Category Archives: policy schmolicy

school lunches and gubmint cheeze

Posted on by
Reply

I don’t know about where you live, but in Pittsburgh (and Pennsylvania in general), the school districts and the local governments are completely separate animals. Which, when you think about it, sometimes makes sense, and sometimes doesn’t. Since I’ve been working in and around government for over a decade, this is second nature to me, but I recently had a convo with my friend Leah about local governments vs. school districts and realized that’s not always the case.

966733_572920589419097_1437740083_o

In that instance, we were debating the sway that the city’s next mayor could have over school lunches. Leah’s op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (scroll to the bottom, she’s there, I swear!) last week called for the new mayor to advocate for better school food in Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS). She’d initially called for the new mayor to change the school food system, until I reminded her that the city and the school district are two entirely different entities.

Thankfully, Tuesday’s mayoral primary makes it pretty darn clear that Bill Peduto will be the city’s next mayor (don’t get me started on the current one). Peduto’s been running for mayor since 2005, and has a huge, well-thought-out list of 100 different things he’ll work on once he’s mayor. Two of his points directly impact the schools/school lunch conversation: #36, Working Together to Improve Public Education, and #26, Get Fresh Pittsburgh: Providing Neighborhood Access to Fresh, Healthy Food. Peduto specifically advocates starting #26 in our schools.

While separate entities, the district needs to recognize the value in working with the city on improving the schools, both overall and with respect to the food in the schools.

Technically, the mayor has no sway. But he can certainly advocate for change because the district’s decisions impact the economic development opportunities for the city as a whole. Imagine if the city could tout truly healthy school lunches as part of a broader healthy child curriculum and an economic development opportunity. Wouldn’t that position Pittsburgh as a more well-rounded green, sustainable, healthy place to attract new investment and jobs? It seems that it would position the city to be even more attractive to workers with families. And don’t forget workforce training – it’s well-documented that the quality of food directly impacts the ability of children to learn. If we’re going to have a good future workforce, we need to raise them well. Crap food makes unhealthy kids.

So congratulations to Peduto – and help him make these two, and all 100 bullet points, happen for the city. It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood!

these are the people in my neighborhood

Posted on by
Reply

I bought my husband a book recently, and didn’t think much about it at the time. An old college friend of his had written it, and I was excited to support Matt’s endeavors and surprise my husband at the same time. And, of course, it didn’t hurt that the old friend is a chef, and the book he’d written was a cookbook (and a good-looking one at that). After Super Bowl Sunday (and making Matt’s great wings and blue cheese sauce), a thought clicked in my head.

20130203_184802

Trying to get back to sourcing my food locally – away from processed food, away from GMOs and frankenfoods, closer to a more local system – automatically linked me in to a local foods community. Part of this has always been obvious to me, I know the ‘know your farmer!’ mantra well. But it didn’t really occur to me how plugged in we have become. Not only do we buy from farmers at local markets (both seasonal and year-round ones), we frequent locally-owned restaurants, we buy locally made bread, etc. etc. etc. Now we also plug into cookbooks and recipes written by people we know. So my kids think it’s normal to talk to the person who owns the restaurant, to get a hug from the coffee shop owner, to know the guy on the tv teaching the host how to cook, to have met the chickens who laid the eggs we’re eating. They’re learning to expect a certain standard of food, both in quality and preparation, at home and when we go out.

The European horse meat scandal drove this home to me – especially since so many responses to it have been ‘what’s the big deal?’ Either people are so used to not knowing what’s in their food, not used to reading labels, or not caring what they ingest, that they don’t seem to think it’s a problem that what is labeled at beef may not actually be beef. Even if you don’t care about whether or not you eat horse meat (in many places it’s culturally acceptable to do so), why don’t you care when you’re being lied to? Doesn’t it bother you that the companies that feed you are banking on your apathy for their profits?

Have you considered where all your food comes from? Not just the local farmers, but the boxes of mac and cheese on your shelf, the flash frozen reconstituted whatever it is on your plate from the chain restaurant you took your family to tonight? We’re far from perfect with our food management, but good food is a priority of ours. I don’t miss the crap, and I cherish the real connections we’ve made. The wings aren’t bad, either.

getting back in the groove

Posted on by
Reply

beef stew

making lemonade out of lemons – Julia Child style. 

Slowly…. slowly. Since life is getting in the way (darn public school germs, and broken freezer with 100+ lbs of meat inside, among other things), and I reached that point in the year that I started to resent my tomato plants, I took a little brain break. But today it’s fifty degrees outside, so I am going to plant my garlic and pull out my bean teepee and rake my leaves, dammit. Hold me accountable, please… just after I finish my breakfast.

—

One of the perks of all the summer travel I did was that I hung out in Huntington WV for a couple of days… and of course, I wrote about it.

…and in case you didn’t want to read it on the Food Revolution website, you can see it here too.

And if you haven’t seen what I wrote about the Month Without Monsanto challenge in October, take a peek. While I’m disappointed that Prop 37 didn’t pass in California, it came darn close, and awareness about GMOs has increased a lot as a result (check out the Cheerios Facebook protest, for example). It’s heartening to see more people start to question the corporate food model and want to know what’s really in their food. Makes me think that I’m not just shaking my fist at the sky for no reason.

here, there, and everywhere

Posted on by
1

I was called on the carpet recently by a friend who pointed out I was slacking in the update department. So, to avoid further repercussions (which probably won’t be more than some facebook needling, but you never know), here’s what I’ve been doing when I haven’t been here.

1) Digging Deep Campaign: I think you already know that I write here, but if you don’t, now you do. Weekly (or as close to weekly as a crazed working mom can get) posts on all sorts of foodie topics. I’ll need your support next month as I attempt to complete a Month Without Monsanto project while also committing to at least trying to follow the October Unprocessed rules. My latest post is a (pretty geeky) exploration of how organic doesn’t always mean organic, and it could mean Monsanto, but probably not because of what you’re thinking. I think.

2) My post earlier this month about The Wild Ramp in Huntington, WV has been making the rounds. I submitted it for a PASA DIY Challenge, and they featured it on their Local Food Month tumblr site. The Wild Ramp is currently undertaking a Kickstarter campaign, and guess what they noted at the bottom of their Kickstarter page? Yep, a link to my blog.

If you’re so inclined, I highly recommend that you consider supporting their campaign – this local market is run completely by volunteers, and is a needed resource for both consumers and farmers in Huntington. Plus, I’m totally in love with their bags and aprons.

3) Lastly, you can listen to my voice somewhat intelligently discuss local restaurants, urban redevelopment, and the perception of what disadvantaged people *should* eat in urban areas at the Wise Economy Workshop. I’ve worked with Della, a principal at the Wise Economy, in many different iterations over the years and she’s one of those people who *gets* sustainable economic development. I may have freaked her out by the Station Street Hot Dog Shop Devil Dog, but apparently in a good way.

Doyle’s response.

Posted on by
2

I just realized I have been remiss in posting Congressman Mike Doyle‘s response to my request to maintain food stamp assistance in the Farm Bill (which was passed in the Senate today, in case you’re wondering). Doyle and I are firmly in the same camp on this issue, which is probably why I received both an email and an actual letter in the mail about this (the text was the same). Still no response from Toomey.

—

Thank you for contacting me in support of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  I am glad we agree on this important issue. I am grateful that you took the time to write to me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Like you, I strongly believe that it is our duty as a society to care for those less fortunate than ourselves, and SNAP plays a big role in providing this help. In the fiscal year 2011, SNAP helped around 44.7 million people, about half of whom were children. As families across the country continue to rebuild, SNAP has been there to assist those families hardest hit and keep them out of extreme poverty.

Unfortunately, a war is being waged on such social safety net programs. Just as people need food stamps more, the Republicans’ proposed budget seeks to cut funding for SNAP by $133 billion and tighten the eligibility requirements.

I voted against this proposed budget, but unfortunately it did pass the House. Luckily, it will be dead on arrival in the Democrat controlled Senate, and, because a budget has to pass both the Senate and the House in order to become law, we can be relatively certain that these draconian cuts won’t survive. Please be assured that I will continue to work with my colleagues here in the House to protect SNAP and other programs like it.

Again, thank you for contacting me in support of SNAP.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may ever be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Mike Doyle

Member of Congress

Casey’s response.

Posted on by
4

As promised over at the Digging Deep Campaign, here’s the entire text of the response I received from Senator Bob Casey‘s office when I wrote regarding maintaining food stamp assistance in the Farm Bill. If/when I get something from Senator Pat Toomey‘s office, I’ll be sure to post it here.

I welcome your thoughts – and will start digging into Casey’s positions on the mammoth bill. Since he’s representing me in the Senate, I probably should pay attention to what he’s doing on my behalf.

—
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding nutrition programs in the 2012 Farm Bill. I appreciate hearing from you.

Roughly every five years, Congress reauthorizes the Farm Bill which governs federal farm and food policy. On April 26, 2012, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee met, modified and approved the 2012 Farm Bill. The bill is now pending on the Senate legislative calendar. I am hopeful that the full Senate will vote on the 2012 Farm Bill soon. If passed into law, the 2012 Farm Bill would reduce the deficit by approximately $23 billion dollars through the elimination of unnecessary subsidies and the consolidation of programs. I worked to improve the Farm Bill so it was more fair and equitable for Pennsylvania agriculture. The current version of the 2012 Farm Bill includes benefits for Pennsylvania’s specialty crop farmers, dairy farmers, and conservation programs; and it improves the Secretary’s ability to purchase foods for use in federal nutrition programs. Still, more work must be done on this legislation.

The Committee-passed version of the 2012 Farm Bill supports food assistance programs, including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I introduced an amendment to the Farm Bill to allow USDA to consider the needs of states and the demands placed on emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks, when purchasing commodities through the TEFAP program. This amendment is included in the current bill. The 2012 Farm Bill also includes provisions to improve access to healthy foods in food deserts and to fund SNAP education and training programs. I have heard from many people about the “heat and eat” provision of SNAP. The Farm Bill permits participating states to coordinate SNAP and the Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) allowing the LIHEAP agency to provide cash benefits directly to SNAP households. The current version of the 2012 Farm Bill would require at least $10 per year in LIHEAP assistance in order to qualify for the Standard Utility Allowance in the SNAP eligibility determination process.

It is very important to me that the Senate develops nutrition assistance policy that will help Pennsylvanians. I will continue to work with my colleagues on nutrition policy in preparation for when the full Senate considers the 2012 Farm Bill.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

For more information on this or other issues, I encourage you to visit my website, http://casey.senate.gov. I hope you will find this online office a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like to respond to this message, please use the contact form on my website: http://casey.senate.gov/contact/

salt of the station street pig & chicken*

Posted on by
26

Gentrification. Revitalization. Stabilization. All words that come to mind when you’re thinking about what to do, exactly, with declining urban neighborhoods. But at the core of ‘what to do’ with declining urban neighborhoods is a mindset that urban planners (myself included) are often guilty of – at the end of the day, we can’t ‘do’ anything with property we don’t own, at least not easily or without great cost (financial and otherwise) to the community. This is often why the best examples of neighborhood revitalization and stabilization are usually organic ones – perhaps steered by community development corporations, neighborhood plans, or local planning departments – but at their core driven forward by people on the ground willing to take risks, pour their money (and those of their investors) into a place, develop a business plan, make connections, and hope it sticks.

Here in Pittsburgh, I’ve had a soft spot in my heart for the East Liberty neighborhood for years. Once the third largest shopping district in Pennsylvania, this neighborhood has great history, fantastic architectural gems, a decades-long period of decline, and some fantastically awful centralized planning decisions. Due to hard work and boots on the ground (and decidedly NOT due to anything our backwards local government planning department has done or not done, since they’re only now writing a comprehensive plan for the city) by the neighborhood CDC and countless other stakeholders, this area is hopping once again. Bookended by big box retail in the large spaces surrounding the urban core, the smaller spaces have for the most part been slowly rehabbed and are a mix of established and relatively new businesses.

And here’s the sticky part – who’s the most important stakeholder in this process? The neighborhood resident who’s seen the decline and rebirth? The chamber of commerce, who doesn’t necessarily have the best track record with supporting the small businesses? The CDC, who’s busted its butt trying to get vacant buildings filled with a sustainable mix of tenants only to get flack because they’re the ‘wrong kind’? The mix is critical to success, but everyone is always critical of the mix.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately as I frequent businesses in East Liberty. So many are food-based (yes, I am finally talking about food) – two Ethiopian restaurants, a Jamaican place, the cupcake bakery, the pizza shops, the Parisian bistro, the hip local dive bar, the waffle-centered performance art space, the conflict kitchen, the barbeque place, the hot dog shop, the burger bar, the modern American restaurant. As I write this list off the top of my head, I’m struck by the fact that most of these places are relatively new. One of the pizza shops is a long-time business (though frought with its own issues); the rest have been operating a decade or less. And although most business owners are happy with any patrons, for the most part the clientele seems to be young, non-minority, hip, with disposable income. I think it’s safe to say that the immediate neighborhood residents would not fit that description. So East Liberty is back to being a destination – which, to be fair, is its historical role. And what’s the alternative – predatory businesses (there is a check cashing place in the area, I believe), or no businesses at all?

A conversation with a fellow local food blogger started this whole thought process (and that conversation devolved from a lovely brisket recommendation). What level of investment in a neighborhood is appropriate for someone to come in with? Does that level change if they’re from the neighborhood, the city, the region, or a complete outsider? What about if they bring with them a certain caché, a cult of personality, a track record for excellence in the culinary world? Local foodies know by now that I’m talking about Kevin Sousa and his East End restaurant trimvirate (two of which are in East Liberty, and one in the urban core of the neighborhood). His first restaurant, Salt of the Earth in nearby Garfield, earned major accolades from the broader culinary community (Food and Wine and the James Beard Foundation, among others) and has been lauded locally. Rehabbing the building was seen as a Good Thing too, turning a historic Harley Davidson dealership from the 1920s that most recently was a vacant home decor place into a hot spot on a stretch of Penn Avenue that sorely needed some eyes on the street at night.

He’s followed that up with two restaurants opening almost simultaneously: Station Street Hot Dog Shop, and Union Pig & Chicken, and the grumbling has grown along with his foodie empire. I just don’t get it. The hot dog shop had been vacant for over a year, and is carrying on the tradition of a hot dog shop in that general vicinity (with that name) since 1915. The barbeque place bore the brunt of the complaints, both because people are very opinionated about their barbeque expectations and because a white dude from McKees Rocks is cooking barbeque in the ‘hood (haven’t heard it in quite those terms, but that seems to be the general sentiment).

Food questions aside (though I admit to being an avid fan of Kevin’s cooking), I ask these naysayers these questions: what would you have put in their place? Both of those storefronts were vacant. Both places are continuing the traditions of their locations (a rib joint failed a few years ago in the spot where Union is now). While neither place is the cheapest place I can get a hot dog or some fried chicken, it’s not massively overpriced. When a quarter pounder at Mickey D’s now costs $3.84 for processed crap that’s only recently become pink-slime free, and I can get a hot dog with standard fixings, all made by hand and really good quality product for $4 plus tax, how is that pretentious? If $22 is too much to pay for a really good rack of ribs, why would you willingly pay $20.99 at Damon’s for a mediocre rack?

And if you don’t want a Local Boy Done Good to bring restaurants to your vacant storefronts, where should he go? He’s a successful businessman with a solid following who chose to try new things in a neighborhood that needed it, and said they wanted it (one of the  goals in the neighborhood plan is to become a dining destination, after all). He could have rested on his laurels and replicated his brand in the suburbs, and he didn’t. Why all the crap for someone who’s willing to take a chance? Isn’t *that* the American way?

Me, I’m happy to support a local businessman who serves food that I feel comfortable feeding to my kids in an area of the city that I love. Obviously, a lot of other people feel that way too. This debate isn’t unique to East Liberty, or Pittsburgh.  I lived in another city neighborhood a decade ago whose parochial blue hairs tried to run the Hispanic businesses off the main street – apparently they liked vacant storefronts more. But if you alienate the small business owner, who is supposedly the lifeblood of the American economy, sooner or later you’ll end up in a chain store (or vacant window) wasteland. That’s not what I’m interested in, at all.

*an odd title, I know, but it combines the names of the three Kevin Sousa restaurants: Salt of the Earth, Station Street Hot Dog Shop, and Union Pig & Chicken

so there’s this guy…

Posted on by
4

cute, about my age, spiky hair, fun accent, slightly wonky teeth, has this thing against flavored milk and pink slime… maybe you’ve heard of him. Jamie Oliver? Yeah, him.

Who’s got two thumbs and just had an article posted on his Food Revolution site? *this girl*

I’ll post the text here for those of you lazy enough to not click through to the site, but really, their graphics are much cooler than my simple ones around these parts (make sure you drool over the burger from Burgatory at the top of the page – even with my crappy photography skills and the burger smushed from a takeout box, it makes my mouth water). And I’m not usually one to crow, but this whole process has been surreal and I felt it necessary to put it here as an electronic way of pinching myself to make sure I’m not dreaming.

I do have to say that I wish they had featured some of the school lunch pictures I got from the Environmental Charter School – you’ll wish your kids could eat these lunches. Heck, *I* wish I could eat these lunches!

I’ve been invited to come check out their lunchtime craziness this month and see how the kids react to their food. I can’t wait!

—-

‘Pink Slime’: What’s Next for School Lunches [originally written for Jamie's Food Revolution]

Playing Catch-Up With ‘Pink Slime’

If you’ve been paying attention to food-related news in the past three weeks, you’ve likely heard about ‘Pink Slime’.

As the Food Revolution has noted previously, the term has been around since 2002. Also known as Lean Finely Textured Beef, the substance gained some attention in 2010 when Jamie staged a demonstration on the ABC series of the Food Revolution.

But since Bettina Siegel posted a Change.org petition on March 6th urging the USDA to stop using ‘Pink Slime’ in the National School Lunch program, the ‘Pink Slime’ controversy has become a heated national debate.

Siegel’s petition received over a quarter-million signatures in just three weeks. The USDA has acknowledged the pressure, issuing an announcement that it would give school districts the option to purchase beef with or without LFTB. Many large school districts, including those in New York City and Boston, have stopped purchasing beef containing LFTB, while those that don’t use ‘Pink Slime’, like the Houston ISD, are confirming that their beef is LFTB-free. Most recently, Beef Products, Inc. announced the suspension of operations at three of the four plants where LFTB is produced.

Tensions on this topic are running high – while ‘Pink Slime’ opponents are pleased with the initial inroads made with the USDA, they’re not content with this first victory and are actively lobbying members of Congress to keep such additives out of the meat supply. In contrast, the meat industry has gone on the defensive, starting their own site supporting LFTB, and taking out a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal.

The takeaway from this controversy is clear: people didn’t know what their kids were eating. When they learned the truth, they wanted ‘Pink Slime’ taken out of their children’s meals – and out of their supermarkets as well. Americans haven’t suddenly turned vegetarian, leaving the beef industry in the lurch. But when given the opportunity to make informed choices, consumers will decide based on what’s in their best interest. In this case, once people were educated about the industrial food system, they chose to change their purchasing habits, and pushed for the government to do the same.

So Now What?

In addition to the USDA giving school districts that purchasing option, Congress is urging the USDA to take ‘Pink Slime’ out of the National School Lunch Program completely, and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) has introduced a bill, the Real Beef Act requiring that ‘‘Pink Slime’’ be labeled. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is planning similar legislation in the Senate.

But how does this affect the school districts that actually feed our kids five days a week? Now that parents are paying closer attention to the food in local schools, how can they help districts continue to make changes for the better, especially when many districts and states are strapped for cash? And most importantly, how can parents be assured that the food that is fed to all children is nutritious, safe, and relatively free of additives?

Commentators think that the USDA ‘Pink Slime’/no-’Pink Slime’ choice will lead to a two-tiered ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ system of school lunches, where better-funded districts that can afford it decide on higher-quality food, while cash-strapped districts end up stuck with lower-priced ‘Pink Slime’-laced beef. But even if money were not an issue, extracting ‘‘Pink Slime’’ from the food supply available to school districts is difficult. The USDA doesn’t currently require that beef products containing ‘Pink Slime’ be labeled as such. Because of the lack of labeling requirements, and that many districts have already placed their food orders for the upcoming school year, the deck is stacked against a quick phase-out.

Don’t forget – districts also have to work within the USDA reimbursement guidelines if they don’t want to pay out-of-pocket for food service. And the new rules for school meals – championed by First Lady Michelle Obama and doubling the amounts of fruits and veg served to children – are estimated to add $3.2 billion in costs to the school lunch program. Pulling ‘Pink Slime’ from menus will also add to the cost of the program at the local level.

Dealing with high-volume food production in large school districts can also be problematic. Centralized food services are great for cutting costs, but not necessarily for getting high quality food onto the lunch plates of students. Smaller schools, like Pittsburgh’s Environmental Charter School, are showing that innovative things can be done in school lunch programs. However, moving from a school of 450 students that develops partnerships with local restaurants and catering businesses (and that also values food quality enough to operate its lunch program at a loss) to a district that serves tens of thousands of children with no budget flexibility requires even more creativity. Especially if schools no longer have fully equipped kitchens, switching to a decentralized model will take more time and money than many districts can afford.

Grass-roots Movements Can Spur Major Changes

As with most established bureaucracies, change will come slowly. But the last three weeks of ‘Slime-gate’ have shown that grass-roots movements can spur major changes. All children who eat school meals – regardless of where they live or how wealthy their parents are – deserve to eat healthy food that tastes good. So keep the heat on the USDA, tell your elected officials to support Rep. Pingree’s and Sen. Menendez’s initiatives, and urge them to support the Local Farm, Foods and Jobs Act as part of the Farm Bill reauthorization process.

Finally, get involved where you live. Call your local school district and ask about their food service. Attend a school board meeting. Advocate for a more transparent system for good food!

About the author: Rebecca Maclean (@foodmeonce) is a food policy blogger whose interests lie at the intersection of urban gardening, food security, and public health. She writes at foodmeonce.com and is the Editor-in-Chief of the Digging Deep Campaign. Rebecca wrangles a husband, two kids, and several raised beds in her spare time.

ew. gross.

Posted on by
Reply

I’m hanging out with pink slime over at the Digging Deep Campaign this week – and am thankful that I just bought 100 lbs of beef from my favorite local farmer (which was from a cow that I had met personally). 

I briefly note there that, although the uproar over pink slime is fantastic to see – it’s amazing  to me how much people don’t know about the industrial food supply, and when they do start to learn, they are disgusted enough to do something about it – you can’t just call it a day when the USDA caves a little and gives school districts the choice of not buying ground beef with pink slime (The Lunch Tray explains why). Because the main reason the USDA buys pink slime for school lunches is because it’s cheap. And if school districts (cash-strapped already, at least in this state) still have to operate under the same reimbursement standards for the school lunches, we’ll see something else cheap sneak its way into the school lunch program.

I don’t usually quote myself, but in this case, I think it’s important to reiterate what I said earlier in the week at Digging Deep:

Here’s why – reimbursement rates. How much money do schools get reimbursed per child for the food in school lunches? Not much. The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) lists the current year maximum reimbursement rates as $2.79 for free lunches, $2.39 for reduced price lunches, and $0.28 for a lunch fully paid for by the child. Can you cook on an industrial scale for less than three bucks a meal? I sure can’t. And don’t forget the much-touted change in rules to the National School Lunch Program, thanks to Michelle Obama. Don’t get me wrong, doubling the amount of fruits and vegetables children are served in school is fantastic, and way overdue. But until the Farm Bill stops overwhelmingly subsidizing grains and starts leveling the playing field for fruit and veg, they’ll be more expensive. Which means the other food in each school lunch needs to be less expensive. Enter pink slime.

Yep, it all goes back to the Farm Bill. Which, as it happens, is up for reauthorization this year (because, thankfully, the Secret Farm Bill crap didn’t work last year). So work to make your voices heard – catch up on the particulars with the Environmental Working Group’s Farm Bill Policy Plate series, and consider the Community Food Security Coalition’s talking points when you contact your elected officials. Because you know the food-industrial complex is whispering in their ears. The least you can do – especially for the kids dependent on the school lunch program for their nutritional needs – is to do the same.

your questions: answered.

Posted on by
2

Have a food-related question you’re just dying to know the answer to, but can’t get to it/filter through all the white noise/understand what those crazy foodies are saying? Like, for instance, what’s up with the egg industry getting cozy with the Humane Society?

Don’t worry, the Digging Deep Campaign has it covered. Now with extra bloggers – Including yours truly.

No chickens were harmed in the making of this blog post.

You know me, I’m a sucker for research… and translating wonk-speak… and sifting through mundane details. So the Digging Deep Campaign is a great fit for me. I’ll have new posts up on Tuesdays and welcome your ideas for blog posts – ask me a question about the food world, and I’ll do my best to answer it!