New Rules for Fresh Picked Produce

The Food and Drug Administration has announced that by the end of 2010, the Agency will issue a proposed rule to establish safety standards for the production and packing of fresh produce.

The ultimate purpose for such standards is a goal we all share: to reduce the risk of illness associated with fresh produce.

The usual process is for FDA to issue a proposed rule and then take comments. But this time, we want to go one step further – we want to actively engage our stakeholders while we’re still in the development phase of such a rule.

That’s why we have opened a docket (Federal Register notice location: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-3409.pdf ) to receive information before a proposed rule is written. Doing it this way will help us develop the scope of the rule to reflect the realities of production and packing in produce operations.

The discussion on this complex and diverse segment of our food supply needs to be fueled and informed by the expertise and on-the-ground knowledge of those who grow, harvest and pack fresh produce.

That’s why we need to hear from you. We urge you and your colleagues to think about and submit comments to us under this docket over the next 90 days.

In addition, we hope you will “spread the word” to groups throughout your area of the country and areas of expertise -- so that all sectors that may be affected by the rulemaking to come will know about this opportunity to get their views heard and will take advantage of it.

Below are some tips on how to submit comments through Regulations.gov. You can also submit comments by mail.

Electronically, at www.Regulations.gov

The multi-agency Web site, Regulations.gov serves as a clearinghouse for materials related to FDA rulemaking and is FDA’s official on-line comment system.

The easiest way to get to the docket is to enter the docket number.

On the Regulations.gov home page, enter the following in the “Keyword” field:

FDA-2010-N-0085

This will take you directly to the docket, “Preventive Controls for Fresh Produce: Request for Comments”

In the far right of the screen under Actions, click on “Submit a Comment”
A page will come up asking for some information about you or your organization.

You can then type your comment directly into the field provided and/or you can attach any related documents to your comment.

Press “Submit”.
You will be able to view your comment and comments others have submitted.

Support your local food network..

I do not believe there are too many farmers markets. If we focus on the next door neighboring farmers market as the enemy we waste our energies and shoot ourselves in the foot.

The real problem is that there are first, two few customers shopping at those markets; and second, too few growers selling at those markets.

The obesity and diabetes pandemic are two gigantic reasons why communities are desperate for farmers markets. Farmers markets provide a "consumer safe food shopping environment" for purchasing food for the home that effectively "cure" that pandemic.

Farmers Markets and field/garden to table food delivery systems are the answer to America's Health Crisis. And we need to embrace policy changes to focus on that answer.

Internally, in our own farmers market rules and regulations, we need to be encouraging our whole plant foods growers to aggressively call attention to the nutritional and health benefits of the foods they grow and sell. That is a small market policy change - in the right direction.

Now here is an example of a grander public policy I believe needs to be changed. It is in the handling of EBT Food Stamps at farmers markets.

Because of the hassle - currently - my tiny markets are the only markets within a hundred miles that is currently enabled to accept EBT (we do nonprofit nutrition outreach). Currently each farmers market in California that wants to be enabled to accept EBT SNAP cards must design and get approval for its own "script". I use wooden tokens at my two small markets. The cards are swiped for as many dollars as the customer desires, and then receives that amount of tokens to spend on food items at the market. At the end of the market the farmers come to me with their tokens and I write a check to them for the amount.

But I can not currently enter into a collaborative agreement with a seasonal Tuesday market sponsored by a Community Hospital. They must set up their own.

Furthermore - it is not possible for a city or county or even state unit of government to set up an optional "contracted out" collaborative system to handle all EBT transactions at all farmers markets within their boundaries. The EBT system requirements currently in place are like requiring that the bathrooms all be porta-potties -and they must be constructed, serviced and maintained by the farmers market manager themselves - rather than contracted out to a company that takes care of that for them.

There is much being made of the EBT outreach projects and grant funding for farmers market promotions. But it would cost as much for me and my tiny markets to get the word out that on Thursdays from 11 AM to 3 PM at the corner of C and Myers Street there is a farmers market that will accept EBT SNAP cards

- as it would be to announce that all 12 farmers markets throughout the county are now able to accept them.

And a county wide outreach program - I am convinced - would bring more NEW! customers to my market than the same amount of focus and effort expended exclusively on my two little markets. And the thing is - there is significant economic reason why a county might want to set up such a system.
(See http://www.chicosol.org/ENGLISH/F005_en_02_15_2010/FoodStamps_en.htm)

This is one of many policies that can be changed - and quickly - if we just ask for it - and enter into health outreach collaborations with our neighbors.

Richard H. Roth
richard@digitido.com

ph:(530)895-1672

Agribusiness and the Fall of Rome

Written by John Moody

2009-Apr-03

Ancient Wisdom for Modern Nations The horses’ feet clop upon the stone road as the carriage rocks along, the sound of conversation echoing from its confines out into the quiet countryside. It is 140 BC. The Roman nation is nearing the apex of its affluence and power. Death, discouragement and defeat during a brutal series of wars are now a distant memory. Conquest has brought wealth, luxury and ease to the once hard-pressed Roman people, especially the politicians and businessmen, transforming the nation from an agrarian to a commercial society. Two brothers, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, are traveling together through the Roman countryside on their way to the capital, talking and taking in the mild Italian spring. They see many things as they travel along the Via Apia— great Roman edifices and aqueducts, passing groups of Roman soldiers patrolling the roads, couriers carrying messages to and from distant cities, and rolling expanses of Italian land, fertile and inviting… yet seemingly empty of Romans. Derelict homes dot the landscape, punctuated by the occasional massive mansion surrounded by far less lavish, barracks-style buildings, housing for the slave gangs captured in wars with Spain, Africa and other nations. The slaves mill about the estates, planting and picking, but few Roman citizens are to be found. At most, Tiberius and Gaius glimpse an occasional Roman supervisor, a servant of some senator or patrician who has taken up residence and ownership of the vast Roman countryside. A dark quiet falls upon their chariot ride towards Rome. When Tiberius and Gaius reach the capital, they find the missing Romans. Hundreds upon hundreds of Romans—landless, purposeless and unemployed. As they make their way through the city, the brothers see their fellow citizens hanging around taverns and bars, drinking and gambling, waiting dejectedly in the government-provided breadlines, or picking fights with Roman soldiers in the streets. The once productive and self-sufficient farmers or workers in small local communities are now displaced and draining the resources and vitality out of the cities and country. What they witness concerns and disturbs them. Small farmers are the backbone of the Roman nation, without which it stands little chance of survival as a free republic. In peace and war, more than any other factor, their love of land and country has been the determining factor in the nation’s survival. What then is driving them from their homes and farms, from their vocations and communities?1 Ancient and Modern Nations Meet The similarities between Rome right before its fall into dictatorship and modern America are striking and disturbing—debt, political gridlock, breakdown of the family, inability to deal with external and internal problems—to mention just a few. For us, the particular issue at hand is how the rise of ancient agribusiness, known as latifundia, from latus, “spacious,” and fundus, “farm or estate,” and the loss of the yeoman (that is, small) farmer contributed to the nation’s decline into internal disarray and eventual dictatorship. For centuries, the yeoman farmers served as the backbone of the Roman economy, morality and military. They sustained the nation’s people with food through hard work and wise husbandry, steadied the populace with their virtue and morals, and supplied the army with distinguished and dedicated soldiers who kept the nation secure from internal and external threats. Following the wars with Carthage and the subsequent wealth it brought to certain Romans, more and more of Rome’s land was turned into these latifundia, the forerunner in many ways to modern, industrial farms both here and abroad. Wealthy senators or their patrician friends owned these large farms, which were worked by slave gangs. The owners often exerted considerable power in and over the Roman political system, manipulating and at times even paralyzing the senate and government from dealing with the nation’s problems. The small yeoman farms and their workers could not compete against the slave gangs of the latifundia and were forced to abandon their homes and property to seek employment in the cities, decimating the small, rural communities that once filled the Italian countryside. The loss of the small farms resulted in more and more people flowing into the already crowded cities. These rootless newcomers helped drive up unemployment, crime, vice and the need for government handouts, all of which further strained the nation’s resources and finances during a time of mounting external and economic pressures. As people left the countryside, more and more land became available for the latifundia to acquire creating a terrible cycle of low commodity prices forcing population displacement, followed by urban overcrowding and decay, and finally to even greater burdens on the Roman cities and government. Rome went from a nation of many small, independent, and self-sufficient landowners to a nation controlled by a few rich and powerful “landlords,” with large portions of the population trapped in government-supported poverty or latifundia slavery. Two young men, the Gracchi brothers, sought to check the growth of the latifundia and restore the yeoman farmers. The older brother, Tiberius Gracchus, became a tribune of the plebs in 133 BC (see below). 2 Circumventing the senate, he brought directly to the people legislation to restore public lands—lands that were often illegally owned or occupied by senators and wealthy businessmen—to the poor, landless Roman citizens. While the people overwhelmingly supported and passed his measure, the senate blocked the financing needed to carry out the mandates of the bill. Tiberius again bypassed the senate, funneling the bequest of the king of Pergamum to provide the needed financing for his reforms. When he sought reelection as tribune his adversaries, under the pretext that he was seeking to become king, incited a mob to kill him and many of his supporters. Gaius Gracchus was not deterred by his brother’s demise. However, he decided that only a dictator could remedy the political gridlock and powerful special interests that now controlled the Roman government. Having learned from his brother’s mistakes, he first sought to gain broader popular support among Rome’s other classes for his reforms, to counteract the strength of the senate and special interests, by securing land for small farmers, courting the special interests with favorable laws, providing food and clothing for the poor and offering citizenship to Rome’s allies. His efforts were not enough and he found himself a tool of the very groups he had hoped to bend to his own purposes. After Gaius failed to gain reelection to the office of tribune for a third term, and thus finding himself at the mercy of his numerous enemies, some of his followers began to riot. The Roman senate authorized the consul Opimius to do whatever was needed to quell the disturbance. Opimius mobilized the Roman army to put down the mob, killing thousands of Gaius’ supporters. Gaius himself narrowly escaped and was chased through the city by his enemies. He eventually reached the Grove of the Furies, where he was killed by his servant, beheaded by Septimuleius, and his body was subsequently thrown into the Tiber River to join his brother’s.3 Within one hundred years of the deaths of the Gracchi brothers, the Roman Republic would become the Roman Empire under Octavian Augustus Caesar and the people’s ability to govern themselves would be irrevocably lost. The political gridlock fueled by the wealthy and powerful special interests coupled with the apathy of the general population would create an open door for a dictator—in the name of the people and the common good—to gain complete control over the whole nation. Two Thousand Years Later America was a nation built upon and around small farming communities, though not without some debate among the founders. After the industrial revolution and World War II, small American farms found themselves in an all too Roman-like situation, but only far worse. Over the next sixty years, everything from the slave labor wages and working conditions of industrial farms and factories to overseas imports from places like China, Mexico, and elsewhere, (where rules, regulations and requirements for fair wages, decent working conditions and pollution are minimal to non-existent), would drive out the small, local, American farms. Moreover, agribusiness had evolved, moving beyond mere slave labor to a vast array of chemical and biological weapons and expensive but powerful fossil fuel-guzzling machines, furthering their competitive advantages against the small farmer. A government policy of “get big or get out” would help galvanize a nation seemingly bent on the loss and destruction of its lifeblood under the guise of improvement and progress. Today, powerful and well-funded agribusiness uses its political clout to manipulate politicians and public perception, all while seeking greater power over the global food system. Industrial farming practices, where the true costs are externalized on uninformed and ignorant consumers, give the appearance of low prices. none of the real costs—polluted land, poisoned water, air barely breathable, horrifically abused animals, the scourge of modern diseases and physical degeneration—appear on agribusiness accounting ledgers. Migrant or illegal workers have replaced the Roman slave gangs with little improvement in compensation or working conditions. CAFOs, vast monocultures of genetically modified corn and soy, and a host of other abominable farming and food production practices have replaced the old Roman slave barracks and store houses. Even worse, the companies that employ such practices are sometimes able to secure immunity from the most basic of environmental laws and traditional taxes in the name of economic development and progress. How such atrocities against planet and people can be called development and progress boggles the mind. We now find our nation’s economy in disarray, our cities riddled with crime and disease, while our countryside has been abandoned to either neglect or abuse by chemical and machine intensive monoculture farms, concentration camp-like confinement farming facilities, or wealthy resort-like castles, where tens to hundreds of acres of Roundup-manicured grass are mowed rather than mooed year after year, wasting valuable agricultural space and fossil fuels for the sake of a select few. World hunger skyrockets in the face of rising commodity prices fueled by an economic system hooked on grain and gas like a drug addict on crack. But our industrial agricultural appetites have begun to catch up with us. Our industrial agricultural practices have contributed to the obesity and modern illnesses of the developed nations and to the starvation and oppression of the developing nations.4 The planet and its people are the victims of this vile process, while purpoted solutions that benefit only the problem makers—agribusiness and its sinister cohorts of GMOs, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, NAIS and other “food safety” regulations and measures that militate against small farmers and wholesome and healthy products like real milk—are pushed through, often without the knowledge or consent of the nation’s people.5 Agribusiness is a symptom of a sick and sickly society. It is like a chronic infection or cancer that must be dealt with before a person can ever hope to return to vibrant health. It is now time to deal with the problem here in America and abroad and it begins, not with a call for dictatorship or radical social upheaval and revolt, but with each of us buying locally, helping pass legislation that benefits and protects our nation’s small farmers, and educating others to do the same. When we encourage people to buy local and regional real foods and grass based animal products raised by real people who receive just wages in exchange for their work and stewardship of the land, we are not only encouraging them to protect and contribute to their own health and the vibrant health of their children, we are encouraging them to protect and contribute to the health of our nation and the health of the entire world. We are asking them to take tangible, sustainable steps to reduce poverty, pollution, economic injustice and world hunger. We are asking them to help heal some of the sickness of our society. We don’t need a dictator to undo the damaging effects of agribusiness in our nation and world. We do need tens of thousands of average citizens like the Gracchi, citizens willing to make sacrifices for the sake of our nation’s small farmers and others. 6 Personal, family, community and national health start with our decision to buy local and put nutrient-dense real food on our dinner plates. Let each of us choose wisely and encourage others to do the same. SIDEBARS The Office of Tribune The office of tribune was established to protect the rights of the plebeians against the patricians and thus to provide a check against the powers of the primarily patrician Roman senate. Ten tribunes were elected each year and they were sacrosanct (that is, protected from harm) during their term. By custom, they were only allowed to serve as tribune for a single one year-term. The tribune occupied a potentially powerful role in the Roman political system. For instance, through the power of veto, a tribune could bring the entire government to a complete halt and override the decision of any other magistrate. He could lay legislation directly before the people, bypassing the senate. Unfortunately, few tribunes during the waning of the republic used their power to protect the liberty of the people, often using the office instead as a mere stepping-stone to greater power, influence and wealth on their way up the cursus honorum, the Roman political ladder. The Wisdom of Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, was a staunch defender of small farmers, broad based democracy, agrarianism, and limited government in his debates with more industrial minded, aristocratic, bureaucratic men, such as Alexander Hamilton. His words, penned hundreds of years ago, are even more pertinent and poignant today. Agriculture... is our wisest pursuit, because it will in the end contribute most to real wealth, good morals and happiness. --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1787. ME 6:277 Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country and wedded to its liberty and interests by the most lasting bonds. As long, therefore, as they can find employment in this line, I would not convert them into mariners, artisans, or anything else. --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1785. ME 5:94, Papers 8:426 The United States... will be more virtuous, more free and more happy employed in agriculture than as carriers or manufacturers. It is a truth, and a precious one for them, if they could be persuaded of it. --Thomas Jefferson to M. de Warville, 1786. ME 5:402 The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent. . . To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations . . . The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. . . The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman’s farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816 REFERENCES Primary Source: Plutarch, Lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, translated by John Dryden. Secondary Source: Rufus Fears, Famous Romans, The Great Courses. The Teaching Company, 2001. The above introduction is a fictional story, yet rooted in the general historical situation and circumstances of the Roman nation in the 150’s-120’s BC, created to help the reader gain a general feel for the characters and context of the article as a whole. It is important to note that patrician and plebeian did not necessarily mean rich and poor, powerful and powerless, though in general the plebeians were the lower, poorer classes while the patricians were the upper, wealthier classes in Roman society. Some plebeian families enjoyed great wealth and influence, while some patrician families over time fell into poverty and obscurity. For this material and much of the historical material throughout this article, I am indebted to Dr. Rufus Fears and Dr. Bob Luginbill. The historical knowledge was their gift to others and me; the synthesis of that knowledge is my gift to them and others. Dr. Fears’ general summary of an ancient principle, which still applies to America, is that “A balanced constitution and civic virtue would bring with it success (empire) which would bring wealth and contact with foreigners, and undermine civic virtue, the foundation of liberty,” Famous Romans, The Great Courses. The Teaching Company, 2001. For a researcher who shares this same general viewpoint, see Raj Patel, Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System. For more general information related to industrial agriculture, see Richard Manning’s book, Going Against the Grain and “The Oil We Eat,” Harper’s Magazine. Accessed April 21st, 2008 http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/02/0079915. This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Summer 2008. About the Author John Moody is the founder of Whole Life, a buying club in Kentucky that carries local WAPF-friendly food and ecologically sensible products. He has helped start or train multiple other buying clubs around the country, along with writing, researching and speaking for various journals and events in his region. He and his wife Jessica will be serving their many flavors of continuous kombucha at the Wise Traditions 2009 soda bar.

In San Diego, fertile ground for the seeds of understanding

At the New Roots Community Farm, refugees plow and share -- and watch friendships sprout. It's not just a source of food, but a connection to their homelands, their new country and one another.

Bilali Muya,a refugee from Somalia, digs into his plot of ground at the New Roots Community Farm in the City Heights neighborhood of San Diego. The garden opened in September and has become a haven for more than 80 immigrant and refugee farmers who now have a source of food -- and a connection to their homelands, their new country and one another. (Don Bartletti / Los Angeles Time

By Anna Gorman

January 15, 2010

Reporting from San Diego - A slight breeze carried the scents of onion, cilantro and mint through the roadside garden.

At plot No. 17, Bob Ou picked up a well-worn can and watered rows of radishes and Asian lettuce. At plot No. 33, Bilali Muya crouched down to pull weeds from beds of carrots and sweet chard. He spotted a bright red tomato in a nearby plant, grabbed it and took a bite.

"Your tomatoes are so huge," Ou said, warning that he might steal one when he walked by.

Muya laughed as he licked the juice off his fingers. "Don't touch my tomatoes, buddy!"

The two men, who have come from two war-torn corners of the world to this piece of land, call each other brothers. Strangers when the land was still just dirt, Ou and Muya grew close as they fought for permission to open the community garden and help turn the barren soil into a thriving farm. The New Roots Community Farm opened in September and has become a haven for more than 80 immigrant and refugee farmers who now have a source of food and a connection to their homelands, their new country and one another.

The story of the friendship between Ou and Muya is like the garden itself -- slow to start, but once the seeds were planted, it was as if it had always been there. In some ways, the vegetables guided the way.

The garden was born out of conversations between a group of Somali Bantus and a refugee aid group, International Rescue Committee.

The refugees wanted to grow their own food. In America, budgets were tight and grocery stores overwhelming, so many of them abandoned fresh fruit and vegetables and instead ate fast food. The nonprofit staff, seeing high blood pressure and cholesterol among many refugees, wanted a way to encourage healthier eating and help clients put down roots in urban San Diego.

In 2006, the agency's staff identified a location for the garden: a 2.3-acre vacant lot at 54th Street and Chollas Avenue in the City Heights neighborhood. They reached out to other immigrant groups, including the Cambodians, who had settled in large numbers in San Diego in the 1980s, said Amy Lint, a community development coordinator with the nonprofit. The land was owned by the city, so Lint had to get a lease and a permit, a process that would stretch out for more than two years.

During the process, Ou, from Cambodia, and Muya, from Somalia, raised funds, met with city officials and organized their communities. When they first saw each other at a meeting, Ou said he was curious about Muya but felt nervous about talking to him. Muya said he, too, was reluctant to get to know Ou but admired him for speaking up on behalf of his community.

Last spring, the nonprofit finally got access to the land. At the garden, Ou and Muya finally introduced themselves. Working side by side, the men helped build a fence and lay irrigation pipes. One day shortly thereafter, Ou noticed Muya and some other Somali men playing a dice game in a bamboo shade hut at the garden. He wandered over and asked about it. "This opened a conversation," Muya said.

Over the next few months, the men began to open up at the garden. They talked about the violence in their homelands and the poverty of refugee camps, about adjustment to life in America and raising a family in a foreign place.

"Each day we talked, we got a little closer," Ou said. "Our friendship got stronger."

Muya added, "And the trust grew."

Ou, 43, escaped the Khmer Rouge in 1979 after his aunt and uncle were killed. He and his parents fled to Thailand, where they lived in a guarded refugee camp without enough food. In 1985, the family left for the Philippines and then the U.S.

"Our lives were turned upside down," Ou said. "It was like surviving death. It was another world for us."

Soon after arriving in Louisiana, he joined the Navy and was transferred to a base in San Diego. Ou, who speaks with a Southern accent and calls himself a clown, fell in love with the area and stayed, getting a job as a machine shop operator. Soon he began a family and now has two sons.

Muya, born without a birth certificate, does not know his age. As a member of the ethnic minority, he and his family faced constant persecution from the dominant Somalis. Finally, Muya fled, walking for days before arriving in Kenya in 1992.

"I had to find somewhere with security, peace, food and shelter," he said. He spent time in refugee camps and on the streets in Nairobi before finally coming to the U.S. as a refugee in 2003. Here, Muya joined the Urban Corps of San Diego County, which helps young people get education and job training. Now, he works part time for the International Rescue Committee, is married and has four children.

In June, Ou and Muya both thrust shovels into the ground, tilled the soil and planted their first seeds. Cooperation was critical. At the beginning, there were only two hoses. Muya said he was worried that there would be conflict among different ethnic groups. But with broken English, makeshift sign language and cooperation, the farmers made it work.

"Seeing these people integrating is amazing," said Muya, who is quick to smile and switches with ease between English and his native Kizigua. "We all started to share like brothers and sisters."

After the initial planting, the two men came to the site every day -- sometimes twice a day -- to see if the plants had sprouted.

Soon, they became curious about unfamiliar crops in each other's plots. Ou gave Muya some Asian lettuce and Muya gave Ou some African beans. They shared recipes.

They encouraged others to do the same. "When me and Bilali became friends, everyone started talking," Ou said. "People weren't afraid of each other anymore."

They became a source of support for each other. One afternoon, Ou noticed Muya pacing and mumbling to himself. Ou realized Muya felt overwhelmed by the piles of discarded weeds and crops, so he offered to help. . "It felt like I had a partner," Muya said.

Through their conversations, Ou and Muya realized they shared the same struggles in the past -- and the same goals for the future. Not only do they want their children to live a better life, they also want the culture of their homelands to continue on. Farming was a big part of that.

"New Roots gave me the opportunity to show my children this is where I came from," Muya said.

Now, Ou and Muya often spend afternoons gardening and chatting as their children play together nearby. Their numbers are on speed dial on each other's phones.

Lint said she relies on both men to get the word out about coming events and to promote cooperation.

"Bilali and Bob are breaking down barriers," Lint said. "This is the beginning . . . Through this garden, through these relationships, people start to see they have a lot in common."

On a chain-link fence surrounding the garden, the wire is painted and bent into the words "New Roots Community Farm." Colorful charms -- made from recycled cans and modeled after Somali tapestries -- hang like wind chimes above the words.

Inside, a wood-chip path meanders through the plots, marked with small hand-painted wooden posts bearing numbers and farmers' last names: Chavez, Marroquin, Maw Ni, Haji, Anaya. Hoses are coiled around sticks and greenhouses and stalks of corn rise above rows of bok choy, basil, lemon grass, cabbage, amaranth and onions.

One warm Sunday afternoon this month, the area was teeming with gardeners. They had come together for a ceremony sponsored by a local group to honor organizations working to improve nutrition and health in City Heights. Presenter Jennifer Chandler said New Roots was "a vision long before it was a reality."

"The people behind New Roots . . . were persistent in advocating for their right to grow their own food," she said. "After receiving the permits, it took only a few short months to transform it into the oasis it is today."

She called on the different ethnic groups, including the Cambodians and the Somalis. As Muya walked to the front to accept a certificate and pose for a picture, the loudest cheers and applause came from Ou. "You sit in the front, Mr. Leader. Smile!"

Both men said the farm has changed their lives. "This is a piece of homeland for me," said Ou, who has had relatives send him seeds from Cambodia.

"My children used to say, 'I need hamburgers and pizza,' " Muya said. "Now they say, 'When can you go to the garden and pick some crops?' "

The farm hasn't solved all of their problems, however. Muya still depends on public assistance and food stamps to help feed his wife and children. Ou has seen his hours cut at work, and some months he struggles to pay his bills.

Recognizing that many of the refugees cannot find work, Lint said she is trying to figure out a way for them to earn money selling crops at farmers markets and restaurants.

Just before Christmas, Ou and Muya went with Lint and other farmers to talk to Jay Porter, owner of The Linkery restaurant. Porter had bought 10 pounds of lemon grass from Ou's wife the previous day and was offering it in a dish that night: Thai chicken and coconut soup with wild Mexican octopus, lemon grass, jalapeño, Thai basil and cilantro.

The group, from Burma, Mexico, Cambodia and Somalia, listened intently to Porter, though many spoke little or no English. Muya and Ou stood at the front and translated.

Porter explained that the restaurant buys all of its produce locally and that he wants vegetables that represent different cultures.

"We want people to experience what is meaningful about living in San Diego," he said. "I know people really like eating food with a story."

Ou invited Porter to come to the farm and sample the crops.

Porter accepted, saying: "The food you are growing is going to be amazing. . . . All we have to do is learn how to cook it."

Later, back at the garden, Muya tasted some of Ou's lettuce and said he wanted a homemade Cambodian salad for dinner. "What magic did you do to your garden?" Muya said.

Already, the farmers have held two potlucks at the farm, with each family bringing food prepared with vegetables from the garden. At the first one, Ou shared a vegetable stew and Muya cooked sambusas, or meat cakes.

"They say food is the universal language," Ou said. "Now I believe it."

As the sky darkened, Ou and Muya packed up and headed home, vegetables in hand.

anna.gorman@latimes.com

Local Foods - A Guide for Investors & Philanthropists

by Amy Dickie

Enthusiasm and demand for locally grown food has increased tremendously in recent years. The rapid growth of farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture farms, and top selling books on local food and farming systems are strong indicators of this rising demand. As both an emergent industry and an important social and environmental movement, local food systems are beginning to catch the attention of profit-seeking and philanthropic investors alike, as well as existing food businesses considering greater participation in this sector.

Given how quickly the local food movement is developing, it can be challenging to characterize the state of the industry. California Environmental Associates (CEA) has assembled the following analysis of the local food supply chain, in the hopes of distilling the opportunities we see for investors with discrete goals.

This paper outlines the opportunities in each of the major steps along the food supply chain: production, processing, distribution & aggregation, sales & marketing, and retail. Table 2 provides a summary. The analysis is informed heavily by three local food economy assessments (in Vermont, New Orleans and Wisconsin) which CEA conducted on behalf of Slow Money. It has also been informed by past engagements with investors and intermediaries working across the food chain with a broad range of objectives (e.g. the Walton Family Foundation, Roots of Change Fund, California Fisheries Fund, and the Sea Change Investment Fund).

Note: California Environmental Associates is not a financial advisor. The material contained in this paper should not be considered financial advice.

Overview

Local food markets are booming across the U.S. Farmers’ markets have nearly tripled since the mid-1990s, growing from 1,755 in 1994 to 4,685 in 2008, and this growth rate doubtless understates the rise in aggregate gross sales at these markets.¹ Community supported agriculture farms (CSAs) have grown from one in 1986 to an estimated 600 in 1996 to over 4,000 in 2007^.2 A few regions in the country are poised to begin filling wholesale supply chains with locally grown food, offering grocery stores, food service providers, and restaurants a reliable supply of local product, and potentially converting a significant share of household food expenditures from conventional to local foods.

Simultaneously, a wide number of stakeholders have realized that the growing financial toll attributable to unsustainable environmental practices in large-scale monoculture systems is too onerous to bear. Top soil stores depleted from erosion and over-fertilization, waterways contaminated from pesticide and fertilizer run-off, and crops that are losing natural disease resistance due to decreasing wildlife habitat and biodiversity in farm environments are increasingly adding real costs to our agricultural sector. Additionally, current agricultural practices contribute significantly to our country’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions profile. In the U.S., the agricultural sector is responsible for 6% of GHG emissions, primarily from soil and manure management. An additional 17% of U.S. emissions come from land use, land use change, and deforestation.³ These carbon inventories
do not include the energy used by farm equipment or in transporting the average American meal 1,500 miles from field to plate.⁴

Advocates of local foods see a number of social and environmental benefits to small-scale, diversified food systems including: improved habitat health (soil, air, waterways, and wildlife), enhanced viability of family farming and rural communities, and biological and economic diversity and resiliency. That said, “local” does not necessarily equate to “sustainable.” For example, there are many sustainable food systems that are not
geographically limited in their markets (e.g. Alaska’s wild salmon fishery), and there are many farms selling to local markets that are not committed to sustainable practices. Sustainable food production explicitly calls for long term stewardship of environmental, financial, and human resources. Though local food production does not explicitly embrace the sustainability mandate, it is often broadly aligned, and for purposes of this paper, we have assumed such general alignment.

Even though consumer interest in local foods is growing, the field is still in its infancy, and has yet to reach the radar screens of most philanthropic and profit-seeking investors. As such, this paper will focus explicitly on growth and investment opportunities in local foods. As the local foods sector grows, it will offer fertile ground for both philanthropic and profit-seeking investors, who will likely find opportunities across the supply chains of a range of food sectors in regional markets around the country. One entry point is Slow Money, a rapidly growing network of investors and entrepreneurs seeking to catalyze investments into local food enterprises around the country.

Some investors will see local foods primarily as an important environmental and social movement and ask, “What needs to be done to enhance the local food system and secure its benefits for the greater good?” Others will see it as an emerging industry and ask, “How can I participate in the growth of the local food economy in order to achieve compelling financial returns?” We believe strongly that there is room for investors across this wide spectrum to play a collaborative and constructive role, and this paper attempts to distill the opportunities we see for investors with discrete investment goals.

Dear Little Muddy Farm Fan ,

It seems like yesterday that we were just finishing cleaning up the fields for winter, and now here it is...time to get some seeds started for the 2010 season! It may be freezing here in Missouri, but we can't wait to feel the dirt in our hands and imagine that it's spring. Peppers are first on our list. If you love hot and sweet peppers like we do, you won't want to miss Saturday at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=222813449785
Our winter Farmer's Market. Talk with me about tips on how to get those peppers off to the best possible start. "In the winter time", We Like it Hot".

If like so many people these days, your family is watching every penny, you will also want to take a look at our 25 cent herbal specials (if you don't remind me, I might forget, pray that I drink more blue berrry juice, if I remember right, it helps with memory-did I spell that write. We started selling seeds last year to help people plant an affordable garden, and they were such a huge hit we brought them back for this year. The varieties are abundant, and they are full-size, 2010 packs. The varieties offered will change each month. "Don't tell Monsanto !".

We will also be spotlighting one variety of tomato in each week, to help you learn the history behind it and show why heirloom varieties are so special! We are starting off with one of our personal favorites, "Traveling Man", named after Shiloh's Dad. You can learn all about this outstanding heirloom variety next Saturday. Don't tell Popper, "MOM".

Bachelor Buttons

We hope you are as excited about this growing season as we are! We had an unsurpassed year last year and were able to grow out over "a lot" of new varieties of heirloom tomatoes and peppers to add to our 2010 seed offerings! Now we are again getting started with even more great varieties to add to our ever-expanding list (no labels just great Missouri tomato & other seeds).

For a complete listing of all our 2010 varieties, please e-mail me at misterjones@kc.rr.com

Thank you for your support and best of luck with all of your gardening efforts this coming season!!

Regards,
me

The Seed Monopolies: The warning signs were there

Jan 20th, 2010

By: S.D. Fields (C) copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved

” Essentially the same thing is happening in agriculture that happened in 1913 with the Federal Reserve. Thomas Jefferson gave us a stark warning during his era….”The central banks & the corporations that grow up around them are more dangerous than any standing army”.
I’ve got a new company slogan for Monsanto…………

“PROFESSIONAL THIEVES & LIARS”

The warning signs have been around for years, so have the predictions. When I was a kid I remember a conversation between my dad and two neighbors. It was spring planting season during the mid 1970’s and we were standing along the road visiting. The focus of these men was the PVPA label on the bags of soybean seed. One remarked “You wait, one of these days those bastards will end up stealing this from us!” At the time and for several years to follow I had no clue what they where talking about; but I do now.

The PVPA was not a totally welcome event. Our genetic infrastructure had been loaned to private industry to enhance & market under their label. The fears were soothed by the exemption from infringement of “farmers’ right to save seed”.

Fast forward twenty five years. The ignorance of Congress to foresee the future when designing a reward system for plant breeders has been exploited. The introduction of biotechnology brought about an entirely new set of language. What was once referred to as enhancement by the “Plant Variety and Protection Act, (PVPA) is now called intellectual property. The checks and balances established and honored by the PVPA has been deleted by the use of patent law. Added expense and “no seed saving” restrictions also followed. The public was furious, along with farmers and seed companies alike.

Farmers were slow to warm up to this new concept. Yield drag, arrogant company reps, a confusing document to sign and an added $5.00 per unit technology fee (a fee which has increased substantially many times since) were common complaints. The added expense was soothed by a promise it would go away when the development investment was recouped. This turned out to be a predatory lie. The only reason the concept took off was purely coincidental.

The chemical event farmers relied on was called” Pursuit”. Its effectiveness wore out almost overnight; weeds became immune, and farmers were thirsty for something to work with. Seed companies took potshots in the media against this new marketing behavior. The use of our genetic infrastructure to deliver a patented chemical event was more than competitors could handle.

The developer of this technology was a company named Monsanto. Almost overnight all was quiet from the seed community. Monsanto said, ”Hey be quiet, come over here. We’ll license this technology to you, and keep farmers from saving seed. You’ll get rich!’

Seed companies were now willing to prostitute themselves because of greed. They completely ignored the past behavior of their new friends and the possibility of becoming victims was completely off the radar.

There was still unfinished business in the arena of legal authority. The people wouldn’t allow legislation to get past them. Monsanto’s buddies, Pioneer Hi-Bred International aided in orchestrating an opinion from the Supreme Court.

Opposing arguments were made by a completely untalented attorney by the name of Bruce Johnson. The case completely lacked merit; the arguments deviated way away from the alleged particulars and the Justices were lost. Not wanting to admit their confusion, they agreed to vote on their opinion, as opposed to referring the issue to Congress to be resolved.

Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion on behalf of the Justices. And, why not?

Although Thomas was a former corporate attorney for Monsanto (1977-79) when appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush, the lawsuit singled out only Pioneer Hi-Bred. Thomas claimed no need to remove himself even though he clearly was in a unique position to have intimate knowledge of his former employer’s agenda and knowing full well any decision or opinion he rendered would have a direct impact on Monsanto’s conduct and would be conducive to their long term goal of monopolizing the seed industry. As a result, an overly broad opinion was written, clearly benefiting companies such as Monsanto and thus, creating law as opposed to ruling upon the validity of law; the genetic gold rush was on.

Seed companies raced to our Land Grant Universities and pulled nearly a century of public funded research off the shelves, committing a fraud by patenting something they neither developed nor owned. This event halted all free flow of germ-plasms. No more complete genetic diversification for the public good. Individual companies only had a few parent lines to work with now and any exchange was kept hush.

Monsanto’s predatory licensing targeted seed cleaners specifically. Not wanting their no.1 competitor to have access was an important goal. Initially most lost a significant portion of their customer base and many more lost their families income completely. By eliminating this industry and hi-jacking our genetic infrastructure, no new seed companies could enjoy the same humble beginnings as today’s consolidated giants.

Just as important was the goal of being in a position to bypass the wealth of the land from the seed cleaner’s respective communities, to their own corporate banks. In today’s money the average seed cleaner has the ability to pump over $13,000/per hour into the economy. Those numbers are expected to climb to $15,000/per hour, or more, in coming seasons. Combine these numbers with the thousands of cleaners forced out of business and it is easy to identify with how a community becomes depressed.

This same predatory behavior put competing seed companies in jeopardy also. They had to discontinue their non-gmo lines, give up their customer records and report any seed cleaner activity in their area. But those agreements were so expensive many seed companies couldn’t cross the financial threshold and became consumed in a leveraged takeover.

Farmers often opted not to sign these documents only to learn many times, their signatures had been forged later as was documented in the Center for Food Safety report, “Monsanto vs US Farmers” in 2005. Today’s user agreement is activated when they open a bag; the full text of the contract more than 30 pages long is not available for viewing at the time of purchase. The contract calls for an electronic signature whereby the farmer accepts responsibility for pollen drift and essentially forfeits their Constitutional rights and exposes complete indiscriminate access to land and any USDA and personal individual financial records. Essentially everyone has to get naked in front of this new beast.

Organizations & associations that claim to represent the public also lost their credibility because of well placed moles that interfered with potential policy & action. This commonly occurs within the upper commands. The Soybean Assn. lobbied very hard against new policy in Ill Farm Bureau. This policy called for the PVPA to be the exclusive statute governing all germ plasm propagation. But the real battle occurred from the paid staff of IFB. Once the policy was adopted, the national level was to pick it up & run. This is where the real dead end occurred. Too many with their fingers in the corporate money jar.

Never mind the media. Soybean Digest, Agri-News, CBS, NBC & others. Everyplace you turn,advertising dollars are being blown putting a spin on how great Monsanto has been for agriculture. Fantastic PR claims confuse everyone but those of us that know better. Their feed the word campaign is nothing more than a chemical event being consumed by the masses. Recently claims have surfaced linking GMOs to organ failure in livestock. If this were to be proven in humans, wouldn’t this this be the ultimate in population control?
Essentially the same thing is happening in agriculture that happened in 1913 with the Federal Reserve. Thomas Jefferson gave us a stark warning during his era….”The central banks & the corporations that grow up around them are more dangerous than any standing army”.