In the 1990s, we were concerned with fair food production and trade conditions, especially with the lot of migrant farmworkers. That concern seems to have fallen to the margins of public discussion—but not so with Baltimore Food and Faith’s Enoughness series, which met for the third time on Tuesday at The Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies (ICJS), where we focused on the dignity of work.
A month or so ago I visited Angela Smith, Project Director of Baltimore Food and Faith, an initiative of The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Our discussion touched a whole range of questions related to food, environment, and faith-based organizations in Baltimore and around the globe. Read More >
According to USDA estimates, per capita meat consumption in the United States nearly doubled between 1930 and 2007. On average, each American today eats about 200 pounds of meat per year, or almost nine ounces per day—roughly twice the global average. With a few exceptions, intake has been on a fairly steady incline, until recently: From 2007 through 2011, estimates of consumption dropped by over 12 percent and are projected to continue to decline through 2012.
After 70 years, Americans are finally eating less meat. In his recent New York Times opinion piece, author Mark Bittman asks, “Why?” Industry reports suggest the “shocking” decline stems from factors such as a rise in ethanol production, which raised the demand for corn—the main ingredient in most livestock feed—along with the price of meat. Combined with the recent economic downturn, it’s understandable that consumers would turn toward cheaper alternatives.
The report also blames a federal “war on meat protein consumption,” a suggestion that ignores the considerable federal support offered to them in the form of feed subsidies, tax write-offs, research dollars and weak enforcement of antitrust laws and environmental regulations.
Both Bittman and industry literature acknowledge another possible reason: Perhaps Americans have come to recognize the public health, environmental and social justice impacts—to which I would add animal welfare harms—of a model that has come to be known as industrial food animal production, or IFAP. Read More >
Agree/Disagree: The Farm Bill is a Public Health bill.
For those of you who agree, give yourself a pat on the back! For those of you who do not believe that the Farm Bill is a Public Health bill, read on, and we just might convince you.
As Roni Neff, PhD, Research and Policy Director for the Center for a Livable Future, explains, the Farm Bill affects the health of the American public in at least five important ways: Read More >
In a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) model, consumers pay regional farmers upfront for a share in the season’s harvest. This helps cover production costs and ensures a steady market, helping smaller farmers remain in business. The Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF) and Maryland’s One Straw Farm established the first CSA project at JHSPH in 2007 and have since connected hundreds of faculty, students and staff to fresh, local, certified organic produce while communicating key food system issues. In 2011, the Center began offering members the option to supplement their produce with a share of antibiotic-free, pasture-raised poultry from Albright Farms. Members may join the One Straw Farm Produce CSA, the Albright Farms Poultry CSA, or both. Read More >
This is the seventh blogpost in “Corn-Fed Cars: On the Road with Ethanol.”
If you’ve been following our On the Road with Ethanol series, you’ve surely picked up by now that there is nothing simple about corn ethanol and its numerous inputs and outputs. Today, we are tackling the question of energy balance. That is, when you consider all the aspects of ethanol’s life cycle—from growing the feedstock, producing the fuel, transporting it to the point of sale, to burning the fuel in your vehicle—are we actually gaining energy? If so, how much? Read More >
How are concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) profiting from Farm Bill subsidy programs targeted at U.S. crop farmers? How are these “hidden subsidies” for industrial farm animal production (IFAP) hurting more sustainable food animal producers? The answers to these questions lie—and are at stake—in the convoluted world of the 2012 Farm Bill legislation.
To say that the Farm Bill is both large and complex is understating the obvious. This legislation impacts every aspect of our food system. One role that the Farm Bill has is to dole out billions to subsidize various producers and industries of the U.S. food economy. A large portion of these programs subsidize crop production. The largest recipients of the most federal dollars through these programs are corn and soybean producers. Read More >
Rep. Eshoo at hearing
Since the new Congress began in January, a record number of votes have been taken in attempts to weaken environmental regulations. According to a useful database maintained by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the U.S. House of Representatives has voted 170 times since the beginning of the year to strip key environmental and public health protections from the law. This number does not include—not yet, anyway—a vote on the legal authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate particulate matter (PM) in rural areas under the Clean Air Act. That will soon change, however, as the Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011 (H.R. 1633/S. 1528) makes its way to the House floor. The bill defines a new category of PM—one established without scientific rationale—and effectively exempts all PM within that category from EPA regulation. If passed, this bill could have serious consequences for the health of rural communities, so CLF has been tracking the legislation closely. We recently sent a letter to Congress that outlined the scientific literature on exposure to PM in rural areas. The bill—and our letter—took center stage recently at a meeting of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee. Read More >
This November, the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future joined with fellow members of the Healthy Farms, Healthy People coalition steering committee to officially launch the Healthy Farms, Healthy People coalition—“a broad-based collaboration of organizations committed to achieving a healthier nation in tandem with a strong farm economy through policy reform at the local, state and national level.”
The Coalition will work on short-term targeted policy efforts, as well as long-term goals centered on policy change and information-sharing across sectors. The Coalition brings together stakeholders from the health, agricultural, anti-hunger, environmental and economic development communities, whose diverse expertise is necessary to make such reforms to the food system a reality. Read More >
Also contributing to this post is Rachel Pinson, an MPH student focusing on food access, food policy, and program planning.
One of Baltimore City’s most underserved neighborhoods received funding for a facelift recently in the form of a $60,000 grant from the USDA. The grant, known as the People’s Garden Grant, was designed “to invest in urban and rural areas identified as food deserts and/or food insecure areas, particularly those with persistent poverty” (USDA). Cherry Hill—a neighborhood without a full-service supermarket and where more than 90 percent of non-married families live below the Maryland Self-Sufficiency Wage (an index of how much income is needed for a family to adequately meet their basic needs without public or private assistance)—is a quintessential food insecure area. Read More >
Also contributing to this post is Patrick Baron, CLF Doctoral Fellow and PhD student in Environmental Health Sciences.
For the first time in 13 years, the Interagency Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance* (ITFAR) heard from the public on antimicrobial resistance. We presented a strong argument for why surveillance, environmental antimicrobial pollution, and veterinary oversight should be given more attention by ITFAR. We were not alone in our concerns about antimicrobials and resistance; representatives from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the coalition to Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) also provided input to 14 representatives from over 10 agencies that are members of ITFAR. Read More >
In the 1990s, we were concerned with fair food production and trade conditions, especially with the lot of migrant farmworkers. That concern seems to have fallen to the margins of public discussion—but not so with Baltimore Food and Faith’s Enoughness series, which met for the third time on Tuesday at The Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies (ICJS), where we focused on the dignity of work.
