But what does the home mean for the 35% of U.S. households that participate in food gardening? In the New York Times Magazine today, Peggy Orenstein made a compelling argument that some of the zeal for the household scale farm comes from a group embracing the ideas of “femivorism.” Femivorism provides stay-at-home moms the opportunity to find autonomy and satisfying labor at home (in addition, of course, to the satisfaction of having a family). It is a way for families to come closer to sustainability while negotiating gender equity. Orenstein warns that even the wires of a chicken coop can be confining in the end but overall she seems impressed with the efforts of homemakers to completely challenge the idea of home. I too admire that radical rethinking and I think it offers a window of hope for Americans to save the meaning of home, the process of housing. But my skepticism always finds a reason to worry. While I think it is important work to reclaim our homes, our foods chains, and our families I am worried it represents a retreat from public life. As Orenstein notes, it is often the earnings of the husband, modest but critical, which makes possible this movement. But this is not always possible. Families with less money, single parents, renters, and other groups face a huge obstacle when it comes to home farming. I worry this obstacle will only continue to grow if we stand by and allow our public goods to be privatized, watching the death of our public safety net, the same net that was shakily born out of the Great Depression. We must not value the homemaker over the service worker. We must not forget that the need to fight for labor protections, a fair minimum wage, and other social services still exists. This steady informalization of the workforce is something UC Berkeley Professor Ananya Roy has termed the feminization of labor. It seems the house is now the respectable place for the feminist female to occupy herself, whereas the workforce is for less valued members of society. I certainly do not blame the various new food movements for these developments. I blame all of us. We must find an effective way to give everyone the opportunity not necessarily to own houses and create capital but to make a home in the fullest sense of the word while supporting a strong public sector.

“The new regulations, which go into effect in June, are much more specific. They say that animals must graze on pasture for the full length of the local grazing season. The season will be determined by local conditions and agriculture authorities, like organic certifiers or county conservation officials, not by the dairy alone. While the grazing season must last at least 120 days, in many areas it will be much longer. The rules also say that animals must get at least 30 percent of their food from pasture during the grazing season.”

All in all, it is a victory for organic. Large dairies will now have to do what small dairies were often already doing and consumers can have a bit more confidence in the organic label. But one thing left unmentioned by both the Times and Marion Nestle’s victorious entry for The Atlantic  is the role these local “agriculture authorities” will actually play. Of course the nature of these bodies will vary depending on location but just to offer an example of what agriculture authorities may entail and the incredible extent of poorly written legal documents, I would like to draw your attention to Ohio. The voters of Ohio recently approved a constitutional amendment creating the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. This board was presented as a humanely-minded regulatory body that would improve conditions for farm animals. And who wouldn’t vote for that, even if it is in the rather extreme form of a constitutional amendment? Fortunately, the more sinister details of the issue have begun to enter the public debate. To start, the body is not an elected one. It is comprised of the state department head of agriculture as well as ten individuals appointed by the governor meant to represent family farms (left undefined), consumers, veterinarians, and “someone who is knowledgeable about food safety.” These individuals are then given the authority to set the standards of care. The constitutional article tries to include details that would deflect criticism aimed at the reach of the Board with notes like, “The state department that regulates agriculture shall have the authority to administer and enforce the standards established by the Board.” I’m not sure how comforting that should be when the head of that same department sits on the Board. Fortunately, there is a move to put this amendment back on the ballot because, even if the Board does not become a reflection of big agriculture business, there is no accountability or opportunity for citizen participation.

This is not to say the new USDA requirements are not a victory. They are/ It is just to point out that phrases like “the season will be determined by local conditions and agriculture authorities, like organic certifiers or county conservation officials, not by the dairy alone” should be considered carefully. County conservation officials sounds good. As do livestock care standards. But the mechanisms are intentionally obscure to deter individual resistance. Inform yourself about your local management bodies.

Read Up:             http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_SJR_6 http://food.theatlantic.com/nutrition/organic-milk-loophole-closed.php http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/business/13organic.html?scp=1&sq=pasture%20rules&st=cse

The National Black Farmers Association is still fighting to gain recognition for the discrimination faced by the black farmer. In what The New York Times calls the “biggest civil rights settlement in American history,” black farmers won a settlement of $2 billion as payment for subsidies and loans that had been denied them due to racism. That class-action suit was in 1999 and the payments have yet to be made. President Obama has requested that payments be included in the new budget and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has stated his commitment to righting this wrong. But, as the February 7th New York Times editorial details, this same budget proposal was included and denied last year. The National Black Farmers Association is trying to make sure that doesn’t happen again. Its president, John W. Boyd Jr. led a rally in Washington D.C. today as the end of a string of rallies held across the South. He is asking that the outstanding $1.15 billion be included in the budget.

Clearly, the struggle for civil rights is far from over. The phrase “forty acres and a mule” stands as a reminder of our unfulfilled promise. It is a promise of a land that is my land, your land. It is a promise where the mountaintop meets the farm.

Which is why I must applaud Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack’s Op-Ed column in the Des Moines Register on January 31. Entitled “Rural America is in need of renewal,” the article argues that the country must appreciate the sacrifices of its farmers, recognizing that decades of a push for productivity have not served the majority of farmers well. Vilsack recommends six steps to this renewal paraphrased below;

Expand exports, promote biofuel, link local farmers to local consumers through the creation of local processing plants, provide broadband to rural areas, encourage natural recreation activity, and lastly, make the ecosystem profitable through the Ecosystem Market Office. This will create a renewal that creates a “rural America that provides safe and abundant food for us and the world, puts America back in control of its energy future, and preserves and conserves our precious natural resources.”

So compare that to the 50-Year Farm Bill of Wes Jackson and Wendell Berry (a soil scientist and a farmer). The idea that we can both preserve our natural resources and benefit from markets “that exist for water, wetlands preservation, carbon and habitat enhancements” would not find its way into that 50-Year Farm Bill. The idea may not be that sinister, tax incentives to conserve water would help encourage responsible behavior, but the discourse being created and sustained is a dangerous one that tries to impose a supply and demand theory onto the ecosystem. Jackson, in fact, argues for the opposite approach, using the ecosystem to provide us with a new way of thinking of economic growth. And furthermore, Vilsack’s resources remain poorly defined and their defense is unspecified. So we can promote biofuel production without understanding how these monocrops damage our soil.

And what of these expanded exports? It worries me when I hear talk of our duty to help rebuild Haiti with shipments of fertilizer and seeds for cash crops (see the Monday editorial “Thinking About a New Haiti” in The New York Times). At home we promote, or at least Vilsack says he does, linking farms to local consumers but in underdeveloped nations we envision an agricultural system growing only coffee to supply global markets but not themselves. The presence of our exports feeds directly into this process of creating dependent developing nations. When Obama mentioned his commitment to the Doha trade agreements in order to bolster rural jobs in America, he talked about our trading partners playing by the rules. But what are those rules? A 2006 document published by the Third World Network Director Martin Khor details the obstacles of international trade negotiation and the damage they do to underdeveloped economies. “The WTO’s Doha Negotiations and Impasse: A Development Perspective” discusses the funny business of subsidies; Blue, Green, Amber, Trade-Distorting, or Non-Trade Distorting. In short: Blue Box subsidies are considered trade-distorting and set limits on production, Green Box subsidies are considered non-trade distorting and provide things like “payments to farmers to protect the environment,” Amber Box subsidies are considered trade distorting in that they regulate prices, and lastly, “de minis support” provide trade-distorting government support. In short, the Western parties at the World Trade Organization push developing nations to cut and minimize subsidies even as the E.U. and United States provide subsidies for their farmers. “Thus the developed countries will be able to continue to dump products that are subsidised at artificially low prices onto the poorer countries that cannot afford to subsidise.” Of course, the W.T.O. does not act alone and has been aided through World Bank programs in the past which provide conditional loans to developing countries mandating that they privatize and limit government capabilities. The issue of increasing exports must be understood in this context. If we want to help rebuild Haiti, perhaps we should consider rewriting trade policies.

And I don’t think I need to tell the Slow Food crowd that biofuel production, while potentially important, cannot come above our commitment to local, sustainable farm communities. Perhaps it is Vilsack who needs to better understand and appreciate the incredible impact a farmer can have on the environment, on his or her community, and on the geopolitical global stage.

Read it for yourself: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100131/OPINION01/1310318/-1/politics/Vilsack-Rural-America-is-in-need-of-renewal

I had been thinking for some time about visiting a new area of Sicily which is of great agricultural importance. I had heard many comments from journalists regarding Pachino, the land where the best tomatoesin the world are grown according to great Italian chefs.

When I arrived in Catania, Isabella, a friend of an old friend from my cruise ship days who is a stem cell researcher as well as an enologist, greeted me. She took me to Marzamemi near Noto where I had lunch with an old winemaker, Angelo Paterno, at a new winery. We dined on local fish and drank the estate’s truly excellent wines among which was a dry Moscatodi Noto as well as others. Marzamemi, a small town only ninety miles north of Africa and a place where fishermen still catch tuna with lines is also the town where Malena with Monica Bellucci was filmed. This is truly a beautiful place to visit-”a must see.”

For the last twenty years, Piero Selvaggio of Valentino Restaurant in Santa Monica has encouraged me to visit Modica. After spending my first night there, I woke up the next morning to a view of the Baroque city that seemed to be handmade of ceramic, making it one of the most beautiful Italian provincial towns. I would certainly go back. If you want to fall in love with Sicily, go to this unknown area with its taste of old Sicily.

Isabella organized tastings of local products from small, high quality companies and introduced me to many authentic farmers and people form the land. I want to share you with some of these products, many of which are exquisite and impressive.

*Al-Cantára*, Catania, in the foothills of Etna: wines including pinot nero, nero d’avola, cabernet sauvignon, gewurtztraminer, and moscato. Also olive oil.

*Lagouveri*, Gela: Nero d’avola.

*Casa Don Puglisi*, Modica: A non-profit chocolate maker established by the priest Don Puglise for women who are victims of domestic abuse. It is a refuge for these women where they can earn a fair wage for their work. All proceeds from the sale of the chocolate are invested in helping these women. The cold production process they use maintains the full flavor of each ingredient. Instead of melting the cocoa, it is *cold-pressed with sugar granules,* maintaining the purity of its flavor and giving it its unqiue, brittle texture.

*Genesis*, Avola: limoncello and other liquerus, prepared pasta sauces, pesto, olives, marmalades, condiments such as peppers, garlic, olives, tomatoes, and onions preserved in jars under olive oil.

*Ragusano*, Ragusa: Ragusano cheese, a soft, smooth cheese, one of the oldest cheeses produced in the province of Ragusa, is smooth and compact with a rind of  a golden yellow, straw color which becomes darker with age. Ragusano is produced exclusively from uncooked whole cow’s milk and goat or lamb rennet, and the cows are fed predominantly fresh forage grown on the Iblean Highlands. It is aged and hung by a rope.

If you have a chance to travel to Sicily, I would highly recommend visiting Pacchino to explore the wonderful flavors of Sicily.

Slowly,

Your Friend,

Lorenzo Scarpone

Alexis Koefoed’s Soul Food Farms has started a CSA, moving beyond the initial service she provided to local restaurants. Koefoed has exciting future plans including a potential cooking school. Muhlke and Koefoed get into a conversation about the true cost of food with Koefoed noting, “those dollars go back into the community.” And within this community “ultimately aren’t farmers the most important resource we have in this country?” As Muhlke notes, certainly the idea is taking root and the Bay Area is a large part of this movement. And perhaps we could extend Koefoed’s question to include community as our most important resource. Can our time, money, and thought be better invested than in our own community? We are grateful for the reminder that The New York Times Magazine provides and, I hope, encouraged to continue this work for each other.

But Laure knows that there is more to the story than a good anecdote. Mr. Hoffman is not what you might expect. He is a 93 year old farmer who will graciously offer to help you pick apples by shaking his cane through the branches. In the land of wine (where a truly sustainable vineyard can be hard to find), his farm filled with biodiversity is under constant threat of conversion. Not only would this mean losing dozens of species of plants, it would also mean losing the history of the site-something not so easily converted, something that has to be shared with a family wandering through the walnuts.

Laure described her experience thus, “it’s not everyday that you see a 93-year-old tree-lover go out to plant young trees in his 23-acre orchard surrounded by vineyards. In hindsight, it was fantastic to see something else than grape grow in Napa but the sad thing is, his farm will probably not survive after his death…What a sad thing for our children, to see farms disappear.”

But this farm does not have to be a thing of the past and it seems Mr. Hoffman feels similarly. In planting those young trees, Mr. Hoffman made plans for the future. Perhaps you should pay him a visit and ask what those plans are. You can find him at:

Hoffman Farm,
2125 Silverado Trail,
Napa CA 94558
(707) 226-8938.

Food security is a central part of food sovereignty, something Slow Food recognizes as crucial for the survival of small farmers in developing nations who are continually crushed by our surpluses (perhaps this is where our reserve could come from?). But it turns out we are also in need of food security and sovereignty. And it is likely that we need government intervention. Of course, how much of an intervention would it be when we think about the history of subsidies that led to the death of the small farm and rise of the dominant agribusiness? But there are other ways, ways that predate the newest form of Monsanto seeds.

And this is where canning comes into play. Growing up, we pickled and froze but never canned. It seems daunting. But here’s the word on the street: it’s not. That word comes from a one Diane Sigman working at UC Berkeley. She reports that you can even buy all the necessary equipment at an Ace Hardware store for a minimal price. She recommends Eugenia Bone’s simple guide, Well-Preserved: Recipes and Techniques for Putting Up Small Batches of Seasonal Foods. So while the issues extend beyond our kitchen, they certainly start there. As Diane describes it, the possibilities seem nearly endless and would probably make a thoughtful holiday gift.

One particularly important passage reveals what I suspect is a big obstacle to agreement between what is dichotomized in the text as developed and developing nations. After the text details that updating agricultural technology should focus on increasing productivity (a problematic goal in any case but particularly in developing nations where trade pressures push growers to abandon local crops and buy the Monsanto seeds and fertilizers), the brackets begin. Each bracket seeks to modify this insistence on efficiency with phrases like “in a sustainable manner,” “without harming the interests of small and marginal farmers,” and “taking into account traditional knowledge and practices.”

Within the text there are also several points where they have to work around other international protocols and agreements. I doubt, however, that any of those agreements include any of those brief bracketed statements about defending local farmers. And they need it. Against a World Trade Organization slow to even allow developing nations any significant say in regulation and a history of World Bank structural adjustment programs which provided loans only on conditions of privatization, leaving developing nations without a government able to support its farmers (even as the Western nations enjoy huge agricultural subsidies from their governments).

Clearly there is a need for further talks, further pushing but perhaps movements like Slow Food and organizations of small farmers (Terra Madre, for example) are a way forward. Some of these actions will be controversial, like Hugo Chávez’ Bank of the South/ Banco del Sur intended to be an alternative to the International Monetary Fund/World Bank but founded partly on Chavez’ strict control of his country’s national resources and somewhat self-serving notions of democracy. The first part is certainly getting informed, learning that these alternative solutions are out there and are being put to work. The order we fight against is already crumbling at the corners and in line with dependency theory those corners are bound up in/a condition of the center so what will it mean for that center?

What will it mean for our agricultural system and what should it mean?