Mark Winne Har$ord (CT) Food System (1979-03) Author: Food Rebels, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mark Winne

• Har$ord (CT) Food System (1979-03)
• Author: Food Rebels, Guerrilla Gardeners and

Smart-Cookin’ Mamas and Closing the Food Gap

• Senior Advisor, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable

Future

• Food Policy and Food System Consultant;

win5m@aol.com; www.markwinne.com; 860-558-8226;

• Resources: “Doing Food Policy Councils Right,”

“Good Law, Good Food: Guide to Food Policy”

• www.foodpolicynetworks.org : FPC and food

policy resources, directory, and list serve

Why Have a Food Policy Council?

“No major famine has ever occurred in a funcZoning democracy with regular elecZons,

• pposiZon parZes, basic freedom and relaZvely

free media (even when the country is very poor).” Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate Economist “Decisions on important ma[ers should not be made by one person alone. They should be discussed with many.” Anonymous Florida Buddhist (Japanese Buddhist ConsFtuFon, 604 AD)

Purposes of Food Policy Councils

• Influence government food policies that

promote jusZce, health, and sustainability

• Coordinate food system stakeholders within

a specified geography and jurisdicZons

• Tend to favor policies over projects, but
• Tend to not take on the most controversial

food issues of the day, but…

• Conduct food assessments and food plans

Food Policy Council Growth & OrientaZon

• Has geographic and jurisdicZonal

focus: municipal, county, state (about 20), regional, and tribal

• Considers all elements of the food

system

• MulZ-stakeholder orientaZon
• 2010: 111 FPCs
• 2012: 193 FPCs
• 2015: 212 FPCs

OrganizaZonal Structure

FPCs can be created by:

• State statute (Conn.) or local ordinance (Douglas

County, KS)

• An execuZve order (North Carolina) or local

resoluZon (Santa Fe, NM)

• May be independently organized (government

agencies parZcipate but FPC is not a part of government: California, Cleveland)

• Can also be organized as non-profits (Iowa) or
• perate under the aegis of an exisZng non-

profit, i.e. “backbone” organizaZon (Kansas City)

• May operate with direct support from a state

agency (Alaska Health Dept.)

27% 12% 61%

Governance Structures

Government-Appointed Advisory Body Independent 501c3 Independent Grassroots CoaliFon

Equity

• ComposiZon of Food Policy Council members: Does

it reflect the community?

• Commitment to community engagement: Do your

food assessment and public consultaZon processes target lower income communiZes?

• SelecZon of policy issues: Do your primary public

policy intervenZons address the community’s health, social, and economic dispariZes?

• Is there balance between policy makers, food system

stakeholders, and grass roots? Ex: Top down – Mayors direct the work; bo[om up – grass roots and private sector stakeholders direct the work

Community Engagement

Food Policy For All… hXp://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and- insFtutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/ projects/FPN/resource/online/index.html Council-based Techniques: Language about inclusion wriXen into the council’s mission statement Project-based Techniques: AXend other organizaFons’ meeFngs Common Challenges: Lack of resources, culture and language barriers, challenges engaging people in “food policy.” Further recommendaFons: Knowing your community, relaFonship building, community organizing lessons

Funding and Staffing

• Funding

– Federal: Community Food Projects; Center for Disease Control; Community Development Block Grants – Community funding: foundaZons; state, county, and city sources – In-kind support: colleges and universiZes, larger non- profits, CooperaZve Extension

• Staffing: Most FPCs use one, half to full-Zme person,

and in-kind staffing from public agencies and larger non-profits

FPCs: What They Do

• There are no “Departments of Food”; FPCs

can be a de facto Dept. of Food

• FPCs are food system planning venues
• Membership: government, academia,

community members, farmers and gardeners, food banks, distributors, restaurants, retailers, and faith communiZes

• Focus gov’t funcZons – health, planning,
• econ. development, educaZon, agriculture,

social services – on food system concerns

• FPCs advise policy makers, address food-

related regulaZons, budgeZng, legislaZon, programs and administraZon; they also advocate and educate

Local & State Food Policies

• Farmland PreservaZon (Conn. and Montana)
• NutriZon Rules in Schools, Farm to School,

and “Double-Up Bucks” for SNAP (New Mexico)

• Agritourism – Olympia, WA
• Co[age Food Laws and food sale regs –

Mississippi and Memphis, TN

• Developing a local and sustainable food

economy (Illinois)

• Comprehensive food planning

(Massachuse[s)

FPC AcFons and Accomplishments

Cleveland/Cuyahoga County FPC:

• Secured zoning changes to promote urban

agriculture and raising of chickens and bees

• Expanding food businesses with city economic

development funds and using city/county purchasing funds for locally grown food

• Healthy Cleveland IniZaZve – Banning trans-fat;

clash between public and private interests.

More Policies and Programs

• NCSL Report: 36 states enacted 91 policies

between 2012 and 2014

• MSU Survey: 2000 municipaliZes enacted 3

food policies each on average

• Public Procurement: Farm to School reaches

43,000 schools; Los Angeles FPC and Good Food Purchasing Program ($150 million of food purchase annually by LAUSD); AusZn, TX – Other public insZtuZons

• Food Hubs: MD funds $750,000 for a BalZmore

food hub; feasibility study in Douglas Co. KS

• Land Use: zoning that favors urban ag and

markeZng (KC), comprehensive land use planning (Santa Fe);

• Food Waste: Waste Not Orange County

Common Aspects of State-Wide Food Policy AcFon Planning

(with thanks to Phyllis Schulman)

• Core group leads the effort
• Staff/consultants available for administraFon,

project design, research, report wriFng, strategic direcFon, and facilitaFon (e.g. role of a backbone

• rganizaFon)
• CommunicaFon capacity available
• Visioning (values) and engagement process
• Work plan, Fmeline, deliverables
• Methods of measurement
• EffecFve implementaFon strategies

Regional Networking

• CriZcal mass of local and state FPCs now

exist in some places to promote regional networking

• California: 20-plus local FPCs networking

under Routes of Change as a state FPC

• Ohio: 20 (est.) local FPCs a[empZng to

network to replace Ohio State FPC

• New Mexico FPC working with four local

FPCs to advance state policy agenda

Food Policies and AcZons

• Supermarket Development (food to the people):
• New Haven, Conn.(Dwight CDC)
• Fresh Food Financing IniZaZve (Penn.)
• OpZmizing impact of Federal nutriZon programs
• Improving WIC caseload and services in

Har$ord

• Bringing EBT to farmers’ markets
• Public transportaZon (people to the food)
• New bus routes in Har$ord

Purpose of Food Plan or Charter

• Secure stakeholder buy-in and parZcipaZon in

food system change

• Develop common policy agenda
• IdenZfy food system opportuniZes and

challenges

• Gather food system data
• Develop measurable goals
• Organize and coordinate stakeholders: Plan is

more a means than an end

• Nurture the development of local and regional

networks

Minnesota Food Charter (about 5 states have food

charters) www.MNfoodcharter.com

• Minnesota Blue Cross/Blue Shield FoundaZon

played a major role

• No single backbone organizaZon
• CooperaZve Extension heavily involved
• Two-year effort
• Local FPCs were involved
• Used collecZve impact approach

2500 parZcipants, 200 events and convenings (some had 8 people; some 100), surveys and focus groups

Minnesota ConZnued:

• Major investment in relaZonship and network

building is probably biggest outcome

• Some policy recommendaZons: 1) Establish

Healthy Food Financing IniZaZve to combat food deserts; 2) Offer more high nutriZon food at state food pantries; 3) provide tax credits to farmers for donated food to food pantries

• PoliZcal pushback: because MN is a big sugar

beet state, the only major item let out of Charter was tax on sugary sot drinks.

Three things are crucial to every

• rganizaFon/coaliFon
• Leadership
• Management
• Vision

Leadership Models

• Hierarchy
• Flat (self-managed org)

Leadership…

• Are the Council’s meeZngs interesZng and

engaging? Does leadership do a good job of facilitaZng and coordinaZng (non- hierarchical)?

• Tips: Everyone’s worth and contribuZon must

be acknowledged; allow space to voice feelings

• Is each agenda item “acZonable,” e.g.

resoluZon or follow up is clearly defined at the end of discussion

• Are agendas fresh and interesZng; are outside

speakers invited; do you always bring food?

Shared Vision

• A shared vision is a desired future state

shared by a collecZve of persons – Must be physically possible – May not be easily imaginable – Must be owned (felt) by the members of the group, can’t only be the product of one

• r two group members

Members’ RelaZonship and Authority

• Are the FPC’s proposals commensurate with the

authority of members represenZng organizaZons and agencies? Ex. EBT/Farm Mkts.

• Has the FPC spelled out the relaZonships between

members with respect to individual v. group (FPC) interests, sharing resources, messaging, conflict resoluZon? Has a[enZon been paid to developing trust? ConnecZcut AnZ-Hunger CoaliZon: How $75,000 leveraged millions

CommunicaZon…

• Do the members, public, and policymakers

“feel” the problem? Is their emoZonal response intense enough for public acZon to

• ccur?
• Examples: Childhood hunger and obesity elicit

strong public reacZon: more donaZons to food banks, Pew Opinion Survey (60% want gov’t to intervene with childhood obesity)

• But maybe not “felt” sufficiently to impose

soda caps, taxes, strong fast food restricZons

CommunicaZon…

• Lukewarm public response to GMO-labeling

campaigns as reflected in failed referenda

• Loss of farmland was made palpable in

ConnecZcut

• RestricZng gardens and farm stands evoke strong

public response. Ex. Santa Fe, Orlando

• Community food assessments and public forums

are good gauges of public interest and potenZal support as well as good organizing tools.

CommunicaZon…

• Field trips increase understanding of food

system issues; visualize problems; can make challenges and opportuniZes more palpable:

• Ex. CO FPC field trip
• Was there relaZonship building within the

Council, between the Council and elected

• fficials, and with those who might oppose

the proposals?

• CT – Story of Ralph

CommunicaZon…

• Is the FPC viewed by the public and policy

makers as a credible enZty? Has your communicaZon plan built the recogniZon and profile of the Council?

• “3-Fs” – Fact, Fear, and Force versus the “3-

Rs” – Reframe, Relate, and Repeat. Reframe the way the issue is viewed; relate to someone’s experience; repeat its importance;

• Ex. 3-Fs: 30% of children obese; will die

sooner than their parent’s generaZon; must regulate fast food industry. What would the “3-Rs” look like?

Advocacy Methods

LegislaZve and admin. advocacy – NM

• Pass bills and budgets in legislaZve body
• Zoning, RegulaZons and Permits, funding
• Planning Process

ExecuZve Order - NYC Community Food Assessment Food plan – Sea[le, NYC, Santa Fe TesZfying – Conn, Michigan Strong communicaZon and engagement; many partners and stakeholders – NM Building connecZons and relaZonships – between members and state agencies Colo. and Conn. Public educaZon, publicaZons, reports, and forums – Conn., MI, NM

Lessons Learned (Challenges)

• OrganizaZonal effecZveness in a coaliZon sexng

determined by strength of vision and leadership

• Inclusivity of food system interests
• Engage community and policymakers
• On conflict: work for consensus; foster climate of

healthy debate; evaluate and rate policy opZons

• Educate your members, the general public, and policy

makers constantly; develop strong internal and external communicaZon

• Set measurable goals and evaluate regularly
• Community food assessment is an on-going enterprise,

not a one-Zme act

• Look for synergy between all levels of government
• PracZce good facilitaZon skills

• Almost 46 million Americans receive food

stamps, and over one-half of our states have a majority of their students qualified for free and reduced school lunch.

• Distribution of food from food banks and
• ther emergency feeding sites continues to

grow.

• Feeding America survey finds that over 50%
• f emergency food clients now rely on food

banks as a regular source of food

Food System Threats:

• Climate change produces unpredictable crop

yields reducing food supplies and increasing food prices.

• Agricultural pollution of waterways and other

agricultural practices threaten public health.

• The globe’s population will be 10 billion by

2050; many agronomists don’t believe we have resources to feed them all.

• 65% of U.S is overweight or obese. Union of

Concerned Scientists: 127,000 deaths prevented and $17 billion in medical costs saved if Americans ate recommended servings

• f fruit and vegetables.
• Nebraska: 65% overweight and obese, at least

twice as many as in 1990; 29% of children 10 to 17 years old; 9% of Nebraskans have diabetes

• America: highest food insecurity and poverty

rates in the developed world, around 15%

• Nebraska: 14% food insecure in 2013 (247,000

people); 10% in 2001

Inequality in America:

• Top 10% of income earners in the U.S. take in

50% of all income, top 1% take in 20%;

• At current rate of growth, it will be 60% and

25% respecZvely by 2030

• These levels of inequality are greater than any
• ther country in the world; higher than any
• ther society at any Zme in the past
• The U.S. minimum wage is $7.25 per hour;

Canada - $10.00; France - $12.22; Australia - $17.39

• If the minimum wage in 1970 grew at the

same rate as the income of the top 1%, it would now be $22.00 per hour.

• One-quarter of all U.S. jobs pay so low that

they are eligible for federal food programs like SNAP

• 52% of fast food workers receive public

assistance valued at $7 billion annually

• If the minimum was $10.10, between 4 and 6

million Americans would be lited out of poverty; cost of the SNAP program would be reduced by $5 billion