Lexington To Fully Enbrace Community Supported Agriculture?

I am a big fan of CSAs, as in Community Supported Agriculture.  We have looked at joining a CSA for several years but most have required a substantial payment before the growing season begins and it just wasn't in the budget at the time.  This year things were different.

We have joined an alternative style of CSA called the New Roots Fresh Stop.  It is designed for those of more limited means and works more like a subscription farmers market.  Our farmer knows that a certain number of members will be arriving on the delivery days and buying the bi-weekly agreed upon quantity of what they need. Each family will be getting a different variety of produce. 

This CSA plus whatever we can harvest from our own garden and our work with Seedleaf will be worth whatever we have put into it.

On the other hand, I believe that there is another aspect of community supported agriculture and that pertains to the encouragement of neighborhood community gardens and the ability of a neighborhood to feed itself.  Every family in Lexington needs to realize food security through local food access.

Lexington has worked with Seedleaf, a local non-profit, which teaches about and operates small plots of neighborhood gardens, especially in our local food deserts.  It now appears that Lexington is creating an ordinance to promote and regulate not only community gardens but also what they are calling "market gardens".  The stated primary purpose of private, community and market gardens is to promote sustainable and affordable local food production for local consumption.

Market gardens would be defined as "an area of lane less than five (5) continuous acres in size for the cultivation of food and/or non-food crops by an individual or a group of individuals to be sold on-site or off-site for profit.  Think about that for just a minute.  A neighborhood could develop a parcel or group of parcels, not just as a garden to feed themselves but a way to raise funds to make the garden sustainable over the long haul. This will change the concept of local foods for many people.

While the market gardens are allowed on-site sale facilities the community gardens are not.  I see no reason that some sort of cooperative agreement could not be reached where the market garden sales site may sell produce from one or more community gardens.  

Provisions are also made for up to 15% of a community garden site to be covered with accessory structures  Accessory structures are identified as storage sheds, hoop houses, trellises for shade, picnic tables and benches.  Add the possibility of a fire pit or a grill and we could realize the truth of "farm to table" right in the community garden with your neighbors.

I also like the inclusion of permitting such gardens within a FEMA floodplain as long as one meets all the regulations on slope and existing vegetation retention.  There are several locations which are currently quite underutilized and their neighborhoods could benefit from a community garden or two.

The information I have referenced here is only in draft form but I think that it is far enough along to bring to you.  I am happy that we are actually moving toward a reasonable food policy which allows a sense of food access and food security.  If you feel as I do, please let your Council representative know that we need this to come to pass.

Can We Change The Current Supermarket Model?

I put up a post not long ago that detailed the progression of Kroger stores in the developing Chevy Chase section of town. It mirrors in some ways an article published by Sustainable Food Trust on Apr 1, 2014. Let me look at some of the similarities.

Kroger began life in Cincinnati as a series of markets designed to aide the convenience of homeowners, many of which would need to make multiple stops on daily shopping trips. These “economy” shops carried mainly canned goods, some general staples and rarely any fruits or vegetables. The fresh meats and fish or other farm produce were handled by specialty stores and carried strictly local fare.

To be sure, Kroger was not the only brand of these types of stores since Lexington had its own chain of S. A. Glass stores and to some extent their service areas overlapped. What is significant is the timing of Kroger's arrival and the implementation of zoning in Lexington. It was the “Roaring Twenties.”

Zoning brought with it the progressive concept of isolating commercial interests into “planned” areas rather than allow them to evolve naturally within the normal flow of neighborhood life. The stores themselves found the need to grow in size to accommodate the larger volume, yet less frequent visits of shoppers. Americans, whether they will admit it or not, were socially engineered into believing in the benefits of modern corporate food merchandising and production.

Today, the typical supermarket is filled with more that 47,000 products across a wide range of food, and non food, selections. WalMart, while not known for being a grocery, makes 55% of its total profits from the sale of food. The availability of items 24 / 7 / 365, be they fresh, frozen, canned, processed or microwavable allows us to escape both time and season.

A century ago, people would have known exactly by whom and where their grocery items originated. There was a relationship between the housewife and the butcher, or the greengrocer, where each understood the desires of the other. Such social interactions today are few and far between though many of us are looking for them more often.

How many of us were appalled when we heard of the horse meat scandal or surprised at the size and coverage of the latest beef/vegetable/snack recall? Do any of us really know the supplier of the “better ingredients” in those “better pizzas” from Papa Johns? Did any of us recoil when we learned that the elasticizing agent in Subways bread dough was also used in yoga mats and auto tires?

The increased availability of produce has also led to the socially engineered desire for standardization and uniformity. Breeding in a consistent size and color may enhance the marketability of produce but it also allows for the rejection of entire crops for some farmers, leading to waste levels approaching 50%. Will the rising interest in heirloom varieties stem some of this waste?

Just a little research will reveal that despite the vast number of supermarket products available, a majority of these are produced and controlled by only a handful of industrial food and pharmaceutical companies. The choice that you see is only the choice that they want to see, and usually not much of a choice at all.

That choice, or lack thereof, also impacts our food policies and agricultural practices, driven by the statistics which the corporations collect. How do you want to define a “value meal?” For whom is the value the greatest, you or the supermarket? 

 

“Our trust in the supermarket model to provide us with fresh, healthy, transparently produced food, is at an all-time low.” wrote Rebecca Roberts, in her piece and Joanna Blythman wrote “We are sick of being hoodwinked by the smoke-and-mirrors promotions of the big chains.” in The Guardian. How do you feel about it?

Is today's supermarket your only choice for grocery shopping? If so, here are some tools that you can use for better eating experience. Try following the first three of Brazil's 10 new rules for healthy eating:

1 Prepare meals from staple and fresh foods. 

 

Today's supermarket is laid out quite diabolically. All of the cheap processed products are in the center. The really fresh and lightly processed stuff is in the back or along the sides, so fringe shop around the edges. Buy only foods that your grandmother and great-grandmother would recognize. Eat fresh. Try to only buy products with five ingredients or less (ideally ingredients that sound like food and not something you’d find in a science-lab.)

2 Use oils, fats, sugar and salt in moderation.

3 Limit consumption of ready-to-consume food and drink products. 

 

Venture into the center for the items in number 2 only when you need them and try to limit number 3

Lastly, be very critical of the commercial advertisement of food products. They are NOT designed to inform you, either of the nutritional content or the benefit to your health. They are intended to separate you from your money. Take time to reflect on your food choices. Realize the power that each and everyone of us has in voting with our food. Spend to create a better food system and perhaps Kroger will notice.

How Does Lexington Look At Urban Farming?

American cities probably don't have as much agriculture as other countries with less developed food systems, but things are looking up. When people talk about local food, they usually mean crops grown in nearby rural counties...but there's also an untapped agricultural potential in just about any city's urban core. Seedleaf and Foodchain are excellent examples of how just a small portion of that potential is being demonstrated locally. But wait, there is more going on around the country.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted in April of 2011 to amend the zoning code to allow small-scale commercial farming in areas previously deemed residential.  

Measures that would expand the city's urban farm code, potentially boost the local foods movement and put an East Austin urban farm HausBar Farms back in business went before a city board in late September 2013

Homegrown Baltimore: Grow Local is an ambitious plan to support and expand the production of locally grown food in Baltimore City, Md. All types of food production, from backyard gardening to commercial farming, are being considered.

University Of Illinois agriculture researchers look at the tremendous potential for growing food in urban spaces in Chicago. “That’s our role as a land-grant university to help grow the urban agriculture movement through science-based research and information,” U of I professors Sam Wortman and Sarah Taylor Lovell believe that the lack of funding sources for community gardening programs and individual urban farmers blocks the growth of urban agriculture. 

Sacramento – with its location in the fertile Central Valley of California – claims to be the nation’s “farm-to-fork” capital. It’s a bit pretentious and contrived perhaps, but no more so than “Horse Capital of the World”.

An increasing consumer desire for organic produce in concert with advances in hydroponic growing techniques, low-cost greenhouse systems, and actions like those undertaken by the cities cited above have helped redefine the term locally grown.

I have lately concerned myself with looking at ways our neighborhoods can become both more diversified and more connected. I believe that it can best be done through the easing of our land use and zoning restrictions toward neighborhood level non-residential parcels. Urban agriculture may be a way to bring that about.

Typical urban agriculture

Lexington has known since the 1980s that some housing units were allowed to be built in entirely wrong places. These houses flooded during minimal storm events due to a lack of a proper drainage study. With rare exceptions, these houses were built in the post war rush to house Baby Boomers and an IBM driven, clean industrialization of the '60s. 

The city has established a program to acquire and remove those houses both to reduce flooding damage and additional flooding but that has left land which has no beneficial use other than esthetic. Seedleaf has made inroads into some limited use of these properties but the results have been haphazard and spotty at best.

Remember the above comment by the University of Illinois professors? News out of the west coast may bring us some hope. A new California law recently signed by Gov. Jerry Brown makes it easier for cities to create "urban agriculture incentive zones". Cities hoping to promote community gardens and small-scale farms in urban areas may create such zones on a voluntary basis.

The law allows municipalities lower the assessed value — and property taxes — on plots of three acres or less if owners dedicate them to growing food for at least five years. The thought is that if a city wanted urban farms that didn't rely on public land, or heavy philanthropic support, "we needed to see some change in the tax law that would recognize a different use — that this wasn't a residential or commercial use but an agricultural one.

Extreme urban agriculture?

There is a concept called vertical farming which involves growing food in high rise buildings or even multi-story warehouses using artificial light and organic growing materials. Now, there is the opportunity to produce some innovative, landmark, skyline architecture for Lexington.

Theoretically, a 30-story, block sized farm could yield as much food as 2,400 outdoor acres, with less spoilage because it would travel less distance. With all of the fertile land around Fayette County, this is an option which makes little sense other than remaining free from airborne glyphosate related pesticides or pollen.

I do not see either method of bulk urban farming coming to Lexington very soon.

The other side of the story.

But there is the other end of the spectrum, a total prohibition of urban farming and that is something that we should not allow to show here. 

Urban farmers Joshua and Anna EldenBrady own several residential lots near their home on which they'd like to farm. They'd also like to open a farmers market on two lots they own that are zoned for business. The Muskegon, Mich. zoning board, where they live, has refused to issue a business license to the EldenBradys on the grounds that urban farmers aren't allowed to make money.

The city of Muskegon created a provision in its zoning ordinance in 2010 to allow for “community gardens” but such community gardens can only be operated by community groups, non-profits or groups of citizens living near the garden site. Why would a non-profit work a community garden except to make money to expand its services.

Forget for a moment, that the whole point of urban farming is to grow fresh produce among the residents and businesses who will consume it. Should charging money for that produce make the goals of the urban farming movement any less admirable or achievable? This is a route that we must avoid.

Today’s world is characterized by urbanization and challenges posed by climate change, by growing urban markets and urban poverty, by a growing dependence on food imports and food insecurity due to rising food prices. Cities can present constraints but also opportunities for building sustainable urban food systems. Have the previously referenced cities found a start to their solution?

Finding Lexington's path to a local food solution will require new levels of attention from actors who have been traditionally less engaged in food and agriculture decisions, including professional planners and local and regional authorities. Lets face it, we are planning for some major changes in downtown so why should local food be left out?

Late this summer, Chicago turned a green roof into its first major rooftop farm. The “farm” sits atop McCormick Place, the largest convention center in North America. The goal is for it to supply the center’s food service company, SAVOR… Chicago with more than 10,000 servings of local herb and vegetables. At 20,000 square feet, it’s the largest soil-based rooftop farm in the Midwest.

How is Lexington looking at expanding urban farming?

The British Can Admit It - Will We?

Major food price rises are all but inevitable. Philip Clarke, the chief executive of Britain's biggest supermarket chain Tesco, has admitted as much to the British press. Tesco, was heavily implicated in the recent horse-meat scandal, has said that rising global demand means the historic low prices to which British consumers have become used are now unsustainable. This is tantamount to the CEO of WalMart or Kroger admitting that they can no longer commit to keeping prices low for all Americans.

Any one who has been shopping lately can attest to the fact that the “invisible grocery shrink ray” is at work in our local markets. The packages may be rising slowly in price but the quantity in the package is smaller over all. The organics and locally grown stuff is characterized as for the elite and other who want to be upper class.

Is Kentucky (or America) that far behind this time? A recent poll, commissioned by the Prince's Countryside Fund to mark National Countryside Week, reveals that a majority of British consumers would be prepared to pay more for food if they knew the extra was going to farmers rather than to supermarket shareholders. With the recent introduction of the “Udderly Kentucky” milk program by the Secretary of Agriculture, James Comer, is he seeing the same sentiment from Kentucky shoppers?

The “Buy Local First” movement seems to be making headway and local farmers markets are establishing themselves in more locations every year. Still, the primary comments are that they are out of the reach of many residents. Sadly, such costs are reflective of the unsubsidized production costs for local entrepreneurs.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization forecast last month that global food prices could rise by as much as 40% over the next decade. Much of this as a result of a growing middle class in countries such as China and India. With the prospects of America's middle class waning and poverty moving to our once booming suburbs, this global rise will hit Americans very hard.

Usually, supermarket bosses (British and American) have proved extremely resistant to admitting economic pressures would affect the cost of groceries. WalMart has recently committed to its sourcing more locally produced fruits and vegetables without discussing whether price differences will be kept to a minimum. One way the WalMart has kept their prices low is to require the producer (or middleman) to do more preparatory work so that their “associates” don't have to.

What comes to mind next is WalMart's (and possibly the federal governments) definition of locally produced. Generally, the range of 500 miles is sufficient for most programs and for Lexington that means as far away as Central Michigan or the Gulf Coast. Local could them mean about 2/3^rds of the Eastern U.S. National brands and the monoculture farming of agri-business can still dominate our food choices at that rate.

I can see that a growing number of Kentuckians (and Americans) are awakening to the reality that many of our corporations are (and have been) leading us astray with phrases like “supermarket to the world” while importing more and more under “trade” treaties. With all of our corporate farming debacles, many countries will not accept our exports for reasons like GMO's or processing concerns.

America's food system has become unsustainable and there is more than enough blame to cast in all directions. The big question is, can it be turned around in time to prevent it from crashing like a house of cards?

Larger stores and bigger selections may have helped get us to where we are but simply reversing those trends will not be a solution. Our seasonal treats of yesteryear have become the culinary mainstays of the declining middle class. Farmers who took great pride in their goods on the farm now see disease and pestilence introduced in the processing and packaging plants. Corporate marketing gurus have persuaded us that only the perfect looking fruit or vegetable is worthy of purchase. These trends also need to be altered.

The way it is major food price rises are all but inevitable, which leaves us with only one good option – to change the way it is.

Past Images - Future Hopes

There is a lot going on in the area of food production, both on a national level and at the local level. More and more of us are beginning to think about the quality of the food that we put into our bodies and what we can do to improve it. Still others are looking for a way to grow our own food, a very difficult task in our urban environment.

I wrote about some of the obstacles in urban agriculture nearly 2 ½ years ago and questioned why some of our improperly developed subdivision properties could not be reclaimed for agriculture as they have done in Detroit. I heard many explanations about farming practices, both conventional and organic, not being a good fit for parcels where the buildings have been removed to prevent continued flooding. Still, it is allowed on non-flood prone parcels not 400 feet away, along with the residential laws which get treated regularly during the year.

I think that it is such a reasonable idea that, despite being rejected by many, I still support it. At today's lunch I was told that discussions are underway to develop a policy for location of community garden in Lexington's green spaces.

The Lexington Greenspace Commission is undertaking an inventory of existing (and past) community gardens with an eye toward other community facilities may have available land. Schools, churches and group residential which do not use all of their parcels are looked at for potential use.

But what about the smaller lot residential areas which are some distance from large scale shopping centers, transit lines and the above referenced facilities? These are areas which were developed as “starter homes” that residents just could not get out of due a) the recession, b) leveling/declining wages or c) the rising cost of living. This is the realm of the suburban poor. Where is their community garden space?

Following a few inquiries, I did find someone who is a little closer to the Greenspace folks than I. Their position is that the policy recommendation being discussed is to not allow the government owned land to be used for community gardens at all. In essence, land that formerly had a productive use, was re-purposed to house families, though without adequate safety, will now be “retired” to aesthetic use when it can be adaptively reused for a community garden.

I guess the good news is that this is just a recommended policy for the use of Lexington's green space and may, at the administration's discretion, be followed or amended. It may also come under the watchful eyes of the forthcoming Local Food Policy Coordinator position being tested during the next year. I do hope that they will fare as well as the Bike/Ped Coordinator slot has over the past several years.

I like where the local food movement is heading and see some exciting things on the horizon (hemp production being one of them) and hope to live to see them all.