Mark Winne's Blog, page 15

We’re (They’re) Number One!

Ever since I abandoned my fair Connecticut for the browner pastures of New Mexico, I put more than miles between me and my former state. At times I found myself making fun of such inconsequential things as its puny size (some of New Mexico’s counties are larger than all of Connecticut), dense development and lack of open space (yes, New Mexico affords you fantastic, never-ending vistas), and its staid, New England ways (Connecticut’s nickname is “the land of steady habits”). But when America’s former insurance hub, where actuaries far outnumbered farmers, started passing one progressive piece of legislation after another, my latent fondness was renewed.

Just this past Monday, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to pass a law that mandates labeling of genetically engineered food ingredients. Though the law has a problem, namely a “trigger” that requires that some other states in the region pass a similar law before the Connecticut law goes into effect, it does land a meaningful blow to Monsanto’s previously impregnable forehead. What I found most interesting was that after much debate in the Connecticut legislature – and certainly less transparent back room dealing – the bill passed with only 3 legislators opposing it.  

Much credit is due to some great on-the-ground campaign work by a strong coalition of anti-GMO proponents. This being the second year that a labeling bill came before the legislature (the first bill had been withdrawn after Monsanto threatened to sue Connecticut), activists had lots of practice, the public was hearing more and more about the issues, and elected officials succumbed with grace and mindfulness to citizen demand for information about the food they eat.

But this great leap forward for humankind is not Connecticut’s first first. A state farmland preservation program created in 1978 put Connecticut at the head of the pack in efforts to prevent the loss of farmland. A bill banning sugary soft drink sales went into effect in 2007 even after a gubernatorial veto the year before. On the non-food front, Connecticut was one of the first states (it’s okay to be second or third as well) to pass a civil-union bill, and of course the landmark gun control legislation that passed the legislature earlier this spring put the state at the front of the line for progressive action to stem senseless violence.

I don’t care how big Connecticut is, you just gotta love a people who have the chutzpah to thumb their noses at biotech giants, Big Soda, conservative social dogma, and the NRA. Could this serene place rising gently east and west from the banks of the sweet-tempered Connecticut River be a harbinger of the future of America, or maybe even a refuge from the mean-spiritedness and corporate arrogance that plagues much of the country? Will it change the tag line on its license plate to “The Progressive State?” Hopefully, others will follow Connecticut’s lead rather than settle there, and in so doing, carve out their own path to a more modest, just, and participatory civil society.

 

UK Keen on Food Policy Councils

Imagine having nearly $2 million to spend over 3 years on the development and improvement of food policy councils in the United States. Mix in some capacity building assistance, a template for bringing together local food system stakeholders to write a food plan for your city or state, a national networking conference, and voila! Not only would you be able to finally pay that part-time intern something, you might even become a credible force for real policy change. But while you’re waiting for the big foundations or USDA to make this fantasy come true, you might as well take a little sojourn in the United Kingdom where its fast becoming reality.
 
Due to the kindness of globe-trotting British professors and Fulbright scholars, I had a recent opportunity to check up on the UK community food movement. A lecture at the University of Cardiff (Wales), some time with the Cardiff food policy council, and a full-day workshop in Newcastle (northeast England) put me in touch with over 100 local food program and policy activists from across the country. And from London to Edinburgh, and Brighton to Plymouth, it became clear to me that the Brits are keen on food policy councils.
 
The British Soil Association, the nation’s organic certifying agency as well as a favourite charity of Prince Charles, is leading the charge for local food democracy. With almost $2 million from a national foundation, the Association developed its Sustainable Food Cities program which is spear-headed by self-described food anarchist Tom Andrews. Though perhaps a bit bombastic by US standards, Andrews is riding the British rails to support about 30 cities that either have or want to develop food charters, food action plans, and local food councils. Almost everyone is receiving a little help, but the grand prize will be $115,000 going to each of 6 cities who will be required to secure an additional $75,000 match from their local government authorities. In a way, this “forced” private and public partnership is one of the defining differences between US and UK food policy councils.
 
The formerly gritty coal port of Newcastle is a case in point. Jamie Sadler’s not-for-profit organization, Food Nation, has forged a strong working relationship with the city’s health director, Dawn Scott, to write a food charter (the scheduled launch date is July 17) and organize a food policy council. Food Nation and its 15 staff members work on a variety of community tasks, especially improving the quality of school food, which, in its pre-Jamie Oliver days, was pretty appalling. Sadler said, “I had my hands slapped a few times by the local authorities for calling the food quality into question.” but then decided that collaboration with city officials was more likely to secure improvements.
 
Dawn Scott was a big reason Sadler had a change in heart. “She’s fantastic to work with,” was his comment, and after I heard her speak at the Newcastle conference I could see what he means. She’s not afraid to ruffle some feathers by making it clear how scandalized she is by her city’s 25 percent child obesity rate. (Apparently, speaking your mind is something that academics in the UK also do. During a brief conference presentation, Newcastle University’s Director of the Social Networking Institute told the audience how gross the wealth disparities were in the UK — a gap that makes the US “one percent” look like a bunch of slum dwellers).
 
Productive private/public partnerships are also percolating in Cardiff, Wales, another “old city” where new urbanism has dethroned king coal. Steve Garrett, a local food activist is working closely with Eryl Powell of the city’s health department. Steve is refreshingly edgy and street smart; Eryl is thoroughly professional and committed. Along with a dozen or so members of their food policy council they have passed a food charter and are now negotiating with city government on how to implement its goals. Like start up food policy councils everywhere, however, they are struggling to do a lot with almost no staff, wanting to do more outreach to build and diversify their constituency base, and agonizing a bit over how to communicate their message. But one senses that enormous capacity resides within a marriage of equals, one where a third party, the University of Cardiff, is willing to commit resources as well.
 
The food charter template handed down to dozens of local UK communities by the Soil Association might also be considered a bit of an anomaly in the US. While emerging US food policy councils are always looking for good models from elsewhere, they tend to be a bunch of independent cats not easily subject to herding. After reviewing food charters for Durham, Newcastle, Plymouth, and Cardiff, I was surprised how uniform they were. They all have five major priorities (no more, no less) that roughly fall into the following categories: healthy food for all, local food economy, environmental sustainability, resilient communities, and fairness in the food chain www.foodplymouth.org. The charters then go on to state ten goals (no more, no less) that include statements like “ensure people have access to affordable, healthy and sustainable food,” “encourage…practices so public and private sector bodies can procure and provide healthy, sustainable food to promote local economic prosperity,” and “work together to tackle and eradicate food poverty.”
 
While each charter’s language varies slightly, and some emphasize certain goals over others, e.g. more about local food, less about food poverty, they do have a remarkable cookie cutter feel to them. I guess the arguments go both ways: too lock-step in nature  does not allow each place to assert its own identity, or, conversely, greater recognition and common branding will lead to greater national impact, to say nothing of simply being more efficient. But as a “Born in the USA” kind of guy, I tend to like the way our local communities put their own brand (as in unique to each ranch) on their place’s needs and strategies. But then again, life would be a little easier if one size could fit all, and if the wheel didn’t have to be reinvented each week.
 
In the meantime, Brighton’s Food Partners’ 16 staff people are not only running food programs, but working with government to change the city’s food policies. The Food Plymouth organization (the same city from whence our Pilgrims set sail, later to be saved from starvation by Massachusetts’s generous Indian tribes) has mapped out an ambitious three-year food plan to not only remake their food system, but strengthen their local economy around food. The City of London’s diverse 40-member Food Board oversees the implementation of the Mayor”s Food Strategy: Healthy and Sustainable Food for London published in 2006. And the Scots, carving out their own road to independence, have the Edinburgh Community Food organization under the leadership of Iain Stewart, undertaking healthy food initiatives, emphasizing locally sourced food, and bringing as many community voices into the discussion as they can.
 
It doesn’t have to be said that the US food movement, especially that portion working on local policy, has a lot to learn from the UK. And though our forms of government and governance, to say nothing of issues and styles, are different, they have much to learn from us. A “hands across the pond” learning and sharing experience would not only reinforce the notion that we do indeed share a common language, but that we could strengthen our respective food movements at the same time.

Food Democracy on the March

The most recent issue of the Harvard Health Policy Review has an article by me titled “Food Democracy on the March.” For those of you who have heard me speak or attended one of my food policy council trainings, some of the article’s references may sound familiar. But I thought it was time to organize these thoughts in one tidy place. Thank you, Harvard!

Go to www.hhpronline.org and scroll down to the “Food Democracy of the March.”

Genetically Engineered Food Needs Labels

The fight is underway in the Connecticut legislature to require labels on food items containing genetically engineered food. The bill has been reported out favorably by large margins in two committees.  My op-ed in favor of the bill appeared in the Sunday, 4/7/13 opinion section of the Hartford Courant. Use the link or read below:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-winne-genetically-engineered-food-needs-labe-20130405,0,6879711.story

 Genetically Engineered Food Needs Labels

By Mark Winne

If there’s one thing that stands out for me during my 25 years in Connecticut, it was the quiet but delicious return of good food and local farms.

For readers who are less than 40 years old, please remember, there were no farmers’ markets in the state until 1978. Today, according to the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, there are 118. There were also no community supported agriculture farms. Today, according to Connecticut NOFA, there are 70.

Throughout the latter decades of the 20th century, subdivisions were consuming the state’s farmland faster than you could eat a Glastonbury peach. Today, between the state’s farmland preservation program and the Connecticut Farmland Trust, over 325 farms and 40,000 acres have been permanently protected. Overall, the number of farms is no longer on the decline but actually on the rise. And with equal importance, residents living in lower income neighborhoods are witnessing a return of supermarkets to some of the state’s worst food deserts.

Progress like this cannot be taken for granted, nor can it go unattributed. It was due to the public will, meaning the actions of thousands of informed Connecticut citizens, policymakers, and concerned organizations who thoughtfully reshaped the direction of the state’s then atrophying food system.

I sense such a destiny-making moment is before Connecticut again. The passage of House Bill 6519, “An Act Concerning the Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food,” would not only make Connecticut the first state to require such labeling, it would also give the state’s citizens a chance to chart the direction of their food system. Labeling food products comprised of ingredients grown or raised by genetically modified means will grant every Connecticut consumer the opportunity to make an informed choice, just as they have done for local food, farmland protection, and access to healthy food for all.

The efficacy and safety of genetic modification is still in doubt and will be debated for some time to come. Clearly, the public must engage in this debate and not concede its outcome to a small number of profit-driven biotechnology corporations, scientists, and federal officials. But given the pit-bull determination of the food industry to fight every attempt to rein it in – a fight financed with bottomless coffers – genetically engineered ingredients will remain on grocery store shelves for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean that we have to consume them if we don’t want to. Hence, the need for information, which is why savvy marketers like Whole Foods will soon be labeling GE food.

It is prudent to beware of food and farm corporations bearing gifts. Like a Trojan horse that appears one morning on the town common, genetically engineered food proponents claim that it poses no harm to humans or the environment, and that we need the technology to feed the nine billion people expected by 2050.  Consider the claims and the source. Already, genetically engineered crops have been associated with the decline of monarch butterfly populations as well as a greater degree of herbicide tolerance – requiring more herbicides instead of less. Yields from GE seeds have shown mixed results, not always exceeding those of conventional or hybridized seeds. And United Nation’s bodies have not embraced GMOs as a way to feed a hungry world, proposing instead more sustainable agriculture methods and a greater emphasis on small-scale farming and social equity in developing nations.

When entering uncharted territory where risk is prevalent, we should employ the precautionary principle. This means that the introduction of new technologies require a much higher level of certainty and scientific consensus than we currently have with GMOs. As my mother taught me when I first learned to cross busy streets, look both ways, look again and again, and then proceed with caution.

I’ve always been proud of Connecticut’s independent streak. A tenacious refusal to accept pat solutions and the mediocrity of market-driven events has served it well over the years. Information is power because it gives people the power to choose and to act. Labeling genetically engineered food will give the state’s consumers the information they need to make their own choice while allowing its citizens to choose the food system that reflects their needs and values.

Warriors, Workers, and Weavers: Choreographing the Food Policy Dance

I think it was the University of Wisconsin sociology professor Steve Stevenson who first coined the phrase “warriors, workers, and weavers” to characterize the three most common flavors that change agents come in. If it wasn’t him, I hope he’ll forgive the attribution because regardless of who first spoketh thus, I’ve yet to find a better descriptor of what’s currently playing on the food policy stage.

As the battle for the soul of our food system rages across the city hall, state legislature, and congressional landscapes, we increasingly see the health and sustainability warriors taking on the Evil Empire in hand-to-hand combat. Michael Bloomberg has challenged the Bubbleheads of Big Soda to a World Wrestling Federation “Smack Down,” while Food and Water Watch has unleashed its raw recruits – “once more unto the breach” – on Monsanto. “Stiffen the sinews [and] conjure up blood” has been the food warriors’ battle cry of late.

Unfortunately, the warriors have been badly bloodied in their recent attempts to storm the barricades. In the cause of labeling GMO products during this session of the New Mexico legislature, Food and Water Watch’s troops were mowed down like dry buffalo grass. The massed artillery of bio-tech’s high-powered lobbyists and Big Ag-lovin’ legislators made short work of the anti-GMO brigade that came to the fight armed with not much more than a couple of rusty muskets. But even Bloomberg’s mayoral clout and impeccable public health credentials have been insufficient to convince his own state court that huge soda containers, some of which are big enough to do the breaststroke in, are not an entitlement but a corrosive threat to humankind.

GMO battles in at least 20 other state legislatures this year, as well as numerous regulatory and tax measures designed to take the fizz out of soda consumption, have not fared well either. That’s not surprising considering the bottomless pecuniary pit of the food industry. If California’s spending spree on Proposition 37 is any indication – $45 million by pro-GMO corporations – we can reasonably surmise that combined spending by the food industry to kill the people’s hunger for food system change is running into the hundreds of millions. Add in the “millions for minorities” that Coke and Pepsi have cynically spent to curry anti-regulatory favor among groups like the NAACP and the National Hispana Leadership Institute (“Bottlers and Minority Groups, Soda War Allies,” New York Times, 3/13/13), we can assume that the warriors must do much more than simply max out their credit cards to take on the food industry.

The Evil Empire is not just playing defense. Taking cues from a rising anti “nanny state” fervor, Mississippi’s state legislature joined Ohio’s in passing a pre-emption bill that disables local government from promulgating unhealthy food ingredients and sugary soft-drink regulations. As if to say, “we’re fat and proud of it,” Mississippi, the state with the highest obesity rate, has proclaimed diet-related health problems are solely a matter of personal responsibility. And since their ability to demonstrate dietary restraint thus far has been hindered by city hall’s alleged food tyrants, we can now expect Mississippians to slim down in record numbers now that government is off their backs.

But there are also the workers. As food activists and program operators know, making lasting change is a long-term process that can feel at times like a slow slog through a shoe-sucking bog. There are those who organize the farmers’ markets and urban farms, create the food hubs and farm to school programs, and coalesce myriad local food projects and organizations into food coalitions. Over time they realize that this hard, grinding work can be accelerated when they enter the food policy arena, even if it’s just to get a few more program bucks out of their state legislature or a “Local Food Day” proclamation from their mayor.

Recently, the policy wins have been getting bigger. The National Conference of State Legislatures identified 77 diet-related health bills alone that became law between 2009 and 2011 in dozens of states. Just as one example, there are a host of food bills before the Hawaii legislature this year – inspired in part by the Hawaii Food Policy Council – that include new gardening initiatives (one would put a garden on the state capitol’s rooftop), favorable changes in locally grown procurement regulations, and efforts to promote new farmers.

New Mexico, where the workers and warriors often cross paths, is seeing years of policy work bear succulent fruit. Following past-years’ victories in reforming school food and securing more agricultural extension support for the state’s tribal communities, the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Council is poised to secure an appropriation of $85,000 for the New Mexico Farmers’ Market Association. This will enable the state’s 63 grower markets to better serve lower income shoppers. In addition, the Council will add $100,000 in state funds to a previous appropriation of $85,000 to purchase New Mexico-grown produce for public schools. And after a four-year campaign to revitalize indigenous agriculture, the Council has secured a $600,000 capital outlay from the legislature to develop wells and an irrigation system for the 938-acre Red Willow Farm at the Tohatchi Chapter of the Navajo Nation. This will enable up to one hundred Navajo farmers to grow food for their families and neighbors.

New Mexico’s policy advances are a result of tenacious coalition development among dozens of public and private sector partners, painstaking relationship building with elected and appointed state officials, and yes, shunning much of the warrior work. In a state like New Mexico, sadly, fighting Big Ag will scuttle your modest policy gains faster than a hungry man can eat his lunch.

So where do the weavers come in? In what is fast becoming trench warfare between the well-heeled food industry and the well dug-in food warriors, one has to ask if there is a way to negotiate an armistice. The simple irony of the current stalemate is that the workers have achieved unprecedented food project and policy wins at the same time that the warriors, who tackle consequential issues, are crashing headlong into a brick wall.  Can the weavers bring together these disparate food system stakeholders including, God forbid, Big Ag and Big Food?

There are now about 200 local, state, and tribal food policy councils (up from 111 in 2010). Can they become food system weavers? Though they can certainly be the voice of reason and keep the community focused on the big prize, methinks they are still maturing and perhaps not ready for such a big task. Can First Lady Michelle Obama, with her now legendary arms clenching the waist of the nation’s obesity crisis, use her prestige to bring the warring factions to the table? The compromising nature of politics being what it is, to say nothing of its innate servitude to incremental change, may very well keep the warriors out of that sandbox. Will the federal government be the cavalry that rides to the rescue in the form of national dietary, GMO, and labeling standards that most people can accept? Many would say “ugh!” while some would say maybe.

Wherever the answer lies, there is much weaver work to be done. In the dialectic of social change, well-managed conflict can bring progress – over time. One might even say there’s the potential for a “good cop, bad cop” partnership between the workers and the warriors. But I don’t yet see enough communication between these change agents to suggest that such sophisticated tactics are in the offing. Perhaps those weavers among us might see as their first task the stitching together of a common cloth for food system change. Their slogan might read: “Food Warriors and Workers of the World Unite!”

Mark Winne and Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future Join Forces

Food Policy Advocate Mark Winne and The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future to Collaborate on Food System Policy Work

#AOLMsgPart_1_5ac6725f-3498-4132-b52d-083ac3ac1a6a td{color: black;}

 

Mark Winne has begun working with the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) in the role of senior adviser. Mr. Winne, a noted expert on food policy councils, is providing technical expertise in exploring opportunities for CLF to diversify its engagement in local and state food policy work.

 

Anne Palmer, director of the CLF Eating for the Future program, said, “Because of his expertise in state and local food policy and his direct, hands-on experience with community-level food projects and organizing, we think Mark can help us expand our capacity to better serve community-based organizations as well as local and state policymakers.”

 

Mr. Winne is a co-founder of a number of food and agriculture policy groups, including the City of Hartford Food Policy Commission, the Connecticut Food Policy Council, End Hunger Connecticut, and the national Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC), which terminated operations last year. He was an organizer and chairman of the Working Lands Alliance, a statewide coalition working to preserve Connecticut’s farmland, and is a founder of the Connecticut Farmland Trust.

 

Mr. Winne was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the 2000 World Conference on Food Security in Rome and is a 2001 recipient of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary’s Plow Honor Award. From 2002 until 2004, he was a Food and Society Policy Fellow, a position supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. From 1979 to 2003, Mr. Winne served as executive director of the Hartford Food System,a private non-profit agency working on food and hunger issues in central Connecticut.

 

He currently writes, speaks, and consults extensively on community food system topics including hunger and food insecurity, local and regional agriculture, community food assessment, and food policy. In New Mexico, where he lives, he serves on the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council and the Southwest Grass-fed Livestock Alliance. Mr. Winne holds a bachelor’s degree from Bates College and a master’s degree from Southern New Hampshire University.

 

As former director of food policy for the CFSC, Mr. Winne continues to have responsibility for CFSC food policy resources, including publications and other outreach and educational materials. The Center will work closely with Mr. Winne to steward these resources and harness our collective expertise to explore new venues for influencing state and local food policy. The collaboration will begin with a series of assessments, planning, and outreach and fundraising activities; from there, the Center will be able to make an informed decision about launching a new project involving food policy councils.

 

“Communities across the country are recognizing how food policy is a necessary complement to their food system work. That is why there are now 193 food policy councils, compared to 111 in 2010. I am very excited to be working with the Center for a Livable Future because it will greatly expand our ability to respond to this ever-growing community interest,” said Mr. Winne.

 

Winter/Spring Appearances – 2013

January 30 – Albuquerque, NM – KiMo Theater – Panel for screening of “Soul Food Junkies.”

February 6 – Evansville, Indiana – Keynote address and panel discussion for local food forum. For more more information contact Erin Slevin at erinslevin@yahoo.com.

February 11 – Webinar originating from Ontario, Canada – 1:30 eastern time – Mark Winne giving webinar on food policy councils. For more information contact Kendal Donohue at Kendal@sustainontario.ca.

February 14 – Baltimore, Maryland – Johns Hopkins School of Public Health – discussion on the future of food policy councils

March 1 and 2 – Oxford, Mississippi – University of Mississippi – Keynote address at regional food forum, book talk at local bookstore. More more information contact Jody Holland at jholland@olemiss.edu.

March 8 – Medford, Oregon. Keynote address for regional food forum. For more information contact Hannah Ancel at hancel@accesshelps.org.

May 7 – Cardiff, Wales – University of Cardiff – university lecture at 5:30 PM. For more information contact Kevin Morgan at morgankj@cardiff.ac.uk.

May 9 – Newcastle, England – workshop on food policy councils. For more information contact Alan Hunt at alan@localfoodstrategies.com.

Hold the dates (more information to come)

June 9 – Austin, Texas – Cooperative Management Association Annual Conference – Keynote address. For more information contact Ann Hoyt at aahoyt@wisc.edu

June 12 – San Antonio, Texas – local food forum. Workshop presentation. For more information contact Leslie Provence at lprovence@sbcglobal.com

 

Cooperating Our Way to a Better Food System

Authors’ note: It’s been a cold winter so far in New Mexico. A ski mountain just north of Santa Fe gave the country its coldest reading, 20 below, one day in early January. A few nights of sub-zero temperatures at lower elevations may have set back the bark beetles’ devastating march just enough to give some trees another year or two of life, if they’re lucky. A plunging mercury has kept me close to the woodstove and far from national travels. But this will change soon as I rejoin the speaking and training circuit for what I anticipate will be yet another series of encounters that will certainly add to my astonishment. In the meantime, this much coveted period of staying close to home has given me a chance to write and reflect on what’s going on in my own backyard. The post that follows originally appeared in the Greenfire Times, a great statewide alternative rag that devoted its entire December issue to New Mexico’s food movement. A future post or two will spotlight some of the food and farm policy advocacy that is now underway at our state legislature.  After that?  We’ll just have to see what adds to my astonishment!

 

 “I’d be dead if it wasn’t for my neighbors,” was the way Genevieve Humenay acknowledged the most important tool in her rural survival toolbox. You can be smart, resourceful and even courageous, but when something goes really wrong and you live in sections of Cibola County, New Mexico where many services are 50 miles away, it could take a long time for the cavalry to ride to your rescue. Just ask the residents of Queens and Staten Island, New York standing neck-deep in Hurricane Sandy’s rising waters. Who were the first people to snatch them from the jaws of doom? Their neighbors.

Genevieve is one of 183 members of the El Morro Valley Cooperative fighting to restore some health and vigor to what can only be described as a rural food desert. There are vast tracks of the county where residents must drive 100 miles round-trip to get to a supermarket, which at the IRS-approved motor vehicle rate of 55 cents per mile, adds $55 to one’s weekly food purchases. Yes, there are supermarkets in Grants at Cibola’s northern border, but going south from there are only a few small stores scattered across a county nearly twice the size of the state of Delaware. And unfortunately, those stores are limited in selection and fresh produce, and high in price.

Heading down Highway 53 from Grants, I could see why this might not be prime supermarket territory. The scenery was spectacular, but there weren’t many people – six per square mile according to the U.S. Census – and though there was no official count, the elk were so numerous they would certainly rule if only they could vote.

Given this limited marketplace, it’s no surprise that Albertsons and Whole Foods are not tripping over themselves to open stores in the El Morro Valley. It would take a crafty merchant to make a buck in a place where humans are few and far between, and where the customer base is surprisingly diverse. A Mormon community known for its frugality and the enviable practice of producing and storing their own food, three different Native American tribes – Acoma, Zuni, and the Ramah Navajo Band – and an assortment of back-to-the-landers, urban transplants and multi-generational ranchers presents a “market basket” that would challenge the merchandising skills of the most able grocer. For these reasons and more, the good food enthusiasts of the El Morro Valley realized early in their quest that the food cavalry was not likely to show up anytime soon.

“We feel like this is a community where we can work together,” was how Kate Brown, the Coop’s president, addressed the 25 people in attendance at a recent membership meeting. Glasses perched on the tip of her nose and a rich, brown braid draped over her right shoulder, by both demeanor and tone she reminded me of one of my favorite high school science teachers, an occupation she has indeed pursued. Kate’s pitch to her fellow cooperators was less about brick and mortar achievements – the Coop does not yet have a building of its own – and more about the ties that bind a people who are working toward a common purpose.

Yes, they have a farmers’ market in Ramah, and the Coop has organized a “buying alliance” which pools household orders for a monthly pick up in Albuquerque. But in the way that baseball players throw balls and swing bats before the game, these activities are merely warm-ups for the big contest of cooperation that lies ahead. As Kate made it clear, how well they cooperate as a community will ultimately determine how successful they are as a coop business.

Friends

In spite of Margaret Mead’s much quoted pep-talk to “never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world,” the El Morro Coop knew that commitment alone would not be enough. They knew they didn’t have all the skills, connections or capacity to organize a corporation, set-up bookkeeping systems, or seek the loans and grants they would need to establish a good food store in the Valley. They realized early on that they needed a little help from their friends.

The good news for those who want to cooperate is that there’s no lack of those who will cooperate with you. El Morro reached out to the well-established La Montanita Co-op in Albuquerque as well as the Dixon Co-op, about 25 miles south of Taos, whose story of a struggling, up-by-the-bootstraps rural community food store matched their own. They tapped into the U.S. Department of Agriculture and New Mexico State University’s Arrowhead Center, which provides small business planning assistance. But it was probably their relationship with the Santa Fe-based non-profit organization, Farm to Table that yielded the most fruit.

What Farm to Table does is capacity building, a term that’s wormed its way into the lexicon of non-profit and government agencies. It’s best understood by thinking how you might instruct someone in a skill they don’t yet command. You can extend the idea further to include the sharing of your list of resources and colleagues with someone so that they can also benefit. It’s this attitude of empowerment – me sharing my power with you – that best describes the relationship between Farm to Table and organizations like the El Morro Valley Coop (see sidebars).

Farm to Table began working with the El Morro community in 2010 to enable them to formally establish a coop corporation. In the process of doing this, they helped the new members sort out their dreams which included a bakery, a livestock slaughtering and processing facility, a community farm, and a hub for the gathering and distribution of locally produced food. The business options and models were nearly as numerous as the ideas for making their little corner of New Mexico bloom. They could buy an existing store, build a new store from scratch, lease a building and convert it to a store, or work with the small stores now operating in Cibola County to expand and improve their limited selection.

You could say it was a rich moment of “stormin’ and normin’” that needed some structure and focus. Farm to Table was able to channel the members’ energy to evaluate the options and assess their relative strengths and weaknesses.

To help the Coop make the best business decisions, Farm to Table connected El Morro to NMSU’s Arrowhead Center. The resulting business plan gave the Coop a road map for how to purchase the Lewis Trading Post in Ramah and operate it as their long sought after coop store. Farm to Table also helped them prepare an application to USDA’s Rural Business Enterprise Grant which was later approved. Equipped with a feasibility study, business plan, and community survey, the Coop was now prepared to choose.

Choices

What did all of this preparation and analyses show? After reviewing the menu of choices it was clear that there were several ways to increase the availability of good food for the Valley’s residents. The survey data found that the community was generally supportive of a number of these options and could be counted on as “a receptive market and customer base.” The so-called “Cadillac” option, buying the Lewis Trading Post and operating it as a coop, was feasible but expensive.

While the members were warmed by the prospect of owning their own store, they nearly froze in their tracks when they heard the price tag – $750,000 – a number that one member characterized as “staggering.” To make that deal work, not only would coop members have to come up with $200,000 of their own equity, they would have to operate the Trading Post at a higher sales volume and/or better margin than it was currently operating.

What emerged from all the culling and mulling was a hybrid solution that was not only innovative but perhaps embodied the best ideals of the wider El Morro Valley. The Coop has dubbed the idea “Coop Corners,” which, in its simplest form, utilizes the county’s six existing small stores as satellite mini-coops. These stores would receive weekly deliveries of natural food items, fresh produce, and locally produced food from the El Morro Valley Coop. The Coop, in turn, would pool the orders of these stores to achieve enough buying power to purchase and receive goods from the region’s larger suppliers. The start-up and operating costs are low, there’s no need for a fixed wholesale or retail site, and perhaps most important, Coop Corners builds on what’s already there.

The elegance of the solution lies in the last point – it supports local businesses which gives it the potential to reach a larger market share while building on the Coop’s biggest asset: community and cooperation. While Coop Corners is not quite shovel-ready, it is the choice that garnered the most enthusiasm at the November member meeting.

“We want better quality food. That’s the big motivator for us,” was how Genevieve represented her community’s most fervent wish..  In effect, the people of the El Morro Valley are expressing the same desires that have driven millions of American consumers away from the processed, one-size-fits-all industrial food system to one that offers food that is good tasting, has a known place of origin, and respects human and environmental health. And what’s more – and unlike most of us – the people of this valley are willing to struggle for what they want, take personal and financial risks, and blow the rallying bugle of “cooperation” to achieve what the retail food industry has failed to do across rural America.

Food Policy Councils: A Look Back at 2012

This past year marked several growth spurts and critical shifts in the world of food policy councils. First and foremost was the incredible leap forward from 111 active North American food policy councils in 2010 to 193, as indicated by the May 2012 census conducted by the Community Food Security Coalition.

This jump in city, county, state, and tribal level councils sends several important signals to policy makers and food system activists. Perhaps most obvious is that citizens and stakeholders want a bigger role in shaping the direction of their food systems through the policy making process. Just as important, food policy is occupying ever more “real estate” on the radar screens of non-federal policymakers like city mayors, county commissioners, and state political leaders. At least at the local and state levels, there is an evident surge in food democracy.

The second major FPC-related event was the closing of program operations at the Community Food Security Coalition this past August. Unfortunately, this ended any formal organizational support for food policy council capacity building. As both CFSC’s former food policy council program director and the principal with Mark Winne Associates, I have been attempting to maintain assistance for North America’s food policy council movement.

Being a single staff person with no funding dedicated to that task has its limitations of course. While I have been able to offer a platform for some of CFSC’s FPC services like the FPC listserv, the North American Food Policy Council Directory, and several food policy resource documents that were in the pipeline at the time of CFSC’s demise, I have not been able to respond as fully as I would like – and as I think is necessary – to the many requests for assistance. The good news, which I cannot yet say too much about, is that I’m optimistic that an organizational partner who can shore up the capacity building needs of the FPC community is on the horizon.

In spite of limited resources, however, Mark Winne Associates has been able provide FPC development support to a number of communities and states that have received grant assistance from foundations and government agencies. Throughout the Fall of 2012, I have worked with groups in places as diverse as Utica, New York, New York City, Yolo County (Davis), California, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Tennessee to build strong foundations for new food policy councils. Prior to this fall and under the auspices of CFSC, I served dozens of communities by giving keynotes, conducting on-site workshops, participating in webinars, and consulting through email and phone calls. These services were directed at a variety of places from statewide initiatives in California, Georgia, and Wisconsin to communities like Dallas, New Haven, and Omaha. 

Looking at the outputs for 2012, we see the number of people and unique communities participating in FPC capacity building events:

January to August (through CFSC and Mark Winne Associates): 2,097 participants in 28 communities
September to December (Mark Winne Associates): 1,485 participants in 17 communities
Totals: 3,582 people in 45 communities

As evidence that the food policy council movement is now international, the above numbers include consulting trips to South Korea, Australia, and Canada where food policy council initiatives are underway and, interestingly, receiving more government support and interest than they do in the United States.

In addition, the following achievements are also noteworthy:

There are currently 503 food policy council listserv subscribers (to subscribe, contact Mark Winne at win5m@aol.com)
Published the “how-to” FPC manual Doing Food Policy Councils Rights: A Guide to Development and Operation
Co-produced with the Harvard Food Policy and Law Clinic the Good Laws, Good Food policy guides, one on local food policy and one on state food policy

The above guides are available for free download at www.markwinne.com.

Looking ahead, I expect to see a continued increase in the number of food policy councils as well as growing demand for capacity building assistance, both for development services as well as improving their response to ever expanding policy opportunities. Due to more citizen interest in local and state food policy issues as well as the recognition that just and sustainable food systems don’t happen without intentional action by activists and policy makers, food policy will find itself occupying more space on public policy agendas.

Finally, I am hopeful that a new partnership between Mark Winne Associates and a major institution will lead to a substantial expansion in the ability to serve both the existing and emerging food policy council movement. Until that time, Mark Winne Associates is happy to assist individuals and organizations with their food policy council needs.

Newtown, Connecticut

I’ll never forget the look on the desk sergeant’s face as he gazed down at me from the heights of his dark-paneled police podium. Before him was a neatly dressed, wavy-haired 18-year old cradling something seemingly as long as baseball bats wrapped in a tattered brown army blanket. Not fitting the profile of the regular string of miscreants who normally paraded before him – “hoods” as my high school friends called the few greasy-haired “bad boys” who inhabited our affluent North Jersey suburb – he targeted his puffy eyes at me and asked, “Yes, what can I do for you?”

I cleared my throat and said, “Sir, I’d like to turn these in.” Laying my little bundle on a heavy oak table before me, I slowly pulled the edges of the blanket away to reveal a single-shot, bolt action .22-caliber rifle and a single-barreled, 16-gauge shotgun. For a moment, the sergeant appeared to drop his right hand to his sidearm, but quickly discerning I meant no harm planted both his elbows on his desk, glared at me asking, “What do you mean ‘turn these in?’” I told him what I would later tell my parents and my quizzical friends, that I was sick of the violence and the killing, that for any of us to keep guns in our homes was nonsense, and that the only way to end the killing was for all of us to give up our guns.

This was June, 1968. Senator Robert F. Kennedy had just been gunned down in California. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had been slain two months earlier in Memphis. Four years before that, I sat at my George Washington Junior High School desk listening to our principal announce the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. That “violence was as American as cherry pie,” a notion reinforced daily with bloody TV and magazine images from Vietnam, the streets of Newark, and the Columbia University campus, had become for me a palpable reality to which I could either succumb, attempt to suppress, or perhaps, in a fit of youthful naïveté, resist.

My relatively benign weapons – the heft of their polished steel and wood across my eager teenage palms, the crack of their retort against my eardrums, and the sting of ignited powder in my nostrils – had once pointed a way to manhood and dominance. But like the progression from the toy Davy Crocket musket, to the six-shooter cap pistol, to the battery-powered rata-tat-tat of the plastic M-14, my so-called “real” guns had only perpetuated the myth of power and control over the world around me. The young boy pointing his stick at an imaginary aggressor and screaming “bang, bang, bang!” is the precursor to the adolescent hunter, jolted at last to adult consciousness by the pellet-riddled pheasant now lying limp on the forest floor. The boy’s cocoon of security is at last shattered, his omnipotence exposed as an illusion, and the choice to commit violence or non-violence the only one that matters.

It’s been a long time since I’ve cried, but I made up for the dryspell this past weekend. As a former resident of Connecticut, where for 25 years I did my bit to bring healthier and saner options to that state’s children, I could not help but steep myself in the misery that is now Newtown’s lost children. I will not patronize that community’s pain by claiming to feel it, but I can sense their loss more acutely having gained a grandson just five days before the elementary school shootings. Little Bradley is safe and secure with his 3-year old sister, Zoe, in the United Kingdom where my daughter chose to marry and live. Though their distance limits my time with them, I take some solace knowing that they have greater protection from the gun-toting mayhem that rules the U.S. and takes cowardly sanctuary behind the grizzly walls of our Second Amendment. While the United Kingdom has its share of profoundly disturbed people, the prevailing wisdom is to protect people from guns rather than protect the gun enthusiasts. The fewer guns in circulation, the less means the tragically deranged will have to snuff out life. The United Kingdom is far from perfect, but at least I know that my grandchildren will not have to attend an elementary school bearing the characteristics of a minimum security prison that will soon become the norm at U.S. schools.

Becoming a man or a woman these days means making tough choices and often surmounting difficult obstacles. We eventually leave behind the security blankets of our childhood and learn that the best path to safety and happiness is through an open and creative engagement with others. The most society can attempt to do is clear as much of life’s minefield as possible of its man-made hazards like poverty, junk food, and yes, guns. And to better achieve that end may I suggest the repeal of the Second Amendment to henceforth be replaced with an amendment that reads: “A safe and healthy people, being necessary to the prosperity of a free state, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall be severely restricted.”