Linking the aims of the alternative agrifood movement to executive action in the first two years of

22 Pages·2011·0.25 MB·English

Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com

Planting seeds for an improved agrifood system?
Linking the aims of the alternative agrifood movement to
executive action in the first two years of the Obama administration

K. Michelle Glowa,*a Sarah Carvill,a and Costanza Rampinia

Submitted 1 September 2010 / Accepted 28 April 2011 / Published online 26 May 2011
Citation: Glowa, K. M., Carvill, S., & Rampini, C. (2011). Planting seeds for an improved agrifood system? Linking the aims of the
alternative agrifood movement to executive action in the first two years of the Obama administration. Journal of Agriculture, Food
Systems, and Community Development, 1(3), 31–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.013.009
Copyright © 2011 by New Leaf Associates, Inc.

Abstract however. Our analysis further indicates that the
This paper uses several case studies to look at the administration views agriculture and food policy as
dialogic relationship between the Obama admini- embedded into a broader socioeconomic and
stration and the alternative agrifood movement. political system. Both the administration and the
We evaluate the case studies based on criteria alternative agrifood movement support the use of
developed from the agroecology literature and capacity-building, symbolic, and incentive tools
literature on food security, agrarianism, and the that emphasize community and individual
alternative agrifood movement as a whole. Addi- responsibility. Overall, there is evidence that the
tionally we compare the policy tools utilized and alternative agrifood movement and the Obama
the funding levels of each of the cases. Our find- administration are co-constructing a more
ings suggest that the Obama administration is community-based food system that simultaneously
committed to tackling issues of food security and reflects neoliberal rationale.
promoting the well-being of small- and mid-scale
farmers and their local agrifood economies. Keywords
Deconsolidation of large agribusiness, equitable agroecology, alternative food systems, executive
trade, and workers’ rights do not appear to be high politics, neoliberal governance, Obama
priorities on Obama’s food and agriculture agenda, administration, policy tools, social movement
Introduction
* Corresponding author: K. Michelle Glowa, University of Days before his historic election to the presidency,
California, Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA Senator Barack Obama told Time magazine political
95064 USA; [phone]; [email protected]
commentator Joe Klein, “Our agriculture sector
a Department of Environmental Studies, University of actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than
California, Santa Cruz, USA our transportation sector. And in the mean time,
Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011 31
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to movements, to develop a set of evaluative criteria
national security threats...sky-high food prices or that encompass movement goals and priorities. We
crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity apply these criteria to three USDA programs, three
prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion projects championed by first lady Michelle Obama,
in our healthcare costs” (Klein, 2008, “The Full and three appointments related to food and agri-
Obama Interview,” para. 45). Following a culture. This criteria-based analysis reveals the ex-
campaign famous for its rhetoric about hope and tent to which early policy initiatives in the Obama
change, Obama’s articulation of the profound administration align with and diverge from goals of
reverberations of mainstream American agriculture the alternative agrifood movement. Because the
gave adherents of the nation’s diverse alternative programs and appointments we analyze are not
agrifood movement reason for optimism. Shortly equivalent, we also examine the policy tools they
thereafter, however, Obama appointed two strong deploy and program funding to place the criteria-
proponents of genetically modified crops, Tom based analysis in context.
Vilsack and Roger Beachy, to key positions at the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Since Background
opposition to genetically modified organisms has
often been a component of movement activism, The Alternative Agrifood Movement in the U.S.
these initial actions left many alternative food In the United States, there exists a diverse group of
system advocates wondering what type of food- and agriculture-focused activists united by a
“change” could be expected of this new suite of shared goals. Social scientists have used
administration. Scott’s (1990) framework to define these actors as a
social movement (e.g., Allen, 2004; Hassanein,
This paper analyzes Obama’s agricultural agenda 2003). As Allen summarizes, a social movement “is
and policy-making by systemically evaluating early a collective actor constituted by individuals who
initiatives and appointments by the Obama admini- understand themselves to have common interests
stration, as well as the policy tools and funding and identity, and who act collectively in an attempt
associated with them. This evaluation is comple- to change widespread existing political, economic,
mented by a review of the reactions of the alter- and cultural conditions” (2004, p. 5).
native agrifood movement to these programs and
appointments. We ask how the alternative agrifood Today’s alternative agrifood movement has its
movement has defined its priorities, how the roots in a variety of other social movements, many
administration has responded to the movement in with long histories in the United States and
terms of policy initiatives, and how the movement internationally, including the populist, environ-
has reacted. Finally, we consider the overall direc- mental, antihunger, labor, and civil rights move-
tion of change coproduced by the administration ments (Allen, 2004; Constance, 2009; Hassanein,
and alternative agrifood movement. 2003). The various subgroups within the alternative
agrifood movement together have articulated a
We begin by briefly describing the rise of an alter- critique of the dominant agriculture and food
native agrifood movement in the United States and system as a corporate-controlled, technology-
its important characteristics and tenets. Subse- based, monocultural, export-oriented system that
quently, we analyze several key food- and agricul- negatively affects public health, food quality and
ture-related actions from the administration’s first nourishment, traditional livelihoods, indigenous
two years in office in an effort to understand and local cultures, and the environment. They
Obama’s commitment to the alternative agrifood advocate for a transition to more decentralized,
movement and his popularity within that move- democratic, cooperative, and independent organic
ment. To do this, we draw on literature in the farming systems, based on the principles of
social and natural sciences, including agroecological diversity, synergy, and recycling (Allen, 2004;
research and social studies of alternative agrifood Petrini & Lionette, 2007).
32 Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
Food and Agriculture in the Obama Campaign Following the election, the Organic Consumers
Obama’s campaign materials reflect awareness of Association “celebrated a hard fought and well-
the connections between agriculture and the deserved victory,” but maintained that the next
environment, and claim that locally oriented sys- step was to pressure the Obama administration to
tems of agricultural production benefit commu- take action to improve the national food system
nities (Obama for America, 2008). The campaign’s within its 100 first days in office (Organic Con-
rural policy statement characterizes consolidation sumers Association, 2008, p. 1). In December
in the agricultural sector as one of two key prob- 2008, the U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis
lems facing rural communities (Organizing for addressed the president-elect in a letter calling for
America, 2008). These initiatives directly reflect the the development of “a democratic and just food
alternative agrifood movement’s preference for policy” and the appointment of persons with
decentralized production and independent local similar commitments to positions in several areas
economies (cf. Allen, 2004). However, the policy of the new administration (U.S. Working Group,
prescriptions represent relatively conservative 2008, p. 2). Overall, the movement was engaging
reforms, and at times campaign materials conflate optimistically with the president-elect, reflecting
“organic” with “sustainable” in recommending hope that the arrival of the Obama administration
policy changes intended to support the latter would bring change in the agrifood system.
(Heffernan, Hendrickson, & Gronski, 1999;
Obama for America, 2008; Shames, 2009). The Methods
campaign’s rural policy statement also supports an In order to systematically analyze the Obama
increased role for biofuels, including corn ethanol, administration’s emergent food and agriculture
in U.S. agriculture and energy policy; promoting agenda in relation to the alternative agrifood
corn as fuel is unlikely to bolster diversified farms. movement, we reviewed social science studies of
Both the rhetoric and the proposed policies the movement and the agroecology literature. We
emphasize helping small growers “compete on the used these literatures to develop a set of evaluative
open market” rather than challenging agribusiness criteria reflective of the movement’s aims and
directly. emphases, and applied these criteria to six
agriculture-related policy actions and three
Movement Response appointments of the Obama administration. We
In October 2008 the New York Times published a then examined the funding levels and policy tools
“food issue” of its magazine section featuring an associated with the six selected policy actions.
extensive letter to the next president by author and
movement spokesperson Michael Pollan. Pollan Case Selection
enumerates the failures of today’s agrifood system In selecting cases, we were guided by a set of indi-
and asserts that the incoming president must cators of presidential performance on environ-
recognize the role that it plays in shaping other mental policy developed by Vig (2010). His
priority issues, such as health and energy indepen- taxonomy identifies the types of actions that are
dence (Pollan, 2008). Days before Pollan’s article most reflective of the influence of a president, as
appeared in the Times, Jim Goodman, a policy opposed to Congress or other political actors.
fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade, Examples include agenda, budget proposals,
wrote of the need for candidates Obama and executive orders, and appointments.
McCain to “talk real farm policy,” but credited
Obama with going beyond the failed policies of Our cases clustered into three categories: USDA
Reagan, Clinton, and Bush (Goodman, 2008, p. 1). programs, initiatives spearheaded by the first lady,
He also called on adherents of the alternative and appointments. Although the first lady is not an
agrifood movement to be active in demanding elected or appointed official in the administration,
policy action after the inauguration. political scientists have noted the importance of
her political role (O’Connor, Nye, & van
Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011 33
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
Assendelft, 1996). The functions of the first lady environmental conditions (outcomes). In the case
have increased from ceremonial to that of advisor of the Obama administration, it is still too early to
to the president and political agenda-setter. analyze outcomes; changes to the agrifood system
Michelle Obama champions issues surrounding itself that can be linked directly to administration
food and diet both in the policy arena and by policy initiatives. Instead, we focus here on
promoting healthier cultural practices such as outputs, evaluating whether the specified objectives
urban gardening. of the administration’s new programs and the
stated opinions of its appointees are consistent
We acknowledge that these nine cases are not with the critique formulated by the alternative
equally significant and, consequently, not equally agrifood movement. In order to do this, we rated
reflective of administration priorities. To account each case with a “Yes” or “No” for each criterion.
for these differences, we also compare funding and A program (or appointee) received a “yes” when
the design of the six policy initiatives. The titles of we found evidence that it (or she or he) was likely
the appointees indicate their relative power; we to contribute to the realization of movement goals
consider these differences for our criteria-based and values encompassed by the criterion in
analysis in the discussion. question. A “no” finding, therefore, does not mean
that a program would undermine movement
Source Material and Data objectives; it means that we did not find evidence
Our data are drawn primarily from three types of indicating that the program or appointee would
source materials. To analyze proposed and incipi- perform positively against the criterion in question.
ent policy initiatives, we relied on government
press releases, official program websites, speeches Given the highly qualitative nature of our data, a
from program launches, and news coverage in quantitative weighting system seemed likely to
mainstream national publications from the start of result in arbitrary values. We therefore evaluated
the administration to the end of 2010. In order to the relative importance of each of the six policy
gain insight into appointees’ backgrounds, we initiatives by comparing its budgets and the policy
analyzed public remarks, interviews, editorials, and tools it employs. A program’s budget is one
speeches, as well as the published materials and indicator of the level of impact it is likely to have;
curricula vitae of appointees from academia and, policy tools tell us what policymakers assume is
for appointees from the government sector, voting needed to promote desired behaviors in a specific
records and position statements compiled by arena (Schneider & Ingram, 1990).
nonpartisan government accountability clearing-
houses such as WhoRunsGov.com and Project Schneider and Ingram (1990) define policy tools as
Vote Smart. Finally, we utilized editorial material, the instruments used by public policy to induce the
press releases, memos, blog posts, reader com- changes needed to achieve policy goals. They iden-
ments, and other statements culled from blogs and tify five categories of policy tools according to their
websites identified with the alternative agrifood underlying motivational strategies.
movement. The accessibility of blogs helps account
for the movement’s large and vocal web presence, • Authority tools are based on the assump-
which also includes professional websites of major tion that directives from government
nonprofit organizations. officials will change the behavior of agency
employees or the public.
Analysis and Evaluation
The design of our study was inspired by Layzer’s • Incentive tools use tangible rewards and
(2008) assessment of ecosystem-based manage- punishments to prompt specific behaviors.
ment (EBM) efforts. Layzer evaluates a series of
EBM initiatives to understand whether manage- • Capacity-building tools provide target
ment plans (outputs) have measurably improved populations with information and
34 Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
resources deemed necessary to achieve the Evaluative Criteria
target policy goals. In order to methodically analyze Obama’s policies
and nominations, we developed 12 criteria in-
• Symbolic and hortatory tools appeal to tended to reflect the major goals of the alternative
cultural values and beliefs in order to agrifood movement in the United States (table 1).
stimulate policy-related actions. Our criteria, while sometimes overlapping, are
grouped into two broad categories: environmental
• Learning tools involve the participation soundness and social critique.
of target populations in the decision-
making process through hearings, boards Environmental Soundness
and panels. Our criteria for assessing the agroecological basis
of Obama’s policies and appointments are based
An understanding of the policy tools mobilized by on the agroecology literature. Many current defi-
the administration supplements our analysis by nitions of agroecology as a discipline extend its
emphasizing how the administration translates focus beyond individual farms to local and global
commitment into policy action (Schneider & food systems and emphasize a systems perspective
Ingram, 1990). that includes social, ecological, and economic
factors, although some agroecologists still focus on
Limitations natural science (Wezel & Soldat, 2009). We use the
Our analysis reflects the alternative agrifood systems definitions of agroecology provided by
movement’s views as constrained by the rhetorical Altieri (2002) and Gliessman (n.d.) to distill
situations through which we accessed them and the generalized criteria for assessing policy that may
particular individuals and organizations who chose support the development of agroecology in U.S.
to comment in broadly accessible formats, such as farming systems. According to Gliessman (n.d.),
press releases and blog posts. Our discussion of “sustainable agroecological systems maintain their
movement responses may therefore reflect a bias natural resource base, rely on minimum artificial
toward the subset of the movement that utilizes inputs from outside the farm system, manage pests
these spaces. and diseases through internal regulating mechan-
isms, [and] recover from the disturbances caused
Our analysis of appointments focused on by cultivation and harvest” (Gliessman, n.d.,
appointees’ professional experiences prior to bullets). Altieri (2002) concurs with Gliessman in
joining the administration. After they are nomi- identifying key processes that should be promoted
nated, appointees communicate with the public as in agroecosystems (see also Warner, 2007). Based
spokespersons for their administrations. This on these definitions, we developed criteria 1
confounds efforts to analyze postappointment through 6 for evaluating policies and appointments
public comments by appointees as evidence of by the Obama administration.
appointees’ individual views, experiences, and
qualities — the very things that form the basis for Social Critique
nominations and make the appointment of a The social critique of conventional food produc-
particular individual an “indicator” of an admini- tion advanced by the alternative movement is also
stration’s performance in a given policy area. This broad, encompassing issues as diverse as farm
problem forced us to rely more heavily on pre- economics, human rights, and food safety.
appointment data to evaluate appointees. Some Constance (2009) identifies the movement’s
appointees’ relevant prior work, however, was in agrarian question as the set of emphases that focus
the private sector or the rank and file of govern- on “the relationship between structure of agricul-
ment agencies, resulting in a paucity of pre- ture and quality of life for farmers and rural
appointment data. communities” (p. 5) that began to garner attention
in the early 1980s, when plummeting prices led to a
Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011 35
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
“farm crisis” in the rural U.S. (see also Associated Among the issues emphasized under this umbrella
Press, 1985; Hansen, 2003; Kline, 1981). From this are food security, farm workers’ rights and
“agrarian” critique, we can trace the development conditions, food quality (specifically nutrition), and
of three emphases of the modern alternative agri- food safety. These concerns formed the bases of
food movement: Regaining political and economic criteria 9 and 11 in our evaluative scheme. We also
control over a conventional food system that is include the importance of energy independence in
dominated by a small number of corporations with the list of concerns associated with “social critique”
transnational reach; increasing the prices small (criterion 12). As Obama himself has noted,
growers receive for their products on the market, agriculture in the United States is a major source of
both internationally and domestically; and greenhouse gas emissions due to its use of fossil
encouraging the implementation of policies that fuels for various stages of the production and
foster place-based agrifood economies. These distribution process (Klein, 2008).
emphases are the bases for criteria 7, 8, and 10.
Case Studies
Constance (2009) also describes an “emancipatory”
thread linking the agrifood system to human rights USDA Programs and Initiatives
concerns. Central to the emancipatory question is We analyzed three USDA programs: The Healthy
the critique of the uneven distribution of poverty, Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), Know Your
hunger, and food insecurity among different Farmer, Know Your Food (KYF2), and the
groups of people in the United States (Allen, 2004). People’s Garden Initiative.
Table 1. Criteria for Evaluating Case Studies
Environmental Soundness
Does the case study or key actor support objectives that are consistent with those prescribed by agroecology?
1. Does it take a systems approach to considering ecological, social, and economic factors within the same piece of
policy?
2. Does it address agroecological issues on multiple physical scales?
3. Does it support the improvement of soil health, fertility, and biological activity?
4. Does it promote natural control mechanisms available internal to the agroecosystem?
5. Does it emphasize resource conservation and maintenance of the resources in any given system?
6. Does it encourage the enrichment of biodiversity and “synergisms between components”?
Social Critique
Does the case study or key actor support objectives that are consistent with the social critique raised by the community
food security movement?
7. Does it support deconsolidation of food production and processing by supporting small- and mid-scale producers
and/or revising policies that confer advantages to large producers and processors?
8. Does it promote higher prices for farm products or support or incentivize the development of value-added
enterprises, such as food processing and/or alternative markets for agricultural products? Does it help farmers
capture a larger proportion of their products’ retail value?
9. Does it promote access to cheap, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food by targeting the distribution, quality and
price accessibility of food, the underlying causes of hunger and food insecurity (e.g, poverty, illiteracy and
unemployment)?
10. Does it promote the overall vitality of the local agrifood economy?
11. Does it reflect a general concern for the well-being of farm workers, food processing workers, and food service
workers?
12. Does it promote energy independence within the agrifood sector by reducing food miles and promoting the use of
renewable energy?
36 Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
HFFI is a joint effort by the USDA, the Depart- encourage the participation of small-scale farmers
ment of Health and Human Services (HHS), and and producers by using language that signals an
the Department of the Treasury intended to increased commitment to local and sustainable
provide access to affordable and nutritious food in agriculture. The initiative also serves as a capacity-
all areas of the United States. Partner agencies have building tool that connects small producers with
committed to funding loans, grants, and tax credits resources intended to foster agroecological prac-
for private and nonprofit initiatives that bring tices and the vitality of local farming economies. In
supermarkets to communities lacking fresh food. the last year, a blog was launched on the KYF2
Other projects eligible for HFFI support include website to provide real-world examples of the
farmers’ markets and refrigerated produce cases for activities it is coordinating across the country
convenience stores (HHS, 2010). HFFI provides (USDA, 2010a).
incentive for food retailers to open stores, and
increases the capacity of retailers and community The People’s Garden Initiative (PGI) challenges
groups to act in cases where private capital is reluc- USDA employees to start “people’s gardens” at
tant to finance projects. The initiative is based on a USDA facilities or help communities create gar-
well regarded public-private partnership, the dens. At the USDA’s headquarters in Washington,
Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative DC, a garden of over 600 square feet has been
(Brown, 2010; PolicyLink, 2010a; Reinvestment started, and future plans include on-site compost-
Fund, 2007). HFFI was announced in February ing, rain gardens1, a pollinator garden, and use of
2010 by the Obama administration as a US$400 organic and sustainable techniques. The initiative
million commitment. Legislation to establish and also promotes education through trainings and
fund HFFI was introduced in the Senate and the print resources. The initiative uses incentives,
House on November 30, 2010, with funding at the capacity-building, and symbolic tools. The head-
US$500 million level (HHS, 2010; U.S. Congress, quarters garden is intended as a model to demon-
2010b; U.S. Congress, 2010c). strate the potential of gardens on both federal and
private land. It is also a symbol of the administra-
Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food (KYF2), tion’s commitment to environmental sustainability
chaired by USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen and community food security. The program builds
Merrigan, is a communication mechanism used by capacity by educating communities across the
the USDA to promote the distribution of money United States in garden development. In a tele-
already authorized by Congress (Ferguson, 2010). phone conversation with the authors, a USDA
In a telephone conversation with the authors in staff member explained that each field office uses
January 2011, staff at the office of Deputy Secre- funds from existing budgets along with volunteers
tary Merrigan revealed that the initiative has no and donations to run its program (Livia Marques,
dedicated funds; nevertheless, it has been at the personal communication, January 14, 2011). In
forefront of the USDA and Merrigan’s outreach addition to educational opportunities, in 2010 a
effort for the past two years (Luke Knowles, People’s Garden School Pilot Program grant
personal communication, January 13, 2011). KYF2 competition was developed, budgeted for US$1
publicizes loans, grants, technology transfers, and million, to incentivize school garden development.
other incentives that support local farmers, With the exception of the salary of the PGI
strengthen rural communities, promote healthy director, which was paid by the USDA, support for
eating, and protect natural resources (USDA,
2009a). The majority of the opportunities
publicized through KYF2 are intended to launch 1 A rain garden, according to the Rain Garden Network, is “a
farm-to-school programs and encourage a large- shallow depression that is planted with deep-rooted native
plants and grasses…to capture rainwater runoff and stop the
scale conversion of farmers to certified organic
water from reaching the sewer system” (Rain Garden
farming. KYF2 functions as a symbolic tool: It
Network, What is a Rain Garden? Retrieved from
repackages existing incentive programs to further http://www.raingardennetwork.com/ ).
Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011 37
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
the headquarters’ garden comes from donations determinants of food choices and diet quality and
and the labor of the maintenance staff and to provide a spatial overview of a community’s
volunteers. ability to access healthy food and its success in
doing so” (USDA, 2010b, “Objectives of the
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Projects atlas,” para. 4). The atlas uses 90 indicators within
Three policy actions that we analyzed — Let’s three categories of food environment factors: food
Move!, the Food Environment Atlas, and the choices, health and well-being, and community
White House Garden — are projects of first lady characteristics. The Food Environment Atlas is a
Michelle Obama. capacity-building tool. The atlas provides informa-
tion to the public that has been compiled from
Let’s Move!, Michelle Obama’s most comprehen- public, academic, and private institutions. The
sive policy initiative, is a suite of programs project aims encourage research and educate the
intended to reduce childhood obesity in the United greater public as to the conditions of their com-
States by addressing its underlying causes (Obama, munities. It is assumed that individual free agents
2010). One of the aims of the initiative, increasing and “target groups will have sufficient incentive or
access to healthy, affordable food, overlaps with motivation” to take action to improve their
the goals of the alternative agrifood movement community’s food environment (Schneider &
(Obama, 2010; USDA, 2010c). Under the banner Ingram, 1990, p. 518). According to USDA staff
of Let’s Move!, executive-branch agencies provide there is no allocated budget for this program; staff
new web tools and labeling programs, increase from ERS are assigned to work on the atlas as
funding for existing relevant programs, and partner needed (Vince Breneman, personal
with the private sector to develop healthier prod- communication, January 14, 2011).
ucts (USDA, 2010c). While the tools in the Let’s
Move! portfolio are largely capacity-building, the The White House Garden on the South Lawn is
program also includes incentives for schools and the first of its kind since Eleanor Roosevelt’s
the use of government authority (e.g., directing the Victory Garden in 1943 (Burros, 2009). The
Food and Drug Administration to develop new groundbreaking of the White House Garden in fall
labels for food products). The public-sector pro- 2009 cost a total of US$200 (Muir & Wright, 2009;
grams are funded by the US$4.5 billion Healthy, Office of the First Lady, 2009). Overseen by White
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, signed in Decem- House chef Sam Kass, the garden hosts weekly
ber 2010 (U.S. Congress, 2010a). The initiative also educational tours for children in Washington, DC,
uses strategies characteristic of symbolic and and provides organically grown food for the White
hortatory tools: It relies on voluntary action by House and a local homeless kitchen (Lee, 2009).
private-sector groups, and it uses promotional The garden combines capacity-building tools (e.g.,
materials to connect the obesity-reduction goal to educational tours) with symbolic tools: the first
other major national interests, such as national lady’s adoption of urban gardening signals that the
security and reducing health-care costs (Obama, administration is committed to values and practices
2010). Additionally, public-service announcements advocated by the alternative agrifood movement.
and even the slogan “Let’s Move!” are examples of Since spring 2009, an additional 400 sq. ft. have
a “persuasive communication strategy” similar to been added to the garden (Kass, 2010). The garden
the “Just Say No” campaign cited by Schneider and was also featured on the popular Food Network
Ingram (1990, p. 520). show Iron Chef (Associated Press, 2010; Muir &
Wright, 2009).
The Food Environment Atlas is a project especially
created for Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! cam- Appointments
paign by the USDA’s Economic Research Service. We analyzed three Obama administration appoint-
It aims to “assemble statistics on food environ- ments: Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack,
ment indicators to stimulate research on the Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, and National
38 Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Director equitable trade (criterion 8), workers’ rights (cri-
Roger Beachy.2 Vilsack began his political career in terion 11), or energy independence (criterion 12).
municipal government in Iowa, then moved on to
the Iowa state senate and, beginning in 1998, the HFFI was developed in cooperation with the Food
Iowa governorship. He ran briefly for president in Trust, an advocacy group that played an integral
2008 before giving his support to Hillary Clinton role in the design and implementation of Penn-
and then Obama (AllGov, 2009). Merrigan held a sylvania’s FFFI (PolicyLink, 2010b), and food
position as assistant professor and director of the security activists have responded enthusiastically to
Agriculture, Food and Environment program at the initiative (Community Food Security Coalition,
Tufts University prior to her appointment, and 2010a; DeForest, 2010). The National Sustainable
published articles on farm-to-school nutritional Agriculture Coalition expressed support for the
programs, animal health and welfare, and organic initiative, but also drew attention to HFFI’s narrow
farming standards (Lockeretz & Merrigan, 2006; focus, noting, “We...hope it will be firmly linked
Merrigan, 2005; Merrigan & Bailey, 2008). She is with regional food system and rural development
considered one of the authors of the 1990 Organic objectives in addition to food access” (Witteman,
Foods Production Act, which set federal organic 2010).
standards (Marlowe, 2010). Beachy has had a long
career in academia and research focused on agricul- Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
tural biotechnology. He is credited with early ad- The KYF2 initiative advertises financial and pro-
vances in genetically modified food-crop engin- grammatic resources available for small-, mid-scale,
eering (Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, and “socially disadvantaged” farmers, as well as
2010; Waltz, 2010). nonprofit organizations and businesses in rural
areas (criteria 7 and 10). Additionally, a large por-
Results tion of the program’s outreach is dedicated to
farm-to-school programs (criterion 9). Although as
USDA Programs and Initiatives a communication device KYF2 does not specific-
ally promote sustainable practices, several of the
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative programs publicized through the initiative en-
The goal of HFFI is to increase access to healthy courage the conservation and protection of agri-
food by providing communities with fresh food cultural lands and the conversion to organic farm-
available through retail establishments (criterion 9). ing (criteria 3 and 5). KYF2 does not promote or
HFFI promotes a local agrifood economy (crite- fund any programs aimed at addressing issues
rion 10) by funding community development related to food workers’ rights and conditions
corporations and because eligible communities are (criterion 11).
defined at the neighborhood scale. News releases
emphasize the connection between food access The alternative agrifood community has welcomed
and community “revitalization,” characterizing the initiative as a new commitment to local and
HFFI as a “place-based approach” to food security regional food systems on the part of the Obama
(HHS, 2010; USDA, 2010e). The initiative does not administration (Jenkins, 2009). Some praise KYF2
address environmental soundness (criteria 1–6), for helping create a food-literate population that
consolidation in the food systems (criterion 7), will make better choices when it comes to nutri-
tious and local food (Kohan, 2009a). Critics point
out that KYF2 does not make any real attempts to
2 As of 20 May 2011, Roger Beachy has resigned as director of challenge the status quo of the existing agrifood
NIFA. During his short term with the USDA, Beachy oversaw system, and suggest that its support for local agri-
the transformation of the Cooperative State Research, food economies will have relatively few impacts in
Education and Extension Service (CSREES) into NIFA. The
light of the huge federal subsidies promoting con-
search for a new director has begun (Stokstad, 2011).
Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011 39
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development
ISSN: 2152-0801 online
www.AgDevJournal.com
ventional large-scale agribusiness (Estabrook, the initiative’s emphasis on public-private partner-
2009). ships and voluntary agreements with major food-
industry actors make it unlikely that Let’s Move!
The People’s Garden Initiative will challenge corporate concentration in this
This initiative focuses on education, healthy eating, sector (criterion 7). The initiative does not address
community building, and the promotion of the environmental impacts of food production
environmental sustainability, showing a truly (criteria 1–6), equitable trade (criterion 8), workers’
systematic approach (criterion 1). The program is rights (criterion 11), or energy independence
designed to promote garden creation across the (criterion 12).
country (criterion 2). The sustainable practices
promoted by the garden (e.g., the pollinator The movement has taken note of Michelle
garden, rainwater capture and recycling, on-site Obama’s interest in childhood obesity. The
composting, organic certification, and companion Community Food Security Coalition characterizes
planting) meet criteria 3–6. The vegetables grown it as an opportunity to further related programs
in the main garden go to a local food bank such as Farm to School (Community Food Security
(criterion 9). The initiative actively supports a local Coalition, 2010b). The National Sustainable
food economy (criterion 10) by promoting the Agriculture Coalition commented on the strong
farmers’ market held next to the garden and by showing by proponents of small-scale and local
buying transplants from a local farmer cooperative. agriculture at the Let’s Move! launch (National
The initiative does not address criteria 7, 8, and 11. Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, 2010a). How-
ever, Let’s Move!’s embrace of the private sector
The initial response from bloggers to PGI was to has engendered some skepticism among movement
question the legitimacy of the garden and project. commentators. One reader of NSAC’s blog com-
It was called “lip service” to the movement — a plained, “Childhood obesity will not be conquered
publicity stunt with “no budget, no staff, and no with ‘co-operation from the companies that
real plan” (Orton, 2009, “‘Secretary of Agrispin- collectively provide 20% of the nation’s school
culture,’” para. 3). As the project developed, lunch programs’, alone” (Stockwell, 2010, “One
responses have been more positive. The Obama response to ‘Let’s Move,’” para. 1).
Foodorama blog calls it a “green fever dream
[turned] to rapid reality” (Kohan, 2009b, “The The Food Environment Atlas
People’s Garden,” headline). Original initiative The Food Environment Atlas focuses on econo-
director Valerie Frances called the project “unbe- mic and social indicators to address health food
lievably exciting” and other employees in the access and issues of health and nutrition. The
USDA “are now feeling much freer to speak up, visual description is compiled through census and
just because of the garden” (Kohan 2009b, “The other data sources that are collected at the county,
People’s Garden,” para. 18). state, and national levels, providing a multiscale
perspective (criterion 2). Production is briefly
First Lady Michelle Obama’s Projects introduced by identifying direct-sale farms, farm-
ers’ markets, and grocery stores in the context of
Let’s Move! examining food security (criteria 9 and 10). Al-
Let’s Move! is primarily a public health campaign though farm production is addressed, the atlas
that overlaps with the alternative agrifood move- does not address its environmental sustainability
ment on one key concern: increasing access to (criteria 1 and 3–6). The project does not speak to
“healthy, affordable food” (USDA, 2010c) (cri- other parts of the food system, including those
terion 9). Commitments to fund the Farm to represented by criteria 7, 8, 11, and 12.
School program and increase funding to existing
farmers’ market support programs may enhance Some movement organizations are enthusiastic
local agrifood economies (criterion 10). However, about the atlas, describing it as “ambitious”
40 Volume 1, Issue 3 / Winter 2010–2011