A Big Slow Food Show of Hands

This afternoon, I'm headed to San Francisco, where I'll spend the long holiday weekend attending Slow Food Nation, a four-day mega-event "highlighting the connection between your plate and the planet." Part food and music festival, eco-conference and lecture symposium, product expo and tasting, schmooze-a-thon and gastro-intellectual salon, SFN is the first of its kind for Slow Food USA, the 16,000-member American branch of Slow Food, an international non-profit organization based in Bra, Italy. (Stay tuned for the ABCs of Slow Food in tomorrow's space.)

On the eve of the festivities, I'll arrive just in time for an event that is poised to set the stage for a broader, longer-term conversation after the projected 50,000 foodies have come and gone. Later this afternoon (5 p.m. local time), Slow Food USA, in conjunction with Roots of Change, a Bay Area non-profit consortium, will unveil a Declaration for Healthy Food and Agriculture, in a public reading at San Francisco's City Hall.

You might remember hearing about the 2007 Farm Bill that was stalled in Congress for so long that it ultimately was renamed the 2008 Farm Bill (it finally passed in June, overriding a presidential veto). As I mentioned last summer in this space, the Farm Bill is huge: Worth hundreds of billions of dollars and setting the course for food and agriculture policy in this country, for better or for worse. The bill is an omnibus beast, meaning that it covers food stamps, school lunch programs, low-income nutrition, land conservation, international trade and commodity crops, to name just a few constituencies. Every five years, the food and farm programs are up for review, and inevitably, partisan politicking and deal making ensues, often resulting in prolonged debate and, as we saw this year, stalled passage.

Created in 1933 as the Agricultural Adjustment Act to assist farmers and rural communities, the Farm Bill has largely morphed over the past 30 years into mega-bucks subsidies for commodity crops (think corn, wheat, sugar), with comparatively little assistance for small or non-commodity-crop farms (the stuff you see at your local farmers' market). According to data compiled by Washington public interest and advocacy organization Environmental Working Group, 66 percent of crop subsidy benefits went to just 10 percent of all farmers in the years 2003-2005.

The Declaration for Healthy Food and Agriculture, say organizers, is a direct response to current U.S. farm and food policy: "The earth and people are becoming less healthy as a direct result of current policy; the efforts to solve food and agriculture challenges are not being addressed to the degree required by the scale of the problems; and the last farm bill cycle confirmed that a tight cadre of lobbyists control the debate to protect the status quo rather than aid the population of the nation," writes SFN communications and policy director Naomi Starkman in a press release issued this week.

The current final draft of the Declaration, which includes 12 principles that "should frame food and agriculture policy, to ensure that it will contribute to the health and wealth of the nation and the world," is the collaborative effort of nearly 100 academics, scientists, environmentalists, farmers and labor activists led by Roots of Change president Michael Dimock.

As of this morning, the Declaration is available for online consumption for 90 days, with an invitation to post comments and suggestions which will be considered for the final version. In the fall of 2009, organizers plan to present the Declaration to members of Congress, with the hopes of influencing the next Farm Bill, scheduled for 2012. And no, it's not too early to start talking -- after all, the early bird usually gets the worm.

After you've had a look at the Declaration, tell me what you think: Is this a Declaration worth pursuing or is it a bunch of hot air? Does it have a chance of getting the ear of Congress? What would you add or delete to the current version?

Stay tuned for SFN coverage from the Post's Jane Black, both over the weekend and in the Sept. 3 issue of the Food section. I'll also have a first-hand report on Tuesday, Sept. 2, in this space.

By Kim ODonnel |  August 28, 2008; 12:13 AM ET Sustainability , Travel
Previous: There's-No-Place-Like-Home Lasagna | Next: What's Slow Food, Anyway?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

I worked on the 2007 Farm Bill in behalf of state legislatures starting in 2004, so no, it's absolutely NOT too early to present any ideas to Congress and start your lobbying. I agree with your assessment - commodity crops get the big bucks with the subsidies and specialty/local farms get nothing. I haven't read the Declaration yet, but good luck!

Posted by: treen | August 28, 2008 9:48 PM

Slow Food is great if you if you have the income, resources and time. A young family or a single mother just cant afford it income or time wise.

And with Obama raising taxes on the top 1% of all income earners they will have to make decisions where to spend their money.
New DBS or heirloom tomatoes.

Seriously the real question is how much this movement will add to a family's food bill a month. Its sure as H8ll not going to reduce it. Just check out the costs of produce at the Fairlakes Farmer's Market versus the Shoppers three miles away. And it is the most important thing. F global warming and local farms.
The question is cost.

But croc and hemping wearing socialist leftists dont consider this. Any I am sorry the US is not Italy. Two totally different cultures espeically when it comes to Italy.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 29, 2008 6:35 AM

The question is cost, and what you want to pay for. Personally, I want to pay for a tomato. An honest to gosh, sun-ripened beauty that:

looks like a tomato
smells like a tomato
tastes like a tomato
is grown like a tomato

And I will gladly pay for it, budget for it, or abstain from it if necessary (such as when they are out of season).

What I will not pay for are tax incentives for big monoculture farms, pesticides, herbicides, or any "cides," not to mention synthetic fertilizers that I end up paying for twice: the purchase of the fertilizer and it's application, and then in the form of taxes necessary for it's cleanup from our watersheds.

You're right Anonymous. It is a question of cost an what you're willing to pay for.

Posted by: Centre of Nowhere | August 29, 2008 4:41 PM

More tyranny by the Greens. You must eat what we eat, you must go vegan to save the earth global warming. We must eliminate farting livestock.

What a croc! Earth has been warmer than it is now in last 10000 years.

This chicken little metality by Al Gore disciples most end. BTW how many SUVs does Al own, why does he fly in a private jet and how many of his homes have more than 10000 sqft. Only time Al GOre is green is the last time Tipper cooked for him and he got food poisoning., The man's a fraud!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2008 10:31 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2010 The Washington Post Company