Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Chris Bray who retired from the Vermont House of Representatives earlier this month. He lives in New Haven.
Last week, as I left elected state government and returned to private life, I had the deep pleasure of seeing a bill I sponsored move forward in a remarkable Statehouse ceremony.
At the roll-out of the Farm to Plate initiative, a stellar cast of supporters—the governor, lieutenant governor, secretaries of agriculture and commerce, House Speaker, Senate president pro tem and a number of lawmakers—all got up and spoke of their commitment to this program and the rebirth of food and agriculture in Vermont.
This program deserves such support.
The numbers alone are compelling: Growing just 10 percent more of our own food will generate $344 million annually in economic activity and will create 3,000 new jobs. This is the largest economic development plan in the state’s history.
As Vermont’s economy struggles to recover, Farm to Plate represents welcome economic news.
As remarkable as the ceremony was last week, even more extraordinary is the plan’s origin. More than 10,000 Vermonters contributed their ideas and energy to its development. The real strength of this plan is that it reflects the food system that Vermonters want for themselves.
The program’s goals are set on a 10-year time line, and we’ve only just begun. To succeed, we need to work steadily, keeping an eye on what’s happening throughout our food system and make regular adjustments to our plan to keep it alive and effective.
Our success will be a great gift to future generations and ourselves. While we Vermonters are typically modest, I think that in this program and in the way it was developed we have an important story to share with the nation and beyond. Each year the world struggles harder to feed itself in a time of profound climate change and increasingly expensive petroleum-based feed, fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
Farm to Plate is a good start and a great Vermont legacy.
Permalink |
Nice work, Chris. Great legacy!
Permalink |
Thanks to all who worked hard to get this legislation passed and the report rolling. Vermont has the opportunity to do some groundbreaking work with F2P!
Permalink |
Thanks for your on-going support Chris. One important fact to correct. During the 18 month long public engagement process we received important and helpful input from 1,200 Vermonters (not 10,000). Also, in the report, we indicate that doubling our local consumption (from 5% today to 10% by 2020), that will generate $177million (includes the multiplier effect) in new economic activity and 1,500 new private sector jobs. It is the case that increasing that consumption from 5% to 15% of total consumption(as you suggest) would add 3,000 new jobs and $354million — it is a straight line effect … so if we get to 20% of total consumption being from local sources, then it would be 4,500 new jobs, and so on. Regardless of the target Vermonters would like us to get to (10%, 15%, 20%, etc.), we have a lot of work to do to make any of it happen.
Permalink |
Thanks Ellen for your comments and strong work on Farm to Plate. You are right to remind people that there’s a LOT of work ahead.
Farm to Plate will continue to evolve, and the benefits of rebuilding our food system will not only be the increased economy, but also the positive impacts of doing the building ourselves.
Personally, I continue to hope for that 10% figure growth–1% a year for a decade. And I hear from some folks that I am not being aggressive enough or optimistic enough. It’s just a matter of time before we gain 5%, 10%, and even more. The absolute numbers are less important than the fact that we are taking the steps.
When I look at who contributed to Farm to Plate, I see not only the 1200 people who formally registered and participated in person, but also the thousands more whose interests, thoughts, energy–and buying power [this is a CONSUMER-DRIVEN revolution]–were brought into the process through representation.
For example, when the Middlebury Food Coop leadership participated in the local food summit, I think we heard from not just from a half-dozen coop leaders, but, in essence, from the coop’s 3500+ members.
Add in Onion River Coop, and you’ve got another 5,000.
Do the same thing with NOFA Vermont, Rural Vermont, Farm Bureau, Grange, RAFFL, Intervale, Mad River Localvores, ACORN, Upper Valley, Center for Agricultural Economy, and dozens more–and we’ve got a LOT of energy and expertise coming into the initiative. In fact, I think 10,000 may be a conservative estimate–and that bodes well for this effort, because there is strength and buying power in numbers.
This will be a people-powered change in our food system. Let’s work together, let’s work hard, and let’s enjoy the process. I am happy to see so many Vermonters pulling together to make it happen.
And now, I’ve got to get back to my seed catalog order!
Best to all, –Chris
Permalink |
Having reviewed most of (but admittedly not all of) the 52-page F2P Strategic Plan Executive Summary, I can’t shake the uncomfortable feeling that we’re trying to cram a square peg into a round hole. The challenges facing the agricultural sector, by the report’s own admission, are extraordinarily difficult:
“…a number of recurring weaknesses, gaps, and barriers have affected our food system. Vermont’s small size, relatively short growing season, and topography (which is more suited to small-scale than large-scale farming) have been barriers to generating the volume of products needed to access larger markets. The price points in institutional and other medium- and large-scale markets’ business models are commonly not viable for small-scale farmers, and these institutions frequently lack the flexibility to manage local food sourcing. At the same time, Vermont has an underdeveloped and fragmented agricultural infrastructure that makes it difficult for smaller producers to serve larger markets by scaling up or aggregating products. Many small producers are unaware of procurement specifications, and the scale and stage of development of many producers are not matched with particular markets.”
The upshot is that the F2P plan is fighting not just topography and growing seasons, which are about as unyielding a pair of factors as one could imagine, but also the fact that federal policies and global competition have passed us by in terms of economic competitiveness.
It seems to me that this legislative effort is predicated more on nostalgia and wishful thinking than on what’s best for Vermont as a whole. By providing all kinds of taxpayer-subsidized help to farmers who otherwise wouldn’t be able to thrive in the current marketplace, we’re effectively undercutting the work of those who ARE able to make it in this difficult competitive environment. The ones who are thriving today based on their ability to efficiently provide what the market (in other words, consumers) actually want, will be the ones to suffer. This strikes me as blatantly unfair.
It may be possible to fit that square peg into the round hole if we lubricate it with enough taxpayer money, but in the end, will we be able to determine whether the cost is worth the benefits we get from the program? And will this program indeed have an end-date, after which the system will be self-sustaining, or will it be a subsidy that continues in perpetuity?
Permalink |
You said, “The upshot is that the F2P plan is fighting not just topography and growing seasons, which are about as unyielding a pair of factors as one could imagine, but also the fact that federal policies and global competition have passed us by in terms of economic competitiveness.”
This is a common view by those who assume that the current system is efficient. Of course it’s nothing of the sort. How can anyone justify the true life cycle cost of shipping a head of lettuce thousands of miles? Only with deep embedded subsidies.
It is absurd to suggest that “federal policies and global competition have passed us by.” What they’ve done is create a system that meets the needs of very large corporations rather than the needs of consumers. We’ve been persuaded that cheap food is good food, regardless of how and where it’s produced.
It isn’t surprising that many people have asked for changes to the system: more fresh local food; food that is not dangerous (from places with little oversight); food produced without the use of petro-chemicals; food produced by workers treated with respect; and so on.
Obviously, we must ensure that such food is affordable. But we deal with these issues every day. Housing has been commodified so we need programs to help people meet basic needs (mortgage interest deduction, land trusts, VHFA, VHCB, etc.).
The same for electricity. The model was to reward utilities for selling more even though that was wasteful and environmentally hazardous. So we move away from that and create programs promoting efficiency.
These are efforts to respond to failures of the market and the food system is no different.
You also said “By providing all kinds of taxpayer-subsidized help to farmers who otherwise wouldn’t be able to thrive in the current marketplace, we’re effectively undercutting the work of those who ARE able to make it in this difficult competitive environment.”
First, who said anything about “all kinds of taxpayer-subsidized help”? What kinds are you referring to?
Do you object to the purchase of land and development rights by VHCB and the VLT using the property transfer tax? It’s one of the best things we’ve done in the last quarter century (and critical for tourism as well). But it’s just a foundation; it doesn’t guarantee success by a farmer. And the subsidy stays with the land (unlike most of our wasteful business “incentives”).
And what of training and technical assistance? It’s no different than what we already do through the Small Business Development Centers for non-farm businesses. Do you object to that too?
How about grants to help non-profit “food hubs” create the infrastructure necessary to help small farmers aggregate their products for sales to institutional buyers (who don’t want to deal with a bunch of small guys but who DO want their goods). Do you object to that too?
Moreover, government has been assisting various industries forever. How about guaranteed returns for monopoly electric utilities?
As it happens, local farmers are quite competitive in the growing season. Just ask the purchasing agent at Fletcher Allen who is buying more and more local goods and actually saving money.
Your final comment about the square peg and the round hole is very interesting. What if a community realizes one day that the model no longer serves the interests of consumers or producers. How long must they accept a model that takes resources out of the community and doesn’t meet their needs?
The current model did not arise in a vacuum. It is the product of conscious policy choices. It is a construct; and it’s a mess. If a community decides to challenge the construct, we should applaud the effort instead of blindly accepting the model.