Support the Next Generation of Sustainable and Organic Farmers and Ranchers!

Tell USDA to Stop Delaying Implementation of the CRP Transition Option
for Beginning and Minority Producers!

Change happens at the transition.  An aging farmer population, a new generation of farmers desperate for access to land, 4.2 million acres of land about to come out of the Conservation Reserve Program, and a growing consumer demand for  food grown by sustainable and organic producers, together present a tremendous opportunity to transform our food system.

In the last Farm Bill, the sustainable agriculture community successfully created a new program-the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Transition Option- that offers incentives to land owners enrolled in the CRP to sell or lease the land to beginning and minority producers using sustainable or organic farming practices at the end of the CRP contract.

USDA is planning to delay implementation of the CRP Transition Option for at least two years.

SIGN OUR PETITION

Tell USDA we can’t waste this opportunity.

Background

The CRP Transition Option provides incentives for CRP landowners who do not intend to extend their CRP contracts or re-enroll land back into the CRP to transfer (rent or lease) the land to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers who are willing to return the land to production using sustainable or organic grazing, cropping, or mixed cropping-grazing systems.  In return for the preference shown to beginning or minority farmers or ranchers, the landowner will receive an additional two years of CRP rental payments.  The CRP Transition Option is already fully paid for through mandatory dollars in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Unfortunately, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) plans to hold up the implementation of the new CRP Transition Option in order to conduct a multi-year environmental impact statement (EIS) review on CRP policies in general.  While the proposed EIS is relevant for the general CRP, it is inappropriate to include the Transition Option since the land is leaving the program.  Importantly, the EIS would delay CRP Transition Option implementation for at least two years which is when most CRP contracts are set to expire (over 4.2 million acres in just 2009 and 2010), thus wasting taxpayer dollars and an important environmental opportunity.

What you can do: Ask USDA to stop delaying implementation of the CRP Transition Option by moving the Transition Option out of the EIS and immediately issuing a rule to implement the Transition Option.  Ask USDA to also actively promote the Transition Option to beginning and minority farmers and ranchers and to owners of the over 4 million acres that is about to leave the CRP.  Sign the petition today!

“So, the question is: how can we plausibly increase the amount of farmers? The answer seems to be to take farming to where most of the people are at: in the cities.” –Sam Rose

I very much agree. In bringing farming to cities, we face two major obstacles, neither of which are insurmountable.

The first is that, even with intensive models such as Square-Foot gardening, Grow Biointensive, or SPIN, farming still requires land. A person aiming only to feed his or her own family might find a backyard sufficient, but someone trying to grow enough to earn a living is going to need either a lot of land on which they can grow during the regular growing season, or a more modest space with a greenhouse in which they can grow all year.

For all romantic and idealized notions people may have about farming, most urbanites who have a steady paycheck coming in, especially from a white collar job that they’ve obtained through many years of college and career climbing, aren’t likely to chuck it all for a risky entrepreneurial venture that’s bound to mean less money (especially at first) and a life of hard, dirty, sometimes smelly, often uncomfortable, physical labor outdoors.

Of course, not all city dwellers have such cushy lives. Many are poor and/or unemployed. Many already perform physical labor with no hope of advancement. For these people, farming offers the promise of a better life. These people, however, don’t have the capital necessary to start, and usually aren’t financially savvy enough or well connected enough to get it. Even peasants farming in developing nations on plots of an acre or less have more land than most of America’s urban poor can afford to buy.

In a nutshell, those who have the means to farm generally don’t want to, and those who want to generally don’t have the means. This is true all over, but the problem is exacerbated in the city because of higher real estate prices. Community gardens are not the answer. They’re a good way for people to learn horticultural skills and to put some extra nutrients in their diets or a few dollars in their pockets, but the average community garden plot doesn’t come even close to what’s necessary to feed one person, let alone provide an income for an entire family.

This is where I put in my plug for Local Matters and offer high praise for the work Michael Jones and his colleagues are doing. They are developing a system to connect landless farmers with landowners willing to let others use their land. I am the beneficiary of their first test of this idea. They connected me with a man who owns about five acres in Columbus, maybe three miles from my home. In exchange for donating some produce to local food pantries and agreeing to manage a community garden on the front acre, I’ve been given access to the back acre for my own use. I worked out a similar deal on my own with another township’s community garden, and I’ve been leasing a vacant lot for $1.00 a year from the city of Columbus for the past few years. In aggregate, I now have around two acres on which to farm. This year, I’m offering a CSA for the first time. My gross sales to date this year (as of May 7th) already equal over 70% of my total sales for all of 2008 when I had only a half-acre–and the season is only starting!

I said there were two big problems. Getting land into the hands of the people who want to work it was the first. The second is the morass of municipal regulations criminalizing agriculture. I’ve written extensively about this elsewhere, so I won’t belabor the point here. Suffice it to say that in neighborhoods where hanging out laundry is prohibited and everyone’s Christmas lights have to match, the controlling authorities frown upon having livestock and hayfields next door. Until we can change urban sensibilities enough to eliminate or at least loosen up some of the agri-phobic codes and regulations presently in place, we can’t grow food in the city on a wide scale without constant harassment from health departments, zoning officials, and homeowners’ associations.

“Whether from tighter food budgets or local-eating ideals, more and more people are petitioning their cities to allow small animal husbandry.

City dwellers are accustomed to being awakened at night by the occasional siren or the roar of a low-flying jet. But the nocturnal disturbances in a Denver neighborhood have a slightly more agrarian feel.”

Read the Full Story on NPR.org

They will have a podcast this saturday on the topic. If you miss it at 9am they have archives where you can hear them anytime by clicking here.

The forum on their site has some interesting discussion on this topic.

Food & Water Watch’ s Statement on H.R. 875 and the Food Safety Bills

The dilemma of how to regulate food safety in a way that prevents problems caused by industrialized agriculture but doesn’t wipe out small diversified farms is not new and is not easily solved. And as almost constant food safety problems reveal the dirty truth about the way much of our food is produced, processed and distributed, it’s a dilemma we need to have serious discussion about.

Most consumers never thought they had to worry about peanut butter and this latest food safety scandal has captured public attention for good reason – a CEO who knowingly shipped contaminated food, a plant with holes in the roof and serious pest problems, and years of state and federal regulators failing to intervene.

It’s no surprise that Congress is under pressure to act and multiple food safety bills have been introduced.

Two of the bills are about traceability for food (S.425 and H.R. 814). These present real issues for small producers who could be forced to bear the cost of expensive tracking technology and recordkeeping.

The other bills address what FDA can do to regulate food.

A lot of attention has been focused on a bill introduced by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (H.R. 875), the Food Safety Modernization Act. And a lot of what is being said about the bill is misleading.

Here are a few things that H.R. 875 DOES do:

-It addresses the most critical flaw in the structure of FDA by splitting it into 2 new agencies –one devoted to food safety and the other devoted to drugs and medical devices.

-It increases inspection of food processing plants, basing the frequency of inspection on the risk of the product being produced – but it does NOT make plants pay any registration fees or user fees.

-It does extend food safety agency authority to food production on farms, requiring farms to write a food safety plan and consider the critical points on that farm where food safety problems are likely to occur.

-It requires imported food to meet the same standards as food produced in the U.S.

And just as importantly, here are a few things that H.R. 875 does NOT do:

-It does not cover foods regulated by the USDA (beef, pork, poultry, lamb, catfish.)

-It does not establish a mandatory animal identification system.

-It does not regulate backyard gardens.

-It does not regulate seed.

-It does not call for new regulations for farmers markets or direct marketing arrangements.

-It does not apply to food that does not enter interstate commerce (food that is sold across state lines).

-It does not mandate any specific type of traceability for FDA-regulated foods (the bill does instruct a new food safety agency to improve traceability of foods, but specifically says that recordkeeping can be done electronically or on paper.)

Several of the things not found in the DeLauro can be found in other bills – like H.R. 814, the Tracing and Recalling Agricultural Contamination Everywhere Act, which calls for a mandatory animal identification system, or H.R. 759, the Food And Drug Administration Globalization Act, which overhauls the entire structure of FDA. H.R. 759 is more likely to move through Congress than H.R. 875. And H.R. 759 contains several provisions that could cause problems for small farms and food processors:

-It extends traceability recordkeeping requirements that currently apply only to food processors to farms and restaurants – and requires that recordkeeping be done electronically.

-It calls for standard lot numbers to be used in food production.

-It requires food processing plants to pay a registration fee to FDA to fund the agency’s inspection efforts.

-It instructs FDA to establish production standards for fruits and vegetables and to establish Good Agricultural Practices for produce.

There is plenty of evidence that one-size-fits-all regulation only tends to work for one size of agriculture – the largest industrialized operations. That’s why it is important to let members of Congress know how food safety proposals will impact the conservation, organic, and sustainable practices that make diversified, organic, and direct market producers different from agribusiness. And the work doesn’t stop there – if Congress passes any of these bills, the FDA will have to develop rules and regulations to implement the law, a process that we can’t afford to ignore.

But simply shooting down any attempt to fix our broken food safety system is not an approach that works for consumers, who are faced with a food supply that is putting them at risk and regulators who lack the authority to do much about it.

You can read the full text of any of these bills at http://thomas.loc.gov

Sarah Alexander is a senior food organizer. She works to promote a healthy and independent food system and works to improve public knowledge on food issues including factory farms, and country of origi labeling. Sarah has worked on issues related to food sovereignty, genetic engineering, and local food security. Her background is in community organizing, strategic campaigning and legislative campaigns, having previously worked with Green Corps, the White Earth Land Recovery Project, and the American Community Gardening Association. Sarah is a graduate of Northwestern University, where she studied English. She can be reached at salexander(at)fwwatch(org).

Part 1:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu9oKmqQpD4&hl=en&fs=1&border=1]

Make sure you view Part 2 here

The Get Green Columbus Community Garden Manual Guide The guide is published by the City of Columbus and has information on getting access to land plots, borrowing tools and other resources to get started.

During February, The Franklin Park Conservatory has a free 2 hour class on starting a community garden:

This FREE educational program is designed to provide gardeners with the information and resources necessary to launch and sustain their community garden. This program is presented as a partnership between the Columbus Foundation, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, and Franklin Park Conservatory.

Classes will be two hours long, with a lecture during the first hour, and the second hour featuring group discussion with current community gardeners. Dates: February 4, 11, 18 & 25
Time: Wednesday evenings, 6-8 p.m.
Cost: Free, with advance registration required.
Binders with hard copies of course materials
will be available for $10.
Class size is limited to 45 participants.

For more information call 645-8733 or  visit their website.

Community Food Bank Consignment Program

Posted by:  Mayda