Andy Fisher
CFS Coalition
WE DID IT! CFS ACT PASSES CONGRESS, CLINTON WILL SIGN .
More than nine months since it was originally introduced, the Community Food
Security Act (actually entitled "Assistance to Community Food Projects" in
legislativese) passed Congress March 29 for the third time, as part of the
1996 Farm Bill. The Act was signed by the President on April 4, 1996.
The Community Food Security Act (CFSA) authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to provide funding for competitive grants to "support community
food security projects designed to meet the food needs of low income people,
increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food
needs, and promote comprehensive, inclusive, and future-oriented solutions to
local food, farm, and nutrition problems." The CFSA is authorized for seven
years through 2002 at $2.5 million per year, with the exception of fiscal
year 1996, authorized at $1 million. A total of $16 million will be available
to community food security projects over this 7 year period.
The CFSA was first introduced into the House last summer, by Rep. Kika de la
Garza (D-TX) during the initial 1995 Farm Bill process. In the following
weeks, another 29 House members, including Republicans, signed onto the bill
(HR 2003). It was then included as part of the Nutrition mark-up as an
amendment to the Food Stamp Act thanks to efforts by Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
and support from Nutrition Subcommittee chair Rep. Bill Emerson (R-MO). In
September, Senators Leahy and Harkin introduced companion legislation in the
Senate (S-1265).
During the next several months, the CFSA, along with food stamps and other
nutrition programs, got bogged down in the larger budget and legislative
battles going on in Congress. During this process, dozens of organizations
that had endorsed the CFSA worked relentlessly with the national CFS
Coalition to keep the legislation alive, by writing letters, calling and
visiting members of Congress. With the Farm Bill stalled, nutrition
programs were moved into the Welfare Reform process in the Senate. We were
successful in obtaining the inclusion of the CFSA in the Welfare Reform and
Budget Reconciliation packages passed by Congress last fall. However, both
pieces of legislation were vetoed by the President as detrimental to the
interests of the poor and remain to date unfinished legislation.
Meanwhile, with a new planting season fast approaching, the Farm Bill was
revived early this year. While the CFSA was not included in Farm Bill
legislation initially passed by the House or Senate last month, a major
advocacy effort by the CFS Coalition succeeded in obtaining its inclusion as
part of the compromise Farm Bill agreed to in conference committee. On March
28, both the Senate and House of Representatives voted to approve the Farm
Bill.
Perhaps just as impressive as the passage of the CFSA in this era of deficit
reduction and program slashing, is its innovative and benign funding
mechanism. The CFSA is funded through a minuscule reduction in the cost of
living adjustment for training programs for administrative staff for the Food
Stamp Program. It will not come out of client benefits. As an amendment to
the Food Stamp Program, the CFSA does not need to go through an
appropriations process each year to get funding. This avoids a time-consuming
struggle each year to actually get the funding authorized in the Farm Bill.
In addition, Report Language was included that supports a number of
additional provisions not included in the formal legislation. This includes
allowing applications by regional or national organizations if designed for
local CFS projects, and consideration of funding for entities to provide
training and technical assistance to organizations developing appropriate
CFS- type projects.
The $1 million in funding for FY 1996 must be obligated by the end of
September, 1996. As of this writing, the agency within USDA responsible for
the administration of the program has not been determined, nor has the RFP
language been developed. This may mean a fairly rushed proposal process from
USDA once authorization to move forward is received from the Secretary of
Agriculture's office. Prospective applicants for this round would do well to
review the legislation and lay the groundwork for a proposal before the RFP
is issued (most likely in late Spring).
With regards to the CFS Program, the Coalition will offer USDA any assistance
it needs to formulate an effective RFP that reflects the vision of community
food security. We will also conduct outreach to grassroots organizations to
inform them of this program and obtain quality proposals, and offer them
assistance to develop quality proposals.
Thank you and congratulations to everyone who wrote a letter, made a phone
call, sent a fax, published a newsletter article, or visited his/her
representative! This victory belongs to all of us. Avanti!
---------------------------------
Freedom to Farm or Freedom to Go Broke?
While the passage of the Community Food Security Act as part of the Farm Bill
certainly represents a major victory for those of us laboring long and hard
for its passage, it represents one of the few silver linings in an otherwise
mixed legislative package. The 1996 Farm Bill, actually entitled the "Federal
Agricultural Improvement Reform Act of 1996," contains a number of
provisions that are harmful to the nation's food security. One of the most
significant is the Freedom to Farm provisions, which severs the government's
commitment to provide a safety net for farmers while stabilizing food prices.
Freedom to Farm will disconnect payments made to farmers for specific
commodities grown (such as corn, wheat, etc.) from market prices. While many
activists have descried for some time the inequitable distribution of
government commodity payments as an inappropriate subsidy, Freedom to Farm is
widely criticized by sustainable agriculture activists as bad for family
farmers and the environment and a windfall for large corporations. Activists
argue that Freedom to Farm preserves the inequities of the existing system
while creating additional pressures that will prove detrimental to family
farmers.
Larry Swartz, a Kentucky farmer and active participant in the Campaign for
Sustainable Agriculture, comments that Freedom to Farm will "force smaller
farm operations to bear the brunt of the cuts, while maintaining existing
loopholes for the largest farms and agribusiness." One loophole is that the
largest farms continue to be able to split their farms into three entities,
each eligible for the maximum payment from the government. Additionally, the
removal of supply management controls will increase pressure on farmers to
augment their production, driving farmgate prices down. Lower prices will
most likely prove harmful for family farmers, who are less capable of
weathering chronic losses.
Not only does Freedom to Farm benefit the largest farms, but it will
increase the role of agribusiness in the food system. Lower farmgate prices
often mean higher profits for food processors, with savings rarely passed on
to consumers. Corporate control will be expanded as the government commitment
to farmers is diminished, and corporate contracts become an increasingly
important guarantee of a price and a market to sell dairy, livestock, grains,
and other commodities. Swartz sums up this situation, "The big winners are
companies such as Archer Daniels Midland (who tout themselves as 'supermarket
to the world' on radio ads), Cargill, and ConAgra. The losers are family
farmers, rural communities, and consumers."
Proponents of Freedom to Farm argue that it will allow farmers to sell
according to the dictates of the market place and not be "shackled" by
government dictates. Yet institutional and structural factors act as
obstacles to a decentralized food system. Kathy Ozer, director of the
National Family Farm Coalition and CFS Coalition Steering Committee member
notes that, "Farmers will be facing the instability of a world market that is
vulnerable to weather in this country and around the world. The instability
of market prices in the future and the dramatic decline in the size of the
payments could spell disaster [for small and moderate sized farmers]. Already
scarce capital - whether in the form of government direct and guaranteed
loans or commercial bank loans will become increasingly difficult [to procure
for small and moderate sized farmers]. "
Freedom to Farm could spell disaster not only for family farmers, but for the
environment as well. According to the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a
network of ten progressive Midwest farming organizations, this legislation
could clamp new tighter restrictions on farmers who practice sustainable
agriculture techniques, such as highly diverse crop rotations. Their False
Freedom report states that "These restrictions, if enacted, endanger the use
of resource conserving crop rotations, the single best tool farmers have for
reducing the environmental impacts of their operations..." Perhaps the most
detreimental environmental consequence of Freedom to Farm is its removal of
supply management. As prices fall with increased supplies, farmers will be
under greater pressure to put marginal lands into production, potentially
resulting in more soil erosion, water pollution, and pesticide and fertilizer
usage, as well as loss of wildlife habitat.
Ozer, in arguing for the now-moot issue of a presidential veto of the Farm
Bill, avers, " The only freedom in this Farm Bill is the freedom for farmers
to go broke and the freedom for corporate agribusiness to increase their
profits and accelerate the demise of family farmers." This is hardly the kind
of Farm Bill we can wholeheartedly celebrate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing Home the Broccoli: Innovative Food-Related Transit Programs
by Andy Fisher, CFSC
Robert Gottlieb, UCLA Urban Planning Department
Gazing at a computer-generated map of supermarket locations in Los Angeles,
with its gaping holes in many inner city areas, it becomes clear that food
security for many low income persons means much more than just having the
resources to buy food, but also the ability to get to the places that offer
it. For many households without access to a car, corner "mom and pop" stores
with their limited selection of high-priced, processed, and unhealthy foods
is the only easily accessible retail outlet.
This food access problem is multi-faceted. Inner city supermarkets are few
and far between due to an abandonment of these neighborhoods over the past
two decades. Low rates of vehicle ownership persist among the poor. Bus
routes are ill-designed for intra-neighborhood food shopping needs. Multiple
studies confirm that food access is not just a problem in Los Angeles, with
its extensive land-use patterns, but in virtually every major metropolitan
area in the U.S. Despite the failure of policymakers and the food industry to
address this problem, there has sprouted up across the country a number of
innovative transit programs that help bring people and healthy affordable
food together. Here's a brief sampling.
Van Services
Perhaps the most common format for food-related transit programs is the van
service to carry shoppers to and/or from the market. Van services operate in
L.A., Savannah, GA, Pittsburgh, PA, and Sacramento, CA, among other cities.
Two of the most interesting are Houston's Fiesta Market and Newark, NJ's
Pathmark store.
Fiesta owns 30 supermarkets in Houston, and became known nationally through a
National Public Radio story aired in November, 1995 as using innovative
marketing techniques in its inner city stores. Although not a company wide
policy, a couple of the stores offer a free van service. At one of these
stores, vans pick up residents at eleven apartment complexes at a
pre-determined route and schedule to take them to the supermarket. After
shopping, the residents can catch a ride home with their groceries in tow on
the van's roof rack. Apartment managers facilitate the process by posting
schedules in both Spanish and English. On an average day, the vans serve
about 60-70 shoppers per apartment complex.
This program was conceived of by an employee-owner (part of a group of
employees who had bought out a store that was going out of business). When
Fiesta acquired the store, the new management felt obliged to continue it due
to public interest. Current Fiesta management is very happy with the program,
which adds a new apartment complex every month. Manager Tom Skelly says that
"Fiesta offers more than a free ride." It provides a way for Fiesta to build
a "loyal customer base" while giving back to the community.
The community ownership aspect, fundamental to starting up the Fiesta
service, can also be found in the Newark, NJ Pathmark store, which is jointly
owned by a community development corporation (New Communities Corporation)
and the Pathmark chain. As part of its mission to serve the needs of the
community (and specifically those persons living in its housing projects),
New Communities operates a van service for shoppers. Vans carry shoppers home
after they have purchased their groceries, for a service charge of $5 per
ride, or about half the cost of the average taxi ride, according to New
Communities staff, Lynn Mertz. The van service is more than good community
relations however. As 2/3 owner of the store, New Communities benefits from
the increased sales- among the highest in the entire Pathmark chain- that it
attributes in part to the van service. In accordance with the rhythym of
sales at many inner city supermarkets, the van service is particularly busy
during the first week of the month, when public benefits and paychecks are
distributed.
Bus routes:
Exacerbating the problem of food access is the focus by transportation
planners on commuter routes rather than intra-neighborhood needs of transit
dependent populations. Bus routes typically are not designed to meet basic
community needs such as health care visits or food shopping trips. As a
result, shoppers often must take two or three buses home and walk long
transfers laden with heavy groceries. However, two communities through the
actions of community food security activists have initiated new bus related
programs to improve food access for low income communities, indicating that
even relatively minor transportation planning changes can facilitate food
access for a number of people who need it.
In Knoxville, TN, several bus-related initiatives have come about. In one of
these, the Knoxville Food Policy Council convinced the local transit
authority, K-Trans, to extend an existing route one mile to reach an outlying
supermarket. This bus route passed through a low income community which did
not have access to supermarkets. Informal discussions with bus drivers found
that this change did make a difference, according to urban planner and
community food security advocate, Robert Wilson. Wilson also noted that
currently, when the transit authority make changes in the bus system, it
consults with the Food Policy Council as to the effects of the proposed
changes on food access.
Back in Texas, the Austin/Travis County Food Policy Council in conjunction
with the Sustainable Food Center gained a new bus route for the city's
impoverished and food access deficient East side residents, to two
supermarkets in outlying areas. The "Grocery Bus" began service in January,
1996, running seven days a week, twelve hours a day at every half hour.
According to Kate Fitzgerald, executive director of the Sustainable Food
Center, it has provided residents with a choice as to where they can now
shop. "The community has really embraced it. The bus has done a lot to
improve public attitude towards Capital Metro (the transit authority), that
it really cares about the community." Like the Pathmark van, the bus is
particularly busy during the first week of the month.
Seniors:
Seniors represent a prime constituency for any food shopping transportation
program. These programs typically cut across class lines, including middle
income seniors with mobility problems with low income seniors who lack both
mobility and transportation resources. While federal programs have targeted
seniors as a special needs population with regards to transportation, they
have largely failed to include food shopping as an integral part of
para-transit programs. In Hartford, CT, the Hartford Food System (HFS)
operates a home delivery program for home-bound senior citizens. Providing
150 deliveries per month, and supported through grants, Mark Winne, HFS
executive director notes that " This is a group that is left out of the food
system. This program helps them maintain their independent lifestyle. In many
cases it is the only way people can get affordable food."
On the other side of the country, in the conservative stronghold of Orange
County, California, Vons Supermarket maintains a transport service for the
50,000 person retirement community of Leisure World. This van service was
originally started as a demonstration project by a for-profit airport shuttle
company interested in expanding into a new line of business. When the
supermarket decided not to continue the program after the free trial period
had ended, seniors at Leisure World mobilized to pressure the supermarket to
continue the service. Eighty-five year old Leisure World resident Ann Robbins
commented, "The van service is the main reason that I shop at Vons. The
driver carries my bags into my home. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to buy
more than a few items a time."
Accessing Transit Policies
For years, federal transportation programs have been designed and huge
expenditures made to expand the nation's highway system, with little
attention dedicated to the intra-neighborhood needs of transit dependent
communities. However, recent legislation, such as the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) has begun to expand the definition of
transportation policy to include community oriented programs. ISTEA provides
a funding mechanism for local agencies to support pilot projects such as the
ones described above.
Along those lines, just up the 405 Freeway from Leisure World, in Los
Angeles, Southland Farmers' Market Association and UCLA's School of Public
Policy have designed a pilot project that combines a van service for farmers'
market shoppers with a delivery service linked to a community supported
agriculture type program. By incorporating into the project the use of an
alternative fuel vehicle, -such as electric or natural gas- this program will
be able to link the food access needs of low income communites with
environmental objectives. In doing so, it will be eligible for both
transportation (ISTEA) and air quality/ pollution prevention (EPA) sources of
funding. Robert Gottlieb of the UCLA Urban Planning Department notes that
"The value of a food access program of this kind resides in its providing
multiple benefits that bring together environmental, transportation and food
security considerations."
Conclusion
Inner city food access will continue to be a core community concern for the
foreseeable future, with the persistence of significant obstacles.
Supermarkets remain expensive to build. Large tracts of land are difficult
to assemble. Inner city market operating costs continue to be high, and the
land use permitting process can require up to ten years. In the meantime,
innovative transit strategies such as those described above become all the
more important. Community groups, the supermarket industry, and
transportation policymakers need to begin a national dialogue toward creating
a more systematic approach to "bringing home the broccoli."
Much of the information for this article is included in a soon-to-be released
report by the UCLA CFS Project, Homeward Bound: Food Related Transportation
Strategies for Low Income and Transit Dependent Communities." Contact the CFS
Coalition at 310-822-5410 for a copy.
For more information:
Tom Skelly, manager Fiesta, phone #; Ray Codey, New Communities Corporation
201-623-2800; David White, K-Trans, 423-546-3752; Kate Fitzgerald,
Sustainable Food Center, 512-472-2073; Mark Winne 203-296-9325; Robert
Gottlieb, UCLA Urban Planning Dept. 310-825-2654;