Fall 2006 1

Vol. 14, No. 2 Fall 2006

This issue of Earth Ethics continues our analysis of “industrial agriculture

and humane sustainable food systems” and explores perspectives on “faith
and food” and “sacred food.” Exemplary university efforts and various
guidelines and certification systems are described. This issue also explores the
policy changes necessary to build more humane and sustainable food systems,
and concludes with an extensive list of published and online resources on
food and agriculture.

Food and Faith The sacramentality of food can be

by Michael Schut seen in how food connects us to experi-
ences of celebration, communion and grat-

T
itude.
o connect food and faith, we must explore and celebrate
food’s sacramentality. In doing so, we need to look Celebration
beyond the food itself to examine how it grew, was pro- Food adds joy to life. Meaningful, hi-
larious, community-enriching, soul-satis-
cessed and made its way to our table. Wendell Berry fying times are so often associated with a
summarizes this perspective beautifully: the Sacrament of the Sick, Ordination, and shared table. Close friends, candlelight,
Marriage.) But the Christian tradition also homemade bread, a meal prepared togeth-
We can[not] live harmlessly or celebrates informal sacramental moments er and a prayer of thanks. Or a big party,
strictly at our own expense; we in everyday life. Consider the apostle Paul potluck, the plates not big enough for all
depend upon other creatures and speaking to the Athenians in Acts 17: the variety, the second helping of those
survive by their deaths. To live, we “God…is not far from each one of us. For in particularly tasty dishes, the familiar voic-
must daily break the body and shed God we live and move and have our being.” es and laughter. Or a favorite holiday meal,
the blood of creation. The point is, It’s as if all of us are swimming in God’s feeding body and soul. The stories and
when we do this knowingly, lov- presence. In such a world, the holy is never settings are endless, but at each occasion
ingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a far off. In such a world, “church isn’t the the gift of food mediates a larger reality—
sacrament; when we do it ignorant- only place where the holy happens. Sacra- the sanctity, preciousness and joy of life.
ly, greedily, clumsily, destructive- mental moments can occur at any moment,
ly, it is a desecration… in such any place, and to anybody. Watching some- Communion
desecration, we condemn our- thing get born. Making love… Somebody “To live, we must daily break the body
selves to spiritual and moral lone- coming to see you when you’re sick. A meal and shed the blood of creation.” Daily we
liness, and others to want (1983, with people you love…If we weren’t blind participate in the mystery of other beings
1981). as bats, we might see that life itself is sacra- becoming part of our very tissue. And daily
mental” (Buechner, 1973). we have the opportunity to experience
In suggesting that food can be sac- Eating, procuring and growing of food food as a sacrament, where the appropri-
ramental, I recognize that, in the Christian can be sacramental, ushering an awareness ate metaphor for food is not fuel but rath-
tradition, the Church formally celebrates of “the holy” into everyday life. It sees in er communion: with those family and
seven sacraments. (Protestants general- the need to be nourished daily the larger friends sharing the meal, with those hands
ly have two sacraments, Communion and spiritual reality of our dependence on mys- whose skill helped grow and harvest the
Baptism. Catholics have these two plus teries that we do not fully understand. food, with other creatures and ultimately
five others: Confirmation, Reconciliation, with our Creator.
(continued on page 3)
2 Fall 2006

Guest Editor: Wynn Calder

Special thanks to Kim Charmatz and Heather Tallent for
their research and reports on the topics in this issue.
Earth Ethics examines the basic assumptions, atti-
TABLE OF CONTENTS tudes and beliefs that underlie our relationship with the
natural world and suggests directions for our evolution
towards a humane sustainable society.
Food and Faith
by Michael Schut...................................................................................................................1 Publisher and Editor
Richard M. Clugston
The Sacred Foods Project Center for Respect of Life and Environment
by Richard M. Clugston........................................................................................................7
Managing Editor
Laina G. Clugston
Reflections on the June 2006 Sacred Foods Conference
by Dieter T. Hessel..................................................................................................................9 Publication Designer
Tara L. Miller
25 Ways to Be a Good Steward of Creation
by Mary Hendrickson..........................................................................................................10 Copy Editor
Ellen C. Truong
UC Santa Cruz’s Food Systems’ Working Group Helps Drive Statewide
Farm-to-College Initiative
Center for Respect of Life and Environment
by Tim Galarneau.................................................................................................................11
Board of Directors
University of New Hampshire: Many Ways to a Sustainable Food System
President, Andrew N. Rowan
by Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell...........................................................................14 The Humane Society of the United States

Portland State University Initiates a Sustainable Food Program Vice President, Patricia A. Forkan
by Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder..................................................................................16 The Humane Society of the United States

Guidelines and Certification: A Forum Secretary, John A. Hoyt

Fair Trade Certification Overview...............................................................................17 The Humane Society of the United States
Five Ethical Principles to Guide What We Should Eat............................................18
Treasurer, G. Thomas Waite III
Humane Eating and the Three Rs...............................................................................19 The Humane Society of the United States
Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label...........................................................19
The Food Alliance Guiding Principles.......................................................................20 Board of Advisors
USDA Organic..............................................................................................................20
Chair, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Yale University
The University of California System’s
Proposed Sustainable Food Guidelines...............................................................21 Donald W. Cashen
Professional Services Associates
Core Farm Bill Priorities
by the Farm and Food Policy Project..............................................................................22 Anita W. Coupe

Opportunities to Weaken CAFOs Through Environmental, Health John Grim, Yale University
and Subsidy Initiatives in the 2007 Farm Bill
Dieter T. Hessel
by Richard M. Clugston, Wynn Calder and Molly Anderson......................................23 Program on Ecology, Justice and Faith

Below Cost-Feed Crops Stephanie Kaza, University of Vermont

by Dennis Olson...................................................................................................................25
Fred Kirschenmann
Animals and People First: Why Good Animal Welfare is Important Kirschenmann Family Farms
for Feeding People, for Trade and for the Future
Jay McDaniel, Hendrix College
by Michael Appleby.............................................................................................................27
David Orr, Oberlin College
Resources on Industrial Agriculture and Humane Sustainable
Food Systems........................................................................................................................29 Lewis G. Regenstein
The Interfaith Council for the Protection of
Animals and Nature

Victoria Stack
Correspondence should be directed to Earth Ethics, Center for Respect of Life and Environment,
International Communication Initiatives
2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20037. Contributions should be made payable to CRLE.
The viewpoints expressed in Earth Ethics are the viewpoints of the authors and should not be
attributed to the Center for Respect of Life and Environment, its officers, or directors.
Fall 2006
“For most of [Western
culture], food comes from
the supermarket..., not from
the farm or the Earth.”
(continued from page 1)
Gratitude
Eating can nurture gratitude. “When
we eat,” Sharon Parks writes, “we must very
soon eat again. If we dare to contemplate
fully the act of eating, we will be led to the
unavoidable awareness of our continual
desire to live, and also our utter dependence
upon the generosity of the Earth and its
peoples and the power and grace by which
our lives are sustained” (Parks, 1988). Thus,
in the presence of a meal, we bow our heads.
In receiving the gift of “our daily bread” we
are reminded of our ultimate dependence
on God’s provision for this life and of the
miracle of sun, water, seed, soil, and air con-
tributing to what becomes food.
Healing Divisions
Generally speaking, Western culture
does not see the words food and faith as
closely related. For most of us, food comes
from the supermarket (often diced, sliced,
packaged and frozen beyond resemblance
to anything living), not from the farm or the
Earth. We live in a time when it is possible
for children gardening in the inner city to
refuse to eat the fruits of their labor, not
wanting to eat anything that “comes from
dirt.” In addition, for many of us faith is
relegated to a Sunday morning ritual, com-
partmentalized from the rest of our lives,
having little impact on everyday choices
such as food.
Environmental educator David Orr
writes, “Our alienation from the natural
world is unprecedented. Healing this divi-
sion is a large part of the difference between
survival and extinction.” A major challenge
is to help heal a number of “divisions,” in-
cluding: the division between the foods we
eat and our knowledge of how those foods
impact not only our own health but the
health of the rest of the natural world; the
division between faith and faith’s call to care
for all creation and the division between
food and faith.
Images of Industrial Agriculture: Worker
Rights, Animal Rights
Many images of industrialized agricul-
ture reveal that system’s inhumaneness: mi-
grant workers’ hands harvesting our
produce or making 10,000 knife cuts during
an eight-hour shift; pigs raised in crates so
small they often cannot lie down; 25,000
chickens raised in a single poultry house;
three top officials from Archer Daniels Mid-
land being sent to prison in 1999 for “con-
spiring with foreign rivals to control the
international market” for a major feed addi-
tive; wading through ankle-deep blood on
a slaughterhouse floor.
Underlying and creating these images
are a handful of very large agribusiness
corporations, driven by consumer demand
for cheap food and stockholder profits. Eric
Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation de-
scribes worker conditions in slaughterhous-
es, the challenges small ranchers face, and
the power of the fast food industry. These
stories and images remind us that human
rights’ abuses and the unethical treatment
of animals often follow in the wake of the
pressure to “get big, or get out.”
Economics as if Creation Mattered
Of course, the pressure to “get big or
get out” is driven by a certain economic
worldview, one that does not ultimately rec-
ognize the sacramentality of food or cre-
ation’s inherent value. Economics can no
longer be left only to the economist. Gain-
ing basic economic literacy is essential to
creating an economic system that serves
the well-being of human and non-human
communities.
Two key ideas are “externalities,” and
“getting prices right.” Both are important
in understanding industrial agriculture and
the economics of food.
Simply put, externalities are “spillover
effects,” those things which are seen as
“external” to the monetary accounting sys-
tem. A common example is the chemical
factory whose effluent into a river kills the
fish and ruins the fishers’ livelihood. The
costs of the externalities in this example are
3
borne by the fish themselves and the fish-
ers’ loss of work. To take one other exam-
ple, obesity and related health impacts could
be seen as externalities, spillover effects, of
American eating habits.
“Getting prices right” is one way to in-
ternalize the costs of externalities. In our
factory example, the manufacturer could be
taxed for polluting the river. Money raised
from those taxes could then be used to pro-
vide work for unemployed fishers and clean
up the river. The effluent taxes would also
serve as an incentive to not pollute, as the
manufacturer’s taxes would decrease as
they cleaned up their emissions.
Let’s take one more example. Most sci-
entists now agree that global warming is
occurring. The United States, with 4 per-
cent of the world’s population, emits 25 per-
cent of the world’s greenhouse gasses.
Emissions from our cars and trucks are the
largest contributors to those gasses. The
price we pay for a gallon of gasoline does
not include the “externality” of global warm-
ing. Should we pay more for gasoline? The
money raised could be used to mitigate the
effects of rising sea levels, say, in Bang-
ladesh. In addition, a different message (in
the form of price per gallon of gas) would
travel through our current market system:
gasoline is expensive, we can’t afford to
drive as much. Our contributions to global
warming would thereby decrease.
Finally, the words economics and ecol-
ogy share the same Greek root, oikos, “the
household.” Ecology is the study of the
household, economics the management of
the household. Many of the social and eco-
logical costs (externalities) borne by com-
munities (human and non-human) around
the world emanate from the fact that we
have seen fit to divorce economics from
ecology, from God’s creation. The human
economic system does not see itself as
embedded within nature’s economy. We,
all of us, eventually pay for these external-
ities: they visit us as increased medical
“The human economic
system does not see itself as
embedded within nature’s
economy.”
4 Fall 2006
costs, loss of topsoil, oil-soaked birds, spe-
cies extinction, polluted air, groundwater
laced with pesticides.... Our challenge is to
re-embed our economic system within eco-
logical systems. One of the most powerful
and “do-able” ways of doing so lies before
us when we sit down to eat.
GMOs
Myriad questions surround genetical-
ly modified (GM) foods. Are they safe for
human consumption? Will they cause eco-
logical damage? Are they the key to “feed-
ing the world?” What sort of policies and
agricultural systems lead to food security?
Who benefits—large farmers, small farmers,
corporations, the hungry—when food is
genetically modified? Is it ethical to take
genetic material from a flounder and insert
it into a tomato? Well-meaning people an-
swer these questions very differently. Let’s
look at two examples.
First, we must consider different ideas
about food security. Food security refers
to a region or nation’s ability to predictably
maintain access to a nutritious, sufficient,
and safe supply of food for its population.
What does food security entail, or how
might food security be achieved? Here are they ignore the fact that farmers using GM
two very different perspectives: technology have less and less control over
their farming practices. Loss of control
C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, makes farmers more vulnerable to political
professors of Applied Economics at the Uni- upheaval. During times of such upheaval,
versity of Minnesota, answer: it is especially important to food security
that a country/region have the ability to
…it [food security] involves improv- grow their own food, not be dependent upon
ing a developing nation’s access to international markets.
cheaper food from comparatively For a second example of how different-
advantaged exporting countries. It ly people approach GM foods, consider the
is generally more efficient and cheap- application of the Precautionary Principle.
er than self-sufficiency, in which a The Precautionary Principle states that
nation tries to produce all crops that “When an activity raises threats of harm to
its population needs.... Finally, the
drive for food security should tap the
potential of GM technology for de- “...farmers using GM
veloping countries to both enhance
nutrition and boost agricultural out- technology have less and less
put” (2000).
control over their farming
On the other hand, Tewolde, Ethiopian practices.”
Environmental Minister, states:
The biotech industry is suggesting human health or the environment, precau-
that food security will come through tionary measures should be taken even if
the farmer’s loss of control of essen- some cause and effect relationships are not
tial agricultural inputs. Do you see fully established scientifically” (from the
the lie? This is food insecurity.... Wingspread Conference, Racine, Wiscon-
Without local control, sin, 1998).
local availability of
food can never be cer- Anthony Trewavas, a plant biologist
tain. It would be far at the University of Edinburgh, states:
better to develop a sys-
tem that would enable When people say to me they do not
the farmer himself to be need GM, I am astonished at their
in charge”(Snell, 2001). prescience, their ability to read a be-
nign future in a crystal ball that I can-
Notice that the former not. Now is the time to experiment....
definition of food securi- When the climate is changing in un-
ty assumes access to predictable ways, diversity in agri-
cheap energy for the cultural technology is a strength and
transportation of food a necessity, not a luxury….We have
across the globe. When heard much of the Precautionary Prin-
Runge and Senauer claim ciple in recent years; my version of it
that self-sufficiency is is ‘be prepared’ (2002).
more expensive and less
efficient than relying on Geneticist David Suzuki, on the other
foreign production of hand, states:
foodstuffs, their econom-
ic accounting does not in- As we learned from experience with
ternalize the costs of DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, we
certain externalities…. only discover the costs of new tech-
And in supporting GM nologies after they are extensively
food as an important ele- used. We should apply the Precau-
ment of food security, tionary Principle with any new tech-
Fall 2006
nology, asking whether it is needed
and then demanding proof that it is
not harmful. Nowhere is this more
important than in biotechnology be-
cause it enables us to tamper with
the very blueprint of life (2000).
Trewavas’s version of the Principle is
“be prepared,” while Suzuki’s understand-
ing requires much more caution. While ac-
knowledging very diverse opinions, I side
more with Suzuki than Trewavas, and sup-
port Tewolde’s perspectives on food secu-
rity more than Runge and Senauer’s. GM
foods are quite new: many in the United
States (Europeans are more solidly anti-GM)
are undecided about their relative merits….
Two fundamental principles guided my
work at Earth Ministry: first, creation is
good, a revelation of God; second, God has
special concern and care for the poor and
dispossessed. Two questions flow natu-
rally from these principles. First, does the
action/technology/decision under consider-
ation honor and maintain the inherent in-
tegrity of creation? Second, does the
action/technology/decision under consid-
eration pay attention to and meet the needs
of the poor? With respect to the issues
surrounding GM food, I believe both ques-
tions must be answered “no.”
Ecologically speaking, I do not believe
that the Precautionary Principle’s stan-
dards–is the new technology needed, and
is it proven safe?–have been met in rela-
tionship to GM food. Social-
ly and economically speak-
ing, I find it appalling when
corporations like Monsanto
promote GM food and tech-
nology because of the pos-
sibility that GM crops may
require fewer chemicals,
while at the same time prof-
iting more and more from
sales of the world’s most
popular herbicide, Roundup.
Similarly, I am very con-
cerned when the Monsan-
tos of the world represent
themselves as primarily in-
terested in feeding the hun-
gry when the seeds they
develop and promote do not
in subsequent years repro-
duce well (in the case of hy-
brid seeds) or at all (in the case of Terminator
seeds), thereby ensuring farmers’ continu-
ing dependence on the company’s supplies
of seeds. These are my biases; I may be
wrong, but offer them to you for your con-
sideration.
Hope
Industrial agriculture’s influence on the
food we eat, on its nutritional value, on eco-
systems around the world, on migrant work-
ers, on the treatment of animals, on the
viability of rural farm communities can be-
come overwhelming. Looking clearly at
those realities is a necessity if we are to
help create systems that value the integrity
of creation. But shifting our gaze to see and
celebrate the hopeful stories of individuals
and agricultural systems which recognize
that the eating, procuring, and growing of
food can be sacramental is just as impor-
tant.
“...coming home to eat
recognizes Earth as the home
God created for us and all
creatures. To eat in such a
way honors and cares for the
breadth of God’s creation.”
5
There are many Stories of Hope: Prom-
ising Directions—examples of individuals
eating, cooking, growing, and shopping for
food in ways that are healthy for people,
value the importance of clean water and
healthy soil, pay farmers a fair wage, treat
farm animals well, keep farmland protected
from urban sprawl and support local agri-
culture rather than distant mega-farms.
The stories of hope include individu-
als making changes in daily food choices,
as well as political activism leading to sys-
temic change. Both individual and system-
ic change are essential; to debate which is
the more effective seems pointless. For ex-
ample, if enough individuals choose to boy-
cott eating “factory-farmed” animals, the
system would find a way to meet the de-
mand for meat raised more humanely and
with less environmental impact. A similar
result could be achieved through the appli-
cation of political pressure. For example,
taxing the owners of such factory farms to
cover the costs of adequate animal waste
disposal would increase the cost of the
meat. Individual consumers would then be-
gin to shift their meat-buying habits in or-
der to get a better price.
Conclusion: Coming Home to Eat
If we are fortunate enough to have a
good home, we return there not only to eat,
but also to be nurtured in a variety of ways.
One of the ways we know we are home is
through the food prepared for us. In the
biblical story of the prodigal son, a young
man takes his father’s inheritance, quickly
exhausting it on “reckless” living. Destitute
and desperate for food, the son decides to
return home. He plans to simply ask his fa-
ther to treat him like one of his hired men,
who at least are well fed. But the father, upon
seeing his son, runs to him, kisses and hugs
him, clothes him, kills the “fatted calf” and
throws a feast. The feast’s significance be-
comes clear if we try to imagine the story
without it: if, say, after kissing, hugging and
clothing him the father had said, “Welcome
home—help yourself to what’s in the
fridge.” The feast is a sign that the son is
loved, forgiven, welcomed and truly
“home.”
There are other meanings within the
phrase “coming home to eat.” Gary Paul
Nabhan spent a year eating foods that grew
no further than 250 miles from his home. He
6 Fall 2006
titled his book about that year Coming
Home to Eat. Most broadly understood,
coming home to eat recognizes Earth as the
home God created for us and all creatures.
To eat in such a way honors and cares for
the breadth of God’s creation.
If we are to live and eat in ways that
will begin to ameliorate the social and eco-
logical concerns raised in this essay, the
most fundamental shift we must make is a
spiritual one. The essence of that shift is to
live as if the Earth “is the Lord’s” (Psalm
24:1), not a treasure chest for human plun-
der. Put differently, we must act as if our
home is a sacred place, and remember that
our faith traditions not only affirm that God
is transcendent but also immanent, very
near. Biblical scholar and Orthodox theolo-
gian Philip Sherrard puts it this way in the
introduction to his book Human Image:
World Image:
We are treating our planet in an in-
human and god-forsaken manner
because we see things in an inhu-
man, god-forsaken way. And we see
things in this way because that is
basically how we see ourselves...
[we] look upon ourselves as little
more than two-legged animals whose
destiny and needs can best be ful-
filled through the pursuit of... self-
interest. To correspond with this
self-image, we have invented a world-
view in which nature is seen as an
impersonal commodity, a soulless
source of food, raw materials...which
we think we are entitled to exploit and
abuse by any technique we can de-
vise.... (Sherrard, 1992).
Nabhan comes to a similar conclusion:
“If we no longer believe that the Earth is
sacred, or that we are blessed by the boun-
ty around us, or that we have a caretaking
responsibility given to us by the
Creator...then it does not really matter to
most folks how much ecological and cul-
tural damage is done by the way we eat”
(Nabhan, 2002).
Finally, if our challenge is to come home
to eat, to remember food’s sacramentality,
then everyone is invited—farmers, environ-
mentalists, corporate executives, grocery
store clerks, migrant workers, economists,
theologians, artists, politicians, truck driv-
ers, scientists and activists (not to mention
the whole host of God’s other creatures
who also need to be fed and nurtured in
this same home). We all eat and we all wish
to leave our children and grandchildren a
healthy world: we at least share that in com-
mon. Through individual choice and politi-
cal action we must work together to create
and support food systems (as well as larger Buechner, F. 1973. Wishful Thinking: A Theo-
economic systems) that recognize and cel- logical ABC. New York: Harper and Row,
ebrate food as sacramental. 82.
Nabhan, G. P. 2002. Coming Home to Eat.
Excerpted from: Schut, M., ed. 2002. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 304.
Food and Faith: Justice, Joy and Daily Bread.
Published by Living the Good News in co- Parks, S. D. 1988. “The Meaning of Eating
operation with Earth Ministry, an ecumen- and the Home as Ritual Space.” In E. Gray,
ical, Christian, environmental, nonprofit ed. Sacred Dimensions of Women’s Experi-
organization. See www.earthministry.org. ence. New York: Roundtable Press, 184-92.
Reprinted with permission.
Runge, C. F. and B. Senauer. 2000. Foreign
Affairs. May/June: 39-40.
Michael Schut served on Earth Minis-
try’s staff for eleven years. He is the editor Sherrard, P. 1992. Human Image: World Im-
of the award-winning Simpler Living, Com- age. Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press, 2-3.
passionate Life: A Christian Perspective,
also published by Living the Good News. Snell, M. B. 2001. “Against the Grain: An
Earth Ministry helps connect Christian Interview with Tewolde Egziabher.” Sierra
faith with care and justice for all creation. Magazine. July/August.
Michael’s work includes teaching, speak-
ing and writing on topics of voluntary sim- Suzuki, D. 2000. “Experimenting with Life.”
plicity, economic justice, food choices and Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures. Sum-
sustainability, and environment and faith. mer.
Michael has a bachelor’s in biology from
Wheaton College and a master’s in envi- Trewavas, A. J. 2002. “GM Food Is the Best
ronmental studies from the University of Option We Have.” In G. E. Pence, ed. The
Oregon. Ethics of Food: A Reader for the Twenty-
First Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Lit-
tlefield Publishing Group.
Berry, W. 1983, 1981. The Gift of Good Land.
San Francisco: North Point Press, 272-81.
Fall 2006
The Sacred Foods Project
by Richard M. Clugston
T
he Sacred Foods Project, launched in the summer of 2005
by ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, is an interfaith
effort to incorporate religious and ethical principles in food
production, distribution, and consumption. Founding partners
joining ALEPH were Chicago-based Faith
in Place, the National Catholic Rural Life
Conference and the Food Alliance. The Is-
lamic Society of North America, the Nation-
al Council of Churches, and the Presbyterian
(USA) Hunger Program joined the found-
ing partners as members of the Advisory
Council early in the project. The Project is
made possible by the support of the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation and the Schocken
Foundation.
Sacred Foods brings together religious
leaders and institutions, civic organizations,
and food service providers concerned with
protecting environmental quality, providing
healthier and more sustainable food, treat-
ing animals humanely and improving the
lives of agricultural workers. The Project
focuses on the most central activity to our
economy and environment, both domestic
and international, since more than 1.3 bil-
lion people work 28 percent of the earth’s
land to grow food. In the United States
alone, nearly a quarter of all workers are
engaged in the food industry.
According to ALEPH Executive Direc-
tor Debra Kolodny, “Twenty five years ago,
the founder of the Jewish Renewal move-
ment, Rabbi Zalman Schachter Shalomi
coined the concept of eco-kashrut. In do-
ing so he informed a generation about eval-
uating food and food production from a
spiritual perspective for its healthfulness,
its environmental impact, and its treatment
of animals and workers.
“The Sacred Foods Project takes this
idea and expands it to all faith traditions. It
says that as people of faith we have a moral
obligation to be good stewards of the earth.
We must make sure that the way we grow
and distribute food honors the land, the
water, the air, our bodies and our souls. This
Project will inform, inspire and enable lead-
ers in faith-based communities to infuse our
society with a better approach to food, fo-
cusing on the realms of sustainable and or-
ganic agriculture, sound treatment of animals
and honorable treatment of workers in food
production. We believe that faith-based rec-
ommendations rooted in morality and so-
cial justice and informed by scientific and
political realities will influence policy mak-
ers, religious institutions and people of faith,
thereby permanently changing our food
system for the better,” said Ms. Kolodny.
In its first year, the Sacred Foods
Project published a paper that integrated
theology, scripture and religiously based
analysis from the Christian, Muslim and Jew-
ish faiths to provide a faith-based founda-
tion for fostering a healthful and sustainable
agriculture system. Edited by Rabbi Arthur
Waskow, the paper was used as the foun-
dation for discussion at the Project’s first
conference in June 2006. Participants dis-
cussed how the principles identified as the
core of Sacred Food could be used to edu-
cate and activate religious institutions (sem-
inaries, colleges, denominational
organizations, etc.), congregational leader-
ship (clergy and other professionally trained
educators and spiritual leaders as well as
lay leaders), and congregants (those in the
pews) about issues like secular food certifi-
cation standards and purchasing policy
options as well as choosing food more con-
7
sciously for religious celebrations and holy
days.
Quoting from the paper’s introduction:
“The paper reviews the teachings of
the three Abrahamic traditions in regard to
the sacredness of food. It covers a wide
spectrum of issues, organized by eight di-
mensions through which sacredness can be
defined. In each of the eight dimensions,
we draw for now on four sets of sources
from the classic texts of the three traditions:
One of these is the Hebrew Bible, which
defined the life of Biblical Israel but then,
beginning about two thousand years ago,
came to have a broader religious signifi-
cance than simply a text of the Jewish peo-
ple or Jewish religious thought. It was
radically reinterpreted and kept as sacred
canon by Rabbinic Judaism. It was radical-
ly reinterpreted and kept as sacred canon
by Christianity. And it played an important
role in the cultural and to some extent the
religious background of the community in
which the prophet Muhammad, peace be
upon him, experienced the revelation of the
Qur’an and lived the life described in the
Sunnah (life example of prophet Muham-
mad, peace be upon him). We draw on it,
therefore, not as the text of any single tradi-
tion but as an important pointer toward the
ideas about sacred food that appear in all
three Abrahamic traditions.
The other three classic texts of the
three traditions are the Talmud and other
rabbinic writings, which began about two
thousand years ago to define a new ver-
sion of Jewish life—Rabbinic Judaism; the
Christian Scriptures or New Testament,
which have defined Christianity; the Qur’an
and Sunnah, which have defined Islam. As
8 Fall 2006
this paper evolves, we may include also lat-
er teachings from the three Abrahamic tra-
ditions.
Preface: The Web of Life. We celebrate
God’s creation of a self-sustaining web of
life in which plants, animals, land, water, air,
and human beings are interwoven. There
are many relationships in this web that can
heal or damage the web itself. Among these,
food production is one of the more signifi-
cant forces. So we must choose ways of
“Everyone should have
access to affordable,
nutritious, and culturally
customary food.”
producing food that protect and heal the
web of life.
Dimension 1. Growing Food in Ways that
Protect and Heal the Web of Life. Food pro-
duction, as one of the most significant forc-
es in the natural world, affects the delicate
balance of plants, animals, human beings,
land, water and air—interdependent in seek-
ing sustenance and survival. Farming and
grazing together occupy one quarter of the
world’s lands and are the leading cause of
deforestation and loss of natural lands. In
order to maintain this balance for future
generations, we human beings must choose
to produce our food in ways that protect
the web of life, preserve the living spaces
that other life-forms need, and learn to use
methods that return vibrant health to our
soil and water.
Dimension 2. Humane Treatment of Ani-
mals. All our traditions agree that animals
must be treated humanely and their suffer-
ing minimized.
Dimension 3. Protecting the Integrity and
Diversity of Life. The ways in which we
produce food must respect the integrity and
diversity of the world’s plants and animals,
as well as taking active steps to prevent the
extinction of animal species and plant vari-
eties that produce seeds that can be saved.
Dimension 4. No One Should Go Hungry.
All our traditions share a strong commit-
ment that no one should go hungry at the
end of the day. This applies especially to
the poor and times of famine. Everyone
should have access to affordable, nutri-
tious, and culturally customary food. Each
local community and the worldwide human
community acting in concert share the re-
sponsibility for ending hunger and famine.
Dimension 5. Fairness Toward and Empow-
erment of Workers. All our traditions agree
that workers must be treated fairly, justly
and humanely. One out of every six people
works to provide the food we eat—in the
fields and in food transport, in restaurants
and food preparation, and in food stores.
We affirm their right to decent incomes,
working conditions, and to organize them-
selves.
Dimension 6. Responsible and Ethical
Forms of Business. All our traditions re-
quire that we act honestly, fairly, to the ben-
efit of others, and in accordance with the
ethical teachings of our faith traditions when
dealing with customers, employees, part-
ners, and the communities in which we con-
duct business. These relationships must be
accessible to public scrutiny and account-
ability.
Dimension 7. Food as an Aspect of Spiritu-
ality. All our traditions affirm that food is an
element in spiritual celebration and experi-
ence. Whenever we eat, we consciously
affirm that eating is a sacred spiritual prac-
tice which celebrates the delicate interplay
of plants, animals and people, land, air, and
water that makes this possible and we com-
mit ourselves again to maintaining this cre-
ation.
Dimension 8. Reflection on our Actions and
Impact. The rhythm of Action and Reflec-
tion, renewed Action and renewed Reflec-
tion, is encouraged in our traditions in such
forms as Sabbaths, Ramadan, and Lent, as
well as other holidays when we refrain from
our daily work and reflect on our roles in
the web of life. Meaningful observance of
these occasions can be expanded to include
reflection on and assessment of the impact
of human activity on the integrity of the
web of life. It seems desirable to apply this
rhythm in making decisions about food. For
example, there could be requirements that
new departures in providing food be re-
viewed in the way ‘environmental impact
assessments’ operate—with ‘social impact
assessments’ also required. Some version
of what is called the “Precautionary Princi-
ple” (analogous to the medical code, ‘First
do not harm’) could be taken into account,
so long as this does not prevent all devel-
opment of new technology or new social
arrangements.
Coda: A New Era of Religious Life? This
Sacred Foods enterprise itself—because it
is both interfaith, and inter-secular/faith—
signals something of a new era in religious
life. At that level and in many other arenas,
Modernity is having a major impact on the
self-understanding of the religious tradi-
tions. Indeed, Modernity is affecting both
technology and social structures in ways
that may require us to rethink some of the
teachings of the past. Major changes in
previous religious wisdoms have often ac-
companied major social and technological
upheavals (as in the impact of Roman/Hel-
lenistic civilization in opening hearts and
minds to the new revelations of Rabbinic
Judaism and Christianity about two thou-
sand years ago, and the new revelations of
Islam 1400 years ago). So we will need to
keep that factor in mind as we draw on the
religious and spiritual teachings of the past,
Fall 2006
seeking to distinguish eternal wisdom from
temporally conditioned history.”
Two areas of ongoing activity for the
Sacred Foods Project are (1) Congregation-
al Engagement, and (2) standards and certi-
fication.
The Congregational Engagement com-
mittee will work to improve the food litera-
cy of congregations of all faith traditions. It
will develop and help disseminate a set of
educational materials that help inform con-
gregations. These materials will build upon
the work of several faith traditions and will
cover (a) the current state of food and agri-
culture, (b) teachings of various faith tradi-
tions on food and agriculture, (c) good
practices that congregations can adopt with
respect to food and agriculture, and (d) the
future of food and agriculture.
The Sacred Foods Project standards
and certification committee is charged with
working to help faith communities under-
stand how contemporary certification stan-
dards address concerns about social justice,
sustainability, and animal welfare.
Dr. Richard M. Clugston is executive
director of the Center for Respect of Life
and Environment (CRLE), and publisher
and editor of Earth Ethics. He directs the
Association of University Leaders for a Sus-
tainable Future (ULSF) and is on the
Earth Charter International Council of
Trustees.
Waskow, Rabbi A., ed. 2006. What Makes
Food Sacred: A Study in Eight Dimensions.
A Report for the Sacred Food Project of
ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal.
Reflections on the June 2006
Sacred Foods Conference
by Dieter T. Hessel
Food has always been a feature of
religious rituals, fellowship, and obliga-
tions to share. In traditional agricultural
societies, religious leaders paid close at-
tention to how food was raised, harvest-
ed or slaughtered, and then marketed and
utilized. But today’s monotheistic faith
communities embedded in mass-market
society have generally lost touch with
their own best traditions. So, one of the
objectives of the Sacred Foods Project is
to renew awareness of traditional dietary
practices presented as laws of food prep-
aration and consumption in Judaism and
Islam. While Christianity does not observe
such laws, churches do have related tra-
ditions of fasting and feasting, land stew-
ardship and animal husbandry.
Another objective of the Sacred
Foods Project is to stimulate active con-
cern for the way food gets produced, pro-
cessed and purchased, and how that
system affects those who participate—
humans and other animals. Pursuing this
subject exposes dark aspects of the cor-
porate food system that constricts the
choices or negates the desires of small
farmers and local communities worldwide
regarding what crops to plant and how to
treat animals. Therefore, the June 2006
conference began to explore issues of
animal welfare, particularly the misery of
closely confined food animals such as
chickens, hogs, and lambs in factory
farms, and what the religious communi-
ties can contribute to an alternative food
system that is humane and sustainable.
Religious guidance has been histori-
cally influential in affecting choices of food
consumption on a mass scale. So the Sa-
cred Foods Conference also involved food
business representatives in a thoughtful
exploration and update of purchasing pol-
9
icies for religious institutions and the larg-
er civil society. The conference keyed its
discussion to available guidelines for re-
gional food purchasing such as those of-
fered by the Food Alliance.
The conferees learned about current
involvement of church agencies and faith-
based organizations in selective buying
campaigns that challenge food producing
and marketing corporations to improve
the working conditions and income of
farm workers. In this regard, initiatives of
the Coalition of Immokalee Workers be-
came a special feature of the 2006 Sacred
Foods Conference program.
A workgroup of the conference gave
special attention to implications for con-
gregational activity and individual prac-
tice. Notes of that and other subgroup
discussions, as well as presentations to
the 2006 Garrison Institute conference are
available at www.sacred-foods.org/
publications_meetings.php.
“Religious guidance has
been historically influential
in affecting choices of food
consumption on a mass
scale.”
Dieter T. Hessel holds a PhD in so-
cial ethics. He resides in Cape Elizabeth,
ME where he is director of the ecumeni-
cal Program on Ecology, Justice and
Faith.
10
25 Ways to Be a Good
Steward of Creation
by Mary Hendrickson
Buy Local!
1. Spend $10/week on locally produced
foods.
2. Ask your supermarket manager to stock
locally produced fruits and vegetables in
season.
3. Seek out foods processed locally.
4. Buy as much of your food as you can
from a farmer whose face you can see, whose
farm you can visit.
Community Supported Agriculture
5. Become a member of a Community Sup-
ported Agriculture (CSA) farm and get won-
derful local, seasonal produce from May
through October.
6. Buy a CSA membership for a friend’s
birthday or Christmas present.
7. Encourage your parish to subsidize CSA
shares for families with limited resources.
Show Your Thanks!
8. Be thankful for your food and reflect on
the goodness of creation before eating any
food.
9. Lead your parish in organizing a garden
to produce food for fellowship meals and
donate the surplus to a local food pantry.
10. Plant a garden and experience the won-
der of growing life.
11. Take “local” food to your church dinner.
Educate Self & Others
12. Educate yourself about how our food
system presently works so you know where
your food comes from.
13. Tell all your family and friends why
you eat food that is healthy for you, your
community and creation.
14. Help create links between your
child’s school lunch program and local
farmers.
Choose Wisely
15. Eat seasonally and regionally and get
in touch with your local environment.
16. Buy only meat that you know has
been produced humanely and sustain-
ably.
17. Ask your waitress for specials fea-
turing locally, sustainably produced
food.
Fall 2006
Offer What You Can
18. Donate land at your church to help those
without space to grow their own food.
19. Help protect local water quality by us-
ing pesticide-free agriculture and food prod-
ucts.
20. Give freely of your expertise in growing
food to whoever needs it.
Learn New Ways to Cook
21. Learn how to freeze, can and store sea-
sonal fruits and vegetables produced in
your local area.
22. Teach others about preserving local
food by organizing canning and preserv-
ing sessions at the parish hall or in your
home.
23. Learn how to cook using whole or less-
processed food to save on packaging, to
be healthy and to become more self-reliant.
Eat Well!
24. Educate yourself about the benefits of
eating a diet that includes lots of fresh pro-
duce and whole grains.
25. Accept responsibility for making sure
that all members of your community have
access to an adequate supply of wholesome
food.
Excerpted from “25 Ways to Be a Good
Steward of Creation,” compiled by Mary
Hendrickson, National Catholic Rural Life
Conference. www.ncrlc.com/25WaysGood
StewardCreation.html
Mary Hendrickson is an assistant re-
search professor at the University of Mis-
souri-Columbia and works closely with the
Food Circles Networking Project. The
goal of the project is to develop communi-
ty-based, sustainable food systems by re-
shaping the relationships that surround
food. To learn more about the network, visit
http://foodcircles.missouri.edu.
Fall 2006 11

CRLE has promoted sustainability in higher education for 15 years, and is now concentrating on food as a curriculum and
practice issue in colleges and universities. The following three articles, focusing on the University of California Santa Cruz, the
University of New Hampshire, and Portland State University, show how universities can take major steps to support humane
sustainable food systems.

UC Santa Cruz’s Food Systems Working Group Helps

Drive Statewide Farm-to-College Initiative
by Tim Galarneau

C
ollege campuses across the country are emerging as pow-
erful sources of change as they link teaching, research,
and campus engagement to focus on sustainable food
systems. From local, organic, humane, and Fair Trade options
in cafeterias, coffee shops, and restaurants
fare to experiential programs and classes,
campuses are offering students not only an
opportunity to change their diet, but also
the chance to learn about how their choices
affect the larger food system. Efforts
throughout the University of California’s
10-campus system are transforming both
higher education’s role in the food web, as
well as the ways in which these institutions
work with local and sustainable food pro-
viders.
Much of this transformation is based
on work done by UC Santa Cruz’s Food Sys-
tems Working Group (FSWG) to develop a
more sustainable food system at UCSC.1
UCSC’s purchasing guidelines, which tar-
get local, organic produce, and other sus-
tainably produced food, are now a model
being used to develop similar guidelines for
all of UC’s campuses. UC Santa Cruz Execu-
tive Housing Director Sue Matthews and
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems staff member Tim Galarneau
are heading the statewide food service task
force advising UC’s Housing Directors in
their efforts to bring sustainably produced
food to campus communities.
Statewide Sustainability Programs to In-
corporate Food System Policies
Students have been the driving force
in steering the UC system toward more sus-
tainable practices. In 2002, students within
the statewide California Student Sustain-
ability Coalition (CSSC) came together to
express concern that none of UC’s electric-
ity came from renewable sources and to re-
quest a commitment to work together to
change the UC system’s energy depen-
dence. Two years later, 16 percent of UC’s
energy needs came from alternative sourc-
es, making UC the largest university pur-
chaser of renewable energy in the country.2
Thanks to this student initiative, UC now
has a statewide policy addressing green
building, alternative energy, and sustain-
able transportation practices; implementa-
tion and evaluation of this policy are now
underway.
Although UC’s Policy on Green Build-
ing Design, Clean Energy Standards, and
Sustainable Transportation Practices tar-
gets reducing both greenhouse gas emis-
sions and the footprint of the built
environment, the policy didn’t initially ad-
dress food service purchases and their ef-
fect on energy use. With the global food
“This commitment includes
clear guidelines that
prioritize local, organic,
humane, and socially
responsible purchasing as
well as waste reduction and
green dining facility
standards.”
system identified as one of the single most
important causes of increased greenhouse
gas emissions—accounting for almost one-
fifth of the nation’s energy consumption—
students have again emerged to work with
UC staff to explore how the existing policy
can incorporate food service components.3
In 2005 and 2006 students from the Cal-
ifornia Student Sustainability Coalition
(CSSC) have teamed with their student gov-
ernment (UCSA), student Regent, Board of
Regents, Office of the President (UCOP),
and Housing Directors to seek a University
commitment to sustainable campus food
systems. This commitment includes clear
guidelines that prioritize local, organic, hu-
mane, and socially responsible purchasing
as well as waste reduction and green dining
facility standards. While individual campus-
es continue to develop their own food ser-
vice initiatives, such across-the-board UC
standards would provide campuses with
minimum purchasing levels and baseline
indicators for a sustainable food system,
as well as establish ways to measure “best
practices” for both contracted and in-house
food service vendors and facilities.
In the fall of 2006, UC’s Office of the
President has made significant steps toward
establishing UC-wide sustainable food sys-
tem guidelines. Following a June 2006 Hous-
ing Directors Committee Meeting, the
directors launched a food service task force
to develop statewide guidelines to be in-
corporated into the existing Green Building,
Alternative Energy, and Transportation
Policy.
UC Santa Cruz’s Executive Housing Di-
rector, Sue Matthews, and Food Systems
Working Group Coordinator, Tim Galarneau
(who also serves as the CSSC sustainable
food initiative advisor), have taken the lead
12
in spearheading the statewide food service
task force to assist the Housing Directors
committee with this timely policy compo-
nent. The Housing Directors task force has
just released the first draft of the sustain-
able food service policy for statewide re-
view and comments from housing, dining,
and purchasing staff, and other stakehold-
ers. Stakeholders include retail operations,
hospital food services, residential dining,
and contracted vendors that are being so-
licited for input (see UC Guidelines, p. 21).
The policy design currently focuses on
procurement criteria (i.e., local, organic, hu-
mane, socially responsible), waste reduc-
tion measures, and water and energy
conservation practices that will work in syn-
ergy with the existing statewide policy’s
goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and preserving our environment. On Octo-
ber 20, 2006 the UC Executive Sustainabili-
ty Steering Committee sanctioned an official
Food Systems Working Group under the
committee to oversee completion and im-
plementation of the statewide food policy,
following its approval process within the
Housing Directors Committee.
UCSC Expands Sustainable Food Systems
Work
While efforts take place at the state-
wide level, food-system-based campus or-
ganizations are working in partnership with
campus administrators, staff, and faculty to
put in place sustainable food initiatives at
each UC campus.
At UCSC, the Food Systems Working
Group (FSWG) strives to increase the
amount of sustainably produced food avail-
able to the campus community, and to en-
gage students in learning more about the
food system. Last year, 18% of all produce
consumed at UCSC met the sustain-
able food purchasing guidelines de-
veloped by the FSWG, which call for
locally grown, organic produce. Ac-
cording to Candy Berlin, special
project analyst for Dining Services,
approximately 24% of UCSC’s produce
purchases this fall met the guidelines
and 8% came from the UCSC Farm.
Building on student and staff con-
cerns about the treatment of animals
in the food system, UCSC Dining Ser-
vices is also phasing in organic and
sustainable dairy options and incor-
porating the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Seafood Watch guidelines into their
purchasing. The FSWG will be explor-
ing other ways Dining Services can
include humanely produced options
to offer meal plan holders, including
cage-free eggs. On a national level, the
Center for Respect of Life and Environment
is working with organizations such as the
FSWG and other groups at higher educa-
tion institutions to develop alternatives to
purchasing food from concentrated animal
feeding operations and inhumane farming
facilities.
Besides working with purchasing staff
to identify sustainably produced products,
members of the FSWG this year helped put
on several local and organic dinners that
served more than 2,000 students. They also
brought together the farmers of the
Monterey Bay Organic Growers Consortium
and ALBA Organics, who are growing food
for campus dining halls and restaurants, for
seasonal “reflection” dinners with campus
chefs, buyers, and other stakeholders to dis-
cuss ways to improve the farm-to-college
effort. In their outreach work to incoming
students, FSWG coordinated an interactive
food systems tent at the Fall Festival, which
draws 4,000–5,000 students every year, to
help students learn how to become involved
in campus food system work. Students were
offered local organic apple tastings from
Phil Foster Ranches, fair trade juice sam-
Fall 2006
ples from Adina World Beverages, and cof-
fee from the Community Agroecology Net-
work to perk up the attendees.
The FSWG also released the first edi-
tion of the Campus Food Guide. The initial
guide highlights the history of the farm-to-
college movement; opportunities for civic
engagement both on-campus and in the
community related to hunger, nutrition, sus-
tainable agriculture, and environmental ed-
ucation; and seasonal food charts, recipes,
food facts, and information on UCSC Din-
ing Services’ commitment to sustainability.
UCSC Dining Services has been a valuable
contributor to the success of the campus’s
food system initiatives. This year they’ve
committed to “going green and designing
sustainable operations” as their annual fo-
cus. The overarching goal involves finding
ways to meet green guidelines for all cam-
pus dining facilities, expanding their sus-
tainable procurement, and reducing waste.
In November 2006 the campus received
word that the Santa Cruz City Green Busi-
“This year [UCSC Dining
Services has] committed to
‘going green and designing
sustainable operations’ as
their annual focus.”
ness Program was approved; UCSC Dining
Services will be the first test site for the
program this academic year (2006–2007).
Clint Jefferies, UCSC Food Service Manag-
er, has been working since last spring to
prepare the campus food service facilities
for certification and will likely reach his de-
partment’s goal of certifying all five dining
halls as “green” by the end of spring quar-
ter 2007. Efforts have included becoming
the first campus dining service to become a
“Buy Fresh Buy Local” member of the Com-
munity Alliance with Family Farmers; work-
ing with other campus staff and
organizations to develop a composting pro-
gram for dining services; and researching
guidelines for purchasing energy efficient
food service equipment.
Fall 2006
CASFS Supports Farm-to-College Efforts
Members of the Center for Agroecolo-
gy and Sustainable Food Systems (CAS-
FS) play a key role in UCSC’s Food Systems
Working Group. From working with the
Monterey Bay Farmers Consortium, to
growing food for the campus, to coordinat-
ing student involvement on the UCSC Farm,
this role continues to expand with support
from CASFS director Carol Shennan.
Thanks to funding from the True North
Foundation, CASFS has established a farm-
to-college staff position. Along with her
work as the farm’s Community Supported
Agriculture program coordinator, Nancy
Vail supports campus education and out-
reach efforts that bring students and com-
munity members to the UCSC Farm, while
coordinating deliveries of food grown by
CASFS apprentices to campus food service
units, and teaching a freshman interest
group class on gardening. Jan Perez, a spe-
cialist with the CASFS social science re-
search group, recently conducted an online
survey that evaluates student meal plan
holders’ interest in social justice and envi-
ronmental issues related to their food. She
will also be participating in a multi-year
study with Patricia Allen, associate direc-
tor of CASFS, to review the structures and
efficacy of farmer cooperative and consor-
tium designs in relation to institutional buy-
ers across the country.
Environmental studies student Lily
Schneider’s senior project is an example of
the undergraduate opportunities made pos-
sible by the CASFS farm-to-college work.
“During the 2006 season I completed my
senior internship for environmental stud-
ies at the UCSC Farm, working on the farm-
“Schneider helped organize
a new project that offered
UCSC students the chance
to use their meal plans to
purchase shares in the
campus farm’s CSA
program.”
to-college program,” says Schneider, who
coordinated the field’s campus produce
sales, selling weekly to two dining halls and
the Terra Fresca restaurant at the Universi-
ty Center. “I also led groups of College Eight
first-year students in the Harvest for Health
program, where they visit the farm, harvest
a variety of crops, and carry them to their
dining hall, literally making the farm to col-
lege connection.” In addition, Schneider
helped organize a new project that offered
UCSC students the chance to use their meal
plans to purchase shares in the campus
farm’s CSA program.
Campuses Advance Sustainable Food Sys-
tems Work
Other UC campuses are also finding cre-
ative ways to add sustainable components
to their food service programs. At UC Riv-
erside, a collaborative program between
Housing and Dining, Sustainable UCR, and
the College of Humanities, Arts, and Social
Sciences is building experiential residential
gardens that include herbs and produce for
the campus dining halls. In addition, UCR
13
is working closely with the campus’s Citrus
Variety Collection staff and field crew to
begin serving citrus juice blends and table
fruit grown on site in the campus dining
halls and to provide research opportunities
for students.
At UC Davis, the campus’s coffee-
house, SOHO, hosted a “Local Foods” week
in fall 2006 featuring produce from local
farms, film discussions, and speaker nights.
SOHO is also a “Buy Fresh Buy Local” mem-
ber of the Community Alliance for Family
Farmers (CAFF). Members of the UC Davis
graduate student-based Students for Sus-
tainable Agriculture (SSA) group have been
working closely with Sodexho campus din-
ing services and staff to assess their food
system and develop ways to increase local
and sustainable food options, reduce
waste, and find innovative solutions to food
service challenges.
At UCLA, statewide graduate student
representative to the Sustainability Steer-
ing Committee, Crystal Durham, coordinates
the emerging Food Systems Working Group
and staffs their Sustainability Committee.
Accordingly to Director of Housing and
Residential Dining, Mike Foraker, UCLA is
approaching this from the “30,000 foot per-
spective,” weighing food procurement,
waste reduction, and energy savings.
As individual campuses build their
commitment to sustainable food purchases
and education-based initiatives, the UC
statewide guideline process discussed
above will create system-wide “best prac-
tice” models and set baselines for measur-
able goals. Further, it will fuel a
much-needed discussion of how large-scale
universities can establish comprehensive
sustainable food system programs that
build on learning and education and sup-
port regional food systems, while at the
same time reducing energy use and waste.
The UC Green Building and Alternative
Energy Policy has also been adopted by
the Board of the California State University
system; this creates an opportunity to of-
fer a comprehensive food service policy as
a model for the CSU system and institutions
across the country. Students from the Cali-
fornia Student Sustainability Coalition
spoke at the UC Regents meeting in Janu-
ary 2007 to present an update on the status
of the sustainable food systems guidelines
14
and discuss why the Regents’ continued
support of this effort is essential to redefin-
ing health, wellness, and sustainability in
the context of our food system.
Excerpts from: Galarneau, T. 2006.
“UC Santa Cruz’s Food Systems Working
Group Helps Drive Statewide Farm-to-Col-
lege Initiative.” The Cultivar 24(2) Fall/
Winter. Reprinted with permission.
Tim Galarneau currently works with
the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable
Food Systems as the Food Systems
Working Group Coordinator at UC Santa
Cruz and advises statewide University of
California stakeholders on sustainable
food transitions. In his community Tim
serves as the coordinator for the Santa
Cruz County Food Systems Network, en-
gaging in local and regional community
food security policy and partnership de-
velopment.
1
Wallace, L., T. Galarneau, and N. Vail. 2006.
“UCSC Makes the Farm-to-College Connec-
tion.” The Cultivar 24(1) Spring/Summer.
2
2005 University of California Annual Re-
port on Green Building and Clean Energy
Policy. www.universityofcalifornia.edu/re-
gents/regmeet/jan06/110.pdf
3
See cover article of Cultivar 24(2) Fall/
Winter 2006 edition.
University of New Hampshire:
Many Ways to a Sustainable Food
System
by Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell
T
he University of New Hampshire (UNH) has become a
leader among US land-grant universities1 in promoting sus-
tainable food systems. Through its university-wide Food
& Society Initiative (FAS), UNH integrates the ethics, science,
technology, and policies of civic agricul-
ture and community food security into the
university’s identity and practices. To ac-
complish this mission, the FAS is actively
engaging the university community in local
and sustainable agriculture and nutrition
efforts across campus and beyond, includ-
ing broad-based engagement and outreach
programs that educate students, faculty,
administrators, staff, and the larger commu-
nity about the relationships among agricul-
ture, food choices, nutrition, and economic
and social well-being.
In 2003 UNH developed a 30-acre certi-
fied organic Campus-Community Farm to
serve as a teaching, research, and outreach
resource for sustainable agriculture. Today,
all farmlands on the UNH Durham campus
are certified organic. The farm includes a
two-acre garden maintained by the student-
run Organic Garden Club, whose mission is
to create a campus-community organic farm
focused on promoting social, economic, and
environmental sustainability. Crops har-
vested at the site are sold to UNH Dining
Services and at a weekly campus farm stand
that runs from early summer to mid-fall. Stu-
dents in the Organic Garden Club also do-
nate crops for a regular local community
dinner co-sponsored by the United Cam-
pus Ministry to UNH and the Cornucopia
Food Pantry, and donate food to prepare
meals regularly at a local housing shelter.
In December 2005, UNH was the first
land-grant university to establish an organic
dairy farm for research and teaching. The
200-acre farm will provide needed research
into the benefits of organic dairy farming
as well as support a growing demand for
Fall 2006
“In December 2005, UNH
was the first land-grant
university to establish an
organic dairy farm for
research and teaching.”
organic products in the region. As farmers
increasingly consider the organic option,
researchers will investigate a variety of
questions: “In a short northern growing
season, how can farmers supplement pas-
ture feeding by planting grasses, grains or
corn for later use? How long should calves
be allowed to nurse for optimum health? Are
organic cows healthier, as their owners have
long asserted, and by what measures? What
therapies work best to treat infection and
disease in an organic herd? Can milk pro-
duction be affected by how people touch
or handle their cows?” (Saunders, 2006).
UNH’s organic dairy farm is an indica-
tor of a larger trend at agriculture schools in
the US: researchers at premier institutions
are beginning to respond to student pres-
sure by adding courses on organic tech-
niques and designating land for certified
organic production. Washington State and
University of Florida launched majors in
organic farming in fall 2006, and UNH offers
coursework in sustainable agricultural pro-
duction as well. The UNH dairy farm will
serve as a research center for organic pro-
duction and management and an education
Fall 2006
center for organic dairy farmers, farmers
considering the transition to organic, as well
as students of sustainable agriculture.
Also in December 2005, the UNH Hos-
pitality Services, known for its commitment
to sustainability under its Local Harvest
Initiative, began buying all of its shelled
eggs from a certified humane chicken farm
in New Hampshire’s White Mountains, mak-
ing UNH the first university in the nation to
serve certified humane products. “Certified
humane,” a designation granted by the non-
profit Humane Farm Animal Care Program,
indicates that the eggs have been produced
to standards that include a nutritious diet
without antibiotics or hormones and ani-
mals raised with shelter, resting areas, suf-
ficient space, and the ability to engage in
natural behaviors. The farm will supply
UNH with the approximate one quarter of a
million eggs the university consumes per
year in its dining halls, through catering,
and at conferences. Under its Local Har-
vest Initiative, UNH Hospitality Services
also composts food scraps, offers fair trade
coffee, and works with the Office of Sus-
tainability each fall to put on a very popular
Local Harvest Dinner that features gourmet
dishes made from local foods.
In 2005, UNH held stakeholder meet-
ings across New Hampshire to get valuable
input into developing the New Hampshire
Center for a Food Secure Future (NHCF-
SF). NHCFSF is a UNH-based collaboration
among diverse stakeholders in the food
system including state agencies, non-prof-
its, business and industry partners and as-
sociations, as well as educators and
practitioners. The Center was created to
address the need for coordinated, compre-
hensive action linking agriculture, the food
environment and health and nutrition in our
state and region.
In May of 2006, UNH signed the Inter-
national Slow Food Principles “for the pur-
pose of creating a worldwide network of
universities and research institutions linked
to the International Slow Food Associa-
tion.” These principles include “protection
of agricultural biodiversity,” “support of the
rights of peoples to self-determination with
regard to food,” and “education of civilized
society and training of workers in the food
and agricultural sector.”2 As of May 2006,
UNH is one of four universities in the US to
have signed the principles, and the first to
award the founder of Slow Food—Carlo
Petrini—an honorary degree.
Regarding outreach to primary and
secondary education, the New Hampshire
Farm to School Program, developed and
supported by UNH’s Office of Sustainabil-
15
ity and the New Hampshire Coalition for
Sustaining Agriculture, connects local
farms and farm products to New Hampshire
classrooms and cafeterias by integrating
agricultural production, school food pro-
curement, and school curriculum. To date,
over half of the K-12 schools in New Hamp-
shire are participating in the program.
A new project in sustainable food sys-
tems at UNH will create a Community Food
and Nutrition Profile (CFNP) tool to evalu-
ate and improve health and integrity across
the University food system. Specific com-
ponents of the profile include purchasing
behaviors and diet and health practices.
These will be integrated with assessment
of the economic, cultural, and ecological
resources of the community’s agriculture
and foodways. The CFNP findings will be
used to provide baseline data on the Uni-
versity’s status in food, nutrition, and
health practices, and will also serve as a bench-
mark from which progressive interventions
and policies can be developed and evaluated.
The project is a collaboration of the UNH
Department of Animal and Nutritional Sci-
ences and Office of Sustainability.
Information for this piece is taken
mainly from the Food & Society Initiative
section of the UNH Office of Sustainabili-
ty. See www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/.
Tom Kelly, PhD, is director of the UNH
Office of Sustainability. Elisabeth W. Far-
rell is coordinator of the UNH Food &
Society Initiative.
1
The land-grant colleges and universities
are public institutions formed in the 19th
century to provide agricultural and mechan-
ical studies (in addition to classical stud-
ies) so that members of the working classes
could obtain a liberal, practical education.
2
See www.slowfoodusa.org/about/
principles.html.
Saunders, Anne. 2006. “UNH Takes the
Lead on Organic Farming.” The Associat-
ed Press. UnionLeader.com. October 9.
16
Portland State University Initiates a
Sustainable Food Program
by Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder
I
n 2006, Portland State University (PSU) received the Busi-
nesses for an Environmentally Sustainable Tomorrow (BEST)
award from the city of Portland “for the inclusion of
sustainability criteria in its food service contract and for educat-
ing students about sustainable food choic- sustainability in the operation of all
es” (Allen, May 26, 2006). City representa- aspects of campus dining.”
tives noted that “no other university has • Food vendors will specify products
initiated a sustainable food service program produced in environmentally friend-
on this scale and integrated it so strongly ly and socially responsible ways.
into its contract” (Ibid.). The contract, with • Vendors will educate the public about
food contractor and industry giant Sodex- the benefits of sustainable agricul-
ho, may also be the first to include concern ture (Allen, October 6, 2006).
for animal welfare through its focus on Food
Alliance certified products. Representatives Contract goals also included “Food Al-
of PSU’s sustainability programs emphasize liance Equivalent Standards,”1 requiring
that they are working to transform the mar- contractors “to procure food products that
ket and supply chain by inserting new val- meet sustainability standards equivalent to
ues into the food system. the Food Alliance in the areas of pesticide
reduction, soil and water con-
servation, wildlife habitat con-
servation, care for livestock,
non-GMO products, and safe
and fair working conditions to
the maximum extent feasible
during the performance of this
contract” (Ibid.). Concern for
animal welfare was also incor-
porated in the sustainability
criteria for suppliers. Preference
would be given to farms that
have agreed to: reduce or elim-
inate pesticides; conserve soil
and water; protect and enhance
wildlife habitat; provide safe
Sustainable Food Contract and fair working conditions;
As part of its ongoing initiative “to in- and provide healthy and hu-
fuse sustainability into all colleges, schools mane care for livestock.
and programs,” Portland State University
developed an ambitious Request for Pro- Lessons from developing RFP
posal (RFP) in 2004 for a new 7-year food • It is important to have a “sustain-
contract. Sodexho, one of three companies ability champion” on the committee
that responded, was awarded the contract creating the RFP and reviewing pro-
in 2005. RFP requirements included the fol- posals.
lowing: • It is important to have support from
• Contractor will “move incrementally others, such as the business affairs
toward the goal of environmental office, in incorporating sustainabili-
Fall 2006
ty into the process.
• Vendor issues should be addressed
more clearly – i.e., how criteria apply
to sub-contracted vendors.
• Social aspects of sustainability
should be included in future con-
tracts.
Factors that facilitate successful contract
implementation
• PSU is advantageously located in a
region with a high level of environ-
mental awareness and concern.
• Technical support is available from
the Portland Office of Sustainable
Development and PSU’s Sustainable
Facilities team.
• Most suppliers are responsive to
sustainability considerations.
• Food Alliance, which is located in
Portland, OR, offered support in lo-
cating product.
• Other schools in the region have
shown a similar commitment to sus-
tainability.
• PSU is large enough to get a re-
sponse.
• Sodexho is also large enough to be
flexible and has shown commitment
to sustainability.
Challenges in successful contract imple-
mentation
• It is necessary to engage the whole
“chain” in product development and
delivery.
• Distributors are typically locked in
vendor relationships.
• There is a time lag in availability of
sustainable products.
The larger challenge of changing the
food system remains daunting. As the gen-
eral manager for Sodexho campus services
at PSU noted, the public demand for local
and organic food products is still not great
enough to encourage major food distribu-
tors such as Sysco to carry them. To its
credit, Sodexho has developed “an environ-
mental awareness policy and states that
sensitivity to environmental issues and
being socially responsible are integral to
the company’s way of doing business”
(Allen, May 26, 2006). PSU’s contract is
unique in that it may help raise additional
awareness about the opportunity to bring
Fall 2006
concern for animal welfare into a sustain-
able food services program.
For more information on PSU’s food
contract, see www.pdx.edu/sustainability/
cs_downloads.html (contract documents)
and www.psudining.com/community.html
(Sodexho programs at PSU).
Dr. Jennifer H. Allen is the associate
director of the Center for Sustainable Pro-
cesses and Practices at Portland State Uni-
versity and serves as the board president
of the Food Alliance. Jennifer’s work at
Portland State has most recently involved
working with other Oregon universities to
develop a Signature Research Center fo-
cused on clean energy, green buildings and
green development, and bio-based prod-
ucts.
Wynn Calder is associate director of
CRLE and ULSF.
Allen, J. 2006. “An RFP to Chew On.” Daily
Journal of Commerce. May 26. Portland,
OR.
Allen, J. 2006. “Making Food Service Sus-
tainable: Portland State University’s Expe-
rience.” (PowerPoint presentation October
6) Association for the Advancement of
Sustainability in Higher Education confer-
ence on “The Role of Higher Education in
Creating a Sustainable World,” October 4-
6, 2006. Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ.
1
Food Alliance is a non-profit organization
that promotes sustainable agriculture and
operates the most comprehensive third-par-
ty certification program in North America
for sustainably produced food.
(www.foodalliance.org). See the Food Alli-
ance Guiding Principles on page 20.
17
This forum explores a range of guidelines, standards, and third party certification
schemes for humane, just and sustainable food.
Guidelines and Certification: A
Forum
T
he following are a series of principles, guidelines and cer-
tification standards for assisting us in moving toward more
humane and sustainable food systems. The cost and ben-
efits of each of these frameworks are hotly debated. Big organic
agribusiness is criticized for creating large tified Humane are critiqued respectively as
monocultures, exploiting workers and ani- not being fair or humane enough and are
mals, much the same as conventional in- seen by conventional agribusiness as add-
dustrial agriculture. The use of synthetic ing costs that make such certified food too
fertilizers, which organic farming shuns, has expensive for the average consumer. What-
dramatically increased crop yields. On the ever their flaws, these guidelines and stan-
other hand, organic practices are more ef- dards are partial attempts to fix a broken
fective at preserving the long-term health system and to cope with a deeply complex
and stability of the soil. Fair Trade and Cer- set of challenges.
Fair Trade Certification Overview
The United Farm Workers have de-
veloped standards for the fair treatment
of farm workers and achieved various col-
lective bargaining agreements and major
legislation (especially in California) to im-
prove the lives of farm workers.
Certification Overview
The Fair Trade Certified™ label is the
only independent, third-party consumer • Sustainable agricultural and farm
guarantee that companies have complied management practices, including re-
with strict economic, social and environ- stricted use of agrochemicals and
mental criteria for particular products, no GMOs
thereby creating a more equitable and sus-
tainable trade system for producers. The When consumers see a product with
principal criteria of Fair Trade certification the Fair Trade Certified™ label, they are
are: guaranteed that farmers received a fair
• Direct trade with farmer organiza- price and all of the other benefits of the
tions, bypassing unnecessary mid- Fair Trade system. To date, sales of Fair
dlemen Trade Certified products have supplied
• Fair prices for farmers, and decent nearly $80 million in above-market reve-
working and living conditions for nue to millions of farmers, workers and
workers their families in over 50 developing coun-
• Free association of workers and tries worldwide.
farmers, with structures for demo-
cratic decision-making
• Access to pre-financing, and addi- Visit http://transfairusa.org/content/
tional premiums for community and certification/overview.php for more infor-
business development mation.
18
Five Ethical Principles to Guide What We Should Eat
by Peter Singer and Jim Mason
1. Transparency: We have a right to know
how our food is produced.
If slaughterhouses had glass walls,
it’s often said, we’d all be vegetarian.
That’s probably not quite true—some
people can get used to almost anything.
But transparency is increasingly recog-
nized as an important ethical principle and
a safeguard against bad practice. Consum-
ers should be able to get accurate and
unbiased information about what they are
buying and how it was produced.
2. Fairness: Producing food should not
impose costs on others.
The price of food should reflect the
full costs of its production. Then consum-
ers can choose whether they want to pay
that price. If no one does, the market will
ensure that the item ceases to be produced.
Meanwhile, if the method of producing food
imposes significant costs on others with-
out their consent—for example, by emitting
odors that make it impossible for neighbors
to enjoy living in their homes—then the mar-
ket has not been operating efficiently and
the outcome is unfair to those who are dis-
advantaged. The food will only be cheap
because others are paying part of the cost—
unwillingly. Any form of food production
that is not environmentally sustainable will
be unfair in this respect, since it will make
future generations worse off.
Fall 2006
3. Humanity: Inflicting significant suf-
fering on animals for minor reasons is
wrong.
Most people, even those opposed to
more radical ideas of “animal liberation”
or “animal rights,” agree that we should
try to avoid causing pain or other forms
of distress on animals. Kindness and com-
passion toward all, humans and animals,
is clearly better than indifference to the
suffering of another sentient being.
4. Social Responsibility: Workers should
have decent wages and working condi-
tions.
Minimally decent treatment for em-
ployees and suppliers precludes child la-
bor, forced labor, and sexual harassment.
Workplaces should be safe, and workers
should have the right to form associations
and engage in collective bargaining, if
they so choose. There must be no dis-
crimination on the basis of race, sex, or
disabilities irrelevant to the job. Workers
should receive a wage sufficient to cover
their basic needs and those of dependent
children.
5. Needs: Preserving life and health jus-
tifies more than other desires.
A genuine need for food, to survive
and nourish ourselves adequately, over-
rides less pressing considerations and jus-
tifies many things that might otherwise
be wrong. In contrast, if we choose a par-
ticular food out of habit, or because we
like the way it tastes, when we could have
nourished ourselves equally well by mak-
ing a different choice, then that choice
has to meet stricter ethical standards.
Excerpted from: Singer, P. and J. Ma-
son. 2006. The Way We Eat: Why Our
Food Choices Matter. Emmaus, PA:
Rodale Press, 270-1.
Fall 2006 19

Humane Eating and the Three Rs

Each one of us can make a significant
difference in the lives of farm animals and
help decrease their suffering by following
the three R’s.
Reduce
Every hour in the United States, one
million animals are killed for human con-
sumption. If each one of us cuts back on
our animal consumption by only 10%, ap-
proximately one billion animals would be
spared a lifetime of suffering each year.
Refine
If you do continue to eat animal prod-
ucts, know that not all animal products are
equal when it comes to animal welfare. Each
industry has its own abusive practices, and
some are much more cruel than others. For
example, the chicken, egg, turkey, and pork
industries tend to be far more abusive to
animals than the beef industry. And a grow-
ing number of producers are raising animals
without intensive confinement. Refining
your diet by choosing cage-free animal prod-
ucts, instead of the conventional factory
farm products that fill most supermarket
shelves, will help diminish animal suffering.
Replace
Each one of us can help prevent ani-
mals from suffering in factory farms simply
by choosing vegetarian options. It’s never
been easier to replace animal products with
readily available vegetarian alternatives.
According to the US Department of Agri-
culture, “Vegetarian diets can meet all the
recommendations for nutrients.” The Amer-
ican Dietetic Association goes even further
to state that vegetarian diets “provide health
benefits in the prevention and treatment of
certain diseases.”
Visit www.humanesociety.org , click on
Farm Animals, and Humane Eating.

Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label

The Certified Humane Raised &
Handled Label is a consumer certifica-
tion and labeling program. When you
see the Certified Humane Raised & Han-
dled Label it means that an egg, dairy,
meat or poultry product has been pro-
duced with the welfare of the farm animal
in mind. Food products that carry the la-
bel are certified to have come from facili-
ties that meet precise, objective standards
for farm animal treatment.
Quality Standards
A team of veterinarian and animal
scientists developed the Animal Care
Standards to ensure that producers and
processors keep animals in conditions
that have met high standards of animal
care:
• Allow animals to engage in their
natural behaviors
• Raising animals with sufficient
space, shelter and gentle handling
to limit stress
• Making sure they have ample fresh
water and a healthy diet without add-
ed antibiotics or hormones
Under the system, growth hormones
are prohibited, and animals are raised on a
regular diet of quality feed free of antibiot-
ics. Producers also must comply with local,
state and federal environmental standards.
Processors must comply with the American
Meat Institute Standards, a higher standard
for slaughtering farm animals than the Fed-
eral Humane Slaughter Act.
Rigorous Inspections
Humane Farm Animal Care is the inde-
pendent non-profit organization that con-
ducts regular inspections and administers
the “Certified Humane Raised & Handled”
program. Participating businesses must
pass an initial inspection as well as annual
re-inspection to remain part of the Certi-
fied Humane Raised & Handled program.
Inspectors have training and edu-
cation in animal science, veterinary med-
icine, or other relevant backgrounds. To
further assure fairness, the US Depart-
ment of Agriculture’s Agricultural Mar-
keting Services verifies the inspection
process.
A Better Choice
The quality of the meat, poultry, egg
and dairy products depends, at least in
part, on the quality of care farm animals
receive. The Certified Humane Raised &
Handled program lets consumers choose
products from businesses that are pro-
viding humane conditions for the ani-
mals in their care.
Visit www.certifiedhumane.com/
whatis.html.
20
The Food Alliance Guiding Principles
The Food Alliance provides one of
the most comprehensive set of guidelines
for creating just, humane and sustainable
food systems through a third-party certi-
fication process used in the Pacific North-
west and Midwest. The following are its
nine principles:
Provide safe and fair working conditions
Create a work environment with open
communication about workplace safety
and job satisfaction, with incentives and
opportunities for development of employ-
ee skills; consider quality of life issues
for farm workers and their communities.
Provide healthy and humane treatment of
animals
Raise livestock with the greatest re-
spect for their needs and comfort; pro-
vide livestock with access to sunlight,
room to graze, and an environment where
they can socialize and express normal an-
imal behaviors; handle livestock with great
care to minimize fear and stress.
Raise livestock without added hormones
and antibiotics
Raise animals the natural way, with-
out using hormones or antibiotics to stim-
USDA Organic
USDA Organic is the largest third par-
ty certification scheme. As USDA states:
“Organic food is produced by farmers
who emphasize the use of renewable re-
sources and the conservation of soil and
water to enhance environmental quality for
future generations. Organic meat, poultry,
eggs, and dairy products come from ani-
mals that are given no antibiotics or growth
hormones. Organic food is produced with-
out using most conventional pesticides,
fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients
or sewage sludge, bioengineering, or ioniz-
ing radiation. Before a product can be la-
beled ‘organic,’ a government-approved
ulate growth; use antibiotics only to treat a
sick animal to return it to health, not as a
substitute for healthy living conditions.
Raise crops without genetically modified
organisms (GMOs)
Raise crops or livestock products that
are not derived from transgenic or geneti-
cally modified organisms; respect the pub-
lic’s concerns over potential ecological
impacts or effects on human health.
Reduce pesticides usage and toxicity
Practice integrated pest management
(IPM) using a wide range of natural pest
control methods such as beneficial insects,
careful weather monitoring and scouting.
Use the least toxic pesticides only when
natural methods don’t work. Practice pest
control that minimizes negative impacts to
human health and environment.
Protect water resources
Preserve clean drinking water and fish
habitat by providing buffer zones along
streams; practice tillage methods that con-
serve soil’s ability to absorb rainfall; man-
certifier inspects the farm where the food
is grown to make sure the farmer is fol-
lowing all the rules necessary to meet
USDA organic standards. Companies
that handle or process organic food be-
fore it gets to your local supermarket or
restaurant must be certified, too.”
For more information, visit
www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
Fall 2006
age animal wastes to prevent ground and
surface water contamination.
Protect and enhance soil resources
Protect soils by maximizing plant cov-
er, rotating crops, and using cover crops
to enrich soil and increase productivity;
use management-intensive grazing; use
tillage methods that protect soil quality
and promote soil conservation.
Provide wildlife habitat
Encourage vegetative cover, food,
and water resources necessary for habi-
tat; establish biological corridors; man-
age mowing and grazing cycles to have
the least impact on wildlife: restore or pro-
tect wetland prairie and woodland habi-
tats.
Continually improve
Set specific goals to reach new lev-
els of sustainability; report progress to-
ward goals annually.
Visit www.foodalliance.org. Click
on Certification; Certification Stan-
dards; Guiding Principles.
Fall 2006
The University of California System’s (UC System)
Proposed Sustainable Food Guidelines
The UC System is considering
adopting Sustainable Food Guidelines
modeled, in part, on UC Santa Cruz’s
guidelines (http://socialsciences.ucsc.
edu/casfs/publications/cultivar/
24.1.pdf). As discussed above (pp. 11-
14) these guidelines involve a broad
stakeholder process of input and reflec-
tion, having a statewide impact that will
influence other large-scale universities
in addressing sustainable food procure-
ment. The guidelines include:
A. Requirement
All vendors supplying food prod-
ucts to University Food Services will
source from producers who pay mini-
mum wage, or higher, to workers, as re-
quired by state and federal law, and who
provide safe workplaces, including pro-
tection from chemical exposure, and
provision of adequate sanitary facilities
and drinking water for workers, as re-
quired by state and federal law.
B. Preferences
1. Buy local: local food is grown with-
in each campus defined geographical
region (i.e., distance in mileage) from the
University. Purchase of local produce
decreases the distance food travels and
therefore the amount of energy used
and pollution produced. Use of sea-
sonal and local produce supports local
farmers and the regional economy, and
encourages diversified farming opera-
tions. Local produce is also seasonal,
which ensures that the products are
fresher, of higher quality, and more nu-
tritious.
21
2. Buy certified organic: the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has es-
tablished a uniform set of standards to
which all certified organic produce must
6. Buy certified Fair Trade: certified
conform. Food labeled as organic in the
Fair Trade products are produced ac-
United States must be certified by a third-
cording to an established set of so-
party agency accredited by the USDA.
cial criteria. Farmers generally use
Chemical residues on non-organic food may
environmentally friendly cultivation
be harmful to human health. Organic culti-
methods and are paid per-pound pric-
vation also improves environmental health,
es above open market rates to ensure
soil fertility, and an adequate base of bene-
adequate family income. Certified Fair
ficial insects and birds.
Trade products are purchased
through democratically operated pro-
3. Buy Certified Humane Raised & Han-
ducer cooperatives.
dled (CHRH) animal products: certified hu-
manely produced animal products include
7. Buy worker supportive food
meat, dairy, poultry, and eggs which:
products: worker supportive products
• Allow animals to engage in their nat-
are purchased from socially just oper-
ural behaviors
ations that incorporate one or more of
• Raise animals with sufficient space,
the following into their employment
shelter and gentle handling to limit
practices:
stress
• Pay a living wage to food sys-
• Make sure they have ample fresh
tem workers; defined as union
water and a healthy diet without add-
or prevailing wage.
ed antibiotics or hormones
• Provide benefits to their work-
ers; such as medical insurance,
4. Buy Sustainable Seafood Products:
on-site housing, subsidized
Vendors must comply, to the extent practi-
transportation, year-round em-
cable, with the Monterey Bay Seafood
ployment, or childcare assis-
Watch Guidelines (http://www.mbayaq.org/
tance.
cr/seafoodwatch.asp)
• Actively seek to build the ca-
pacity of their workers through
5. Buy direct: cultivating closer relation-
provision of education, training
ships between producer and consumer
and opportunities for advance-
helps deliver more income at the farm level,
ment.
and empower producers. Direct purchasing
also helps to create an educational network
between students, researchers, administra-
For more information regarding
tors, and producers that facilitates dialogue
the UC System and sustainable food
and fosters awareness of the production
criteria and development, please
chain.
contact Tim Galarneau at
tgalarne@ucsc.edu.
22 Fall 2006

The following three articles—Core Farm Bill Priorities, Opportunities to Weaken tion, and meet increasing consumer demand
CAFOs, and Below-Cost Feed Crops—present critical priorities and recommenda- for high-quality and traceable products.
tions in the context of the 2007 Farm Bill, especially as these relate to opportunities Provide targeted investments to assist
for weakening CAFOs. fruit and vegetable growers and other pro-

Core Farm Bill Priorities

ducers meet the increasing consumer de-
mand for foods recommended in the federal
dietary guidelines.
by the Farm and Food Policy Project
Reducing Hunger, Improving Nutrition

T
he 2007 Farm Bill presents an unparalleled opportunity
for building alliances and identifying workable policy tools
to renew American agriculture, reduce hunger and improve
health, enhance rural and urban community development, and
protect the environment. and rural community development. It calls
Throughout 2006, a large group of or- for significant expansion and improvement
ganizations—including sustainable agricul- of agricultural conservation programs. And
ture, family farm, minority farmer and it calls for farm and food policies that are
rancher, conservation and environment, more equitable and that better serve all peo-
rural and community development, anti- ple in our increasingly diverse society.
hunger, nutrition, public health, faith, and
others—have met under the auspices of Renewing American Agriculture
the Farm and Food Policy Project to dis- Create fair and cost-effective farm pro-
cuss the future of US farm and food policy. grams that serve the needs of all farmers
Below are the core farm bill priorities and ranchers, support diversified farming
from a draft public statement entitled “Seek- systems, reward conservation, and minimize
ing Balance in US Farm and Food Policy.” adverse impacts on producers in develop-
This outlines a series of broad goals and ing nations.
specific measures that we believe will se- Implement meaningful payment limita-
cure a brighter future for farmers and ranch- tion reform and stronger conservation com-
ers, for rural and urban communities, and pliance requirements for commodity and
for all of us who depend on a healthy food crop insurance programs.
system. Ensure that farm policies are imple-
This statement is positive and forward- mented fairly and increase outreach and
looking. It identifies opportunities for ad- assistance to minority and socially disad-
vancing entrepreneurial agriculture and vantaged farmers and ranchers.
developing new markets—from local and
regional to organic to renewable energy. It Fostering Market-Based Solutions
looks to strengthen critical food assistance Create a balanced marketing support
programs and improve access to healthier structure to address local, regional, nation-
foods. It seeks to foster entrepreneurship al, and global markets.
Secure open
and competitive markets
and contract reform to
ensure fair prices for
farmers and ranchers.
Encourage cer-
tification, inspection,
and labeling initiatives
that spur market-based
efforts to increase farm
income, environmental
and farm worker protec-
Strengthen critical federal food assis-
tance programs, especially the Food Stamp
Program.
Expand and improve nutrition educa-
tion to support community-based solutions
to obesity and food insecurity.
Increase access to healthier foods for
all Americans, including through govern-
ment food assistance programs.
Building Rural Businesses, Improving
Rural Communities
Foster rural cooperative and business
development opportunities.
Promote local and farmer ownership and
investment opportunities in farm-based re-
newable energy production.
Strengthen key USDA rural develop-
ment programs for housing, community fa-
cilities, and water and telecommunications
infrastructure.
Conserving Natural Resources and Pro-
tecting the Environment
Significantly increase funding for work-
ing lands conservation programs.
Maintain and reform land retirement
programs by placing greater emphasis on
long-term protection of environmentally
sensitive lands and critical wildlife habitat
and by expanding the enrollment of conser-
vation buffers.
Strengthen and improve enforcement
of conservation standards linked to com-
modity and conservation programs, and re-
establish conservation standards for crop
and revenue insurance programs.
Build the technical assistance infra-
structure needed to assist farmers and
ranchers with becoming better stewards of
the nation’s lands.
Diversity and Equity
Ensure that farm policies and programs
are developed and implemented fairly and
Fall 2006 23

Opportunities to Weaken CAFOs

Through Environmental, Health
and Subsidy Initiatives in the 2007
Farm Bill
by Richard M. Clugston, Wynn Calder and Molly Anderson

that current disparities in service are elimi-
nated.
Increase transparency and account-
ability in all USDA agencies and provide
them with full authority to gather and re-
port data on socially disadvantaged farm-
ers and ranchers.
Create effective and adequate means
of redress for farmers and ranchers denied
access to USDA programs due to discrimi-
nation.
Expand opportunities for socially dis-
advantaged farmers and ranchers and com-
munities of color to shape the future of the
food system.
The Farm and Food Policy Project
(FFPP) is a diverse coalition of over 300
family farm, sustainable agriculture, rural,
public health, anti-hunger, environmental,
faith-based, and other groups working to-
gether to shape the 2007 Farm Bill so that
it will enhance (rather than harm) public
health, environmental quality, family farms
and rural development. The cross-sector
approach of the Farm and Food Policy
Project reflects a commitment to policy re-
forms that address the full spectrum of pub-
lic needs addressed by this critical piece
of legislation. Visit www.farmandfood
project.org/.
C
urrent US Farm Policy supports concentrated animal feed-
ing operations (CAFOs) through a range of direct and
indirect subsidies such as cheap grain, non-enforcement
(or waivers) of environmental protection standards, EQIP
support, etc. Within the current dialogue
concerning the 2007 Farm Bill there are nu-
merous groups with a range of proposals,
which if turned into law would make CAFOs
less viable at home and abroad and increase
the viability of alternative animal produc-
tion systems. Particularly deserving of at-
tention are efforts focused on public health,
the environment, and subsidy reform.
The legislature is in the early stages of
drafting the 2007 Farm Bill. Public hearings
have been held (as well as some initial com-
mittee hearings) and background papers
developed (see www.usda.gov/farmbill). It
was widely assumed that some major ele-
ments in the 2007 Farm Bill would be deter-
mined by the results of the Doha Round in
World Trade Organization (WTO) negotia-
tions, particularly the agreements on agri-
cultural subsidy reform. These talks
collapsed in part because the US would not
clarify the changes it would be willing to
make in domestic agricultural policy, mostly
subsidy reform.
Given the Doha collapse, one option is
to extend the 2002 Farm Bill frame. Howev-
er, at least three factors make this unlikely:
(1) The administration is seeking cuts in the
agriculture budget for deficit reduction; (2)
US subsidies make the US vulnerable in the
WTO Dispute Settlement Body (as in the
recent WTO Brazil Cotton Case); and (3)
many major NGO players are pushing for
significant reform in a coordinated way.
In the lead-up to the 2002 Farm Bill, the
NGO community—involving advocates of
conservation, organic and sustainable agri-
culture, family farms, etc.—split over a range
of sustainability issues. Thus no signifi-
cant reforms occurred. In the lead-up to the
2007 Farm Bill, many NGOs felt they needed
to better coordinate their efforts and clarify
lobbying priorities and strategies. Strong
examples of coordinated efforts and policy
strategies currently underway that would
weaken CAFOs over the long term include:
• W. K. Kellogg Foundation is fund-
ing the Farm and Food Policy Project
(FFPP) (see above).
• Some of the NGOs involved in the
FFPP have developed partnerships
on specific proposals that may af-
fect CAFOs, but are not part of the
“package” supported by FFPP.
These include American Farmland
Trust’s Agenda 2007 and the Na-
tional Family Farm Coalition’s Food
from Family Farms Act.
• The Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy is working with the Na-
tional Campaign for Sustainable Ag-
riculture’s Competition and
Concentration Committee, as well as
the Sustainable Agriculture Coali-
tion’s subcommittee on Competition
and several other NGOs, to push for
a Concentration Title in the next Farm
Bill that would reduce the concen-
tration of agricultural markets. This
title would include legislation to re-
form agricultural contract law, shift
subsidies that now favor discounts
on feed crops for industrial livestock
24
companies, and strengthen environ-
mental protection (see “Below-Cost
Feed Crops” below for more detail).
• Several international collaborations
of think-tanks and NGOs are devel-
oping proposals to enhance farmer
livelihoods, and these may spill over
into US Farm Bill work. Examples of
these are: the EcoFair Trade Dia-
log, sponsored by the Heinrich Boell
Foundation and the Wuppertal In-
stitute for Climate, Environment and
Energy; the Building Sustainable
Futures for Farmers Globally part-
nership among IATP, Rural Coalition,
Action Aid International, Federation
of Southern Cooperatives/Land As-
sistance Fund, Friends of the Earth;
and others.
The major “themes” of an anti-CAFO
campaign within the context of the Farm Bill
might include:
We need our conservative values
voters to get behind a Humane Farming
Act so that we can all quit averting our
eyes. This reform, a set of explicit federal
cruelty statutes with enforcement fund-
ing to back it up, would leave us with
farms we could imagine without wincing,
photograph without prosecution, and
explain without excuses.
The law would uphold not only the
elementary standards of animal husband-
ry but also of veterinary ethics, follow-
ing no more complicated a principle than
that pigs and cows should be able to walk
and turn around, fowl to move about and
spread their wings, and all creatures to
know the feel of soil and grass and the
warmth of the sun. No need for labels
saying “free-range” or “humanely
raised.” They will all be raised that way.
They all get to be treated like animals and
not as unfeeling machines.
On a date certain, mass confinement,
sow gestation crates, veal crates, battery
cages, and all such innovations would
be prohibited. This will end livestock ag-
riculture’s moral race to the bottom and
turn the ingenuity of its scientists toward
compassionate solutions. It will remove
1. Quit making taxpayers subsidize the
factory farm. Make CAFOs pay a fair
price for corn and soy.
2. Change diets to emphasize foods low-
er on the food chain (grains, vegeta-
bles, etc.) The obesity epidemic,
chronic disease risk, is due primarily to
a high meat, fat, processed food, and
refined sweets diet. Nutrients are be-
ing diluted and we are breeding super
bugs.
3. Make polluters pay. Factory farms are
a major source of pollution—in manure
runoff and greenhouse gases.
4. Provide decent rights and livelihoods
for workers.
5. Treat animals humanely.
6. Stop economic concentration and in-
ternalize social and environmental
the federal support that unnaturally
serves agribusiness at the expense of
small farms. And it will shift economies
of scale, turning the balance in favor of
humane farmers—as those who run com-
panies like Wal-Mart could do right now
by taking their business away from facto-
ry farms.
In all cases, the law would apply to
corporate farmers a few simple rules that
better men would have been observing
all along: we cannot just take from these
creatures, we must give them something
in return. We owe them a merciful death,
and we owe them a merciful life. And when
human beings cannot do something hu-
manely, without degrading both the crea-
tures and ourselves, then we should not
do it at all.
This excerpt is taken from Scully,
Matthew. 2005. “Fear Factories.” The
American Conservative, May 23, pp. 12-
14. Matthew Scully served until Fall
2004 as special assistant and deputy di-
rector of speechwriting to President
George W. Bush. He is the author of Do-
minion: The Power of Man, the Suffering
of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.
Fall 2006
costs into pricing and tax structures.
7. Provide incentives for farmers and
ranchers to make transitions into hu-
mane, sustainable extensive animal pro-
duction systems; encourage
development of markets for their prod-
ucts; and support value chains that dis-
tribute such products with business
loans, research, and appropriate infra-
structure.
The following are examples of Farm Bill
opportunities within specific titles:1
a) Conservation Title (e.g., revise EQIP to
prohibit use by CAFOs to address water
quality problems)
b) Rural Development Title (e.g., target
Value-added Producer Grants for produc-
ers using humane and sustainable animal
production methods; provide Rural Strate-
gic Investment Program funds to communi-
ties seeking alternatives to CAFOs;
Value-Added Agricultural Product Market-
ing Development Grants for products based
on humane and sustainable animal produc-
tion methods; Farmworker Training grants
for farmworkers in facilities using humane
and sustainable animal production meth-
ods)
c) Agricultural Research Title (e.g., add
humane and sustainable animal production
methods to high-priority research and ex-
tension initiatives; establish Beginning
Rancher Program in humane and sustain-
able animal production methods)
d) Miscellaneous (e.g., program to subsi-
dize transition to more humane production
methods, comparable to the Organic Tran-
sition Program, cost-share for labeling as
hormone-free/antibiotic-free or a compara-
ble HSUS supported certification)
Two additional issues which are likely
to affect the amount of acreage now devot-
ed to feed crops and the cost of feed (which
will influence agribusiness decisions about
expanding CAFOs) are biofuel development
and global climate change. The explicit link
between CAFOs and increasing biofuels
production has not yet been analyzed. The
Fall 2006
uncertainty associated with exactly where
and how quickly global climate change will
affect food and feed systems (and competi-
tion for resources devoted to food, feed or
fuel) has impeded predictions about how it
will affect feedstocks.
Dr. Richard M. Clugston is executive
director of the Center for Respect of Life
and Environment (CRLE), and publisher
and editor of Earth Ethics. He directs the
Association of University Leaders for a Sus-
tainable Future (ULSF) and is on the
Earth Charter International Council of
Trustees.
Wynn Calder is associate director of
CRLE and ULSF.
Molly Anderson consults on science
and public policy for Food Systems Integ-
rity (Arlington, Massachusetts). She man-
ages a national project to identify and
pilot-test indicators of sustainable, com-
munity-based food systems; and she coor-
dinates research for the national Farm &
Food Policy Project, which is focused on
the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization.
1
The suggestions above are for example
only. It would be very important before pro-
ceeding further to determine which organi-
zations are already working on reforms
similar to these suggestions, and coordi-
nate with them to avoid either missed op-
portunities or conflicting messages.
Below Cost-Feed
Crops
by Dennis Olson
I
ndustrial animal factories are benefiting from a reduction of
around 15 percent on their most significant operating costs.
Assuming that feed accounts for 50-65 percent of operating
costs for poultry and hog products, these corporations’ overall
costs could be as much as 7-10 percent high-
er if they compensated farmers fairly for the
feed components that they produce.
Another way to look at it is through
the subsidy lens. Between 2000 and 2004,
an average of $4.5 billion in US government
support went to corn each year, and $2 bil-
lion to soy, to partially compensate farmers
for low market prices that have been forced
well below the cost of production. Around
60 percent of corn and 47 percent of soy
produced in the United States is used in
domestic livestock production for feed. That
works out to over $3.6 billion each year, or
$18 billion over five years, in implicit input
subsidies to industrial animal factories that
purchased most of these cheap feedgrains.
Half of the soy produced in the United
States, and more than half of the corn, is fed
to domestic livestock. Vertically integrated
multinational agribusinesses export most of
the rest of US corn and soy production to
be fed to industrial livestock facilities in oth-
er countries. These two major feed crops
are among the most heavily subsidized.
Tipping the Balance
After more than a decade, US agricul-
tural market deregulation has facilitated the
vertical integration, consolidation, and in-
dustrialization of the US livestock sector.
At the same time, deregulation has failed to
reduce direct government subsidy pay-
ments; failed to increase overall US export
market shares; and failed to provide a fair
price to farmers or to bring economic pros-
perity to rural communities. It is time to re-
think this destructive policy. Lawmakers
should instead consider policies that would
curtail costly and unsustainable overpro-
duction of feedgrains and oilseeds, fairly
25
compensate farmers by bringing market pric-
es for feed closer to actual production costs,
and break up the growing market power
wielded by a small number of vertically in-
tegrated industrial livestock corporations.
Such policies could include, but are not lim-
ited to, the following:
1. Bolster anti-trust enforcement to re-
verse current trends towards the concen-
tration of agricultural markets by: banning
packer ownership of feedlots; restoring
price discovery and market transparency
through the reform of captive supply con-
tracts; prohibiting undue preference for
“Half of the soy produced in
the United States, and more
than half of the corn, is fed
to domestic livestock.”
certain buyers over others; closing loop-
holes that exempt poultry producers from
protection under the Packers and Stock-
yards Act; closing loopholes in the Agri-
cultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 to allow
livestock producers to join producer orga-
nizations to negotiate livestock contracts
with processors without being threatened
with retribution; and securing increased
funding for more effective enforcement of
all antitrust laws.
2. Provide farmers with new economic
incentives to shift existing industrial
monoculture crop acreage into sustainable
26
biomass crop reserves that would help
curtail overproduction of feedgrains and
oilseed crops and reduce US dependence
on unsustainable energy sources.
3. Expand conservation, wetlands and
grassland reserve programs to reduce the
overproduction of feedgrains and oilseeds
on marginal lands and to restore biodiver-
sity.
4. Establish regional emergency food re-
serves to help stabilize prices for farmers
and ensure against food shortages during
droughts, floods and other crop disasters.
5. Replace loan deficiency payments with
non-recourse loans. This switch would re-
establish a price floor for major commodi-
ties; reduce government subsidy
payments; allow farmers to receive more of
their income from the marketplace; curtail
costly and unsustainable overproduction;
and reduce current levels of US agricultural
dumping on world markets.
6. Reform federal food procurement pro-
grams—such as the school lunch program—
to allow preferential purchasing of locally
grown food and increase farm-to-school
programs.
7. Ban all direct government subsidies to
industrial animal factories—including a ban
on any Environmental Quality Incentives
Program payments.
8. Strengthen and more effectively en-
force environmental laws to require indus-
trial animal factories to pay to reduce the
air, land and water pollution caused by their
operations.
It is time we recognize that corporate
agribusinesses, not farmers, are the main
beneficiaries of US policies that have driv-
en the price of feed below what it costs farm-
ers to produce. The expiration of the current
Farm Bill in 2007 provides an historic op-
portunity to formulate a new approach to
US agriculture policy. The changes outlined
above would effectively reduce current
market distortions that provide unfair eco-
nomic advantages to unsustainable, corpo-
rately owned industrial animal factories, and
tip the scale back towards more sustain-
able, decentralized livestock production
based on independently owned, diversified
family farmers whose economic output sus-
tains resilient and prosperous rural commu-
nities.
Excerpted from: Olson, D. 2006. Be-
low-Cost Feed Crops: An Indirect Subsidy
for Industrial Animal Factories. Minneapo-
lis, MN: Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy, IATP Trade and Global Governance
Program, June 15. To view the full text, go
Four Countervailing Forces to the Industrialization of Production
First, the comparative advantages of econ-
omies of scale of industrial pig and poul-
try production might disappear if the
“polluter pays” principle is invoked in the
developing world and the environmental
costs of excess nutrient emissions are ap-
plied.
Second, the recent outbreaks of pan-
demics such as classical swine fever or
foot-and-mouth disease have focused
consumer attention on the negative sides
of intensive production. In Europe this is
leading to reduced consumption and pro-
active policies to promote more extensive
production methods, although the persis-
tence of these trends is unclear.
Third, because of the shift to grain-
based pig and poultry production, the
large increase in global feed requirements
could increase grain prices and thus re-
Fall 2006
to www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?
accountlD=258&reflD=88122. Reprint-
ed with permission.
R. Dennis Olson is the director of
IATP’s Trade and Agriculture Project,
which advocates for farmers and peasants
both in the US and around the world with-
in the context of global trade debates. Mr.
Olson works on US agricultural trade pol-
icy among domestic and international ru-
ral advocacy and other social justice
networks.
verse the balance from grain feeding to
grass-based systems, or lower consump-
tion levels.
Fourth, intensive systems require
more energy per kilogram of meat than
the more extensive land-based systems,
mainly because of the high energy and
water requirements for feed production.
Increases in the price of energy would
shift the balance back to grass-based
systems.
Excerpted from: de Haan, C., T.
Schillhorn van Veen, B. Brandenburg, J.
Gauthier, F. Le Gall, R. Mearns, and M.
Simeon, 2001. Livestock Development:
Implications for Rural Poverty, the Envi-
ronment, and Global Food Security. Wash-
ington, DC: World Bank.
Fall 2006
Animals and People First: Why
Good Animal Welfare is
Important for Feeding People, for
Trade and for the Future
by Michael Appleby
Agriculture and the WTO
Agriculture is vital to every country in
the world. It feeds people, it earns income
and it has many other impacts. For these
reasons, the member countries of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) negotiate the
Agreement on Agriculture (WTO, 1995) to
regulate agricultural trade.
Livestock contributes to both the po-
tential and the problems of agriculture. Meat
and animal products are important in peo-
ple’s diet and also valuable trade goods.
However, manure can cause pollution. One
other issue receiving increased attention is
the welfare of farm animals: this is a matter
of public concern in many countries, par-
ticularly in Europe (Eurobarometer, 2005).
This paper explains why attention to farm
animal welfare can help agriculture to feed
people, to promote trade and to prevent
future problems such as pollution—and
why it therefore needs to be considered in
the Agreement on Agriculture.
Animal Welfare and Food Security
In most cases in most countries, im-
proving the treatment of animals (for exam-
ple by protecting them from disease, heat
or cold) also improves their productivity:
“Look after your animals and they will look
after you.” Experience shows, though, that
farmers do not always recognise such op-
portunities. It is useful to discuss the im-
portance of animal care, to help them provide
food for themselves, their families and oth-
ers (Rollin, 2004). Food security is best
achieved by growing food on a local basis for
the people who need it, such as people in
rural areas. If farms are fairly small, complex
infrastructure is not needed and people can
be helped to look after their animals well and
productively, feeding themselves and also
earning some income (Pretty and Hine, 2001).
By contrast, some countries are build-
ing large, intensive farms, partly because
these are thought to have provided “cheap
food” in developed countries. All too of-
ten, though, these do not provide food se-
curity in developing countries: the meat
they produce is too expensive for the really
poor and hungry, and such giant farms de-
stroy the job structure and social stability
of agriculture-based societies. In Brazil, for
example, intensification of the poultry in-
dustry is driving thousands of small, family
farms out of business (Garcés, 2002). De-
veloping countries should also be wary of
donations or exports of “cheap food” from
developed countries (only apparently
cheap, because of subsidies), that under-
mine the ability of local farmers to feed their
own country’s people (Hodges, 2005).
“Intensive farms need huge
supplies of feed and water to
be transported in from
elsewhere....”
Animal Welfare and Trade
As improving welfare also generally im-
proves productivity (McInerney, 1998), this
benefits export as well as home consump-
tion for most countries.
That is less true, though, for developed
countries. Many consumers in Europe say
that they favour organic food and methods
of production that benefit animal welfare
such as free range (Eurobarometer, 2005).
Land prices and labour are costly in Eu-
rope, so producing organic and high-wel-
fare food is expensive.
27
Many developing countries have ex-
tensive land and relatively cheap labour.
These can give them a competitive advan-
tage in agricultural trade, especially if they
target the high-value organic and welfare
markets in Europe. Thus countries in Afri-
ca, Latin America and elsewhere may be
able to sell into these niche markets with
little change to their agriculture. This is be-
cause many aspects of their treatment of
animals—such as giving them plenty of
space—are already those that people in
developed countries prefer.
Developing countries may receive
trade-related assistance and capacity build-
ing for access to niche markets including
high welfare, under the Green Box of the
Agreement on Agriculture (RSPCA, Devel-
oping Animal Welfare, 2005).
Developed countries are allowed to
help their farmers to improve welfare under
the Rural Development Programme (Euro-
group, 2005). Other support should also be
possible under the Green Box, as it should
not distort trade (or should do so minimal-
ly). In such countries improving welfare will
probably reduce production, and competi-
tors will gain even more advantage from
cheap land and labour (RSPCA, Getting
Animal Welfare, 2005).
Animal Welfare and the Future
Taking care of animal welfare can also
help to protect the environment and there-
fore the future sustainability of food pro-
duction (Garcés, 2002). Handled properly,
livestock can be an important part of land
management, including eating vegetation
unsuitable for human consumption and fer-
tilizing the soil. By contrast, intensive farm-
ing is often inhumane to animals, and is
environmentally unsustainable: these are
reasons why many developed countries are
beginning to recognize that intensification
was a mistake and redeveloping extensive
methods. Intensive farms need huge sup-
plies of feed and water to be transported in
from elsewhere in the country or even
abroad, much of which could otherwise have
been used for people. Water shortages are
widely predicted to be one of the major prob-
lems of the current century (Second World
Water Forum, 2000). Intensive farms pro-
duce huge quantities of manure, with dan-
gerous concentrations of minerals and
biologically active compounds, and all too
28
frequently these result in soil and water
pollution (Pretty, et al., 2000). Livestock kept
in extensive conditions use local resources
and recycle the productivity of the land.
Methods used in intensive farming may
also increase the chance of diseases that
are bad for both animals and people, and
add to pressures on the viability of farming.
Such methods contributed to the develop-
ment of Mad Cow Disease (BSE). Keeping
large numbers of animals close together in-
creases spread of organisms causing food
poisoning. For example, there are about
73,000 human infections and 60 deaths from
E. coli in the USA each year, many from in-
fected animal products. In addition, when
diseases such as Foot & Mouth or Avian
Influenza do break out on large farms, they
affect very large numbers of animals
(Garcés, 2002). It is clear that “Humane farm-
ing is sustainable, sustainable farming is
humane”(Appleby, 2005).
Europe buys about one-third of Namib-
ia’s beef exports, and this is increasing be-
cause the Farm Assured Namibian Meat
Scheme ensures lack of disease and artifi-
cial hormones, and protection of animal
welfare and the environment. The EU pro-
vided trade-related assistance and capaci-
ty building for this programme (RSPCA,
Developing, 2005).
The EU is helping to fund training and
support programmes for slaughterhouses
in East Africa. This assists in improving
hygiene and low-stress handling of animals,
for better meat quality and increased exports
(African Development, 2005).
The EU offers farmers a Rural Devel-
opment Programme that is not intended to
increase production but to enhance sustain-
ability including animal welfare (Eurogroup,
Fall 2006
2005). In 2005 stockkeepers in Scotland can Dr. Michael Appleby took a BS in zo-
apply for grants towards training in veteri- ology at the University of Bristol and a
nary health schemes. PhD in animal behavior from the Universi-
Farmers in Wales have received pay- ty of Cambridge. He carried out research
ments for improving sustainability and an- at the Poultry Research Center in Scotland
imal welfare. These are not trade-distorting: and the University of Edinburgh for 20
if anything they reduce production, be- years on behavior, husbandry and welfare
cause one criterion is keeping stocking den- of farm animals, with publications includ-
sity low. They should therefore qualify as ing five books as author, co-author, or ed-
Green Box payments (Ibid.). itor. From 2001 to 2005 he was head of the
Farm Animals and Sustainable Agriculture
Conclusions section of The Humane Society of the Unit-
• All WTO stakeholders need better under- ed States in Washington, DC. Dr. Appleby
standing of farm animal welfare. Emphasis is currently the welfare policy adviser to
and interpretation of this subject will always the World Society for the Protection of An-
differ between countries. However, humane imals, based in London, UK.
treatment of animals is never inappropriate.
• Payments to support farmers’ costs in im-
proving welfare (and not other production African Development Bank Group. 2005.
costs) are not trade-distorting (or are mini- “Livestock and Rural Livelihoods Support
mally so) and should be allowed under the Project Appraisal Report.” Agriculture &
Green Box. Rural Development Department.
• Trade-related assistance and capacity www.afdb.org
building could provide much increased ac-
cess for developing countries to niche mar- Appleby, M. 2005. “Sustainable Agriculture
kets in developed countries, in organic and is Humane; Humane Agriculture is Sustain-
high-welfare animal products. These should able.” J Agricultural and Environmental
also be developed under the Green Box. Ethics 18: 293.
• Food safety is paramount and consumers
increasingly care about other aspects of Eurobarometer survey. 2005. Attitudes of
how their food is produced. Labelling pro- Consumers Towards the Welfare of Farmed
grammes should be expanded to give con- Animals. Brussels: European Commission.
sumers information about their food.
• All these approaches are even more ap-
propriate to bilateral and regional agree-
ments than to multilateral agreements.
• Giving consideration to farm animal wel-
fare—whether in theoretical agreements or
in practical farming—can improve the lives
of both animals and people, as well as pro-
tecting the environment.
This paper was produced in 2005 in
consultation with colleagues in Argenti-
na, Colombia, Costa Rica, EU, India, Ja-
pan, Mexico, South Africa and USA. For
further information, contact Dr. Michael
Appleby: michaelappleby@wspa.org.uk.
World Society for the Protection of Ani-
mals, Eurogroup for Animal Welfare and
RSPCA, 89 Albert Embankment, London
SE1 7TP, UK.
Fall 2006
Eurogroup for Animal Welfare. 2005. Into
the Fold: Creating Incentives for Improved
Animal Welfare Under the Rural Develop-
ment Regulation. Brussels: Eurogroup for
Animal Welfare.
Garcés, L. D. 2002. The Detrimental Impacts
of Industrial Animal Agriculture. Peters-
field, UK: Compassion in World Farming
Trust.
Hodges, J. 2005. “Cheap Food and Feeding
the World Sustainably.” Livestock Produc-
tion Science 92:1.
McInerney, J. P. 1998. “The Economics of
Welfare.” In A. R. Michell and R. Ewbank,
eds. Ethics, Welfare, Law and Market Forc-
es: The Veterinary Interface. Wheathamp-
stead: Universities Federation for Animal
Welfare.
Pretty, J., et al. 2000. “An Assessment of
the Total External Costs of UK Agriculture.”
Agricultural Systems 65:113.
Pretty, J. and R.E. Hine. 2001. Reducing
Food Poverty with Sustainable Agricul-
ture. London, UK: Department of Interna-
tional Development.
Rollin, B. E. 2004. “The Ethical Imperative
to Control Pain and Suffering in Farm Ani-
mals.” In G. J. Benson and B. E. Rollin, eds.
The Well-Being of Farm Animals: Chal-
lenges and Solutions. Ames, IA: Blackwell.
RSPCA & Eurogroup for Animal Welfare.
2005. Developing Animal Welfare: The Op-
portunities for Trade in High Welfare Prod-
ucts from Developing Countries. Horsham:
RSPCA.
RSPCA & Eurogroup for Animal Welfare.
2005. Getting Animal Welfare into the Green
Box. Horsham: RSPCA.
Second World Water Forum. 2000. World
Water Challenges for the Twenty-first Cen-
tury. www.waternunc.com
World Trade Organization. 1995. Agreement
on Agriculture. Geneva: WTO.
Resources on Industrial
Agriculture and Humane
Sustainable Food Systems
The following online and published
resources may be helpful for designing
food-related curricula and for establishing
sustainable food practices within
educational institutions and religious
organizations.
Websites
International:
• Compassion in World Farming
(www.ciwf.org.uk/index.shtml)
• Environmental Health Perspective
( w w w. e h p o n l i n e . o r g / t o p i c /
agriculture.html)
• Food and Agricultural Organization
of the United Nations (www.fao.org)
• Food First: Institute for Food and
Development Policy (www.food
first.org/)
• Future Harvest (www.future
harvest.org/)
• International Food Policy Research
Institute (IFPRI) (www.ifpri.org)
• International Fund for Agricultural
Development (www.ifad.org/)
• World Health Organization
(www.who.int/en/)
• World Resources Institute
(www.wri.org/)
• World Society for the Protection of
Animals (www.wspa-international.
org/)
• Worldwatch Institute (www.world
watch.org)
Find your local farmers’ market:
www.ams.usda.gov/farmersmarkets/map.htm
US Focused:
• Alterative Farming Systems
Information Center (http://
afsic.nal.usda.gov)
• Center for Food Safety
(www.centerforfoodsafety.org/)
29
• Community Alliance with Family
Farmers (www.caff.org/)
• Community Food Security Coalition
(www.foodsecurity.org/)
• Ecological Farming Association
(www.eco-farm.org/)
• Factory Farming (www.factory
farming.org)
• Food Security Learning Center
(www.worldhungeryear.org/fslc/)
• The Humane Society of the United
States (www.hsus.org/farm/)
• Institute for Agriculture and Trade
Policy (www.iatp.org/)
• Keep Antibiotics Working Campaign
(www.keepantibioticsworking.com)
• National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture (www.sustainable
agriculture.net/)
• National Sustainable Agriculture
Information Service (http://
attra.ncat.org/)
• The New Farm (www.newfarm.org)
• Organic Consumers Association
(www.organicconsumers.org/)
• Pesticide Action Network of North
America (www.panna.org/)
• Public Citizen (www.citizen.org/cmep/
foodsafety/)
• Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org)
• Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education (www.sare.org)
• Sustainable Table (www.sustainable
table.org)
• Union of Concerned Scientists
( w w w. u c s u s a . o r g / f o o d _ a n d _
environment/)
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
(www.usda.gov)
30
Publications
Audirac, I., ed. 1997. Rural Sustainable
Development in America. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Berry, W. 1996. The Unsettling of America:
Culture and Agriculture. University of
California Press.
Berry, W. 1990. “The Pleasures of Eating.”
From the volume of essays entitled: What
Are People For? New York: North Point
Press.
Cook, C. 2004. Diet for a Dead Planet: How
the Food Industry is Killing Us. New York:
The New Press.
Goodall, J. 2005. Harvest for Hope: A Guide
to Mindful Eating. New York: Warner
Books.
Greger, M. 2006. Bird Flu: A Virus of Our
Own Hatching. New York: Lantern Books.
Kaiser, M. and M. E. Lien, eds. 2006. Ethics
and the Politics of Food. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Wageningen Academic
Publishers.
Kimbrell, A., ed. 2002. Fatal Harvest: The
Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.
Washington: Island Press.
Lappé, F. M. and A. Lappé. 2003. Hope’s
Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet.
New York: The Penguin Group.
Magdoff, F., J.B. Foster, and F.H. Buttel.
2000. Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness
Threat to Farmers, Food, and the
Environment. New York: Monthly Review
Press.
Marie, M., S. Edwards, G. Gandini, M. Reiss
and E. von Borell, eds. 2005. Animal
Bioethics: Principles and Teaching
Where can you purchase local, organic, humane,
and sustainable food near you?
www.localharvest.org/
www.eatwellguide.org/
Methods. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: Wageningen
Academic Publishers.
McLaughlin, Martin M. and J.
Conger. 2002. World Food
Security: A Catholic View of
Food Policy in the New
Millennium. Center of Concern.
Midkiff, K. 2004. The Meat You
Eat: How Corporate Farming
Has Endangered America’s Food
Supply. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Nestle, M. 2006. What to Eat. North Point
Press.
Nestle, M. 2002. Food Politics. University
of California Press.
Nierenberg, D. 2005. Happier Meals:
Rethinking the Global Meat Industry.
Worldwatch Paper 171.
Norberg-Hodge, H., P. Goering, and J. Page.
2000. From the Ground Up: Rethinking
Industrial Agriculture. United Kingdom:
ISEC and Zed Books.
Norberg-Hodge, H., et al. 2002. Bringing
the Food Economy Home: Local
Alternatives to Global Agribusiness.
United Kingdom: Zed Books and Kumarian
Press.
Pollan, M. 2006 The Omnivore’s Dilemma:
A Natural History of Four Meals. New York:
The Penguin Press.
Regenstein, L. 2006. The Bible’s Teachings
on Protecting Animals and Nature. Atlanta,
GA : Interfaith Council for the Protection of
Animals and Nature.
Robbins, J. 2001. The Food Revolution:
How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life
Fall 2006
and Our World. York Beach, ME: Conari
Press.
Satya. September 2006. “Killing Us Softly?”
Schlosser, E. 2001. Fast Food Nation. New
York: Houghton Mifflin, 172-78; 187-90.
Schlosser, E. and C. Wilson. 2006. Chew on
This. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Schut, M., ed. 2002. Food and Faith: Justice,
Joy and Daily Bread. Denver, CO: Living
the Good News.
Scully, M. 2002. The Power of Man, the
Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Scully, M. 2005. “Fear Factories: The Case
for Compassionate Conservatism—for
Animals.” American Conservative. 23 May,
7-14.
Shiva, V. 2000. Stolen Harvest: The
Hijacking of the Global Food Supply.
Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Singer, P. and J. Mason. 2006. The Way We
Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter.
Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
The Nation. September 11, 2006. “The Food
Issue.” 283(7).
Faith and Food Partnerships, Programs and
Campaigns
Campaign for Fair Food
The Campaign for Fair Food is an ongoing
effort of the Presbyterian Church (USA), in
partnership with farmworkers from the
Fall 2006
Sustainable Table is an
introduction to issues
surrounding today’s
agricultural system and what
is happening with our food,
in particular, the meat supply.
www.sustainabletable.org
Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), to
establish purchasing practices within the
retail food industry that advance fair wages
and other human rights of tomato pickers
who labor at the base of corporate supply
chains.
www.pcusa.org/fairfood
Faith in Place: Stronger Congregations
for a Sustainable World
Faith in Place is a non-profit organization
that gives religious people the tools to
become good stewards of the earth. They
partner with religious congregations to
promote clean energy and sustainable
farming.
www.faithinplace.org
Faithful Harvest Campaign
An Eco-Justice program of the National
Council of Churches of Christ, Faithful
Harvest is a grass roots movement to
transform the US food system, via policy,
organizing, mission, advocacy, and worship,
We invite you to
become a Friend of
the Center for
Respect of Life
and Environment.
As a Friend, you
will receive a full
description of our
mission and programs, as well as
reduced rates for CRLE conferences and
selected publications. You will also
receive a year’s subscription to Earth
Ethics. Please join us in encouraging
the development of earth ethics and
humane sustainable practices.
31
into a food system that rights the injustices process and market food according to
of current practices. religious teachings and ethics.
www.nccecojustice.org www.sacred-foods.org
Interfaith Food and Farms Partnership
A project of Ecumenical Ministries of Higher Education Programs and Initiatives
Oregon and Interfaith Network for Earth Portland State University – making food
Concerns, the Interfaith Food & Farms services humane and sustainable through
Partnership strives to empower faith a new contract with food service giant,
communities, farmers and neighborhoods Sodexho. For more information on PSU’s
to build rural-urban alliances and create food contract, see www.pdx.edu/
innovative partnerships for just and sustainability/cs_downloads.html
sustainable food systems. (contract documents) and www.psudining.
www.emoregon.org com/community.html (Sodexho programs at
PSU).
The National Catholic Rural Life
Conference (NCRLC) University of California Santa Cruz –
NCRLC is a membership organization with strategic partnerships for advancing
a strong focus on agriculture and food education, research, and institutional
issues. Initiatives include: Agribusiness change toward creating sustainable food
Accountability Initiative, an open forum on systems. See information on campus-based
the impact of agribusiness conglomerates
on farmers and ranchers, rural landscapes
and food security; Global Partners in
Rural Life Development, a global
network of organizations and training
centers devoted to sustainable
agriculture, livelihoods, and the
environment; and Sustainable
Communities on the Land, which
provides resources for rural
communities seeking sustainability
and a database of religious
communities on the land.
www.ncrlc.com
Sacred Foods Project
The Sacred Foods Project is an
interfaith effort to promote greater
understanding about how to grow,
___ $20 I wish to become a Friend of the Center (includes two issues of Earth Ethics).*
___ New ___ Renewal
___ $ ______ Please accept this contribution to CRLE and Earth Ethics.
*For postage: Canada, add $3.00; other foreign add $6.00. Thank you.
Name ______________________________________________________________
Street ______________________________________________________________
City _____________________________ State _______ Zip ____________________
Country __________________ Email ______________________________________
___ Check enclosed or
Charge my: __ Discover __ Visa __ Mastercard __ American Express
Card Number ____________________________________ Exp. Date ____________
Name as it appears on card _______________________________________________
Signature ___________________________________________________________
32
initiatives and statewide developments at:
http://socialsciences.ucsc.edu/casfs/
farm2college/index.html
University of New Hampshire Food &
Society Initiative – actively engaging the
university community in local and
sustainable agriculture and nutrition
projects, such as a New Hampshire farm-
to-school program, an organic dairy farm,
and a commitment to cage-free eggs.
www.sustainableunh.unh.edu/fas/
Community Food Security Coalition
Farm-to-College Programs – a main
resource and spring board for existing farm-
to-college programs nationwide.
www.farmtocollege.org/
Certification Information
• Humane – www.certifiedhumane.com
• Organic – www.ams.usda.gov/nop/
indexIE.htm; www.ccof.org
• Fair Trade – www.transfairusa.org;
www.fairtrade.net
• Local Sourcing – www.food routes.org
• Other/Third-Party Certification
Food Alliance – www.food alliance.org
Center for Respect of Life and Environment
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED
Printed with soy inks on 100%
post-consumer recycled paper.
Curriculum Resources
Just Eating? Practicing Our Faith at the
Table
This seven-session curriculum for
congregational discussion groups, written
by Jennifer Halteman, explores the links
between the way we eat and the way we
live. Skillfully weaving scripture, prayer, and
stories from our local and global community,
the curriculum explores four key aspects of
our relationship with food: the health of our
bodies; the challenge of hunger; the health
of the earth that provides our food; and the
ways we use food to extend hospitality and
enrich relationships.
www.pcusa.org/hunger/food
Rethinking School Lunch (RSL)
The RSL program uses a systems approach
to address the crisis in childhood obesity,
provide nutrition education, and teach
ecological knowledge.
www.ecoliteracy.org/programs/rsl.html
Youth-Based Curriculum and Programs
developed by the Food Project
Includes “French Fries and the Food
System: A Year Round Curriculum
Connecting Youth with Farming and Food”
and a manual series on the principles,
structures, and philosophies vital to the
success of any youth-based program.
www.thefoodproject.org/buy/internal1.
asp?ID=144
Fall 2006
Teaching Organic Farming & Gardening:
Resources for Instructors
Published in 2003 by the UC Santa Cruz
Center for Agroecology and Sustainable
Food Systems, this 600-page manual covers
practical aspects of organic farming and
gardening, applied soil science, and social
and environmental issues in agriculture.
Units contain lecture outlines for instructors
and detailed lecture outlines for students,
field and laboratory demonstrations,
assessment questions, and annotated
resource lists.
http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/casfs/education/
instruction/tofg/index.html
Teaching Direct Marketing and Small
Farm Viability: Resources for Instructors
Published in 2005, these resources are
organized into six units, three focusing on
marketing and three covering other topics
related to making a small farm economically
viable. Included are lessons and resources
for running a community supported
agriculture (CSA) project, selling at farmers’
markets, forming collaborative marketing
groups and grower cooperatives, and selling
to restaurants. Also covered are strategies
to improve small farm planning, including
enterprise visioning and market assessment;
creating a business plan, including
marketing and crop plans; and managing
cash flow.
http://zzyx.ucsc.edu/casfs/education/
instruction/tdm/index.html
Non-Profit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 1047
Washington, DC