Eat More Kale Sticker

Well, the fellow that makes them, Bo,  runs a small tee shirt design & print shop in Vermont.  I won’t tell his story, but Bo is not big time by any means.  Running a small shop, traveling around to music festivals, selling tee shirts and stickers …

When Bo applied for a trademark, Chick-fil-A  claimed infringement on their trademark “Eat Mor Chikn” (note, not “eat more factory farmed processed chicken by-product”, which would actually be accurate).

Now, you wouldn’t think people would confuse Kale with Chicken.  And, it difficult, if not impossible, to mistake round green stickers on rusted out Vermont Subarus with neon signs over the food court in the mall, especially as there are no Chick-fil-a’s in Vermont.  And most people with a third grade education can correctly distinguish a misspelled slogan, no matter how cute, from a properly spelled one.

Even so, this multibillion dollar corporation insists that it has to “defend our trademarks to protect our slogan”.

Here a link to a piece that appeared in the times about the case last December about the case.

Despite an outpouring of public support for Bo, and the patent ridiculousness of the claim, Chick-fil-a is pressing on with the suit.  To raise awareness Vermont filmmaker and playwright Jim Lantz is producing a documentary on Bo and the lawsuit.

Titled “A Defiant Dude”, the film will tell the story of corporate bullying and harassment.  In situations like this, most small businesses unable to match the endless resources of these corporate aggressors, just give up.  Bo is not going to.

And, unlike some films, at this point we don’t know the ending.  As Bo says “If I win, it’s a great story; if I loose it’s a sad story.  Either way Jim and I think it is a story worth telling”

If you would like help – and live out your lifelong dream of helping produce a smash hit film – now is your chance.  Simply go to the project page on Kickstarter and become an early funder (just so you know, I am in).   Every funder gets something – from stickers and tee shirts to credit in the film – regardless of amount.

This is not a charity.  It is a chance for us to pool our funds and push back against corporate bullying.

See you at opening night …

The candidates were well informed; the audience as well.  According to (now mayor elect) Miro, this was the forum that asked the most detailed questions.  “Local food folks are extremely passionate,” and that passion is evidenced by a knowledge and depth of practice that you don’t find in too many places.

In case you missed it, you can find a video, produced by CCTV here.

And, in case you want to follow along with the opening remarks word for word, the text of my intro (being the food council facilitator and all) … can be found below the fold.

Welcome!

This is, I believe, a first – a mayoral candidate debate on the topic of local food.

The Burlington Food Council is pleased to be able to host this.  I am Will Robb, Facilitator of the council, and will be starting us off with a few comments on the connection between local food systems and economic development.

First I would like to thank our cosponsor, the Intervale Center.  And many of our member organizations that pulled together to put on this event

-       Burlington School Food Project
-       Friends of Burlington Gardens
-       New Farms for New Americans
-       City Market
-       The Food Shelf

One of the first points I would like to make underscores the title of tonight’s forum.  Local food system development is economic development.

Research from the Farm to Plate Initiative shows that Vermont’s food system involves 10,974 businesses and provides 18.8 percent of private sector jobs.  Doubling the amount of local food eaten in state from 5% to 10% would create an estimated 1,500 jobs and boost the state’s economy by $135 million dollars annually.

These are big numbers, and as the state’s biggest city, a large proportion of this would accrue to Burlington.  While developing a local food economy would bring a broad array of other benefits to the city – some difficult to measure in dollars – bringing good jobs to the city is a priority, and growing an economic sector that is already well established here in Burlington should be a very easy sell as you seek funding for policy initiatives.

And, because local food is grounded in our people, and in our land it provides an extremely stable economic base.  It is not vulnerable, for example, to the threat of a store leaving should a CEO in some remote corporate headquarters decide he can make a point more profit relocating elsewhere.

Community food system development also strengthens our city in many non-financial ways.   Healthier food means healthier children and seniors.  Open space, is preserved and cared for in an environmentally sound manner.  We increase food security and access for low-income householders.  These connections give us leverage; allow us to strategically place limited resources where they can do the most good.  As Travis Marcotte, executive director of the Intervale Center puts it, “By fixing the food system, we can fix so much else that is wrong.”

We are fortunate here in Burlington to be able to build on successes in many of these areas.  The Burlington School Food Project houses a Farm to School program that is a national model.  Friends of Burlington Gardens working in conjunction with city departments to ensure that everyone has access to a place to grow food is working at capacity. The Harvest Café, at Fletcher Allen Hospital is committed to local food sourcing – another national leader.  New Farms for New Americans, by connecting recent immigrants with land and support services, is enabling some 90 households to supplement their  income, to put better food on their tables.

So community-based food system development – at least here in Vermont, in Burlington – does not need to be built from scratch.  We have a network of organizations and practitioners currently engaged in this work on a daily basis.

Thus it is a different kind of development – development that does not start with a bulldozer or a blank sheet of paper.  It does not start with franchises and financing.  And this fact shapes the kind of support we look for from the city.

We look to the city to pay attention to what is already being done – and to remove regulatory barriers, to frame policies that encourage, rather than discourage those seeking to grow food.

Rather than letting the allure matching federal funding drive the design process we seek to engage the city as a partner in planning, looking for those leverage points where a wisely placed, appropriately scaled bit of capital can ease a significant constraint.

We look to the city to help foster partnership and collaboration, for example, working with the Food Council and member organizations, those assembled here tonight, to help hold the compelling vision of a local food based economy, and take practical steps to bring it about.

We are going to keep doing this work anyway, but as Ellen Kahler, executive director of the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, is fond of saying, with this kind of support we can “go farther, faster.”

One of the reasons for holding this forum tonight is to start this kind of dialog.

One side of that dialog is for us to help you gain a deeper understanding of the people and programs that are doing the work, that are actively engaged in building a local food economy that provides fresh, healthy food for all residents.

And the other side of that dialog, that we are hoping the questions and answer tonight will bring out, is for us to hear about your vision for a local food economy.  For us to discover how each of you will engage with us to celebrating Burlington’s successes in this arena and support Burlington’s community of hard working local food practitioners and organizations.

The Burlington Food Council is hosting a mayoral candidate forum on local food issues. Yes, this Saturday, the 25th, from 6:00 – 8:00 PM at the Sustainability Academy at Lawernce Barnes, 123 North Street.

We had a brilliant young up-and-coming designer (who wishes to remain anonymous) do a poster for us, and I will be cooking chili & cornbread … with lots of help. See you there.

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.

Or, two thirds of the states could call a Constitutional Convention, out of which could come a bill that, if passed by three fourths of the states, would ammend the constitution.  This has never been done. 

But while we are waiting, once again Vermont will lead the way.  Vermonters Say: Corporations are not people! is organizing to get an item stating such on every town meeting ballot in the state.  There is still time to help.

Public Citizen, Move to Amend and allies are organizing a call for 7 p.m. on Wed., Jan. 4, to talk about the last push on petitions, answer questions, discuss reaching out to your state legislators and talk about Second Anniversary Day of Action activities the week of January 16-20. RSVP here. Call-in Number: (805) 360-1000, Code: 712358#

Burlington City Council has already passed the measure, by a 12-0 vote. 

And, when we get done passing this in Vermont, guess which state is going to lead the call for a constitutional convention?

There was an all star lineup I was proud to be a part of, including Bread and Puppet, Brian Tokar, reps from NOFA and Rural Vermont, and author & activist Bill McKibben.   He sent regrets & a strong statement of support, but I was honored to share a stage with him anyway.  As we were speaking, one those summer thunderstorms swept in over the statehouse in back of us ... very dramatic and fitting.

The Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty (also here on FB) was founded in the wake of the passage of the so-called Food Safety Bill by the feds.  We were pretty active on the raw milk issue in the spring, hosting Butter Appreciation Day at the statehouse.  I hope to post more of that material when I get a chance. - Ed.]

Hello.  My name is William Robb. I am speaking in support of H.367 as a member of the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty.

I’d like to thank Khris his crew for organizing this rally, for giving us all the chance to speak out so strongly in support of H.367, requiring the labeling of genetically modified food.

In thinking about this bill, I started to wonder – if Genetically Modified foods are as great and as safe as the likes of Monsanto are telling us, why do we have to legislate labeling of GM ingredients?  Wouldn’t these companies want to use GM ingredients as a selling point?  I can imagine a cartoon mutant, for example, singing “GMO – Great! … and More Of It …”

But even Monsanto doesn’t think that letting people know about the GM content of their food is a selling point.

And, with good reason.

We, as a people, are simply not that enamored with idea of eating genetically modified foodstuffs.  And we are even less thrilled with the surprising fact that our food contains genetically modified ingredients.

A two-year study by the Pew Initiative on Food found that most people believed they never ate GM Foods because if they had, they would have seen the label.  Focus groups conducted by the FDA (!) uncovered “outrage” that such extensive changes to our food supply could occur without our knowledge.

People felt that this meant food producers had “something to hide.”

And they do.

The health problems and the environmental issues associated with GM food hid behind a veil of ignorance perpetuated by lack of clear labeling.  This, in turn speaks to a larger topic – that of Food Sovereignty.

The connection between the Labeling bill and the broader issue of Food Sovereignty runs directly through our ability to choose what we eat.

In a society such as ours, where the lines between the government and corporate interests are increasingly blurred, it is not enough to simply cast vote at the ballot box.  It is not enough to talk to our legislators, to advocate for what we believe in, as we are doing here today.

In a society ruled by unfettered free market capitalism, we must also vote with our dollars.  We need to send our message about GM food to the marketplace as well as the statehouse.

In our democratic based system of governance, it is one person – one vote.  In our market-based system of economics, it is one dollar – one vote.

Choosing which products we buy is therefore our phone call to the legislators of the market place.  Choosing how we spend our money is the rally, the protest march, that the corporations will understand

Passing H.367, requiring the labeling of genetically engineered food is essential so we can cast our economic votes, so we can stage a rally in the market place.

Knowing what is in the food we are buying – in the food we pick for our table, in the food we choose to feed our kids, in the food we want to share with our friends – is what allows us to vote our dollars wisely and effectively.

Without this information we are essentially disenfranchised.  Imagine trying to cast a ballot on which the names of the candidates are blacked out.

Without information about what we are eating, we are being prevented from asserting our sovereignty – our free choice – over our food supply.

I state this on behalf of the Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty.  We are a grassroots coalition of Vermonters from highly diverse political and socio-economic backgrounds.  We are an entirely self-funded.  VCFS is dedicated to protecting the basic human right to save seed, grow, process, prepare and serve food and farm products within the state of Vermont.

We are committed to resisting infringements on these rights, addressing them in a positive productive way, seeking to engage the community in finding responsible solutions to food supply, solutions which increase opportunity and freedom for Vermont’s growers, producers, and eaters.

In advocating for Food Sovereignty we are asserting the right to feed ourselves, to provision our households, and to do so using the resources available within our communities.

The notion of Food Sovereignty may seem abstract, some lofty thing to be considered by policy wonks, or constitutional lawyers.  It is not.  It is the platform on which we stand when we address issues as diverse as raw milk sales, on-farm slaughter, and GM labeling.

As we work through these issues, we often run into concerns about the safety of our food supply.  So I will speak to these for a moment.

Industrial food production – I will not call it “farming”, or even “agriculture” – requires industrial regulations to keep the ill effects of this type of food production in check.

When a plant producing fifty thousand pounds of pre-cooked beef for our schools looks more like a Ford plant than a kitchen – then perhaps we need industrial style quality controls to ensure that what comes out is safe.

But this is not the same thing as on-farm slaughter.

When a dairy processing plant churns out three million cups a day of something akin candy than yoghurt – then perhaps a four hundred page Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is called for.

But this is not the same thing as getting a quart of raw milk from a neighboring farm, and making yoghurt on the back of your stove.

When the so-called “food products” in the supermarket are so well engineered to trigger our taste buds, so specifically designed to light up the pleasure centers of our brains that they might as well be pharmaceuticals – then perhaps they do need to be tested and regulated by the FDA.  (Yes, the same FDA requires ingredient labeling).

But this is not the same thing as a sun-ripened strawberry that you picked just this afternoon at your CSA.

So, removing restrictions on growing and production at the community scale does not work against food safety; rather it enhances it.

The Coalition for Food Sovereignty supports food safety built on sound agricultural practice; healthy meat and milk coming from healthy animals; produce gown on farms free of containments such as pesticides or the GMO crops that encourage their use.

We support a food system where trust in the safety of our food is ensured not by pages of detailed regulation, by constraints on how we can feed ourselves, but is build on relationship – knowing our farmers, understanding their practices, participating in the community of growers and producers that puts the food on our table.

Building a community based food system here in Vermont is work that we must do – but it is work that we can do, work that we are doing.  I don’t have time here to list all the projects and people, all the farms and families that are contributing to our ability to feed ourselves.  But it is some amazing, engaging, and delicious work.

In doing this work we are not asking the state for handouts, for favors.  We are not asking for special status.  We are seeking tools – tools like H.367, the GM labeling bill – that will support us in taking responsibility for provisioning our households, feeding our families.

We are fortunate to live in Vermont, where the legislature is accessible, where our representatives are as likely as not to be farmers.  We know that by speaking out in an organized, persistent way, we can pass this bill.

The Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty learned this through our success in changing the language of the raw milk law.  We held Butter Appreciation Day, making butter (was it with raw milk?) at the statehouse.  We made phone calls.  We held fast, and helped the Agency of Agriculture see that they have no place in Vermonter’s kitchens, no business regulation educational workshops.

In Barre, town voters passed a resolution rejecting “federal decrees, statutes, regulations, or corporate practices that threaten our basic human right to save seed, grow, process, consume, and exchange food and farm products within the State of Vermont.”

We are not alone.  On the tenth of this month, State of Maine passed a joint resolution that adopted similar language – unanimously.   The town of Sedgwick passed a food sovereignty ordnance, rejecting the state’s ability to regulate direct commerce in food.

There will be pushback.  There will be plenty of corporate money flowing into the state, attempting to perpetuate a system that depends on ignorance, that tells lies about “feeding the world.”  But, we don’t need Monsanto to feed us.  We simply need to not be hobbled as we work to feed ourselves.

We can pass H.367.  We can ensure that we know what is in our food.  We can ensure that we have the tools to build a safe, resilient food system; a food system that cares for our communities and cares for our land, a system that has us put our backs into this good work, and feeds us well.

He has a really nice blog going, called Good Stuff. Worth a read, very nice visuals, good, practical information and a positive attitude. That’s Zack.

Have a look.

We could completely muzzle corporations and not hurt any citizen’s right to free speech one bit – despite all the sloppy thinking and myth to the contrary, corporations are not people.  In fact, if you trace the legal precedents of this notion, used to subvert the 14th amendment to serve corporate power, you find a very insubstantial reed – essentially one railroad case containing what many think was a clerical error.

This ruling has transformed the basis of our democratic system from “one person one vote” to “one dollar one vote”; giving corporations, with their unparalleled ability to create large piles of cash, to vacuum dollars out of the economy,  the means to completely dominate our political system.  Any pretext that citizens have equal footing – or perhaps mattering at all – has been stripped away.

With the integrity of the supreme court completely shot, where can we turn?  This ruling, coupled with the inability to put any meaningful health care (not health insurance, but health care) plan in place makes it is clear that the federal government is of no use whatsoever when it comes to supporting the well-being of ordinary people.  The only thing that I can think of is that we have to start looking to ourselves, to our communities, for support and sustenance.

In practical terms, what does this mean? 

Well, it seems to me that if we are now on the “one dollar one vote” system, we have to stop giving our votes/dollars away to those that are working against our own best interests.  We need to keep them for ourselves, for our communities.

So, start thinking about what you buy.  Is there a local coffee shop you can go to, rather than Starbucks?  Can you get that bread from a bakery from across town, rather than at the national chain store?  Can you get that book at the library rather than Barns & Nobel?  If you start reading ‘em, the library will start buying them (and a library will share ‘em with your friends!)

Do you really need that new pair of Gap jeans?  Isn’t there a second-hand shop down the street that has something that has a little more personality?  Or maybe there is a tailor nearby, in one of those dusty storefronts about to go under, who would be happy sew up your old ones?  I’ll bet there is a farmer who would be happy to provide some fresh, real food – one who could use your money to keep the farm going.  Take some time, make the connection.

The dollars you spend do not just vanish into the air, they represent your power, put to use by whoever you give them to.  Give them to those who share your values.

And, think about where your money is parked.  Whether or not you are paying attention to it, it is working on your behalf, either supporting what you care about or working against it.  If you are in a 401k, ask about socially responsible option.  Get your deposits out of a national bank and into a local institution, preferably some local development credit union.  They will make loans to businesses in your community, creating jobs for your neighbors, giving you more local choices.  This kind of investing provides returns you can really use – a place worth living in.

Local investing is currently difficult, but we are working on things like local currencies, regional stock exchanges, community funds – the means to facilitate this kind of thing.  We need the wind of your demand in our sails to power us as we do.

It is time to start making real choices – not simply pulling a lever for “Red” or “Blue” come election day, debating  “Low Fat” or “No Fat” grab-n-go yogurt, Exxon or Shell in your car, Fox or CNN on the TV tonight.  In this new era of One Dollar One Vote it is time to start choosing where we place our dollars, thinking with care about each and every one.  It is time to start lining up our dollars with our politics – it may be the only real power we have left.

Lets us use it to take care of each other – if we don’t, who will?

“Green Mountains and Amber Waves” Vermont’s re-emerging grain sector (Fall 2007)

““Bread and Horses” Good Companion Bakery & CSA (Winter 2009)

““Jack Lazor and the Graining of Vermont” (Spring 2009)

““Who Will This Feed?” Grain and Oilseed Production (Spring 2009)

And one from Vermont Commons, “The Case for Vermont Grains“, by Eric Andrus

Enjoy!

[Originally posted at insevenyears.wordpress.com]