Not a lot of people know much about the Food & Farm Bill, which normally comes up for congressional review and reauthorization every five years. And yet, it is the primary piece of legislation that determines our nation’s food and agricultural policies from production to distribution at an annual budget of $57 billion or $284 billion over five years (2008 figures). In this new era, where citizens have shed their complacency or fear to take on the monolithic structures of government and corporate power, a small group of Kalamazoo, Michigan food activists and professionals have decided to begin studying and understanding the Food & Farm Bill so that they can talk to and influence policymakers, two of whom will play a key role in this year’s appropriations.Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow is chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has jurisdiction over agriculture programs, nutrition programs, and rural development. Rep. Fred Upton of the Sixth District (southwestern Michigan), is a member of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, a.k.a. the Super Committee, which is charged with issuing a formal recommendation on how to reduce the deficit by at least $1.5 trillion over the next ten years.

The coalition also wants to build a healthier, more food-secure Kalamazoo County by determining what local food-oriented groups have in common and how they can share their resources. Their first meeting was held on Thursday, November 10 at the Kalamazoo Public Library.

Chris Dilley, People's Food Co-Op

“We want to start a conversation about the Food & Farm Bill regarding its funding, farming, and access policies,” said Chris Dilley, general manager of the People’s Food Co-Op and one of six initiators of the coalition. ”It is one of the areas to be reviewed by the Super Committee to expedite the legislative process a little differently,” he said. “It normally takes two to three years to write and appropriate each five-year Food & Farm Bill. “Nearly all of the money under the current 2008 Food & Farm Bill was to be spent on four areas: nutrition (67 percent), farm commodity support (15 percent), conservation (9 percent), and crop insurance (8 percent), according to last December’s Congressional Research Service (CRS) report.

“Of the $284 billion in projected total five-year net outlays for programs under the farm bill—including revenue and cost-offset provisions in the bill—about $189 billion was expected to support the cost of food stamps and certain other nutrition assistance programs, $42 billion was expected to support commodity crops, $24 billion was expected to support mandatory conservation programs, and $22 billion was expected to crop insurance,” said the CRS report.

“Several programs are at risk of being cut off in the Super Committee’s deliberations,” said Donna McClurkan, a coalition representative of the Michigan Farmers Market Association. “Nutrition is the biggest chunk and it includes SNAP benefits (food stamps) for poor people. However, access to food is an issue for all people. Conservation is another where we’ll likely see cuts.”

The Food & Farm Bill also determines what food is served in school cafeterias and the level of support farmers receive for sustainable and organic farming, a big issue for the coalition. McClurkan added that the Food & Farm Bill first appeared during the 1930’s Depression to protect farmers, pricing, and land but that it has morphed into providing compensation for commodity crop producers. The 684-page document is very unwieldy to handle so she referred people to two sources that help explain it:

A Web site by Connecting Food and Tech Innovator.

A video with Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, who discusses how massive subsides are paid to industrial farmers and how citizen groups can help advocate and improve this important legislation.

The group is guided by principles in the Michigan Good Food Charter, which has 226 statewide signatories of organizations and individuals who seek to provide a food system that is healthy, green, fair, and affordable to all. “Michigan is well-poised to influence food and farm policy in this country,” said McClurkan. “It has a rich and diverse agricultural heritage.”

Michigan grows over 150 different crops, second only to California. It has a first-class land grant university, greenhouses, good soil, fresh water, community-supported agriculture (CSA), and small farmers. “This is energy we can rally around,” she said. After a brief overview of the coalition’s mission and purpose, participants were divided into four groups to talk briefly about major aspects of the Food & Farm Bill:  (1) Food System Infrastructure, (2) Local Foods in Institutions, (3) Farms- Resources-Environment-Conservation, (4) Food Access and Vulnerable People.

At the wrap-up it was decided to broaden community participation, plan some public activities, and invite local political officials to its discussions. Other leaders of the coalition included Paul Stermer of Fair Food Matters, Phyllis Hepp of Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes, Ken Dahlberg of the Michigan Land Trust, Mike Rowe of Bronson Hospital. Among the 45 participants attending were farmers, college students, food advocates, dietitians, food service professionals, MSU Extension, and health care providers.

Originally published on The Huffington Post

I’m a vegetarian. But my husband’s not. And, go figure, my kids aren’t either. Which is exactly why I care about the meat I buy. Yes, I buy meat. I’d rather not, but if it’s coming into the house–and into my kids’ bodies–then I need to know exactly what I’m buying. And I not only want to know how it’s affecting my family’s health, I also care deeply about how it’s affecting our family’s environmental footprint (including climate change).

Enter Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) new Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change + Health. In it, EWG took a close look at how a variety of protein foods rank when their total, “cradle-to-grave” greenhouse gas emissions are calculated. Then we factored in the non-climate environmental impacts (like water pollution) and health effects of meat and confirmed that, indeed, not all meat is created equal.

Different foods generate different amounts of green house gases

Our lifecycle comparison shows that, pound for pound, lamb, beef, cheese, and pork generate the most greenhouse gases (GHGs) of the protein foods we looked at; beef emits four times as many GHGs as chicken! They also tend to be higher in saturated fat and have the worst overall environmental impacts because producing them requires the most resources, mainly chemical fertilizer, feed, fuel, pesticides, and water.

If you’re scratching your head, wondering how exactly eating meat generates GHGs, there are three main sources: Feed production, ruminant digestion, and manure. In other words, growing animal food, farting animal food, and pooping animal food. (Excuse our language, but it’s clearest–and likely more memorable–this way. Plus, my eight-year old son thinks it’s hilarious.) For a bite-sized description of the climate and environmental impacts of each stage of meat production (there are many: Growing feed, grazing, slaughtering, transporting all of it, eating, and wasting), see the meat lifecycle graphic on EWG’s Web site.

It’s Clear: We’re Eating Too Much Meat

For many, meat is a regular, familiar part of their diets. Eating meat in moderation can be a good source of complete protein and key vitamins and nutrients such as iron, zinc and vitamins B-12, B-6, and niacin. That said, we eat far more protein than we need: Kids get three to four times the recommended amount and adult men get twice the amount they need. And, of course, the nutritional benefits of meats can be reaped from other, less environmentally damaging food sources (like lentils and beans).

The scientific evidence is increasingly clear that eating too much meat–particularly red and processed meat–contributes to a wide variety of serious health problems like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obesity. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), most human exposure to dioxins comes from food, almost entirely through animal fats. The best way to reduce the health risks associated with dioxins and other toxins is by limiting your dietary exposure to them.

Eating Less and Better Meat

If your health and the planet are on your “to do” list at all, you’ll accomplish a lot by trimming your portions, skipping it here and there (why not every Monday?), and choosing leaner, greener meat. Just like reducing home energy use or driving less, skipping meat once a week can make a meaningful difference in GHG emissions if we all do it. According to EWG’s calculations, if everyone in the U.S. chose a vegetarian diet, it would be the equivalent of taking 46 million cars off the road or not driving 555 billion miles. To present a likelier option, if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles–or taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

At the same time, keep in mind that although important for improving your health and reducing your personal carbon footprint (of which you’re, thankfully, the boss), eating less (or no) meat, by itself, won’t stop climate change or eliminate environmental damage. The fork is powerful, but not all-powerful. But don’t let that stop you. Wield it anyway and support policy change to invest in greener energy and cleaner, more sustainable food production.

EWG’s Tips for Meat Eaters: Finding the Good Stuff

Often, it’s not our goals (often good), but rather lack of specific, trustworthy knowledge about smart consumer choices that stands between us and our best intentions. Which is why EWG put together our top tips for leaner, greener meat shopping (we also have a wallet card, available on our Web site). If you buy less meat overall (our top tip for meat eaters), you can more easily afford healthier, greener meat.

When shopping, always read the labels (and check our label decoder)! Look for:

• Grass-fed or pasture-raised meat: Has fewer antibiotics and hormones and in some cases may have more nutrients and less fat; the animals live in more humane, open, sanitary conditions and well-managed systems reduce erosion and water pollution, conserve carbon and preserve biodiversity and wildlife.
• Lean cuts: Less fat will likely mean fewer cancer-causing toxins in your body.
• No antibiotics or hormones: Reduces unnecessary exposure and helps keep human medicines effective.
• Certified organic: Keeps pesticides, chemical fertilizers and genetically modified foods off the land, out of the water and out of our bodies.
• Certified humane: Means no growth hormones or antibiotics and ensures that animals were raised with enough space and no cages or crates.
• Unprocessed, nitrite-free, and low sodium: Avoid lunchmeats, hot dogs, prepackaged smoked meats, and chicken nuggets.
• Sustainable seafood: Avoid airfreighted fish, most farmed salmon, and consult Monterey Bay Aquarium’s list of the most sustainable seafood choices.
• Local: Supports your local economy and protects farm land.

If you can’t find these healthier products (we know that in some places it takes a little hunting), ask your grocer to carry them (as more and more people ask, they will become more readily available). And consult eatwellguide or eatwild, both terrific online resources, to find a nearby store with greener, pasture-raised meat.

Wasting less and eating less and greener meat is a powerful investment in yourself and our planet–that’s easier to make than you might think. Start today by taking EWG’s pledge to eat less meat. (and hey, it’s Monday, why not make today your first Meatless Monday?). It’s good to be part of the solution, isn’t it?

Last week, Kitchen Table Talks gathered in San Francisco to discuss “The Meat of the Matter”: How our food system is structured to support industrial animal production and what alternative solutions exist, including reducing our meat consumption and supporting sustainable ranchers. We also heard new data underscoring meat’s deleterious environmental effects.

Leading us in conversation was Kari Hamerschlag, a Senior Agriculture Analyst working in the Environmental Working Group’s California office, who explained how she came to work on this subject 25 years ago after reading Francis Moore Lappé’s Diet for a Small Planet: “I was struck by the information in the book about the massive resources—water, fertilizer and pesticides, and fuel that goes into growing the feed that goes into producing a pound of beef and how highly inefficient and environmentally harmful the process is to get the protein we need,” Hamerschlag said. “Lappé argued convincingly to me that it would be much better to use at least some of those resources to grow food for hungry people rather than for animals.” She was so inspired that when she graduated from college, she drove cross-country and went to work for Lappé’s institute—Food First.

In Hamerschlag’s view, Lappé’s arguments are now more relevant than ever as meat production is central to a growing global water, energy, climate change—and food crisis. Next year, EWG will publish a “Meateaters’ Guide to Climate Change and Health,” which will quantify the amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with a typical serving of beef or pork or chicken—from the production of the fertilizer to the processing, transport and cooking, and waste of that product—so that the public can understand with greater certainty how changes in our individual diets affect the planet.

Bottom line: Eat lower on the food chain. Factory farmed lamb and beef, have the highest GHG impact—more than twice that of pork and chicken and more than five times that of veggie proteins—like beans, lentils and tofu, which have very low emissions. Cheese consumption has the third largest impact, when compared by weight. Waste accounts for about one-third of overall emissions associated with a pound of beef or chicken. “This is because a tremendous amount of resources go into producing wasted food which then ends up in the landfill generating additional methane,” Hamerschlag said. “Besides reducing our demand, reducing waste would be the other critical thing we need to do as a society to combat climate change and reduce the negative impact of agriculture.”

Hamerschlag explained the myriad problems with industrial animal agriculture: Nearly 149 million acres (or half of all crop land) is used for growing animal feed for U.S. livestock. Roughly 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer is needed to grow the feed—which generates nitrous oxide, a GHG 300 times as potent as carbon dioxide. “The pesticides and fertilizers often end up as runoff which pollutes our groundwater and waterways,” she said. “We now have a ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey—where no marine life can live due to the lack of oxygen, largely a result of the phosphorous and nitrogen fertilizer used for grain production. And all of this grain is subsidized with our tax dollars—$45 billion worth over the past 10 years.”

Animals also generate huge amounts of manure, which creates nitrous oxide and methane, a GHG gas 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide. “Iowa’s 5,000 confined hog facilities generate over 50 million tons of raw waste or 16.7 tons of animal manure for every resident,” she said. “But unlike human waste, waste from animals is not generally regulated and the manure, which is either stored or spread on the fields, can leach all kinds of pollutants—such as antibiotics, metals like arsenic and selenium, and especially nitrogen and phosphorous directly into groundwater that affects drinking water.”

Hamerschlag noted that the meats that are most energy intensive are also worse for our health and may be contributing to the increased burden of chronic and acute disease in the U.S. Between 1950 and 2007, per capita meat consumption in the U.S. increased an astounding 78 pounds per person per year and world meat consumption is expected to double by 2050. The health consequences from the overconsumption of meat—obesity, coronary heart disease, and cancer—are now well documented. In addition, the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in animals (70 percent of all antibiotics used in America are used in meat production) is also posing a serious threat to human health.

Kim O’Donnel, a trained chef, longtime journalist, and the author of the new book, The Meat Lover’s Meatless Cookbook, took the conversation from the theoretical to the personal: She grew up eating meat at every meal (her mother gave her T-bone steaks to gnaw on when she was teething as a baby), battled high cholesterol, and lost her father to a heart attack when he was 37. Her mother is now with a partner who loves meat and who has had several heart attacks.

O’Donnel explained the importance of reducing meat consumption for health, personal, and environmental reasons and said she wrote the book for her mother’s partner and for others, the hypothetical “Mr. Sausage”—the person who can’t imagine not eating meat every day, several times a day. “The idea is that you can still have your meat—still have your T-bone if you want it,” she said. “But I wanted to give creative, delicious ways for meat eaters, like myself, to take at least one day off a week from eating meat. And once you start, you feel better and your body will thank you.” She noted that reducing meat consumption by just 15 percent is good for your health and the planet.

O’Donnel’s own journey crystallized when the environmental impacts of meat eating were made clear in the 2006 United Nation publication, Livestock’s Long Shadow. “I was struck by a comment made by Nobel Peace Prize winner and UN climate expert Rajendra Pachauri that one of the most important things you can do to help the planet is not trade in your gas guzzler for a Prius, but go meat-free once a week,” O’Donnel said.

Her book has 52 menus (one for each week of the year), organized seasonally. She eats meatless several times a week and noted that even her mother is cooking less meat-centric meals. “I want people to get into the kitchen and put these ideas into practice,” O’Donnel said. “A little bit at a time and we can chew a little bit less meat.” Noting that one of the most well-known of meat-eaters, Bill Clinton, has recently professed his new plant-based diet, O’Donnel explained the trend around eating less meat and the growth of Meatless Monday, an initiative of Healthy Monday and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

From eating less meat, to eating “better” meat, Marissa Guggiana, the author of Primal Cuts: Cooking with America’s Best Butchers and president of Sonoma Direct, a family business providing sustainably raised meats, explained the importance of supporting small, sustainable ranchers, such as California’s Marin Sun Farms and Prather Ranch. She explained the expense and complication of raising and slaughtering meat and how local cattle ranchers must rely on the Bay Area’s last remaining slaughterhouse, Rancho Veal in Petaluma, built 80 years ago, or send their meat off to a larger Midwest slaughterhouse.

Guggiana detailed how in the last 20 years, slaughterhouses have consolidated (from 1976 to 1996, the number of federally inspected plants processing beef decreased by more than half), and have grown from facilities that killed fewer than 100,000 animals a year to ones that are designed to kill 10 times as many. “Doing less bad is different than doing good,” Guggiana pointed out, referring to the current status of slaughterhouses. “The USDA sees the need for more affordable and expandable infrastructure and has created guidelines for mobile slaughter units, after seeing the success of many, like the Island Grown Farmers Cooperative in Washington state,” Guggiana noted.

A lively conversation ensued about the importance of supporting local ranchers and what “sustainable” ranching means by learning to ask meaningful questions from retailers: Who grew this livestock? Where was it raised? What did it eat? How was it treated? Was it purchased from the farmer or aggregated by a middleman? And of course: Was it treated with non-therapeutic antibiotics? (Guggiana also wrote this guide to understanding some meat labels out there, such as “free range” and “grass fed.”) The question of ethical eating of meat was raised and folks brainstormed ways to bring the meatless message to a wider audience—especially those outside of the Bay Area—and how to support farmers. One participant suggested a “Farmer Friday” along the lines of Meatless Monday.

In the end, all three panelists gave timely recommendations for direct action. O’Donnel urged everyone to keep it simple and take incremental steps, and if you live alone, to cook with others. Guggiana noted that it’s important to enjoy eating and slow down and taste your food, while learning how food was made. “When you taste non-industrial meat, you’ll want to support ranchers who’re doing the right thing, and be willing to pay a higher price and eat it less often,” she said.

Hamerschlag ended by noting that changing our consumption is important, but changing our policies would have an even greater impact. “We need to reduce subsidies for animal production by reforming the subsidy system that underwrites feed production and when farmers do get subsidies, they need to play by certain environmental rules to protect the soil and water,” she said. “We need to elect politicians who have the courage to enact and enforce climate change policy. But when our politicians don’t listen, we need to lead by example. Not everyone can buy a Prius—or put solar panels on their homes—but we all can reduce our meat and dairy consumption and go meatless on Mondays, and perhaps on Thursday and Fridays, as well. Besides helping the climate and our environment, it’s good for our health, our waistlines, and our pocketbooks.”

Photo: Skinnyde via flickr

Will transparency help to build a more nuanced discussion around changing our farm subsidy system? Today, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released the latest version of their widely referenced Farm Subsidy Database, with more detailed information on farm payments by individual, county, state and congressional district and including a national summary. In looking at the numbers closely, it becomes apparent that still, the wealthiest farms are receiving the most subsidies. With populist anger over federal spending spilling over, the government searching to get out of debt, and 74% of earnings having gone to the top 10% of farmers from 1995-2009, will farm subsidies finally come under the knife in the 2012 Farm Bill?

EWG’s previous version of the database, launched in 2004, has logged over 200 million searches — a testament to the public interest in the subject — and was responsible for upending the commonly-held beliefs about who is receiving farm payments. In viewing the subsidies by congressional district, you can clearly see why certain politicians are sticking up for farm subsidies. Further, the database shows the public just how much of an underdog fruits and vegetables are in the current system, and that a lot of money that could be spent on conservation programs and healthier school lunches are going to a few wealthy farmers.

The new database also includes analysis of the crop insurance system for the first time, which is essentially an insurance policy for commodity crops made cheaper to the farmer with the infusion of $5.4 billion in tax-payer money in 2009, and that number has been rising. As it currently stands, there is no limit on how much crop insurance can be collected, and only 1% has gone to specialty crops (fruits and vegetables). Crop insurance does benefit individuals, but meanwhile socializes losses — namely, the US government pays half the premium, and actual lost income is paid by the government and not the insurance companies.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN) has suggested that crop insurance be altered in the next Farm Bill to cover the entire farm, instead of a particular commodity crop. He has also suggested that this could be the future of subsidies, phasing out the current farm payment system in exchange for more insurance coverage. This could make way for more diversity of crops on the farm, decreasing risk and giving rise to vibrant local food systems — and you can bet it will be the a subject of much discussion as the Farm Bill debate gets underway.

But the EWG hopes the system will be  simplified to provide a genuine safety net for farmers when things happen that are beyond their control. “There is a need for some sort of safety net to tide people through difficult times, serious crop losses,” said Craig Cox, Senior Vice President at EWG. “Commodity markets much more volatile these days and we need a legitimate risk management tool that helps farmers through a rough patch”

Unfortunately, the action plan for agriculture leaves out one critical proven strategy for coping with extreme weather events: the promotion of organic agricultural practices that will make soils healthier and more productive, while also conserving water and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The draft adaptation strategy points out what most critics of federal and state climate change legislation constantly fail to acknowledge: That taking no action to address climate change now could cost key sectors in the state “tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs.”

When it comes to agriculture, we can not afford these costs. Besides lost production and reduced yields, there are many other potential impacts, including threats to food security and wildlife, increases in pests, diseases and invasive species, increased soil erosion, and reduced soil and water quality, to name a few. Unfortunately, the draft strategy fails to even include agriculture among its top twelve priority actions.

At a public hearing last week in Sacramento, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) offered its suggestions for strengthening and prioritizing organic and sustainable agricultural practices among the adaptation measures proposed for the agriculture sector. First and foremost, the adaptation strategy should give higher priority to the promotion of proven, cost-effective soil management strategies—such as cover cropping, conservation tillage, mulching, nutrient management and organic agriculture—which will make soils more productive, farms more resilient, and at the same time reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These practices will deliver numerous other benefits for farmers and the environment, including better water quality and enhanced soil, water and biodiversity conservation.

While the report makes some excellent recommendations for addressing water quality and conservation, it fails to mention the value of soil management practices for improving water capture, infiltration, and storage. For example, increasing soil organic matter by one percent can enhance water storage in the soil by 16,000 gallons per acre-foot. The document neglects another key strategy for conserving water: Discouraging thirsty crops like alfalfa and cotton that just don’t make sense for arid climates. Alfalfa growers use as much water as all the cities in California put together. The strategy should recommend the use of incentives to encourage farmers to plant water-efficient crops.

As the climate warms, pests and weeds are expected to multiply more rapidly. If we don’t want to see a huge increase in chemical applications, it’s critical that the strategy more strongly promote management techniques such as advanced integrated pest management, fertilizer efficiency and organic agriculture, to help farmers minimize the future use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Finally the state needs to dramatically elevate the attention that it gives to agriculture and climate change. The California Department of Food and Agriculture currently has no staff dedicated to climate change and agriculture was all but left out of the state’s implementation strategy for its landmark Climate Change bill, AB 32. It’s time that the state’s leading agricultural agency dedicate at least one full time staff to climate change.

Given the strong links between agriculture adaptation and greenhouse gas emission reduction practices, the state should establish an inter-agency working group on agriculture and climate change to ensure swifter and better coordinated action on both these fronts. It could also provide a much needed forum for the intensive stakeholder engagement and outreach that will be needed to motivate real change.

It’s not too late to make changes to the strategy. Comments are being accepted until September 17. But unless the Natural Resources Agency hears from organic and sustainable farmers and advocates, the state will likely pursue a business as usual approach to agriculture. Given the stakes, this doesn’t seem like a good option.