Specifically, they have linked a number of the E. coli cases to twenty-six restaurants that received sprouts from the farm (1). The U.S. Center for Disease Control, however, is more reluctant to use this evidence as certain proof of a link between the farm and the outbreak, and they have urged German officials to be cautious.

Indeed, it is difficult not to be wary of the German authorities' latest conclusion (First E. coli and then Roundup, all in one week!). This is not the first time that they have been "certain" of the outbreak's source, although it looks like it will be the last. What was already a tragic event for Germany has also become a national embarrassment and health officials were desperate to pinpoint its cause. The epidemiological evidence they found points to a high likelihood that the outbreak originated at the organic sprouts farm, although it cannot provide the certainty that E. coli positive tests would have done. Nevertheless, it is not this blogs place to dispute the conclusions of German health officials.

Regardless of whether or not the outbreak originated at an organic farm, it must be reiterated that industrial scale agriculture, not organic vs. conventional farming, is the true issue here. The arguments for this can be found in our post dated June 8th. Food contamination has occurred, and likely will continue to occur, at both organic and conventional farms. It is our cumbersome and corporate-dominated global food system, however, which turns these contaminations into international outbreaks.

Furthermore, when food is produced and consumed locally, farmers have a reputation to uphold in the surrounding community. If their produce becomes contaminated they cannot hide behind an impersonal food system. They are directly accountable for the quality and safety of their produce and it becomes a financial, not to mention moral, necessity that they avoid outbreaks of this kind. In an industrial scale food system accountability is diluted and consumers have far less knowledge about where there food is coming from and, thus, less power to make informed decision about what they eat. In this situation it often seems to consumers that the only way to be safe is to adhere to blanket condemnations of organic farming or bean sprouts, for instance.

Let us not be fooled into believing that industrial-conventional agriculture, which often utilizes harmful chemicals, is our best bet for safe food. There is no other more ironic conclusion that we could arrive at from this E. coli outbreak. Now more than ever, we need local quality, local safety, and local accountability.


__________

1) http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/06/10/germany-confirms-sprouts-to-blame-for-killer-bacteria/

A Roundup Update

A report released on Tuesday by a group of European scientists and professors thoroughly demonstrates that industry and government have been aware from at least the 1980s that glyphosate, the chemical on which Monsanto's Roundup weed killer is based, has repeatedly been shown in laboratory tests to cause serious birth defects in frogs, chickens, rats and rabbits. These birth defects, along with endocrine damage and cancer, were found when test animals were subjected to levels of glyphosate that are comparable to those found in food and the environment in the form of pesticide residue.

Furthermore, the report details emerging evidence of Roundup's toxicity to humans in South America, where it is used extensively. According to the report, one study has found glyphosate to be toxic to human cells, and doctors, activists, and scientists in South America are reporting increased rates of human birth defects in areas of high Roundup use.

Monsanto, DuPont, and a number of other corporate interests have been covering this up with the help of the incompetence, and possible cooperation, of the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL). Roundup was due to be reevaluated by the EU in 2012, but this date was recently pushed back to 2015.

The conclusions of this report, especially concerning the BVL's blatant disregard of scientific findings, are shocking. They demonstrate why public, independent, and peer-reviewed science regarding pesticides and transgenic crops is so vital to public health. These corporations are out to make a profit, apparently at whatever cost. When government fails to protect consumers, who will?

The report can be found at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

And an article outlining its findings is located at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/07/roundup-birth-defects-herbicide-regulators_n_872862.html?ref=fb&src=sp

E. Coli, Organic Farms, and Industrial Agriculture

The outbreak of an uncommonly toxic strain of E. coli in Germany has been in the news for a week now. This rare strain of the bacteria has killed at least twenty-three people in Europe and has made over two-thousand quite ill. In their rush to pinpoint the cause of the outbreak, German authorities first labeled cucumbers grown in Spain as the culprit. These same authorities retracted this accusation only a few days later, but enough time had passed to cost Spanish farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and rotted crops. Still scrambling to locate the origin of the outbreak, German authorities next pointed to sprouts grown at an organic farm in northern Germany. On Monday, however, they once again backtracked on their claims after tests were unable to find any instances of E. coli bacteria on samples taken from the farm (1).

So, organic farmers can breathe freely once more, safe in the knowledge that they will not be wrongly implicated in the deadliest E. coli outbreak in modern history, right?

Wrong.

Even though German authorities have retracted their accusation, it seems that, like the innocent farmers in Spain, organic farmers have already suffered undue damage to their public perception. For example, an article posted on the Reuters website on Monday raises questions about the safety of organic farming (2). In fact, the article quotes a British professor of public health as saying that organic produce carries an extra risk because organic farms do not use non-organic chemical fertilizer. It boggles the mind to attempt to understand how produce can be more dangerous because it is not treated with poisonous chemicals!

The suggestion seems to be that the use of manure on organic farms causes a heightened risk of an E. coli outbreak, because E. coli is know to originate in animal intestines. This is wrong for a number of reasons. First of all, non-organic farms also use manure, but they are not regulated to the same degree. In fact, the federal regulation concerning the use of manure on organic farms is the strictest of its kind (3). It requires, for instance, that manure on organic farms be composted long enough to kill all bacteria. It comes as no surprise then that a study conducted at the University of Minnesota in 2004 concluded that organic produce was no more likely to be contaminated by E. coli than non-organic produce (4). Moreover, of all sprout recalls in the U.S. over the last two and a half years, ninety percent have come from non-organic farms (5).

Ultimately, the problem is twofold. First of all, evidence suggests that the wide-spread practice in conventional (i.e. non-organic) farming of feeding cows high-grain rations rather than the grass they were evolved to eat may be tied to increased instances of E. coli. These high-grain rations raise the pH in the cows’ rumen, which seems to lead to the creation of more deadly strains of E. coli (6).

On a much greater level, the recent E. coli outbreak is a symptom not of organic farming, nor even of conventional farming per se, but rather of the enormous scale of our industrial agricultural system. Our food system is not too big to fail; it is too big NOT to fail. When our food must travel a long and complicated path simply to reach our tables this not only increases the likelihood that somewhere along the way it will be contaminated, it also makes it difficult to trace the source of any contamination. This is evidenced by the recent blundering of the German authorities. Simply put, when our food is grown locally we know exactly where it comes from and we can quickly pinpoint and isolate any contamination.


__________

1) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_CONTAMINATED_VEGETABLES_EUROPE?CTIME=2011-06-05-07-43-44&SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

2) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-ecoli-beansprouts-idUSTRE7552N720110606

3) http://www.ota.com/organic/foodsafety/ecoli.html

4) Ibid.

5) http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/06/news-advisory-90-sprout-contamination-conventional-not-organic-linked-to-factory-farm-livestock-production/

6) Ibid.

The Roundup Ready Disaster

A mixture of good and bad news on the national food policy front. Let’s get the bad news out of the way first before turning to some more encouraging information...

As you may be aware, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, at the behest of the Obama administration, approved the use of a new strain of genetically engineered alfalfa seed in January of this year. This transgenic seed, which was developed by Monsanto, is called “Roundup Ready” alfalfa because it is designed to be resistant to the corporation’s widely used weed killer, Roundup. While this initially appeared to be a windfall for farmers who use transgenic seed, it has become clear that Roundup Ready alfalfa is almost certainly going to prove to be nothing less than an agricultural disaster.

Farmers and scientists across the nation have discovered solid evidence linking the use of Roundup Ready corn and soy, in conjunction with the Roundup weed killer, to massive rates of animal infertility and spontaneous abortion. In fact, infertility rates have been recorded as high as 20%, while spontaneous abortions are occurring at the unbelievable rate of 45%. Scientific evidence suggests that this disaster is being caused by severe micronutrient deficiencies in the soil on farms which use Roundup Ready seed and the weedkiller. Apparently, these deficiencies depopulate the soil of its regular microorganisms and have enabled an as yet unnamed microorganism to take their place. Along with general nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops, this new microorganism has been identified by scientists as the cause of the disaster. The situation is bad enough as is, but it promises to become even worse as Roundup Ready alfalfa is planted because alfalfa is used primarily to make hay that is fed to livestock. (http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/)

What comes as the largest surprise, however, is that these scientific findings are not brand new. In fact, the respected plant pathologist Dr. Don M. Huber sent a letter outlining this situation to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack on January 17th, 2011. This was weeks before Secretary Vilsack approved the use of Roundup Ready Alfalfa. We are left to wonder why Secretary Vilsack disregarded Dr. Huber’s warning and request for additional time and funding for further research into Roundup Ready crops. We can be sure, however, that Monsanto was tirelessly lobbying the Obama administration for approval of its alfalfa seed.

Furthermore, the Roundup disaster provides us with yet another example of the dangers of transgenic and industrial scale agriculture. Situations like this are what makes the development of sound food policy so critical for our communities, both locally and nationally.

Now, the good news regarding all of this is that there is something each of us can do about the USDA’s questionable decision making. I encourage you to watch the video below, in which Dr. Huber explains the shocking breadth of the crisis, and then sign the petition to ask the Obama administration to ban the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa until further (independent!) research can be conducted. The petition can be found at:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/dr_hubers_warning/

Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.

AGENDA: Working Group Meeting Wed June 8th!

Food Advisory Council for Memphis and Shelby County

Working Group Meeting

Wednesday June 8,  2011

5:30 pm – 7:00 pm

Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, 1000 S Cooper St.

1.    Welcome and Introductions – 5 min

2.    Discuss changing all meetings to evenings – 5 min

3.    Review final draft of White Paper and discuss next steps, brainstorm list of necessary supporters – 30 min

4.    Food Ordinance Handbook update and next steps – 30 min

5.    Schedule Fundraising Plan Committee meeting - 5 min

6.    General Updates/Announcements - 10 min

All meetings are open to the public, just email josephine@midsouthpeace.org or call 901-725-4990 so we know to expect you.