Upsetting the Apple Cart

Frikeh III - Fixing the Problem

2009-08-03T14:12:38-07:00

By Anthony Boutard, Ayers Creek Farm.

Food, Inc., King Corn, Omnivore's Dilemma, and a host of other films and books have identified the substantial flaws in our food supply. These problems seem remote and insurmountable, and the best we can do as individuals is to shift our buying habits. When the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) uses its rules to say frikeh and other traditional farm products cannot be sold in a farmers' market, it brings a local dimension to the problem. Fortunately, we have the ability to initiate constructive changes at the local level.

Farmers' Markets have been operating in Oregon for almost 30 years. The oldest still operates in Grants Pass. The Portland Farmers' Market started in 1993 and was originally located in the Albers Mills parking area. These markets allowed nonconventional, small scale farmers to survive. For the first decade or so, the markets were ignored by the ODA. In the mid 1990s, the bureaucracy started to get itchy as markets started to sprout up in urban areas. To address the situation, a couple of market managers sat down with ODA staff and crafted a set of guidelines for vendors. Earlier this year, the agency started an aggressive campaign to increase regulation of farmers' markets. The agency has decided to draft rules later in the autumn and possibly require licenses for farmers' market vendors.

Was there an incident that gave rise their concerns? No. For three decades, Oregon's farmers' markets have operated safely, and without any reported food borne illness incidents. In fact, this exemplary safety record is reflected nationwide. It is clear that factors other than straight forward food safety concerns are behind the move to further regulate farmers' markets. After all, the food safety challenges are arising from the complexities of the food industry that is already regulated by ODA and other agencies, not the simple open air farmers' market. Data and science tell us ODA is moving in exactly the wrong direction.

The Oregon Legislature has never grappled with the question of whether and how to regulate farmers' markets. There is no policy or set of laws that relate to farmers' markets. The basic statutes governing food safety were drafted long before farmers' markets and other direct sales venues became institutions. Leaving ODA to regulate direct sales without an open and public discussion will be disastrous. We believe it is time for the legislature to take a look at how other states regulate farmers' markets and food production from small scale farms, and come up with a coherent approach for Oregon. We provided several examples of states with more progressive approaches than Oregon.

The reality is, Oregon makes it very difficult for small scale farms to increase the value of their crops. For example, there is a domestic kitchen license, but it requires no pets in the building where the kitchen is located. In our case, we cannot get a domestic kitchen license as long as our beloved Tito lives. Other licenses are expensive and the requirements so burdensome that few farms even explore the option.

There is a land use dimension. Our farm is zoned Exclusive Farm Use, 80 acres, High Value Farmland. This means we cannot divide the land and have few options for the land other than agriculture. We support those laws. That said, because the land use laws are predicated upon the farmer's ability to manage the land profitably, the state should be circumspect about depriving a farmers the ability to produce a food like frikeh on the land without good cause. Unless there is a clear safety or environmental rationale, farmers should be able to extract as much benefit from their labor on the land as possible.

The interim between sessions is a good time to contact legislators. Senator Jackie Dingfelder (sen.jackiedingfelder@state.or.us) and Representative Brian Clem (rep.brianclem@state.or.us), who chair the legislative committees that oversee agriculture, along with your own legislators, should be contacted. Various groups concerned about food supply and quality also need to initiate the discussion with Sen. Dingfelder and Rep. Clem. If we are going to have a healthy market farm sector, we need to establish separate policies and laws governing the sector. Picking up on the bicycle analogy, it does not make sense to force bicyclists to wear seat belts when a helmets are what is needed.

This is where we need your help. We need as many people as possible to encourage Sen. Dingfelder and Rep. Clem to have their committees to discuss small scale farming and its reliance direct sales venues such as farmers' markets and community supported agriculture (CSA). We need tiered rules that are grounded in good science and hazard analysis. We need profitable small farms if we want to preserve farmland. We need the state to recognize the fundamental safety of a direct sale between producer and consumer.

There is great concern among farmers and market managers regarding ODA's push for greater regulation. For most of us, this is time when we are the busiest, and so we need the other leg of the three-legged market stool, our customers, to help us. As things progress, we will keep you updated. Now to pick plums.

Farewell to Frikeh, Part II

2009-08-03T14:10:16-07:00

Looking at how other states differentiate between industrial food production and that done by farmers who sell directly to the public, Anthony Boutard of Ayers Creek Farms sees a more equitable way forward for Oregon. You can find Anthony and Carol at the Hillsdale Farmers' Market every Sunday from 10 am till 2 pm.

In the first installment of "Farewell Frikeh," we noted that the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) defines "food processing" as the "…cooking, baking, heating, drying, mixing, grinding, churning, separating, extracting, cutting, freezing, or otherwise manufacturing a food or changing the physical characteristics of a food, and the packaging, canning or otherwise enclosing such a food in a container." While this long recitation certainly includes all activities that happen in food processing factories, the definition also covers many traditional farm activities that fall well short of what we consider processing foods. Under a strict interpretation of ODA's rules, all of the activities identified above must take place within a licensed facility.

Because frikeh (top photo) involves heating and drying, ODA calls it a "processed food." Like many other traditional foods, including raisins, sundried tomatoes, dried peppers and herbs, frikeh is prepared outside in the field, and not in a factory. Under ODA's scheme, if a "processed food" is not produced in a licensed facility, the agency prohibits the sale of the food. If California took such a view of food processing, we would have neither raisins, nor domestic sun dried tomatoes and peppers. Most raisins, for example, are dried on kraft paper trays set out on the vineyard floor. Some of the newer varieties are dried as clusters attached to the trellis, but still outdoors.

After learning of Oregon's approach to regulating food, we decided to see how other states regulate small operations such as ours. What is immediately striking about Oregon is the lack of any stated policy regarding farmers markets or community supported agriculture (CSA) in either the statutes or rules. Although farmers' markets and CSA's have strong support among Oregonians, that support has not translated into written policies concerning direct sales. As a result, ODA's default position is to consider farmers' markets the same as retail stores. And when farmers stray from the narrow category of fresh fruits and vegetables, they are treated as food processors. It is as if everyone, from a bicyclist to a heavy truck driver, must get the same Commercial Drivers License (CDL). No distinction is made between farm based enterprises and multinational corporations. In fact, ODA has been adamant that no distinction should be made.

Many states, perhaps a majority, have adopted what is the regulatory equivalent to a bike lane for farms that sell directly to the public. In Ohio, the state has a category called "Cottage Food Production Operation." Farms are allowed to produce and sell a clearly defined range of nonhazardous foods, including sorghum and maple syrup, various baked goods, jams and jellies, candy, fruit butter, dried herbs. Kentucky and Iowa similarly allow farms to produce a range of nonhazardous foods without a processing license. Kentucky also has a "Homebased Micro-Processor" certification which allows greater latitude in pressure canning low acid foods.

In 2004, Minnesota passed the "Pickle Bill" which allows Minnesotans to make and sell their famous vegetable pickles without a processing license. Last month, the Indiana legislature passed a law that allows market vendors and roadside stands to make and sell nonhazardous foods made at home. New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Massachusetts also have a separate tier for farm-based food production.

A couple of decades ago, Oregon's farmers sold virtually all of their production to food processors. The previous owners of our farm, for example, had contracts with Agripac (sweet corn), Steinfeld's (cucumbers), Smuckers (strawberries) and Cascadian Farm (blackberries). Today, three of those companies are no longer doing business in the Willamette Valley, and Cascadian Farm has but a few Oregon growers left.

New types of farm operations have arisen in the decades since the current statutes, definitions and rules were drafted. Over the last decade, new farmers have had little choice but to find new ways to sell their food, including directly to the public at farmers' markets and CSA's. We need to update the statutes and rules to reflect farming's future, not just its past. At Ayers Creek, we have been making wonderful raisins for our own consumption and we might even have our first run of sorghum syrup this year. Under the current rules, we are prohibited from selling these unadulterated and wholesome foods.

Our hope is that Oregon will take a closer look at states that have adopted less onerous approaches to increasing family farm income. A more realistic set of rules defining and regulating "food processing" as it is applied to farm operations will provide many benefits to farmers and consumers. Will loosening requirements for farm-based food production create a food safety issue? No. The "Pickle Bill" did not create a mass die-off of farmers' market customers in Minnesota.

The food industry is where the problem lies, not the family farm. The reality remains that, in states with progressive views on farm-based food production, food borne illnesses have not been an issue at farmers' markets or with CSA's. Farmers eat the food they produce and there is no chain of custody to track. Squadrons of food inspectors and a myriad of properly filled out forms and licenses cannot replace the simplicity of a direct sale when it comes to food safety and quality. In fact, if you read the ingredients for a jar of conventional, mass-produced pickles, you will understand why they have to be licensed.

In Part III of this series, we will discuss the various ways to improve the rules governing food production in Oregon. Up to now, those rules in Oregon have been shaped the industry, not consumers. That has to change. Consumers need to participate in governing how food is produced in Oregon.

Farewell to Frikeh

2009-07-27T15:57:12-07:00

By Anthony Boutard, Ayers Creek Farm

Several years ago, Carol and I started experimenting with integrating various grains into our market farm. Our research led us to an ancient food called "frikeh." Produced by farmers since Biblical times, frikeh is wheat harvested while still green, then burned and threshed. The resulting grain is jade green with a grassy, sweet and smokey flavor. The green wheat is also more nutritious than mature wheat. Over the last five years, we have offered our farmers' market customers frikeh for a short time in early summer. With its smokey quality, frikeh offers a distinct and exciting variation on normal starchy grains. It is especially popular with vegetarians. Frikeh is prepared in Australia and throughout the Middle East, and is occasionally imported to the US. Until we began our experiments, there was no commercial production of frikeh in the US. There is a three day window where the grain, durum wheat, can be burned. It is a rustic process, done out in the field on sheets of corrugated metal. The grain must also be dried outside on screens. For more detail discussion of the grain, go here.

Because of the new and aggressive direction taken by the Oregon Department of Agriculture Food Safety Division, we will not be able to sell frikeh at the Hillsdale Farmers Market this summer. Yes, we can make frikeh again. But here's the problem. It is not factory food. There is no industrial facility to license. So we are prohibited from selling it at the market. Is there a food safety issue with frikeh? Absolutely not. ODA has simply developed a cramped, narrow vision of its regulatory authority. Unfortunately, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the ODA is going to stifle innovations at the farmers' market level.

Last week, ODA staff were looking for information on Hood strawberries. It is fine to cling to cherished old varieties, but as diseases and viruses decimate the remaining gene pool, the state needs to encourage new food ideas and presentations. The ideal laboratory for such experimentation is the farmers' market. We need to make it easy for farmers to follow their muse, whether roasting frikeh, or drying a surplus of chili peppers. In fact, reading ODA's proposal, it appears that farmers who sell grains or dry beans, for example, must get a license. This is absurd and without any basis in food safety.

What is troubling to me as farmer as I look at this push by ODA's FSD is the absence of a larger, positive and forward looking vision of farmers' markets. Reading the ODA document, it is clear that the markets and vendors are just a regulatory version of a widget. The "widget" is used by economist to avoid the messy conclusion that every manufactured good is different.

By gum, they want to treat us just like Safeway or Resor Foods. But we are not the same. There is no sense of appreciation or affection for farmers, managers and customers, articulated in the document. The directive's language is cold and dismissive. It speaks volumes that ODA does not trust the vendors to fill out their own forms.

Culturally, ODA is so wrapped up in the world of lobbyists and trade organizations, of corporation and industries, that the agency is unwilling to deal with individuals and communities. The agency is trying to impose a hierarchy within the loose and independent farmers' market community. The food safety administrators are directing the Oregon Farmers' Market Association to tell market managers to collect information on farmers and other vendors, and send it back to the agency so they can bust farmers who wander into the gray areas.

I will leave a lawyer to guide us on whether the state can collect this sort of information on fishing expedition, and without statutory authority. This is not a congenial request on the part of an agency to fulfill its statutory obligation to notify people of rules changes. Its purpose is to bust people who might be processing frikeh, or something similar. If a farmer is accused of violations based on information supplied by a farmers' market association without the expressed permission of the farmer, the legal case could be interesting. In fact, I don't see any indication that this directive has been reviewed by the AG's office.

If the ODA wants information on farmers, the agency should seek funds from the legislature to carry out the task. Using farmers' market staff as ODA's clerical support is wrong, and without any compensation, insulting. Information on the farmers' operations should be supplied directly to the agency by farmers, not market managers. Remember, if there is an error in the information given to the state agency, the farmers' market staff supplying the information are on the hook.

Finally, a plea to ODA staff. Please work on developing a farmer friendly approach. Why not make it a positive experience, rather than stalking and spying on us. We are, compared to Safeway or Resors, tiny operations. In 2006, Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work on micro-loans. Those loans provide critical capital to individuals frozen out of the commercial credit market. Loans were predicated on trust in the borrower's good sense and, if I remember correctly, the default rate was zero, or close to it.

We need a micro-processing registration that will provide a path with few regulatory burdens when adding value to our produce if the activity, such as drying peppers, producing frikeh, or grinding grains, poses an insignificant risk. The approach needs to be tailored to the realities of a farm and farmers' market, rather than food factories or standard retail outlets. We need staff to develop a collaborative approach to farm gate value in the same way Yunus did with his micro- loans.

Earning a living from farming is tough, especially at the market farm level, and the Oregon Department of Agriculture should be doing everything it their power to make the task easier, not harder. We need advocates, not antagonists, of our efforts to build a robust farming business and a secure food system. The ODA should also review the efforts of colleagues in other states who are actually working to encourage greater on-farm processing and farmers' market participation.

The quest for the 'Big Pig' and the resulting superbugs

2009-03-24T10:18:08-07:00

What do factory farms have to do with superbugs? Look no further than your "grown big quick factory farm" bacon you had for breakfast.

The unintended consequences of the efforts by mega-farmers to grow the 'Big Pig' (and fast) may have created the antibiotic resistant staph infection doctors call MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) - affectionately referred to as flesh-eating bacteria by some. As scientists worked to discover the origin of this nasty disease, it appears according to most fingers pointing, the likely culprits are industrial factory farms.

A staph infection typically can be treated with antibiotics, but this particular strain has developed and appears to be unaffected. So how did it come to this, you may wonder. Well, the answer appears to be in the abuse of medically-important antibiotics, which emerged as agribusiness worked to unnaturally increase the rates in which pigs go from piglets to bacon (or chicks to nuggets) all on behalf of padding the bottom line.

Because factory farms lack the committed, caring eye of a farmer, who appreciates his or her animals and knows his herd to be a group of many individual animals, agribusiness has standardized animal production and sought to have science be the shepherd's eye. The large-scale production of animals has led to feeding sub-therapeutic antibiotics to prevent diseases, rather than treating an animal with antibiotics once it is sick.

This is an ugly cycle that repeats itself with some very harmful unintended consequences. Crowd the animals and let them stand in filthiest of conditions that would challenge even the strongest of immune system. Feed the animals the drugs to keep them alive and then send them off to slaughter. Sell the meat so that we can have our all American fast foods. Then send the profits to some corporate headquarters (probably located in Manhattan) so company shareholders and corporate CEOs can enjoy high-falutin vacations, at the expense of public health and the environment.

In a recent article, Our Pigs, Our Food, Our Health, NY Times columnist (and Yamhill, Oregon native) Nicholas Kristof describes in detail how the people in one Indiana community, which has been inundated by corporate hog farms have been experiencing increased levels of antibiotic-resistant staph infections.

As Kristof points out in his article, our move as a nation toward fast, cheap, meats has left our communities and public health vulnerable to all sorts of threats including antibiotic-resistant superbugs, among others, many of which may be largely undiscovered (and possibly only discovered when it’s too late).

This is why it is more important than ever for us eaters to seek out a family farmer and buy directly from someone we know is acting as a steward of the land and his or her community, as much they are a steward of their own animals. (Need to find a farmer? Go to an Oregon farmers market or visit the Eatwell Guide for a farmer near you!)

Factory farming will likely go down in history as a very bleak period in America’s agri-history where profits and corporate greed over-shadowed common sense and with terrible consequence. But it’s not too late for change.

It is time that eaters and our elected officials alike realize that Mother Nature always gets the last word, so it is in our interest to work with nature instead of manipulating that nature work for us. Support family farmers to ensure that our food, our farms, our communities, our country and our planet remain healthy for generations to come.

LNG will hurt Oregon Farmers

2009-03-12T10:49:40-07:00

Brent Foster had a poignant photo from a recent protest. It was a large orange tractor on a trailer with a huge sign. The picture resembled the "No U Turn" signs on the highways with LNG at the center. It read beneath this symbol, YAMHILL FARMERS ALL AGREE. NO LNG.

Brent Foster was the Keynote Speaker at the Farm to Chef Conference, and provided some insight to this Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) issue. Brent is an attorney who works for Oregon Attorney General, John Kroger and has been intricately involved in the fight against the proposed LNG pipeline and port-terminals related to that pipeline.

In the news recently an LNG terminal in Texas has applied for a permit to export LNG. This completely contradicts the intentions stated when the port was first proposed and built, to import LNG. But if one evaluates the conditions on the ground, you will notice that exporting LNG is the only reasonable purpose for the pipeline in the first place and it always has been. You see, the US is believed to be the sixth largest possessor of Natural Gas in the world. Because of this abundance, domestically produced natural gas costs about $4/gallon. Overseas, in countries that lack this resource, the price is around $18 to $20/gallon. So importing LNG is like bringing sand to the beach - there's plenty of it and no one really sees the need for more.

So who needs LNG and at what expense? And, what will a LNG pipeline mean for Oregon farms?

The LNG corporations plan to extract our public resources and export them to some other country, padding the pockets of corporate fat cats at the expense of our environment and our family farms.

Strong arm tactics are being employed to get at our land. Eminent domain is being declared to enable the pipeline to go through private properties across the state with no recourse to prevent or alter its path. Agricultural land is being targeted for two reasons. The first reason, and I feel that I am being generous, is because of lower population densities. In the event of a disaster, the casualties would be fewer, which could mean only thousands, instead of tens of thousands, killed or injured. But given the history of corporate ethics in our country, I actually find this consideration secondary. What is likely more critical to their decision is that regulations on the pipeline are less stringent in the agricultural areas. As that corporation looks at their expenses, they can save a lot of money if they do not have to be so careful or considerate of people, of farmers and their families.

Eminent domain is anything but considerate. Landowners must be compensated, but the values are often far below what others might consider fair market value for the land taken, and the depreciation of the property holding, once that pipeline carves its way through. Also coming with this intrusive pipeline are new restrictions on the landowner as to what may be done with the land along the 50-foot right of way. There are a host of regulations as to which crops may be planted there regardless of what was there before the pipeline plowed through. Oregon vineyards and forests are but a few examples of what will be lost, if and when the pipeline comes.

What can we, the farmers, do? First, stop listening to the gas companies. To these companies, any effort to prevent the the pipeline will bring the characterization of being extremist or radical. NEWSFLASH - Call us what you want, but this is our fight and we aren't going to let short-sighted, corporate greed destroy our farms. We are farmers, the salt of the earth agrarians who grow food and if protecting our farms is radical, then we're radicals.

On March 15, 2009, at 1 pm, there will be a large march in Salem to express the dissent of people who disagree that Oregon needs this LNG pipeline. Go to www.OregonFirst.net for details on how you can be part of this very important day. People need to know what we are sacrificing when we concede to these multinational corporations that have little consideration as to how this pipeline will effect people, local family farms and our local food souce.

If we don't take action now, there will be no reversing this scar on the land and on our farms. This is when we must be our brother's keeper, our neighbor's keeper. Even if your land is not impacted by the pipeline, you will feel the effects of this private enterprise as it furthers our dependence on non-renewable energy. Think about how much further we could be if the monies that are to be spent on the LNG pipeline were redirected into research and development for alternatives to fossil fuels.

Don't wait until it's too late. Take action now! See you on March 15th in Salem!!

Connect the Dots Board of Ag

2009-01-11T09:04:47-08:00

Once again, the Board of Agriculture’s last meeting has given us some food for thought, or shall we say for ranting.

Although we try to understand that this group is coming from a couple of decades of industrialized agriculture, export-oriented production and a "cheap food for all mentality", we have trouble with the fact that they are not seeing the failed agricultural policy in front of them is in need of major change.

The Board claims that agriculture is the economic engine of our state, yet they also talk about how farmers have to buy retail and sell wholesale. We have actually even heard an Oregon Department of Agriculture employee question why anyone is their right mind would want to go into farming.

Earth to the Department of Agriculture: Maybe people would go into farming if you and your Board would stop spending the majority of your time discussing food safety inspections and opening markets in China rather than addressing the incredible potential that we have as Oregonians to be feeding ourselves and supporting our farmers at the same time!

The Board of Agriculture talks about wanting to preserve farmland but we have never seen them put any programs in place that might actually assist new and young farmers get on the land. They continue to dismiss the local food movement as being "too urban", and "just a fad -" not understanding that people in Portland, Salem and Eugene are buying their food from the very farmers that live just outside their cities. These are urban consumers supporting rural farmers. Sounds like a bridging of the infamous (and often hyped and described by divisive unnecessary rhetoric)rural-urban divide is taking place to us.

The Board claims that they are embracing the “environmentalists” and have invited “them” to address the Board with their concerns. Some of the Board members have even gone so far as to call farmers “eco-citizens,” but then they reassure readers of the ‘Agriculture Quarterly’ that this does not mean that they are “giving in” to conservationists and that agriculture in our state is "sustainable" just the way it is.

This is followed by pleas from the Board members to keep the climate in Oregon friendly to processors so that our value-added exports remain viable, but never is it mentioned that we might want to suppor small-scale processors so that they can service our regional markets, seeing as how these are all but extinct which has resulted in a major hole in our “sustainable” food system.

They just don’t get it!

Board member Ken Bailey thinks that small farmers only survive because the big guys provide the infrastructure for them while keeping the costs of inputs and equipment low enough for the small farmer to be able to afford it. However, it seems to us that with a few exceptions, these two types of agriculture do not operate with the same infrastructure or needs and the Department could certainly put some time and energy into assisting ALL farmers in Oregon - not just basing their decisions on a "what is good for the goose must be good for the gander" approach.

This does not have to be small farmers vs. large farmers, environmentalists vs. agriculturalists, urbanites vs. rural residents. It is time that we stop encouraging divisiveness and start working together to build and sustain a food system that focuses on feeding Oregonians and supporting Oregon's family farmers.

Which candidate supports the Family Farmer?

2008-11-03T11:10:21-08:00

McCain or Obama?

Our friends over at Farm Aid broke it down for you.

Click here to see where the candidates came down on issues important to family farmers.

We at the Apple Cart encourage you to exercise your right to vote and vote family farmer.

Here's to a new era of pro-family farmer policies.

Looking for your closest polling place. Visit www.canivote.org to find it!

VOTE!

Congressional Candidates talk Local Farms & Food

2008-09-11T16:54:08-07:00

Hey candidates running for congress:

The corporate ag lobby doesn't represent family farmers. That was one message from last night's forum with all the candidates running for the 5th Congressional seat being vacated by Congresswoman Darlene Hooley.

This was an opportunity for family farmers, rural residents and eaters to talk about the issues that they care about - issues that are far-too-often muddled in the chatter of the campaign season. Thanks to our colleagues over at Friends of Family Farmers for hosting this very interesting forum!

At the forum, candidates addressed a myriad of issues including:

Health care, access to markets, aging farming population, farm workers,rural meat processing, energy, fuel costs, landuse regulations, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and factory farms.

So issues aside, who won the debate? Well we are non-partisan so we won't tell you our thoughts. However, a big shout-out to Republican Mike Erickson for actually using the term "factory farms" and talking about their negative impacts - something we rarely hear from a Republican. Clearly someone did his homework.

State Senator Kurt Schrader certainly gets points from us for his farming background and the fact that he still lives on his family farm and seems to have a good understanding of the issues many farmers face. And not to mention, the guy's a veterinarian.

But, Mr. Schrader did make a point to boast about his Farm Bureau ties. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE chalkboard screeching to our ears! Farm Bureau may sometimes represent family farmers here in Oregon, where they have done some interesting things such as supporting Measure 49 (albeit a decision that split the organization) but...

Mr. Schrader, if you make it to Congress, you need to take a hard look at Farm Bureau policies before you jump in bed with them. Farm Bureau has definitely lost it's way from the roots the organization once had with family farmers. This organization has become one, if not the largest mouthpiece for corporate agriculture in our country, which has resulted in the demise of the family farm. For goodness sakes Mr. Schrader, they are an insurance company not a farm organization!!

Nonetheless, all the candidates (including the 4 minor party candidates) did a great job and we commend them for taking time out of their busy schedules to meet with the people and to talk about local farms and food. From last night's forum, it is clear that there is an overall lack of understanding of food and farming by candidates running for office in this country. And it is incumbent on us - the farmers, the eaters and rural residents- to ensure that we reach out to these people - who, one of which - will be making policy decisions that impact us directly.

And, whoever it is that makes it to Congress, we hope that you remember that most family farmers can't afford to take time from the farm to make a trip to DC. If sound policies are to pass that truly help family farmers our Congressman will need to reach out to the real farmers on the ground, working the land and supporting their communities, rather than deferring to corporate ag suits that lurk in the halls and stand in lobbies just waiting to further the corporate agriculture agenda by running family farmers out-of-business.

It’s the factory farming stupid.

2008-09-05T14:54:11-07:00

So before the right-wing extremists poke their heads out from some hole to claim that we want everyone to become vegetarians, let me set the record straight.

First, we at the Apple Cart neither support nor promote an all-vegetarian diet. In fact, we hope that you will start to eat meat and that you will eat lots of it – provided you purchase your meat from Oregon family farmers who raise their animals in a way that doesn’t pollute the environment and doesn’t impact their neighbors. And, yes we want you to support farmers who raise their animals humanely.

Ah…the “H” word. Yup we said it – humanely. “Humanely” doesn’t mean that we’re expecting the farm critters to come in the house and lounge on the couch. It means simply treating the animals that you plan to eat with enough dignity and respect as living creatures and allowing these animals the room and freedom to enjoy life as a pig, cow or turkey before they become bacon, steak or a drumstick.

Recently a commentary written by food animal vet, Dr. Robert B. Chernson ran in our favorite “ag rag” the Capital Press. In the article, Raising Farm Animals Under Attack, Chernson defended the practice of factory farming as, “ modern agriculture” and a system that “provides producers an economic advantage.” Our question: An economic advantage for who?

The reality is, that the standardize system of producing animals in factory farms, allows agri-conglomerates to mass-produce animal products in order for them to undersell family farmers.

Dr. Chernson’s response was intended to advocate for a no vote on a Californian ballot measure that “prohibits the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs." Sounds reasonable enough to me.

But apparently, Dr. Chernson and his agribusiness cronies, would rather further the suffering of farm animals by confining them to crates and cages lying in their own feces in order to economically disadvantage family farmers and pad that bottom line of corporate agricultural interests.

The reality is that consumers don’t want products that were produced in a way that caused unnecessary animal suffering. Consumers desire meat and dairy products that are produced in a manner that is both humane for the animal and supports family farmers who are working to make a viable living without negatively impacting their communities.

There is mass movement afoot for these types of products and it is time that the agribusiness companies realize that the “modern practices” are becoming obsolete. As consumers, we can help the welfare of farm animals and farm families by purchasing our meat, dairy and eggs from family farmers that participate in programs such as Animal Welfare Approved. You can find a farmer near you by checking out the Eat Well Guide or visit a farmer at your local farmers market.

In the meantime, maybe Dr. Chernson should take a gander at Darwin’s theories, because if he’s not careful when we as a meat-eating society evolve – he and his factory farming cronies will be the ones to die off.

The Apple Cart Hearts Willie!

2008-08-27T13:03:42-07:00

Family farm activist Willie Nelson will be rolling through Salem and playing at the Oregon State Fair on August 29th. We at the Apple Cart want to give a big shout out to welcome Willie to thank him for his support of family farmers across the country. According to the Farm Aid website, Willie Nelson and Farm Aid, "have raised more than $30 million to promote a strong and resilient family farm system of agriculture." Read more about Farm Aid's work here.

Continue reading for an excerpt from “Save Family Farms, Save America” by Willie Nelson.

Save Family Farms, Save America” by Willie Nelson

While it might seem obvious to many, good food comes from farms with healthy soil and clean water. As the stewards of the land, family farmers are the foundation of this movement, as well as its guarantor. A healthy America needs many family farmers on the land – Those who grow our food and care for the land and water are of vital national importance. Farmers and their fields are the fabric that holds our country together.

While good, healthy, fresh food from family farms is the most visible product of a sustainable food system or “good food” movement that each of us can enjoy, the movement stands for much more. It represents the interests of all who care about the future of our land, its resources and its people. As members of this movement and as eaters, the food we choose to buy connects us directly to those who produced it and to the multiple reasons why it is in our own interests to see this movement flourish. Preserving family farmers and our farm land also protects our natural resources, health and nutrition, local economies, energy footprint, and even our democracy.

The most direct and regular action you can take is to search out and buy as much of your food directly from farm families in your area. Our food choices today shape tomorrow's agriculture. Think about one food item that you can buy from local farmers and commit to buying it. These small and simple actions are growing a healthier food system and changing American agriculture for the better. The other opportunity we have to further this movement is the current debate over the next Farm Bill. If you value good food from family farms, if you care about local and democratic control, if you care about health and nutrition for children, and if you want your children and grandchildren to enjoy the benefits of a clean environment, then demand a Farm Bill that protects it. The future of good food depends on all of us.