Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food. Show all posts

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Food Fights

I am sitting in a hotel room tonight, soaking in the sounds of Haydn and Bach while unwinding after a day of meetings. 187 voting Farm Bureau delegates from 25 counties in Washington State are also settling into their hotel rooms in Yakima tonight. It was a busy, productive, well organized day.

Why would five hundred farmers, business owners, agency staffers and family members take three days out of their work week to sit in a large hall and craft agricultural public policies? Maybe it is the fine food? The pleasant talk of old friends? The entertainment? The world class convention center facilities? The fabulous salaries farmers [don’t] make?

Public policy. Do you think in the abstract? Can you draw a blueprint for a house? A diagram of your vegetable garden? Can you write a love letter? A song? A check? We go to school to learn to read, write and count. At least most of us.

Public policy is important to food. Is food important to you? Then you should care about public agricultural policy, words that define how your food will be grown.

Do you know the dad who grew your potatoes? The mom who keeps the family books for the farm that grew the grain that became flour for your bread? Do you know the children of the orchardist who harvested the apricots in the fruit smoothie you are drinking right now? Do you know the insurance man who paid out for the rain spoiled cherries that never got to your table this year?

Do you know the lobbyist and the senator and the lawyer who teamed up to pass legislation to fund a balanced water management plan? A plan that will provide river water for both irrigation and fish habitat in the Yakima valley in years to come? Do you know the representative who wrote the new law that requires Washington government agencies to fully footnote the “best science” that underpins their policies? What a novel thought!

Do you know how many successful joint tribal/farmer agricultural management plans are already or almost in place in Washington State today? Do you know how many upper river, flood controlling and water conserving dams tribal groups have committed to seeing built?

 Do you know how many diabetics today inject quality, low cost insulin harvested from genetically modified bacterial cultures? Do you know both the dangers AND successes of modern agricultural farm interventions? Do you know how farmers are successfully adapting to changing rainfalls, temperatures, and pest migrations? Can you see the tilth in the field your facebook page will never speed past?

Probably not!

Do you know the millionaire who tears at agriculture and industry with a knife of hostility? Do you know the news editor who prefers stories pitting tribal aquaculture against dairy farmers? Do you know the government agents who travel field and stream profiling farmers and loggers who MAY pollute—some day. Do you know the environmental activists whose frivolous listing of poorly defined endangered species is really designed to target, take and idle the farm land that was used to grow the food you ate today?

Do you know the government agents who drive an adversarial wedge between reluctant tribal elders and their neighboring towns? Do you know the tribal elders who are stepping up to mitigate the havoc easy government money and drugs are wreaking on their youth?

Do you know the college professors who demonize the people who grow your food and cut the wood for your shelter? Who teach for a day when property is not private and families are not traditional?

Maybe!

There was a day when public agricultural policy was a simple statement of what the whole culture lived out every day. The closest farms were just a mile or two from the towns they fed. The farmer was your dad, your uncle, or your brother. Then things changed. Now, growing food is a distant and dim reality, and public agricultural policy is often an ideological food fight in halls of power and education.

Today, with one hand the social activist eats the food we grow, and with the other hand they pen public policy which destroys us. Therefore, I am in Yakima with Washington farmers today, and we voted for policies that Farm Bureau lobbyists and legal foundations will promote in the Washington State House and Senate this next year.

Today, we considered the very real gap between public who eat our food in sanitized cities, and ourselves who secure that food in distant, harsh and unpredictable conditions. Today, we brainstormed for ways to penetrate the barrier set up by hostile media and educators and environmentalists between ourselves and tomorrow’s leaders, even our own children.

Today, we worked on public policy. Tomorrow, we will feed you. The next day? You may need to grow your own food. Now, having you or your children working in a field might be the best idea yet!

-- JK

Friday, November 1, 2013

You’re Invited To The Wedding!

Every now and then, it is good to take a break and do something different. Yesterday was that day. I went to a wedding—I mean, a daylong seminar on climate change and food production, sponsored by a consortium of local and regional marine, agriculture and geological agencies. The title, Recipe for Tomorrow: Climate Change and the Future of Food does have a special taste, doesn’t it? 
 
Have you ever been invited to a wedding? A strange wedding? Perhaps with customs imported from a foreign land or culture. You sit stiffly and smile, aware that what you see has meanings you cannot fathom. One or two of the hor’deurves looks good, and the rest look deadly. The music has a strange twang, and you can feel cautious eyes on your back. Welcome to the wedding!

Should there be a marriage of climate change and food production? Actually, this analogy was made during an afternoon panel yesterday, when several local farmers were explaining to a shocked moderator that climate change really was not a consideration for them. How could this be? What rock have they just crawled out from under? Embarrassed, one of the farmers made the point, “Coming here is like going to a very strange wedding.”

I am like the farmers. Our family has pasture, sheep, and an embryonic milking and creamery system. We make artisan cheese. When I tell people we are pay as you go, they nod knowingly. One day soon we hope to sell our cheese. But, from a distance, the climate change urgency seems to create more smoke than light.

I found this gathering very interesting. It got off to a rough start, with PowerPoint troubles. While the technicians fixed things, the moderator asked people to state their backgrounds. Of over one hundred participants, about ½ were agency staff or public planners, about ¼ were students, and of the rest, I counted four farmers, including me. This would be an interesting day.

One of my pet peeves is public policy changes hastily implemented, based on scientific studies that have not been peer reviewed and published. Often, the research had not been completed, and is legitimized with anecdotal consensus. Similar to this is perversion of the peer review process, such as the East Anglia IPCC “Climate-gate” debacle, where dissent over climate change models was (and continues to be) forcibly avoided.

The day was a mixed bag of fuzzy precautionism and focused reality. There were surprises, such as the story of tight consensus between the Chehalis tribe and the dairy farm community in the Chehalis valley and their proposal to build a large flood control dam on the upper river. When asked about the quality of agency input into their process, Dairy Federation President Jay Gordon gave a list of agency plan failures, from the early 1900’s right up to the proposed levees after the huge 2007 flood. Only when farmers and tribes began to drive the process together did trust build. Now, solid plans are being presented for federal funding.

It was worth my time to listen to shellfish and deepwater fish experts detail the marine biology problems they are seeing. But, as one panel member noted, land based food production is easy to monitor compared to underwater, marine food production. Full deep water marine monitoring takes very expensive boats and equipment, not always available to clamorous citizen activist tidal zone monitors. My question? Are the sea changes, the upwelling, the temperature and current changes abnormal? Or actually part of larger, several hundred year cycles we are just beginning to fathom. Lets not let social hyper-change agents spin an adolescent science as mature.

Craig Welch of the Seattle Times had great pictures and a chilling narrative if potential CO2 level lab trials are the norm. But—a big but—those lab test conditions do not yet exist in Puget Sound. Marriage to the precautionary principle skews reality and brings a gloomy dullness.

Most presenters were balanced. They qualified their claims carefully and left space for further discovery. There were some slips. When asked about the source of fecal coliform—human, farm animal or wildlife, longtime shellfish biologist Paul Williams said, “It does not matter—the shell fish are contaminated”. Well, it does matter—big time. If wildlife coliform is the contaminant, why prioritize mitigation on farm animal sites. As moderator Elizabeth Kilanowski followed up, “DNA coliform markers can point to the coliform source, but—those tests are very expensive.” So, should the farmer be penalized if the testing cannot be afforded by the monitoring or regulatory agency? Sounds like a shotgun wedding.

Interestingly, a presentation by Kirsten Feifel on PSP (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) made a strong case that shellfish toxic blooms are primarily influenced by water temperature and not by land based nutrients. And, since Bellingham Bay is a relatively warm spot in the Puget Sound…?

The voices seem to echo in my ears—“…those farmers… someone has to bear the shellfish problems. Maybe even, just skip the peer reviews and publishing. Just mandate 100 foot agricultural buffers on all streams and ditches—those rich farmers can afford to not farm some of their land to “help the world”.” It seems that shellfish toxicity has become an environmentalist sword just like eco-policy driven wetlands takings, that ongoing conflict between agency short course experts and credentialed hydro geologists.

Four farmers in a large room full of agency personnel and student observers. What is wrong with this picture?

Ever been to a stereotyped, fundamentalist, evangelical wedding? (Full disclosure: I serve on a church board and believe in Biblical inerrancy). Gospel notes in the wedding program remind the un-churched that they need to make a “right choice.” Standing in the receiving line, the question is popped, “Are you born again?” Eulogies to parents include swelling sentiments of pious gratitude and patriarchal obeisance.

Yesterday, I attended a fundamentalist, environmental wedding. Guests included scientists whose first love is discovery of the mechanisms of life, health and food delivery. There were the technicians who enable the research. There were the professors who unwrap the facts to the world, and the fishermen and tribal advocates. There were also the agency staffers who get paid to plan and manage, to write and enforce policy. It was a thoughtful, well planned, useful meeting.

But, I think, it is the “true believers” who keep the farmers away. The Carrie Nations types who pop up on the floor, crying, “Are you born again? Do you believe in climate change? Why have you not met your mother earth goddess yet? You should be ashamed of yourself. We’ll cast you (nasty teabaggers) out, that’s what we’ll do.” Then they sweep away with final, wild cries, “Population control! Urban growth areas and wildlands forever! Love mother earth! Sue ‘em at the Growth Management Hearings Board for everything they have!”

A double wedding. Two couples. Farmers and land climate change. Seafood gatherers and oceanic climate change.

Climate change is real. But, whose climate change? As the farmer panel declared, farmers deal with climate change every day. Hot and cold years. Wet and dry. Old pests and new pests. Again, as Chad Kruger,  director  of the WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources noted, research is showing that decreased “redundancy” (as farms get bigger and fewer) is a more present threat to the food supply than currently well managed, in his opinion, climate change induced stressors (heat, moisture, pests…)
Maybe the climate change, shellfish focused, fighting fundies should see and bridge the culture gap with farms and farmers like they do so with the tribes. Then, the farmers might come to the wedding.                  -- JK




Monday, October 28, 2013

Too much outside funding. Too many planners. Too little local food.

An enterprising grass roots group stirred controversy a couple of days ago. Shoppers returning to their cars parked in the Lakeway Fred Meyer parking lot Saturday afternoon found a snappy advertisement mini-flyer sticky tabbed to their windshields, inviting them to a balloting party. Free food. A free concert. Local candidates on hand to help answer sticky questions. A group dance taking the ballots to the mail box.

Political activist reactions from glee to outrage to the un-politicized urge to simply litter have surely given way to deeper musings. Some one must have a fair bit of cash to throw away in a far away city on parties and short lived friendships. Why the carrots? What is the back game?

Strategies. Goals. Influence. “Almost buying” votes. PDC filing violations.

Facebook pages of political activists these days are crawling with posts, fearing, anticipating, trying to foresee the results of the election in eight days. “These are terrible people…” “I am afraid we have overplayed our hand…” “We need more government—vote for…” “We need less government—vote for…”

Strategies. Votes. Representative candidates. The raw struggle between an increasingly polarized Whatcom County electorate.

A stunningly short planning commission meeting this last week left Planning and Development Staff gasping for air as the Planning Commission tabled their recommended rule changes without so much as a presentation. Was the issue really procedural restraint to protect the appeal over the Growth Management Hearings Board arbitrary water ruling last summer? Was the issue the clarification of impervious surfaces language and regulations in the County Code? Or was the issue the contentious insertion of sweeping well drilling restrictions within the rule changes.

Strategies. Rules. Rulings. Legal wranglings. Environmental precedent settings. Property rights protections.

An article by Ed Kilduff in the fall Business Pulse magazine spotlights the enormously successful Washington Growth Management Act—if measured by the exponential increase in public planners and planner wannabee activists.

Strategies. 1989. Grants. 2013. Large transfers of decision making powers from local to regional, state and federal bodies. An awakening electorate fumbling for their pens and phones and car keys; sharing shock over the reality of gross government over reach, waste and freedom takings; rediscovering public meetings and challenging the swarms of environmental protectionists that hover in the halls of power.

This Thursday, Oct 31/13, food growers, buyers, activists—it’s open to the public—can attend a symposium entitled Recipe for Tomorrow: Climate Change and the Future of Food. A large of slate of presenters representing farm, science, education, tribal and government agencies does not increase my peace of mind. The sponsorship of hardline environmental groups such as ReSources only steels my resolve to probe deeply into—you guessed it—strategies.

Strategies. Climate Change. Pollution. Grants!!! Radical environmentalism grows as long as there are grants for staff projects. Planner jobs proliferate as long as there is grant money to plan. Precautionary environmental protectionism provides an inexhaustible seedplot of grant ready projects. This is a public planner’s heaven. Total job security. An October 24/13 Washington State Commerce Department e-mail advertises, (broader web page here)

”Departments of Ecology and Commerce are offering funding through a competitive grant program for projects that fit under one of the following themes:

“Eligibility: Local governments, federally-recognized tribal governments, and special purpose districts are eligible to apply for all themes. In addition, non-profit non-governmental organizations and academic institutions of higher education are eligible to apply for Theme 3.”

Strategies. People. Food shortages. Family food sustainability. If a man does not work plan, he should not eat.

Retired WWU professor Don Easterbrook has survived the recent gang mugging by current WWU non-climate change experts, and posted a scathing review of both the 2013 IPCC report on climate change and the Oct’13 National Geographic featurearticles on rising seas.

Strategies. Facts. Fears. Politicized science. Media and academic suppression of genuine debate. Free internet speech. Angry embarrassment. Protecting tenured teaching posts.

May I suggest that a much bigger problem than climate change is dependence on non-local food distribution systems. We don’t grow local. We don’t eat local. But, planners and scientists write grants local and do property takings local.

Strategies. Working. Growing with your own hands. Value added locally grown food must be economically sustainable. Farmers will not grow what does not pay. Environmental takings do not grow food. Public planner oversight armies do not grow food.

Strategies. Environmentalist lawsuits. Buying votes. Happy face farm/environment symposiums. Academic muggings. Grants to fuel environmental takings. As Pete Kremen recently said, “Whatcom County is under seige by regulations.” So—when the outside environmental grant money runs out?? When scientists are paid to solve farm to table problems instead of ramping up UN change agency environmentalist hot buttons?? Probably, only then will a reduced roster of public planners figure out how to encourage a simply regulated local marketplace that provides truly value added locally grown food. -- JK