Missouri Urban Farming Bill

Some legislation is moving in another Midwest state: Missouri. State Rep. Jason Holsman of Kansas City introduced HB 1848 which had the original intent of creating an Urban Farm Task Force. The Senate made some modifications to the bill, replacing the task force with a joint interim committee of five state senators and five state representatives to consider these aspect of urban agriculture:

(1) Trends in urban farming, including vertical farming, urban farm cooperatives, and sustainable living communities;
(2) Existing services, resources, and capacity for such urban farming;
(3) The impact on communities and populations affected; and
(4) Any needed state legislation, policies, or regulations.

The joint committee will be assisted by the "Urban Farming Advisory Subcommittee" which appears very similar to the original task force proposed in the original version of the bill. Significantly, the bill also includes the coordination of at least three public meetings that gather public input.

The Senate passed the Urban Farming Bill unanimously with these modifications, sending it back to the House for approval. According to Missives From Missouri, Rep. Holsman will support the modified bill, making final passage very likely.

Also from the Missives article, note how an urban farming initiative like this has earned such broad support:

The bill has received support not only from proponents of urban farming, but from large scale commodity farmers, including several members of the General Assembly who are farmers by trade. Expanding agriculture to the urban areas potentially opens up farming as a possible career choice to thousands of Missourians who would otherwise not have been exposed to the science. Supporters believe that many residents who came from farming backgrounds may return to the fields if exposed to agriculture within the cities. "Farming has been a way of life in Missouri for generations," said Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City), the bill's handler in the Senate, "From life sciences, to conservation, to emerging urban agriculture issues; this study celebrates our true Missouri heritage."

That's right, not only do the commodity producers rightly do not feel threatened by this bill, but they support it.

(Just over in Cleveland, they are trying this experiment in urban agriculture: an abandoned mall as greenhouse. Any thoughts on that, Mel Simon?)

Surely, Indiana is ready for some action on the food economy at the state level. Missouri's HB 1848, Illinois's HB 3990, and Georgia's (proposed) HB 842 do not even require any spending. How we eat is at the intersection of our economy, our health, our environment. It's worth at least setting up a few committees to examine ways to improve business-as-usual.

Commodity field and policy

This New York Times article by farmer Minnesota Jack Hedin describes how current ag policy is weightily stacked against the non-commodity grower. Though the article is already two years old, the problems it deals with are current. Note how the commodity program holds its farmers in sway by penalizing them for growing non-commodity crops. It is acceptable for commodity farmers to grow nothing on their "corn base" acres, while as it is an extreme penalty for them to grow anything else.

The commodity farm program effectively forbids farmers who usually grow corn or the other four federally subsidized commodity crops (soybeans, rice, wheat and cotton) from trying fruit and vegetables. Because my watermelons and tomatoes had been planted on “corn base” acres, the Farm Service said, my landlords were out of compliance with the commodity program.

I’ve discovered that typically, a farmer who grows the forbidden fruits and vegetables on corn acreage not only has to give up his subsidy for the year on that acreage, he is also penalized the market value of the illicit crop, and runs the risk that those acres will be permanently ineligible for any subsidies in the future. (The penalties apply only to fruits and vegetables — if the farmer decides to grow another commodity crop, or even nothing at all, there’s no problem.)

(Read the whole article here.)

These policies direct farmers' priorities. It is easy to see the connection between these policies, the crops that are grown, the cheapness of certain food products, the availability of nutritious food, the balance of our diets, and the health of our population. The Midwest is "ground zero" of these phenomena, but the effects are increasingly global.

From this perspective, it is policy that is driving so much of the irrationality in our food system. There is a trend within the local food movement to simply "think globally and act locally": be a gardener, buy local and organic, start a community garden, etc. These are useful and fun initiatives that are changing our urban landscapes for the better.

But the expansive monoculture fields that surround our towns in Indiana and throughout the Midwest are not going to change as a result of a local food movement. The fields are local to no one. Its clients are not you and me, but commodity traders and multinationals. We need new policies that simply puts them out of business, or more likely, directs their efforts into a new business.

Chickens and Georgia Urban Farm Bill

Yes, yes, this blog has fallen into an inadvertent hibernation. That happens with blogs. It's Springtime in the Midwest, so spending stretches of several hours online is less appealing now as it in, say, January. But we haven't stopped working on local food issues.

One story playing out here in Muncie, as it is in many, many perhaps into the hundreds, of municipalities across the country is whether keeping chickens within city limits should be legal. This Washington Post article touches upon several of the issues.

The Georgia House of Representatives is closing in on passing a state level urban farm bill package. HR 842 would "protect the right to grow food crops and raise small animals on private property so long as such crops and animals are used for human consumption by the occupants, gardeners, or raisers and their households and not for commercial purposes" across the state. These protections would preempt the often drawn-out, often sensational and tiresome city council debates over issues like chicken keeping. Enforcement would depend upon local nuisance laws that are already in place. This editorial from the Athens Banner-Herald sums up the bill.

Again, we keep turning back to the question: Why not Indiana?

Local Multiplier Effect

The local multiplier effect, as explained by Yes! Magazine:

The implications for a local food economy are obvious. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that the increasingly problematic energy inputs used by the commodity growers will soon make a more diverse crop acreage for a more local market a more attractive option for these growers.

Case studies in the local multiplier effect are the most convincing data I've seen in favor of the argument for government creating incentives for locally-owned businesses, and food business in particular. As directed by the 2008 Farm Bill, the USDA subsidizes a decidedly non-local commodity agriculture (corn, soy, wheat), driving down the price of food made from these crops, which narrows the growers' profit margins, which inflates the size of the typical acreage.

As an alternative, why not subsidize or at least create a few incentives for growing and distributing crops that result in healthier people and healthier economies? This alternative is increasingly going to be the only possible option. We will have the energy crisis to thank for that. Already, we are seeing the size of the average farm in Indiana is decreasing.

Sure, the more local model of agriculture and food economy is more labor intensive. That is the trade-off: less reliance on oil to grow food, more reliance on human sweat. Of course, this is a welcome trade-off because this means more jobs in rural areas and the potential to revitalize rural economies.

The Tragic Death of HB 1142

It sounds like the Agriculture and Small Business Committee in the Indiana Senate also put a stop to HB 1142, which, as discussed here, had at least a small potential for improving the local food economy in Indiana. Rep. Sandy Blanton, who proposed the bill, may be giving the bill another shot next round.

Hunger and local food in Indiana

Below is an excerpt from the Indiana Senate Democrats' blog. Note the $300,000 appropriation for local food for the hungry.

Tuesday [Feb. 16] was Food Bank Day at the Statehouse, providing legislators and other state officials with an important reminder of the nearly 600,000 Hoosiers who go to bed hungry each night. Advocates and many Senate Democrats hope the event will also help encourage the state to release $300,000 appropriated by the General Assembly to the state’s food banks last year in the state budget.

The appropriation was intended exclusively for Indiana grown and produced products to feed low-income children, adults, and seniors in need throughout the state. Releasing the $300,000 appropriation would mean that Indiana’s food banks could provide more than 1,250,000 additional meals to hungry Hoosiers across the state.

Read the rest here. It seems like it's a non-controversial, bi-partisan measure to appropriate these funds for food banks during this economic crisis. But why is any spending intended for infrastructure that will alleviate hunger and health problems in the long term regarded as a strain on the budget?

Indeed, SB 194, proposed in January in the Indiana Senate by Sen. Errington, contained no spending provisions. The bill was discarded by the Agriculture and Small Business Committee Chairman (Sen. Johnny Nugent), in part, because it could involve spending "down the road."

Where is the discussion of food deserts? Of urban farming? Of Indiana's health rankings?

Meat and Poultry Inspection Budget Cuts

Update on the cuts to the meat inspection program here.

State Senator Sue Errington of Muncie spoke in support of an amendment on Monday that reinstates the requirements of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program under the Indiana Board of Animal Health. Recent budget cuts threatened locally owned state-inspected meat processing facilities as well as an estimated 1,600 jobs in those processing facilities.

The Indiana Senate Dems blog from which this information comes has not been updated to say that Sen. Errington's amendment failed later that same day!

SB 0035, the bill in which her amendment was introduced, contains a huge assortment of provisions, from elimination of "the requirement to submit fingerprints to the horse racing commission every five years" to granting permission to "the board for the deaf school and blind school to prescribe [...] a salary schedule for the school without having to make the daily rate of pay for a teacher equal to that of a teacher at the Indianapolis public schools."

This crazy bill is now heading to the House where perhaps there will be another chance for a legislator to propose an amendment to ameliorate the effects of the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program cuts.

Meanwhile, Gov. Daniels has responded to complaints by saying the cuts won't be as deep as first proposed. It remains to be seen what this vague pronouncement really means.

Health Regulations vs. the Small Producer

Earlier this month, the Chicago Health Department destroyed thousands of dollars worth of food at Kitchen Chicago, a licensed, shared use kitchen. This is a rather heartbreaking example of how unclear and too-strict health department regulations can somehow trump the better sense of the individual inspectors involved. It has been clear to small-time local food producers for a long time that regulatory rules meant to oversee large-scale processing operations are not one-size-fits-all.

Here is an update on that situation.

Local food advocates often cite health regulations as barriers to small-scale food processing and distribution. Unfortunately, reasonable regulations and licensing conceived as safety oversight for high-volume commercial kitchens often work against small-time food producers, even (especially?) those who operate as transparently as possible and follow the rules.

Read this excellent discussion of proposed revision of food safety regulations at the national level in the "Food Safety Modernization Act" and the more sensible, scale-appropriate "Growing Safe Food Act".

Farm to school in Indiana

Seth Slabaugh often writes about farm and food in The Star Press of Muncie. His recent article documents the range of attitudes toward the issue of getting local, fresh food into school lunchrooms. Here are two interesting excerpts:

According to the national Farm to School Network, 8,943 schools are involved in the Farm to School program, but only one in Indiana (Jennings County).
[. . .]
"Farm to School is on the Indiana State Department of Agriculture's radar, but it's just not a priority," said Christina Ferroli, a registered dietitian and a Purdue University extension educator in Marion County. "We have a lot of pieces in place, like Going Local Week and the Junior Master Gardener program. We just need to bring people together and get the ball rolling

Agribusiness and local food advocates in the same room

Check out this AgriNews Online article about Illinois local and organic food advocate Jim Slama's recent appearance at the Perspectives on the Future of Agriculture in the Midwest conference in Chicago. To an audience of ag bankers, officials, and consultants, he promoted investment in development of infrastructure for the local food economy. Jim's argument for developing a local food infrastructure is handled very seriously in the article, even as AgriNews is an outlet for news about conventional agriculture.

(Jim Slama is a member of the Illinois Food, Farms, and Jobs Council and founder of FamilyFarmed.org.)

Another Indiana ag-food bill: HB 1142

Here is an potentially intriguing bill that is making its way through the Indiana General Assembly: HB 1142. Introduced by Rep. Sandy Blanton (D-District 62), this bill establishes a "study committee on agriculture safety and production." One of the responsibilities of this committee is to "study ways of enhancing the purchase by state agencies of agricultural products grown, produced, or processed in Indiana." As AgriNews Online comments, "that could include just about anything." Another of the committee's responsibilities listed is to "administer state programs and laws promoting agricultural trade."

In addition, the bill allows governmental institutions to "give up to a ten percent (10%) price preference for agricultural products grown, produced, or processed in Indiana." Originally, this bill required that the government buy at least 20% of its food from within the state by the year 2015, but amendments removed that proposition.

HB 1142 has already passed a few legislative hurdles and appears to have some potential to create incentives that expand and improve the efficiency of the local food economy. Several questions quickly arise, however:
How will this study committee be organized?
Who will be chosen to participate in it?
Will there be an opportunity for public input (e.g. hearings, surveys)?
Is the working definition of "local farm and food products" too inclusive? (Perhaps we could amend it from "agricultural products grown, produced, or processed in Indiana" to "agricultural products grown, produced AND processed in Indiana.")
How will the priorities of the study committee be determined as it "administer[s] state programs and laws promoting agricultural trade"?

Meat & Poultry Inspection Cut

Governor Mitch Daniels' office announced last week that it has issued a mandate to the Meat and Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP) to reduce its operations by $2 million. To achieve this, the MPIP, administered by the State Board of Animal Health, would have to reduce its activities by at least 50%.

This article from Farm World Online provides a discussion of the issue, and so does this article at Hoosier Ag Today.

A significantly reduced meat inspection staff may change much about Indiana's meat industry. An email from the Indiana Sheep Association to its members urged them to discuss the matter with their legislators. "If you do not sell direct, at a farmers market or restaurant sales, or donate lambs for fairs, roasts or other activities, this may not impact you. But if you do, this may profoundly affect your ability to continue these activities."

The Board of Animal Health released a set of "key points" in response to such concerns. It states that "BOAH will inspect only products that will be entering commerce." It remains to be seen (1) exactly what the acting definition of "entering commerce" is, (2) how seriously the inspectors' schedules are cut, and (3) what the resultants effects will be on local livestock producers, processors, distributors like grocery stores and butchers, restaurants, and consumers. (That covers just about everybody in the state, I think.)

Here is the entire BOAH document:

Indiana’s Meat and Poultry Inspection Program Key Points
1-29-10

If you have questions, feel free to contact the Indiana Meat and Poultry Inspection Program at 317-227-0355.

· Like all state agencies, the Indiana State Board of Animal Health (BOAH) has been affected by lagging state revenues. As a result, in early January, BOAH asked state-inspected meat processing facilities to streamline their slaughter and processing schedules to maximize state inspection resources to meet reduced budget goals.

· After excellent cooperation and much input from the meat processing industry, as well as Hoosier livestock producers, BOAH was able to work with the state budget agency to design a plan to overhaul Indiana’s Meat and Poultry Inspection Program (MPIP) to reduce expenses. Regrettably, the plan will ultimately involve significant MPIP staff lay-offs.

· The modified plan preserves a viable state-inspection program with a high priority on food safety of value-added, locally produced food. While the new plan falls short of the initial 50 percent budget cut goal, MPIP will achieve significant cost savings. Specifics of the plan will be rolled out over the coming weeks.

· To achieve these savings, BOAH will inspect only products that will be entering commerce. Plants owners will have the option to process products under state inspection, as well as custom-exempt status (also known as the Curtis Amendment), in the same facility.

· BOAH recognizes and appreciates the input and cooperation of the state’s meat processors and many industry stakeholders to identify efficiencies that made this plan possible, which will preserve Indiana’s state meat and poultry inspection program.

Denise Derrer
Public Information Director
Indiana State Board of Animal Health
805 Beachway Drive, Ste. 50
Indianapolis, IN 46224-7785
317/227-0308
www.boah.in.gov

Indiana Local & Organic Food & Farm Task Force

does not exist.

But Indiana State Senator Sue Errington (26th District) introduced a bill proposing the idea last week: SB 194. She modeled this bill after the Food, Farms, and Jobs Act passed in Illinois in 2007, which created that state's Local & Organic Food & Farms Task Force. SB 194 was scheduled to be heard by the Small Business and Agriculture Committee of the Indiana Senate on Monday, January 25th. However, Committee Chairman Johnny Nugent (43rd District) denied a vote on it, as is his discretion, aborting any further consideration of it.

The pork producers and the poultry association had expressed their opposition to such legislation, arguing that it favors one kind of product over another.

The Indiana State Department of Agriculture (ISDA), for its part, noted that there are already several state intiatives with priorities similar to SB 194. This will be the subject of future posts, but suffice to say here that the ISDA has recognized that Indiana has a clear, underutilized advantage in producing organic field crops and livestock. Download the "Trends in Specialty Agriculture" section of the ISDA Strategic Plan here to.

The ISDA put forth an alternative bill to replace the original SB 194. Instead of a Task Force, this bill would have required that the ISDA produce a report on the local and organic food system in Indiana, including recommendations for improvements. To our knowledge, even this amendment was not seriously considered by the committee.

Rest In Peace, SB 194, we hardly knew ye.


The Case for Food Policy Councils

Q:
So why is it so great that Illinois achieved legislation that institutionalizes a Food, Farms, and Jobs Council? Why should Indiana have such an organization?

A:
Because the world energy crisis is quickly increasing the costs of mass agriculture, we need to plan for a new, more reasonable system. Local, State, National and World governments are organizations through which long range planning can be achieved with stakeholder input. In this case, the stakeholders are anyone who eats. And that's everybody.

More A:
Quoting from this recent report from the Food First Institute for Food & Development Policy:

This [Food Policy Council] model is in many ways still in its infancy, but the model itself, based on our literature review and interview data, shows five key potentials:
• Potential to address public health through improving food access, addressing hunger and food insecurity, and improving the quality of available food
• Potential to affect national and state level policy debates
• Potential to connect multiple sectors that wouldn't otherwise work together
• Potential to bring local food policy into mainstream politics
• Potential to boost local economies and combat poverty

All of these key potentials lead to one central idea – that Food Policy Councils have the potential to democratize the food system. The failings of our current food system are largely suffered in neighborhoods and constituencies with little political or economic voice. Food Policy Councils can amplify the voices of underserved communities that have traditionally had limited access to power. The Detroit Food Policy Council for example, made addressing the underlying racial and economic disparities in food access, retail ownership, food sector jobs and control over food- producing resources a cornerstone of their policy platform – explicitly attacking structural racism inherent in the food system and creating space for greater economic democracy and food justice.

Why Not Indiana?

To start off, let's take a look at recent food policy legislation passed in Illinois.

Illinois Food, Farms, and Jobs

Last August the Illinois governor Pat Quinn signed the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Act of 2009. This is a piece of legislation that seeks to improve the state's economy by improving its food systems. Here's what it does:
1- creates the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Council, a new agency (fiscally independent from state government) that promotes and facilitates the sale of Illinois-grown food in local markets;
2- working with the Council, state-owned cafeterias set the goal of buying 20%, and any state-funded institutions set the goal of buying 10%, of their food from within the state by 2020. That includes such institutions as public universities, mental health facilities, correctional facilities, etc. (Currently this figure is around 5% for Illinois.);
3- creates and implements of an “Illinois product” labeling system, administered by the Local Food, Farms, and Jobs Council.
Read it for yourself.

This legislation was based on recommendations made by the Illinois Local and Organic Food and Farm Task Force which was created in 2007 through the Food, Farms and Jobs Act of 2007. Their illuminating and thorough report can downloaded here. Recommended reading!

Years of pressure by grassroots groups on government officials in Illinois made this happen. In fact, Illinois's state legislators passed this legislation unanimously (excepting one single state senator). Imagine!

Wouldn't Indiana benefit from having such a council? The accelerating interests here in eating locally, farmers' markets, CSAs, cooperatives, community gardens, and organics show that Indiana is actively changing its food landscape even if policy lags far behind.