All 17 videos are in the Youtube playlist above.
What happens when you put 100 New England food leaders in a room together for a day to consider a common vision? Lots of smart people with great ideas and questions build important bonds and agree to keep talking.
This is what happened at the University of Vermont on June 28-29, 2012, when invited guests from across the region gathered to discuss the Good Food Vision and imagine what benefits would arise from deeper connections and common plans. The event, co-hosted by the University of Vermont and Food Solutions New England (University of New Hampshire), was the second annual meeting with this emphasis. Conveners predict that strengthening collaborations will help to advance a sustainable regional food system.
At the heart of the agenda was review of the bold vision which proposes that the New England region produce, market and consume 80% of its own food by 2060 in a way that is healthy, fair, green and affordable. This four-part definition of “good food” was taken from the Kellogg Foundation which has a program dedicated to strengthening food in communities. Brian Donahue, lead author of New England’s Good Food vision, presented its key points and then sought input from other leaders at the summit.
There was no shortage of dialogue from this engaged group! One of the first comments was a clarification about the term “good food.” A farmer participant wondered if he or other farmers might be growing “bad food,” and thought that the term “good food” would be off-putting for some. Others questioned particular aspects of the vision, such as the likelihood of meeting the 2060 aspiration, and how the vision was going to enhance food security. In general, participants were on board with the vision, but thought it needed some further fleshing out.
Organizers recognized the value of having summit participants gather by state to consider alignment within each state, and the benefits of working regionally. Following these gatherings, state-by-state report-outs showed the variability in progress of food system planning at the statewide level, with Vermont being the furthest along. There was general agreement that development of mutual metrics and data sharing would be positive. However, when one participant questioned whether the six New England states provided the correct boundaries for a “region,” it became clear that there are a range of options. Should New York and southern Quebec be considered part of this region, and included in future meetings? No decisions were made.
Following an afternoon keynote by Rich Pirog (Michigan State University), examples of current New England regional projects were shared. Peter Allison talked about Farm to Institution in New England (FINE), Ellen Kahler of the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund described the Vermont Atlas tool, Kathy Ruhf reviewed the work of the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG), Chris Coffin from American Farmland Trust talked about their work with the state land commissions, and Steve Revitsky of Connecticut represented the region’s Commissioners of Agriculture.
Despite the absence of a concrete commitment to the Good Food vision, participants left the summit in general agreement that working together will help us all move forward.
What is the future of food? That’s a question Vermonters have been asking – and answering – throughout the state’s history. Never has that question – and those answers – been more important.
The Washington Post Live has started a national conversation on the future of food with its “Future of Food: Food Security in the 21st Century” series. That conversation came to Vermont on July 27. Speakers included:
Our UVM food systems team was in attendance – and here is some of the wisdom and learning they gathered (in 140 characters, of course!). Check out the full conversation at the hashtag #thinkfood, or view the conference video by clicking here.
“We may be small, but we think big + differently in #VT.” -Gary Wheelock at #thinkfood @thepostlive #food
“The cell phone has put the power in the hands of consumers.” -Sec. Chuck Ross of #VT at #thinkfood @thepostlive #foodsafety
“Look at the food system as a driver of a new economy.” -Will Raap at #thinkfood @thepostlive #vt
Institutional support, food hubs + small-scale ag are key drivers of food innovation + local food consumption in #vt #thinkfood @thepostlive
Will Raap: “#vt is a compost pile of ideas to improve local food system” #bvt #thinkfood
“In the next 40 years, we will need to produce as much food as we have in the last 8,000 years.” -Will Raap at #thinkfood #vt@thepostlive
“Changing frames: looking at waste as an input.” -Sec Chuck Ross at #thinkfood #vt @thepostlive #cowpower
“We’re not only in a transitioning food system, but also a transitioning #energy system.” -Will Rapp #thinkfood #vt @thepostlive
Marie Audet says 4 cow power farms in her community create 30% of baseload power in the community #ThinkFood
Farmers are ultimate recyclers RT @EnglandLE: Marie Audet says dairy farmers are proud to be producing milk sustainably. #thinkfood
Ross: Why next generation goes into farming? Being part of the food system is being a part of the solution in the 21st century #ThinkFood
Did you know? 10% of food in Vermont is produced locally#goodwork #thinkfood
“Caring Dairy” helps dairy farmers work in a sustainable, successful way with @benandjerrys– Rob Michalak #thinkfood
“Agricultural development is economic development” – Ellen Kahler, VSJF #thinkfood
“Three Cs of Farm-to-School: classroom, cafeteria, community…Create life-long consumers of local food” -Katherine Sims #thinkfood #vt
Believe it or not, Kale Chips are popular in #vt schools-Katherine Sims Green Mtn Farm to School. Who knew? #ThinkFood
Very cool to hear about forthcoming mobile farmers market in #vt from Katherine Sims at #thinkfood 🙂 #fooddeserts
“Three most important things we do every day: breakfast, lunch, dinner.” -Katherine Sims at #thinkfood #vt
Guest blog post from Sheree Martin, student in our June 2012 Breakthrough Leaders Program for Sustainable Food Systems. She is an assistant professor of journalism and mass communication at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, a lawyer, and grew up on a farm in North Alabama.
My mind was overflowing with information, ideas and plans as I flew home from Burlington after my week with the Breakthough Leaders Program.
The experience really was–and continues to be–both life-changing and life-affirming because it validated and reinforced my commitment to changing our food system. On a practical level, I now have a much better understanding of how to move forward to make my goals for sustainable local foods a reality.
Two key takeaways:
1. Sustainable local food systems are already becoming a reality.
It’s empowering to know that small-scale, sustainable agriculture has returned as a viable business model and is something I can pursue as an entrepreneurial farmer and promote as a policy leader in Alabama.
The opportunity to meet and hear these and other business and social entrepreneurs was huge:
● The Intervale Center is nurturing new farmers and new distribution models
● Vermont Soy has built a business on locally-sourced organic soybeans
● Fletcher Allen is preparing and serving local foods to patients, staff and others without increasing costs
● The diversified, human-scale Bread and Butter Farm shows what a family farm can be and offer to the community.
2. A network of food system change advocates exists.
As a result of the Breakthrough Leaders Program, I feel much better-equipped to tap into the existing network at the state and national leadership level so I can put my talents to work for maximum effect.
In the past 2-3 weeks….
I’ve been meeting with food systems change advocates in my state. I’ve already found opportunities where I can be a part of efforts to lead food policy discussions that are in the planning stages for my state. And I’m taking steps to help ramp up the pace and scope of these efforts.
I wake up every day excited about what I have on my agenda to bring about food system change in Alabama, the Southeast and beyond.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a well-known dilemma to economists. It occurs when several individuals act in a way which is in their own self-interest yet the sum effect is to deplete a valuable resource, leaving all worse off.
The classic examples are overfishing and overgrazing: the revenue of taking one more fish from the lake or adding one more animal to the common pasture benefits only the individual, yet the damage is felt by all. Left alone and as long as there is any benefit to taking one more fish, theory says, the individuals will completely destroy the resource.
In 2004, I wrote of the ability of chemical pesticides to prevent catastrophic crop loss as a type of commons. It is reasonable thing to have potent pesticides as a last resort to prevent famine, for example. Yet, as I wrote, the routine use of pesticides has increased pests’ resistance, to the point where according to one study, crop losses due to pest losses have increased since the advent of pesticide use.
Two more examples have caught my attention in recent days. Earlier this summer, organic farmer Klaas Martens of central New York posted on SANET, the Sustainable Agriculture networks listserve. He discussed devastating outbreaks of army worms in his region, causing colossal crop damage and the sudden ineffectiveness of Dipel (the product name for Bacillus thuringiensis, a.k.a. Bt, a bacterium long used by organic farmers to control pests) to control them. Martens asks, “Has the widespread planting of Bt corn caused the army worm to become resistant and rendered Bt products ineffective for this pest?” (click here to see more).
Martens’ idea makes intuitive sense: taking an effective toxin and putting it everywhere is probably the fastest and surest way to make it ineffective. This portends badly for organic farmers who rely on Bt. Insect resistance to Bt is a valuable commons: overuse is likely destroying it.
Another, more devastating tragedy-in-the-making is the routine use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics in livestock production. A recent Washington Post editorial captures the issue well. Note that these farms are not using antibiotics to treat sick animals: they are essentially putting our public health at grave risk in order to lower the cost of production. Clearly, this is creating a huge externality: the social cost of sub-therapeutic antibiotic use is not reflected in the price of meat. A few obvious options to address this include:
1. Ban their use except to treat sick animals.
2. Tax their use on farms to equal the social marginal cost.
3. Require mandatory “produced with sub-therapeutic antibiotics” labeling.
Given the lobbying power of vested interests, I am not optimistic any of the above (even the most “free market” option, #3) will be enacted anytime soon. But it is not hyperbole to call this a ticking time bomb, one of many caused by our inability and unwillingness to address external costs and create an efficient and just economy.
