Stabenow shepherded the latest farm bill, which was signed into law in February 2014, after a long, contentious slog over cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or “food stamps” and farm subsidies.

Big ships turn slow, and the trillion-dollar farm bill is one of the larger legislative vessels. Although the legislation kept farm subsidies in place that will mainly benefit the nation’s largest, most industrialized farms, it also includes more support for local and organic farming than ever before. It also makes mid-sized, diverse operations more stable through whole-farm insurance.

We spoke to Stabenow recently about the farm bill, bird flu, and how people in the food movement can have their voices heard in Congress.

The Senate Agriculture Committee is currently debating the reauthorization of child nutrition (i.e., “school lunch”) programs. How is Congress fighting our simultaneous childhood obesity and hunger epidemics?

Five years ago, we set the nutrition programs on a path to create more access for healthy food and to tackle childhood hunger [with new, healthier standards]. I think we’re just seeing benefits emerge. And it’s very important that we don’t go back on our commitment in terms of policy and funding. The Harvard School of Health tracked eating habits and found on average children are eating 16 percent more vegetables and 20 percent more fruits in school meals, which is positive. But we still see very high obesity rates. And too many children who only eat at school don’t have access to healthy food in the summer.

You said in the recent childhood nutrition hearing that “Nutrition, at its core, is preventative medicine.” Can you expand on that?

There’s no question about it. We spend $1.4 billion on preventable health care costs per year for children and apples cost only 14 cents a piece. The truth is good nutrition for children and adults is about preventing diabetes, heart disease, and all kinds of different health challenges.

This is also a national security issue. When you have 500 former generals, admirals, and senior military officials raising alarm bells that we don’t have enough men and women fit enough to serve in our armed forces, it adds another dimension to the discussion and a sense of urgency.

There have been multiple hearings on SNAP fraud, yet crop insurance keeps making news for high profile cases involving hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of dollars in fraud. Why hasn’t there been the same level of scrutiny on crop insurance?

That’s a really good point. When I was chair we did a hearing on farm bill error rates and looked at SNAP and crop insurance and conservation programs. And SNAP has one of the lowest error rates of any program in the government.

The new farm bill requires for the first time farmers engage in basic conservation practices in exchange for crop insurance subsidies. Considering the problems we face, why not increase the requirements to use fertilizer more carefully to prevent dead zones or reduce greenhouse gases?

I am supportive of crop insurance because farmers have skin in the game even though the federal government does pay for part of it. It’s a model that’s better than the old direct payment subsidies because [farmers] don’t just get a check.

It was a major victory for us to tie conservation compliance to crop insurance and we had wonderful leadership from the environmental community on it. I should also add this is the first farm bill with more funding in the conservation title than the commodity title—that’s historic. But we’ve got to get through this first step on conservation compliance and let farmers feel comfortable with it, which I believe they will. Then we need to have discussions about what you’ve just brought up. I’m open to those discussions, but first lets get the basics done.

As for climate change, we’ve added a new carbon credit pilot program in North Dakota through a farm bill grant. Chevrolet has purchased enough credits to protect a large amount of carbon sequestering prairie. So when you look at this last farm bill, there’s much more of a paradigm shift concerning conservation.

A scant 8 percent of Corn Belt farmers believe in human-caused climate change. And yet the sector is very vulnerable to the changes already occurring. What is it going to take to turn the farm community around on the issue?

The North Dakota project is an example of creating a financial incentive that will get the attention even of those that do not acknowledge climate change. I’ve worked with farmers for a long time and one reason they embrace conservation is because it’s voluntary, but because it also involves incentives, partnerships, and education. Those things can be successful if we aggressively pursue them.

Had the Waxman/Markey climate bill passed, farmers would be getting paid to do things like reduce nitrogen fertilizer. Instead they’re now getting sued for that in Iowa. 

I know. I could not agree more.

Over 32 million chickens have been infected by bird flu. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D- Minnesota) is suggesting that producers impacted by the crisis should have a program similar to crop insurance. Do you agree?

I’m certainly open to her ideas. I have not talked to her about it. We do have an indemnity program through USDA and they have stepped in. This is huge. [Thirty two] million egg producing birds have had to be destroyed. One farm [can have up to] five million birds. It’s astounding to think of what’s happened.

How has serving on the agriculture committees changed over time?

I’ve been involved in agriculture committees ever since I was in the Michigan legislature. The biggest change is the shift in focus away from commodity crops. I authored what is called the Specialty Crop Title in 2008–it was a huge fight to get fruits and vegetables in the farm bill even though half the cash receipts in agriculture come from specialty crops. I thought we’d have to re-litigate that, but instead members wanted to build on it.

Another positive change is more members have come to the committee from diverse states who are Democrats and are very interested in expanding local food systems. What we’ve seen on our side of the aisle now is much more support for organic production, more consumer choice, and expanding opportunities for small and urban farms.

Can you sketch a picture for us what the next farm bill might look like? How serious will the effort to split food stamps from the farm funding be?

First of all, you’re giving me a headache. [Laughs.] It took too long to get the last one done! My goal is to keep the food shift we’ve been talking about going, keep the positive things going forward.

We have to keep the connection between SNAP and farmers. That’s critical. That was a huge fight and there was nothing more on my mind during the debate than the 47 million Americans who during the depths of the recession had to rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

What more can people in the food movement do to get their voices heard in Congress and see action taken on their core values?

Members often don’t realize the face of agriculture and the food movement is changing rapidly in their own state. The more people can show that change and reach out to members, or to get media at home, or shine a light on a local farmers’ market or a farm-to-school program, the easier it is to get support in Congress.

We’ve hit the presidential campaign cycle with new candidates jumping in every day. What would you ask candidates?

I’d like to know whether they support strong food and ag policy for the country? Do they understand the economic impact of 16 million people working in the agriculture and food industries? What is their commitment to families in need? Is it as important to having a safety net for those struggling to feed their families as it is for farmers?

Photos, from top: Senator Stabenow at a “Farm Bill Now” Rally (photo courtesy of the National Milk Producers Federation); Stabenow touring Victory Farms in Hudsonville, Michigan; Stabenow with Lafayette Greens Community Urban Garden’s Gwen Meyer in Detroit (both Courtesy of the Office of U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow).

The post This Senator is a Food and Farm Powerhouse appeared first on Civil Eats.

We spoke with Congressman Ryan about added sugar, the farm bill, and his guilty food pleasures.

In Real Food Revolution you detail our broken food system. Do you have one “big idea” that concerned eaters can rally around for change?

Shift subsidies. We’re now subsidizing crops that are leading to highly processed foods made with high fructose corn syrup and soy oil because we’re making those crops and those products artificially cheap with taxpayers’ dollars. That’s leading to a great deal of sickness in our country. In five years, half the country is either going to have diabetes or pre-diabetes. If we took those billions of dollars from subsidizing those particular crops and we shifted them to farmers so that they could grow fresh fruits and vegetables, I think we would move in the direction of having healthy foods be affordable and accessible to all Americans and therefore use that food as our medicine to bring down health care costs.

What do you say to the farmers and their lobbyists who like the current subsidy system?

I think farmers will be fine as long as we say, “we just want you to grow something different and we’ll help create a market for you.” Our public institutions, our schools, our universities, and our prisons all spend a good deal of money on food budgets. So if we increased locally sourced fresh fruits and vegetables, lean meats, etc. [through subsidies] and tied the local farmers into those institutional markets, then they would have a place to sell the food.

You have the food industry that can push back, but I think there’s a place for all of them in this new system. The bottom line is we’re a sick country and they need to do their duty to make sure that we move the system in a healthier direction.

I’m sure there will be some big fights about it, which is why I’ve spent a good deal of time trying to rally people around the country to be a part of the movement, and so their members of Congress–whether they’re in Kansas or Ohio or New York City–have the political support to go out and push this change.

You’re also highly critical of processed foods. Can you say more?

Highly processed food is the main culprit. And added sugar. Take a container of yogurt. It says 24 grams of sugar on the label, but you have no idea what that means. There’s no daily allowance next to it either.

One of the simple things we’ve done is sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking to convert these grams into teaspoons so that the average American can actually understand that there’s four grams of white, granulated sugar in every teaspoon. All of a sudden the average mom or dad out there buying it says, “Wow, that’s six teaspoons of sugar?”

I can’t picture myself giving my child six teaspoons of sugar and expecting them to behave normally. We wonder why they are bouncing off the walls. Then we discipline them or they try to sit in a desk and learn algebra. We’re setting these kids up for failure.

Consumers appear to be waking up, as evident in the decline of junk food sales and McDonald’s recent announcement that it is phasing out antibiotics in chicken. But there’s little evidence that federal policy will catch up any time soon. How do we make change in Congress?

I hate to say that but if you look at civil rights, if you look at women’s rights, Congress is always last. The country shifts and then Congress is last to come in and then they actually do something about it that is very important.

You’ve got to build out the organic political movement that’s happening all across the country. Until you do that Congress is removed because there’s pressure to do other things on other areas and if you don’t get their attention and apply the political pressure, you never can get it done.

You have two revealing stories in your book about interactions with Ohio farm bureau members and corporate food lobbyists who were angry when you voted against the last farm bill. Conventional wisdom dictates Democrats with that type of voting record in agriculture states like yours don’t last long in Congress. How do you pull it off?

They were upset that I didn’t vote for the farm bill, but we’re with them on a lot of other issues and we are respectful of what they do. I explained that I voted against the bill because it’s continuing to create long-term deficits in Medicare and Medicaid. We’re not going to be able to afford a farm bill next time if half the country has diabetes or pre-diabetes because all our budgets will be spent taking care of people who are really sick.

We have a great farm bureau in Ohio that I have sat down [with its leaders] on issues like the algae bloom in Lake Erie, where they actually had to shut off the water from a Toledo facility for a weekend. The Ohio Farm Bureau was there from the beginning and asked, “how can we be a part of the solution?” Which is why I am optimistic about changing the food system. So I think just being honest and not hating on them, not blaming them is the key.

You mention Toledo. Des Moines, Iowa is having a similar issue with algae linked to farm runoff. Is throwing more conservation money at the problem going to solve it?

What we’ve done in Ohio is ask the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act more aggressively and expeditiously for clean water protection. We’re talking to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) about completing the Great Lakes algae bloom report so that we can further understand exactly what’s happening there. We want more U.S. Department of Agriculture conservation funds going to address these problems. Sometimes it does take more investments.

The problem really is that the farmers were doing what they were told to do by applying fertilizer. Better precision in application will help that. And we’ve continued to remove wetlands, which were the natural filter for a lot of this runoff. We need to go back and say these wetlands were here for a reason; they had a job to do.

Do you have some favorite farmers in your district?

Miller’s Farm is one of my local favorites. They do all grassfed meat, and use no antibiotics in their chickens. Generally we do soy and corn at pretty high levels, but we also have a good number of specialty producers. Ohio is kind of a prime place for trying to transform the food system and continuing to build out the specialty farms and sustainable farming.

How have you changed your eating habits since learning more about the food system?

The first story in the book is about how my brother busted me one night in a hotel room with chicken wings and ice cream. I eat a lot less chicken wings now than I used to and I try to have them baked instead of deep-fried. I pretty much cut out bread and pasta and growing up Italian that’s very hard. But my wife has a gluten allergy so we do spaghetti squash instead.

We buy lean meat and chicken without antibiotics. That’s one of my big concerns–how many antibiotics we’re ingesting now. We have one basic rule if you want to be bad, you’ve got to be good. So you try to be good 75-80 percent of the time and then if you’re in an Italian restaurant in Youngstown, Ohio you probably need to order some tiramisu and split it between everybody.

You remind your readers to be careful about blaming farmers because they’ve been put into a tough spot. Who’s responsible for our broken food system?

The original idea [of the Green Revolution] was pretty noble: how are we going to feed the world and use the bounty of the United States and its transport capacity to feed the world? Applying industrial methods to farming increased output, but it went too far considering half the food we’re growing doesn’t go right to the table because its fed to animals or processed first.

If there’s someone to point the finger at we have got to say to these food companies: You can’t add all the sugar because look at what’s happening to us. Look at these high levels of obesity. Look at these high levels of diabetes. These are national security issues.

[Processed foods] are artificially cheap and affordable to average people in places like Youngstown and Akron, Ohio. Because there is also a high level of income inequality, people need to eat calories and they’re going to get them in the cheapest way they can. That’s why shifting subsidies to support healthy diets is critical.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

The post Congressman Tim Ryan Wants to Start a Food Revolution appeared first on Civil Eats.

Was this a gathering of the Tea Party? Or the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)?

No. It was the annual American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) conference, held last January in San Diego.

The AFBF is America’s largest and most influential agriculture organization. And everyone interested in changing the course of food and farming in this country should be closely watching AFBF’s moves.

The group’s far-right wing ideology is woven deep into its DNA. It’s probably not a surprise to hear that cattle ranchers and large, commodity crop farmers skew conservative, just as organic and sustainable agriculture advocates skew liberal. As the President of the Iowa Pork Producers Association recently told Reuters, conventional farmers are “fiscally conservative and socially conservative … they’re conservative all the way through.”

Most elected politicians vote on food and farming issues based on political ideology and party affiliation. And Republicans overwhelmingly vote to perpetuate the industrial agriculture model and efforts to rollback school nutrition improvements. Whereas Democrats are more likely to support funding for local food initiatives, hunger programs, and conservation.

But when Republicans break from the party line on issues of agriculture–as was the case when several GOP member of the House voted to block the latest farm bill, even though the legislation will funnel billions to corn and other large commodity producers–they have not held accountable at the ballot box by the ag lobby. In fact, new Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts and new Senate Leader Mitch McConnell have even been rewarded with positions of power.

For as long as these Farm Bureau favorites stay in power, there will be no national food policy that makes improving health and the environment a priority.

And the group not only understands this dynamic, they actively exploit it. In 2014, AFBF came in second only to Monsanto in lobbying Congress on agriculture issues, spending $1.9 million. They can kill federal policies they don’t like and create whole new programs they deem worthy. Because they represent agriculture sectors from livestock to commodity crops, their reach is even greater than other powerhouse farm lobbies like the National Corn Growers Association.

AFBF’s core strength lies in robust state farm bureaus across the country that plug into local governments and mobilize the grassroots. These state agencies are in constant contact with lawmakers and local media applying pressure. They hand out campaign checks and “Friends of the Farm Bureau” awards to politicians and city officials who keep regulations at bay and the subsidies flowing.

The AFBF also appears to wield a great deal of power over the U.S. Department of Agriculture. At their annual convention, AFBF president Bob Stallman showered President Obama’s long serving Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack with adoration. One article in the Capital Press reads:

At one point, Stallman called Vilsack on stage, said he was “loyal to the outfit,” and presented him with a “U.S. AG” branding iron. “I know one thing as a fact,” Stallman said. “Secretary Vilsack rides for the brand of U.S. agriculture.”

AFBF’s broader conservative social agenda runs deep, but contradicts the Tea Party on farm subsidies and ethanol mandates. Otherwise, the AFBF is indistinguishable from establishment conservatism—it is cozy with multi-national food companies, favors corporate agriculture over small farmers, support a maze of front and PR groups, and buoyed by trade press that often acts like the industry’s own version of Fox News.

For instance, last month’s conference—and the values shared throughout—were well covered. Capital Press’s Eric Mortenson reported:

This year, Farm Bureau’s Resolutions Committee recommended deleting the “Family and Moral Responsibility” policy, which among other things defines a family as people who are related due to marriage “between male and female.” Delegates from Arkansas, Indiana and Georgia rose in opposition. “I want this back in our book,” an Indiana delegate said. The vote wasn’t even close; the policy was retained. [Emphasis mine.]

While not every large farmer walks AFBF’s party line, many appear to do so because it’s clear, easy-to follow, very organized, and it makes them money.

Gail McSpadden Greenman, national affairs director for the Oregon Farm Bureau sounded downright reverential as she told the Capital Press about the “sacred” process of delegates debating AFBF’s 2015 policy book [PDF].

“This is what tells me what I can support or not support,” Greenman said. “This is like my lobbyist bible.”

The group is not shy about flaunting their influence and aggressive posture. In fact, the AFBF is already looking ahead toward electing a president who shares its core values.

As AFBF President Bob Stallman said during January’s conference. “By this fall, the focus will be squarely on the 2016 elections. All of this means that Farm Bureau members will need to be aggressive, and we will need to begin our advocacy efforts as soon as possible …”

You can keep abreast of the American Farm Bureau Federation’s latest moves on Twitter. Its 2015 policy book is also worth the read. For better or worse, the agenda laid out there will influence much of what lawmakers and the administration consider in the next year for food and farm policy.

The post Meet The Group Everyone in the Food Movement Should Be Watching appeared first on Civil Eats.

…reforming the food system will ultimately depend on a Congress that has for decades been beholden to agribusiness, one of the most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill. As long as food-related issues are treated as discrete rather than systemic problems, congressional committees in thrall to special interests will be able to block change.

Well, in the time it takes for a third grader to drown a chicken nugget from China in ketchup, Congress has proved their point. The recent Crominbus spending bill rolled back needed school nutrition reforms and attacked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to stem agriculture pollution.

As Republicans prepare to take full control of both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees in the 114th Congress, we can expect continued attacks on nutrition programs and efforts to make agriculture more sustainable. The agriculture committees include 20 members on the Senate side and 46 from the House, and they have general jurisdiction over a wide array issues, ranging from forestry, to livestock, dairy, farm chemicals, and nutrition assistance.

An Ag Committee seat is not a glamour posting. It is essential, however, for members who represent districts and states with large farm interests. The committees are the main incubator for legislation that governs federal agriculture and nutrition policy, the multibillion dollar farm bill.

If you’re wondering just how bad the new committees will be, Food Policy Action’s (FPA) National Food Policy Scorecard, which rates members of Congress on their food and farm votes, might provide some insight.

Much like the well-known League of Conservation Voters’ environmental scorecard, FPA’s agenda is to score important food and farm votes to give concerned eaters a roadmap at the ballot box. They focus on “policies that support healthy diets, reduce hunger at home and abroad, improve food access and affordability, uphold the rights and dignity of food and farm workers, increase transparency, improve public health, reduce the risk of food-borne illness, support local and regional food systems, protect and maintain sustainable fisheries, treat farm animals humanely, and reduce the environmental impact of farming and food production.”

Members are scored between 0 and 100. A score of 100 indicates a good food “hero,” like stalwart nutrition advocate Jim McGovern (D-Mass). Meanwhile members religiously voting to perpetuate the current industrial agriculture model like Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) get a zero.

If we compile and average the scores of the last Congress as a baseline, it gives us a sneak peek at the new committees. Remember, these members wrote and passed the 2014 farm bill, which was widely regarded as a status quo giveaway to Big Ag.

113th Congress:

Average Senate Agriculture Committee Democrat score: 74
Average Senate Agriculture Committee Republican score: 22
Average Senate Committee score: 48

Average House Agriculture Committee Republican score: 13
Average House Agriculture Committee Democrat score: 67
Average House Committee score: 40

Average Agriculture Committee Score for the 113th Congress: 44

Now compare that with the new Agriculture Committee makeups:

114th Congress*:

Average Senate Agriculture Committee Democrat score: 72
Average Senate Agriculture Committee Republican score: 14
Average Senate Committee score: 43

Average House Agriculture Committee Republican score: 8
Average House Agriculture Committee Democrat score: 52
Average House Committee score: 30

Average Agriculture Committee Score for the 114th Congress: 37

A seven point total decline in scores between the congressional agriculture committees is not very hopeful.

Despite congressional gridlock, the new agriculture committees could very well begin crafting follow-up legislation to the much-delayed 2014 farm bill. The Ag Lobby never sleeps, and judging by the recent budget deal, the long knives are out for food stamps and conservation spending.

And while it’s too early to say what will happen with the next farm bill, it is clear that some voters are beginning to pay attention to food and agriculture as a driver in electoral politics. Food Policy Action joined other groups in successfully targeting House Agriculture Committee member Florida Rep Steve Southerland (R) in the past election, after he made his name by advocating deeps cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP) or “food stamps.” The Tallahassee Democrat took notice of FPA’s involvement in the race:

“This is a big win for food advocates and Florida families,” said Tom Colicchio, co-founder and board member of Food Policy Action, which spent more than $34,000 to influence the race. “Congressman Southerland has repeatedly made policy choices that are harmful to families and small farmers. Today, we proved that voters care about food issues, and they will hold their elected officials accountable on Election Day.”

If groups like FPA and voters continue to keep the heat on their elected officials, and if that heat results in electoral consequences, then the good food movement will have delivered on Bittman, Pollan, De Schutter and Salvador’s call to action.

*New members have no scores, so for better or worse, they got a zero.

The post Rating the Politicos Shaping Our Food System appeared first on Civil Eats.

And in what could only be described as a case of national sticker shock, a newly released study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that fixing the problem would cost an eye-popping $2.7 billion a year.

The Gulf Dead Zone isn’t the only agriculture body of water imperiled by farm pollutants either. Des Moines, Iowa and Toledo, Ohio have both been in the news recently as residents in both cities struggle with fertilizer run-off in their drinking water.

There are five basic ways to address the problem.

1.  We can provide more and better financial incentives for farmers to use less fertilizer and control animal waste with federal dollars. We can improve voluntary conservation subsidies from the federal Farm Bill. As taxpayers, we fund projects like planting fertilizer filtering grass strips between farm fields and stream banks. Sadly, the money is never enough, with long lines of farmers waiting to participate. And those that do are often not the farmers loading the most field nutrients into nearby rivers.

2. We can choose to regulate farmers. Non-point source pollution from farm fields is specifically exempt under the Clean Water Act and thus unregulated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is trying to work around this loophole with a newly proposed, controversial rule called Waters of the U.S.

3. We can stop agriculture policy from encouraging all out, fencerow-to-fencerow production of fertilizer-intensive crops like corn and soybeans. Start by trimming billions in taxpayer-funded farm and crop insurance subsidies that go to America’s largest farms. Require robust conservation strategies in exchange for federal crop insurance support. And rollback the corn ethanol mandate under the Renewable Fuels Standard.

4. We can harness the market. State-based nutrient trading schemes hold promise in tackling the Chesapeake Bay’s Dead Zone and could be exported to the Gulf. The Environmental Defense Fund is working with the largest food companies and retailers in the agriculture supply chain to encourage farmers to use less fertilizer.

5. We can eat less meat. Roughly 36 percent of the U.S corn crop is fed to livestock.

Considering how important the seafood industry is to Louisiana’s culture and economy, you might think politicians in the state would be putting their votes in Congress toward these three goals. Here’s what Food Policy Action’s congressional food and farm vote scorecard tells us.

Senator David Vitter (R):

• Voted against farm bill amendments that would limit farm subsidies and crop insurance subsidies to the largest, wealthiest farms.
• Called for EPA to withdraw the Waters of the U.S rule.
• Voted against requiring farmers to engage in modest conservation efforts in exchange for lavish crop insurance subsidies.

Overall: Terrible triple whammy for the Gulf. Allowing nearly unlimited subsidies for Gulf polluters and a refusal to ask farmers to do some environmental good in exchange for their subsidies is a disservice to Vitter’s constituents.

Congressman Steve Scalise (R):

• Voted for the Waters of the U.S. Regulatory Overarch Protection Act (prohibits EPA from implementing its proposed clean water rule)
• Voted for payment caps on farm subsidies to the largest farms.
• Voted against a farm bill amendment that would have encouraged farmers to create buffers between farms and streams (one key to slowing and filtering pollutants from fields).

Overall: Scalise’s votes have also been bad for Gulf health. But at least he votes as a consistent conservative by trying to limit federal subsidies to mega farms, unlike many of his colleagues.

Charles Boustany (R):

• Voted to prohibit EPA from implementing its proposed clean water rule.
• Voted against payment caps for subsidies for the largest farms.
• Voted against the stream buffer amendment mentioned above.

Overall: Vitter-esque irresponsibility. And he represents a coastal district!

Cedric Richmond (D):

• Voted to prohibit EPA from implementing its proposed clean water rule.
• Voted against payment caps for subsidies for the largest farms.
• Voted for the stream buffer amendment.

Overall: Stream buffers have a direct and positive impact on water quality, but Richmond still voted for nearly unlimited subsidies for the farmer polluting upstream.

John Fleming (R):

• Voted to prohibit EPA from implementing its proposed clean water rule.
• Voted against payment caps for subsidies for the largest farms.
• Voted against stream buffer amendment.

Overall: More of the same.

Now, Senator Vitter’s is known to have a chummy relationship with the oil and gas industry and Louisiana’s federal delegation is mostly a conservative group, so these votes might not surprise very many people. But how long before the Louisiana seafood industry decides enough is enough? USDA Secretary Vilsack believes it will take 5-10 years before major upstream nutrient loader – Iowa – measurably stems its farm pollution through voluntary conservation. Can the Gulf fishery withstand 5-10 more years of the same?

The post Louisiana Lawmakers Put Corn Belt Farms Before Gulf Shrimpers appeared first on Civil Eats.

Sherman offers his customers “pre-colonization” cuisine, a term used by Chef Nephi Craig, who founded the Native American Culinary Association, and writes at the blog Decolonial Food for Thought. With media coverage from sources like NPR and Al Jazeera, Sherman’s unusual approach is earning him accolades and bringing in the customers. But getting here hasn’t been easy.

“I quickly learned that there wasn’t much information out there, so I had to devise my own learning system,” says Sherman. First, he needed to expand his understanding of wild foods and to do that he needed to comprehend ethnobotany. “The animals are easy. Anybody can figure out what animals are from the region. The bigger study was understanding which plants were used,” he recalls.

Sherman took a deep dive into oral histories with members his tribe, used his own recollections growing up on Pine Ridge, and poured over dusty first contact accounts written from the European perspective.

“I found that it boiled down what was in Native American food pantries at the time. That started me to understand not only wild foods–but how foods are farmed and how they were set up to last long winters,” he says.

Come spring, tribes across the Great Plains would break the monotony of what they ate during the winter by foraging wide for wild foods like chokecherries and blueberries. Throughout the summer they would hunt, fish, collect, smoke, and dry foods to last them through wintertime. Otherwise, it was a three months of cold corn mush.

Today, Sherman prepares wild game – like buffalo, turkey and rabbit – with ingredients like cedar and juniper berries. He cooks with sweet potatoes, wild rice, and squash, and he makes stock and teas from things like pine needles, cedar, and maple.

Because Sherman’s take on pre-colonization cuisine is free of all processed foods, it’s also naturally gluten-free. It also doesn’t include dairy, making many of his offerings vegan.

“It’s easy to fusion-ize things and make wild rice risotto, but I wanted to go old-school first,” Sherman says.

While pre-colonization cuisine takes inspiration from the past, it also has direct parallels to the current local food movement. Sherman works with local growers of duck, geese, and quail. He also utilizes the Red Lake Reservation and their fishery to secure fresh walleye, northern pike, and perch. He says the next step is to source completely from Native American producers.

“It would ideal for me to buy all my buffalo from native ranchers. I already source wild rice and heirloom variety of beans from native growers. Trying to keep these food dollars in native communities is critical,” he says.

Like on many American Indian reservations, life is often hard for residents of Pine Ridge. Unemployment is high and poverty is widespread. But there are some food producers there have been successful. Lakota Foods is running a profitable popcorn business and the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council is helping coordinate bison herds to give tribes better marketing and bargaining power.

Sherman hopes that exposing more people to Lakota culture through food might ultimately help pave a road out of poverty for his fellow tribe members.

“If my restaurant idea takes off and is successful, that would be a great starting space. It would be great to see one in Rapid City or elsewhere in South Dakota,” he says.

Sherman’s ultimate goal is to revive lost Native American food culture. American Indians were forced to adopt a western diet when the federal government ordered them onto the reservations, and many of the old foods and practices have since disappeared.

“Food really is cultural identity,” he says. “To have a culture that had much of its food history pushed away was a terrible thing.”

In the meantime the Western Diet has wreaked havoc on the health of Native Americans. Sixteen percent of Native Americans suffer from Type II diabetes, for instance. That’s higher than any other ethnic group in the nation. “The impact is pretty obvious across the board. I see it on many reservations. It’s the double hit of adopting a Western diet high in fat, salt and sugar, and then the lack of exercise. We used to hand grind corn for flour in a hollowed out log.”

While cooking pre-colonization food has found Sherman success in the culinary world, he sees plenty of room for others to share the space.

“I want to be clear, I’m not trying to say that what I’m doing is the whole of Native American food. I’m just trying to get to a bigger knowledge past frybread,” Sherman explains. “I’m a student with this food; I’m open to any suggestions or ideas I haven’t heard.”

Photos, from top: Chef Sean Sherman at work, Sumac and white pine stock, wild rice flatbread with wasna (dried buffalo, berries, fat), wojapi (chokecherry sauce), and wild purslane.

The post The Sioux Chef Wants to Bring Pre-Colonial Cuisine to the People appeared first on Civil Eats.

Iowa Republican Joni Ernst Defeats Democrat Bruce Braley to Replace Tom Harkin

This race is seismic for agriculture lobby influence. Iowa is corn country and they don’t let candidates forget it. John McCain wounded his presidential campaign by not bowing down to the corn ethanol throne. So when Ernst initially wavered on support for federally mandated biofuel support, it looked like a mortal blow.

But once Ernst figured out rural “conservatives” can suspend disbelief for federal government ethanol mandates and farm subsidies without penalty from voters, she had the edge on Braley–despite his gold-plated Iowa Corn growers Association endorsement.

Enrst will be a reliable conservative in the culture wars and now a reliable conservative hypocrite on farm welfare. However, she does hew to Chuck Grassley’s payment limit ideas, so that’s something.

Kansas Republican Senator Pat Roberts Hangs on by his Fingernails

A DC address coupled with a lazy campaign nearly cost him. Roberts jettisoned decades of agriculture policy accomplishments for Kansas farmers, to focus solely on attacking President Obama. Now with Thad Chochran looking elsewhere, Roberts could be the new chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee. And that’s terrible news for advocates of small and organic farms.

Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson Hangs on by his Fingernails

It’s hard to find a more reliable and knowledgeable commodity agriculture advocate in Congress. Dude got Pelosi to eat a pork chop on a stick and kill the best chance in recent memory for a reform minded farm bill. And he still struggled.

Say this about Peterson, he ran the race Pat Roberts should have, and focused on what he’s delivered ag-wise to his constituents. And in his district, it worked.

Though nothing lays bare the contradiction Democrats face with voters when doing the Ag Lobby’s bidding like Peterson and Roberts’ races.

Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell is a Machine

You can vote against the farm bill and skip tons of agriculture committee meetings and still be Senate Majority leader.

FPA Scores a Win With Florida Republican Congressman Steve Southerland’s Loss

Chef Tom Colicchio and company aim to make food a political issue. And now they have their first pelt for the Food Policy Action (FPA) wall in food stamp gutting Southerland’s fall.

Clean Water and Climate Change Big Losers

Brad Plumer at Vox has the details on how the election makes climate change politics even worse. And North Dakota Republican Senator John Hoeven has made clear a Republican Senate spells doom for EPA proposed clean water rules despite major American cities facing threats to their drinking water from agriculture pollution.

Tom Cotton Defeats Mark Pryor

What happened to Arkansas agriculture’s pull? First, voters in the state tossed out farm subsidy maven Blanche Lincoln. Now pants on fire Cotton will likely join the split food stamps from subsidy team, which will spell doom for future farm bills.

But like Ernst, Cotton will have industrial agriculture’s back when it comes to their pollution and the EPA.

The post How Did Agriculture Politicos Fare in the Midterms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

For years Dan O’Brien raised cattle on his ranch in the Black Hills of South Dakota. After enduring beef’s punishing boom and bust cycle and experiencing first-hand the environmental toll that cattle took on his land, O’Brien made a dramatic change. He started raising North American Bison*, the great icon of the Great Prairie, instead.

A former conservation biologist and a celebrated novelist, O’Brien wrote about the travails and benefits of the switch in his 2007 memoir Buffalo for the Broken Heart: Restoring Life to a Black Hills Ranch. In the book, he weaves personal stories of South Dakota ranch life with an ongoing critique of industrial farming and the way it has degraded a once pristine and ecologically-critical landscape.

This month marks the release of O’Brien’s book Wild Idea: Buffalo and Family in a Difficult Land. In it O’Brien chronicles the efforts undertaken by he and his wife Jill to start the Rapid City-based Wild Idea Buffalo Company, where they sell their bison directly to customers via the Internet. The O’Brien’s bison graze only on native grass and their grazing patterns leave the prairie much better off than those of cattle. They are also harvested in the field using a custom mobile slaughter system to ensure a humane, high-quality product.

While an estimated 20-30 million American Bison once roamed the nation’s prairies, that number has dropped to fewer than 30,000 in wild, conservation herds.

We spoke with Dan recently about his book, his business, and the bison that inspired them both.

Aside from people’s natural tendency to eat what they know, what’s the biggest barrier to scaling buffalo production to make it mainstream meat?

There aren’t that many places where buffalo can be raised in the way we think they should–that is on a large-scale landscape, where they’re on grass all the time.

Americans are used to spending very little on food for the past 50 years, and considering the high cost of producing ethical buffalo, do you risk alienating regular eaters? Do you ever see a world where McDonald’s sources buffalo?

This is one of the cruxes of the problem and it often gets too complicated for the average Joe and they end up throwing their hands up and ordering another Big Mac. The truth of the matter is our cheap food policy is the most expensive policy we could have initiated. When you figure in the health impacts from [industrial food] and figure the cost of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, you would be way ahead [if you bought] line caught salmon and Wild Idea Buffalo. Way ahead.

Would buffalo be more accepted as mainstream food if it were part of a storied, regional culinary tradition?

I’m not sure it is a problem. It’s a traditional agribusiness tact to say you’ve got something good now let’s produce as much as possible. There isn’t enough available land for the right type of buffalo husbandry, so you’re never going see buffalo burger stands. They kill more cattle in one day than there are buffalo in the world. It’s not like we’re going to triple our buffalo production–it ain’t going to happen. It’s for special occasions–Thanksgiving on steroids.

It’s also important that we don’t traffic in the mythology of the buffalo, but instead try to live up to the mythology. A couple of times a year we order a lobster from Maine for family events. It’s not everyday sustenance.

You’ve written about neighbors who view the prairie as a factory. Is that belief that we’re here just to take a big part of the barrier to a more sustainable food system?

With the industrial revolution came the idea that we would take something like agriculture and turn it into an industry–a very strange idea. It’s like turning churches into an industry; we’ve done that too. The idea of capitalism as it’s practiced today–where more is always better–won’t work when we have limited resources. Something’s got to give, and we’re seeing it in the health issues we talked about.

Can you say more about the way you’re working to make the “harvest” or slaughter of your animals humane, ethical, and transparent?

I’m playing with the idea that we should advertise that we will let anyone into any part of our operation and challenge any producer to do the same thing. If a producer doesn’t want me to see how they deal with their animals, I don’t want to eat it.

The agriculture lobbies exert tremendous influence over food policy in Washington, but they seem to have very little presence in the buffalo industry.

Maybe the buffalo industry should grow, but it should have limits. It just came out that USDA is going to do their first official bison study. But I have mixed feelings about Washington; I mean we’re busy raising buffalo here. Who has time to lobby? This is not a meat market deal, this is an Internet business and that’s how we run it. What we’re doing is a new paradigm. I don’t even want to know how the beef industry does it.

What about programs that pay for environmental benefits like carbon sequestration on pasture lands that could be an additional income stream for your operation?

Well, if we could get something along the line of cap-and-trade for carbon sequestration through perennial grasses that would be a fantastic thing for sustainability, for habitat, and for species diversity–all the things that really matter today.

Buffalo for me are an icon. What I’m really interested in is species diversity and sustainability in the Northern Great Plains and you really can’t think about that without thinking about buffalo.

What do you make of the Eastern South Dakota’s recent land conversion and the westward encroachment of commodity agriculture in the state?

The money is huge, it’s subsidized, and it’s corrupt. I’m convinced there’s a whole bunch of farmers who really don’t want to follow the industrial agriculture model but they’re stuck.

What is better suited for climate change—the buffalo or the cow?

I like cattle; I used to raise them. There’s plenty of room for both. But when you talk about the climate equation on the Great Plains, you’re talking deeply rooted perennial grasses. And beans and corns are anathema. Perennials hold their nutrition way better, too.

Cattle also hammer riparian zones and that a big deal. Basically buffalo are the friend of species diversity and that we can document.

Aside from the ranch and family, what keeps you in South Dakota?

I love to walk across native pasture. I’m basically a grouse hunter, but I don’t care if I get any grouse or not. It clears my head. It’s my elixir, my golf. And South Dakota has it and New Jersey doesn’t.

* Although the choice to do so is debatable in some circles, this article uses the terms “bison” and “buffalo” interchangeably.