View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
1/32
1Fall 2006
Vol. 14, No. 2 Fall 2006
(continued on page 3)
Food and Faithby Michael Schut
This issue ofEarth Ethics continues our analysis of industrial agriculture
and humane sustainable food systems and explores perspectives on faith
and food and sacred food. Exemplary university efforts and various
guidelines and certification systems are described. This issue also explores the
policy changes necessary to build more humane and sustainable food systems,
and concludes with an extensive list of published and online resources on
food and agriculture.
o connect food and faith, we must explore and celebrate
foods sacramentality. In doing so, we need to look
beyond the food itself to examine how it grew, was pro-
cessed and made its way to our table. Wendell Berry
Tsummarizes this perspective beautifully:
We can[not] live harmlessly or
strictly at our own expense; we
depend upon other creatures and
survive by their deaths. To live, we
must daily break the body and shed
the blood of creation. The point is,
when we do this knowingly, lov-
ingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a
sacrament; when we do it ignorant-
ly, greedily, clumsily, destructive-
ly, it is a desecration in such
desecration, we condemn our-
selves to spiritual and moral lone-liness, and others to want (1983,
1981).
In suggesting that food can be sac-
ramental, I recognize that, in the Christian
tradition, the Churchformally celebrates
seven sacraments. (Protestants general-
ly have two sacraments, Communion and
Baptism. Catholics have these two plus
five others: Confirmation, Reconciliation,
the Sacrament of the Sick, Ordination, and
Marriage.) But the Christian tradition also
celebrates informalsacramental momentsin everyday life. Consider the apostle Paul
speaking to the Athenians in Acts 17:
Godis not far from each one of us. For in
God we live and move and have our being.
Its as if all of us are swimming in Gods
presence. In such a world, the holy is never
far off. In such a world, church isnt the
only place where the holy happens. Sacra-
mental moments can occur at any moment,
any place, and to anybody. Watching some-
thing get born. Making love Somebody
coming to see you when youre sick. A mealwith people you loveIf we werent blind
as bats, we might see that life itself is sacra-
mental (Buechner, 1973).
Eating, procuring and growing of food
can be sacramental, ushering an awareness
of the holy into everyday life. It sees in
the need to be nourished daily the larger
spiritual reality of our dependence on mys-
teries that we do not fully understand.
The sacramentality of food can be
seen in how food connects us to experi-
ences of celebration, communion and grat-
itude.
Celebration
Food adds joy to life. Meaningful, hi-
larious, community-enriching, soul-satis-
fying times are so often associated with a
shared table. Close friends, candlelight,
homemade bread, a meal prepared togeth-
er and a prayer of thanks. Or a big party,
potluck, the plates not big enough for all
the variety, the second helping of those
particularly tasty dishes, the familiar voic-
es and laughter. Or a favorite holiday meal,
feeding body and soul. The stories and
settings are endless, but at each occasion
the gift of food mediates a larger reality
the sanctity, preciousness and joy of life.
Communion
To live, we must daily break the body
and shed the blood of creation. Daily weparticipate in the mystery of other beings
becoming part of our very tissue. And daily
we have the opportunity to experience
food as a sacrament, where the appropri-
ate metaphor for food is not fuel but rath-
er communion: with those family and
friends sharing the meal, with those hands
whose skill helped grow and harvest the
food, with other creatures and ultimately
with our Creator.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
2/32
2 Fall2006
Earth Ethics examines the basic assumptions, atti
tudes and beliefs that underlie our relationship with the
natural world and suggests directions for our evolution
towards a humane sustainable society.
Publisher and Editor
Richard M. Clugston
Center for Respect of Life and Environment
Managing Editor
Laina G. Clugston
Publication Designer
Tara L. Miller
Copy Editor
Ellen C. Truong
Center for Respect of Life and EnvironmentBoard of Directors
President, Andrew N. Rowan
The Humane Society of the United States
Vice President, Patricia A. Forkan
The Humane Society of the United States
Secretary, John A. Hoyt
The Humane Society of the United States
Treasurer, G. Thomas Waite III
The Humane Society of the United States
Board of Advisors
Chair, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Yale University
Donald W. Cashen
Professional Services Associates
Anita W. Coupe
John Grim, Yale University
Dieter T. Hessel
Program on Ecology, Justice and Faith
Stephanie Kaza, University of Vermont
Fred Kirschenmann
Kirschenmann Family Farms
Jay McDaniel, Hendrix College
David Orr, Oberlin College
Lewis G. Regenstein
The Interfaith Council for the Protection of
Animals and Nature
Victoria Stack
International Communication Initiatives
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Correspondence should be directed to Earth Ethics, Center for Respect of Life and Environment,
2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20037. Contributions should be made payable to CRLE.
The viewpoints expressed in Earth Ethics are the viewpoints of the authors and should not be
attributed to the Center for Respect of Life and Environment, its officers, or directors.
Food and Faith
by Michael Schut...................................................................................................................1
The Sacred Foods Project
by Richard M. Clugston........................................................................................................7
Reflections on the June 2006 Sacred Foods Conference
by Dieter T. Hessel..................................................................................................................9
25 Ways to Be a Good Steward of Creation
by Mary Hendrickson..........................................................................................................10
UC Santa Cruzs Food Systems Working Group Helps Drive Statewide
Farm-to-College Initiative
by Tim Galarneau.................................................................................................................11
University of New Hampshire: Many Ways to a Sustainable Food System
by Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell...........................................................................14
Portland State University Initiates a Sustainable Food Program
by Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder..................................................................................16
Guidelines and Certification: A Forum
Fair Trade Certification Overview...............................................................................17
Five Ethical Principles to Guide What We Should Eat............................................18
Humane Eating and the Three Rs...............................................................................19
Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label...........................................................19
The Food Alliance Guiding Principles.......................................................................20
USDA Organic..............................................................................................................20The University of California Systems
Proposed Sustainable Food Guidelines...............................................................21
Core Farm Bill Priorities
by the Farm and Food Policy Project..............................................................................22
Opportunities to Weaken CAFOs Through Environmental, Health
and Subsidy Initiatives in the 2007 Farm Bill
by Richard M. Clugston, Wynn Calder and Molly Anderson......................................23
Below Cost-Feed Crops
by Dennis Olson...................................................................................................................25
Animals and People First: Why Good Animal Welfare is Importantfor Feeding People, for Trade and for the Future
by Michael Appleby.............................................................................................................27
Resourceson Industrial Agriculture and Humane Sustainable
Food Systems........................................................................................................................29
Guest Editor: Wynn Calder
Special thanks to Kim Charmatz and Heather Tallent for
their research and reports on the topics in this issue.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
3/32
3Fall 2006
For most of [Western
culture], food comes from
the supermarket..., not from
the farm or the Earth.
(continued from page 1)
Gratitude
Eating can nurture gratitude. When
we eat, Sharon Parks writes, we must very
soon eat again. If we dare to contemplate
fully the act of eating, we will be led to the
unavoidable awareness of our continual
desire to live, and also our utter dependence
upon the generosity of the Earth and its
peoples and the power and grace by whichour lives are sustained (Parks, 1988). Thus,
in the presence of a meal, we bow our heads.
In receiving the gift of our daily bread we
are reminded of our ultimate dependence
on Gods provision for this life and of the
miracle of sun, water, seed, soil, and air con-
tributing to what becomes food.
Healing Divisions
Generally speaking, Western culture
does not see the words food and faith as
closely related. For most of us, food comes
from the supermarket (often diced, sliced,
packaged and frozen beyond resemblance
to anything living), not from the farm or the
Earth. We live in a time when it is possible
for children gardening in the inner city to
refuse to eat the fruits of their labor, not
wanting to eat anything that comes from
dirt. In addition, for many of us faith is
relegated to a Sunday morning ritual, com-
partmentalized from the rest of our lives,
having little impact on everyday choices
such as food.
Environmental educator David Orrwrites, Our alienation from the natural
world is unprecedented. Healing this divi-
sion is a large part of the difference between
survival and extinction. A major challenge
is to help heal a number of divisions, in-
cluding: the division between the foods we
eat and our knowledge of how those foods
impact not only our own health but the
health of the rest of the natural world; the
division between faith and faiths call to care
for all creation and the division between
food and faith.
Images of Industrial Agriculture: Worker
Rights, Animal Rights
Many images of industrialized agricul-ture reveal that systems inhumaneness: mi-
grant workers hands harvesting our
produce or making 10,000 knife cuts during
an eight-hour shift; pigs raised in crates so
small they often cannot lie down; 25,000
chickens raised in a single poultry house;
three top officials from Archer Daniels Mid-
land being sent to prison in 1999 for con-
spiring with foreign rivals to control the
international market for a major feed addi-
tive; wading through ankle-deep blood on
a slaughterhouse floor.
Underlying and creating these imagesare a handful of very large agribusiness
corporations, driven by consumer demand
for cheap food and stockholder profits. Eric
Schlossers book Fast Food Nation de-
scribes worker conditions in slaughterhous-
es, the challenges small ranchers face, and
the power of the fast food industry. These
stories and images remind us that human
rights abuses and the unethical treatment
of animals often follow in the wake of the
pressure to get big, or get out.
Economics as if Creation Mattered
Of course, the pressure to get big or
get out is driven by a certain economic
worldview, one that does not ultimately rec-
ognize the sacramentality of food or cre-
ations inherent value. Economics can no
longer be left only to the economist. Gain-
ing basic economic literacy is essential to
creating an economic system that serves
the well-being of human and non-human
communities.
Two key ideas are externalities, and
getting prices right. Both are importantin understanding industrial agriculture and
the economics of food.
Simply put, externalities are spillover
effects, those things which are seen as
external to the monetary accounting sys-
tem. A common example is the chemical
factory whose effluent into a river kills the
fish and ruins the fishers livelihood. The
costs of the externalities in this example are
borne by the fish themselves and the fish
ers loss of work. To take one other exam
ple, obesity and related health impacts could
be seen as externalities, spillover effects, of
American eating habits.
Getting prices right is one way to in
ternalize the costs of externalities. In oufactory example, the manufacturer could be
taxed for polluting the river. Money raised
from those taxes could then be used to pro-
vide work for unemployed fishers and clean
up the river. The effluent taxes would also
serve as an incentive to not pollute, as the
manufacturers taxes would decrease as
they cleaned up their emissions.
Lets take one more example. Most sci
entists now agree that global warming is
occurring. The United States, with 4 per
cent of the worlds population, emits 25 per-
cent of the worlds greenhouse gassesEmissions from our cars and trucks are the
largest contributors to those gasses. The
price we pay for a gallon of gasoline does
not include the externality of global warm
ing. Should we pay more for gasoline? The
money raised could be used to mitigate the
effects of rising sea levels, say, in Bang-
ladesh. In addition, a different message (in
the form of price per gallon of gas) would
travel through our current market system
gasoline is expensive, we cant afford to
drive as much. Our contributions to globawarming would thereby decrease.
Finally, the words economics and ecol-
ogy share the same Greek root, oikos, the
household. Ecology is the study of the
household, economics the management of
the household. Many of the social and eco
logical costs (externalities) borne by com-
munities (human and non-human) around
the world emanate from the fact that we
have seen fit to divorce economics from
ecology, from Gods creation. The human
economic system does not see itself as
embedded within natures economy. Weall of us, eventually pay for these external
ities: they visit us as increased medica
The human economic
system does not see itself as
embedded within natures
economy.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
4/32
4 Fall2006
costs, loss of topsoil, oil-soaked birds, spe-
cies extinction, polluted air, groundwater
laced with pesticides.... Our challenge is to
re-embed our economic system within eco-
logical systems. One of the most powerful
and do-able ways of doing so lies before
us when we sit down to eat.
GMOs
Myriad questions surround genetical-
ly modified (GM) foods. Are they safe for
human consumption? Will they cause eco-
logical damage? Are they the key to feed-
ing the world? What sort of policies and
agricultural systems lead to food security?
Who benefitslarge farmers, small farmers,
corporations, the hungrywhen food is
genetically modified? Is it ethical to take
genetic material from a flounder and insert
it into a tomato? Well-meaning people an-swer these questions very differently. Lets
look at two examples.
First, we must consider different ideas
about food security. Food security refers
to a region or nations ability to predictably
maintain access to a nutritious, sufficient,
and safe supply of food for its population.
What does food security entail, or how
might food security be achieved? Here are
two very different perspectives:
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer,
professors of Applied Economics at the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, answer:
it [food security] involves improv-
ing a developing nations access to
cheaper food from comparatively
advantaged exporting countries. It
is generally more efficient and cheap-
er than self-sufficiency, in which a
nation tries to produce all crops that
its population needs.... Finally, the
drive for food security should tap the
potential of GM technology for de-
veloping countries to both enhance
nutrition and boost agricultural out-
put (2000).
On the other hand, Tewolde, Ethiopian
Environmental Minister, states:
The biotech industry is suggesting
that food security will come through
the farmers loss of control of essen-
tial agricultural inputs. Do you see
the lie? This is food insecurity....
Without local control,
local availability of
food can never be cer-tain. It would be far
better to develop a sys-
tem that would enable
the farmer himself to be
in charge(Snell, 2001).
Notice that the former
definition of food securi-
ty assumes access to
cheap energy for the
transportation of food
across the globe. When
Runge and Senauer claimthat self-sufficiency is
more expensive and less
efficient than relying on
foreign production of
foodstuffs, their econom-
ic accounting does not in-
ternalize the costs of
certain externalities.
And in supporting GM
food as an important ele-
ment of food security,
they ignore the fact that farmers using GM
technology have less and less control over
their farming practices. Loss of contro
makes farmers more vulnerable to politica
upheaval. During times of such upheaval
it is especially important to food security
that a country/region have the ability togrow their own food, not be dependent upon
international markets.
For a second example of how different-
ly people approach GM foods, consider the
application of the Precautionary Principle
The Precautionary Principle states tha
When an activity raises threats of harm to
human health or the environment, precau
tionary measures should be taken even if
some cause and effect relationships are not
fully established scientifically (from the
Wingspread Conference, Racine, Wiscon
sin, 1998).
Anthony Trewavas, a plant biologisat the University of Edinburgh, states:
When people say to me they do not
need GM, I am astonished at their
prescience, their ability to read a be-
nign future in a crystal ball that I can-
not. Now is the time to experiment....
When the climate is changing in un-
predictable ways, diversity in agri-
cultural technology is a strength and
a necessity, not a luxury.We have
heard much of the Precautionary Prin-
ciple in recent years; my version of itis be prepared (2002).
Geneticist David Suzuki, on the other
hand, states:
As we learned from experience with
DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, we
only discover the costs of new tech-
nologies after they are extensively
used. We should apply the Precau-
tionary Principle with any new tech-
...farmers using GM
technology have less and less
control over their farming
practices.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
5/32
5Fall 2006
nology, asking whether it is needed
and then demanding proof that it is
not harmful. Nowhere is this more
important than in biotechnology be-
cause it enables us to tamper with
the very blueprint of life (2000).
Trewavass version of the Principle is
be prepared, while Suzukis understand-
ing requires much more caution. While ac-
knowledging very diverse opinions, I sidemore with Suzuki than Trewavas, and sup-
port Tewoldes perspectives on food secu-
rity more than Runge and Senauers. GM
foods are quite new: many in the United
States (Europeans are more solidly anti-GM)
are undecided about their relative merits.
Two fundamental principles guided my
work at Earth Ministry: first, creation is
good, a revelation of God; second, God has
special concern and care for the poor and
dispossessed. Two questions flow natu-
rally from these principles. First, does the
action/technology/decision under consider-ation honor and maintain the inherent in-
tegrity of creation? Second, does the
action/technology/decision under consid-
eration pay attention to and meet the needs
of the poor? With respect to the issues
surrounding GM food, I believe both ques-
tions must be answered no.
Ecologically speaking, I do notbelieve
that the Precautionary Principles stan-
dardsis the new technology needed, and
is it proven safe?have been met in rela-
tionship to GM food. Social-
ly and economically speak-
ing, I find it appalling when
corporations like Monsanto
promote GM food and tech-
nology because of the pos-
sibility that GM crops mayrequire fewer chemicals,
while at the same time prof-
iting more and more from
sales of the worlds most
popular herbicide, Roundup.
Similarly, I am very con-
cerned when the Monsan-
tos of the world represent
themselves as primarily in-
terested in feeding the hun-
gry when the seeds they
develop and promote do not
in subsequent years repro-duce well (in the case of hy-
brid seeds) or at all (in the case of Terminator
seeds), thereby ensuring farmers continu-
ing dependence on the companys supplies
of seeds. These are my biases; I may be
wrong, but offer them to you for your con-
sideration.
Hope
Industrial agricultures influence on the
food we eat, on its nutritional value, on eco-
systems around the world, on migrant work-ers, on the treatment of animals, on the
viability of rural farm communities can be-
come overwhelming. Looking clearly at
those realities is a necessity if we are to
help create systems that value the integrity
of creation. But shifting our gaze to see and
celebrate the hopeful stories of individuals
and agricultural systems which recognize
that the eating, procuring, and growing of
food can be sacramental is just as impor-
tant.
There are many Stories of Hope: Prom-
ising Directionsexamples of individuals
eating, cooking, growing, and shopping for
food in ways that are healthy for people
value the importance of clean water and
healthy soil, pay farmers a fair wage, treat
farm animals well, keep farmland protectedfrom urban sprawl and support local agri
culture rather than distant mega-farms.
The stories of hope include individu
als making changes in daily food choices
as well as political activism leading to sys
temic change. Both individual and system
ic change are essential; to debate which is
the more effective seems pointless. For ex-
ample, if enough individuals choose to boy
cott eating factory-farmed animals, the
system would find a way to meet the de-
mand for meat raised more humanely and
with less environmental impact. A similarresult could be achieved through the appli-
cation of political pressure. For example
taxing the owners of such factory farms to
cover the costs of adequate animal waste
disposal would increase the cost of the
meat. Individual consumers would then be
gin to shift their meat-buying habits in or-
der to get a better price.
Conclusion: Coming Home to Eat
If we are fortunate enough to have a
good home, we return there not only to eatbut also to be nurtured in a variety of ways
One of the ways we know we are home is
through the food prepared for us. In the
biblical story of the prodigal son, a young
man takes his fathers inheritance, quickly
exhausting it on reckless living. Destitute
and desperate for food, the son decides to
return home. He plans to simply ask his fa
ther to treat him like one of his hired men
who at least are well fed. But the father, upon
seeing his son, runs to him, kisses and hugs
him, clothes him, kills the fatted calf and
throws a feast. The feasts significance becomes clear if we try to imagine the story
without it: if, say, after kissing, hugging and
clothing him the father had said, Welcome
homehelp yourself to whats in the
fridge. The feast is a sign that the son is
loved, forgiven, welcomed and truly
home.
There are other meanings within the
phrase coming home to eat. Gary Pau
Nabhan spent a year eating foods that grew
no further than 250 miles from his home. He
...coming home to eat
recognizes Earth as the home
God created for us and all
creatures. To eat in such a
way honors and cares for the
breadth of Gods creation.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
6/32
6 Fall2006
titled his book about that year Coming
Home to Eat. Most broadly understood,
coming home to eat recognizes Earth as the
home God created for us and all creatures.
To eat in such a way honors and cares for
the breadth of Gods creation.
If we are to live and eat in ways thatwill begin to ameliorate the social and eco-
logical concerns raised in this essay, the
most fundamental shift we must make is a
spiritual one. The essence of that shift is to
live as if the Earth is the Lords (Psalm
24:1), not a treasure chest for human plun-
der. Put differently, we must act as if our
home is a sacred place, and remember that
our faith traditions not only affirm that God
is transcendent but also immanent, very
near. Biblical scholar and Orthodox theolo-
gian Philip Sherrard puts it this way in the
introduction to his bookHuman Image:
World Image:
We are treating our planet in an in-
human and god-forsaken manner
because we see things in an inhu-
man, god-forsaken way. And we see
things in this way because that is
basically how we see ourselves...
[we] look upon ourselves as little
more than two-legged animals whose
destiny and needs can best be ful-
filled through the pursuit of... self-interest. To correspond with this
self-image, we have invented a world-
view in which nature is seen as an
impersonal commodity, a soulless
source of food, raw materials...which
we think we are entitled to exploit and
abuse by any technique we can de-
vise.... (Sherrard, 1992).
Nabhan comes to a similar conclusion:
If we no longer believe that the Earth is
sacred, or that we are blessed by the boun-
ty around us, or that we have a caretakingresponsibility given to us by the
Creator...then it does not really matter to
most folks how much ecological and cul-
tural damage is done by the way we eat
(Nabhan, 2002).
Finally, if our challenge is to come home
to eat, to remember foods sacramentality,
then everyone is invitedfarmers, environ-
mentalists, corporate executives, grocery
store clerks, migrant workers, economists,
theologians, artists, politicians, truck driv-
ers, scientists and activists (not to mention
the whole host of Gods other creatures
who also need to be fed and nurtured in
this same home). We all eat and we all wish
to leave our children and grandchildren a
healthy world: we at least share that in com-
mon. Through individual choice and politi-cal action we must work together to create
and support food systems (as well as larger
economic systems) that recognize and cel-
ebrate food as sacramental.
Excerpted from: Schut, M., ed. 2002.
Food and Faith: Justice, Joy and Daily Bread.
Published by Living the Good News in co-
operation with Earth Ministry, an ecumen-
ical, Christian, environmental, nonprofit
organization. See www.earthministry.org.Reprinted with permission.
Michael Schut served on Earth Minis-
trys staff for eleven years. He is the editor
of the award-winningSimpler Living, Com-
passionate Life: A Christian Perspective,
also published by Living the Good News.
Earth Ministry helps connect Christian
faith with care and justice for all creation.
Michaels work includes teaching, speak-
ing and writing on topics of voluntary sim-
plicity, economic justice, food choices andsustainability, and environment and faith.
Michael has a bachelors in biology from
Wheaton College and a masters in envi-
ronmental studies from the University of
Oregon.
Berry, W. 1983, 1981. The Gift of Good Land.
San Francisco: North Point Press, 272-81.
Buechner, F. 1973. Wishful Thinking: A Theo-
logical ABC. New York: Harper and Row
82.
Nabhan, G. P. 2002. Coming Home to Eat
New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 304
Parks, S. D. 1988. The Meaning of Eating
and the Home as Ritual Space. In E. Gray
ed. Sacred Dimensions of Womens Experi
ence. New York: Roundtable Press, 184-92
Runge, C. F. and B. Senauer. 2000.Foreign
Affairs. May/June: 39-40.
Sherrard, P. 1992.Human Image: World Im-
age.Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press, 2-3.
Snell, M. B. 2001. Against the Grain: An
Interview with Tewolde Egziabher. Sierra
Magazine. July/August.
Suzuki, D. 2000. Experimenting with Life.
Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures. Summer.
Trewavas, A. J. 2002. GM Food Is the Bes
Option We Have. In G. E. Pence, ed. The
Ethics of Food: A Reader for the Twenty-
First Century . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Lit-
tlefield Publishing Group.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
7/32
7Fall 2006
The Sacred Foods Projectby Richard M. Clugston
Tjoining ALEPH were Chicago-based Faith
in Place, the National Catholic Rural Life
Conference and the Food Alliance. The Is-
lamic Society of North America, the Nation-
al Council of Churches, and the Presbyterian
(USA) Hunger Program joined the found-
ing partners as members of the Advisory
Council early in the project. The Project ismade possible by the support of the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation and the Schocken
Foundation.
Sacred Foods brings together religious
leaders and institutions, civic organizations,
and food service providers concerned with
protecting environmental quality, providing
healthier and more sustainable food, treat-
ing animals humanely and improving the
lives of agricultural workers. The Project
focuses on the most central activity to our
economy and environment, both domestic
and international, since more than 1.3 bil-lion people work 28 percent of the earths
land to grow food. In the United States
alone, nearly a quarter of all workers are
engaged in the food industry.
According to ALEPH Executive Direc-
tor Debra Kolodny, Twenty five years ago,
the founder of the Jewish Renewal move-
ment, Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi
coined the concept ofeco-kashrut. In do-
ing so he informed a generation about eval-
uating food and food production from a
spiritual perspective for its healthfulness,
its environmental impact, and its treatmentof animals and workers.
The Sacred Foods Project takes this
idea and expands it to all faith traditions. It
says that as people of faith we have a moral
obligation to be good stewards of the earth.
We must make sure that the way we grow
and distribute food honors the land, the
water, the air, our bodies and our souls. This
Project will inform, inspire and enable lead-
ers in faith-based communities to infuse our
he Sacred Foods Project, launched in the summer of 2005by ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, is an interfaith
effort to incorporate religious and ethical principles in food
production, distribution, and consumption. Founding partnerssociety with a better approach to food, fo-
cusing on the realms of sustainable and or-
ganic agriculture, sound treatment of animals
and honorable treatment of workers in food
production. We believe that faith-based rec-
ommendations rooted in morality and so-
cial justice and informed by scientific and
political realities will influence policy mak-ers, religious institutions and people of faith,
thereby permanently changing our food
system for the better, said Ms. Kolodny.
In its first year, the Sacred Foods
Project published a paper that integrated
theology, scripture and religiously based
analysis from the Christian, Muslim and Jew-
ish faiths to provide a faith-based founda-
tion for fostering a healthful and sustainable
agriculture system. Edited by Rabbi Arthur
Waskow, the paper was used as the foun-
dation for discussion at the Projects first
conference in June 2006. Participants dis-cussed how the principles identified as the
core of Sacred Food could be used to edu-
cate and activate religious institutions (sem-
inaries, colleges, denominational
organizations, etc.), congregational leader-
ship (clergy and other professionally trained
educators and spiritual leaders as well as
lay leaders), and congregants (those in the
pews) about issues like secular food certifi-
cation standards and purchasing policy
options as well as choosing food more con-
sciously for religious celebrations and holy
days.
Quoting from the papers introduction
The paper reviews the teachings o
the three Abrahamic traditions in regard to
the sacredness of food. It covers a wide
spectrum of issues, organized by eight di-
mensions through which sacredness can be
defined. In each of the eight dimensions
we draw for now on four sets of sources
from the classic texts of the three traditions
One of these is the Hebrew Bible, which
defined the life of Biblical Israel but then
beginning about two thousand years ago
came to have a broader religious signifi
cance than simply a text of the Jewish peo
ple or Jewish religious thought. It waradically reinterpreted and kept as sacred
canon by Rabbinic Judaism. It was radical
ly reinterpreted and kept as sacred canon
by Christianity. And it played an importan
role in the cultural and to some extent the
religious background of the community in
which the prophet Muhammad, peace be
upon him, experienced the revelation of the
Quran and lived the life described in the
Sunnah (life example of prophet Muham
mad, peace be upon him). We draw on it
therefore, not as the text of any single tradi
tion but as an important pointer toward theideas about sacred food that appear in all
three Abrahamic traditions.
The other three classic texts of the
three traditions are the Talmud and other
rabbinic writings, which began about two
thousand years ago to define a new ver-
sion of Jewish lifeRabbinic Judaism; the
Christian Scriptures or New Testament
which have defined Christianity; the Quran
and Sunnah, which have defined Islam. As
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
8/32
8 Fall2006
Everyone should have
access to affordable,
nutritious, and culturallycustomary food.
this paper evolves, we may include also lat-
er teachings from the three Abrahamic tra-
ditions.
Preface: The Web of Life. We celebrate
Gods creation of a self-sustaining web of
life in which plants, animals, land, water, air,and human beings are interwoven. There
are many relationships in this web that can
heal or damage the web itself. Among these,
food production is one of the more signifi-
cant forces. So we must choose ways of
producing food that protect and heal the
web of life.
Dimension 1. Growing Food in Ways that
Protect and Heal the Web of Life. Food pro-
duction, as one of the most significant forc-
es in the natural world, affects the delicate
balance of plants, animals, human beings,
land, water and airinterdependent in seek-ing sustenance and survival. Farming and
grazing together occupy one quarter of the
worlds lands and are the leading cause of
deforestation and loss of natural lands. In
order to maintain this balance for future
generations, we human beings must choose
to produce our food in ways that protect
the web of life, preserve the living spaces
that other life-forms need, and learn to use
methods that return vibrant health to our
soil and water.
Dimension 2. Humane Treatment of Ani-mals. All our traditions agree that animals
must be treated humanely and their suffer-
ing minimized.
Dimension 3. Protecting the Integrity and
Diversity of Life. The ways in which we
produce food must respect the integrity and
diversity of the worlds plants and animals,
as well as taking active steps to prevent the
extinction of animal species and plant vari-
eties that produce seeds that can be saved.
Dimension 4. No One Should Go Hungry.
All our traditions share a strong commit-
ment that no one should go hungry at the
end of the day. This applies especially to
the poor and times of famine. Everyone
should have access to affordable, nutri-
tious, and culturally customary food. Eachlocal community and the worldwide human
community acting in concert share the re-
sponsibility for ending hunger and famine.
Dimension 5. Fairness Toward and Empow-
erment of Workers. All our traditions agree
that workers must be treated fairly, justly
and humanely. One out of every six people
works to provide the food we eatin the
fields and in food transport, in restaurants
and food preparation, and in food stores.
We affirm their right to decent incomes,
working conditions, and to organize them-selves.
Dimension 6. Responsible and Ethical
Forms of Business. All our traditions re-
quire that we act honestly, fairly, to the ben-
efit of others, and in accordance with the
ethical teachings of our faith traditions when
dealing with customers, employees, part-
ners, and the communities in which we con-
duct business. These relationships must be
accessible to public scrutiny and account-
ability.
Dimension 7. Food as an Aspect of Spiritu-
ality. All our traditions affirm that food is an
element in spiritual celebration and experi-
ence. Whenever we eat, we consciously
affirm that eating is a sacred spiritual prac-
tice which celebrates the delicate interplay
of plants, animals and people, land, air, and
water that makes this possible and we com-
mit ourselves again to maintaining this cre-
ation.
Dimension 8. Reflection on our Actions andImpact. The rhythm of Action and Reflec-
tion, renewed Action and renewed Reflec-
tion, is encouraged in our traditions in such
forms as Sabbaths, Ramadan, and Lent, as
well as other holidays when we refrain from
our daily work and reflect on our roles in
the web of life. Meaningful observance of
these occasions can be expanded to include
reflection on and assessment of the impact
of human activity on the integrity of the
web of life. It seems desirable to apply this
rhythm in making decisions about food. For
example, there could be requirements tha
new departures in providing food be re-
viewed in the way environmental impac
assessments operatewith social impac
assessments also required. Some version
of what is called the Precautionary Princi-ple (analogous to the medical code, First
do not harm) could be taken into account
so long as this does not prevent all devel
opment of new technology or new socia
arrangements.
Coda: A New Era of Religious Life? This
Sacred Foods enterprise itselfbecause i
is both interfaith, and inter-secular/faith
signals something of a new era in religious
life. At that level and in many other arenas
Modernity is having a major impact on the
self-understanding of the religious tradi-tions. Indeed, Modernity is affecting both
technology and social structures in ways
that may require us to rethink some of the
teachings of the past. Major changes in
previous religious wisdoms have often ac
companied major social and technologica
upheavals (as in the impact of Roman/Hel
lenistic civilization in opening hearts and
minds to the new revelations of Rabbinic
Judaism and Christianity about two thou-
sand years ago, and the new revelations of
Islam 1400 years ago). So we will need tokeep that factor in mind as we draw on the
religious and spiritual teachings of the past
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
9/32
9Fall 2006
Religious guidance has
been historically influential
in affecting choices of food
consumption on a mass
scale.
Food has always been a feature of
religious rituals, fellowship, and obliga-
tions to share. In traditional agricultural
societies, religious leaders paid close at-
tention to how food was raised, harvest-
ed or slaughtered, and then marketed and
utilized. But todays monotheistic faith
communities embedded in mass-market
society have generally lost touch with
their own best traditions. So, one of the
objectives of the Sacred Foods Project isto renew awareness of traditional dietary
practices presented as laws of food prep-
aration and consumption in Judaism and
Islam. While Christianity does not observe
such laws, churches do have related tra-
ditions of fasting and feasting, land stew-
ardship and animal husbandry.
Another objective of the Sacred
Foods Project is to stimulate active con-
cern for the way food gets produced, pro-
cessed and purchased, and how that
system affects those who participate
humans and other animals. Pursuing thissubject exposes dark aspects of the cor-
porate food system that constricts the
choices or negates the desires of small
farmers and local communities worldwide
regarding what crops to plant and how to
treat animals. Therefore, the June 2006
conference began to explore issues of
animal welfare, particularly the misery of
closely confined food animals such as
chickens, hogs, and lambs in factory
farms, and what the religious communi-
ties can contribute to an alternative food
system that is humane and sustainable.
Religious guidance has been histori-
cally influential in affecting choices of food
consumption on a mass scale. So the Sa-
cred Foods Conference also involved food
business representatives in a thoughtful
exploration and update of purchasing pol-
Reflections on the June 2006Sacred Foods Conferenceby Dieter T. Hessel
icies for religious institutions and the larg-
er civil society. The conference keyed its
discussion to available guidelines for re-
gional food purchasing such as those of-
fered by the Food Alliance.
The conferees learned about current
involvement of church agencies and faith-
based organizations in selective buying
campaigns that challenge food producing
and marketing corporations to improve
the working conditions and income offarm workers. In this regard, initiatives of
the Coalition of Immokalee Workers be-
came a special feature of the 2006 Sacred
Foods Conference program.
A workgroup of the conference gave
special attention to implications for con-
gregational activity and individual prac-
tice. Notes of that and other subgroup
discussions, as well as presentations to
the 2006 Garrison Institute conference are
available at www.sacred-foods.org/
publications_meetings.php.
Dieter T. Hessel holds a PhD in so-
cial ethics. He resides in Cape Elizabeth,
ME where he is director of the ecumeni-
cal Program on Ecology, Justice and
Faith.
seeking to distinguish eternal wisdom from
temporally conditioned history.
Two areas of ongoing activity for the
Sacred Foods Project are (1) Congregation-
al Engagement, and (2) standards and certi-
fication.
The Congregational Engagement com-mittee will work to improve the food litera-
cy of congregations of all faith traditions. It
will develop and help disseminate a set of
educational materials that help inform con-
gregations. These materials will build upon
the work of several faith traditions and will
cover (a) the current state of food and agri-
culture, (b) teachings of various faith tradi-
tions on food and agriculture, (c) good
practices that congregations can adopt with
respect to food and agriculture, and (d) the
future of food and agriculture.
The Sacred Foods Project standardsand certification committee is charged with
working to help faithcommunities under-
stand how contemporary certification stan-
dards address concerns about social justice,
sustainability, and animal welfare.
Dr. Richard M. Clugston is executive
director of the Center for Respect of Life
and Environment (CRLE), and publisher
and editor ofEarth Ethics. He directs the
Association of University Leaders for a Sus-
tainable Future (ULSF) and is on theEarth Charter International Council of
Trustees.
Waskow, Rabbi A., ed. 2006. What Makes
Food Sacred: A Study in Eight Dimensions .
A Report for the Sacred Food Project of
ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
10/32
10 Fall2006
Buy Local!
1. Spend $10/week on locally produced
foods.
2. Ask your supermarket manager to stock
locally produced fruits and vegetables in
season.
3. Seek out foods processed locally.
4. Buy as much of your food as you can
from a farmer whose face you can see, whosefarm you can visit.
Community Supported Agriculture
5. Become a member of a Community Sup-
ported Agriculture (CSA) farm and get won-
derful local, seasonal produce from May
through October.
6. Buy a CSA membership for a friends
birthday or Christmas present.
25 Ways to Be a GoodSteward of Creation
by Mary Hendrickson
7. Encourage your parish to subsidize CSA
shares for families with limited resources.
Show Your Thanks!
8. Be thankful for your food and reflect on
the goodness of creation before eating any
food.
9. Lead your parish in organizing a garden
to produce food for fellowship meals and
donate the surplus to a local food pantry.
10. Plant a garden and experience the won-
der of growing life.
11. Take local food to your church dinner.
Educate Self & Others
12. Educate yourself about how our food
system presently works so you know where
your food comes from.
13. Tell all your family and friends why
you eat food that is healthy for you, your
community and creation.
14. Help create links between your
childs school lunch program and local
farmers.
Choose Wisely
15. Eat seasonally and regionally and get
in touch with your local environment.
16. Buy only meat that you know has
been produced humanely and sustain-
ably.
17. Ask your waitress for specials fea-
turing locally, sustainably produced
food.
Offer What You Can
18. Donate land at your church to help those
without space to grow their own food.
19. Help protect local water quality by us-
ing pesticide-free agriculture and food prod
ucts.
20. Give freely of your expertise in growing
food to whoever needs it.
Learn New Ways to Cook
21. Learn how to freeze, can and store sea
sonal fruits and vegetables produced in
your local area.
22. Teach others about preserving loca
food by organizing canning and preserv
ing sessions at the parish hall or in your
home.
23. Learn how to cook using whole or less
processed food to save on packaging, to
be healthy and to become more self-reliant
Eat Well!
24. Educate yourself about the benefits o
eating a diet that includes lots of fresh pro-
duce and whole grains.
25. Accept responsibility for making sure
that all members of your community haveaccess to an adequate supply of wholesome
food.
Excerpted from 25 Ways to Be a Good
Steward of Creation, compiled by Mary
Hendrickson,National Catholic Rural Life
Conference. www.ncrlc.com/25WaysGood
StewardCreation.html
Mary Hendrickson is an assistant re
search professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia and works closely with the
Food Circles Networking Project. Th
goal of the project is to develop communi-
ty-based, sustainable food systems by re-
shaping the relationships that surround
food. To learn more about the network, visit
http://foodcircles.missouri.edu.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
11/32
11Fall 2006
UC Santa Cruzs Food Systems Working Group HelpsDrive Statewide Farm-to-College Initiative
ollege campuses across the country are emerging as pow-
erful sources of change as they link teaching, research,
and campus engagement to focus on sustainable food
systems. From local, organic, humane, and Fair Trade options
Cby Tim Galarneau
CRLE has promoted sustainability in higher education for 15 years, and is now concentrating on food as a curriculum and
practice issue in colleges and universities. The following three articles, focusing on the University of California Santa Cruz, the
University of New Hampshire, and Portland State University, show how universities can take major steps to support humane
sustainable food systems.
in cafeterias, coffee shops, and restaurants
fare to experiential programs and classes,
campuses are offering students not only an
opportunity to change their diet, but also
the chance to learn about how their choices
affect the larger food system. Efforts
throughout the University of Californias
10-campus system are transforming both
higher educations role in the food web, as
well as the ways in which these institutions
work with local and sustainable food pro-
viders.
Much of this transformation is basedon work done by UC Santa Cruzs Food Sys-
tems Working Group (FSWG) to develop a
more sustainable food system at UCSC.1
UCSCs purchasing guidelines, which tar-
get local, organic produce, and other sus-
tainably produced food, are now a model
being used to develop similar guidelines for
all of UCs campuses. UC Santa Cruz Execu-
tive Housing Director Sue Matthews and
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems staff member Tim Galarneau
are heading the statewide food service task
force advising UCs Housing Directors intheir efforts to bring sustainably produced
food to campus communities.
Statewide Sustainability Programs to In-
corporate Food System Policies
Students have been the driving force
in steering the UC system toward more sus-
tainable practices. In 2002, students within
the statewide California Student Sustain-
ability Coalition (CSSC) came together to
express concern that none of UCs electric-
ity came from renewable sources and to re-
quest a commitment to work together to
change the UC systems energy depen-
dence. Two years later, 16 percent of UCs
energy needs came from alternative sourc-
es, making UC the largest university pur-
chaser of renewable energy in the country.2
Thanks to this student initiative, UC now
has a statewide policy addressing green
building, alternative energy, and sustain-
able transportation practices; implementa-
tion and evaluation of this policy are now
underway.Although UCs Policy on Green Build-
ing Design, Clean Energy Standards, and
Sustainable Transportation Practices tar-
gets reducing both greenhouse gas emis-
sions and the footprint of the built
environment, the policy didnt initially ad-
dress food service purchases and their ef-
fect on energy use. With the global food
system identified as one of the single most
important causes of increased greenhouse
gas emissionsaccounting for almost one
fifth of the nations energy consumption
students have again emerged to work withUC staff to explore how the existing policy
can incorporate food service components.
In 2005 and 2006 students from the Cal
ifornia Student Sustainability Coalition
(CSSC) have teamed with their student gov
ernment (UCSA), student Regent, Board of
Regents, Office of the President (UCOP)
and Housing Directors to seek a University
commitment to sustainable campus food
systems. This commitment includes clear
guidelines that prioritize local, organic, hu
mane, and socially responsible purchasing
as well as waste reduction and green diningfacility standards. While individual campus
es continue to develop their own food ser-
vice initiatives, such across-the-board UC
standards would provide campuses with
minimum purchasing levels and baseline
indicators for a sustainable food system
as well as establish ways to measure best
practices for both contracted and in-house
food service vendors and facilities.
In the fall of 2006, UCs Office of the
President has made significant steps toward
establishing UC-wide sustainable food sys-
tem guidelines. Following a June 2006 Hous-ing Directors Committee Meeting, the
directors launched a food service task force
to develop statewide guidelines to be in
corporated into the existing Green Building
Alternative Energy, and Transportation
Policy.
UC Santa Cruzs Executive Housing Di
rector, Sue Matthews, and Food Systems
Working Group Coordinator, Tim Galarneau
(who also serves as the CSSC sustainable
food initiative advisor), have taken the lead
This commitment includes
clear guidelines thatprioritize local, organic,
humane, and socially
responsible purchasing as
well as waste reduction and
green dining facility
standards.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
12/32
12 Fall2006
in spearheading the statewide food service
task force to assist the Housing Directors
committee with this timely policy compo-
nent. The Housing Directors task force has
just released the first draft of the sustain-
able food service policy for statewide re-
view and comments from housing, dining,and purchasing staff, and other stakehold-
ers. Stakeholders include retail operations,
hospital food services, residential dining,
and contracted vendors that are being so-licited for input (see UC Guidelines, p. 21).
The policy design currently focuses on
procurement criteria (i.e., local, organic, hu-
mane, socially responsible), waste reduc-
tion measures, and water and energy
conservation practices that will work in syn-
ergy with the existing statewide policys
goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and preserving our environment. On Octo-
ber 20, 2006 the UC Executive Sustainabili-
ty Steering Committee sanctioned an official
Food Systems Working Group under the
committee to oversee completion and im-plementation of the statewide food policy,
following its approval process within the
Housing Directors Committee.
UCSC Expands Sustainable Food Systems
Work
While efforts take place at the state-
wide level, food-system-based campus or-
ganizations are working in partnership with
campus administrators, staff, and faculty to
put in place sustainable food initiatives at
each UC campus.
At UCSC, the Food Systems Working
Group (FSWG) strives to increase the
amount of sustainably produced food avail-
able to the campus community, and to en-
gage students in learning more about thefood system. Last year, 18% of all produce
consumed at UCSC met the sustain-
able food purchasing guidelines de-
veloped by the FSWG, which call for
locally grown, organic produce. Ac-
cording to Candy Berlin, special
project analyst for Dining Services,
approximately 24% of UCSCs produce
purchases this fall met the guidelines
and 8% came from the UCSC Farm.
Building on student and staff con-
cerns about the treatment of animals
in the food system, UCSC Dining Ser-vices is also phasing in organic and
sustainable dairy options and incor-
porating the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Seafood Watch guidelines into their
purchasing. The FSWG will be explor-
ing other ways Dining Services can
include humanely produced options
to offer meal plan holders, including
cage-free eggs. On a national level, the
Center for Respect of Life and Environment
is working with organizations such as the
FSWG and other groups at higher educa-tion institutions to develop alternatives to
purchasing food from concentrated animal
feeding operations and inhumane farming
facilities.
Besides working with purchasing staff
to identify sustainably produced products,
members of the FSWG this year helped put
on several local and organic dinners that
served more than 2,000 students. They also
brought together the farmers of the
Monterey Bay Organic Growers Consortium
and ALBA Organics, who are growing food
for campus dining halls and restaurants, forseasonal reflection dinners with campus
chefs, buyers, and other stakeholders to dis-
cuss ways to improve the farm-to-college
effort. In their outreach work to incoming
students, FSWG coordinated an interactive
food systems tent at the Fall Festival, which
draws 4,0005,000 students every year, to
help students learn how to become involved
in campus food system work. Students were
offered local organic apple tastings from
Phil Foster Ranches, fair trade juice sam-
ples from Adina World Beverages, and cof-
fee from the Community Agroecology Net
work to perk up the attendees.
The FSWG also released the first edi
tion of the Campus Food Guide. The initia
guide highlights the history of the farm-to
college movement; opportunities for civicengagement both on-campus and in the
community related to hunger, nutrition, sus
tainable agriculture, and environmental ed
ucation; and seasonal food charts, recipes
food facts, and information on UCSC Din-
ing Services commitment to sustainability
UCSC Dining Services has been a valuable
contributor to the success of the campuss
food system initiatives. This year theyve
committed to going green and designing
sustainable operations as their annual fo-
cus. The overarching goal involves finding
ways to meet green guidelines for all cam-pus dining facilities, expanding their sus
tainable procurement, and reducing waste
In November 2006 the campus received
word that the Santa Cruz City Green Busi
ness Program was approved; UCSC Dining
Services will be the first test site for the
program this academic year (20062007)
Clint Jefferies, UCSC Food Service Manag-
er, has been working since last spring to
prepare the campus food service facilitie
for certification and will likely reach his de
partments goal of certifying all five dininghalls as green by the end of spring quar-
ter 2007. Efforts have included becoming
the first campus dining service to become a
Buy Fresh Buy Local member of the Com-
munity Alliance with Family Farmers; work-
ing with other campus staff and
organizations to develop a composting pro-
gram for dining services; and researching
guidelines for purchasing energy efficien
food service equipment.
This year [UCSC Dining
Services has] committed to
going green and designing
sustainable operations astheir annual focus.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
13/32
13Fall 2006
CASFS Supports Farm-to-College Efforts
Members of the Center for Agroecolo-
gy and Sustainable Food Systems (CAS-
FS) play a key role in UCSCs Food Systems
Working Group. From working with the
Monterey Bay Farmers Consortium, to
growing food for the campus, to coordinat-ing student involvement on the UCSC Farm,
this role continues to expand with support
from CASFS director Carol Shennan.
Thanks to funding from the True North
Foundation, CASFS has established a farm-
to-college staff position. Along with her
work as the farms Community Supported
Agriculture program coordinator, Nancy
Vail supports campus education and out-
reach efforts that bring students and com-
munity members to the UCSC Farm, while
coordinating deliveries of food grown by
CASFS apprentices to campus food serviceunits, and teaching a freshman interest
group class on gardening. Jan Perez, a spe-
cialist with the CASFS social science re-
search group, recently conducted an online
survey that evaluates student meal plan
holders interest in social justice and envi-
ronmental issues related to their food. She
will also be participating in a multi-year
study with Patricia Allen, associate direc-
tor of CASFS, to review the structures and
efficacy of farmer cooperative and consor-
tium designs in relation to institutional buy-ers across the country.
Environmental studies student Lily
Schneiders senior project is an example of
the undergraduate opportunities made pos-
sible by the CASFS farm-to-college work.
During the 2006 season I completed my
senior internship for environmental stud-
ies at the UCSC Farm, working on the farm-
to-college program, says Schneider, who
coordinated the fields campus produce
sales, selling weekly to two dining halls and
the Terra Fresca restaurant at the Universi-
ty Center. I also led groups of College Eight
first-year students in the Harvest for Healthprogram, where they visit the farm, harvest
a variety of crops, and carry them to their
dining hall, literally making the farm to col-
lege connection. In addition, Schneider
helped organize a new project that offered
UCSC students the chance to use their meal
plans to purchase shares in the campus
farms CSA program.
Campuses Advance Sustainable Food Sys-
tems Work
Other UC campuses are also finding cre-ative ways to add sustainable components
to their food service programs. At UC Riv-
erside, a collaborative program between
Housing and Dining, Sustainable UCR, and
the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social
Sciences is building experiential residential
gardens that include herbs and produce for
the campus dining halls. In addition, UCR
is working closely with the campuss Citrus
Variety Collection staff and field crew to
begin serving citrus juice blends and table
fruit grown on site in the campus dining
halls and to provide research opportunities
for students.
At UC Davis, the campuss coffeehouse, SOHO, hosted a Local Foods week
in fall 2006 featuring produce from loca
farms, film discussions, and speaker nights
SOHO is also a Buy Fresh Buy Local mem
ber of the Community Alliance for Family
Farmers (CAFF). Members of the UC Davis
graduate student-based Students for Sus
tainable Agriculture (SSA) group have been
working closely with Sodexho campus din
ing services and staff to assess their food
system and develop ways to increase loca
and sustainable food options, reduce
waste, and find innovative solutions to foodservice challenges.
At UCLA, statewide graduate studen
representative to the Sustainability Steer
ing Committee, Crystal Durham, coordinate
the emerging Food Systems Working Group
and staffs their Sustainability Committee
Accordingly to Director of Housing and
Residential Dining, Mike Foraker, UCLA is
approaching this from the 30,000 foot per
spective, weighing food procurement
waste reduction, and energy savings.
As individual campuses build theircommitment to sustainable food purchases
and education-based initiatives, the UC
statewide guideline process discussed
above will create system-wide best prac-
tice models and set baselines for measur
able goals. Further, it will fuel a
much-needed discussion of how large-scale
universities can establish comprehensive
sustainable food system programs tha
build on learning and education and sup
port regional food systems, while at th
same time reducing energy use and waste
The UC Green Building and AlternativeEnergy Policy has also been adopted by
the Board of the California State University
system; this creates an opportunity to of
fer a comprehensive food service policy as
a model for the CSU system and institutions
across the country. Students from the Cali
fornia Student Sustainability Coalition
spoke at the UC Regents meeting in Janu-
ary 2007 to present an update on the status
of the sustainable food systems guidelines
Schneider helped organize
a new project that offered
UCSC students the chance
to use their meal plans to
purchase shares in the
campus farms CSA
program.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
14/32
14 Fall2006
University of New Hampshire:Many Ways to a Sustainable Food
System
he University of New Hampshire (UNH) has become a
leader among US land-grant universities1 in promoting sus-
tainable food systems. Through its university-wide Food
& Society Initiative (FAS), UNH integrates the ethics, science,
Tby Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell
technology, and policies of civic agricul-
ture and community food security into the
universitys identity and practices. To ac-complish this mission, the FAS is actively
engaging the university community in local
and sustainable agriculture and nutrition
efforts across campus and beyond, includ-
ing broad-based engagement and outreach
programs that educate students, faculty,
administrators, staff, and the larger commu-
nity about the relationships among agricul-
ture, food choices, nutrition, and economic
and social well-being.
In 2003 UNH developed a 30-acre certi-
fied organic Campus-Community Farm to
serve as a teaching, research, and outreachresource for sustainable agriculture. Today,
all farmlands on the UNH Durham campus
are certified organic. The farm includes a
two-acre garden maintained by the student-
run Organic Garden Club, whose mission is
to create a campus-community organic farm
focused on promoting social, economic, and
environmental sustainability. Crops har-
vested at the site are sold to UNH Dining
Services and at a weekly campus farm stand
that runs from early summer to mid-fall. Stu-
dents in the Organic Garden Club also do-
nate crops for a regular local communitydinner co-sponsored by the United Cam-
pus Ministry to UNH and the Cornucopia
Food Pantry, and donate food to prepare
meals regularly at a local housing shelter.
In December 2005, UNH was the first
land-grant university to establish an organic
dairy farm for research and teaching. The
200-acre farm will provide needed research
into the benefits of organic dairy farming
as well as support a growing demand for
organic products in the region. As farmers
increasingly consider the organic option
researchers will investigate a variety o
questions: In a short northern growingseason, how can farmers supplement pas
ture feeding by planting grasses, grains or
corn for later use? How long should calves
be allowed to nurse for optimum health? Are
organic cows healthier, as their owners have
long asserted, and by what measures? Wha
therapies work best to treat infection and
disease in an organic herd? Can milk pro-
duction be affected by how people touch
or handle their cows? (Saunders, 2006).
UNHs organic dairy farm is an indica
tor of a larger trend at agriculture schools in
the US: researchers at premier institutionsare beginning to respond to student pres
sure by adding courses on organic tech-
niques and designating land for certified
organic production. Washington State and
University of Florida launched majors in
organic farming in fall 2006, and UNH offer
coursework in sustainable agricultural pro
duction as well. The UNH dairy farm will
serve as a research center for organic pro-
duction and management and an education
and discuss why the Regents continued
support of this effort is essential to redefin-
ing health, wellness, and sustainability in
the context of our food system.
Excerpts from: Galarneau, T. 2006.UC Santa Cruzs Food Systems Working
Group Helps Drive Statewide Farm-to-Col-
lege Initiative. The Cultivar24(2) Fall/
Winter. Reprinted with permission.
Tim Galarneau currently works with
the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable
Food Systems as the Fo od Syste ms
Working Group Coordinator at UC Santa
Cruz and advises statewide University of
California stakeholders on sustainable
food transitions. In his community Tim
serves as the coordinator for the Santa
Cruz County Food Systems Network, en-
gaging in local and regional community
food security policy and partnership de-
velopment.
1 Wallace, L., T. Galarneau, and N. Vail. 2006.
UCSC Makes the Farm-to-College Connec-
tion. The Cultivar24(1) Spring/Summer.
2
2005 University of California Annual Re-port on Green Building and Clean Energy
Policy. www.universityofcalifornia.edu/re-
gents/regmeet/jan06/110.pdf
3 See cover article ofCultivar24(2) Fall/
Winter 2006 edition.
In December 2005, UNH
was the first land-grant
university to establish an
organic dairy farm for
research and teaching.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
15/32
15Fall 2006
center for organic dairy farmers, farmers
considering the transition to organic, as well
as students of sustainable agriculture.
Also in December 2005, the UNH Hos-
pitality Services, known for its commitment
to sustainability under its Local Harvest
Initiative, began buying all of its shelled
eggs from a certified humane chicken farmin New Hampshires White Mountains, mak-
ing UNH the first university in the nation to
serve certified humane products. Certified
humane, a designation granted by the non-
profit Humane Farm Animal Care Program,
indicates that the eggs have been produced
to standards that include a nutritious diet
without antibiotics or hormones and ani-
mals raised with shelter, resting areas, suf-
ficient space, and the ability to engage in
natural behaviors. The farm will supply
UNH with the approximate one quarter of a
million eggs the university consumes peryear in its dining halls, through catering,
and at conferences. Under its Local Har-
vest Initiative, UNH Hospitality Services
also composts food scraps, offers fair trade
coffee, and works with the Office of Sus-
tainability each fall to put on a very popular
Local Harvest Dinner that features gourmet
dishes made from local foods.
In 2005, UNH held stakeholder meet-
ings across New Hampshire to get valuable
input into developing the New Hampshire
Center for a Food Secure Future (NHCF-
SF). NHCFSF is a UNH-based collaboration
among diverse stakeholders in the food
system including state agencies, non-prof-
its, business and industry partners and as-
sociations, as well as educators and
practitioners. The Center was created toaddress the need for coordinated, compre-
hensive action linking agriculture, the food
environment and health and nutrition in our
state and region.
In May of 2006, UNH signed the Inter-
national Slow Food Principles for the pur-
pose of creating a worldwide network of
universities and research institutions linked
to the International Slow Food Associa-
tion. These principles include protection
of agricultural biodiversity, support of the
rights of peoples to self-determination with
regard to food, and education of civilizedsociety and training of workers in the food
and agricultural sector.2 As of May 2006,
UNH is one of four universities in the US to
have signed the principles, and the first to
award the founder of Slow FoodCarlo
Petrinian honorary degree.
Regarding outreach to primary and
secondary education, the New Hampshire
Farm to School Program, developed and
supported by UNHs Office of Sustainabil-
ity and the New Hampshire Coalition for
Sustaining Agriculture, connects loca
farms and farm products to New Hampshire
classrooms and cafeterias by integrating
agricultural production, school food pro-
curement, and school curriculum. To date
over half of the K-12 schools in New Hamp-shire are participating in the program.
A new project in sustainable food sys-
tems at UNH will create a Community Food
and Nutrition Profile (CFNP) tool to evalu
ate and improve health and integrity across
the University food system. Specific com-
ponents of the profile include purchasing
behaviors and diet and health practices
These will be integrated with assessmen
of the economic, cultural, and ecologica
resources of the communitys agriculture
and foodways. The CFNP findings will be
used to provide baseline data on the Uni-versitys status in food, nutrition, and
health practices, and will also serve as a bench
mark from which progressive interventions
and policies can be developed and evaluated
The project is a collaboration of the UNH
Department of Animal and Nutritional Sci
ences and Office of Sustainability.
Information for this piece is taken
mainly from the Food & Society Initiative
section of the UNH Office of Sustainabili-ty. See www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/.
Tom Kelly, PhD, is director of the UNH
Office of Sustainability. Elisabeth W. Far-
rell is coordinator of the UNH Food &
Society Initiative.
1 The land-grant colleges and universities
are public institutions formed in the 19 t
century to provide agricultural and mechan-
ical studies (in addition to classical stud-ies) so that members of the working classes
could obtain a liberal, practical education.
2 See www.slowfoodusa.org/about
principles.html.
Saunders, Anne. 2006. UNH Takes the
Lead on Organic Farming. The Associat
ed Press. UnionLeader.com. October 9.
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
16/32
16 Fall2006
Portland State University Initiates aSustainable Food Program
n 2006, Portland State University (PSU) received the Busi-
nesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow (BEST)
award from the city of Portland for the inclusion of
sustainability criteria in its food service contract and for educat-
Iby Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder
ing students about sustainable food choic-
es (Allen, May 26, 2006). City representa-
tives noted that no other university has
initiated a sustainable food service program
on this scale and integrated it so strongly
into its contract (Ibid.). The contract, withfood contractor and industry giant Sodex-
ho, may also be the first to include concern
for animal welfare through its focus on Food
Alliance certified products. Representatives
of PSUs sustainability programs emphasize
that they are working to transform the mar-
ket and supply chain by inserting new val-
ues into the food system.
Sustainable Food ContractAs part of its ongoing initiative to in-
fuse sustainability into all colleges, schools
and programs, Portland State University
developed an ambitious Request for Pro-
posal (RFP) in 2004 for a new 7-year food
contract. Sodexho, one of three companies
that responded, was awarded the contract
in 2005. RFP requirements included the fol-
lowing:
Contractor will move incrementally
toward the goal of environmental
sustainability in the operation of all
aspects of campus dining.
Food vendors will specify products
produced in environmentally friend-
ly and socially responsible ways.
Vendors will educate the public aboutthe benefits of sustainable agricul-
ture (Allen, October 6, 2006).
Contract goals also included Food Al-
liance Equivalent Standards,1 requiring
contractors to procure food products that
meet sustainability standards equivalent to
the Food Alliance in the areas of pesticide
reduction, soil and water con-
servation, wildlife habitat con-
servation, care for livestock,
non-GMO products, and safe
and fair working conditions to
the maximum extent feasible
during the performance of this
contract (Ibid.). Concern for
animal welfare was also incor-
porated in the sustainability
criteria for suppliers. Preference
would be given to farms that
have agreed to: reduce or elim-
inate pesticides; conserve soil
and water; protect and enhance
wildlife habitat; provide safe
and fair working conditions;and provide healthy and hu-
mane care for livestock.
Lessons from developing RFP
It is important to have a sustain-
ability champion on the committee
creating the RFP and reviewing pro-
posals.
It is important to have support from
others, such as the business affairs
office, in incorporating sustainabili-
ty into the process.
Vendor issues should be addressed
more clearly i.e., how criteria apply
to sub-contracted vendors.
Social aspects of sustainability
should be included in future con-
tracts.
Factors that facilitate successful contrac
implementation
PSU is advantageously located in a
region with a high level of environ
mental awareness and concern.
Technical support is available from
the Portland Office of Sustainable
Development and PSUs Sustainable
Facilities team.
Most suppliers are responsive to
sustainability considerations.
Food Alliance, which is located inPortland, OR, offered support in lo-
cating product.
Other schools in the region have
shown a similar commitment to sus-
tainability.
PSU is large enough to get a re
sponse.
Sodexho is also large enough to be
flexible and has shown commitmen
to sustainability.
Challenges in successful contract implementation
It is necessary to engage the whole
chain in product development and
delivery.
Distributors are typically locked in
vendor relationships.
There is a time lag in availability o
sustainable products.
The larger challenge of changing the
food system remains daunting. As the gen-
eral manager for Sodexho campus services
at PSU noted, the public demand for locaand organic food products is still not great
enough to encourage major food distribu
tors such as Sysco to carry them. To its
credit, Sodexho has developed an environ
mental awareness policy and states that
sensitivity to environmental issues and
being socially responsible are integral to
the companys way of doing business
(Allen, May 26, 2006). PSUs contract is
unique in that it may help raise additiona
awareness about the opportunity to bring
8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment
17/32
17Fall 2006
concern for animal welfare into a sustain-
able food services program.
For more information on PSUs food
contract, see www.pdx.edu/sustainability/
cs_downloads.html (contract documents)and www.psudining.com/community.html
(Sodexho programs at PSU).
Dr. Jennifer H. Allen is the associate
director of the Center for Sustainable Pro-
cesses and Practices at Portland State Uni-
versity and serves as the board president
of the Food Alliance. Jennifers work at
Portland State has most recently involved
working with other Oregon universities to
develop a Signature Research Center fo-
cused on clean energy, green buildings and
green development, and bio-based prod-
ucts.
Wynn Calder is associate director of
CRLE and ULSF.
Allen, J. 2006. An RFP to Chew On.Daily
Journal of Commerce. May 26. Portland,
OR.
Allen, J. 2006. Making Food Service Sus-
tainable: Portland State Universitys Expe-
rience. (PowerPoint presentation October
6) Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education confer-
ence on The Role of Higher Education in
Creating a Sustainable World, October 4-
6, 2006. Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ.
1 Food Alliance is a non-profit organization
that promotes sustainable agriculture andoperates the most comprehensive third-par-
ty certification program in North America
for sustainably produced food.
(www.foodalliance.org). See the Food Alli-
ance Guiding Principles on page 20.
he following are a series of principles, guidelines and cer-
tification standards for assisting us in moving toward more
humane and sustainable food systems. The cost and ben-
efits of each of these frameworks are hotly debated. Big organic
Guidelines and Certification: A
Forum
This forum explores a range of guidelines, standards, and third party certification
schemes for humane, just and sustainable food.
agribusiness is criticized for creating large
monocultures, exploiting workers and ani-
mals, much the same as conventional in-
dustrial agriculture. The use of synthetic
fertilizers, which organic farming shuns, has
dramatically increased crop yields. On the
other hand, organic practices are more ef-
fective at preserving the long-term health
and stability of the soil. Fair Trade and Cer-
tified Humane are critiqued respectively as
not being fair or humane enough and are
seen by conventional agribusiness as add-
ing costs that make such certified food too
expensive for the average consumer. What
ever their flaws, these guidelines and stan-
dards are partial attempts to fix a broken
system and to cope with a deeply complex
set of challenges.
T
The United Farm Workers have de-
veloped standards for the fair treatment
of farm workers and achieved various col-
lective bargaining agreements and major