Revenue Needs, Ag Policy, and Taxes

Mr. Kristof has again hit on the food aspects of agricultural policy in the New York Times. Today, he makes some keen observations on Governor Paterson's proposal to raise revenue with "an 18 percent sales tax on soft drinks and other nondiet sugary beverages."

The state's use of taxation authority to stem problems brought about by certain types of food consumption raises interesting questions about the role of consumers and the notion of consumer sovereignty that has been largely ignored in agricultural policy. The articles I cited last week provide a good introduction to this topic. In some areas, increased knowledge about the products being consumed and their effects (on the consumer or on the public through the production system) is an insufficient driver of change. Thus, as with smoking, Mr. Kristof notes that revenue needs were the gateway into executing a beneficial policy from a public health standpoint through taxation, in much the same way that a soda tax may be a viable means of improving public health today.

Interestingly, the notion of food democracy is built upon a very strong premise of consumer sovereignty. That is, it would appear somewhat incoherent to think about food democracy as generating policy that rejects consumer sovereignty. But the matter is surely complicated by our representative form of governance, the revenue needs we have on a public level, or both. Unfounded paternalism is likely to emerge as the rallying cry for those who strongly believe in consumer sovereignty. But I doubt that cry will come from those who favor food democracy. Rather, I suspect we should further refine the notion of food democracy with a model of a representative food democracy that has revenue needs and, at times, should be paternalistic.

Mr. Kristof also notes, "Part of the solution must come from reforming agriculture so that we stop subsidizing corn that ends up as high fructose corn syrup inside soft drinks. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama on Wednesday chose Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who has longstanding ties to agribusiness interests, as agriculture secretary — his weakest selection so far." His opinion of Governor Vilsack aside, I wonder what the political viability of such a tax means for the future of subsidized agriculture when considered in light of the market liberalism underlying international trade. If public support for such a tax emerges, then it would seem to me that public outcry against our current methods of subsiding production should emerge. Perhaps subsidies should not be decoupled from the product produced if consumer choices--demand--is not the sole basis upon which production choices should be made. This should raise in many readers' heads questions about international trade. That is, I do not think our international trade regimes have questioned consumer sovereignty. That is, they would not allow subsidies focused on food production with less harmful consumer effects--justified by consumers' failure to adequately rationalize the costs of consuming that food into purchasing decisions. If that is true, then the market liberalism that dominates international trade may itself prohibit ag subsidies that would further the same ends as the policies implemented through state taxation. Of course, skewing demand through tax policy is not the same as subsidizing certain crops, or is it? And, in any event, removing corn subsidies for reasons related to public health does not necessarily mean that alternative subsidies should be provided to the production of more healthy food. But I could spin a strong argument that they should based on a food security rationale and bolstered by the inherent uncertainty of production and the prospect of shortage, if not a cheap-and-healthy-food mantra.

"Everyone Eats There." Yes, but What Do They Eat?

This Mark Bittman story in the annual NYT Magazine food and drink issue appeared last month under several headlines:

• Heavenly Food
• California's Central Valley:  Land of a Million Vegetables
• Everyone Eats There

It is this last headline that has stuck with me--and continued to agitate me.  This is because I find the headline misleading or--perhaps more precisely--because it tells only part of the story.  Bittman's piece is an homage, of sorts, to California's Central Valley, which produces more than a third of the produce grown in the United States.  Bittman writes:

The valley became widely known in the 1920s and 1930s, when farmers arrived from Virginia or Armenia or Italy or (like Tom Joad) Oklahoma and wrote home about the clean air, plentiful water and cheap land. ... Unlike the Midwest, which concentrates (devastatingly) on corn and soybeans, more than 230 crops are grown in the valley, including those indigenous to South Asia, Southeast Asia and Mexico, some of which have no names in English. At another large farm, I saw melons, lettuce, asparagus, cabbage, broccoli, chard, collards, prickly pears, almonds, pistachios, grapes and more tomatoes than anyone could conceive of in one place. ... Whether you’re in Modesto or Montpelier, there’s a good chance that the produce you’re eating came from the valley.

Maybe my annoyance with this headline is one of those "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" (versus "Eats Shoots and Leaves) issues.  That is, what Bittman's headline writers probably intended to convey with "Everyone Eats There" is that, wherever you live in the United States, you eat food from California's Central Valley.  The Valley is the "there" and we all eat from its bounty.  As he writes above, whether you are in Vermont or in the valley itself, you probably eat produce grown in this part of California.  What Bittman's story overlooks is that many people in the valley don't get to eat the produce at all.

You see, the headline could also be read to mean something perhaps more accurately expressed as, "Everyone There Eats."  That is, it could be interpreted as meaning that everyone in the valley eats.  Technically, this is true.  But what that interpretation--which might be the "first glance" one for many readers--glosses over is what residents of the valley eat. You see, ironically, the Great Central Valley is home to many food deserts, places where good, nutritious food is hard to get and where people--many of them farm laborers--live in poverty on "liquor store diets." While Bittman waxes poetic about the wonderful array of food grown in the valley, he doesn't acknowledge that many in the valley--including those who grow the food and their children--don't benefit from that bounty.

Others do.  Edie Jessup of Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program (CCROPP) has called the "poverty of the Central Valley of California and the abundance of the region's agriculture" a "conundrum." Or, as as Cesar Chavez said years ago:

It is ironic that those who till the soil, cultivate and harvest the fruits, vegetables, and other foods that fill your table with abundance, have nothing left for themselves.  

In a post a year ago on the California Institute for Rural Studies website, Jessup expanded on the issue:

Fresno County is iconic, and typical of all the Central Valley counties. It is the richest agricultural producing county in the nation and the poorest congressional district in the USA, with poverty and hunger at about 40% according to the California Health Inventory Survey. This paradox results in an abundance of food leaving the region, broken local produce distribution systems, rural corner stores that only sell cheap junk food and soda, fear of ‘la Migra’ (racism), compromised healthcare, and a lack of potable water and transportation access. In Fresno, 85% of school children qualify for free lunch, and 33% grow up in extreme poverty. One-third of children are obese, and 2/3 of adults are obese with a compendium of chronic diseases directly related to diet. Our food deserts are frequently food swamps, where there is ‘food’ available but it is often unhealthy and cheap. Fresno City and the surrounding metropolitan area have a population of over 500,000 and the outlying 14 incorporated cities and over 50 unincorporated areas total over 900,000 people. Significantly, Fresno County produces nearly $5.3 billion from agriculture; however with only one large urban area, most of the county is very rural, as is the entire Central Valley.

I recently wrote of one such area in Fresno County:  Mendota, sometimes referred to as the Appalachia of the West.  Jessup calls for remedies to this "entrenchment of food deserts and food swamps, sporadic emergency food distribution, multiple 'pilot' solutions to hunger, and a lack of connections between infrastructure [that] make food access in the Central Valley a social justice issue."  More importantly, through CCROPP, Jessup is working to achieve those remedies.  It's a pity that work such as this--and the crisis to which it responds, do not get the sort of national attention that Mark Bittman commands.  It's also a pity that Bittman doesn't use his platform to talk about issues like these.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Food versus Energy (Part II): The view from Colorado

Gunnison River, where water is diverted via tunnel to
irrigate the Uncompahgre Valley, Colorado

I wrote this post a few weeks ago about the conflicts between ag interests and natural gas extraction in Australia.  The New York Times reports today on similar conflicts in the United States.  Kirk Johnson's story focuses on the competition for water between farmers on the one hand and oil and gas interests on the other.  His dateline is Greeley, Colorado, and the headline is "For Farms in the West, Oil Wells are Thirsty Rivals."

Johnson reports that oil and gas interests in Colorado are paying record high prices for excess water that they buy or lease from cities.  While farmers have tended to pay between $30 and $100 for an acre foot of water (about 326,000 gallons), depending on scarcity, oil and gas companies are now paying as much as $1K to $2K for that amount of treated water purchased from cities.  Farmers say they can't match those bids.  Peter Anderson, a corn and alfalfa farmer in eastern Colorado, casts farmers as the underdogs based on the value of the commodity delivered:

Water from the Gunnison River
irrigating a farm near Montrose, Colorado

It's not a level playing field.  ... I don't think in reality that the farmer can compete with the oil and gas companies for that water.  Their return is a hell of a lot better than ours.  

But as water-intensive as fracking is, the controversial process is consuming far less water than farmers are right now in Colorado.  Oil and gas companies estimate their 2012 water use at 6.5 billion gallons--or about a tenth of one percent of the state's total water use.  That figure is disputed by Western Resource Advocates, an environmental advocacy group that puts the figure at perhaps twice that much.  But even 13 million gallons is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the whopping 85.5% of Colorado's water use that goes for irrigation and agriculture.

Oil and gas may be David to ag's Goliath when it comes to water use, but tension between these sectors is likely to increase, particularly during times of drought and as the gas industry's needs grow--growth projected to be 16% over the next three years.

A spokesperson for agricultural interests articulated the conflict as one between food and energy.  For example, Johnson quotes Ben Rainbolt, executive director of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union:

We're not going to be able to raise the food we need.  How are we going to produce this with less?

A spokesperson for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association puts a different spin on it, calling energy the "foundation of all we do," including agriculture.

But isn't this really a "chicken and egg" situation?  That is, food is energy--the first form of energy--and without it, people can't engage in energy production or energy consumption for other purposes.  

I note that Colorado law requires court approval of these bulk water purchases, so it will be interesting to see if and how legal norms around such approval evolve as oil and gas industry demands for water grow.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Food v Energy in the "Land of Plenty"

Among the agriculture and rural development issues I have become aware of during my time in Australia is the growing conflict over coal seam gas (CSG).  Coal seam gas, you ask?  That's what Aussies call the natural gas released by fracking, and Aussies are beginning to debate the practice as hotly as we are in the United States.  But the Australian context for this debate--which has evolved into outright conflict in several locales--is different in various regards to what it is in the U.S., including the legal schemes for regulating the practice and the extent to which farmers and others in rural areas can prevent it.

This February 2012 piece by Bond University law professor Tina Hunter summarizes several of the issues, including who has the power to regulate or prevent the practice.  In short--it isn't the individual land owners.  Hunter's headline speaks volumes, "Food security v energy security:  land use conflict and the law. "  She writes:

The development of unconventional sources of gas (such as coal seam and shale gas) is providing Australia with energy security, as well as generating a huge export industry in the form of LNG [liquified natural gas].

* * * 

However, many of the coal seam gas deposits occur in areas of high agricultural fertility.  This includes the Darling Downs area of Queensland, and the Liverpool Plains of NSW, which comprises only 6% of Australia's total agricultural area, but produces more than 22% of its food.

This is Australia's breadbasket.

 * * * 

This  creates conflict in land use; farmers are understandably reluctant to allow their prime agricultural land to be used for coal seam gas extraction.  However, as the law stands at present, even if a farmer owns the land, a government has the right to grant a licence to an energy company to extract the coal seam gas from under the ground, by drilling wells to extract the gas. 

Hunter notes that Queensland has "declared a two-kilometre exclusion zone on mining activities near towns with more than 1000 people," and that "farmers are calling for a similar embargo over prime agricultural areas."   

One thing that makes this tension between ag and energy particularly interesting in the Australian context is that both mining and agriculture have typically fallen within the purview of several states' Department of Primary Industries (DPI).  See, for example, the State of Victoria's website here.  But those departments are increasingly being divvied up.  The DPI website for Queensland redirects to the new Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), which mimics the federal delineation between the DAFF on one hand and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism on the other.  (Resources refers to mineral, oil and gas resources--which makes its clustering with tourism very odd.)  South Australia's site is here, and you can see that as of the beginning of the year, it transferred its minerals and energy resources division to a new Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy.  Western Australia, which has seen the greatest benefit from the nation's resource boom but which has no coal seam gas wells, has separate departments for Agriculture and Food and for Mines and Petroleum.  Perhaps these relatively administrative divisions reflect that sense that ag and various extractive industries cannot peacefully co-exist, either within government or on the ground.  An earlier post about a conflict between farm and coal interests is here.

Hunter goes on to highlight the water issues in particular, noting Australia's perennial water woes, particularly in the Murray-Darling basin, west of the Great Dividing Range, where the federal government has preached conservation and restricted farmers' use of water.  She notes that--contrary to Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland are linked to the Great Artesian Basin.  This means that fracking chemicals entering groundwater there could contaminate a water supply of enormous importance.  Other academic analysis of the issues is here.  A report commissioned by industry is here.  A prominent Australian environmentalist comments here.

Recent Australian media coverage of fracking issues include this very recent story about Victoria banning new licenses on coal-seam gas projects (a story which the Chicago Tribune picked up this week-end), and this one about a blockade of a coal-seam gas project in Newcastle, New South Wales.  Here's an Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) website on the issue, which includes an interactive map of existing wells.  You can see that many of the Queensland wells are in the areas south and west of Chinchilla and Dalby, not far from where I took the photo shown at top.  The ABC website is called Coal Seam Gas by the Numbers. Not surprisingly, some of those numbers are jobs statistics.  The industry is predictably touting its job creation potential--as in a billboard I saw on one of my Queensland drives between the Darling Downs and Brisbane with a headline about job creation by CSG in Queensland.

Just this week-end, the Sydney Morning Herald's News Review section featured a front-page story about the resource boom, which is projected to end in the next half century or so, as different resources--from gold to coal--are exhausted.  As the nation asks what next, it remembers the decline of the agriculture sector, according to the story by Peter Martin and Matt Wade.  They write:

Those who grew up in the 1950s were forever being told the nation rode on the sheep's back.  Back then the farm sector accounted for one quarter of Australia's production.  Today it accounts for a little over 2 per cent.

That's a sobering statistic for the agriculture sector and one that would seem to bode well for the energy sector when its interests are in direct conflict with those agricultural producers.  It also seems to be bad news for rural communities generally because a great deal of Australian resource extraction is being done in "fly in, fly out" mining camps, which circumvent local economies.  One anti-CSG group picked up on the community angle in a statement earlier this month:  

Coal seam gas represents a serious risk to farm enterprises and water resources, to the future profitability of agriculture and other industries such as tourism, and to the social cohesion of rural communities.

 Read posts about the links--and conflicts--between fracking and agriculture in the U.S. here, here, and here.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

ACA will raise cost of farm labor--and therefore food

The New York Times reported today about the consequences of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for the cost of farm labor and, in turn, the cost of food.  Sarah Varney's story is set in California, where farm laborers are typically employed year round rather than seasonally, as the case in many other places.  (Another post about year-round ag workers is here).  This means farm labor contractors cannot easily put the "workers on a 28-hour workweek like Starbucks, Denny's and Walmart are considering" doing to avoid the ACA mandate.  It also means that the contractors, who operate on very small margins--around 2%--will have to raise the prices they charge farms, which will in turn push up food prices.

Varney writes:  

Insurance brokers and health providers familiar with California's $43.5 billion agricultural industry estimate that meeting the law's minimum health plan requirement will cost about $1 per hour employee worked in the field.     

The minimum health plan under the new law will is expected cost about $250 a month in California’s growing regions, a premium which includes a high deductible--$5K a year.  With the following vignette, Varney explains why it is not feasible to pass this insurance costs onto the workers:  

On a recent morning, Jose Romero pulled weeds from a row of lush tomato plants. Mr. Romero, 36, arrived at the field around 5 a.m. and worked until sunset. Like many of the other workers in the tomato field, he was surprised to learn that his employer, Mr. Herrin at Sunrise Farm Labor, would have to offer him health coverage, and that he could be asked to contribute up to 9.5 percent of his wages to cover the costs. 

“We eat, we pay rent and no more,” Mr. Romero said in Spanish. “The salary that they give you here, to pay insurance for the family, it wouldn’t be enough.” 

There seems to be widespread agreement among agricultural employers, insurance brokers and health plans in California that low-wage farmworkers cannot be asked to pay health insurance premiums. 

On this point, Varney quotes a labor contractor, Chuck Herrin, the owner of Sunrise Farm Labor in Huron, California:  

He’s making $8 to $9 an hour, and you’re asking him to pay for something that’s he’s not going to use? 

The most intriguing part of this quote is the "something that he's not going to use" part.  Are Mr. Herrin's assumptions based on perceived cultural issues?  on the age and perceived health of the workers and their families?

Varney also notes the complication that immigration status poses for many of the workers because they may be in the country without papers.  As one farm labor contractor in Napa Valley noted, the workers are 

Nervous they’ll be tracked and then somehow the possibility of being identified, and the fear of being deported or not being allowed to work. It comes up all the time in conversations when we outline the choices.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

A Tale of Two Markets: Part II, Newton County, Arkansas



 In my prior post about the farmers markets in Telluride and Mountain Village, Colorado, I promised to compare and contrast those markets with the one in Jasper, Arkansas, my home town.  Both places are similar in some ways, dramatically different in others.  First, both are rural/nonmetropolitan by most ecological measures, e.g., population density and size.  Indeed, both have similar total populations-- San Miguel County just over 7000, and Newton County just over 8000.  Both are also mountain towns (San Juans of the Rockies on one hand, Ozarks on the other), which benefit from ecotourism.  In fact, both are amenity rich in terms of outdoor activities, but Telluride has many more "built" amenities, and is quite cosmopolitan culturally.  This distinction and the crowd each county attracts is reflected in the annual accommodation and food service sales for 2007:  $77 million in San Miguel County, $3.2 million in Newton County.  That and the relative affluence are also reflected in retail sales per capita in 2007:  $13,114 in San Miguel County, $1,596 in Newton County.

The Newton County market is held on the courthouse square.

Tensions between old timers and newcomers are evident in both places.  In Telluride, those tensions often play out in planning battles, but presumably also in other ways.  Newton County does not engage in any planning or regulate building in any way, so these tensions are manifest in other ways.  In fact, my sense is that these conflicts have seemingly dissipated over the years, perhaps because long-time residents have come to see newcomers as a net gain to the community.

Beyond these similarities, the differences between the two places are more apparent.  Telluride is an extraordinary example of rural gentrification and is so obviously affluent, Newton County is a persistent poverty county, which means it is characterized by entrenched, inter-generational poverty.  I provided some socioeconomic data about Telluride and San Miguel County in my last post.  Here's some about Newton County:  Its poverty rate is 22.5%, and it's median household income is $27,441.  Whereas nearly half of San Miguel County residents have a bachelor's degree or greater, only 12.2% of Newton County residents do.  Newton County is a Federal/State Government dependent economy, while San Miguel County has a Service-dependent economy.

How is this very different demographic profile reflected in the two places' farmers markets?  I already provided lots of information about the Telluride and Mountain Village markets, and at least the former is fairly long standing.  The Newton County farmers' market, in contrast, started only this year, with a push from the Newton County Agricultural Extension Office.  (I don't even recall much of a tradition of farm stands in Newton County--just neighbors sharing the fruits of their gardens with others).  Whereas the San Miguel County markets take place weekly, spring through fall, the Newton County market takes place only on one Friday evening a month, from 4 pm to 6 pm (aiming to catch people passing the courthouse square on their way home from work), with the last market of the season likely to be this week (though in future years it might be in August, absent present doubt conditions).  I don't know the cost of participating in the Telluride market, but participation in the Newton County market costs just $5/week, and the Extension Office is considering the option of an annual fee.  I'm not sure what participants get for that -- presumably the benefit of a sign announcing the market, which I saw in a newspaper story about it.


While vendors at the Colorado markets were numerous, only five vendors showed up to participate in the Newton County market on the Friday in early July when my mom showed up to take these photos as my proxy.  She found four fruit and veg vendors and one craftsman.  One of the food vendors had not only fresh produce, but also home-baked goods and jams and relishes for $5 each.  That's less than half the $11/jar cost at Mountain Village.  Tomatoes were $6/lb in Colorado, but only $2.25 in Newton County (and my mom declared them the best she's ever eaten).  The selection wasn't extensive -- certainly none of the kohlrabi featured at the Mountain Village market--but it included some potatoes, peppers, and squash in addition to the items noted above.  I suspect most vendors simply brought excess bounty from their own gardens, and that they did not decide what to plant because of the existence of the market.  I don't believe any of the vendors are engaged in agritourism, but I suspect those selling jams and relishes don't also market those at the nearby gift shops on Scenic Highway 7 (see the figures below).  No one at this market is making a living off the market, which is quite different to what I learned about the Colorado markets.

All of the vendors at the Newton County market were from within the county, population 8,264.  I suppose it is not a sufficiently attractive market in terms of income potential to draw vendors from a wider area.  And I suspect most if not all vendors brought excess bounty from their own gardens, that they had not decided what to plant because of the existence of the market.  I don't believe any of the vendors are engaged in agritourism, but I'd be surprised if those selling jams and relishes don't also market those at the nearby gift shops on Scenic Highway 7.  Unlike in Telluride, none of the vendors had signs or brochures indicating their names or that of their farm; certainly, these Newton County farmers had not invested as much as the Telluride vendors in display aesthetics.

I recently came across U.S. Government data on some of the very questions I was addressing.  Here's the county-to-county comparison on a range of agricultural data points, from the Atlas of Rural and Small-Town America:

• Principal Operator 10 years or more on same parcel:  San Miguel County, 87; Newton County,  439
• Principal Operator 2 years or less on same parcel:  San Miguel County, 1; Newton County, 35. 
• Number of farms:  San Miguel County, 123; Newton County, 636.
• Percentage of land being farmed:  San Miguel County, 18.3%; Newton County, 21.5%.
• Average market value of product sold:  San Miguel County, $27,235; Newton County $29,907.
• Percentage of farms with sales below $10K in 2007:  San Miguel County, 71%; Newton County,  68%.     
• Average government payment 2007:  San Miguel County, $9230; Newton County, $1756.
•  Percentage of farms with income from agritourism:    San Miguel County, 4.87%; Newton County, 0.47%.  
• Percentage of farms engaged in value-added production: San Miguel County, 8.9%; Newton County, 5.3%.
• Percentage of farms using CSA:  San Miguel County, 1.62%; Newton County, 0.
• Percentage of farms with high speed internet:  San Miguel County, 48%; Newton County, 24%.
• Percentage of operators working off farm:  San Miguel County, 38%; Newton County, 46%. 
• Percentage of farms with woman operator:  San Miguel County, 18%; Newton County, 14%. 

I acknowledge that this county-to-county comparison is a bit misleading about the markets because, as acknowledged in my earlier post, food at the Telluride area markets actually comes from many neighboring counties, not only from San Miguel County.  Nevertheless, I find it an interesting comparison. 

Note the small market, and the wooden chairs for sale by one vendor. 

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism. 

A Tale of Two Markets: Part I, Telluride, Colorado

As some of my recent posts (here and here) suggest, I've been thinking for some time about the booming farmers' market phenomenon in relation to the slow/local food movement and, in particular, how local--and affordable--the food at farmers' markets really is.

Stall of hole foods farm, La Sal, Utah, at Market on the Plaza

As a ruralist, I'm also interested in what the farmers' market phenomenon says about our connection to rural places and the extent to which rural economies benefit from it.

This week I had the opportunity to visit two markets in southwest Colorado, one in the posh town of Telluride and the other in the equally posh (but more obviously nouveau riche and glitzy and less old West cowboyish) neighboring town of Mountain Village.  In a two post-series, I am going to compare these markets with a newly established one in my hometown, Jasper, Arkansas.  This first post will be dedicated to the Colorado markets. 

High Wire Ranch booth, TFM, July 13, 2012.

Before I get down to what I saw at the markets, let me provide some background on Telluride, which I have written about previously here and here.  As these prior posts indicate, I see Telluride as a prime example of rural gentrification.  With a population of 2,221, Telluride is the county seat of tiny San Miguel County, which has a population of 7,490, a very low poverty rate of 9.8%, and a median household income of $66,399.  (To put this in perspective, the median household income for all of Colorado is $56,456, and for the nation it is $51,914).  Another demographic feature that really stands out is that nearly half of the county's residents have college degrees, whereas the national average is only about 30%. Many of the homes in Telluride and Mountain Village are second homes, occupied only part of the year.  Telluride in particular is a rigorously slow/no growth community, and nimbyism is rabid there.  On both days last week when I read the local paper, it featured front-page stories covering San Miguel County Planning Commission news. 

It is not surprising given the demographic profile of Telluride, Mountain Village, and the surrounding county that the offerings at these markets were, well, upmarket.  Lots of organic produce and grass fed beef, lamb, elk, and bison were for sale.  Both weekly markets--Wednesday afternoons in Mountain Village and Fridays in Telluride--also featured pottery, jewelry and other such artisinal wares from places as far away as Durango.  Prepared food was for sale, too, and at the Mountain Village market, you could even get a massage.  In fact, the Mountain Village market is called "Market on the Plaza" rather than farmers' market, and it offered far less food than other stuff.  Perhaps 4-5 stalls/tables out of 15 or so featured fresh fruit and veg, beautiful flowers, and one offering grass-fed beef.   The Telluride Farmers' Market (TFM) was much larger, with perhaps half of the several dozen stalls featuring farm produce.  Plus, as many of the food vendors were offering meat as were offering fruits and veg--something I don't see so much in California.  This meant that most of the meat vendors had brought entire display freezers, plugged in to central electricity outlets.  One stall had its organic whole chickens on ice.   

Canyon of the Ancients near Cortez offered

wild apricots and grass-fed beef. 

As for the provenance of the food, the TFM website indicates that it all comes from within a 100-mile radius, and the same is probably true of the Mountain Village Market.  At the latter, I chatted with one vendor, hole foods farm (highly recommend the sugar snap peas at $4/pound!), out of La Sal, Utah.  As the crow flies, that is certainly within a hundred miles, though it's no short journey through the mountains into Telluride's box canyon.  The same is true for the vendors from Cortez (population 8,482), Paonia (population 1,497), Hotchkiss (population 968), Norwood (population 438), and Colona (population 30).    

The vendors included:

• Buckhorn Gardens 
• High Wire Ranch 
• White Buffalo Organics 
• Indian Ridge Farm and Bakery
• Tomten Farms 
• Canyon of the Ancients Guest Ranch

James Ranch, a farm stall, "Harvest Grill & Greens," guest ranch, and all around agritourism operator was at TFR promoting their operation, which is north of Durango.

Parker Pastures of Gunnison was at the Telluride market offering eggshares, CSA, and sales of meadow-fed bulk meat.  Parker also offers herdshares for purposes of providing raw milk because simply selling the milk is illegal in Colorado, as it is in California.  The brochure they provide indicates that if you buy in, "we will present you with two legal documents, the Bill of Sale and Boarding Contract."  The cost for a half gallon of raw milk each week is $35 for the share and $5.50/week to cover the cost of feeding, housing and milking the cows.  The milk can be picked up on certain days in either Crested Butte or Gunnison.  Their motto is "Nourishing our Community.  Nourishing our Lands."

Mesa Mix is offered by TomTen Farms, Placerville

I talked to several of the meat vendors.  One told me that he and his wife make a living from what they sell at the Telluride market on Fridays and the Aspen market on Saturdays.  Their farm is about half way between the two. Of course, they also acquire customers at these markets, customers who then place mail orders.  A lamb vendor told me she was there for her daughter, a recent college graduate who raises the lambs (and began doing so as a 4-H'er) but whose day job as a supervisor at a meat packing plant in Durango prevents her from being at the market herself.  The 20-something lamb rancher wasn't the only youngster represented at the market.  I also talked to three young farmers from Buckhorn Gardens, Colona, whose motto is "feed the soil, feed the body."  Their blog features photos and bios of their "New Agrarians," who come from around the country to work on the farm.   Other farmers and ranchers I met were a bit longer in the tooth, but one of the things I really enjoyed was actually meeting some farmer/entrepreneurs, not just their marketeers.  

It was hard for me to assess the price points on the meat offered at the markets since I rarely buy meat.  The brochure I took away from High Wire Ranch, however, put the price of a pound of ground elk or ground bison at $9, while elk tenderloin is $50/lb, bison tenderloin is $40/lb, and elk skirt or flank just $10/lb.  Sausage ranged from $10-$12/lb.  These folks also sell duck eggs for $6/half dozen and they feature Wild Alaskan halibut and salmon--presumably caught and packaged by someone other than themselves.  It all looked tempting, even for someone like me who doesn't eat red meat and who had no place to cook it.

Stall of hole food farms, La Sal, Utah, at Market on the Plaza

The fruits and veggies were perhaps more expensive than what you find in local grocery stores in the area--which are already quite pricey because of the place's remoteness and size and demographic of the population.  One stall at the Mountain Village market featured tomatoes at the especially dear price of $6/lb, and the going price for cherries and apricots was $6/bag.  Japanese cucumbers were $2/each and Sweet Walla Walla onions, $3/lb.  Greens tended to go for about $5/bag, and prepared sauces for more than $10 a pint.  Still, these upscale Colorado produce markets were only marginally more expensive on most items than what I find at farmers' markets in greater Sacramento--except on items like tomatoes, which are quite a bit less expensive down here in "Sacatomato" land.     

The TFM website enumerates the following goals for its market, which it calls a "living, evolving event that actively and tangibly enhances the quality of life in Telluride":

• Fresh, local foods for residents and visitors
• Supports organic agriculture and environmental issues
• Improves community spirit
• Additional attractions for tourists
• Improve/maintain bioregional biodiversity
• Reduced environmental impacts with shorter transportation of local foods
• Increases rural/urban links
• Invigorates secondary shopping areas
• Educational--awareness of farming, sustainability, etc.  

Stand of Buckhorn Gardens, Colona, at TFM

As this tiny sampling of photos indicate, both markets offered very salubrious experiences--come rain (Telluride on Friday) or shine (Mountain Village on Wednesday).

In my next post, I'll compare these markets to a new one in Newton County, Arkansas, a persistent poverty county in northwest Arkansas whose agricultural history runs primarily to subsistence farming. Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Market on the Plaza, July 11, 2012

Challenges to Agricultural Policy: Diet

Two issues are certain to change American agriculture. There are questions about timing - how fast or how slow policies will change and agriculture will adapt. And, there are questions about how the changes will occur, who will benefit and who will lose. But these two issues - health and energy - are two of the most important challenges to confront our society. And agriculture is right in the middle of each one. This post addresses the first - the issue American health and our diet.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, established jointly by the Secretaries of USDA and HHS was charged with reviewing the current U.S. Dietary Guidelines and recommending updates. The committee's report, 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans was released yesterday.

For the first time, the report confronted an American public of whom the majority are overweight or obese and yet under-nourished in several key nutrients. The recommendations could have been taken from a Michael Pollan book -

On average, Americans of all ages consume too few vegetables, fruits, high-fiber whole grains, low-fat milk and milk products, and seafood and they eat too much added sugars, solid fats, refined grains, and sodium. SoFAS (added sugars and solid fats) contribute approximately 35 percent of calories to the American diet.

Here are three of the main recommendations:

• Reduce the incidence and prevalence of overweight and obesity of the US population by reducing overall calorie intake and increasing physical activity.

• Shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. In addition, increase the intake of seafood and fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products and consume only moderate amounts of lean meats, poultry, and eggs.

• Significantly reduce intake of foods containing added sugars and solid fats because these dietary components contribute excess calories and few, if any, nutrients. In addition, reduce sodium intake and lower intake of refined grains, especially refined grains that are coupled with added sugar, solid fat, and sodium.

Compare this to Pollan's advice in In Defense of Food - "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

The report talks about the importance of all elements of government and society working together to attempt to shift dietary and lifestyle patterns away from our current dangerous path.

I submit that agricultural policy must come on board with this shift. We can no longer ignore the fact that agricultural policies favor the production of foods and food ingredients that are a significant part of the problem. Policies that have encouraged the overproduction of commodity crops such as corn have enabled the development of processed foods and meat products that are cheaper than and easier to acquire than the basic "plant-based foods" that we should be eating. Policies that are focused on the economic interests of those most powerful in the agricultural and food industries without a consideration of the overall food system that is created is part of the problem.

A coordinated strategic plan that includes all sectors of society, including individuals, families, educators, communities, physicians and allied health professionals, public health advocates, policy makers, scientists, and small and large businesses (e.g., farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists, food manufacturers, and food retailers of all kinds), should be engaged in the development and ultimate implementation of a plan to help all Americans eat well, be physically active, and maintain good health and function. It is important that any strategic plan is evidence-informed, action-oriented, and focused on changes in systems in these sectors.

The following recommendations, excerpted from the report should be included as primary goals of our future farm policy.

• For all Americans, especially those with low income, create greater financial incentives to purchase, prepare, and consume vegetables and fruit, whole grains, seafood, fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products, lean meats, and other healthy foods.
• Improve the availability of affordable fresh produce through greater access to grocery stores, produce trucks, and farmers’ markets.
• Increase environmentally sustainable production of vegetables, fruits, and fiber-rich whole grains.
• Ensure household food security through measures that provide access to adequate amounts of foods that are nutritious and safe to eat.

In a recent article, I called for an agricultural policy based on the goal of producing healthy, affordable food in a sustainable manner. A Reconsideration of Agricultural Law: A Call for the Law of Food, Farming, and Sustainability. This report supports that call.

The USDA is seeking comments on the report and a hearing will be held July 8, 2010.

Written comments can be submitted at www.dietaryguidelines.gov or mailed to Carole Davis, Co-Executive Secretary, Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, Room 1034, Alexandria, VA 22302.

To provide oral testimony at the July 8 public meeting, you must register by going to
www.dietaryguidelines.gov or by calling Crystal Tyler at (202) 314-4701 prior to 5 p.m. EDT on June 30. The meeting will be held in the Jefferson Auditorium in the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., on July 8 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending not later than 5:00 p.m.

India Considers Reform of its Failed Food System

Amartya Sen asserted 30 years ago that hunger is not due to scarcity, but rather to poverty, inequality, and poor management of resources.  (Sen, Poverty and Famines:  An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation 1981).

That assertion appears to be borne out by Vikas Bajaj's recent story in the New York Times, "As Grain Piles Up, India's Poor Still Goes Hungry." The hunger problem in India, it seems, is largely attributable to a failed distribution system--a substantial part of the failure attributable to corruption.  (I have written some about these issues in relation to India's rural poor and rural development here).

Bajaj writes of rotting grain surpluses in the north of India, while slum dwellers in New Delhi go hungry.  He provides this context:

Spurred by agricultural innovation and generous farm subsidies, India now grows so much food that it has a bigger grain stockpile than any country except China, and it exports some of it to countries like Saudi Arabia and Australia.  Yet one-fifth of its people are malnourished--double the rate of other developing countries like Vietnam and China--because of pervasive corruption, mismanagement and waste in the programs that are supposed to distribute food to the poor.  

Currently, India's federal government buys and stores grain, and each state takes grain from these stocks, with the amount determined by the number of the state's residents who are poor.  The grain goes to subsidized "fair price" shops, and the states decide who is permitted to buy the cheap grain there.  The government spends 750 billion rupees ($13.6 billion) annually on the program, about 1% of the national GDP.        

Now, however, the Government of India is considering a new "food security law."  Indeed, the alternative headline for Bajaj's story is "A Failed Food System in India Prompts an Intense Review."  The new law would cost the government as much as 2 trillion rupees a year, more than twice the current expenditure.   Critics warn, however, that it will successfully alleviate hunger and poverty only if corruption in the distribution pipeline is checked, or other means are devised for getting the food assistance to those in need.  According to a recent World Bank report, just 41% of the grain that the federal government purchases reaches Indian homes.  Not only is a lot of grain diverted from the distribution pipeline, a substantial portion of it rots because it is not properly stored.    

Some reformers advocate cash payments or the use of food stamps, systems that would lead the government to buy only enough grain to ensure against bad harvests.  Such systems would also give beneficiaries food choices other than grains.  Others, however, are concerned that such a system would disserve the needy because "men would trade [food stamps] for liquor or tobacco" rather than feed their families.    

Bajaj quotes a man who advises India's Supreme Court on food issues.

The reason we are facing this problem is our refusal to distribute the grain that we buy from farmers to the people who need it.  The only place the this grain deserves to be is in the stomachs of the people who are hungry.    

What's more interesting to me than what the expert says (predictable, right?) is his role:  advisor to the Supreme Court.  Imagine an advisor on "food issues" to the U.S. Supreme Court.  I suppose this says something about the differing (or lack of) separation of powers of India, as well as a difference in advocacy systems and roles.  In the U.S., we expect parties before the Court, as well as amici, to do the advising.

Cross-posted to Legal Ruralism.

Mark Bittman's tribute to Wendell Berry

Don't miss Mark Bittman's post in the New York Times, based on a visit to Berry's Port Royal, Kentucky home.  Bittman tells of Berry driving him around the neighboring countryside, where Berry's family settled about two centuries ago.  Bittman observes Berry's familiarity with his neighbors, manifest in his wave at nearly everyone they meet.  Regarding the drive, Bittman continues:

There really is not that much to see [on the drive] until I try to see it through Wendell's eyes, and then every bit of erosion becomes a tiny tragedy--or at least a human mistake--and every bit of forest floor becomes a bit of the genius of nature.  

Bittman waxes poetic--as does Berry--about the need to "listen to the land."  Indeed, Berry's work--whether poetry, fiction, or activism--is very much grounded in the land.  Berry's work also reflects "his attachment to nature--it's not just the land but everything on the land--that is so profound that his judgments (Wendell is a kind but very judgmental man) can be jaw-dropping."

Berry's work is also grounded in "place"--his own strong sense of place, his attachment to place.   And that grounding in place implicates not only the land, but also "its people."  Among other things, this means that, to Berry, rural people matter.

Bittman asked Berry what urban people can do to change the current course of events, the march of industrialism that replaces people with technology and concentrates power and wealth in the hands of a plutocracy.  Like Bittman's question, Berry's answer invokes the rural-urban divide:

The main thing is realize that country people can't invest a better agriculture by ourselves.  Industrial agriculture wasn't invented by us, and we can't uninvent it.  We'll need some help with that.    

I'm not sure "country people" are entirely without blame for the current state of affairs--either industrial agriculture or the plutocracy--but I agree that rural folks desiring a reversal of course will need "some help" from urbanites and the powerful interests that reside in the cities of the nation and the world.    

California Assembly Considers a Range of Food Legislation

The Sacramento Bee ran a front-page story today about proposed legislation that would alter how the state regulates food production and sale. Here's an excerpt from Torey Van Ort's story:

California is no stranger to major food policy measures, including a ban on foie gras that is set to go into effect later this year. But heightened interest in food issues, including the farm-to-table movement and demands for increased disclosure, are driving more proposed changes.

"I think in recent years, there's been an awareness that buying local is good for you and also good for the environment," said Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who is carrying a bail that would lift restrictions on selling homemade prepared foods. "I think that as families have realized that, certainly the Legislature has heard from constituents."

Van Ort goes on to describe Gatto's bill to permit the sale of so-called "cottage food products," including granola, baking mixes, baked goods, mixed nuts, preserves and roasted coffee made in individuals' homes. The law would give public health officials the authority to inspect home kitchens. Van Ort also provides a national perspective on the proposed law, noting that while California prides itself for being on the vanguard in food and ag matters, cottage food industry bills are all the rage in statehouses around the nation these days.

The story also details other food-related initiatives in California:

• Senator Bill Emmerson, R-Hemet, has a resolution urging stricter federal standards in relation to the mislabeling of gluten-free foods.
• Senator Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, is pursuing legislation aimed at ensuring that diners know the source of harvest for fish served in restaurants. He cites concerns about contamination and the lack of fishing regulations in some parts of the world.
• "A coalition is seeking to qualify an initiative for the November ballot that would mandate labeling for genetically modified foods. Supporters have poured nearly $1.3 million into the effort, including $500,000 from a Chicago man who runs a natural health website."

The Feminization of Farming

That is the title of Professor Olivier De Schutter's op-ed in the New York Times today, but it reminds me of another catchy (if depressing) phrase feminists coined a few decades ago:  the feminization of poverty.

As it turns out, De Schutter, the UN special rapporteur on the the right to food, brings together issues of gender equality and food security in his op-ed in a way that shows the link of both to, you guessed it, poverty.  As most of us know, women are more likely than men to be living in poverty, wherever they are in the world.  Turns out, according to De Shutter, as women get more and more responsibility for growing food in the developing world--partly as a result of male migration for work--women's poverty and hunger, along with that of their families, is exacerbated, not eliminated.

Specifically, De Schutter discusses a report released today to the United Nations Human Rights Council in which he calls for a "comprehensive, rights-based approach focused on removing legal discrimination and on improving public services — child care, water supplies, sanitation and energy sources — to reduce the burden on women who farm."

Noting women's increasing roles "on the front lines of the fight to sustain family farms," De Schutter asserts that gender discrimination and stereotyping lead to pervasive discrimination against women, hindering their ability to overcome poverty and hunger.  Some manifestations of this discrimination "den[y] small-scale female farmers the same access men have to fertilizer, seeds, credit membership in cooperatives and unions, and technical assistance."  Just as problematic, if not more so according to De Schutter, are the burdens associated with traditional gender roles that leave women expected to do "unremunerated household chores like cooking, cleaning, fetching water, collecting firewood and caring for the very young and the elderly." De Schutter notes that these activities are equivalent "to as much as 63 percent of gross domestic product in India and Tanzania," and that these endless tasks keep women from having the time they need to "attend classes, travel to markets to sell produce or do other activities to improve their economic prospects."

De Schutter provides success stories from Bangladesh, the Philippines and China, mostly about programs that look at first blush unrelated to farming and food.  These programs have, among other things, provided obstetric and other health services, educated women about domestic violence, enhanced education for children, supplied clean water and latrines, and employed women on rural road maintenance crews.  Yet as apparently unrelated to farming as these programs are, all of these have had the knock on effect of enhancing women's farm productivity and helping to alleviate hunger.

De Schutter does not mention the role that CEDAW--which includes specific rights for rural women--can play in all of this, but that is a topic I have written about extensively here, here, and here.  This article is about empowerment of India's rural populations in particular.

Kudos to De Schutter--and the United Nations--for seeing food security as part of a much wider web that implicates women's agency and well-being.  

Cross posted to Legal Ruralism.