Here's a summary of the most recent UC Davis report on the drought.
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10978
Many of the numbers are small percentages, but if one looks through them the impact of many individuals, workers and farmers, could be heartbreaking.
I'm curious about the fact that prices for grapes, nuts and dairy won't be much impacted. It will be interesting to see if they rise anyway, with the drought as an excuse.
Most shocking - California has not statewide plan for groundwater management. Who has been snoozing? cowardly about addressing this?
Showing posts with label California food system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California food system. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Monday, March 31, 2014
Chavez on my mind, part II
Happy Cesar Chavez Day!
I have felt for some time that an opportunity exists for agriculture, agri-business and those of us on the left to work together, make common cause, and make new friends: immigration reform.
In an article Saturday the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/california-farmers-short-of-labor-and-patience.html?_r=1
explored the impact of lack of such reforms on agriculture in California, with the number of workers declining, and the stable immigrant work force aging out of heavy labor in the fields - workers are just a decade behind the aging farmer population, pushing 50 while the farmers approach medicare age.
One of the happy upshots of this situation is that growers and agricultural advocacy and lobbying groups are getting fed up with the Republican impasse in Congress. Generations of loyalty to the right on the part of Central Valley growers is being challenged by the aggregate behavior of Republicans. There are, of course, exceptions - the Times article notes Congress members Valadao and Denham. But the GOP could lose a key faction of supporters it it doesn't start moving on some sort of immigration reform.
Between the drought and the immigration impasse these are tough times for agriculture in California. Beyond the present stresses, I wonder about the long term impact on our wallets, our environment and our civic life.
I have felt for some time that an opportunity exists for agriculture, agri-business and those of us on the left to work together, make common cause, and make new friends: immigration reform.
In an article Saturday the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/california-farmers-short-of-labor-and-patience.html?_r=1
explored the impact of lack of such reforms on agriculture in California, with the number of workers declining, and the stable immigrant work force aging out of heavy labor in the fields - workers are just a decade behind the aging farmer population, pushing 50 while the farmers approach medicare age.
One of the happy upshots of this situation is that growers and agricultural advocacy and lobbying groups are getting fed up with the Republican impasse in Congress. Generations of loyalty to the right on the part of Central Valley growers is being challenged by the aggregate behavior of Republicans. There are, of course, exceptions - the Times article notes Congress members Valadao and Denham. But the GOP could lose a key faction of supporters it it doesn't start moving on some sort of immigration reform.
Between the drought and the immigration impasse these are tough times for agriculture in California. Beyond the present stresses, I wonder about the long term impact on our wallets, our environment and our civic life.
Friday, June 1, 2012
the California perspective
Excellent Forum show on the Farm Bill today.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206010900
This would be a great introduction for those who are just getting tuned in to the issues - but even food system groupies like me learned something. The whole idea that the battles around how government funds are invested in agriculture are regional more than partisan really needs to be driven home. Michael Dimmock's almost cheerleading for California agriculture also helps people see just how complex the issues are.
The anti-Monsanto hyperbole from the one caller was unfortunate. They are bad enough - no need to exaggerate, but there is a need to be specific.
The other disappointment I had was that no one picked up on the question, for which the host primed the pump, of who is doing and funding the lobbying.
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201206010900
This would be a great introduction for those who are just getting tuned in to the issues - but even food system groupies like me learned something. The whole idea that the battles around how government funds are invested in agriculture are regional more than partisan really needs to be driven home. Michael Dimmock's almost cheerleading for California agriculture also helps people see just how complex the issues are.
The anti-Monsanto hyperbole from the one caller was unfortunate. They are bad enough - no need to exaggerate, but there is a need to be specific.
The other disappointment I had was that no one picked up on the question, for which the host primed the pump, of who is doing and funding the lobbying.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
another podcast
I'm listening right now to a relatively new (this spring) podcast, "The Queens of Green".
Deborah Koons Garcia and Temra Costa interview leaders of change in food, farming and related issue arenas.
Sometimes they interview one another, as in the one I'm listening to now, where Temra talks about her book "Farmer Jane" - about how her undergraduate studies in international agriculture and women's studies came together.
Women (30 are included in the book) are leaders in the sustainable food movement, they say - not just as concerned mothers, but as farmers, chefs, and so on. Temra excerpts her book, and both hosts manage to get in personal details and opinions ranging over a variety of related topics.
The interests reflected in the weekly 26 minute interviews are both regional (north and central Califorinia - it helps to know where the intersection of Ashby and San Pablo is) and global.
Here's their web site: http://www.thequeensofgreen.com/
You can also download the podcasts through Itunes.
Deborah Koons Garcia and Temra Costa interview leaders of change in food, farming and related issue arenas.
Sometimes they interview one another, as in the one I'm listening to now, where Temra talks about her book "Farmer Jane" - about how her undergraduate studies in international agriculture and women's studies came together.
Women (30 are included in the book) are leaders in the sustainable food movement, they say - not just as concerned mothers, but as farmers, chefs, and so on. Temra excerpts her book, and both hosts manage to get in personal details and opinions ranging over a variety of related topics.
The interests reflected in the weekly 26 minute interviews are both regional (north and central Califorinia - it helps to know where the intersection of Ashby and San Pablo is) and global.
Here's their web site: http://www.thequeensofgreen.com/
You can also download the podcasts through Itunes.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
More press and more confusion
seems to be the result of the groundbreaking for the White House vegetable garden.
The article in today's NY Times seems to be a typical mishmash and rehash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/business/22food.html
Besides, aren't you tired of Alice Waters? or of Whole Foods being held up as a paragon of a reformed food system?
This shorter piece by Mark Bittman makes more sense
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I love the quote from Marion Nestle:
"Organic junk food is still junk food."
It's right up there with a note I made from a recent Pollan interview in Mother Jones:
"If you are willing to make it yourself, have all you want." He was referring specifically to french fries, but think about all the other things it might apply to. If it involves lots of work - and lots of fat - this maxim will save you.
The current Mother Jones issue, by the way has a provocative article, getting beneath the consumer hype of "organic". "Organic and Local is so 2008."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/spoiled-organic-and-local-so-2008
Actually, the most interesting thing I have read lately is a book I finished studying just this week, written before 2008. I think it must have been the author's dissertation - it certainly was written in academese. But it raised all the issues about organic in California - how the movement started, where it went astray, what it is not addressing.
Julie Guthman, Agrarian Dreams: the Paradox of Organic Farming in California
University of California Press, 2004.
"Organic" as a certifiable label really is all about inputs, that is, it is a label geared to the consumer system - growers as consumers as well as shoppers. It does not address processes, nor does it address justice issues. (I think I'll save a little rant about farm workers - and how they are mostly neglected in all this - for Cesar Chavez day.)
What organic means is that farmers are using different inputs than non-organic/conventional growers. No more, no less. Well, except perhaps for European certification schemes.
The organic movement in California was not an attempt to recover a more wholesome agrarian tradition. Most agriculture in California has always been done on a large scale. The organic movement as it arose in the 60s and 70s came from urban idealists, back-to-the-land romanticism.
Conversion to organic in California has been driven by cost (some things are just relatively easy and maybe even cheaper to grow organically, like grapes and tomatoes) and by wholesalers as much as by a vision of sustainability or ecological agriculture.
And most of the organic food available in the supermarket is grown on a large scale. Small scale growers make it through a combination of restaurant contracts and direct marketing, with CSAs probably having the most positive impact on small-medium integrated farming with just labor practices.
The article in today's NY Times seems to be a typical mishmash and rehash.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/business/22food.html
Besides, aren't you tired of Alice Waters? or of Whole Foods being held up as a paragon of a reformed food system?
This shorter piece by Mark Bittman makes more sense
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/weekinreview/22bittman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
I love the quote from Marion Nestle:
"Organic junk food is still junk food."
It's right up there with a note I made from a recent Pollan interview in Mother Jones:
"If you are willing to make it yourself, have all you want." He was referring specifically to french fries, but think about all the other things it might apply to. If it involves lots of work - and lots of fat - this maxim will save you.
The current Mother Jones issue, by the way has a provocative article, getting beneath the consumer hype of "organic". "Organic and Local is so 2008."
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2009/02/spoiled-organic-and-local-so-2008
Actually, the most interesting thing I have read lately is a book I finished studying just this week, written before 2008. I think it must have been the author's dissertation - it certainly was written in academese. But it raised all the issues about organic in California - how the movement started, where it went astray, what it is not addressing.
Julie Guthman, Agrarian Dreams: the Paradox of Organic Farming in California
University of California Press, 2004.
"Organic" as a certifiable label really is all about inputs, that is, it is a label geared to the consumer system - growers as consumers as well as shoppers. It does not address processes, nor does it address justice issues. (I think I'll save a little rant about farm workers - and how they are mostly neglected in all this - for Cesar Chavez day.)
What organic means is that farmers are using different inputs than non-organic/conventional growers. No more, no less. Well, except perhaps for European certification schemes.
The organic movement in California was not an attempt to recover a more wholesome agrarian tradition. Most agriculture in California has always been done on a large scale. The organic movement as it arose in the 60s and 70s came from urban idealists, back-to-the-land romanticism.
Conversion to organic in California has been driven by cost (some things are just relatively easy and maybe even cheaper to grow organically, like grapes and tomatoes) and by wholesalers as much as by a vision of sustainability or ecological agriculture.
And most of the organic food available in the supermarket is grown on a large scale. Small scale growers make it through a combination of restaurant contracts and direct marketing, with CSAs probably having the most positive impact on small-medium integrated farming with just labor practices.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Genuine Change Requires Everybody
Yesterday I went to the Roots of Change program in San Francisco. This was one of a series being held around the state, and as there wasn't one here a number of us from Sonoma County drove into the City and then wrestled with the Friday afternoon traffic on the way home. Thank goodness it was not summer! Just a beautiful late winter day.
I thought from the preliminary notices, and from the use of the tool Attendr, that it was going to be a networking opportunity. No such luck. We got to network with the people at our table, and with those whose name tags we could read at the short break. Mostly it was a presentation on the Roots of Change project, Our Common Vision: A Bright Future for Healthy Communities, Farms, and Food in California.
The Roots of Change folks are looking for people for their stewardship council and leadership network. The work was begun by mostly rich, mostly male, all white folks from my part of the world, and it shows. They seem to want to make more room at the table, but I'm not sure they know how. Fortunately in the open question time (very awkward in a crowded room of more than 100 - for all the expertise in group work in the room the process really stunk) several people raised questions. What does it mean that white folks have developed the values list and now want others to buy in? There were claims that appreciative processes had been used - but it didn't seem like all the stakeholders in California's food system had been appreciated, just some.
Can Slow Food and People's Grocery really make common cause? In theory it looks like they could, but in practice there may be just too much of a cultural and economic gulf - and too much power and privilege among slow foodies which they are unwilling to question or give up.
Some of the same questions came up that were raised at last year's Sustainable Enterprise conference here. In particular, the conflict between those who are tinkering with the existing patterns of capitalism, and those who think we need some serious economic reform, if not a revolution, surfaced. I respect the will of RoC folks to, as one put it, connect social networks with financial networks - but if they don't both experience some serious change I think the project will be a flop.
If it's still all about shopping (oh no, not again) where's the transformative change?
Whatever happens, the RoC folk have lined up a number of foundations to help in their efforts, and they will be making grants, most likely in the areas of urban-rural partnerships; improving the skills and innovative efforts of workers and leaders; and strengthening community-based food systems. It may pay to be in touch with them.
What else did I learn?
A woman at our table is helping farm workers in the Watsonville area who have a vision of being more than farm workers, who have the vision to be farmers and entrepreneurs themselves.
http://www.albafarmers.org/Homepage.html
I picked up some information on the platform of the California Coalition for Food and Farming - what they would like to see in the 2007 Farm Bill, and how they are organizing Californians to support a national bill that will help us achieve our goals of security and sustainability here. I plan to stay in touch with this group. Nothing much will happen here without some enabling legislation at the national level. We provide about half of the nation's fresh vegetables, fruits and nuts, and more than half of the organic produce - but the majority of farm subsidies go to a few commodity crops grown on huge farms in middle America. (And it struck me as pitiful that this group has an annual budget of $40,000 - which the RoC folks could probably chip in and double if they were really interested in change. Change for change, anyone? We should have passed the hat right then and there. Instead the speaker was patronized for advocating her cause.)
Finally a scary prediction that I need to check out. Apparently the demand for ethanol is driving a policy that may encourage outsourcing it. That could have an incredible impact on the food security and food sovereignty of other nations. Imagine not using your land to grow food for your people because you are growing fodder for U.S. trucks and autos!
I thought from the preliminary notices, and from the use of the tool Attendr, that it was going to be a networking opportunity. No such luck. We got to network with the people at our table, and with those whose name tags we could read at the short break. Mostly it was a presentation on the Roots of Change project, Our Common Vision: A Bright Future for Healthy Communities, Farms, and Food in California.
The Roots of Change folks are looking for people for their stewardship council and leadership network. The work was begun by mostly rich, mostly male, all white folks from my part of the world, and it shows. They seem to want to make more room at the table, but I'm not sure they know how. Fortunately in the open question time (very awkward in a crowded room of more than 100 - for all the expertise in group work in the room the process really stunk) several people raised questions. What does it mean that white folks have developed the values list and now want others to buy in? There were claims that appreciative processes had been used - but it didn't seem like all the stakeholders in California's food system had been appreciated, just some.
Can Slow Food and People's Grocery really make common cause? In theory it looks like they could, but in practice there may be just too much of a cultural and economic gulf - and too much power and privilege among slow foodies which they are unwilling to question or give up.
Some of the same questions came up that were raised at last year's Sustainable Enterprise conference here. In particular, the conflict between those who are tinkering with the existing patterns of capitalism, and those who think we need some serious economic reform, if not a revolution, surfaced. I respect the will of RoC folks to, as one put it, connect social networks with financial networks - but if they don't both experience some serious change I think the project will be a flop.
If it's still all about shopping (oh no, not again) where's the transformative change?
Whatever happens, the RoC folk have lined up a number of foundations to help in their efforts, and they will be making grants, most likely in the areas of urban-rural partnerships; improving the skills and innovative efforts of workers and leaders; and strengthening community-based food systems. It may pay to be in touch with them.
What else did I learn?
A woman at our table is helping farm workers in the Watsonville area who have a vision of being more than farm workers, who have the vision to be farmers and entrepreneurs themselves.
http://www.albafarmers.org/Homepage.html
I picked up some information on the platform of the California Coalition for Food and Farming - what they would like to see in the 2007 Farm Bill, and how they are organizing Californians to support a national bill that will help us achieve our goals of security and sustainability here. I plan to stay in touch with this group. Nothing much will happen here without some enabling legislation at the national level. We provide about half of the nation's fresh vegetables, fruits and nuts, and more than half of the organic produce - but the majority of farm subsidies go to a few commodity crops grown on huge farms in middle America. (And it struck me as pitiful that this group has an annual budget of $40,000 - which the RoC folks could probably chip in and double if they were really interested in change. Change for change, anyone? We should have passed the hat right then and there. Instead the speaker was patronized for advocating her cause.)
Finally a scary prediction that I need to check out. Apparently the demand for ethanol is driving a policy that may encourage outsourcing it. That could have an incredible impact on the food security and food sovereignty of other nations. Imagine not using your land to grow food for your people because you are growing fodder for U.S. trucks and autos!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)