A Small Price to Pay to “Know Your Food”

, senior analyst, Food and Environment | March 1, 2012, 1:10 pm EDT
Bookmark and Share

Did you know that the U.S. Department of Agriculture helped nearly 900,000 seniors and 2.15 million WIC (Women, Infants & Children nutrition program) recipients to access fresh fruits and vegetables directly from local farmers at farmers’ markets in 2010?

Or that more than 2,300 schools nationwide participated in farm-to-school programs in 2011?

These and other fun facts are part of a new report and multimedia web tool unveiled by the USDA and its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” (KYF2) initiative yesterday. The KYF2 “Compass” is a portal to data from more than two dozen USDA programs that support local food efforts, and provides examples and personal stories illustrating these programs at work.

It’s also a bulked-up defense against critics of USDA support for anything that doesn’t fit the “Big Ag” mold.

“Know Your Farmer” Under Attack

Given that it’s little more than a website and some staff time for coordinating other programs, you wouldn’t think KYF2 would need defending. But the department’s work on local food systems has come under increasing attack from agribusiness and its proponents in Congress.

In 2010, a trio of Senators wrote to USDA Secretary Vilsack to express “serious misgivings” about the initiative. The letter charged that KYF2 is geared toward “small, hobbyist and organic producers whose customers generally consist of affluent patrons at urban farmers markets” (class warfare, anyone?), and questioned the USDA’s legal authority to operate the initiative.

The attacks haven’t stopped there. Last June, the House of Representatives passed a 2012 spending bill that sought to eliminate the initiative by stripping its funding.

(The joke was on Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), that provision’s sponsor, as KYF2 has no funding of its own. And after negotiations with the Senate, the final bill only required the USDA to report to Congress on KYF2’s activities…which brings us to the Compass.)

Even more absurd, this past January, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) inexplicably took issue with a miniscule State of Oklahoma program that works with the feds to promote local farmers markets.

Hobby Farmers? Hardly

Critics complain that USDA spending to advance local food systems is a waste of money because it caters only to small numbers of rich urban consumers. Not so.

As I wrote last fall, USDA data show that local and regional food systems are a nearly $5 billion-a-year industry. They connect rural and urban communities in every state, and involve farmers and consumers at all income levels.

Moreover, USDA researchers have found that small and mid-size farmers who sell food locally are more likely to report farming as their primary occupation than their similarly sized counterparts who don’t produce for local markets. So the “hobbyist” claim doesn’t hold water either.

And far from benefiting only “affluent urban locavores,” the programs under the KYF2 banner are aimed at spurring job growth, improving nutrition for low-income consumers, helping new farmers get started, and keeping existing farmers on the land.

Some examples from the Compass:

  • Real Food Farm, an urban farm in Baltimore, extended its season by building an unheated greenhouse with support from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s High Tunnel Pilot Study. The farm now grows and sells produce year-round with a mobile market that serves the city’s low-income neighborhoods.
  • The Winston County Self Help Cooperative in Mississippi received a Small, Socially Disadvantaged Producer Grant from USDA Rural Development to support local farmers and youth garden projects across this poverty-stricken rural county. Through technical assistance, leadership training, estate planning, and youth development, the grant is helping farmers improve their businesses, and introducing young people to career opportunities in farming.
  • The Northern California Regional Land Trust in rural Butte County received a 2010 grant from USDA’s Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) to preserve farmland and help new farmers increase their sales in local and regional markets. With more than 40 projects in 40 states that year, BFRDP trained thousands of new producers carry on the nation’s farming tradition.

At UCS, we often think the USDA’s vision of agriculture is wrong. But even on a shoestring, support for local food systems is one thing the department is getting right.

See where local food systems can take your community by checking out the KYF2 Compass. And help UCS call for increased USDA support for local food systems here.

Posted in: Food and Agriculture

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Show Comments

Comment Policy

UCS welcomes comments that foster civil conversation and debate. To help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion, please focus comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, and refrain from personal attacks. Posts that are commercial, self-promotional, obscene, rude, or disruptive will be removed.

Please note that comments are open for two weeks following each blog post. UCS respects your privacy and will not display, lend, or sell your email address for any reason.

  • Haylie Holmes

    I still don’t understand how farming to feed yourself could ever be considered a hobby. Anyone who thinks that continuing to eat processed foods from grocery stores is obviously ill informed and needs read the lables on the food their actually buying. If the senate didn’t pass a law saying corporations didn’t have to say what was in the food it might actually do them good! Anyone that is trying to get rid of small farming is simply trying to put money in their own pocket what other reason could there be honestly…..

  • Melvin P.

    I seldom agree with John McCain but he and his 2 colleagues were spot on with their letter. We are not compelled to sponsor hobby farmers. And hobby farmers they are — according to Dr. Steve Savage organic food production accounts for only about 5% of farm acreage in the US. If we are going to subsidize hobbyists, shouldn’t we subsidize recreational boaters and stamp collectors and handicrafters along with market gardeners? Everyone loves a handout, everyone, not just organic food peddlers.

    • Melvin, thanks for your comment. I’m not sure why you’re talking about organic, since that’s not what this post (or the USDA’s report) is about. But since you brought it up, your figures are off. Organic crop are actually grown on less than 1 percent of all U.S. cropland.

      So yes, organic and local foods are small (though fast-growing) segments of the food industry.

      But since when does “small” equal “hobby”?

      As I already pointed out, a November 2011 report from the USDA’s Economic Research Service found that, for small and medium-sized farms with local food sales, “more operators identified their primary occupation as farming and devoted more time to their farm operation than operators of similarly sized farms without local sales.”

      I think we should value small businesses and entrepreneurs whatever their scale, especially when they produce products—in this case, fresh nutritious foods—that have so many benefits for our families and communities.

    • Melvin, to compare big ag fairly with small farmers, include costs and benefits. On one side, massive pollution, dangerous chemicals, genetically altered crops, soil loss and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. On the other side, healthy soil and crops, little or no pollution and toxic chemicals, and a far smaller carbon footprint. Our governments monkeys with the free market in many ways, so let’s not forget the giant subsidies for big ag. Are they wise?

      • Mark, thanks for your observations. You’re right, the costs of industrial style agriculture need to be considered but are often overlooked.

        In our 2008 report, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_industrial_agriculture/cafos-uncovered.html), UCS tried to get at those “hidden costs”–everything from air pollution, antibiotic resistance, and their health impacts, to destruction of fisheries and even loss of property values.

        As you say, industrial models like CAFOs receive big subsidies already. Instead of subsidizing pollution, we should subsidize healthy food and farms.

      • M. Jackson Pond

        Which “…CAFOS receive big subsidies…”? Please name them. It will be a short list. Very short because CAFOS are not subsidized, never have been. One would expect real scientists to do some fact-checking before making accusations. It is characteristic of phony scientists to state popular misconceptions as fact. Very shabby science, indeed.

      • Jackson, thanks for your comment. But CAFO subsidies aren’t a misconception, and the list is actually a long one. All CAFOs (all of them) are subsidized by virtue of the subsidies that their primary inputs–feed corn and soy–receive.

        It’s an indirect subsidy, to be sure, but the effect is the same, making these crowded, polluting, unhealthy facilities cheaper to operate.

        All of this is in our report, CAFOs Uncovered, which I linked to in my comment. Just trying to make it easier for readers like you to fact-check before making accusations.