This is What Food Sovereignty Looks Like

FoodTankMemeThis image is a meme that was posted to Facebook by the FoodTank (a food think tank), an organization I respect. It is a quote by Bill Mollison, co-founder of the Permaculture movement. I say, yes! This is where we need to go. But first, there are a lot of nasty and unnecessary government regulations (at the federal, state, county and municipal levels) that need to be done away with for this to actually become a wide-spread and influential reality. Those rules, while in many cases appropriate to large-scale, export-oriented, general public wholesale and retail operations, need not apply to small-scale local producers who are simply feeding their neighbors through farm-direct or garden-direct exchange between the primary producer and the end consumer (eater). The People must act to remove any regulation that stands in the way of any small-scale, local producer from providing food– any food of choice– to any local end consumer through direct exchange. The People can hold the producers accountable for quality and safety of the food and we don’t need government regulatory bodies to do this for us, especially when, more often than not, they prevent or inhibit us from establishing these types of exchanges. This is what Food Sovereignty looks like.

I posted the comment above to the Food Tank’s meme and then my friend, Walt Kloefkorn, an activist from Stevens County, Washington (where some of Washington’s most progressive organizing around the issue of Food Sovereignty is happening) said:

“Most food safety regulations are not about preventing unsafe food from ever reaching the public, they are about tracing it back to where it came from. Obviously, those parts of the system add no value to a situation where food is sold directly.

The state and federal agencies are incredibly difficult to deal with for small farmers. The agencies claim that they are concerned about even one consumer being harmed, but in reality they ignore much more serious harms to consumers such as lack of access to healthy food, the thousands of chemicals that are accumulating in our bodies, and widespread food insecurity. If they had the least bit of actual concern for the safety of consumers, they would begin an immediate phase out of the potent neurotoxins we spray on our crops in ever-increasing amounts. They are captive to the corporate interests and are primarily concerned with preserving corporate profit, not consumer health.

The extreme fragility of the mono-cropped industrial food system and its vulnerability to various shocks, such as spikes in energy prices, climate disasters, and crop disease outbreaks, could easily lead to widespread food shortages, and even famine. Small, diversified farms supporting local and regional needs are the best way to restore the resiliency that will be needed to fend off these potential disasters.”

Yup, that about sums it up. Stay tuned. This is not merely rhetoric.

Wisdom from an Organic Elder and His Reference to a New Organization: Food Commons

governance[1]This article, “Sustainable Farming Needs Math as Much as Mulch, Says One Veteran ” by Nathanael Johnson in Grist, an interview with Tom Willey of T & D Willey Farms in California’s San Joaquin Valley, is a must-read for folks thinking about the future of organic and sustainable food systems and farming models. I remember receiving pallets of T&D Willey Farms’ produce to re-distribute between Santa Cruz and San Francisco back in the ’80s when that’s what I did– their quality was out of this world; wooden wire-bound cases with hand-made informational flyers on each case. I may have even picked up at their farm on occasion (it was a while ago). The article is a direct follow-on from the New York Times article about the elders of the organic movement that I referred to in my previous blog post. What I find especially interesting about Tom Willey’s reflections on his and his wife’s success on their organic farm in California is that he is not blind to some of the aspects of the model that brought them their success that he now recognizes might need to be relegated to the trash bin of history in favor of new models that will make food production that much more sustainable, equitable and resilient. I’m fairly certain these new models are being born and nurtured every day with inspired projects being developed at the local level in communities all over, especially by young folks.

So, while reading the interview with Tom Willey, I saw that he mentioned a new project, Food Commons, that he thinks embodies some of this new thinking, a fundamentally different approach to feeding each other that’s “out of the box” compared to the models we’re used to. I got very interested. I read the entire Food Commons website.

I am intrigued by their suggestion to appropriate land held by banks connected to non-performing loans to form the basis of basically a land bank, a Commons, to install farming families on, to put to sustainable use in food production and, importantly, local distribution. I am also interested in how, as a society, we can establish mechanisms, through state, and especially federal buyout programs, for the transfer of privately owned farmland from present-day owners to a trust such as a Commons. These would be publicly financed and designed to eventually preserve in perpetuity a large percentage of our nation’s arable land, both rural and urban. Such a program would have to go far towards meeting the needs of the farmers (many likely aging, and their families) who would be willing to participate in the program while transitioning their private land away from exposure to the real estate market and committing its future use to food production as true public Commons. I think it would be possible to design such a program and to start advocating for it as part of future farm bills. It would need to be a national, grassroots campaign. It would be difficult to fund it, but not so much if we, as a society, decided our future food security and local economic vitality were more concrete  national benefits than is an obscenely bloated Pentagon budget. The Food Commons folks put it this way: “It is possible to think of the Food Commons Trust as a ‘National Park System’, a ‘Bureau of Land Management,’ or a Public Utility dedicated to national food security and health – but, importantly, without the typical government bureaucracy, it would be established as a public, not-for-profit Trust, chartered to operate for the perpetual benefit of the American public.”

I also have a hair-brained idea (that I just shared with the folks at Food Commons) that one way to fund the revitalization of local food systems would be for localities to tax their jurisdictions’ food warehouse distribution centers and/or grocery stores on food items that are shipped in from outside a given region and dedicate those funds to be administered by local citizens’ food authorities for local food system enhancement.

I also conveyed to the folks at Food Commons my belief that farm families who would be living and farming on the envisioned Commons, who abide by the stewardship agreements such arrangements would require, should be able to live rent free and have very long-term leases. Only sales of product or revenues from associated ventures should be attached for paying into the Commons organizational budget.

Under the Food Commons’ governance heading on their website, I see phrase in bold: “steady-state profitability” explained in the following terms: “The governing boards will establish goals, incentive structures, and checks and balances that drive efficient use of resources and sustainable positive economic value creation, not unlimited growth and maximization of shareholder profit at the expense of other stakeholders, including future generations”. “Economic value creation–” That is key. Unfortunately, it’s not too often these days that I come across the concept of “steady state” economics, but I am happy to see it mentioned in this context. There is a passage in E.F. Schumacher’s famous book from the 1970’s “Small is Beautiful” where he describes a business model he observed in India. When an enterprise had achieved a steady state (stable revenues, good wages, etc.), rather than continue to grow, it would in essence divide like a cell and spawn another instance of itself. I think something along these lines would be a good mechanism for the Food Commons project. It could also incorporate the Mondragon Cooperative’s model of providing education within the system so that the model maintains itself and also provides for its own “cell division.”

The “prototype” projects described on the Food Commons website are also very interesting.

I will be attentive to the development of the Food Commons project.

It’s a wave that’s building. Maybe your community will be part of that wave..

The Rebirth of the Commons

TheCommonsSo, in case you missed this from a week ago, here’s a link to a NYT article about the “Elders of the Organic Movement” who met for a week-long conference at Esalen in California in January. When I joined the organic movement, first in Maine in the ’70’s and then in California in the ’80’s, it was not long after these pioneers had broken ground for a food and farming revolution that has become a global phenomenon. They were still young, idealistic and extremely energetic. The participants in this conference of Elders, looking back at their accomplishments, raised fundamental questions which we really need to start answering and, more importantly, doing something about. Questions like: Does the National Organic Program (the set of rules which organic farmers must follow) need to be torn up and re-written in order to prohibit abuses such as “clamshelled tomatoes,” or “thousands of acres of single crops?” Don’t you think part of organic agriculture is to package organic produce in ways that are respectful of the earth? Don’t you think blocks of mono-crops don’t have a place in the organic movement?

There are so many more abuses the current rules turn a blind eye towards. When the USDA took over organic certification, they clipped the wings of the organic movement turning organics from a mindset into a merchandising niche. And now that it’s a $31 billion industry (that’s U.S. organic production), is there any chance that the organic consumer– for whom the movement was created in the first place and who still imagines organic agriculture as the clean, pastoral right livelihood it was intended to be and not a profit-hungry, industrial behemoth– is there any chance the organic customer base can counter the well-funded organic trade group lobbyists in order to haul the organic movement down out of the stratosphere and back to earth as a useful tool for simplifying and sustaining food production, making it so we Earthlings can have a future with healthy children and a food system that doesn’t consume more calories in production than it produces in food? I doubt it. Don’t get me wrong: If it’s really true that those millions of acres of farmland (and related water systems, surrounding eco-systems, farmworkers, etc.) that are represented by that $31 billion figure have been spared chemical fertilizers and pesticides and have some soil-building programs in place, that’s not something to dismiss out of hand. But organic agriculture arose from a moral responsibility to the Earth, its inhabitants and our future generations. It originated as a whole-system alternative to the extractive and toxic agriculture which unfortunately is still the dominant form today.

Organic incorporated lifestyle. It considered downstream consequences. It was all about renewable energy sources. It embraced Voluntary Simplicity. Organic agriculture as practiced by the big boys in the industry today is not a wholistic alternative that takes into account social equity, quality of life and working conditions for farmworkers, carbon footprint reduction, land reform, food access and so on. It has gone astray.

The dream of the Elders of the Organic Movement is not dead, but its presence within the official organic program is like a candle in the wind. It’s time to bring that little flame back inside. Place it in our hearts and know that there is a food and agriculture revolution that is very much alive and needs a new cadre of change makers to take it to its next level. It’s going to involve decentralizing food production and making vigorous efforts to revitalize local food systems. It’s going to mean making people who control present day food production very uncomfortable, for there is no force greater than a mobilized citizenry and our answers will not fit neatly into their old paradigm.

It’s happening already. It’s happening all over. Let’s keep it moving. It’s the burgeoning, global Permaculture community. It’s the non-GMO movement. It’s the anti-corporate shift towards local control and local self-determination. It’s the Food Sovereignty movement (in its international form and its nascent domestic form).

It’s the huge wave of young people wanting to farm (not acknowledged in the NYT article) who have seen the ugly, alienating results of two centuries of capitalist rat race and what it has done to people’s lives and to the environment. They have discovered that working the soil and producing safe, clean and nutritious sustenance for their neighbors is a calling to their basic humanity and resonates with what they know to be good. They visualize villages, towns and cities dotted with farms and gardens of all sizes that are growing families and kindling local economies with a robust exchange of local food, goods and services. They see a day very soon when productive farmland is freed from the death sentence of real estate speculation and pried from the clutches of private ownership; a day when land is made available, rent-free, for those who would steward it, green it, cultivate it, raise farm families on it and feed their neighbors with it. I’m talking about the rebirth of the commons where every square foot of arable land and every soul who is called to its tending will be revered as a national monument and a public resource. All of society will share the responsibility of maintaining these treasures. This will not be given to us, but it is ours to reclaim.

I’m not going to stop beating this drum. I’m hearing the rhythm being taken up all over. The walls are going to come down and we are going to see a different future. People are going to take back control of that one thing that defines us at our most basic level: The food that sustains us.

Who will we count as among us? Who is ready to take up the cause?

Voice your support for SB 5123 – Establish a farm internship program in WA

IMG_0671SB 5123, to establish a farm internship program in Washington State, was introduced in 2013. It had wide support. The program was even funded in the final 2013 budget, but because of various factors, it was never given a final floor vote. IT HAS BEEN REINTRODUCED in 2014. It’s a positive step towards revitalizing our local food economy. It deserves your support and action to pass in 2014!

I drafted most of the following message during last year’s struggle to pass the law, but it’s all still relevant.

Voice your support TODAY for SB 5123, establishing a farm internship program. This bill will help grow new farmers from the ground up.

Please! Call your WA State Senators and Representatives to voice your support for this bill.

Find Your Legislator. Use this link to get the contact info for your WA State Representative:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/DistrictFinder/

Just about everything you might want to know about this bill, including a link to the bill’s wording and even a place to comment to legislators on it is here:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5123&year=2013

Background:

SB 5123 was introduced in the 2013 Washington Legislature to set up a pilot program to allow small farms in sixteen WA counties to take on interns, paid or unpaid, who would perform farm work, benefit from a structured educational program administered by the farmer and receive Workers’ Compensation coverage.

The small farm economy in Washington is experiencing growth and with that comes a higher demand for trained farmworkers, many of whom will go on to become farm managers and farm owners. The internship pilot program that would be established by SB 5123 would improve on-the-job training for beginning farmers and farmworkers by requiring that the farms provide an educational component for farm interns. The educational component requirement is relatively simple for the small farm to comply with. The bill proposes that each participating small farm “provides a curriculum of learning modules and supervised participation in farm work activities designed to teach farm interns about farming practices and farm enterprises … [that is] is based on the bona fide curriculum of an educational or vocational institution; and … is reasonably designed to provide the intern with vocational knowledge and skills about farming practices and enterprises.” Such curricula are readily available on-line and can be modified by each farm to fit its circumstances. The bill calls for farm organizations and agencies such as WSU Extension, Tilth Producers of Washington, the Farm Bureau and others to offer assistance to participating small farms in fulfilling this and other aspects of their farm internship offerings.

More Info:

The bill is similar to a pilot program that had been in existence in Skagit and San Juan counties during 2010 and 2011 but has since expired. The new version would revive the pilot program and extend it to King, Whatcom, Kitsap, Pierce, Jefferson, Spokane, Yakima, Chelan, Grant, Island, Snohomish, Kittitas, Lincoln, and Thurston counties. An attempt was made in the 2012 legislative session to extend the pilot program to these counties and received strong support in the legislature but died in committee.

An official assessment of the first pilot project was submitted to the legislature in 2011. Although participation in the program was low (six farms participating, nine interns enrolled), the report concluded “Both the farms and interns are reporting high levels of satisfaction with this project. Their desire is to continue providing internships that are “sanctioned” instead of questionably legal [“flying under the radar”]. The farms and interns especially value the availability of worker’s compensation for interns available through the FIP project. Farmers have reported that the quantity and quality of the educational component of their internships has increased as a result of participating in the project. All of the enrolled farmers said that they would recommend the program to other farmers. Interns have reported high praise for the educational component of their internships.”

Traditionally, many small farms have relied on “informal employment” of interns or apprentices. Whether such arrangements are legal or not depends on the interpretation of unpaid internship criteria published by the WA Department of Labor & Industries (L& I) and are based on the U. S. Department of Labor Fair Labor Standards Act (http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/files/UnpaidInternshipsFactSheet.pdf). As the number of jobs on small farms grows, the potential for a farm to run afoul of labor laws increases. A farm’s viability comes under threat if it becomes embroiled in costly and time-consuming compliance and enforcement disputes with L& I. A small farm lacks sustainability if it allows risky employment practices and unnecessary exposure to legal entanglements to weaken its “economic viability”, which is one of the pillars of “sustainable agriculture,”  Another pillar of sustainable agriculture is “social responsibility.” One of the reasons that gave rise to a social responsibility aspect in sustainable agriculture was the long history of worker exploitation in agriculture. While it is true that many informal employment arrangements on small farms are on friendly terms, there doesn’t exist the protection that legal workers enjoy in terms of on-the-job injuries or financial security.  An intern on a small farm is not allowed to remain an intern indefinitely; that not only violates the tenant that unpaid interns cannot displace wage-earning workers (L & I criteria), but it disrespects decades of hard-fought, worker-led struggles to impose minimum wage protections upon labor exploiters of the past. Minimum wage laws exist to protect the rights of workers to receive fair compensation.

Part of creating a revitalized, sustainable local food system, besides improving training for farmers and farmworkers, is increasing their security and stability by regularizing un-paid internships – a tradition that dates back ages. Senate Bill 5123 is an experimental step in that direction. Let’s urge the legislature to pass this bill so that we can assess its workability.

=====================

Below, criticisms of the bill are paraphrased and responded to:

Criticisms: Interns should be employees, and they should be paid. Anybody can learn how to pick carrots or beets in ten minutes; after that it is NOT an educational experience.  It is unpaid labor. If a farm relies on unpaid labor to survive, then it is not a sustainable operation.

My Response:

The bill does not prohibit interns from being paid, that is left up to each farm to work out, but farms would not bound by minimum wage laws in regards to farm interns. The Interns would sign an agreement with the farm that establishes compensation, if any. Payment can be made in the form of stipends, room and board, combination of same, etc. Even if the intern is un-paid, the bill makes sure it is not simply free labor. The internship will need to be an educational experience based upon an approved curriculum. The intern will be receiving value in exchange for the time put in on the farm and the farmer will incur cost in fulfilling the educational and reporting obligations of the program as well as paying Workers’ Compensation insurance premiums to the state. If anyone would like to see an example of the type of curriculum that this pilot program would be expecting from its farmer participants, I invite you to take a look at an example from the Cultivating Success program at the following link (please take careful note of the licensing agreement):
http://www.cultivatingsuccess.org/PERMISSION_TO_ACCESS_FILES.htm

An important thing that should be understood about SB 5123 is that the bill proposes a temporary pilot program that expires at the end of 2017. It is an experiment. It does not set up a permanent program. What it does do is modify and extend a very limited, earlier experiment that was reported by program participants– by both producers and, it is important to point out, the interns themselves– to have been beneficial. If the outcomes of this larger scale experiment were to be as positive as the first pilot program (the current bill calls for another detailed study of the pilot program to be conducted by L & I), then the citizens of Washington State could have a further discussion as to whether the program should be made permanent through subsequent legislation. I believe the pilot program should be afforded an opportunity to be tried with full recognition of the concerns that have been voiced.

While there is room for a farm to develop its own curriculum (approval of which would be required by L & I) and that curriculum could be of a more limited scope than the example given, it is important to note that the bill calls for the curriculum to encompass “learning modules and supervised participation in farm work activities designed to teach farm interns about farming practices and farm enterprises; … [that is] is based on the bona fide curriculum of an educational or vocational institution; and … is reasonably designed to provide the intern with vocational knowledge and skills about farming practices and enterprises.”

Any small farmer would take offense at the notion that “anybody can learn how to pick carrots or beets in ten minutes; after that it is NOT an educational experience.” First of all, to pick carrots and beets well takes far longer than ten minutes to teach (if the farmer has quality standards s/he wishes to maintain). Furthermore, providing a way for small farms to get un-paid menial labor is not the intent of the bill and a farm doing so would be in violation of the law. The intent is that the interns learn the full context within which the farm produces those carrots and beets– How are the varieties chosen? From what sources are the seeds procured? What are the planting dates? How do you manage succession planting or inter-planting schemes? What are the fertility requirements? How is the seed bed prepared? What equipment is used to plant the seed? How is it maintained? How is the irrigation managed? Where do the crops fit into the crop rotation plan? How are weeds and insect pests managed? What considerations must be taken into account to produce certified organic carrots and beets? How do you handle the crops post-harvest to ensure quality and food safety? What determines how and where the produce is marketed? These questions illustrate a tiny fraction of what farmers must know and practice to be successful. This knowledge is what is intended to be imparted to the interns who would participate in this pilot program if passed. There are few places where someone interested in learning the art of small-scale farming can absorb the full context of this knowledge reservoir like they can by working on a farm side-by-side with a farmer mentor. The intent of the bill is to foster the professional development of a new generation of farmers to supply the paid labor force for a growing sector of Washington’s economy, namely, the small farm.

It’s true that “if a farm relies on unpaid labor to survive, then it is not a sustainable operation.” This bill envisions a regulatory environment in which the hosting of interns, paid (with the possibility of that pay being less than minimum wage yet with Workers’ Compensation insurance paid by the farm) or unpaid, can become a regularized option for small farms. Passage would not encourage or condone any farm “relying” on unpaid labor.

Please contact your state legislators to support SB 5123, the Farm Internship Pilot Program.

We Need to be Able to Make a Living Producing Food from Home Kitchens

Anders Zorn - Brödbaket - 1889 - Oil on Canvas - Wikimedia Commons

Anders Zorn – Brödbaket – 1889 – Oil on Canvas – Wikimedia Commons

I follow a Facebook page that is maintained by one of the lead advocates who was able to get the Washington Cottage Food Law (CFL) passed seveal years ago. The Cottage Food Law provides for people to produce a very limited selection of foods in an inspected home kitchen for sale to the public. The text of the law can be viewed HERE. This is a concept I wholeheartedly support namely, the ability of people to produce food at home on a small-scale for sale to the public with limited, if any, regulation and licensing. However, I’m only a tepid supporter of the Washington State cottage food law. The law does not do much to help farmers. It’s primarily geared to home baking operations and I consider its gross annual sales maximum of $15,000 to be ridiculously low.

A recent post to the Washington Cottage Food Facebook page stated “Good news everyone. The WSDA has moved forward on increasing the Gross Sales limitation for the CFL. There will be a public hearing on 1/16 @ 10am. Since the WSDA is involved in it this time, this revision should go through without any problem.” The WSDA is proposing to increase the gross sales limitation for the Cottage Food Law (CFL) from $15,000 annually to $25,000. I am disappointed that WSDA is considering only a $10,000 increase in the annual sales cap. The income cap needs to be such that income potential from a home kitchen is more than a tiny supplemental income. A small, home business is doing well if it can net 15% – 20% of its gross. A cap of $25,000 limits it to generating an annual pocket income of $3750 – $5000 on average. For some, that is a significant chunk of change, and I don’t want to minimize that, but it should not be the cap. Instead, a formula, not a set number, whereby a home-based sole proprietor can have the option to achieve an annual salary that is above the federal poverty line, should instead be enacted. See the table “United States Department of Health and Human Services figures for poverty in 2013.” in this Wikipedia article.

A cap of even $25,000 tells me the state is not serious about creating opportunities for people to make a living from their homes in these times of very high unemployment. Furthermore, there are many compelling reasons why the state should encourage people’s ability to make a living from home. It’s better for family cohesiveness; it allows young children to stay home with parents which is preferable to farming kids out to daycare; it cuts down on traffic, gas consumption and pollution. The list goes on. Politicians and bureaucrats who think allowing someone to take home only a small amount of money from a home-based food enterprise are not living in the real world and seem not to care about those of us who are. Why don’t they want people to make real money? That’s not to say that at some point of scale a successful business should make the transition to the world of commercial-scale regulation and facilities, but come on, let a family make a reasonable living before forcing them either out of business and into the “workforce” or forcing them to scale up to meet commercial licensing requirements which they may never have the means to do. For WSDA to propose raising the annual gross sales cap for cottage food producers from $15,000 to $25,000 translates into giving them a raise in “take-home-pay” of roughly $1500 – $2000 per year, but it still only allows them a maximum yearly salary of $3750 – $5000. Working quarter time at a home business such as this, it pencils out to a wage that barely meets Washington’s minimum wage. If more time is spent by a home businessperson, it drops below minimum wage. In these times of poor employment prospects, the state should propose a formula whereby producing cottage food is an employment opportunity, not a hobby with benefits.

I believe we should demand a cottage food law that allows someone to make a living from their home kitchen, not a pittance. Contact your Washington State legislators if you agree with me about this.

And while we’re on the subject, as I mentioned, the law does not do much to help farmers who would benefit immensely by being able to perform more value-added processing of their farm produce in their farmhouse kitchens, as was Washington State law until only very recently. Yes, it’s true a farmer producing fruit, and perhaps even vegetables, could benefit if s/he can incorporate that produce into the very limited number of food items that are allowed under the Cottage Food Law. But this is important: If we want to make a difference for farmers in WA and increase our ability to generate income from our trade, we need to model a Washington law on the Oregon Farm Direct Bill. Here’s an Oregon Department of Agriculture website that does a good job spelling out what it allows.

Take special note of “Attachment A & B” in the Oregon law. Note that there are some categories for which there is no sales limit, including, and this is very important, dried fruits and veggies. As I understand it in WA, only herbs dried for tea can be processed and sold without a Washington State Food Processor license (and all the expensive facilities requirements that goes along with that). Being able to dry fruits, vegetables and culinary herbs without expensive facilities and a Washington Food Producer’s license would not only open up vast revenue generating potential for WA farmers and gardeners alike, it would cut down on food waste, it could improve the wintertime diets of many.

Though I would support raising the gross sales limit for the cottage food law, as well as having an achievable and streamlined method for adding new foods to the allowed foods list, I suggest that a better approach for Washington farmers would be to agitate for a WA version of the Oregon Farm Direct law that’s not tied to the Cottage Food law. There is not time to enact such a measure in the current legislative session, but I think if we worked very hard in 2014, we might be able to do it for 2015.

Welcome to the Chrysalis Farm Blog

Folks,

Taken by daughter in 2006

Taken by daughter in 2006

My name is Chrys Ostrander. Welcome to my new blog. Back in October, 2013, I returned here to my 4-acre homestead and micro-permaculture farm after being gone for four years (see the “About page” for details). It’s a bit tumbledown right now, but the Chinook we are experiencing today (otherwise known as a January thaw) is reminding me that soon I’ll need to pull away from the computer, which is situated only a couple of feet from my warm woodstove (and the tool of my trade right now as a freelance web designer). Soon I’ll be busy with spring cleaning and getting the grounds and out-buildings ready for what I hope will be a fun and productive growing season. My intention with this blog is to document my own progress in that regard as well as to gather and disseminate ( a good word for a farmer to use) useful and thought-provoking information about our growing food revolution. To me it seems that if we are to have a viable revolution in this country (and I do believe it is imperative that we do), the local, sustainable, organic, slow, permaculture, non-GMO, non-industrial, small-scale food movement is a prime vehicle for bringing about deep, radical and lasting change. I hope my blog will become one of many small tributaries that are feeding into the larger river of progressive change that we see happening globally (despite all the horrendous and bloody back-sliding we are also witnessing on this troubled, tiny planet). Some day soon, this river will become a torrent of whitewater blasting away at the rocky impediments of heartless capitalism, eco-cide, oppression, inequality, racism, misogyny, warfare, child abuse, corporatism and oligarchy so that when the waters finally recede, a landscape is revealed which will be dotted with gardens and communities of loving people creating a future for their children that is bright and hopeful, green, abundant and peaceful.

So much to do.

I’m launching this blog on a day when later I’ll be headed into Spokane to meet with forward-looking folks to talk about how to better develop small-scale, decentralized urban agriculture in the Spokane region. Two days ago I sat in on another meeting of folks working on forming a Food Policy Council for the Spokane region. The day before yesterday, the Governor of the State of Maine (where I lived in the late ’70’s) signed into law the nation’s second statewide GMO labeling law. Maine is also the place where in the past couple of years small-scale farmers and their allies in their local communities have been at the vanguard of defiant food producers and eaters around the country who are pushing back at corporate-sponsored food regulations that cripple the ability of small-scale food producers to feed their local communities, their neighbors and each other. They have passed local ordinances declaring that federal and state regulations designed to make cost prohibitive the engagement in commerce of small, local, safety-minded food producers, do not apply to local producers who are feeding their local communities. We are taking back our right as human beings to feed each other– a right that predates by centuries even the establishment of centralized government. A right that is becoming known as Food Sovereignty.

I am seeing dramatic growth locally in this true food movement. I’ve watched the Spokane area (where much of my organizing efforts and produce marketing has been focused) evolve from one in the early ’90’s where customers at my produce stand (at Spokane’s only farmers market at the time) had never seen red leaf lettuce to one where small farms and community gardens are proliferating, farmers markets are popping up in more and more neighborhoods, organizations like Project Hope, the Vinegar Flats Community Garden, Spokane Permaculture, the Spokane Edible Tree Project are engaging the community in sustainable, small-scale food production and making fresh, healthy, local, non-corporate food available to Spokane residents of all incomes.

My plan is to use this blog to chronicle this evolution as it happens on this piece of ground where I live, in my immediate community, in my watershed and in my bio-region. I also hope to utilize my new email distribution list to augment the blog (please sign up if you want, it’s to the right in the sidebar or below in the footer). I have grown increasingly frustrated with Facebook as a tool for social change since it has lost its way morally, gone to bed with the NSA and filters content to the point that I cannot be certain I am reaching even a fragment of the hundreds of folks I am Facebook friends with.

So this is my first foray. This website will keep developing (already the Resources page is out-dated, having been imported from my old thefutureisorganic.net website). Please let me know if you find it beneficial.

Chrys