Digression from Tomatoes

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Tuesday morning, parking and setup for the Rittenhouse Square farmers’ market went unusually smoothly, so I wandered into the Barnes & Noble across the street, contemplating the purchase of a news magazine to read over coffee.  My choice became easy once I noticed that the current issue of The New Yorker is the food issue!

(That morning, the first food-related article I came to was an amusing and tantalizing exploration of Singaporean street food, by Calvin Trillin.  If it’s feasible, I’d recommend buying the issue to read that article; sadly, only the abstract is available online.)

The full text of the article I read yesterday afternoon, however, is available online.  It’s entitled ‘New York Local’, by Adam Gopnik.  Needless to say, I was excited to read this article—localism, the word Gopnik seems to use frequently, is entering the zeitgeist as interpreted by such a venerable magazine as The New Yorker!  In the middle of the article, I texted a friend who is a geography professor, ‘I’m not sure what to think of [the article]’, and after I had a couple hours to ponder it, I think I’m annoyed.  Gopnik writes about his meetings with community chicken carers, rooftop beekeepers, a Central Park forager, and a Brooklyn College fish farmer—all people he encounters in his week-long experiment to eat only food ‘grown or raised within the five boroughs of New York City.’

OK, intriguing experiment.  But…I started to become dubious when Gopnik lists the following reasons he attempted this experiment: 1. to find out if it was possible, 2. to explore localism, and 3. ‘to see if perhaps the implicit anti-urban prejudices lurking in the localist movement could be leached away by some city-bred purposefulness’.  ...Huh?!  Is it just because I’ve become a locavore while living IN the city, taking advantage of co-ops and farmers’ markets and farm shares with other urban residents, that I am oblivious to this anti-urbanism he claims to sense in the movement?  It’s true that he mentions in the paragraph previous that the usual rules of localism allow for a 100-300 mile foodshed, but if the whole article is focused on a five-borough foodshed, will his readers remember that passing mention?  Am I just over-reacting?

He talked about interesting people and exciting projects, but I was a little sad that this article was the only perspective on localism in this issue of The New Yorker, a perspective so different from my own experience as a locavore.  Please do let me know your thoughts!  I know most of the blog entries so far have contained beautiful produce collections or tasty recipes [edited to add: and I love all of them!], but I am also interested in your help to become more conversant in the theory and advantages/objections to eating local.

OK, intriguing experiment.  But…I started to become dubious when Gopnik lists the following reasons he attempted this experiment: 1. to find out if it was possible, 2. to explore localism, and 3. ‘to see if perhaps the implicit anti-urban prejudices lurking in the localist movement could be leached away by some city-bred purposefulness’.  ...Huh?!  Is it just because I’ve become a locavore while living IN the city, taking advantage of co-ops and farmers’ markets and farm shares with other urban residents, that I am oblivious to this anti-urbanism he claims to sense in the movement?  It’s true that he mentions in the paragraph previous that the usual rules of localism allow for a 100-300 mile foodshed, but if the whole article is focused on a five-borough foodshed, will his readers remember that passing mention?  Am I just over-reacting?

He talked about interesting people and exciting projects, but I was a little sad that this article was the only perspective on localism in this issue of The New Yorker, a perspective so different from my own experience as a locavore.  Please do let me know your thoughts!  I know most of the blog entries so far have contained beautiful produce collections or tasty recipes, but I am also interested in your help to become more conversant in the theory and advantages/objections to eating local.

2007 Farm Bill Approved in House Ag Committee

Monday, July 23, 2007

The House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed the 2007 Farm Bill recently.  Like all federal legislation, there are some good things and some bad things.  Without doubt, many Pennsylvania farmers will be affected by the bill if it is approved.

Let’s talk about the bad part first.

• The new Farm Bill will allow farmers to earn an annual gross [net taxable income] of $1 million per year before becoming ineligible for government subsidies. Sadly, this really is a win - in the last farm bill, the cap was $2.5 million.  I don’t know many small farmers coming anywhere close to earning $1 million per year, so this seems primarily to benefit larger, corporate farms.
• The bill removes any cap on loan deficiency payments and increases the cap on direct payments by 50 percent to $120,000.  Many say the result will be higher land prices that lead to farm consolidation, fewer family farmers, and reduced farming opportunities for a new farmers.
• The bill does not fully restore the $4 billion cut to the Conservation Security Program and freezes program sign-ups until 2010.  This is a real shame - the program rewards and encourages environmental stewardship on working land.  A great program has basically been gutted.
• Leaves the big commodity programs intact for cotton, corn, wheat, rice, soybeans and a handful of other crops that are traditionally grown by corporate farms, and even threw in an export subsidy for tobacco.  This increases the rates at which the U.S. supports prices for subsidized crops.

• The bill creates a voluntary crop insurance program providing $1.8 billion to support farmers of fruits and vegetables and some specialty crops.
• $350 million will be given to promote healthy snacks in school, increase the maximum limit in direct subsidies to $60,000 from $40,000.  At least 35 schools in every state will be eligible for the program.
• A loophole that allowed some farmers to collect double on payments through partnerships with multiple farms has been closed.
• Allows for full implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling for meat.  The 2002 Farm Bill also called for such labeling, but the meat packing lobby blocked implementation.  Coincidentally, ground meat might be able to slide by with a label of where it might come from.  Thanks, but I’ll stick to buying meat from one of our awesome local farmers.  At least I really know where it came from!
• Creates an “open fields” grant program to help states pay landowners to open their land to hunting and fishing.
• The Wetlands Reserve Program, which pays for restoring and maintaining sloughs, prairie potholes and other wetlands, was expanded from 2.3 million to 3.6 million acres.
• Authorizes up to $10,000 per farm in cost-share payments per year to help farms convert to organic agriculture, as well as providing additional money for organic research and certification and it requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to start collecting data on organic commodities.
• Creates a special subsidy for malting barley to encourage more farmers to grow the crop.  Woohoo! More beer!  With luck, that will equal more small scale brewers!
• Revives a special subsidy program that will help biodiesel plants cope with the rising price of soybeans and soybean oil.

There’s some noise from President Bush that he might veto the legislation, specifically because of the perks to millionaire farmers [i.e., corporate farms].  Considering President Bush never met a millionaire he didn’t like and supported the $2.5 million cap on subsidies in the last Farm Bill, that’s a little shocking.

Only time will tell what changes might be made to the bill by the time it [and if it does] reaches President Bush’s desk!