Here’s what we have written:

 ”…The biggest challenge we found was the uncertainty about how to translate food justice’s increased visibility and the proliferation of interest and activism and the excitement it has generated into the development of a coherent social movement and force for social change. In some ways, food justice has become a way to express discontent about the food system and the desire for change, without necessarily providing a clearly defined agenda for how to bring about that change. Even among advocates and groups that have adopted the term food justice, there remain contradictions or at least differences in translating understanding to action. Is food justice  a movement about relocalizing the way we grow and produce our food? Is it about the fight against corporate power, the food version of the 1%, an Occupy the Food System trajectory? Is it a struggle against disparities, the food system’s discriminatory and exploitative ways in which communities are disadvantaged in what food is available, where it can be accessed, and how it is grown and produced? Is it a desire to bring about a cultural shift, a different way we experience food, a new ethic of food? Is it the entry point for a broader social justice movement, linking, for example, worker, immigrant, and food issues and organizing into a unified argument? Is it, somehow, all the above?”

In its fifteen year history (since its first annual gathering inLos Angeles in 1997), the Community Food Security Coalition became the place where many of those questions were debated and the program, policy, and organizing work of food activists was shared. That was the intent of the organization from the very first gathering in 1994 of the individuals from around the country who saw the need for a central place for food justice activism (though the term of the day was community food security). The 1996 Farm Bill became the occasion for the initial work of the CFSC and an initial document was produced called “The Community Food Empowerment Act” that was initially drafted by myself and Andy Fisher (who became the organization’s first Executive Director), with input from many of those who participated in the 1994 gathering, such as Mark Winne, Kate Fitzgerald, Kathy Ozer, Hugh Joseph, Duane Perry, and Rod MacRae – people who already had a history in what we would today call food justice organizing and program and policy work. Even after the Republicans, led by Newt Gingrich, took over the House, those early efforts still paid off, leading to the passage of the Community Food Projects legislation within the Farm Bill, which became a crucial source of support for the new food justice-oriented work beginning to emerge around the country.

Another key moment in that history, as Hank Herrara often explains, was the debate that occurred at the first annual meeting in 1997, where it was clear that the organization needed to be both transparent and open to new energy, including those working in low income communities and communities of color. As a result, a more democratic process of selecting board members, empowering staff, and having an active membership was established. The one major failing that emerged over time was the inability to create a more active process for membership participation (whether by groups or individuals) and movement capacity building, such as through a regional chapter structure or some other process.

The other major concern that emerged over time, as the organization grew in both staff, policy, and program resources, was the periodic divide between the organization’s board and its staff. For example, in the period from 2000-2002 there was skepticism on the part of some board members of the value of the emerging farm to school program, although there was strong support for this program from the staff. In this case, the staff succeeded in identifying the importance of farm to school as a crucial program, reaching thousands of low income children in public schools, while also providing a potential market for small, local farmers.

Despite these concerns, the CFSC flourished, and its annual meeting was perhaps the most important and expansive place where the food justice issues were debated, and also where linkages with other social justice activists and global players like Via Campesina, could be made. The difficulty for CFSC was that it represented both a place where movement networking and capacity building could take place, but also where the classic pressures of a NGO-type organization were experienced – continual need for fundraising where funds were primarily available for projects rather than general support and movement building and outreach.

These tensions came to head in the last eighteen months where the clash between board and staff intensified, leading to the departure of Andy Fisher, its long standing ED, as well as several other staff, and a board that increasingly sought to play a role in directing the organization, as funding became more precarious.

Now we have the crisis where the new ED and the board have announced that CFSC is dissolving and that the pieces of the organization will be parceled out to other organizations, leading to a classic NGO territorial effort to pick up the pieces. However, the crisis has also led to some passionate voices stating that the history of the organization is crucial, that its role as a central “common front for the food movement” (as one of our European food justice allies characterized CFSC’s role) needs to be re-envisioned.

To make this happen, we need a new gathering to discuss these issues and identify next steps. It should be, as many have said, a culmination of conversations occurring regionally and nationally, but should ultimately lead to a gathering (and perhaps one of several) where all those discussions come together. The conversations should assume that the CFSC is not dissolved but rather suspended due to lack of funding and the laying off of staff as has already occurred. The conversations should take place with the intent of identifying what new forms CFSC would take (or any future group that gets identified in the process). It should, from my perspective, be a “no cost” or “low cost” form initially, so that we can escape the NGO predicament and concentrate on what types of federal policy advocacy, food movement networking and capacity building are possible. It’s possible such discussions would lead to a decision to formally dissolve the CFSC from its suspended state and create a new organization that could provide an entry point for many who have not found a place to discuss their own work and/or are searching for ways in which they can be part of a food justice movement.

The last statement of the CFSC board was the request that former board members play a role in helping convene folks to discuss those next steps. As a co-founder and early board member, I think the CFSC board needs to make good on their request and formally acknowledge that a new process for what to do with the suspended CFSC (e.g., reinvent it, dissolve it, and/or create whatever organization should succeed it). In acknowledging this new process, the current CFSC board should pursue these steps, given the absence of staff and any mechanism currently in place to have the CFSC members weigh in. Those steps include:

1. Do not formally dissolve CFSC and don’t rush to give off its parts. As I’ve been told by the ED and a board member, there are no financial debts or liabilities; just no money to support staff and run programs. It’s one thing to lay off staff and close an office, but another to formally dissolve the organization, which, in any case, should reside as a decision of its members. The board could state that the organization is thus suspended, pending a decision by the membership to formally dissolve the organization.

2. Make transparent the information that’s needed by posting it on the CFSC website. That includes, as a start, the organization’s Articles of Incorporation and bylaws, so that a process to formally decide what to do with the suspended organization can be put in place and any related decision to launch a new organization could be made as part of the discussion about what should happen with the CFSC. This should be public information, in any case.

3. Formally acknowledge that a working group is being created, initially of former board members (and any current board members who wish to participate) as well as general members and staff and anyone who identifies with CFSC’s historical role as a common front for the food movement.  This working group would be given the task of identifying where and how a gathering could take place, to decide the next steps (or reinvention if you will) of CFSC. At such a gathering the current board members could then resign (or before then if they wanted or needed to) and then either a new organizational role or structure could be created or the decision could be made to formally no longer use the name “Community Food Security Coalition” and dissolve the organization, even as the work it helped initiate continues in whatever form emerges.

I would want to participate in such a working group and I’m sure others will want to as well. But we also need to hear from the current board about the three immediate steps described above, and to begin the discussion about the future of the movement networking and capacity building work that remains as crucial as ever.

Bob Gottlieb

Urban & Environmental Policy Institute, Occidental College

PRESENTATION FOR THE APPRENTICESHIP GRADUATES

OF THE CENTER FOR AGROECOLOGY & SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS

June 20, 2012

We began to do research for our book Food Justice in 2007. UEPI then had all its various food projects housed within an entity we called the “Center for Food & Justice”. We saw the various projects designed to help empower people to bring about specific changes and ultimately a broader and more radical transformation of the food system.  This included a focus on those most vulnerable and exploited along the food chain, and programs and activities and community organizing connected to our other social justice-based programs, such as immigration, transportation, or housing.

Few groups used the term food justice at the time in 2007. It was not widely used by the press or as part of common discourse. We’d constantly be asked “what is it”? So the first task for us was to see how others used the term and to compare it to the definition we had developed in relation to our own work.

t’s extraordinary to see how much has changed in 5 years, or even in just the two years since the book was published. There’s been an explosion of use of the term. As we describe in the Preface to the paperback edition of Food Justice that will be released in February 2013, examples include: A food justice school garden program. A health and wellness food justice group at a high school and another at a community college. A food justice conference focused on seed saving. A food justice festival with local farmers. A Food Justice Urban Hike-A-Thon. A food justice bike ride. An Occupy Wall Street food justice committee. A Labor Center researcher who argues “why food justice matters.” A Princeton University student organization that has created a Food Justice Foundation. And today, we have 38 UC Santa Cruz farm apprenticeship graduates who want to know, not just what is food justice, but how can they continue to be involved as participants. Should they hung out a sign that says, “Will Work for Food Justice?”

Why the explosion of interest and an embrace of the term?  Our definition of food justice developed for the book may provide some clues, given the possible entry points for food justice engagement. We define food justice as:  (i) seeking to challenge and restructure the dominant food system, (ii) providing a core focus on equity and disparities and the struggles by those who are most vulnerable, and (iii)  establishing linkages and common goals with other forms of social justice activism and advocacy -  whether immigrant rights, worker justice, transportation and access, or land use. In the past five years, each of these entry points for food justice has in turn become increasingly visible, providing language and opportunities for more groups and people to become involved.

Let me go through each of those entry points and give examples of how the food movement generally, and food justice as an orientation of the food movement has expanded. But also let me identify some of the challenges that have become visible with that expansion. And then let me get back to the comment I made about people like yourselves entering or about to re-enter the food justice world; namely how can one engage in this movement (or emerging movement), given those challenges.

Here are examples of that expansion:

1. A changing discourse about the food system and what’s wrong with it.

2. Hundreds, if not thousands of projects and programs and events designed to offer some kind of alternative

3. Increasingly, a youth movement

Regarding disparities:

4. Organizing around food access and food desert issues

5. Organizing around school food, particularly in K-12 public schools, with their substantial population of low income students who qualify for free and reduced lunch

6. Organizing workers along the food chain, such as the extraordinary 20 year campaign of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers

Linking with Social Justice Movements

7. Food and Labor connections (e.g., UNITE HERE’s Good Food initiative)

8. Linkages around Housing; Transportation; Immigration

The Challenges

A. Organizational and Issue silos

B. NGOs, not a social movement

C. Need to create a new political culture and community

D. Weak Labor Movement; Lack of a Social Democratic Tradition; Individualism as an ideology and Hostility to Public Roles and Social Governance

E. The power of the food industry and global players; foodwashing; Walmart divide

So What’s a Food Apprentice to do?

• Think like an organizer
• Help create that new political culture, sense of community
• Think and act like a change agent
• The need for Food Justice – and Social Justice – is everywhere; make it happen
•  Empower others; empower yourselves

“…there’s a simple rule: You say it again, and you say it again, and you say it again…and about the time that you’re absolutely sick of saying it is about the time that your target audience has heard it for the first time.” — Frank Luntz, Republican pollster

The report analyzes the frequency of the “job killer” term in four mainstream news media since 1984, how the phrase was used, by whom, and—most importantly—whether the allegations of something being a “job killer” were verified by reporters in their stories.

The study’s key findings include the following:

• Media stories with the phrase “job killer” spiked dramatically after Barack Obama was elected president, particularly after he took office.  The number of stories with the phrase “job killer” increased by 1,156% between the first three years of the George W. Bush administration (16 “job killer” stories) and the first three years of the Obama administration (201 “job killer” stories).
• The majority of the sources of stories using the phrase “job killer” were business spokepersons and Republican Party officials.  Republican officials (41.7%) and business sources (18.6%) were responsible for 60.3% of the “job killer” allegations.  In 17% of the stories, news organizations used the phrase in articles and editorials without attributing the phrase to a source.
• The Wall Street Journal was the most likely of the four news organizations to deploy “job killer” as conventional wisdom, with no attribution.  The Wall Street Journal generated sourceless “job killer” allegations in 45 stories (about 30% of its 151 total stories), the New York Times did so in 8 stories (14.5% of its 55 stories), the Washington Post 5 times (about 8% of its 60 stories), and the AP in 5 stories (about 4% of its 115 stories).
• Most of the stories with the phrase “job killer” focused on federal (65%) or state government (12%) policies to regulate business, including environmental, tax, labor, and consumer protection measures.  During the 28-year period, the top-ranked issues portrayed as “job killers” are 1) the environment, including climate change, 2) tax policy, 3) health care reform, and 4) wage laws (typically laws to raise the minimum wage).
• In 91.6% of the stories alleging that a government policy was or would be a “job killer,” the media failed to cite any evidence for this claim or to quote an authoritative source with any evidence for this claim. With little or no fact checking of “job killer” allegations, Americans have no way to know if there is any evidence for these claims.
• There is no correlation between the frequency of the phrase “job killer” and unemployment rate. Instead, ”job killer” allegations correspond much more closely with political cycles.
• The “job killer” allegations can have a significant ripple effect across the news media. For example, the Associated Press news feeds serve 1,700 newspapers and 5,000 television and radio news organizations in the U.S., and more internationally.  A single allegation of “job killer” from a significant news source can snowball into thousands of results in a Google search. One 2010 AP story in which Republicans “slammed” a bill as a “job killer,” yielded at least 12,800 web publications.
• The news media, by failing to seek to verify allegations made about government policies and proposals, typically act more like a transmission belt for business, Republican, and conservative sources than an objective seeker of truth when it comes to the term “job killer.”

The Study

We analyzed all stories in which the phrase “job killer” appeared from 1984 to 2011 in four major news organizations—the Associated Press, New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.   There were 381 total stories written that contained the phrase “job killer” and its variations.  The Associated Press news service had 115 stories, the New York Times 55 stories, the Wall Street Journal 151 stories, and the Washington Post 60 stories.

For more information:

Last month

Check out the success stories in the Let’s Move! Child Care Recognition Luncheon Program Booklet (PDF; We’re on page 19).

This week LAUSD launched its “I’m in” campaign to get students to participate in school meals and get excited about learning.  This is also the launch of CafeLA’s new menu, which features healthy meals inspired by cuisines from all over the globe, with an emphasis on whole grains and lots of fresh vegetables.  The new menu also reflects the new USDA proposed rule for the national school lunch program.  Take a look at the pictures, and see the changes for yourself!

Contact: Zoë Phillips, Farm to Preschool Program Manager UEPI, Occidental College
323-341-5098 (office), 323-258-2917 (fax)

FARM TO PRESCHOOL PROGRAM BRINGS FRESH FOODS TO URBAN PRESCHOOL PLATES
Preschoolers Tend Their Garden and Demonstrate Their Salad-Making Skills

LOS ANGELES (May 12, 2011) – Forget junk food–preschool age children at Magnolia Place are preparing and eating cucumber salad, tending to an onsite garden and learning about food systems from their teacher. It’s all part of the Farm to Preschool program, a two-year pilot, funded by grants from The Kresge Foundation and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and organized through a partnership between Occidental College’s Urban & Environmental Policy Institute and the Magnolia Place Family Center’s Children’s Bureau and PACE Early Childhood Education Head Start preschool programs. Ryan Reddy, Children’s Bureau Head Teacher says, “Our involvement in Farm to Preschool has given our students multiple exposures, in various contexts, to fresh produce. They have learned that trying new foods can be fun, and their overall opinion of fresh produce has improved dramatically. These foundational changes in their perspectives will have lasting effects on each child’s ability to make healthy food choices.”

What: More than 60 child care agencies and preschools from Long Beach to Santa Clarita are sending representatives to learn more about how this program can be adopted for their various urban locations.

When: Thursday, May 12th from 8:30am-12:30pm

Where: Magnolia Place Family Center (Johnson Auditorium and preschool playground) 1910 Magnolia Ave, Los Angeles 90007 (Near intersection of Washington and Hoover, south of downtown Los Angeles)

Through the Farm to Preschool program, kids between the ages of three and five years old learn about nutrition and local food systems as well as how to grow their own vegetables. The program also aims to increase access to fresh fruit and produce at Los Angeles and San Diego preschools by encouraging preschool operators to purchase from local farms. “The program has been immensely successful with preschoolers, families and teachers. We want to address the childhood obesity epidemic by helping kids and their families have better access to, and develop a preference for, fresh fruits and vegetables.” Says Program Manager Zoe Phillips, “This is one great way we can begin to accomplish that.”

The program has made an impact beyond the children to their parents and families through facilitated discussions on healthy eating and cooking demonstrations that emphasize homemade fresh food. Says Mary Helen Vasquez, Child Development Director, Children’s Bureau, “The Farm to Preschool program has brought an awareness about fruits and vegetables for the children that has resulted in children being involved in what is selected when they go to the market with their parents.”

Today’s Demonstration Day is attracting child care agencies and preschools from Long Beach to Santa Clarita including: Connections for Children, LAUP (LA Universal Preschool), LA Valley College, LAUSD (LA Unified School District), Lynwood USD, Hacienda-La Puente USD, Santa Monica-Malibu USD, Long Beach Day Nursery, LACOE (LA County Office of Education), ELACC (East LA Community Corporation) and Mexican American Opportunity Foundation, which operates in multiple counties.

Interviews and Follow Up Questions
Please contact us to arrange interviews with program participants and organizers, including:

• Zoë Phillips, Farm to Preschool Program Manager, UEPI, Occidental College
• Rosa Romero, Farm to Preschool Program Coordinator, UEPI, Occidental College
• Mary Helen Vasquez, Child Development Director, Children’s Bureau
• Marina Aguillen, Site Supervisor, PACE ECE Head Start
• Roberta Tinajero, Healthy Eating Active Living Manager, Kaiser Permanente

About Magnolia Place Family Center
Magnolia Place Family Center, dedicated in October 2008, serves as a community hub for families to meet, share, grow, and socialize with their friends and neighbors. The Family Center is a 46,000 square foot facility on three acres. Multiple organizations provide comprehensive programs and services in four areas which experts agree are the keys to strengthening families: nurturing parenting, economic stability, good health and school readiness.

About Occidental College and UEPI
Occidental College is a small liberal arts college located in the Eagle Rock neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. Occidental is regularly ranked as one of the most diverse college campuses in the country, and encourages its students and faculty to engage Community-Based Learning opportunities. The Urban & Environmental Policy Institute (UEPI) at Occidental College is a community-oriented research and advocacy organization with a mission of creating a more just, livable and democratic region. UEPI serves as the umbrella for a variety of affiliated programs addressing work and industry, food and nutrition, housing, transportation, regional and community development, land use, and urban environmental issues.

###