Oakland Food Policy Council - Latest Blog Entries

The Food Movements

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:21:00 -0500

Last October, Michael Pollan wrote an article for the New York Times Magazine where he boldly stated that the ability of California’s to pass Proposition 37 would be indicative as to whether or not there is a real “food movement” in America. Prop 37 failed.

Proposition 37 was the California ballot measure that would have required all genetically modified (GM) foods to be labeled. In stating this critique, Pollan was not so much asserting that that GMOs are the number one concern within the food system. Instead, he argues that this would have been a marker to show that all those concerned with issues relating to food, could come together against the industrial food chain.

Pollan highlights one of the greatest challenges the food world faces. Unlike an issue like climate change, which ultimately has one main end goal (reducing atmospheric green house gases), there isn’t just one central problem within our current food system. Instead, our dysfunctional system consists of many different problems, with many different stakeholders, each with their own agendas and often with conflicting interests: While the organic folks are fighting to reduce pesticide use, anti-hunger and nutrition activist are focusing on increasing consumption of all fruits and vegetables.

The result of which, is that we have become fragmented in our efforts. While the number of people and organizations involved within the realm of “food” has exponentially grown in recent years, everyone is focused on their own agendas. In “Food Movements Unite,” Eric Holt Gimenez, executive director of Food First, highlights this dilemma, saying there is not just one food movement, but multiple movements.

Yet the food system is inextricably interconnected. In order to address hunger and nutrition, we also need to reconsider methods of food production, distribution, and retail. Is the reason poor people are not eating healthier due to their lack of money, or is their lack of money due to the fact that industries such as the food industry are not paying their workers a living wage? So how can we come together to create a “food movement”?

The emergence of food policy councils is a promising step, by bringing together a diverse group of people all concerned around different facets relating to food. The Oakland Food Policy Council is composed a wide range of activists, lawyers, community organizers, city planners, students, and policy analysts, chefs, and emergency food workers and public health employees. It is the ability for them to come together that we can begin to see major changes here in Oakland, as well throughout the state and across the nation.

Run for Food Justice!

Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:26:00 -0600

Join us in a team run at the Oakland Running Festival on March 24th 2013 in support of an equitable and sustainable food system in Oakland! Sign up now!

Register to run a 5K (3.1 mi), Relay (up to four on a team), ½ Marathon (13 mi) or Full Marathon (26mi) and raise $200 for the work of Oakland Food Policy Council. Support a healthy Oakland and a healthy you!

Exciting prizes for the top three fundraisers:

Top prize: Edible Excursions- Get to know the area of North Berkley’s Gourmet Ghetto through a culinary walking tour for two guests. Excursion participants will be introduced to the area's history as the birthplace of California Cuisine spearheaded by Alice Waters' Chez Panisse. The excursion features conversations with the area's chefs and food purveyors, as well as a mouth-watering assortment of tastings and samples.

Second Prize: Adventure awaits with a kayak trip for two with Jack London's California Canoe. Explore the bay and see a unique side of Oakland. Want more daring? Open a whole new world of nocturnal activity by joining the mysterious and romantic moonlight tour.

Third Prize: Baia Pasta and Iron Horse Wine- Mamma Mia! Create a delicious Italian meal with this selection of pastas from Baia Pasta. Baia Pasta is artisan-made in Oakland and features the finest organic flours in America. Pair your pasta with this 2008 bottle of Pinot Noir from Iron Horse vineyards in the Green Valley.

All registered runners receive an OFPC goodie bag of gifts.

Want to support Oakland Food Policy Council but don’t want to run? You can volunteer to help out at a water station. Just go to Volunteer Registration here.

Go team!

Healthy Corner Store Projects

Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:11:00 -0600

Food deserts are areas in a city without access to healthy food like fresh fruit and vegetables. They are often plagued by an overabundance of fast food establishments and liquor stores offering cheap calories but not proper nutrition for locals. Healthy Corner Stores is one project that has started in other cities across the country to combat food deserts within existing infrastructure by encouraging and teaching local corner stores to stock produce and healthier staples.

An interesting challenge of Healthy Corner Store projects is working not only with owners but also suppliers. Since these stores are smaller than a produce aisle at the grocery store one technique to avoid over stocking and loss of produce is to receive smaller deliveries more often. Another challenge is that often corner stores serve ethnic communities with certain food traditions that have different values and visions of healthy than our standard food pyramid. But, by working on a store-by-store basis, it is easier to serve each community’s needs.

Soon, a similar project will start in the Bayview neighborhood in San Francisco. The Southeast Food Access (SEFA) Food Guardians and the Bayview HEAL Zone have announced the public launch of their Bayview Healthy Corner Store program. A special event will be held on January 24, from 10am - 12pm at Lee’s  Market on January 24, 2013 from 10am-12pm.

This multi-partner project joins corner storeowners that want to offer healthier food in the community with the SEFA Food Guardians and grocery store design consultants from Sutti Associates and is supported by Kaiser Permanente's Bayview HEAL Zone Initiative.

The Community Supported Agriculture “Beet Box”

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:38:00 -0600

Last Saturday, I volunteered at the North Oakland farmers’ market with an organization called Phat Beets Produce. Phat Beets Produce is a food justice collective that was started in 2007 as a means to “close the gap between small farmers of color that lack market outlets and urban communities that lack access to healthy, affordable, culturally appropriate food.”[i] One way in which they work to achieve this goal is through the distribution of community supported agriculture (CSA) boxes, called “Beet Boxes.”

The Beet Box contains pesticide-free and/or organic fruits and vegetables contributed by small farmers. The Beet Box not only helps under-supported farmers market their products, but also supports those in Oakland who are suffering from diet-related diseases.[ii] For each Beet Box purchased, a $2 coupon is given to doctors in community clinics to distribute to their patients. The voucher can be used at three farmers’ markets in North Oakland, one of which is located right outside of the North Oakland Children’s Hospital.2

Each Beet Box costs $24 and includes 11 to 14 items of seasonal produce, along with a newsletter that shares healthy recipes and nutritional information. A “half share” box is also available for $14, as well as a fruit only box. People who subscribe to the boxes can pick them up on the weekend at any of six locations in the Oakland area. In addition, those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants and Children Program (WIC) can use their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to purchase a Beet Box.1 To sign up and/or find out more about the Beet Box, visit http://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/order-a-beet-box/.

[i] "Phat Beets Produce | Food Justice." Phat Beets Produce. Web. <http://www.phatbeetsproduce.org/>.

[ii] Tian, Ye. "Phat Beets Produce Launches the Beet Box CSA Program." Oakland North. 29 Dec. 2010. Web.

New Grocery Store Set to Open in West Oakland

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:22:00 -0600

On October 25, the CEO of People’s Grocery, Brahm Ahmadi, announced plans to construct a grocery store, People’s Community Market, in West Oakland by the end of 2013. People’s Community Market will be one of two full service grocery stores in the area, the other being Mandela Foods Cooperative.

With the presence of a grocery store, more currency will be kept in the area, in addition to the creation of local jobs. Research has shown the pressing need for the addition of local food sources, as there is a yearly expenditure of about $40 million by West Oakland residents spending money for food in other cities and areas of Oakland^{^[1]}. Furthermore, West Oakland’s current status as a food desert has compromised local health, as 48% of residents are considered to be obese or overweight^{^[2]}.

People’s Community Market, is planned to be considerably smaller than most standard grocery stores, and will offer fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, as well as some prepared foods at an affordable price. Furthermore, following the belief that West Oakland also lacks adequate community space, the market will have a sit down cafe area, host health education programs, as well as serve as a space for social activities.

Ahmadi says he founded People’s Grocery with the intention of it being a grocery store but was unsuccessful to complete such plans due to a lack of funding. Fortunately, recent contributions have helped make the People’s Community Market a reality. Two-thirds of the budget is coming from California FreshWorks Fund, while the remaining third is set to be sourced from community investment. Shares are being offered at a $1000 minimum and are available exclusively to California residents.

People’s Grocery currently provides access to healthy, affordable food through a mobile truck, community supported agriculture (CSA) boxes, and an urban farm.

^{^[1]}Schwartz, Ariel. “Building a Grocery Store in a Food Desert.” http://www.fastcoexist.com/mba/1680820/building-a-grocery-store-in-a-food-desert-with-funding-from-the-community#1

^{^[2]}DeFreitas, Susan. “West Oakland’s Own Community-Owned Grocery Store.” http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/11/west-oaklands-own-community-owned-grocery-store/

New Food Atlas Will Be Available Soon

Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:27:00 -0600

A new type of atlas, titled Food: An Atlas, is currently being assembled. Darin Jensen, a UC Berkeley geography lecturer and board member of City Slicker Farms, proposed the idea of a food atlas. In June, he sent out a call for food-related maps to various university cartography labs, as well as food policy networks and professionals. Of the ninety submissions he received, approximately seventy will be included in the atlas. Jensen describes the atlas as “a project of guerilla cartography and publishing,” referring to the one hundred volunteers from across the globe who are working on the atlas, including cartographers, researchers, editors, designers, artists, and professors.[i]

The finished atlas will provide a visual representation of food in a variety of contexts. The maps will be organized in various chapters focusing on food production, food distribution, food security and cuisine. There will also be a chapter of conceptual maps, as well as a kids’ chapter, developed by the UK’s Geography Collective.[ii]

While many of the maps are of a national or international scale, several of the maps are local to the Bay Area. There is a map of taco truck locations in East Oakland, as well as one that provides a “snapshot of urban agriculture projects in San Francisco.”[iii] Other map topics include: global cropland distribution, community supported fisheries in Massachusetts, the rise of food banks in the UK, the redistribution of food surpluses in Italy, and the locations of U.S. farmers markets that accept food stamps.2

The collection of diverse maps will serve as a tool to better understand current food systems. The creators of the project explain, “By exploring and mapping the world of food we are able to gain a better understanding of the role food plays in our lives and our communities.”2

The creative food atlas is expected to be published November 15^th and available for purchase in early December. The project collaborators organized a Kickstarter campaign to raise the $20,000 needed to publish the first 1,000 copies of the book. The campaign lasted from October 2^nd to the 23^rd, and in the end, $29,569 was donated.[iv] The extra money raised will go towards printing more copies of the atlas. It is estimated that the price of each atlas will be about $25 and the proceeds from all sales will be donated to a “food-related organization that is working for food justice.”2

[i] Twilley, Nicola. “The Beershed of America and Other Fascinating Food Visualizations.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic, 17 Oct. 2012. Web.

[ii] “Food: An Atlas.” Kickstarter. Darin Jensen, Molly Roy, Guerrilla Cartographers, 23 Oct. 2012. Web. <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1276177353/food-an-atlas-0>.

[iii] Roth, Anna. “Food: An Atlas: Project Visualizes the Geography of Sustenance.” SF Weekly. 17 Oct. 2012. Web.

[iv] Handler, Mitchell. “UC Berkeley Lecturer Maps Food Production, Distribution.” The Daily Californian. 25 Oct. 2012. Web.

The Hidden Risks of Energy Drinks

Sat, 03 Nov 2012 14:44:00 -0500

The mother of Anais Fournier, 14, who died due to caffeine toxicity after consuming Monster energy drinks is filing a lawsuit against the company. Representing the mother, the lawyer suggested that energy drinks need to be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and should not be sold to minors. The teenager suffered a cardiac arrhythmia last December after drinking two 24oz Monster energy drinks within a 24-hour period.

The mother sued Monster Corporation in the Superior Court of California of Riverside County, alleging strict product liability, failure to warn and negligence in the design, sale and manufacturing of the product, in addition to other claims. According to the law firm, the two drinks combined that Fournier drank are believed to have contained approximately 480mg of caffeine, which is equivalent to 14 cans of 12oz Coca-Cola.

While the FDA requires the soft drinks to contain no more than 71.5mg per 12oz can, energy drink caffeine content is unregulated due to its status as a dietary supplement rather than a food. The suit also discovered that, according to the FDA's Center for Food Safety Adverse Event Reporting System, there have been six deaths and fifteen hospitalizations associated with the use of Monster energy drinks since 2009.

This issue can greatly impact the Oakland community, especially the teenagers and college students, who contribute to the consumption of energy drinks. More and more teenagers and young adults rely on energy drinks to last them through long nights of projects and test preparations, without understanding the danger of the high amount of caffeine contained in the energy drinks.

Studies Show Urban Agriculture Grows More Than Good Food

Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:21:00 -0500

It is not too surprising once you give it some thought; communities invested in urban agriculture are stronger for the process. Urban agriculture allows community members to work, learn, and grow with each other. By establishing a sense of ownership over a shared physical space, those involved develop ties not only to each other but also grounded in the land and the products of that land. The literal fruits of their labor also can contribute to pride in health and sovereignty.

While these ideas follow from a little common sense, the organization PolicyLink can corroborate these statements. They recently published a report and action plan confirming what we know must be true titled, “Growing Urban Agriculture: Equitable Strategies and Policies for Improving Access to Healthy Food and Revitalizing Communities.” (The full report is available here.) The manual stays in step with their mission that they are “Guided by the belief that those closest to the nation’s challenges are central to finding solutions, [relying] on the wisdom, voice, and experience of local residents and organizations.”

With increasing support for urban agriculture in Oakland, perhaps reports like this one by PolicyLink can bolster the suggestions already made by our council and certainly in cities without food policy councils, this report could be an intrinsic tool.

The New National Food Policy Scorecard

Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:21:00 -0500

This year’s Food Day, which took place on October 24^th, was a huge success. Important achievements were the establishment of a comprehensive food procurement policy in Los Angeles and the addition of salad bars to six different schools in Boston.[i] One of the main highlights from the day was the release of a new National Food Policy Scorecard that scores lawmakers on a variety of food issues, including food safety, hunger, farm subsidies, farm workers’ rights, food stamps, and humane animal treatment.[ii]

Food Policy Action, a newly formed nonprofit comprised of leaders from both the food industry and environmental advocacy groups, developed the scorecard to “elevate food issues in Congress and provide an easily understood system for the public to compare lawmakers on those issues.”[iii, iv] The coalition analyzed how various lawmakers voted on thirty-two different pieces of legislation from the last two years and points were awarded to those who voted in accordance with the views of Food Policy Action, which include limiting federal subsidies to large commercial farms and improving food safety.[v]

The results of the new scorecard consisted of an average score of 58% for Senate members and 57% for House members. All fifty politicians with perfect scores were Democrats, including California Senator Barbara Boxer. Those with the twenty lowest scores were Republicans. However, there were some exceptions in which Republicans scored higher than Democrats.[vi] Scott Faber, Environmental Working Group’s Vice President for Government Affairs, stated that these results “suggest that food policy is a less partisan issue than some of the other issues facing Congress.”[vii]

Regardless of political party affiliation, lawmakers will be held more accountable for their votes on food policy issues. Food Policy Action board member Navina Khanna explains, “Voting with our forks isn’t an option for most people. It’s time to hold our legislators accountable for creating and enforcing policies that make a food system healthier for people and the planet. The scorecard allows us to do that.”6 To learn more about Food Policy Action and see how various politicians voted, visit http://www.foodpolicyaction.org/.

[i] Smelkova, Lilia. "Food Day 2012 Was a Great Success." Food Day. 26 Oct. 2012. Web. <http://www.foodday.org/food_day_2012_was_a_great_success_thank_you>.

[ii] Lochhead, Carolyn. "Lawmakers' Food, Farming Votes Tracked." SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle, 24 Oct. 2012. Web.

[iii]Daniels, Lauren. "The Food Policy Report Card Was Released. Here's How North Texas Congress Scored." Dallas Observer. 24 Oct. 2012. Web.

[iv] Nixon, Ron. "Lawmakers Rated on Food and Farm Policy Votes." Politics. The New York Times, 24 Oct. 2012.

[v] Magner, Mike. "Food-Policy Votes Placed in the Spotlight." National Journal. 24 Oct. 2012. Web.

[vi] Gillespie, Carla. "Food Policy Scorecard Shows Consumers Where Lawmakers Stand." Food Poisoning Bulletin Food Safety News. 25 Oct. 2012. Web.

[vii] Satran, Joe. "National Food Policy Scorecard Ranks Senators', Representatives' Votes On Comestibles." The Huffington Post. 24 Oct. 2012. Web.

A Healthier Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 17:26:00 -0500

Lately public attention has been drawn to the future 2012 Farm Bill and its impact on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). There is great concern that the SNAP program will suffer large cuts in funding. While it is vital that the SNAP program receives adequate funding, it is also important to draw our attention to how tax dollars for this program can be put to better use, particularly in regards to the promotion of healthy eating.

Approximately 46.4 million Americans benefit from the SNAP program and use Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to purchase their food.[i] With the exception of cigarettes and alcohol, SNAP benefits can be used to purchase all types of foods, including fast food. Here in Oakland, various fast food restaurants, such as Pizza Hut, Dorsey’s Locker, and Church’s Chicken, accept EBT cards.[ii] The SNAP program does not restrict unhealthy food, and many are arguing that such purchases are contributing to high obesity rates.

Health advocates argue for stricter regulations on SNAP purchases as a way to encourage healthy diets and reduce future health care costs. Those opposed to the idea include restaurants that profit from EBT purchases and advocates for the poor, who argue that such restrictions would further stigmatize people enrolled in SNAP.

This is not the first time this issue has been debated. In the past, lawmakers in several stateshave failed in passing bills to prohibit soda, chips and candy purchases with SNAP benefits.[iii] Although these past proposals have been rejected, food assistance programs that encourage healthy eating do exist. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) allows only healthy food purchases, encouraging the consumption of whole grains and foods with little added sugar.[iv]

Modifications to the SNAP program that restrict unhealthy food purchases at fast food restaurants, as well as grocery stores, could potentially decrease future obesity related healthcare costs, which already cost the country around $147 billion annually.[v] Money can be more effectively used in funding a SNAP program that emphasizes healthy choices, something that should be considered when revising the Farm Bill.

[i] Weiner, Dan. "Food Stamps Buying Billions in Soda." Yale Daily News. 2 Oct. 2012. Web.

[ii] Holland, Michael. "The Food Stamp Cash-in: East Bay Businesses Capitalize on EBT." Oakland Tribune. 13 Aug. 2012. Web.

[iii] Eng, Monica. "Politicians, Health Advocates Seek Transparency, Restrictions in Food Stamp Program." Chicago Tribune. 20 June 2012. Web.

[iv] "Nutrition Program Facts." United States Department of Agriculture. Aug. 2011. Web. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/WIC-Fact-Sheet.pdf>.

[v] Hicks, Nolan. "Getting More Nutrition from Food Stamps Is No Easy Recipe." San Antonio Express News. 21 Oct. 2012. Web.

Measure J Aims to Improve the Oakland Unified School District Food System

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 15:12:00 -0500

This election day Oakland voters will see Measure J on their ballot. Measure J, a product of the Oakland Unified School District, aims to improve the overall state of schools within the district. In particular, the measure addresses the district’s current food system.

If passed, Measure J would enable the Oakland Unified School District to issue around $475 million in bonds to improve school facilities.[i] Plans include the construction of kitchens, as only 25 schools in the district have facilities adequate to cook meals. As a result, sites that do not prepare their own meals turn to processed and frozen foods to provide to students. This has caused concern for many, because roughly 70 percent of students in the Oakland Unified School District are eligible for free or reduced-rate meals, and their health is directly impacted by the foods which the schools provide to them.[ii]

Measure J also incorporates support for the Facilities Master Plan, which was approved in May of this year. The Facilities Master Plan allocates funds towards constructing a central kitchen in West Oakland at the Marcus Foster Education Complex. This kitchen would serve as a central production site for the OUSD, which would then distribute meals throughout the school district. Beyond infrastructure to improve food production and distribution, the measure would also allocate funds to make seismic retrofits and the removal of lead-based paints.

Oakland Schools will not be the only ones benefitting from Measure J. There are plans underway to use 1.5 acres at the Complex to create a farm and garden space. Other community-based suggestions include $14 million for 14 community kitchens which are intended for use as school cooking sites as well as for classes for educational and vocational services.[iii]

Measure J requires a 55% approval rate to pass and then the Oakland Unified School District would have the power to decide how the funds are ultimately distributed. If it does pass, the district has released estimates that homeowners could expect to pay a maximum of $60 per $100,000 of their homes’ value.[iv]

[i] “Measure J, bonds for school facilities: How much would it add to tax bills?”. Oakland North. http://oaklandnorth.net/2012/10/18/measure-j-bonds-for-school-facilities-how-much-would-it-add-to-tax-bills/

[ii] “Oakland Measure J to Upgrade Schools”. SF Gate. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-Measure-J-to-upgrade-school-kitchens-3941438.php

[iii] "SD Facilities Master Plan." OUSD. http://ousdmasterplan.mkthinkstrategy.info/

[iv] “Measure J, bonds for school facilities: How much would it add to tax bills?”. Oakland North. http://oaklandnorth.net/2012/10/18/measure-j-bonds-for-school-facilities-how-much-would-it-add-to-tax-bills/

Stanford Food Summit 3: October 24th, 2012

Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:48:00 -0500

This Wednesday October 24 from 7 – 9pm, Stanford will be hosting its third Food Summit, with a focus on the Farm Bill. The evening will start with a presentation by John Robbins, author of Diet for a New America and Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World, followed by an enticing debate entitled “Farm Bill or Food Bill?” featuring OFPC’s own Kari Hamerschlag, as well as Buzz Thompson, professor of law at Stanford, Jon Scholl, president of American Farmland Trust, and Michele Simon, president of Eat Drink Politics. It promises to be an interesting evening. To register for free, visit http://foodsummit.stanford.edu/.

Farm Bill Impact on Local Farmers Markets

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:10:00 -0500

The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, or the Farm Bill, provides subsidies and insurance for farmers as well as grants for renewable and efficient energy systems on the farms. The act also funds the Food Stamp Program, which a large population of the Oakland population is currently using. In total, over 45 million Americans are on food stamps.

As the food stamp programs make up about 80 percent of the bill’s expense in both the House and Senate versions, the Republicans are determined to cut down the funding for these programs. The Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan proposed a budget cut of $11 billion in food stamp expenses.

“The conservation expenditures and especially the food stamps are definitely on the Republican hit-list,” said Mack Shelley, university professor of political science and statistics at Iowa State. “The Democrats, particularly on food stamps, want to continue to maintain and maybe even increase support for those parts of the bill.”

After months of debate, the bill stalled in Congress, primarily because Democrats and Republicans did not want a noisy fight over the food stamp program this close to the November elections. Even though the farm bill was expired on September 30^th, the president has signed a continuing resolution to continue funding the food stamp program until March 27^th.

If a newer version of the farm bill that consists significantly less funding for the food stamp programs passes, the farmers markets in Old Oakland, Grand Lake, Temescal and Jack London Square, which all provide a food stamp service that generates as much as $1,500 to $1,600-a-week in revenue, will also be greatly affected. The cut would reduce the food assistance for all the food stamp recipients, which would then drive the demand down for more healthy but expensive organic goods sold at the farmers markets.

Food Day: October 24th 2012

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:51:00 -0500

The month of October shines a spotlight on a few important food movements. This past Tuesday was World Food Day, a day that draws attention to the issues of hunger, malnutrition, and poverty. World Food Day occurs every year on October 16^th, honoring the day the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was founded in 1945.[i] The FAO serves as a neutral forum where nations come together to discuss measures to achieve food security. The FAO collects and analyzes data that aids development and advises countries on agricultural policies and strategies to overcome hunger. [ii]

This year the theme of World Food Day, “Agricultural Cooperatives: Key to Feeding the World,” highlighted the importance of agricultural cooperatives in enabling small farmers to increase their food production, creating jobs, reducing poverty, and improving global food security.1 Conferences, workshops, and events were organized across the globe on Tuesday to raise awareness of food production issues and the role agricultural cooperatives can play in alleviating these problems.

World Food Day has been observed every year since 1981, but more recently, a nationwide Food Day was created. Next Wednesday, October 24^th, is Food Day, “a celebration and movement toward more healthy, affordable, and sustainable food.”[iii] The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest created Food Day last year to raise public awareness about the food movement in hopes of ultimately improving our nation’s food policies. The inaugural Food Day was successful, with over 2,300 events organized across the country.3 This year, the Food Day celebration is expected to grow in size, as thousands of Americans will attend events on October 24^th, as well as the days before and after. To get involved in the Food Day movement and find an event near you, check out http://www.foodday.org/all_events.

[i] "About Us - World Food Day." World Food Day. Web. <http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/about_us>.

[ii] "About FAO." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 3 Sept. 2012. Web.

[iii] "About Food Day." Food Day. Web. <http://www.foodday.org/about>.

October Events

Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:19:00 -0500

Rethinking School Lunch

October 14, 1:00-2:30 pm

Cost: Free

Location: Oliveto Café and Restaurant, 5655 College Ave, Oakland, CA

Jennifer LeBarre and Jody London of OUSD, Zenobia Barlow of the Center for Ecoliteracy, and Ruth Woodruff of Oakland School Food Alliance will be speaking about

school lunches and holding discussions about eating, cooking, and food politics. Learn about Measure J, which will help fund school kitchen renovation and an urban farm that would make fresh produce available to Oakland schools. This measure will be on the ballot this November, so make sure to vote!

Legal Eats Workshop

Saturday, October 20, from 11am to 2pm, at Youth UpRising (8711 MacArthur Blvd., Oakland, CA 94605).

Sponsored by the Sustainable Economies Law Center, the East Bay Community Law Center, and Youth UpRising, this free workshop will empower you to navigate the laws around starting and maintaining a community-based food business.

Attorneys and law students will give short presentations on nearly 20 legal issues, ranging from employment law to getting a food truck registered. We’ll also help you connect with organizations in the Bay Area, who can provide you with resources and information on:

financing,

cooperative/commercial kitchen space,

incubation support for new food projects, and

health and safety regulations.

Weight of the Nation Screening

The Alameda County Public Health Department is co-sponsoring a screening of the Weight of the Nation Screening, an HBO documentary film series on the obesity epidemic.

Thursday, October 25th 2012, 8:30AM-11:30AM at the Kaiser Auditorium, 300 Lakeside Ave, Oakland.

Cost: Free

Edible Education 103: Telling Stories About Food & Agriculture

Classes from now until December 4, 6:15-7:45 pm

Cost: Free

Location: Wheeler Auditorium, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA

World-renowned journalist and food activist Michael Pollan teaches a course at UC Berkeley. Consisting of lectures by a variety of guest lecturers, the class revolves around the huge issue of how to make our food system healthier, more environmentally friendly and sustainable, and more equitable. 300 non-Berkeley students may attend each week. I took this class last year and trust me, it’s not one to miss!

Schedule of classes:

- October 16 - The Politics & Economics of Meat - Mike Callicrate & Bob Martin

- October 23 - Food Marketing & Childhood Obesity - Professor Kelly Brownell

- October 30 - Farming as Dance: The Choreography of Polyculture - Joel Salatin

- November 6 - On Cooking - Chefs Jerome Waag, Charlie Hallowell, & Samin Nosrat with Harold McGee

- November 13 - Michael Pollan

- November 20 - Food, Race, & Labor - Nikki Henderson

- November 27 - Edible Education - Alice Waters

- December 4 - The Green Revolution - Raj Patel

Community Discussion on Gardens

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:17:00 -0500

Phat Beets Produce, serving the North Oakland community, will be hosting community workshops (and is accepting applications for more) for their Food ‘N’ Justice series at the North Oakland Farmer’s Market from 11 to 1. The first, titled “Community Gardens, Food Justice, and Gentrification,” will address “what/who gets policed, how we can liberate land, re-appropriate public spaces, challenge privatization and think about gentrification.”

Prop 37: The Consumers Right

Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:01:00 -0500

Genetically modified foods have been around for over a decade now, and those who have bought bioengineered foods may not have been aware of their alterations. If Proposition 37 is passed, genetically modified foods will need to be explicitly distinguished with a label that tells buyers of their bioengineering. The function of these labels fits into a broader belief that consumers have the right to know exactly of what their food is made.

Nutrition facts, ingredients used, and serving sizes are all made transparent to grocery shoppers—so why should genetic modification be the exception?

Some argue that labels will leave shoppers with the impression that there are adverse effects to consuming genetically altered foods. What if shoppers confuse a neutral label for a health warning? This may, in effect, raise a stigma against bioengineered foods, when in fact there is no scientific evidence of modified foods’ adverse health effects, aside from the occasional difference in taste and food allergy (which already requires labeling today).

Others simply find it impractical for grocers to bear the responsibility of properly labeling thousands of products in their stores. One overlooked mislabel might make owners the target of million-dollar lawsuits, a cost too high for many grocers to absorb.

Those in support of the proposition, on the other hand, say it all boils down to shoppers’ control over what they put into their bodies. Proposition 37 is, at its core, fighting for every consumer’s right to know exactly what they eats. It is a proposition in favor of educating the public of its choices.

The statement just made is worthy of both emphasis and clarification—Proposition 37 is in favor of consumer choice, and nothing more. Its goal is not to promote organic or natural food; its purpose is not to label genetically modified food as unfit for consumption. The mission of Proposition 37 is simply to make transparent the processes that farmers use to make foods—a process that every person doesn’t, yet should, fully know.

Today, even the healthiest of foods aren’t exempt from nutrition fact regulations. Following this logic, bioengineered foods that aren’t harmful shouldn’t be exempt from proper labeling either.

Educating consumers about their food choices takes priority over the costs and minor inefficiencies that labeling may bring. The possible passing of Proposition 37 will carry with it supporters and resistors, as all changes do. But once the change is made, we may find it hard to imagine why anyone would want information about their food tucked away from the grocer’s shelf and at the back of the consumer’s mind. Information transparency is a right and we demand it.

Soda Debate Does Not Fizzle

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:12:00 -0500

This soda aisle advertises “We accept EBT cards.” People enrolled in SNAP use Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to purchase their food.

In the wake of New York City’s soda size ban, national attention has been drawn to the non-nutritional beverage. The soda debate continues to spread, with the latest question being whether the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should restrict soda purchases. The SNAP program is a federal aid program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture that provides eligible low-income families with financial assistance to purchase food.[i]

SNAP benefits can’t be used to buy alcohol or cigarettes, yet there are no restrictions on soda, candy and other junk foods. A recent study conducted by Yale researchers estimates that “Two billion dollars of food stamps are spent every year on sugary drinks that provide no nutritional content and contribute to obesity.”[ii] Clearly a large sum of SNAP money is spent on sugar-sweetened beverages, but whether or not the government should implement stricter policies to regulate unhealthy SNAP purchases remains heavily debated.

Public health officials advocate for an upstream approach to health, stressing that the prohibition of SNAP soda purchases would minimize obesity rates. Michele Simon, a public health lawyer and president of the consulting group Eat Drink Politics, argues, “The federal government should not be fueling America's epidemic of diet-related chronic disease with taxpayer money.” [iii] Those against regulating purchases include the soda industry and advocates for the poor, who point out that such restrictions strengthen the stigma against low-income families enrolled in SNAP.

Some who oppose the regulations advocate for alternative solutions. Edward Cooney, Executive Director of the Congressional Hunger Center, believes prohibition is the wrong approach and instead supports subsidizing the purchase of fruits and vegetables for families using SNAP.2 Although a perfect solution may not exist, this is an important issue that deserves public attention. Approximately 46.4 million Americans benefit from the SNAP program.2 With such a large proportion of the United States population relying on these benefits to purchase food, the government should utilize SNAP not solely as a means to bring food to people’s tables, but also as a way to promote healthy food choices. After all, the SNAP slogan reads “SNAP: PuttingHealthy Food Within Reach.” [iv]

[i] "SNAP/Food Stamps." Food Research & Action Center. Web.

[ii] Weiner, Dan. "Food Stamps Buying Billions in Soda." Yale Daily News. 2 Oct. 2012. Web.

[iii] Baertlein, Lisa. "Food Stamps For Soda? New Report Stokes Debate Over U.S. Food Stamp Program." The Huffington Post, 12 June 2012. Web.

[iv] "FNS Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)." United States Department of Agriculture. 16 Feb. 2012. Web.

A Big Win for Bloomberg

Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:13:00 -0500

It’s official. New Yorkers will no longer have the freedom to purchase soda larger than 16 ounces in restaurants, movie theaters, and sports arenas. On September 13^th, New York City’s Board of Health voted to approve the soda size limitation, 8 to 0, with one abstention.[i] The approval is a success for the New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who first proposed the soda measure last June. Bloomberg hopes the large soda restrictions will decrease the prevalence of obesity and encourage people to pay attention to portion sizes and choose healthier options.

The ban on large sugary drinks will go into effect in March 2013. Soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages over 16 ounces will be banned in all establishments regulated and inspected by the Department of Health. Grocery stores and convenience stores, including 7-Eleven, will be exempt. Establishments that violate the ban will be fined $200.[ii]

The ban appears to have loopholes, so why are people so upset? Some opponents accuse Bloomberg of running a “Nanny State,” while others argue that the measure hurts small businesses, which will be unable to compete with neighboring convenience stores. The American Beverage Association launched a campaign to fight back against the proposal and teamed up with minority communities who will be disproportionately affected by the policy.[iii] Some soda consumers will evade the ban by buying multiple sodas, yet many low-income families can’t afford to do so.

Bloomberg has a history of implementing controversial public health measures in New York City. In 2002, he banned public smoking in bars and restaurants. In 2005, he prohibited restaurants and food vendors from using trans fat. As of 2008, New York food service providers are required to post calorie counts on menus.[iv]

The approval of Bloomberg’s most recent proposal is an important victory, especially after he failed to pass a soda tax back in 2010.4 Shortly after the Board of Health voted, Bloomberg commented, “This is the single biggest step any city, I think, has ever taken to curb obesity. It’s certainly not the last step that lots of cities are going to take, and we believe that it will help save lives.”1 The approved ban has no precedent, but other cities will likely follow suit. Here in the Bay Area, the city of Richmond is already working to enact a soda tax. Bloomberg may be criticized for the controversial measures he champions, but his dedication to public health is something to be admired and embraced by other city officials.

[i] Grynbaum, Michael M. "Health Panel Approves Restriction on Sale of Large Sugary Drinks." The New York Times. 14 Sept. 2012. Web.

[ii] Park, Alice. "Goodbye, Big Soda: New York Becomes First City to Ban Large-Sized Soft Drinks.” Time Healthland. 13 Sept. 2012. Web.

[iii] Grynbaum, Michael. "Soda Makers Begin Their Push Against New York Ban." The New York Times. 1 July 2012: 1. Print.

[iv] Park, Alice. "The New York City Soda Ban, and a Brief History of Bloomberg’s Nudges." Time Healthland. 31 May 2012. Web.

A penny an ounce. No more. No less

Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:32:00 -0500

The awareness movement that first incubated in New York City to exploit the health dangers of soda has made its way here to the San Francisco East Bay. What began as a restriction on the maximum volume per container of soda that an individual could purchase is now under vote in Richmond City to become an official business tax. Consumers of any type of soda will be taxed one cent per ounce – a seemingly harmless increase to the average citizen. This act not only foster a consciousness for how much sugary soda an individual drinks as New York prompted, but it also places a monetary repercussion for the poor health choice.

Most middle class consumers are not likely to be heavily affected by the tax; they can afford to let a few cents go unnoticed. Lower income families, however, are more susceptible to being ushered towards cheaper alternatives by this government intervention. The psychology is that those families who will think twice about spending the extra twelve cents on Coke will begin to favor saving the money and sticking to something else, such as water – an undeniably healthier and cheaper option.

The amount to be taxed is reasonable and does not aim to put soda companies out of business or to restrict consumers’ rights to their own bodies.¹The measure for promoting a healthier choice of beverage transcends an increase in tax. This tax is an effort by our government to promote the health of the citizens that live in this country. Richmond city is building upon New York City’s momentum, proving that our government is making a viable effort to look out for us as best as possible. Those who dismiss the extra few cents should not have a problem with the tax, while those recognize the significance will hopefully accept the message being expressed: soda is nothing but unhealthy.

Richmond City Councilman Jeff Ritterman, who proposed the new tax, believes that “a tax on soda is exactly the kind of policy local governments should be considering as a way to break new ground in formulating public health policies and programs.”¹ Just as tobacco has proven to be detrimental to the health of those smoking it and to those in close vicinity, soda faces a similar label as obesity in the nation continues on a steady incline. The tax will take upon a double function as it promotes public health while also gearing the funds towards programs such as childhood obesity programs, school-based vegetable and fruit gardens, and improved athletic fields and facilities.

1. Richmond measure would tax sugary sodas, San Francisco Chronicle, August 16, 2012.