Recent Articles
See below for the most recently posted Articles.
If you don’t have Adobe Reader and need to download it to view a PDF in any of the following posts, Click here
NM Independt Article–New Mexico Food Gap Task Force invades the ‘food desert’
Post Date: Monday, December 15th, 2008Published in the NM Independent on 12/2/2008
ALBUQUERQUE — The New Mexico Food Gap Task Force is expected to submit its first report to Gov. Bill Richardson today. The panel’s members want the state to pay for fresh fruits and veggies in schools, and to help rural communities gain access to fresh foods. But with state revenues plummeting, will they be able to wrangle the cash?
While food banks put bags of food directly into the hands of the hungry, the Food Gap Task Force, a group appointed last year by Gov. Richardson, is charged with a more complicated mission: finding creative ways to help poor, rural areas of the state gain better access to healthy and affordable food. The task force is trying to close the “food gap” between financially comfortable city folk and cash-strapped residents of far-flung communities.
The most familiar face on the task force is activist Pam Roy, who is also a co-director of Farm to Table, and the director of the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council. As the co-founder of the Southwest Marketing Network, she has worked for years to help local farmers market their products. With the help of task force co-chair Brian Moore, a state representative and small grocery store owner from Clayton, the group’s proposals have been making the rounds of the Legislature’s interim committees, where they have drawn some significant interest.
Buy Local
Getting more locally grown produce in schools has long been is one of Roy’s goals. Buying locally helps family farmers and puts fresh fruit and vegetables on the plates of some kids who don’t eat a lot of lettuce that’s not sitting on top of a hamburger patty. Seems like a win-win for kids and schools, right? But sometimes local food costs a little more, and sometimes red tape gets in the way.
“We’re requesting a $3.3 million investment into the school meal program to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables — New Mexico-grown when possible,” Roy says.
That “when possible” thing is important. School food activists have long fought over federal policies that made it hard for school districts to request locally grown foods. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently made it clear that districts can request local products, but districts still struggle to come up with enough money for fresh fruits and vegetables, which are a lot more expensive than macaroni and cheese.
“Schools only get $2.57 [in reimbursement from the federal government] to provide a free lunch, and it costs them about $3.07 if they put a fresh fruit or vegetable option on the plate.”
Hence the $3.3 million.
Already there are 12 school districts in the state buying local foods, up from eight last year. Most buy apples, as well as pears, melons, tomatoes, salad greens, carrots and potatoes.
It’s no secret that New Mexico is in a budget crunch, but Roy is optimistic about the group’s chances in the next session. State Sen. Pete Campos and Reps. Rhonda King, Paul Bandy and Danice Picraux are among the bipartisan legislators whom Roy calls her “champions.”
Refrigerator Madness
Besides grocery money for schools, the task force wants to create a pilot program to invest in infrastructure in rural underserved communities. OK, it’s not as exciting as giving apples to hungry kids, but a small investment in reefers — commercial refrigerators, that is — could go a long way.
“One-third of our counties are considered what we call ‘food deserts,’” Roy says.
In a typical food desert, she explains, residents have to drive more than 10 miles to a grocery store, but in New Mexico it’s often more like 25 to 100 miles round trip. And when people have to drive a long way to get to a store, they’re less likely to buy food that spoils quickly — like fresh fruits and vegetables.
“We could go into a convenience store in Vaughn and say ‘Hey, we’ll help you put a cooler in here if you’ll put salads and oranges and apples in there.’ Then the only thing to buy in Vaughn isn’t a deep-fried burrito from Allsup’s. We could buy four or five coolers for $20,000,” Moore says.
When USDA invested in two large refrigeration units in northern New Mexico, it allowed schools to buy large quantities of apples, carrots and potatoes from local farmers, more than they could use immediately. In fact, the coolers’ supply of last season’s apples lasted into March of this year, Roy says.
Distribution Solution
Broadening the food distribution network is the last priority for the Food Gap Task Force. Many small towns in New Mexico don’t have grocery stores, and most of the small, rural stores that do exist are supplied by only one distributor, Affiliated Foods, which is based in Texas.
“The challenges of rural distribution are incredible. The stats are ugly. They pay $85 for what we pay $55 for, and they have to drive 35 miles to get it,” says Steve Warshawer, Enterprise Development Manager for La Montañita Coop, a member-owned family of grocery stores based in Albuquerque.
According to Roy, La Montañita has created an excellent example of an alternative distribution network with its regional foodshed project and Cooperative Distribution Center. To help New Mexico growers bring their products to market, the Coop’s trucks crisscross the state, picking up goods and delivering them to the Cooperative Distribution Center warehouse in Albuquerque. Although some of the products are sold through the Coop, many go to other grocery stores in the area.
A pilot program to strengthen the rural distribution system could help the Coop and other organizations pick up and deliver food to underserved communities.
“It could be a USDA commodity truck, a food bank truck or a Coop truck out on certain rounds, picking up and dropping off food. And a lot of these places don’t have retail stores, but most of them have a school, a community center, a convenience store, something like that where people could come to pick up food,” Warshawer says.
The details aren’t worked out, but that’s the point of a pilot project, he says.
“We’re trying to address rural food access and the rural economy … The goal is to ferret out which methods will achieve the desired result.”
Low Cash Flow
The problem, as usual, is money.
“A small investment by the state could go a long way,” Roy says. It could also spur private investment. The task force aims to execute these projects in partnership with the N.M. Department of Agriculture.
“We’ve had a lot of nonprofits like the McCune Charitable Foundation put money towards these issues and a partnership would be able to accept that money. That’s what we’re hoping for. We just need to get in there and do something,” Moore says.
But Sen. John Arthur Smith, the Democratic Chair of the Legislative Finance Committee, is not so sanguine. How realistic is the task force’s hope that its projects be funded fully, to the tune of nearly $4 million?
“If the public wants a tax increase then there will be the money for it,” Smith says.
“And If I’m still chair then we’ll listen to it on its merit. But the only place you can find additional money now is to take it from education or health care. And that’s not a pleasant option,” he says.
Now all eyes are on the calendar as legislators wait for the next state revenue estimate, due in two weeks. It is not expected to be good.
Despite the dour forecast, Moore is hopeful that the task force’s proposals will receive some funding.
“We really just want to show people what we could do. We want to be able to say, ‘OK, here’s what we did with $25,000: We were able to provide apples for all the kids in after-school programs in Taos for one semester,’ or ‘For $5,000 we put a cooler in a chapter house [on the Navajo Reservation] and we helped them make fresh fruits and vegetables available for chapter house members,” Moore says.
“We know this has to be incremental. You can’t do it all in one chunk.”
Topics: Recent Articles |
USDA Community Food Project Grantee Organization Profile
Post Date: Sunday, May 11th, 2008Focus Area
community development, education, farming, farmers’ markets, farm-to-cafeteria, farm-to- restaurant/store, food policy council, minority empowerment, sustainable agriculture, youth, small farms, native american, community food assessment, outreach, research, cooperative development, entrepreneurship, food buying club, native agriculture.
Mission
The mission of Farm to Table is to promote local agriculture through education, community outreach, and networking. Farm to Table enhances marketing opportunities for farmers; encourages family farming, farmers’ markets, and the preservation of agricultural traditions; influences public policy; and furthers understanding of the links between farming, food, health, and local economies.
Background
Farm to Table was incorporated in 1996 as the Friends of Santa Fe Farmers’ Market in order to support the establishment and growth of a thriving farmers market in Santa Fe. Its primary work focused on securing a permanent location for the market – a goal still not brought to fruition, though the farmers’ market is currently negotiating permitting with the city of Santa Fe. In 2002, the Santa Fe Farmers’ Market Institute took over as the non-profit advocacy group for the farmers’ market, and Friends of the Santa Fe Farmers’ Market changed its name – and expanded its focus – to Farm to Table.
Farm to Table works with farmers and ranchers in the Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah; promotes farm-to-cafeteria programs; and advocates for sound food and agricultural policy. Farm to Table’s stated purpose is to educate children and adults about the importance of consuming locally produced food and supporting local agriculture; encourage consumers to use farmers’ markets and other direct marketing venues to obtain nutritious, locally produced agricultural products; encourage farmers to participate in farmers’ markets and other direct marketing venues to increase the viability of the region’s agriculture; provide a forum to educate farmers about traditional and innovative agricultural methods; and build rural and urban community networks to collaborate on and influence policy and public opinion.
Programs
Farm to Table programs aim to build a more secure community by teaching children, food buyers and farmers how a strong, local food economy is basic to self-reliance and health. This includes building networks between rural and urban communities through educational programs, regional projects, newsletters, presentations and conferences.
Specific activities include collaboration with the four-state, three-plus year collaborative “Southwest Marketing Network: Expanding Markets for Southwest Small-Scale, Alternative and Minority Producers” which includes an annual multi-state conference, trainings and technical assistance, and quarterly newsletter; providing leadership for and coordination of the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council, a statewide collaboration of more than 100 organizations and agencies involved in food, agriculture, health, environment and education in New Mexico; developing a southwest regional “outpost” in collaboration with the national Community Food Security Coalition and four state partners of New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah; offering year-round programming to schoolchildren with curricula focused on regional foods and livestock tied to science, nutrition, health, literature, art, math, and regional cultural traditions; developing gardens in schools and emphasizing food production and physical activity as priorities in order to increase educational opportunities and improve health; and facilitating the development of new markets for farmers by working with food producers, school food service buyers, and other related agencies, organizations and businesses to provide New Mexico’s schoolchildren with fresh, healthy, local foods in their cafeterias.
All of these activities have been enhanced by Farm to Table’s two USDA-funded Community Food Projects.
Topics: Recent Articles |
Organic Farm Certification & the National Organic Program
Post Date: Friday, April 18th, 2008Introduction
In the earliest years of organic farming in the U.S., most of what was produced was consumed locally. In fact, freshness and direct marketing were often viewed as characteristics of organic production, along with the absence of chemical use. In those years, it was common for the consumer to either have direct contact with the grower, or have confidence in a retailer who purchased directly from the grower. However, as the organic market began to expand in the 1970s, the supply chain lengthened. There was a greater likelihood that organic products would pass through many hands and travel many miles between the farmer and the consumer. Under such circumstances, the end buyer needed some means to confirm that the purchased product was truly organic. Likewise, the farmer needed a way of proving to the consumers that he or she used organic methods. The organic industry addressed these needs through a process called third-party certification.
In essence, organic certification is a simple concept. A third party—an organic certifying agent—evaluates producers, processors, and handlers to determine whether they conform to an established set of operating guidelines called organic standards. Those who conform are certified by the agent and allowed to use a logo, product statement, or certificate to document their product as certified organic. In other words, the certifier vouches for the producer and assures buyers of the organic product’s integrity.
By the late 1980s, there were a number of private and state-run certifying bodies operating in the United States. Standards varied among these entities, causing problems in commerce. Certifiers often refused to recognize products certified by another agent as organic, which was a particular problem for organic livestock producers seeking feed, and for processors trying to source ingredients. In addition, a number of well-publicized incidents of fraud began to undermine the credibility of the organic industry. In an effort to curb these problems, the organic community pursued federal legislation. The result was the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which mandated the creation of the National Organic Program (NOP) and the passage of uniform organic standards. These standards are now incorporated in the National Organic Program Regulations, which can be found on the NOP Web site. Implementation of the Regulations began on April 21, 2001; all organic certifiers, producers, processors, and handlers must be in full compliance by October 21, 2002.
The principal means by which the NOP is implementing the Regulations is through certifying agencies that it accredits. Through accreditation, the NOP assures that the certifier understands and is using the National Standard; accreditation also confirms that the certifier can conduct the business of certification properly.
Implementation of the National Organic Program Regulations will lead to a number of changes in how producers, handlers, processors and others do their jobs. One thing that will not change greatly, however, is the process of farm certification. The basic steps and considerations remain largely the same as in the past. These steps are outlined in this publication.
Considering Organic Certification
Motivations
Organic farming is an environmentally responsible approach to producing high-quality food and fiber. Personal health and environmental concerns have long been motivating factors for those who choose to farm organically. Increasingly, however, economics has become a major factor. Organic farmers typically earn a premium for their production, and though it is not true for all products, many organic commodity crops have lower costs of production than do the same conventional crops.
Commitments
Farming organically involves committing to two principles: ecological production and maintaining organic integrity. Ecological production entails using farming and ranching techniques and materials that conserve and build the soil resource, pollute little, and encourage development of a healthy diverse agroecosystem, which supports natural pest management. These techniques and materials include diverse crop rotations, green-manuring, cover crops, livestock manure, composting, mineral-rich rock powders, etc. Maintaining organic integrity consists of actions that prevent contamination of organic production with prohibited materials, and that prevent the accidental mixing (commingling) of organic and conventional products. Farmers accomplish this, first of all, by not using prohibited synthetic fertilizers and pesticides; they also take precautions against pesticide drift from off-farm and other sources of contamination. Many kinds of equipment and storage areas employed in organic production must either be dedicated to organic use or properly cleaned between conventional and organic use. A considerable amount of paperwork and documentation is required to ensure organic integrity; it is one of the necessary “burdens” of being a certified organic farmer or rancher.
Prospective organic producers should understand in advance that prohibited substances (synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, etc.) must not have been used on the land for three full years preceding harvest of the first organic crop. Farms or specific fields that do not yet meet this requirement may be considered as in transition, though this term does not have legal status at this time.
Organic livestock producers must make a further commitment—to manage and raise their livestock in ways that are not cruel and that take account of the animals’ natural behavior. This includes providing pasture for ruminants and outdoor access for all livestock, and agreeing to restrictions on physical alterations.
Steps to Organic Certification
The steps to becoming a certified organic producer are very basic. The five that follow are typical, though variations might apply in different circumstances.
1. Identify a suitable certifier
Organic certification agencies may be operated by a state agriculture department, or they may be private entities, but they must be accredited by the National Organic Program. Certifiers work as an extension of the federal government, licensing producers to use the term “organic” in selling their products. Criteria to use in evaluating a certifier should include:
- Their willingness and ability to answer questions about their certification program.
- Membership in prominent and valuable organizations such as OTA (1) and OMRI. (2)
- Their history in certifying your kind of enterprise (Certifiers are in the position of making judgment calls regarding compliance and it helps immensely if they understand the constraints of your enterprise).
- The certifier’s stability as a business (will they be operating again next year?)
- Additional certification services they offer (e.g., Kosher, Free Farmed (3), etc.)
- Market recognition of the certifier logo.
- The needs of buyers (the buyer of an organic commodity may request that a specific certifier be used)
- Additional accreditation beyond the NOP by international certification bodies such as IFOAM (4)
- Costs of certification
A listing of accredited certifying agents and those making application for accreditation is currently featured on the NOP Web site.
Topics: Recent Articles |
Bills would help get local produce to schools
Post Date: Wednesday, April 16th, 2008Backers say the legislation is aimed at providing New Mexicans with healthier food and improving one of the state’s more dismal statistics: New Mexico ranks second in the nation for food insecurity.
Two bills would appropriate $1.44 million for schools to buy more fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables for school lunches.
More than 60 percent of children in New Mexico schools are from low-income families. For many, school lunches are the most nutritional meal they may have all day, said Pam Roy, co-director of New Mexico’s nonprofit Farm to Table program and director of the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council.
The New Mexico School Nutrition Association says more than 30 organizations have signed a petition supporting Senate Bill 207, sponsored by Sen. Pete Campos, D-Las Vegas, and House Bill 164, sponsored by Rep. Rhonda King, D-Stanley. SB 207 is scheduled for a hearing by the Senate Finance Committee today.
The school nutrition program has already helped local farmers provide a couple of fresh produce servings a week to 212,000 New Mexico children in their school lunches. The new funding would provide an additional two servings.
Six New Mexico school districts, including Santa Fe, have been buying fresh fruits and vegetables out of their own budgets for 150,000 school children. Last year, the state Legislature appropriated $85,000 to the Valley Cluster schools in Albuquerque, providing two servings of fresh produce a week to 6,000 students.
In a 2007 statewide study conducted by Farm to Table and the state Department of Agriculture, more than two-thirds of New Mexico’s school districts said they are interested in purchasing fruits and vegetables from local farmers. More than 100 of the state’s farming families said they would be interested in selling to schools.
School officials say schools have only about $1 to buy food for each lunch tray.
“It’s difficult to pay for fresh fruit and vegetable options when you only have a dollar,” said Corrine Lovato, food service director for the Pecos School District. “Also for rural school districts like mine, we have less buying power so it costs us more to add fresh produce on the plate.”
Rep. Brian K. Moore, R-Clayton, a grocery store owner, is sponsoring another food bill, HB 180, the Manny Herrera Access to Healthy Foods Act.
HB 180 would establish a nine-member board to create policies and a better food-distribution system for bringing healthier foods to low-income and rural communities. Six members would be state department secretaries and three would be appointed by the governor, representing the food policy council, transportation and grocery industries. The bill was approved by two committees, but the House Appropriations and Finance Committee nixed the $10 million appropriation request it contained. HB 180 is scheduled for a House floor vote today.
Another joint food bill, HB 156 and SB 49, would provide low-income seniors with vouchers through the state Department of Health commodity program to buy fresh produce at local farmers markets.
The Legislature provided initial funding to the New Mexico Farmers Market Nutrition Enhancement Program last year. The current bill would provide $28 to 8,000 seniors to buy fresh produce. HB 156 is sponsored by Rep. Don L. Tripp, R-Socorro, and SB 49 is sponsored by Sen. Carlos Cisneros, D-Questa. The bills have been approved by the committees and are ready for floor votes.
In addition to school children and seniors, local farmers are gaining from the interest in locally produced food.
Roy said La Montanita Co-op, which has a Santa Fe store on West Alameda Street, has been working to buy locally. Between January and August last year, the store sold $2.8 million in local or regional produce, she said. Another $500,000 went to local farmers to buy fresh produce for the school program through the state Department of Agriculture and the Public Education Department.
“There’s so much demand for New Mexico produce and meats and dairy,” Roy said. “People are now at that point they are asking for local food so they can get to know the farmer and know their food is not shipped so far.”
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says about 16 percent of New Mexico residents, especially in rural areas, go hungry or have a hard time getting food every day.
“We have people who drive 70 miles one way to reach a grocery store,” Roy said. “Studies by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation show the further people have to drive to reach a store or the more number of times they have to switch a bus, the less healthy food they purchase.”
Today is school nutrition day at the Capitol, and the bills’ supporters will talk at 1 p.m. in the Rotunda about why fresh apples, lettuce and other produce help students and local farmers.
Contact Staci Matlock at 470-9843 or smatlock@sfnewmexican.com.
Topics: Recent Articles |
Reflections on Sustainable Agriculture in Latin America
Post Date: Sunday, March 23rd, 2008 Farmers helping their brothers, so that they can help themselves…to find solutions and not be dependent on the technician or on the bank. That is Campesino a Campesino.
- Argelio Gonzales, Santa Lucia, Nicaragua, 1991
For my part, and from that day on, I stopped trying to teach farmers how to farm and dedicated myself to helping them experiment and learn from each other. This was one of many “beginnings” of the grassroots movement today called Campesino a Campesino, or Farmer to Farmer. Over the last three decades, this movement has spread throughout Mexico, Central America, and recently, Cuba.
For thirty years, the Movimiento Campesino a Campesino (MCAC), now with several hundred thousand farmer-promoters, has helped farming families in the rural villages of Latin America improve their livelihoods and conserve their natural resources. The promoters of MCAC have shown that, given the chance to generate and share agroecological knowledge freely amongst themselves, smallholders are perfectly capable of developing sustainable agriculture, even under highly adverse conditions. The capacity to develop agriculture locally is not only the key to sustainable agricultural development, but, for campesinos, it is a matter of survival. This explains in a very fundamental way why the movement has spread as widely as it has. It works!
The methods practiced by Campesino a Campesino are often found in development projects run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) throughout Latin America. But the spread of agroecological knowledge through NGO projects and paid technicians is slow and expensive. Once project money dries up or NGOs move on, village agricultural development often comes to a halt. Campesino a Campesino’s movement-driven approach to sustainable agricultural development is based on local farmer capacities for innovation and solidarity. This allows communities to continually respond to the perpetual uncertainties of climate, market, and environmental shocks—with or without the presence of technicians and NGOs.
And, Campesino a Campesino has begun to have influence at higher levels. I remember the day Campesino a Campesino changed from a loose collection of soil conservation projects scattered across Mesoamerica into a regional movement for farmer-led sustainable agricultural development. The turning point came when farmers from Mexico and Nicaragua arranged visits to share knowledge and innovations.
Topics: Recent Articles |