Asked (By the USDA) for my thoughts …

Ok, well not personally. But Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of Agrciultre of the US Department of Agriculture asked Net Impact for student input. And based on work with the Slow Living Summit, the Marlboro College Chapter, was chosen to contribute. As I got my MBA there, I had the opportunity to throw somehting into the mix …

Continue to strengthen Farm To School Programs Many thoughtful suggestions have been givenin the previous post. Farm to School programs, by providing a direct connection between children and their food, develop health behaviors and strengthen the community’s ability to feed itself.

Continue to lower the threshold for open community sites (I believe it is now 40%) for school lunch, breakfast, and the Seamless Summer programs across the board. The resulting increased participation allows schools more flexibility in producing healthy meals.

Work to align the farm subsidy program spending with the nutritional requirements for USDA school and hunger relief programs – and with the USDA’s own nutritional recommendations. Farm subsidies accounts for the vast majority of USDA program expenditures, and most of these dollars go to sugar, corn and soy – which in turn used to produce factory farmed meat and highly processed carbohydrate rich junk foods. These are not the types of food that the USDA itself recommends, or requires in their school food programs. The USDA should base the distribution of farm subsidy dollars on the their own dietary recommendations and the nutritional needs of children.

Move towards scale-appropriate food safety regulations. “Industrial” food needs industrial safety regulations in order to keep the food supply safe. However, applying these regulations across the board unnecessarily cripples small farmers and food-based entrepreneurs. A small scale dairy or slaughter operation can produce safe, wholesome food for direct sale under a much different food safety regime that a CAFO or milk plant processing thousands of gallons a day. The USDA can should and support scale-appropriate regulation.

Move funding to programs that directly strengthen communities through basic research and project funding, such as ATTRA (now housed at NCAT due to budget cuts …), SARE, AFSIC, and the Rural Development Community Facilities Financing Program. These dollars directly fund economic development that stays in the community, and builds robust food systems that provide may social, environmental, and health benefits. Large commodity subsidies, on the other hand, tend to flow dollars to large agribusiness corporations, which leave the community.

Pursue the recommendations made to identify alternatives to annual applications through continued pilot testing of the use of ACS (American Community Survey, conducted by the US Census), and the use of a community based Socioeconomic survey as means to authorize districts. The bill did not fund these recommendations made in section 104 of the Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. In addition to providing an efficient, data-based way to ensure that funds go to schools in need, these methods contextualize childhood nutrition as a community issue and provide a rich set of data that would allow us to strengthen whole-community responses to the issue.

About William Robb

William Robb, AKA OtherWill - no not the Will you are thinking of just now, that other one - is the main contributor to this blog
This entry was posted in Catch All and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.