Post-Debate Update: October Food Policy News Round-Up - Modern Farmer

Post-Debate Update: October Food Policy News Round-Up

You probably didn’t hear her say it, but while Donald Trump was shouting over her, Hillary Clinton actually said the word agriculture in the final presidential debate Wednesday night. As far as we know, it’s the only time either candidate has referenced the subject in any of the three debates. Not that it had any […]

Last Wednesday, a representative from each campaign took part in an agricultural policy forum to clarify their respective positions on the Farm Bill, agricultural trade policy, and other subjects.
Photography chrisdorney / Shutterstock.com

You probably didn’t hear her say it, but while Donald Trump was shouting over her, Hillary Clinton actually said the word agriculture in the final presidential debate Wednesday night. As far as we know, it’s the only time either candidate has referenced the subject in any of the three debates.

Not that it had any particular relevance for American farmers. As Politico reported the morning after, Clinton was in the middle of defending herself against Trump’s charge that she and her husband’s philanthropic foundation was corrupt when she mentioned their efforts to support Haitians after the 2010 earthquake, including “things to help small businesses, agriculture, and so much else.” During the same heated exchange she touted the Clinton Foundation’s support of Alliance for a Healthier Generation, a nonprofit which has lobbied to prevent sugar-laden soft drinks in public schools. The moment came and went in a matter of seconds.

Thus, much to the dismay of the nation’s burgeoning food movement, the presidential campaigns now enter the final weeks before the election without having any meaningful discussion about, or even acknowledging, the importance of food policy to the health and well-being of the country. However, food and agriculture advocates of every stripe have had a busy month attempting to make their voices heard in the raucous political conversation leading up to the election. Here are a few developments that we feel deserve to be heard above the din.

Prior to the Evening Debate, an Early Morning Ag Debate

First thing Wednesday morning, as the candidates prepared for the evening’s debate, a representative from each campaign took part in an agricultural policy forum hosted by the Farm Foundation, an agricultural think tank in Washington, DC. While it received virtually no national media coverage, the event offered each campaign an opportunity to clarify their respective positions on the Farm Bill, agricultural trade policy, and other subjects – and their stances include a surprising number of similarities.

Sam Clovis, an economics professor serving as Trump’s campaign co-chair and top policy advisor, represented the Republican nominee, while Kathleen Merrigan, former deputy secretary of the USDA in the Obama administration and a legendary figure in the organic agriculture movement, represented Hillary Clinton.

Clovis clarified that Trump would not seek to cut SNAP benefits out of the farm bill, as other Republican lawmakers have vowed to do, and affirmed that the candidate’s previous call to eliminate the “FDA Food Police” (a name Trump seems to have invented) had been retracted. Merrigan reiterated Clinton’s support for providing undocumented farmworkers with a path to citizenship and subsidies for corn-based ethanol production, but also discussed policy proposals to encourage more young and female farmers and vowed that, if elected, Clinton would work to increase conservation incentives that encourage environmentally responsible farming practices.

Food Activists Hit the Streets

Food Policy Action, an organization cofounded by celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, has revved up their advocacy work to full throttle this month. Not only did they issue their annual National Food Policy Scorecard this week, which rates members of Congress according to their voting record on food and agricultural issues, but they also delivered a petition to both campaigns imploring the candidates to make the food system a higher political priority.

In an emailed statement, an FPA spokesperson said the candidates were reminded that, according to polls, “one in three voters who regularly grocery shop for their families want food policy discussed in the presidential debates.” This week, FPA also announced their endorsements for Hillary Clinton and 12 members of Congress, as well as a half-million dollar campaign to help elect three representatives (one each in California, Iowa, and New Jersey) who are competing in races likely to have a major impact on the direction of national food policy in the coming congressional term.

California on the Front Lines of Agricultural Policy Reform

in case you missed it, last month California governor Jerry Brown signed historic legislation which will require that farmworkers in the state be paid overtime when they work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours in a week – a right which American farmworkers have been denied since the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was enacted, which mandated overtime pay in virtually every industry except agriculture.

The move was roundly applauded by farmworker advocacy groups, while another policy development in California this month – a proposal to create pesticide-free buffer zones around schools – has received mixed reviews.

The proposed regulations would prevent growers from spraying pesticides within a quarter-mile of public schools and daycare facilities between 6 AM and 6 PM on weekdays. While acknowledging the proposal is a step in the right direction, environmental activists feel that it doesn’t go far enough, pointing to evidence that pesticides easily drift more than a quarter mile in windy conditions and often remain airborne for more than eight hours. While agribusiness groups like the California Farm Bureau insist that such buffers are not necessary, environmental groups, such as the Pesticide Action Network, are advocating for a one-mile buffer.

Urban Agriculture Gets a Nod

Congressional lawmakers are already gearing up for the next installment of the Farm Bill, a once-every-five-years omnibus bill, which is due for renewal in 2018. If Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow has her way, the next Farm Bill will include the Urban Agriculture Act of 2016 – which, if adopted, would be the first federal legislation to explicitly address the needs of urban farmers.

The proposed legislation includes an $860 million budget over a ten-year period in support of a variety of goals and objectives, including the expansion of farm loan programs to urban farmers, funding for urban agriculture research, and revisions to the USDA’s farm insurance programs that would allow small urban producers to recover losses resulting from natural disasters or other calamities. It would also create an office of urban agriculture within the USDA.

Michelle Obama Embraces Her Food Legacy

Local food advocates around the country have wondered what will become of the White House kitchen garden, established by the first lady in 2009, once the Obamas move on. Earlier this month, Michelle Obama helped to answer that question with an impassioned speech about the legacy she hopes the garden – and Let’s Move, the first lady’s anti-childhood obesity campaign associated with it – will leave. The event included the public unveiling of a significantly expanded garden (it’s now 2,800 square feet) with permanent features, such as an arbor and flagstone paths, a clear message to the future first family that the project be respected as a permanent fixture on the White House’s South Lawn.

Obama also announced that the Burpee seed company has pledged $2.5 million for the garden’s ongoing care and maintenance. In the following days, the Hillary Clinton campaign confirmed that if the Democratic nominee is elected she will continue the garden. The Trump campaign did not respond to media queries on the subject.

The event seemed to touch off a wave of media punditry regarding the first lady’s – and her husband’s – broader food policy legacy. Vox took a deep dive on the issue, characterizing the Let’s Move campaign as a shrewd and calculated effort to infiltrate the corporate food world and transform it from the inside out. A couple day’s later, Michael Pollan offered a rebuttal in the New York Times Magazine with nearly the opposite take, suggesting that the White House’s willingness to partner with “Big Food” resulted in the Obamas acting as the industry’s puppet.

A minor Twitter war ensued, with Sam Kass, a former White House chef and food policy adviser to the Obamas, snapping back that Pollan’s assessment was “simply dishonest… shocking disregard of endless facts to keep his world view intact.”

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Related