Minnesota's Ag Commissioner: "It doesn’t get much better" than Farm to School

Posted December 9, 2011 by Andrew Ranallo      

Farm to School means fresh choices in schools.

In his December Commissioner's Column, Minnesota's Agriculture Commissioner Dave Frederickson touts the benefits the state sees from the strong and expanding Farm-to-School movement taking place thanks to organizations like IATP, the Minnesota School Nutrition Association, and of course state agencies like the Minnesota Departments of Agriculture, Education and Health. 

He writes:

Our students are enjoying fresh, wholesome, locally grown produce. Our farmers are enjoying a new, domestic market for their products. Our local communities are enjoying new business activity, and our state is enjoying greater agricultural literacy. It doesn’t get much better than that.

Read Commissioner Frederickson's full column and learn more about IATP's Farm to School work at farm2schoolmn.org.

» Read the full post

The sound of food sovereignty in Durban

Posted December 8, 2011 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   

Mamadou Goita of the West African farmers network ROPPA.


IATP’s Karen Hansen-Kuhn is blogging from the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa.
The launch of the African Food Sovereignty Alliance (AFSA) began with rounds of joyous song, specifically a variant of a South African protest song:
My mother was a kitchen girl
My father was a garden boy
That’s why I’m a farmer now
That sentiment of decision and claiming one’s rights is at the heart of the concept of food sovereignty, and sets it apart from more limited ideas of food security. While both emphasize the importance of availability and access to food, food sovereignty is also grounded in local and national level decision-making on food systems. It is closely linked to the concept of agroecology, which integrates agricultural production with local ecosystems, building on local-level innovations and traditional knowledge.

» Read the full post

Occupy Wall Street's Farmers March

Posted December 7, 2011 by Dale Wiehoff   

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) held a Farmers March in Washington, D.C., on December 4 to highlight issues of corporate control of the food system. Farmers, community gardeners, food workers and activists spoke on issues such as fair prices for farmers, sustainable farming, local food and the growing specter of hunger in America.

Unregulated commodity speculation and corporate greed have contributed to a global food crisis that includes the 45 million Americans currently receiving food assistance. (See recent interview with with Jim Harkness, president of IATP.) And how are national political leaders responding to this crisis, which was created by the banks? With proposals to cut food assistance, which would only intensify food insecurity. In other parts of the world, the response to such policies has been food riots and national uprisings. As the peaceful and thoughtful OWS Farmers March demonstrated, we don't need to go down that road, but if we hope to avoid it, we had better act immediately to reform our corporate-controlled food system.


Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.

» Read the full post

Feeding the world, or not

Posted December 5, 2011 by    

Used under creative commons license from dsearls.

Improving food security around the world is much more complicated than simply increasing grain production. 

In 1999, IATP released a ground-breaking report called Feeding the World that debunked the oft-claimed argument that increased U.S. grain exports decrease global hunger. In reality, the report revealed, grain exports went overwhelmingly to wealthy countries, and almost not at all to the nations struggling most with malnourishment.
Today we've released an update of that report that takes a fresh look at the myths and facts around the notion of feeding the world. We wanted to know how things have changed in the twelve years since the original Feeding the World was published, and specifically, if the increase in U.S. grain exports we've seen over the last decade have made a dent in alleviating global hunger.

» Read the full post

The water, energy and food nexus

Posted December 2, 2011 by Shiney Varghese   

As I flew back from Bonn last week, on my way back from the Bonn 2011 Nexus Conference (16–18 November), one thing was clear to me. Corporate environmentalism is entrenching itself firmly in the corridors of global governance, and challenging its advance will require new strategies. The "in-your-face" approach of yesterday is being replaced with a softer, albeit more dangerous "corporate responsibility" garb. This softer path also seeks to ensure that civil society stakeholders are seen as party to the decisions.

The Bonn Nexus conference is symptomatic of the way that corporate environmentalism is developing. "The water, energy and food security nexus, Solutions for the Green Economy," as it is called, is an initiative of the federal government of Germany to develop specific contributions to the Rio+20 Conference. It is an important event because this is the first of several nexus conferences being planned to gain political support for advancing the green economy at Rio+20. The next follow-up conference is being organized by World Economic Forum and will be held in January 2012.

In its recognition of a "nexus," these conferences could be seen as a step forward. Two years ago, when we published a report on the need for integrated solutions for the water, climate and food crises, the idea of connections between these three sectors was simply not on any official agenda.

» Read the full post

Need versus greed at Rio+20

Posted November 10, 2011 by Shiney Varghese   

Used under creative commons license from Rodrigo_Soldon.

Twenty years after the original Earth Summit, leaders will meet again in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the environmental limits to development. 

Over the last month, U.N. agencies, Member States and civil society groups have been busy: they made well over 600 contributions toward Rio+20, the next United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (U.N. CSD), to be held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012. The inputs submitted by the stakeholders will be assembled into a compilation document by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), where a Rio+20 Dedicated Secretariat has been established to support the U.N. CSD bureau in steering the preparatory process leading up to Rio+20. The compilation document will form the basis for developing the draft that will be negotiated at Rio+20.

As I said in an earlier blog, Rio+20 will mark the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit, held in the same city where heads of states came together to address what was then seen as the priority issue: environmental limits to development. If anything the situation is much worse now.

» Read the full post

Will the G-20 learn to listen?

Posted November 8, 2011 by Karen Hansen-Kuhn   

Used under creative commons license from shivalichopra.

The reformed Committee on Food Security includes the participation of 11 constituency groups, including farmers, fisherfolk, women and NGOs, who coordinate their efforts to influence global food policies. 

Since the first food crisis erupted in 2008, there have been a number of debates at the multilateral level about why our food system is failing and what needs to change. One important outcome is that a broader range of groups are weighing in on the issue, and finding the right forums to do so. The Committee on Food Security (CFS) brings together the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Food Program (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)—the three leading U.N. food agencies—along with donor governments and agencies, and creates a new space for civil society input. The reformed CFS includes the participation of 11 constituency groups, including farmers, fisherfolk, women and NGOs, who coordinate their efforts to influence global food policies.

Such a participatory process can be messy, but it can also yield innovative solutions and new agreements on how to deal with such issues as food price volatility and land grabs. IATP’s Sophia Murphy attended the latest meeting of the CFS meeting in Rome last month. In a new commentary, she discusses what emerged from those discussions, and how the narrower agreements reached by the G-20 may be undermining those accords. 

Read IATP's latest commentary, "Stepping up: Will the G-20 allow the CFS to function? Will other countries allow the G-20 to stop them?"

» Read the full post

Raise more voices for effective farm policy—now!

Posted November 7, 2011 by    

ParentEarth creates online videos to help increase parent's awareness of food policy, currently the Farm Bill is a focus.

The projected course of action regarding the Farm Bill changed dramatically over the past two weeks. The general expectation was a spring 2012 Farm Bill, with the possibility that Presidential election politics would push things back to potentially 2013. Now it seems that the odds-on favorite is to have a Farm Bill introduced any day now as part of the super committee budget reduction process.

As IATP’s Ben Lilliston described last week, the super committee process would throw democracy and transparency out the window:

» Read the full post

A hell of a way to write a Farm Bill

Posted October 27, 2011 by Ben Lilliston   

Used under creative commons license from Wyoming_Jackrabbit.

The Farm Bill has a direct effect on the more than 900 million acres in farmland in the United States, the country's 2 million farmers and the 43 million Americans on food assistance. 

If you want to see what political dysfunction looks like, take a look at how Congress is bungling the nation’s most important food and farm policy—the Farm Bill. The sprawling Farm Bill sets policy for the next five years and is directly relevant to our 2 million farmers, the 43 million people on food assistance and the more than 900 million acres in farmland. It’s also tied less directly to things like rising rates of diet-related disease, rural depopulation and economic struggles, and the water quality and quantity of our nation’s rivers and streams. In other words, it’s a big deal.
The writing of the Farm Bill begs for a deliberative, open discussion of ideas and perspectives on how to best meet the nation’s goals. Instead, there is a strong chance the chairs of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees will submit detailed Farm Bill proposals to the so-called Super Committee by the end of October. The 12-member Super Committee will consider these recommendations in secret. Then, the Super Committee’s proposal on the Farm Bill will be presented after November 23 and put to a simple up or down vote in December.
No hearings, no amendments, no debate. Under this scenario, we may have very little idea about what is in the Farm Bill until after it has passed.

» Read the full post

What does the occupation of Wall Street have to do with agriculture?

Posted September 30, 2011 by Ben Lilliston   

Used under creative commons license from marniejoyce.

The occupation of Wall Street protests originated from a July call to action by Adbusters to oppose growing corporate control over democracy and government.

Now two weeks in, the occupation of Wall Street originated from a July call to action by Adbusters to draw a line in the sand on the growing corporate control of our democracy and government—and in particular, Wall Street’s influence.
Agriculture markets have been especially hard hit by Wall Street’s political prowess. Wall Street deregulation has not only made the stock market extremely volatile, it has increased prices and price volatility in agricultural markets. The cost of protecting against price volatility are considerable for the future of agriculture not only in the U.S., but around the world.  
In 2008, we reported on the role a new wave of financial speculators, operating through commodity index funds controlled by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, played in creating extreme volatility in agriculture commodity markets—and ultimately contributing to rising global rates of hunger. Wall Street speculators were able to enter commodity futures markets after a successful and systematic decade-long lobbying effort to dismantle strong market safeguards. According to Wall Street Watch, from 1998–2008, Wall Street invested over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions in support of their deregulatory agenda.

» Read the full post