The Nation: There is an alternative to unhealthy eating and irresponsible development schemes.

article | posted December 3, 2007 (web only)
Civic Agriculture = Sane Housing
Nevin Cohen


Gridlock in the Senate has diminished the chances of new farm legislation by year's end. Unless a compromise emerges very soon, the Farm Bill will be tabled until 2008 or after the presidential election. But the setback is only temporary: despite delays in funding for important nutrition and environmental programs, there is growing support for shifting tax dollars from agribusiness to family farmers and overhauling the farm subsidy program.

Indeed, the seeds of true reform are being sown throughout the country, as consumers are forging closer connections to farmers and developing a deeper policy interest in agricultural issues. Increasingly, Americans are buying food at farmers' markets or directly from farms through community-supported agriculture programs. State and local officials are adopting policies to expand farming in and around our nation's cities. A large cross-section of chefs, college students, community activists, and farmers are redesigning the food systems in their institutions, communities and regions. With more Americans developing relationships with family farmers and consuming farm-fresh food, many are questioning the large subsidies for commodity crops, which often rely on unsustainable farming techniques and make unhealthy food more abundant and inexpensive than fruits and vegetables.

This affinity between consumers and farmers has even encouraged real estate developers to build communities that blend working farms into the suburban landscape. From Massachusetts to California, subdivisions that include farms have sprouted, countering conventional notions that farmers and homeowners don't mix. Incorporating small farms into residential developments provides multiple benefits to everyone living in the community, not to mention profits for the developers. And unlike typical subdivisions, these farmland subdivisions have numerous potential environmental benefits, including land conservation, land restoration (if organic growing methods are used) and reduced reliance on food transported from distant sources. The social benefits are significant too. Residents in developments with shared open spaces report that they meet and connect with their neighbors on a regular basis.

Bringing homeowners and farmers together in a cohesive community, these developments reduce the physical and emotional distance between food producers and consumers that has widened in recent years. Small clusters of global firms control food production, processing and marketing with lengthy supply chains that stretch, on average, 1,500 "food miles" from farm to plate. Farming subdivisions shorten the supply chain to a ten minute walk to the farm-stand. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/cohen

As my partner says, "Building bridges between farmers and eaters is a revolutionary act."

By the way, I would like to encourage everyone to use the term "eater" instead of "consumer" when talking about food. "Consumer" is a corporatist term that implies that only those with money may participate. "Eater" is totally egalitarian - everyone eats, and the word doesn't link that act to your wallet.

But my sister and BIL in WI have belonged to one for about 5 years and love it.

really possible? Seriously.

I like the idea - heck, I love the idea - but it is tied to location as much as anything else.

Cities can change (over time) if they exist in areas that have conditions that ALLOW productive farming - but what if they don't? Should the people who live in those places just leave?

The western US is defined by aridity. Yes, farming, even commercial farming takes place, but it can only do so with extensive irrigation, which is in and of itself is not an ecologically sound practice and depends on a myriad number of factors (weather/technology/etc) to function properly. Jefferson may have wanted us to be a nation of farmers, but he never got a good look at the west. :)

Does anyone know how this concept is supposed to function outside the "natural" growing areas of the nation?

It won't be possible to do this everywhere, especially in dense urban cores. The value of articles like this, IMO, is in the underlying idea rather than the specifics of implementation. The underlying idea is, "We need to get back as close to our food supply as possible." For some people that might be doing urban gardening in backyard or community gardens), others might join a CSA or lobby their municipality for zoning changes to permit agricultural operations. All of us can check the origin of the food we buy, eat local when available, eat more organic food, and reduce our meat consumption.

The specifics aren't important. What is important is to rebuild the bridges between farmers and eaters in any and every way possible.

use of water, IIRC. By increasing organic matter in soil, it allows the soil to hold more water. Mulching is a great conserver, too. Most grains are dryland crops, IIRC. Corn being the exception.