Farm and Food Session 5

Our last session was a panel on Certified Organic or Not Certified? How do Farmers and Consumers Make the Choice? The panel was…

Robert Hutchins Rehoboth Ranch
Bill McCranie Chickamaw Farms
Leslie Mckinnon Independent Consultant
Dave Engel Oregon Tilth

Robert Hutchins started off talking about why he has not certified his farm as organic. He sells his grass-fed meats direct to the consumer and hasn’t seen a need for certification. He has used organic practices, feeds and seeds for years. He mentioned that he buys seed from someone who knows, but the seed is not certified organic. Leslie Mckinnon in her response raised the issue of Hutchins’ use of the word organic to describe what he does on his farm. There was some heated, but good, exchange. Without giving a play by play, let me try to tease out some of the issues.

Dave Engel later said that the word organic is now a regulated word. The original need to create organic standards, as Dave, pointed out, was to create some definition so that consumers could know that a product met certain criteria. The problem arises primarily when we don’t buy food face to face with someone. So, I recognize the need for regulation of the agribusiness industry. The problem is when the government claims to own the word organic and regulate its meaning. There were suggestions that you could say you used organic practices without claiming to be certified organic. I find that to be a reasonable idea, but it’s a gray area legally and could become problematic.

This seems like an important and foundational question to think about, but one that shouldn’t distract us from our common goals in the “organic” sustainable food movement.

Farm and Food Session 3

Lots of policy talk in this session. Patty Lovera from Food and Water Watch presented on the state of US food policy focusing primarily on the Farm Bill and food safety legislation. She covered lots of ground on an incredible number of topics. I won’t try to even summarize it. Here’s the highlights of what I found interesting.

It seems like the biggest problem in developing regulations for food safety is coming up with good definitions. There are many ways that this is really really difficult. First, the labeling regulations and the new labels the FDA and USDA come up with are ill-defined and complicated. Patty’s example was the most recent changes and addition of the label “natural” or “naturally-raised.”

The label “natural” is only used for meat and falls under the jurisdiction of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The standards are only that the animal be minimally modified. Basically they can’t have hormones or antibiotics and should eat organic feed. So, a cow could spend it’s entire life in a concrete facility and never see a blade of grass and be called “natural” meat. The label “naturally-raised” has to do with the life of the animal and is regulated by a different government organization. So, you can see how labels are confusing, not informative and not regulated by the same organization. Doesn’t it make sense to have a definition of natural that both makes sense and cuts across all regulatory bodies?

The other big definition problem is size. Who is a facility? Who is a food processor? When does a farm become a processor? There is language in legislation concerning “small” farms. For example, recent changes in rules concerning egg production and sales exempts “small” producers defined as those who direct market 50% or more of their eggs and/or have less than 3,000 layers. This is a good start, but the problem is that “small” producers in Vermont would not fit the same definition as “small” farms in Texas or California. It looks like more language is being included that at least recognizes that size of producers is an important issue to include in legislation.

The other interesting thing I learned in this session was about what drives the practices of some industrial agriculture. The example was concerning producers of leafy greens. There is not much government regulation concerning this sector of food production. However, all of the supermarkets that these companies sell their leafy greens to have regulations concerning the farms they buy their produce from. So, you have a situation in which the supermarkets are driving agriculture practices. It begs a couple questions… Why have regulatory bodies? (some would like to get rid of them I guess) and What are the effects of for-profit supermarkets driving the agricultural practices? They are certainly concerned with a bare minimum of food safety, but they are more concerned with the bottom line. The most problematic aspect is that the supermarkets will not even release what their standards are, because it is proprietary.

Synergistic Motivational Speaking at USDA Listening Session

Well, I survived my first listening session with the USDA today. Some may understand the headline from my tweets from the session. For those who missed it the word synergy was used way too often and in too many forms: synergy, synergism, synergistic. Unfortunately no one used the form a friend of mine invented on facebook… synergistic-expialidocious. Brilliant.

To top it all off a man who did NOT make it into the NBA who works for/is a motivational speaking group came down the aisle wearing a santa hat and carrying a smiley-faced basketball. He proceeded to treat all of us to what kids in gyms across America can barely sit still for… a motivational speaker.

I found many things interesting after listening to 20 people from a wide variety of organizations speak. The most interesting fact of all to me was that farmers were not represented at all. By all appearances farmers are not interested in ending childhood hunger or obesity (this was the main thrust of the session). I know this is not in fact the case. Real farmers were probably to busy doing real farming. So where were the groups that represent farmers? So, in my comments I pointed this out and shared some of my thoughts about the Farm Bill and what we do at World Hunger Relief. Here’s the highlight reel:

• Jeremy Everett of the Texas Hunger Initiative (and WHRI alum) gave a good big picture overview of their vision for bringing together existing federal, state and local resources and people to help them communicate, coordinate and organize their efforts for maximum impact. Basically the resources are already there to end hunger. We just need to get organized. Good thinking!
• A representative from Dairy Max a part of the National Dairy Council went on at length about the virtues of flavored milk in school cafeterias. Best moment of the day was when another lady said that there was as much sugar in a bottle of flavored milk as a soda.
• Best moment #2 was when someone from Texas Food Bank Network walked up with a grocery bag from the HEB down the street. He pulled out an organic apple and said this cost $1.75. Then he pulled out a bag of cheese puffs and said he paid $1.50. If I have $2 in my pocket and hungry kids in the back seat, which one am I going to buy?
• At least two people really wanted USDA to mount expensive media campaigns to deal with obesity. That is not a solution and does not work.
• One speaker suggested creating or at least discussing the possibility of a national school lunch menu. Interesting idea.

It was a good experience to see how something like this works. Though I am skeptical of government and bureaucracies ability to do good and make change, I also recognize that governments and bureaucracies consist of people who do not have hearts of stone. Listening sessions and town halls is what we need more of, not less. There should be room for disagreement over flavored milk (and other things) without resorting to hateful mischaracterizations and threatening speech. We’ve reached a fever pitch in our political discourse and I’m not sure what will bring us back to reality. I’m happy to report that at least one government listening session in these times was respectful. What it accomplishes has yet to be seen.

To-do List for the New USDA

Ethicurean has an excellent checklist for evaluating the new USDA’s first six months:

1. Make the USDA once again the “people’s department” with staff that answer to citizens before corporations.
2. Start supporting diversified, decentralized food systems right now, and stop risking American lives by encouraging all our eggs to be put in one basket (or hamburger in one plant, peanuts in one processor…).
3. Stop using the nation’s kids as a garbage disposal.
4. Give us clear information about where our food comes from and how it was produced.
5. Start protecting us from food gone wrong, and GE crops gone wild.

The post goes in depth on each point and hits so many of the important food issues related to our food system and the USDA’s role. Part II will cover 6-10:

6. Usher in a new era of conservation.
7. Make a firm investment in non-biotech agricultural research – and make sure it stays in the public domain.
8. Help more people become farmers, and help the ones who’ve made that difficult choice succeed.
9. Level the pasture for small farmers and ranchers.
10. Realize where the market has failed and help us weather it.

What’s your checklist for what needs to change about our food system?

Meatpaper

There’s a new food magazine out there and people aren’t quite sure what to make of it. Meatpaper sounds like a fascinating read.

The Washington Post had this to say:

…Meatpaper is not the kind of practical magazine that’s likely to publish a story called “10 Hot New BBQ Tips for Sizzlin’ Summer Cookouts!!” It’s the kind of arty, cheeky, ironic magazine that just published a story called “Sweat Sock: The Other White Meat.”

Meatpaper isn’t really about meat, it’s about “the idea of meat,” the editors explained in the first issue last fall. “Half the people who pick up Meatpaper assume it’s some kind of vegan hate letter addressed to their salami sandwich. The other half wonder if we’re subsidized by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. That’s how we know we’re on to something.”