COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY newsfoodsecurity.org/CFSCNEWSFall06r3.pdf3 Community Food Security News Fall 2006 The collapse of WTO trade talks late in July shows the need for the U.S. to

A C O M M U N I T Y F O O D S E C U R I T Y C O A L I T I O N P U B L I C A T I O N ■ F A L L 2 0 0 6

newsCOMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY

(See SHARING on pg. 12)

(See RESTORING on back cover)

EDITORS’ NOTEThis special issue of CFS News on international aspects of the community food securitymovement was edited by the International team at WHY (World Hunger Year): Peter Mann,Christina Schiavoni, Siena Chrisman, and Maureen Kelly, with assistance from intern BreaCollier and volunteer Catherine Ponte. Many thanks to them for their hard work. Thanksalso to the following members of the CFSC International Links Committee forconceptualizing and contributing to this issue: Linda Elswick, Bob Gronski, ElizabethHenderson, Aley Kent, Victoria Mesa, Ken Meter, Jac Smit, and Rasa Zimlicki.

■

As the CFSC Conference moves for thefirst time outside U.S. borders into

Canada, the U.S.-based community foodsecurity movement is increasinglyrealizing: we are part of a global struggle.Decisions made in trade talks thousandsof miles away affect the ability of peoplethroughout the world to feed theirchildren safe, healthy, food. Artificiallylow crop prices devastate producers inthe Global South and drive our ownfarmers out of business. A handful of

corporations control a vast share of theworld’s food industries, from seed supplyto retail outlets, undermining the abilityof communities to build local foodsecurity.

It is clear that we are connected toour sisters and brothers across the worldthrough an increasingly globalized foodsystem. At the same time, we areconnected in our resistance to thispredominant system and in our worktowards just, sustainable, and healthy

Participants in a SARD Initiative event in Kenya. Photo: Jennifer Lanier, Humane Society ternational

SHARING A COMMON STRUGGLE:Bridging Borders toward Food Security

Christina Schiavoni and Peter Mann, WHY International

Restoring theBalance to U.S. Food

and Farm Policy

For the past 30 years,America’s food system has

left an unfortunate legacy offewer farmers, lost farmland,unhealthy and hungry children,and polluted water and air.Failed national food and farmpolicies have fostered this legacyby encouraging our food andfarming systems to move inthe wrong direction whileneglecting the future health andproductivity of children, ruralcommunities, urban neighbor-hoods, and the environment.

We are convinced that thisis not the legacy most Americanswant. Through its work withthe W.K. Kellogg Foundationfunded Farm and Food PolicyProject (FFPP) and its hundredsof partners, the CommunityFood Security Coalition isworking to restore the balancebetween policies that helpfarmers and those that promotea healthy people, communities,and environment. The FFPP,CFSC, and partner organiz-ations will bring these policiesinto the debate over the nextfarm bill, which Congressmust act on in 2007.

To this end CFSC hascoordinated the Healthy Foodand Communities work group—one of four work groupsorganized under the FFPP—togenerate several new policyinitiatives as well as widersupport for existing programsthat currently address its core

2 ■

Community Food Security News ■ Fall 2006

Over a decade ago I met Andy Fisherat a gleaning and food banking

conference in Arizona. He was of coursegiving a presentation on community foodsecurity. I was intrigued by the concepts,but quickly told Andy that thepresentation was too academic. I knewthen that we would need to take CFS fromthe theoretical to the practical and make itaccessible to grassroots activists.

When I joined the CFSC Board fiveyears ago, I was clear that I wanted to seethis movement continue to grow incommunities everywhere. As I reflect, we,all of us, have done so much to make thathappen. Community Food Project Grantshave funded organizations all over thecountry in both rural and urban areas.CFSC trainers have taken the message tohundreds of communities, Farm to Schoolprograms are taking the food systemmessage to classrooms and the SeniorFarmers Market Program is reconnectingseniors to their agricultural roots andbetter nutrition. The Coalition and its

members have helped make all of thishappen.

The Food and Farm Policy Project isproviding us with new opportunities forpartnership and to engage agriculture andnutrition community partners in newways. It also provides us with newchallenges in making sure that weconnect these efforts to our grassrootsmembership and their constituents. TheBuilding the Bridge partnership withWorld Hunger Year is helping us connectwith food banking. We have a great dealto celebrate and yet so many unmetchallenges still face us.

This year in Vancouver will bring usinto a truly international realm withparticipants from around the worldparticipating in our conference. TheDismantling Racism process will moveforward through a two day training at theend of the conference. The Board hasbeen engaged in an organizationalanalysis and will be moving towardsstrategic planning in the coming year. Wewill be looking to all of you, our membersand constituents, to help shape the futureof our organization.

It has been a distinct privilege and apleasure to serve as the President of theCommunity Food Security Coalition forthe past three years. I want to thank theCoalition Staff and Board for theirsupport, patience and hard work. Iespecially want to thank all of you foryour support and your input during myservice. I look forward to seeing what we willaccomplish together in the next ten years.

CFS News is a quarterly publicationof the Community Food SecurityCoalition. The CFS Coalition’smission is to promote comprehensivesystems-oriented solutions to thenation’s food and farming problems.It conducts policy advocacy;provides technical assistance toorganizations implementing foodsecurity related programs; organizesregional coalitions; maintains aclearinghouse and database; conductsresearch and publishes reports;and educates the public andprofessionals through the media,conferences, and newsletters.

Community food security (CFS)is defined as “all persons obtainingat all times a culturally acceptablenutritionally adequate diet throughlocal non-emergency sources.” ACFS approach emphasizes the needto build community institutions toensure access and availability forcommunity residents. Thus, foodsecurity must be seen as a questionof community development andempowerment which complementsand extends the traditional view ofaddressing hunger issues at theindividual level.

Board of DirectorsWill Allen, Growing Power;Molly Anderson; Ben Burkett, MSAssn. of Cooperatives; Ed Cooney,Congressional Hunger Center; PatGray, The Food Project; DeniseO’Brien, Women, Food & AgricultureNetwork; Kathy Ozer, NationalFamily Farm Coalition; KamiPothukuchi, Wayne State University;Wayne Roberts, Toronto Food PolicyCouncil; Pam Roy, Farm to Table;Paul Smith, Heifer International;Chukou Thao, National HmongAmerican Farmers; Sharon Thornberry,Oregon Food Bank; Jackie Tiller,First Nations Development Institute;Lydia Villanueva, La Casa del Llano

CFS CoalitionPO Box 209, Venice, CA 90294

Phone: 310-822-5410E-mail: [email protected]: www.foodsecurity.org

Editor: Andy Fisher

FOR MORE INFORMATIONFall 2006

■

Raquel BournhonesqueFood Policy Council Program [email protected]

Heather FenneyCalifornia [email protected]

Andy FisherExecutive [email protected]

Tom ForsterPolicy [email protected]

Natalie FrymanAdministrative [email protected]

Maya HagegeOffice [email protected]

Marion KalbFarm to School Program [email protected]

Steph LarsenPolicy [email protected]

Kristen MarkleyFarm to College Program [email protected]

Jeanette Abi-NaderEvaluation Program [email protected]

Kai SiedenburgT&TA Program [email protected]

Mark WinneCommunications [email protected]

Community Food Security Coalition Staff

Sharon Thornberry

Letter from the President

3■


The collapse of WTO trade talkslate in July shows the need for the

U.S. to rethink its food trade position.We'll only be able to build effectivecooperation with the developingworld if we are more honest about ourglobal role.

The U.S. has been reluctant toadmit that its farm subsidies hurtdeveloping economies. By holdinggrain prices low, U.S. (as well asEuropean) commodity policies haveundermined food sovereignty indeveloping nations. When it is cheaperto import corn into Mexico, or wheatinto Africa, than for local farmers toproduce for nearby markets,developing economies are weakened.

Yet U.S. farm supports also turnback to haunt us. Our subsidies extractresources from rural communities,creating a “Third World” inside ourborders, by encouraging farmers totake on external debt. Though ourpoor farmers have greater spendingpower than those in Latin American orAfrican villages, they are caught in thesame structures of dependency.

As a result, the U.S. may have lostmore than we gained from “free trade.”Once the dominant world producer,we are now poised to become a netfood importer on a permanent basis.For the four months ending in May,2006, our food trade balance hoveredat zero. Nearly $8 billion (62%) hasbeen shaved off the trade surplus weenjoyed three years ago. We importlarge quantities of fruit and vegetables—and, more troubling to our historicalstrength, meats and grains. As webecome more dependent on others forfood, we will be forced to be morehonest in our trade dealings.

Some folks say imports are goodfor the U.S. We should admit, theyargue, that our high labor and landcosts make producing food tooexpensive. We should allow others to

supply us. Nations like Brazil andChina are certainly stepping up. Thetrouble is, this view fails to take intoaccount the fact that commoditymarkets work best for the middlemen,not the farmer.

For example, U.S. farmers doubledproductivity over the past 35 years, butthey earn $40 billion less producingcrops and livestock (in inflation-adjusted dollars) than they did in 1969.The benefits of farmer efficiency havegone to others in the economy—commodity traders, feed lots, and foodmanufacturers—who buy grains atartificially low prices. Meanwhile,farmers take on new debt to pay fornew machinery and rising land prices,while commodity prices fall.

Through interest payments, farmersactually subsidize the mainstreameconomy. Since 1913, U.S. farmershave paid $595 billion more in intereston farm loans than they received infederal subsidies. They spend billionsmore buying inputs from distantsources. This draws capacity andwealth away from rural communities.In much the same way, Third Worlddebt makes it impossible fordeveloping nations to build wealth forthemselves.

When mainstream economicstructures extract wealth from ruralcommunities, the antidote is forfarmers to connect directly toconsumers. Without market power, aseconomist Richard Levins points out,farmers won’t benefit from newtechnologies or new policies.

Consumers, for their part, have tobe loyal to producers they know—which may be a cooperative inGuatemala, an appellation in France,or the dairy down the road. Already,U.S. consumer groups buy coffeedirectly from Latin American producercoops at fair prices. Coops likeOrganic Valley pay such a premium for

organic milk that the commodity milkmarket is upset. The Federation ofSouthern Cooperatives trains WestAfrican farmers to raise crops andbuild local market power. Thesedomestic and international initiativesbegin to build new “fair trade”infrastructure (see p. 9, “KeepingSocial Justice in Organic Agriculture”).

Ultimately, however, to go toscale, these pioneering efforts willneed support from federal policy. Weneed food policies in the U.S.—notfarm policies—that invest incommunities rather than subsidizingextractive commodity markets. We willalso require strong allies abroad—something we can only build bycoming clean about our own tradedilemmas. Only then can we write fairtrade policies.

Dr. Richard A. Levins’ book MarketPower for Farmers: What It Is,How to Get It, How to Use It isavailable from the Institute for RuralAmerica at 1-800-858-6636. For moreon Dr. Levins, visit his web site atwww.apec.umn.edu/faculty/dlevins/

Global Cooperation Requires New Approach by U.S.Ken Meter, President, Crossroads Resource Center; Author, "Finding Food in Farm Country" (www.crcworks.org/ff.pdf)

FOOD SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Consumers, for their part have to be loyal tothe producers they know. Photo: Ken Meter©2004

4 ■


In 1994, Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—a giant step in global trade policy. Its

supporters praised the agreement as extraordinarily comprehensive, coveringnot only merchandise trade but investments, labor markets, and environmentalpolicies. According to an International Monetary Fund report, NAFTA spurreda dramatic increase in trade and financial flows among its three partners andcontributed to making North America one of the most economically integratedregions in the world.1

But after 12 years, whose interest has NAFTA mainly served? While theagreement has allowed large corporations to thrive, its effects on small farmersand food security in each of the North American nations have been negative—and similar across borders: loss of small farm income; loss of land; increase inmigration (domestically and across borders); corporate consolidation of farminputs and food processing; corporate control of plants and seeds; spread ofgenetically modified organisms; and environmental degradation.

A vivid example is the damage to the Mexican maize sector wrought byNAFTA. Mexico is the center of diversity of maize, and the crop has long been

Free Trade vs. Food Security: NAFTA at 12Robert Gronski, Policy Coordinator, National Catholic Rural Life Conference

(See FREE TRADEon pg. 5)


Photo: Fair Trade Foundation

The Free Trade Area of theAmericas (FTAA) would expand

the NAFTA model throughout thewestern hemisphere, enveloping 34countries into the largest free tradezone in the world. Like NAFTA—buteven more so—the FTAA has beendrafted in the context of unfair andasymmetric trade. It would underminemany fundamental human rights,including the right to food andadequate nutrition (UN Human RightsCommission, 2001). For instance:

■ The FTAA would enable the U.S.and other major exporters such asBrazil to flood the markets ofother countries with excessagricultural commodities. Thiswould ravage domesticagricultural sectors; decreasecountries’ abilities to meet theirown food needs; and encouragedependency on foreign markets.

■ The FTAA would displace many

more family farmers from theirland, depriving them of theresources and wages to grow orpurchase adequate food.

■ The FTAA would favor large-scale,industrialized agriculture—such asthe soybean monocultures alreadywrecking havoc in parts of LatinAmerica—over small-scale,sustainable, diversified agriculture.

■ The FTAA would further thespread of genetically modifiedcrops, such as GM soy. Studieshave found increased consumptionof GM soy to cause healthproblems such as miscarriagesand infertility. (PlataformaLatinoamericana de DerechosHumanos, Democracia yDesarrollo)

■ The FTAA would undermine thecultural and nutritional importanceof traditional foods by replacingthem with processed foods frommultinational corporations. This

occurred in India when free-tradeagreements led to soybean oilreplacing the traditional mustardoil in many Indians’ diets, causinga cascade of negative health andsocio-economic effects.

The good news is that, despiteaggressive attempts by the U.S.government and big business to enactthe FTAA, opposition groups arebuilding diverse alliances throughoutthe Americas and have successfullyprevented its passage to date.However, anticipating a possiblecollapse of the FTAA, the U.S. ispursuing measures such as directbilateral agreements with Peru,Colombia and Ecuador as steppingstones to a larger free trade zone. Nowis the time to show the U.S. Congressthat we will not support any deal thatthreatens communities, lives, andlivelihoods. NO deal is better than abad deal!

NO to FTAA; YES to Food as a Basic Human RightVictoria Mesa, CFSC International Links Committee

5■


central to its culture, economy and diet, yet NAFTA opened Mexico’s maizesector to the dumping of millions of tons of cheap U.S. corn by multinationalagribusinesses. This caused the price paid to Mexican corn farmers to drop by70%, contributing to the loss of over 1.5 million Mexican farm livelihoods in thefirst 10 years of NAFTA alone.2 During that same time, the price of corn tortillas—the most important staple food in Mexico—rose by 50% and higher.3 Dumping ofU.S. corn into Mexico—including GM corn—has also had serious environmentalimplications.

According to Mexico’s National Union of Autonomous Regional FarmersOrganizations (UNORCA), “The relentless opening of Mexico’s borders toagricultural imports, the cancellation of many governmental support programsand the privatization of public enterprises that are part and parcel of theneoliberal model of free trade all over the world, have created an explosive socialsituation in the countryside, and in the country in general.” As NAFTA continuesto drive the Mexican countryside into deep crisis, it is having similar effects inU.S. and Canada. A study conducted by the National Farmers Union of Canadaafter 10 years of NAFTA found family farm incomes to be near an all-time lowwhile agribusiness profits were at an all-time high.4

The encouraging news is thatorganizations around the region—including UNORCA and many CFSCmembers—are aligning in com-patible campaigns for sustainablefutures for farmers and eaters alike.The driving force is to promoteglobal trade policies that ensurefood sovereignty. This meanscoordinated work with partners inother countries to protect essentialfood sectors from trade liberalizationas expressed within NAFTA andother regional agreements. The U.S.community food security movementis also advocating for a fair and justFarm Bill at home as we consider theimplications of U.S. trade policies onour partners abroad. Our end is toassure access to adequate andnutritious food for all people,throughout the hemisphere and around the world.

Citations:1 International Monetary Fund. IMF Working Paper 04/59.

www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2004/wp0459.pdf2 Public Citizen. The Ten Year Track Record of the North American Free TradeAgreement: US, Mexican and Canadian Farmers and Agriculture.http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_ag.pdf

3 ibid4 National Farmers Union. The Farm Crisis and Corporate Profits: A Report bythe National Farmers Union, November 30, 2005.http://www.nfu.ca/new/corporate_profits.pdf

FREE TRADE (continued from page 4)


Resources on Trade Issues

Agribusiness Accountability Initiative:www.ncrlc.com/aai.html

Citizens Trade Campaign:www.citizenstrade.org/

Crossroads Resource Center:www.crcworks.org

Data on Foreign Agricultural Trade of the U.S.www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FATUS/

Food First:www.foodfirst.org/issues/trade

Global Exchange, primer on the global economy:www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: www.iatp.org

La Via Campesina:www.viacampesina.org

National Family Farm Coalition:www.nffc.net

National Farmers Union:www.nfu.org/

National Union of AutonomousRegional Farmers Organizations:www.unorca.org.mx/ingles/

Oxfam America:www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/campaigns/make_trade_fair

Public Citizen: www.citizen.org/trade/


6 ■


Gender Equity and Food Security:EMPOWERING WOMEN BY CHALLENGING INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY

Rasa Zimlicki, Oxfam America

Around the world, women are morevulnerable to chronic poverty than

men. Because of cultural norms, lackof control over resources, “gender-neutral” international trade policies,and many other factors, womenworldwide struggle with life’s basicneeds—particularly how to feed theirfamilies and themselves.

Global issues such as internationaltrade policy are generally assumed tobe gender-neutral—but in reality,women are disproportionately affectedby the results of these policies.Predominant trade policies favor large-and medium-sized farmers over small-scale farmers, many of whom are ruralwomen. U.S. farm policy, for instance,encourages U.S. farms to overproduceand dump their surplus oninternational markets (see pg.3 “GlobalCooperation Requires New Approachby U.S.”), lowering prices and makingit impossible for small-scale farmers tocompete.

International loan programs todeveloping countries can devastaterural areas, family structures, andwomen’s and children’s health.Lending policies of the International

Monetary Fund often dictate that acountry slash its social servicespending and convert its subsistencefarmland into commodity crops.Women bear the brunt of the effect ofthese Structural Adjustment Programs;with the simultaneous loss of foodcrops and any social services, manypreviously self-sufficient women andfamilies have fallen into poverty.

Even seemingly gender-neutralmetrics can disempower women.Poverty is often measured according tohousehold income or meals eaten perday by the family unit. The situation ofeach member of the household maybe quite different—fathers and sonsmay be eating well, while mothers anddaughters go hungry. UNICEF researchhas showed that gender is a primaryroot cause of hunger. Studies show, forexample, that the subjugation ofwomen in South Asia is the onlyreason that child malnutrition rates inthat region have been twice as high asthose in sub-Saharan Africa.

Around the world, women arestriving for gender equality byempowering themselves to build theirhousehold and community foodsecurity. In Kenya, Nobel Peace Prize-winner Wangari Maathai led women tobegin replanting their forests in theGreenbelt Movement, providing buildingmaterials, energy, and food throughagro-forestry. In Bolivian villages,women build their own irrigationsystems. In Bangladesh, women increasehousehold assets and food self-reliance through microcredit andmicroenterprise programs. Around theworld, gender mainstreaming programspromote the involvement of womenand girls in food security, water, andsanitation projects.

It is essential to create inter-national food policies that improvegender equity. We must advocate forpolicies that recognize the importantcontributions rural women make,

and support them as the primaryproviders for their families and largercommunities.

** For more at the conference:* Global Food Issues theme:

Women’s Role in Food Security”

Resources on women and food security:

UN FAO, Gender and Food Security Initiative:www.fao.org/Gender/gender.htm

Greenbelt Movement:www.greenbeltmovement.orgInternational Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI):www.ifpri.org/themes/gender/genderresearch.htm

“Gender Research in Development,” IFPRI:www.ifpri.org/pubs/fspractice/sp2/sp2.pdfNavdanya, founded by Dr. Vandana Shiva:www.vshiva.net/

Oxfam America (see “Equality for Women” under“What We Do”): www.oxfamamerica.org

Women, Food & Agriculture Network:www.wfan.org

WHY Speaks (see articles on Women & Waterand on Microcredit): www.worldhungeryear.org/why_speaks

Pastoralist woman and child, KenyaPhoto: Jennifer Lanier, Humane SocietyInternational

Woman at market, MozambiquePhoto: R. Zimlicki, Oxfam America

7■


Food sovereignty—which will be a key theme of the CFSC Vancouverconference—is the right of peoples, countries, or states, to define their

own agricultural and food policies. It calls for agricultural policies foundedon the rights and needs of populations and for mutually supportiveinternational trade. The food sovereignty platform prioritizes localagricultural production, the right of farmers and peasants to produce food, and the right of consumers to decide what toconsume and how it is produced. A key plenary and several workshops at the conference will address fair trade, immigrantfarmers, farmworkers, and other issues related to this international movement.

Nevertheless, for many of us working in the local food movement, the idea of ‘food sovereignty’ is still new. Foodsovereignty takes us across borders into the international struggles for an alternative food system—one that is socially just,sustainable and democratic. I encountered this movement for the first time at the World Food Summit in Rome in 1996,where the international peasant movement Via Campesina launched its groundbreaking manifesto, “Food Sovereignty: AFuture Without Hunger.”

Food sovereignty began as a movement of marginalized peoples demanding that their voice be heard in the officialworld of UN agencies and governments. The strategy of the Via Campesina was twofold: powerful analyses, declarations,and speeches, but also demonstrations, chants, and processions with banners. In 1999, I marched with the Via Campesinain the anti-WTO meetings in Seattle, and in subsequent years attended the World Social Forum meetings in Porto Alegreand Mumbai, where this twofold strategy of political action and street theater was fused. Now, 10 years after the ViaCampesina declaration in Rome, food sovereignty has expanded into a global movement—challenging policymakers,influencing governments, and included in the constitutions of countries such as Venezuela and Mali.

Food sovereignty bridges borders, also, in bringing together individual social movements. Initial campaigns wereagainst the globalization of agriculture and called on farm communities to organize in favor of farmer-centered people’sagriculture. The food sovereignty movement has grown to include small-scale farmers, farmworkers, landless workers,fisherfolk, pastoralists, animal herders, seed-saving networks, artisans, and all those working towards just, healthy food

systems worldwide. We can learn from the food sovereignty activists andpractitioners at the Vancouver conference, both to inform ourselves and to getinvolved in social movements that can help us in our own struggles at home.

** For more at the conference:* Tuesday, October 10, Plenary: “A Vision for Food Sovereignty:

Farmers Speak Out” * Food sovereignty will be featured in the Global Food Issues theme

of the conference, and in several other workshops.

Resources on food sovereignty:

La Via Campesina: www.viacampesina.orgNational Family Farm Coalition: www.nffc.netWHY Speaks: www.worldhungeryear.org/international

FOOD SOVEREIGNTY

Bridging Borders THROUGH FOOD

SOVEREIGNTY

An indigenous Andean farmer speaks outat the 2006 World Social Forum inCaracas, Venezuela. Photo: ChristinaSchiavoni

A banner calling for foodsovereignty on display in the Via Campesinatent of the 2006 World Social Forum inCaracas, Venezuela. Photo: ChristinaSchiavoni

8 ■


Canada, with a strong adherence tothe North American ideology of

Progress and devotion to technologyas its means, has been a real pushoverfor the biotechnology industry. The siresof genetic engineering capitalized on thisby making the shrewd choice to nametheir new baby ”bio-technology,”joining faith in technology with the“goodness” of biology.

Canada had canola—the productof a highly-skilled, publicly-fundedprocess of traditional seed-saving andplant breeding methods that trans-formed the rapeseed plant into canolain the 1960s and 1970s. No privatecompany would have embarked onsuch a financially risky venture. Buthere it was, western Canada’s“Cinderella crop,” ready to become theplaything of the genetic engineers.

In addition, the regulatoryenvironment in Canada was inviting tothe biotech industry. When regulations

for the development and commer-cialization of transgenic crops wereestablished in 1987, Canada adoptedthe term “novel foods” from theinternational Organisation for EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD),masking “genetic engineering” forpublic relations purposes, and carefullyavoided any effective regulation of thefield. Instead of real, effective rules togovern this new field, the federalDepartments of Agriculture, Environ-ment, and Health agreed that regulationof genetic engineering would build onexisting legislation (in place long beforegenetic engineering was a reality) andregulate the product, not the process(ignoring the effects of the process ofgenetic engineering itself on theorganism).

At that time, biotechnology waspromoted as being fast and precise.Fast it was—time was not taken forlong-term trials and assessment of theconsequences of genetic engineering.The attitude of the corporations andthe government was, “Don’t want toknow.” Critics put it as: “Don’t look,won’t find.”

It would be a mistake to think thatMonsanto and the Canadian FoodInspection Agency did not know whatthey were doing when RoundupReady canola was released forcommercial growing in 1996. They hadto know that genetic engineering isneither precise nor stable. They had toknow that once released, transgeniccanola would spread and contaminateall prairie canola, just as it has done.

Was this, then, Canadian officialpolicy? Look at Canada's record in theCodex Alimentarius Committee on

Food Labeling, where it has been afaithful lapdog to the USA and thebiotech industry in blocking any stepstoward the labeling of GMO foods.Look at its domestic record in going toextreme lengths to avoid labeling, inspite of the wishes of 85% of theCanadian people. Look at its role inthe Convention on Biological Diversityand its attempt to eliminate theunofficial moratorium on Terminatortechnology. It is hard not to concludethat Monsanto and the CanadianGovernment have been workingtogether to enable Monsanto tocontaminate and control not onlycanola, but every major food croparound the world.

Still, all is not lost. With therenewed opposition to geneticallyengineered crops and foods bothwithin Canada and internationally, itseems that Monsanto has not yetsucceeded in contaminating our minds.

Biotech Makes Strange Bedfellows Brewster Kneen; writer, farmer, publisher of The Ram’s Horn newsletter

From Mysore, India, to Oaxaca, Mexico, farmers and consumers are fighting the spread of genetically engineered cropsand reclaiming traditional agricultural practices that promote genetic biodiversity. They are uniting against profit-drivenmultinational corporations that often work hand in hand with national governments to advance agricultural biotechnology.Here, Brewster Kneen, a prominent Canadian author and specialist on food system issues, reveals the intimate connectionsbetween the biotechnology industry and the Canadian government.

Resources on genetic engineering:

Action against genetically engineered sterileseeds: www.banterminator.org

ETC—Action Group on Erosion,Technology and Concentration (formerlyRAFI): www.etcgroup.org

Ram's Horn Newsletter: www.ramshorn.ca

Seeds of Deception:www.seedsofdeception.com

INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO GMO

Genetically engineered grainPhoto: Jack Dykinga, ARS Image Library

9■


L iving wages for farmers, dignifiedworking conditions, respect for

indigenous knowledge, protection ofthe local economy: these are essentialto the common understanding oforganic agriculture. In the UnitedStates, many of the consumers whohave contributed to the recent boomin organic agriculture expect theorganic label to mean social justiceand fairness as well as ecologicalproduction practices. They are startledto realize that U.S. organic standardsleave out any mention of these points.However, a task force of 40 organicfarmers and researchers convened bythe International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements (IFOAM)included social justice as one of thekey points in the 2005 revision of itsPrinciples of Organic Agriculture, andaround the world, there are manyexciting efforts underway to guaranteethat fair and ethical trade is part of themeaning of organic.■ The Soil Association, the respected

British organic agriculture organiz-ation, has a long-term project toimplement “Ethical Organic”standards in England. When thesestandards are fully in effect, everyingredient of every product thatbears the organic label will havebeen created under fair workingconditions and fairly traded upand down the entire food chain.

■ In Thailand, Green Net hasorganized over 1,000 farming familiesinto local groups producing rice,silk, coconut, and fruit. Green Netprovides technical support for thegroups’ conversion to organicmethods and markets produce asboth certified organic and fair-trade. To join Green Net, farmersmust agree to attend monthly

meetings, convert their fields toorganic, grow at least threevegetables for their own subsistence,and produce some value-addedproduct such as fabrics, dried fruit,or honey.

■ Recognizing that a great majorityof the people doing organicfarming around the world cannotafford organic certification fees,IFOAM has teamed up withMovimiento Agroecologico deLatina America y el Caribe tocreate guidelines and worktowards the recognition ofParticipatory Guarantee Systems(PGS). The goals of PGS are toempower farmers, provide educationfor farmers and non-farmers,improve local marketing networks,and set the conditions for fairtrade while providing a credibleorganic guarantee.

■ An outstanding example of PGSis Rede Eco-Vida, a network offarms, small-scale processors, foodcoops, farmers’ markets, andorganic agronomists in Brazil. InPorto Alegre, a city of one and ahalf million, Eco-Vida sponsorstwo farmers’ markets where over400 farms sell their products.Instead of an inspection, a groupof other farmers, consumers, andan agricultural professional visitseach farm to have a conversationabout all the interrelated issues thefarmer faces. Even farms as smallas two acres can afford tobelong to this network. OtherPGS projects are underway in NewZealand, Uganda, India, Japan,and other countries of Central,South and even North America,where a movement for domesticfair trade is beginning.

These efforts around the worldare getting to the heart of organicagriculture—they are reachingbeyond standards to a model ofagriculture in which sustainabilityand justice are inextricably linked.

Keeping Social Justice in Organic Agriculture

Elizabeth Henderson; CSA farmer and author, “Sharing the Harvest: A Guideto Community Supported Agriculture” (Chelsea Green, 1999)

Resources on social justice andorganic agriculture:

SEl Comité de Apoyo a Los TrabajadoresAgricolas/Farmworker Support Committee: www.cata-farmworkers.org

Equal Exchange: www.equalexchange.com

International Federation of OrganicAgriculture Movements: www.ifoam.org

Organic Consumers Association:www.organicconsumers.org

Organic Valley Cooperative:www.organicvalley.coop

Rural Advancement FoundationInternational: www.rafiusa.org

Soil Association: www.soilassociation.org


10 ■


I n 1991, twenty teenagers from the Boston area began work on a farm. It was anunusual summer job for inner city and suburban kids—weeding, harvesting, running

a farmers’ market—but that experiment, called The Food Project, was the beginning ofa movement with echoes all over North America and, increasingly, the world.

In St. Lucia, a Caribbean nation of 168,000 people, Catalyst Organic Gardens istransforming the local food system by growing organic herbs and vegetables, sellingthem to local restaurants, and inspiring others to do the same. A youth-drivenorganization, Catalyst illustrates the impact that young, innovative individuals can haveon our societies. Two young entrepreneurs created and run Catalyst, and manyunemployed youth currently volunteer on the farm because of the lack of otheravailable opportunities. With strong leadership and delicious food, Catalyst is alreadya huge success. Local businesses and individuals are asking Catalyst how they canlearn to grow such excellent food and Catalyst’s impact is already extending beyondthe rows of its farm. To learn more, email co-founder Ratoya Pilgrim [email protected].

In South Africa, Tshediso Phahlane and his neighbors started the Indali Agricultural Communal Property Association in1996. Tshediso presently spends much of his time traveling to more than 80 schools in his region teaching students aboutfarming. Over 125 families farm the Indali land to ensure their food security and create new opportunities for economicdevelopment. In addition to his work with Indali, Tshediso created an engaging curriculum that teaches students aboutfood and farming while creating school gardens. Now 32 years old, Tshediso is already a leader who has transformed hiscommunity and served as a model for others hoping to do the same. To contact Tshediso, email [email protected].

Three years ago, The Food Project observed groups like these all over the world and recognized the collective impactthat we can have when people are brought together to transform our foodsystems. Building upon this realization, The Food Project’s BLAST Initiative(Building Local Agricultural Systems Today) was started to link and supportefforts like these, as well as ones in the United States, Australia, Ghana, Mexico,Nigeria, and many other countries. You, too, can join the movement, share ideas,or ask questions at [email protected].

** For more at the conference:* Global Food Issues theme: “Our 40 Yeaar Plan to Change the World:

Youth and the Global Food System” * Food and Communities theme: “Youth Creating Sustainable Food Systems”

Youth Creating Food Security the World OverAnim Steel, Director of National Programs, The Food Project; and Dylan Fitz, Food Project Fellow

Resources on global youth movements:

Environmental Youth Alliance: www.eya.ca

Freechild Youth Movement Mapping Project: www.freechild.org/movementmap.htm

The Food Project: www.thefoodproject.org

Global Youth Action Network andtakingITglobal:www.takingitglobal.org

Global Youth Connect:www.globalyouthconnect.org/index.htm

UN Food and Agriculture Organization’sRural Youth Development:www.fao.org/ruralyouth

Links, history, and an overview of presentyouth movements:www.youthmovements.org

Youth visiting Indali Farm, South Africa.

Youth from Catalyst Organic Gardens, St. Lucia.

Imagine sitting down to a schoollunch of pasta and lentil soup, local

chard with lemon, and freshly bakedbread. In the U.S. and around theworld, communities are rethinkingwhat we feed our children. The recentchanges to the school meal system inRome, Italy, are arguably the most far-reaching, addressing the social andnutritional health of the child, alongwith taste and a clear philosophy ofenvironmental stewardship. If it is notorganic, most food served in Romanschools is seasonally and locally/regionally sourced and/or fairly traded,and is always cooked from scratch—-140,000 lunches every day, plus amidmorning snack. This truly green—and delicious—revolution in Rome'sschool meal system was brought aboutin 2001 by School Food DirectorSilvana Sari, with support from Rome'sMayor and the Counselor of Education.

Recognizing that there aredifferences in regulations andcontracting between the U.S. andItaly—not to mention profounddifferences in food culture—Rome’stransition is still an important one towatch. Sari negotiated a major changein how contracts are arranged withschool food providers and a strictsystem of compliance monitoring tocreate the Tutto per Qualitá—All forQuality—procurement principles.

School food contracts are notawarded simply to the lowest bidder,but to the provider offering the “bestvalue.” Low purchase price isemphasized, but food quality and foodservice infrastructure are also importantcriteria. Food quality considerationsinclude place of origin, food milestraveled, organic production, fair trade,and products from specially-designated

regions (e.g., Parmesan cheese must beexclusively from the parmigiano reggianoregion). Infrastructure improvementsinclude kitchen and dining roomupgrades, training and education forstaff and teachers, and a well-organized and fully qualified foodservice staff.

By combining the multiple criteriaof purchase price, food quality, andinfrastructure in its “best value”approach to meals, Roman schools areable to offer nutritious, culturally-appropriate meals for its children. Allchildren are able to enjoy these mealsthanks to state subsidies to low-income families. At approximately fivedollars per child, Rome’s dailypurchase price is almost double whatthe U.S. spends on school lunch.However, when we include the U.S.school breakfast reimbursement aswell—considering that Rome’s five

dollars also includes a midmorningsnack—the cost difference betweenthe two models shrinks tremendously.

But what are we including whenwe consider “cost”? Many of the costsof school meals are currently borne bysociety in the U.S., in the form ofindirect costs such as long-term health-care for rising rates of childhoodobesity. When we factor in these veryreal but externalized costs, the U.S.lowest purchase price model certainlycosts more than the Italian best valuemodel. School lunch is a hugeinvestment—more than $7 billion inthe U.S.—why not direct this money toprograms that promote child health,strengthen local economies, andprotect the environment? Perhaps Rome’sexperience will help to open up somenew ways of thinking—and thepossibility of our children trulyenjoying their school lunch.

** For more at the conference:* Mini Plenary, Tuesday, October 10:

“From the Neighborhood to the Nation—Policy Issues in Farm to Cafeteria”

* School meals are a hot topic thisyear! Look for workshops on farm tocafeteria in the Global Food Issues,Food and Institutions, and Foodand Communities themes.

11■


A typical mid-morning snack mayinclude...

• a banana• jam tart• chocolate on bread• yogurt

(banana and chocolate are fair tradeproducts)

A typical school lunch… First course of either pasta, rice, soup or pizza, e.g:

• orzo primavera• parmigiana rice• vegetable soup with pearl barley• pizza margherita

Second course of either meat, fish, eggs, lentils,cheese, or cured meats, e.g.:

• chicken breast with olives• cod fillet au gratin• an omelette• mixed sheep cheese

and• Vegetables—cooked or raw• Fresh bread• Seasonal fruit• Water

Typical Menu Items in Rome’s Schools

TUTTO PER QUALITÁ:INNOVATION IN ROME’SSCHOOL MEAL SYSTEMToni Liquori, EdD, MPH; Program inNutrition, Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity

Resources on innovative schoolmeal programs:

CFSC Farm to School and Farm to CollegePrograms:www.foodsecurity.org/farm_to_school.html;www.foodsecurity.org/farm_to_college.htmlCornell University Farm to School Program:www.farmtoschool.cce.cornell.eduNational Farm to School Network:www.farmtoschool.orgRethinking School Lunch:www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.htmlSlow Food in Schools:www.slowfoodusa.org/education/index.htmlWHY’s Food Security Learning Center, Farmto Cafeteria topic:www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/

FARM TO SCHOOL GOES GLOBAL

New Initiatives forSustainable Agricultureand Rural Development

Linda Elswick, SARD Program Manager,Humane Society International

12 ■


The UN Sustainable Agriculture andRural Development (SARD) Initiative,

launched at the Johannesburg Summiton Sustainable Development in 2002, isfocused on empowering people to shapetheir local food systems to achievefood security. It is a multi-stakeholderundertaking, based on the premise thatcollaborative action by all—community,government, development organizations—is essential to scale up successfulregional SARD initiatives. There are newSARD projects underway around theworld, such as:

■ In Kenya, a group of farmers,pastoralists, slaughterhouse workers,businesses, and local and internationalNGOs is developing community-basedinfrastructure and skills to bring betterreturns from livestock production, a keysource of livelihoods in Eastern Africa.The Kenya Livestock Working Groupworks with counterparts in otherregions as part of the nascent GlobalLivestock Working Group.

■ The Canadian government iscoordinating a web-based SARDResource Facility to identify sustainableagriculture practices and successful SARDefforts. The resource facility will drawon the community experience of grass-roots organizations around the world.

■ SARD will undergo a global review at the UN in 2008 and 2009.Communities across the globe will havethe opportunity to use this event toreiterate the call for people-centeredSARD initiatives that work toward foodsecurity for all.

For more information about the SARDInitiative, please visit www.fao.org/SARD/en/sard/2001/index.html, or [email protected].

alternatives. As more and more centers of resistance emerge throughout theworld—from trade agreement resistance to land reform, from communitygardens and farm-to-cafeteria initiatives to immigrant farmer and farmworkercampaigns—we must learn from each other and connect to form a strong,unified movement. If corporations can attempt to globalize our food system,then we can and must globalize our resistance.

An increasingly important rallying call for our diverse movements—anda strong theme of this year's conference—is that of food sovereignty (seepg.7, "Bridging Borders through Food Sovereignty"). Food sovereigntyencompasses food security issues while addressing the right of people todefine their own food and agricultural policies. Those of us in the U.S. andother wealthy countries arguably have a special charge when it comes tofood sovereignty. We must work towards achieving domestic foodsovereignty while challenging current policies and practices that impede thefood sovereignty of others.

CFSC, Food Secure Canada, and their partners have taken a monumentalstep in organizing the "Bridging Borders Toward Food Security" conference,set to take place October 7-11th in Vancouver, Canada. The conference willexplore issues that transcend national borders, and it will have a 'global' trackspecifically dedicated to the intersection of domestic and international issues.CFSC's International Links Committee has put together this edition of CFSNews to reflect the global theme of the Vancouver conference. The articles,which cover a spectrum of issues from trade to school food to youthmovements, refer the reader to additional links and to correspondingworkshops of the Vancouver conference when appropriate.

The International Links Committee looks forward to continuing thisimportant dialogue beyond Vancouver, building upon new developmentsrelated to food sovereignty and cross-border cooperation launched at theconference. Our goals are to strengthen CFSC’s involvement in globalmovements and to serve as a springboard for collaboration among CFSCmembers on international issues.

For more information on the International Links Committee and to getinvolved, check out www.foodsecurity.org/committees.html or stop by theInternational Links Committee meeting in Vancouver.

SHARING (continued from page 1)


■

13■


AGRICULTURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

As America’s farming population steadily shrinks, many immigrants andrefugees come to the U.S. with extensive agricultural experience and a

passion for working the land. The National Immigrant Farming Initiative (NIFI),a collaborative effort of Heifer International and other partners around thecountry, strengthens the capacity of immigrants to farm successfully and toadvance sustainable farming and food systems.

In this photo, Mr. Visoth Kim, an immigrant from Cambodia and a memberof the New Entry Sustainable Farming Project in Massachusetts, takes part in aNIFI-sponsored workshop held at Growing Power in Milwaukee, WI. Mr. Kimgrows over a dozen kinds of vegetables for ethnic and mainstream markets.He has shared his knowledge with other farmers in the U.S., as well as thosein Cambodia during a recent visit home. For more on NIFI, visitwww.immigrantfarming.org.

** For more at the conference:* Global Food Issues theme: “Immigrant Farmers and Farm Laborers:

Building Local Food Systems in the U.S. and ‘Back Home”

Immigrant Farmers: Building Food Security and in the U.S. and “Back Home”Tony Machacha, Program Associate, National Immigrant Farming Initiative (NIFI)

As cities expand, so do thefood needs of urban families.

In the year 2000, over two billionpeople lived in cities, and by2030 this figure will havedoubled. In the majority of theworld’s cities, one in fourpeople—and two in five childrenwith single parents—live inpoverty and food insecurity.Feeding 21st century cities andmeeting the food needs of urbanfamilies will present a greatopportunity—and challenge—forurban and peri-urban agriculture.The CFSC’s North AmericanInitiative on Urban Agriculturehas been exploring the hugepotential of urban farming since2000, and will be featured at theVancouver conference.

Food for 21st Century Cities

Urban agriculture in Caracas, Venezuela.Photo: C.Schiavoni

Resources on urban agriculture (UA):

Growing Better Cities: Urban Agriculture forSustainable Development. Luc Mougeot, et al.(Ottawa: IDRC, 2006.) Urban Agriculture: Food, Jobs and SustainableCities. Jac Smit, Annu Ratta, and Joe Nasr. (NewYork: UNDP, 1996.)

American Community Gardening Association:http://communitygarden.org/ City Farmer: http://www.cityfarmer.orgCFSC’s Urban Agriculture Committee:http://foodsecurity.org/ua_home.htmlIDRC, Growing Better Cities:http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-92997-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & FoodSecurity (RUAF): www.ruaf.org UN FAO, Food for the Cities:http://www.fao.org/fcit/index.aspUrban Agriculture Blog:http://www.cityfarmer.org/deskSmit.html

Jac Smit, The Urban Agriculture NetworkPresident, looks at UA in the context of hunger, climate change, and refugees.

WHY’s Food Security Learning Center—Community Gardens:http://www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/

** For more at the conference:* Food and Cities theme: including “Building a North American

Initiative on Urban Agriculture”

14


Terra Madre 2006 Siena Chrisman, International Program Assistant, WHY

The Slow Food movement, founded by Carlo Petrini in Italy in 1986, is an antidote tothe global fast food addiction. Slow Food defends food and agricultural biodiversity

worldwide, and can help communities recover their culinary riches and artisanal skills.Slow Food promotes food that is “Good, Clean, and Fair”: food that tastes good and isculturally appropriate, grown and produced in an environmentally sound way throughfair labor practices, and equally available to all.

To promote these values, Slow Food is hosting the second meeting of Terra Madre,a World Meeting of Food Communities, in Turin, Italy, October 26-30, 2006. TerraMadre is a forum for all those who grow, raise, catch, cook, and produce food in waysthat respect the environment, defend human dignity, and protect the health of

consumers. Terra Madre 2006 will focuson strengthening food networks; on agro-ecology; and on market access for small-scaleproducers. Representatives from the CFSC willjoin over 6,000 food producers, cooks, andacademics from five continents at Terra Madre2006.

To learn more, visit: www.slowfoodusa.org, www.slowfood.com, www.terramadre2006.org

World Social Forum 2006: Food Sovereignty in Venezuela and BeyondChristina Schiavoni, International Coordinator, WHY

Food sovereignty was a prominent theme of the 2006 World SocialForum/Second Social Forum of the Americas, held in Caracas, Venezuela,

this past January. This mass convergence brought together progressivemovements for change from across the Americas and other parts of theworld, including strong representation from Via Campesina and a delegationof food and farm leaders from the U.S.

The location of this year's Forum was of special significance, as foodsovereignty is a key objective of the Venezuelan political process known asthe Bolivarian Revolution. Venezuela's current efforts towards foodsovereignty include agrarian reform; rural development programs;subsidized grocery stores; urban agriculture initiatives; and creation ofcooperatives and infrastructure for increased domestic food production.Venezuela has taken a strong stance against free trade agreements,presenting alternative agreements for regional cooperation that respect eachnation's right to food sovereignty. Additionally, Venezuela has a ban onGMOs and has launched efforts to support and protect the agro-ecologicalknowledge and genetic resources of its small-scale producers.

Live reports from the 2006 World Social Forum:www.worldhungeryear.org/internationalIn Motion Magazine series on agroecology initiatives in Venezuela:www.inmotionmagazine.com

■

GLOBAL CONVERGENCES

A display of native seeds and crops broughtby Via Campesina members from their homeregions to the World Social Forum.Photo: Christina Schiavoni

Two cheesemakers from southernFrance exhibit goat cheeses atSalone de Gusto in Turin, Italy,2004. Terra Madre occurs at thesame time as this international foodfestival. Photo: Ken Meter ©2004

15■


Name:______________________________________________ Organization:________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________________________________________________

City:________________________________________________ State: _______________________ Zip:___________________

Phone:______________________________________________ Fax: _______________________________________________

Email: __________________________________________________________________________________________________

$_______ Publication Total

$_______ Membership Total

$_______ Subtotal

$_______ Less 20% member discount

$_______ Subtotal

$_______ Add S+H

$_______ TOTAL ENCLOSED, or

❏ Please bill my credit card.

Shipping Rates:

$4 per $20 or fraction thereof.

Please make checks payable to: CFS Coalition

Credit Card Information:

❏ Visa ❏ Mastercard

Card Number:___________________________________

Expiration Date:_________________________________

Signature: ______________________________________

WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY COALITION?The CFSC is a national network of organizations forging new ground in developing innovative approaches to foodand farm needs for communities across America. Started in 1994, it is at the forefront of building a national movementaround community food security.

WHY SHOULD I BECOME A MEMBER? Becoming a member is a way to strengthen your connection to the Coalition and other related organizations andindividuals across the country. Your membership helps build a dynamic national movement, and provides importantsupport for innovative CFS initiatives. Membership also comes with certain benefits: a subscription to the quarterly CFSNews newsletter, voting privileges (for organizations), and discounts on Coalition publications.

MEMBERSHIP CATEGORIES:Please join at the organization member level. By doing so, it demonstrates your organization’s commitment and lendsus greater political strength.

❏ $35 Individuals ❏ $50 Small organizations, with less than $100,000 budget ❏ $100Large organizations, with more than $100,000 budget❏ $500 Individual life time membership $_____Low income individuals, students, or seniors (sliding scale—$1-$25)

PUBLICATIONS AND OTHER MERCHANDISE:❏ $12 Healthy Farms, Healthy Kids: Evaluating the Barriers and Opportunities, for Farm to School Programs. 2001.❏ $15 Full Color, original artwork, T-shirts. (100% organic cotton shirt) – Circle one: S, M, L, XL ❏ $10 Feeding Young Minds, 2005.❏ $30 Seeds of Change: Strategies for Food Security for the Inner City. 1993.❏ $18 What’s Cooking: A Guide to Community Food Assessments. 2002.❏ $22 Evaluation Toolkit and Handbook. 2004.❏ $10 Linking Farms with Schools. 2004.

CFS CoalitionP.O. Box 209Venice, CA 90294

Nonprofit Org.US Postage

PAIDVenice, CA

Permit No. 50

concerns. These initiatives andprograms will address hunger andfood insecurity, promote a betterconnection between healthy food,obesity prevention, and farming, andstrengthen local and regional foodsystems.

While not intended as a final listof initiatives and programs that CFSCand its partners will bring beforeCongress, the following policy itemsprovide a good sense of what wewill support:■ To strengthen food assistanceprograms we want to broaden FoodStamp eligibility to include all legalimmigrants, streamline and simplifythe Food Stamp application process,and encourage greater consumptionof fruits and vegetables by foodstamp recipients■ Increase funding for the FarmersMarket Nutrition Program (FMNP)including both the Women, Infant, andChildren (WIC) and senior versions

■ Expand the size and scope ofthe USDA Community Food ProjectsCompetitive Grants Program (CFP)■ Strengthen community food securityapproaches to nutrition education■ Encourage nutrient-dense fooddistribution in emergency and foodassistance programs to aligncommodity programs with regionalfood system development■ Expand Farm to Cafeteria byappropriating funds for the “Accessto Local Foods and School Gardens”program authorized in the 2004Child Nutrition Act■ Expand the Fruit and VegetablePilot Program to all 50 states■ Institute a pilot project to scaleup food policy councils for local andregional food system development■ Provide additional support formarketing, planning, and financingto promote retail food outlets inurban and rural “food deserts.”■ Renew and initiate federal

support for the various forms ofcommunity-based urban agriculture

Other FFPP work groups areaddressing new market opportunitiesfor farmers, conservation andstewardship of agricultural lands,and rural communities andbusinesses. More information aboutthese initiatives can be found atwww.farmandfoodpolicy.org. It isexpected that the FFPP will issue adeclaration of principles in lateNovember that identifies thedirection and initiatives that arerequired to restore the balance innational food and farm policy. Atthat point the whole process willaccelerate rapidly through 2007 tosecure passage of a farm bill thatthat promotes healthy eating,protects the environment, eliminateshunger and food insecurity,strengthens communities, and buildsrobust local and regional farms.

RESTORING(continued from page 1)

Documents

COMMUNITY FOOD SECURITY newsfoodsecurity.org/CFSCNEWSFall06r3.pdf3 Community Food Security News Fall 2006 The collapse of WTO trade talks late in July shows the need for the U.S. to