Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment

8/8/2019 Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment

1/32

1Fall 2006

Vol. 14, No. 2 Fall 2006

(continued on page 3)

Food and Faithby Michael Schut

This issue ofEarth 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.

o connect food and faith, we must explore and celebrate

foods sacramentality. In doing so, we need to look

beyond the food itself to examine how it grew, was pro-

cessed and made its way to our table. Wendell Berry

Tsummarizes this perspective beautifully:

We can[not] live harmlessly or

strictly at our own expense; we

depend upon other creatures and

survive by their deaths. To live, we

must daily break the body and shed

the blood of creation. The point is,

when we do this knowingly, lov-

ingly, skillfully, reverently, it is a

sacrament; when we do it ignorant-

ly, greedily, clumsily, destructive-

ly, it is a desecration in such

desecration, we condemn our-

selves to spiritual and moral lone-liness, and others to want (1983,

1981).

In suggesting that food can be sac-

ramental, I recognize that, in the Christian

tradition, the Churchformally celebrates

seven sacraments. (Protestants general-

ly have two sacraments, Communion and

Baptism. Catholics have these two plus

five others: Confirmation, Reconciliation,

the Sacrament of the Sick, Ordination, and

Marriage.) But the Christian tradition also

celebrates informalsacramental momentsin everyday life. Consider the apostle Paul

speaking to the Athenians in Acts 17:

Godis not far from each one of us. For in

God we live and move and have our being.

Its as if all of us are swimming in Gods

presence. In such a world, the holy is never

far off. In such a world, church isnt the

only place where the holy happens. Sacra-

mental moments can occur at any moment,

any place, and to anybody. Watching some-

thing get born. Making love Somebody

coming to see you when youre sick. A mealwith people you loveIf we werent blind

as bats, we might see that life itself is sacra-

mental (Buechner, 1973).

Eating, procuring and growing of food

can be sacramental, ushering an awareness

of the holy into everyday life. It sees in

the need to be nourished daily the larger

spiritual reality of our dependence on mys-

teries that we do not fully understand.

The sacramentality of food can be

seen in how food connects us to experi-

ences of celebration, communion and grat-

itude.

Celebration

Food adds joy to life. Meaningful, hi-

larious, community-enriching, soul-satis-

fying times are so often associated with a

shared table. Close friends, candlelight,

homemade bread, a meal prepared togeth-

er and a prayer of thanks. Or a big party,

potluck, the plates not big enough for all

the variety, the second helping of those

particularly tasty dishes, the familiar voic-

es and laughter. Or a favorite holiday meal,

feeding body and soul. The stories and

settings are endless, but at each occasion

the gift of food mediates a larger reality

the sanctity, preciousness and joy of life.

Communion

To live, we must daily break the body

and shed the blood of creation. Daily weparticipate in the mystery of other beings

becoming part of our very tissue. And daily

we have the opportunity to experience

food as a sacrament, where the appropri-

ate metaphor for food is not fuel but rath-

er communion: with those family and

friends sharing the meal, with those hands

whose skill helped grow and harvest the

food, with other creatures and ultimately

with our Creator.


2/32

2 Fall2006

Earth Ethics examines the basic assumptions, atti

tudes and beliefs that underlie our relationship with the

natural world and suggests directions for our evolution

towards a humane sustainable society.

Publisher and Editor

Richard M. Clugston

Center for Respect of Life and Environment

Managing Editor

Laina G. Clugston

Publication Designer

Tara L. Miller

Copy Editor

Ellen C. Truong

Center for Respect of Life and EnvironmentBoard of Directors

President, Andrew N. Rowan

The Humane Society of the United States

Vice President, Patricia A. Forkan


Secretary, John A. Hoyt


Treasurer, G. Thomas Waite III


Board of Advisors

Chair, Mary Evelyn Tucker, Yale University

Donald W. Cashen

Professional Services Associates

Anita W. Coupe

John Grim, Yale University

Dieter T. Hessel

Program on Ecology, Justice and Faith

Stephanie Kaza, University of Vermont

Fred Kirschenmann

Kirschenmann Family Farms

Jay McDaniel, Hendrix College

David Orr, Oberlin College

Lewis G. Regenstein

The Interfaith Council for the Protection of

Animals and Nature

Victoria Stack

International Communication Initiatives

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Correspondence should be directed to Earth Ethics, Center for Respect of Life and Environment,

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.

Food and Faith

by Michael Schut...................................................................................................................1

The Sacred Foods Project

by Richard M. Clugston........................................................................................................7

Reflections on the June 2006 Sacred Foods Conference

by Dieter T. Hessel..................................................................................................................9

25 Ways to Be a Good Steward of Creation

by Mary Hendrickson..........................................................................................................10

UC Santa Cruzs Food Systems Working Group Helps Drive Statewide

Farm-to-College Initiative

by Tim Galarneau.................................................................................................................11

University of New Hampshire: Many Ways to a Sustainable Food System

by Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell...........................................................................14

Portland State University Initiates a Sustainable Food Program

by Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder..................................................................................16

Guidelines and Certification: A Forum

Fair Trade Certification Overview...............................................................................17

Five Ethical Principles to Guide What We Should Eat............................................18

Humane Eating and the Three Rs...............................................................................19

Certified Humane Raised and Handled Label...........................................................19

The Food Alliance Guiding Principles.......................................................................20

USDA Organic..............................................................................................................20The University of California Systems

Proposed Sustainable Food Guidelines...............................................................21

Core Farm Bill Priorities

by the Farm and Food Policy Project..............................................................................22

Opportunities to Weaken CAFOs Through Environmental, Health

and Subsidy Initiatives in the 2007 Farm Bill

by Richard M. Clugston, Wynn Calder and Molly Anderson......................................23

Below Cost-Feed Crops

by Dennis Olson...................................................................................................................25

Animals and People First: Why Good Animal Welfare is Importantfor Feeding People, for Trade and for the Future

by Michael Appleby.............................................................................................................27

Resourceson Industrial Agriculture and Humane Sustainable

Food Systems........................................................................................................................29

Guest Editor: Wynn Calder

Special thanks to Kim Charmatz and Heather Tallent for

their research and reports on the topics in this issue.


3/32

3Fall 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 whichour 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 Gods 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 Orrwrites, 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 faiths 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 systems 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 imagesare a handful of very large agribusiness

corporations, driven by consumer demand

for cheap food and stockholder profits. Eric

Schlossers 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-

ations 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 importantin 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

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 oufactory 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

manufacturers taxes would decrease as

they cleaned up their emissions.

Lets take one more example. Most sci

entists now agree that global warming is

occurring. The United States, with 4 per

cent of the worlds population, emits 25 per-

cent of the worlds greenhouse gassesEmissions 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 cant afford to

drive as much. Our contributions to globawarming 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 Gods creation. The human

economic system does not see itself as

embedded within natures economy. Weall of us, eventually pay for these external

ities: they visit us as increased medica

The human economic

system does not see itself as

embedded within natures

economy.


4/32

4 Fall2006

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 benefitslarge farmers, small farmers,

corporations, the hungrywhen 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. Lets

look at two examples.

First, we must consider different ideas

about food security. Food security refers

to a region or nations 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

two very different perspectives:

C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer,

professors of Applied Economics at the Uni-

versity of Minnesota, answer:

it [food security] involves improv-

ing a developing nations access to

cheaper food from comparatively

advantaged exporting countries. It

is generally more efficient and cheap-

er than self-sufficiency, in which a

nation tries to produce all crops that

its population needs.... Finally, the

drive for food security should tap the

potential of GM technology for de-

veloping countries to both enhance

nutrition and boost agricultural out-

put (2000).

On the other hand, Tewolde, Ethiopian

Environmental Minister, states:

The biotech industry is suggesting

that food security will come through

the farmers loss of control of essen-

tial agricultural inputs. Do you see

the lie? This is food insecurity....

Without local control,

local availability of

food can never be cer-tain. It would be far

better to develop a sys-

tem that would enable

the farmer himself to be

in charge(Snell, 2001).

Notice that the former

definition of food securi-

ty assumes access to

cheap energy for the

transportation of food

across the globe. When

Runge and Senauer claimthat self-sufficiency is

more expensive and less

efficient than relying on

foreign production of

foodstuffs, their econom-

ic accounting does not in-

ternalize the costs of

certain externalities.

And in supporting GM

food as an important ele-

ment of food security,

they ignore the fact that farmers using GM

technology have less and less control over

their farming practices. Loss of contro

makes farmers more vulnerable to politica

upheaval. During times of such upheaval

it is especially important to food security

that a country/region have the ability togrow their own food, not be dependent upon

international markets.

For a second example of how different-

ly people approach GM foods, consider the

application of the Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle states tha

When an activity raises threats of harm to

human health or the environment, precau

tionary measures should be taken even if

some cause and effect relationships are not

fully established scientifically (from the

Wingspread Conference, Racine, Wiscon

sin, 1998).

Anthony Trewavas, a plant biologisat the University of Edinburgh, states:

When people say to me they do not

need GM, I am astonished at their

prescience, their ability to read a be-

nign future in a crystal ball that I can-

not. Now is the time to experiment....

When the climate is changing in un-

predictable ways, diversity in agri-

cultural technology is a strength and

a necessity, not a luxury.We have

heard much of the Precautionary Prin-

ciple in recent years; my version of itis be prepared (2002).

Geneticist David Suzuki, on the other

hand, states:

As we learned from experience with

DDT, nuclear power, and CFCs, we

only discover the costs of new tech-

nologies after they are extensively

used. We should apply the Precau-

tionary Principle with any new tech-

...farmers using GM

technology have less and less

control over their farming

practices.


5/32

5Fall 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).

Trewavass version of the Principle is

be prepared, while Suzukis understand-

ing requires much more caution. While ac-

knowledging very diverse opinions, I sidemore with Suzuki than Trewavas, and sup-

port Tewoldes perspectives on food secu-

rity more than Runge and Senauers. 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 notbelieve

that the Precautionary Principles stan-

dardsis 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 mayrequire fewer chemicals,

while at the same time prof-

iting more and more from

sales of the worlds 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 companys supplies

of seeds. These are my biases; I may be

wrong, but offer them to you for your con-

sideration.

Hope

Industrial agricultures 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.

There are many Stories of Hope: Prom-

ising Directionsexamples 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 protectedfrom 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 similarresult 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 eatbut 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 fathers 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 feasts significance becomes clear if we try to imagine the story

without it: if, say, after kissing, hugging and

clothing him the father had said, Welcome

homehelp yourself to whats 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 Pau

Nabhan spent a year eating foods that grew

no further than 250 miles from his home. He

...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 Gods creation.


6/32

6 Fall2006

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 Gods creation.

If we are to live and eat in ways thatwill 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 Lords (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 bookHuman 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 caretakingresponsibility 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 foods sacramentality,

then everyone is invitedfarmers, 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 Gods 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

economic systems) that recognize and cel-

ebrate food as sacramental.

Excerpted from: Schut, M., ed. 2002.

Food and Faith: Justice, Joy and Daily Bread.

Published by Living the Good News in co-

operation with Earth Ministry, an ecumen-

ical, Christian, environmental, nonprofit

organization. See www.earthministry.org.Reprinted with permission.

Michael Schut served on Earth Minis-

trys staff for eleven years. He is the editor

of the award-winningSimpler Living, Com-

passionate Life: A Christian Perspective,

also published by Living the Good News.

Earth Ministry helps connect Christian

faith with care and justice for all creation.

Michaels work includes teaching, speak-

ing and writing on topics of voluntary sim-

plicity, economic justice, food choices andsustainability, and environment and faith.

Michael has a bachelors in biology from

Wheaton College and a masters in envi-

ronmental studies from the University of

Oregon.

Berry, W. 1983, 1981. The Gift of Good Land.

San Francisco: North Point Press, 272-81.

Buechner, F. 1973. Wishful Thinking: A Theo-

logical ABC. New York: Harper and Row

82.

Nabhan, G. P. 2002. Coming Home to Eat

New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 304

Parks, S. D. 1988. The Meaning of Eating

and the Home as Ritual Space. In E. Gray

ed. Sacred Dimensions of Womens Experi

ence. New York: Roundtable Press, 184-92

Runge, C. F. and B. Senauer. 2000.Foreign

Affairs. May/June: 39-40.

Sherrard, P. 1992.Human Image: World Im-

age.Ipswich, UK: Golgonooza Press, 2-3.

Snell, M. B. 2001. Against the Grain: An

Interview with Tewolde Egziabher. Sierra

Magazine. July/August.

Suzuki, D. 2000. Experimenting with Life.

Yes! A Journal of Positive Futures. Summer.

Trewavas, A. J. 2002. GM Food Is the Bes

Option We Have. In G. E. Pence, ed. The

Ethics of Food: A Reader for the Twenty-

First Century . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Lit-

tlefield Publishing Group.


7/32

7Fall 2006

The Sacred Foods Projectby Richard M. Clugston

Tjoining 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 ismade 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 earths

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 ofeco-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 treatmentof 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

he Sacred Foods Project, launched in the summer of 2005by ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, is an interfaith

effort to incorporate religious and ethical principles in food

production, distribution, and consumption. Founding partnerssociety 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 Projects 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-

sciously for religious celebrations and holy

days.

Quoting from the papers introduction

The paper reviews the teachings o

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 waradically 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 importan

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

Quran 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 theideas 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 lifeRabbinic Judaism; the

Christian Scriptures or New Testament

which have defined Christianity; the Quran

and Sunnah, which have defined Islam. As


8/32

8 Fall2006

Everyone should have

access to affordable,

nutritious, and culturallycustomary food.

this paper evolves, we may include also lat-

er teachings from the three Abrahamic tra-

ditions.

Preface: The Web of Life. We celebrate

Gods 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

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 airinterdependent in seek-ing sustenance and survival. Farming and

grazing together occupy one quarter of the

worlds 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 worlds 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. Eachlocal 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 eatin 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 andImpact. 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 tha

new departures in providing food be re-

viewed in the way environmental impac

assessments operatewith social impac

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 socia

arrangements.

Coda: A New Era of Religious Life? This

Sacred Foods enterprise itselfbecause i

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 technologica

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 tokeep that factor in mind as we draw on the

religious and spiritual teachings of the past


9/32

9Fall 2006

Religious guidance has

been historically influential

in affecting choices of food

consumption on a mass

scale.

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 todays 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 isto 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 thissubject 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-

Reflections on the June 2006Sacred Foods Conferenceby Dieter T. Hessel

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 offarm 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.

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.

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 standardsand certification committee is charged with

working to help faithcommunities 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 ofEarth Ethics. He directs the

Association of University Leaders for a Sus-

tainable Future (ULSF) and is on theEarth 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.


10/32

10 Fall2006

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, whosefarm 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 friends

birthday or Christmas present.

25 Ways to Be a GoodSteward of Creation

by Mary Hendrickson

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

childs 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.

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 loca

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 o

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 haveaccess 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 Missouri-Columbia and works closely with the

Food Circles Networking Project. Th

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.


11/32

11Fall 2006

UC Santa Cruzs Food Systems Working Group HelpsDrive Statewide Farm-to-College Initiative

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

Cby Tim Galarneau

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.

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 Californias

10-campus system are transforming both

higher educations 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 basedon work done by UC Santa Cruzs Food Sys-

tems Working Group (FSWG) to develop a

more sustainable food system at UCSC.1

UCSCs 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 UCs 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 UCs Housing Directors intheir 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 UCs electric-

ity came from renewable sources and to re-

quest a commitment to work together to

change the UC systems energy depen-

dence. Two years later, 16 percent of UCs

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 UCs 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 didnt initially ad-

dress food service purchases and their ef-

fect on energy use. With the global food

system identified as one of the single most

important causes of increased greenhouse

gas emissionsaccounting for almost one

fifth of the nations energy consumption

students have again emerged to work withUC staff to explore how the existing policy

can incorporate food service components.

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 diningfacility 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, UCs 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 Cruzs 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

This commitment includes

clear guidelines thatprioritize local, organic,

humane, and socially

responsible purchasing as

well as waste reduction and

green dining facility

standards.


12/32

12 Fall2006

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 policys

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 thefood 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 UCSCs 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, forseasonal 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 4,0005,000 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-

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 initia

guide highlights the history of the farm-to

college movement; opportunities for civicengagement 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 campuss

food system initiatives. This year theyve

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

ness Program was approved; UCSC Dining

Services will be the first test site for the

program this academic year (20062007)

Clint Jefferies, UCSC Food Service Manag-

er, has been working since last spring to

prepare the campus food service facilitie

for certification and will likely reach his de

partments goal of certifying all five dininghalls 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 efficien

food service equipment.

This year [UCSC Dining

Services has] committed to

going green and designing

sustainable operations astheir annual focus.


13/32

13Fall 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 UCSCs 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 farms 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 serviceunits, 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

Schneiders 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-

to-college program, says Schneider, who

coordinated the fields 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 Healthprogram, 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

farms 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

is working closely with the campuss 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 campuss coffeehouse, SOHO, hosted a Local Foods week

in fall 2006 featuring produce from loca

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 loca

and sustainable food options, reduce

waste, and find innovative solutions to foodservice challenges.

At UCLA, statewide graduate studen

representative to the Sustainability Steer

ing Committee, Crystal Durham, coordinate

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 theircommitment 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 tha

build on learning and education and sup

port regional food systems, while at th

same time reducing energy use and waste

The UC Green Building and AlternativeEnergy 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

Schneider helped organize

a new project that offered

UCSC students the chance

to use their meal plans to

purchase shares in the

campus farms CSA

program.


14/32

14 Fall2006

University of New Hampshire:Many Ways to a Sustainable Food

System

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,

Tby Tom Kelly and Elisabeth W. Farrell

technology, and policies of civic agricul-

ture and community food security into the

universitys 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 outreachresource 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 communitydinner 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

organic products in the region. As farmers

increasingly consider the organic option

researchers will investigate a variety o

questions: In a short northern growingseason, 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? Wha

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).

UNHs organic dairy farm is an indica

tor of a larger trend at agriculture schools in

the US: researchers at premier institutionsare 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 offer

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

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 Cruzs Food Systems Working

Group Helps Drive Statewide Farm-to-Col-

lege Initiative. The Cultivar24(2) Fall/

Winter. Reprinted with permission.

Tim Galarneau currently works with

the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable

Food Systems as the Fo od Syste ms

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 Cultivar24(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 ofCultivar24(2) Fall/

Winter 2006 edition.

In December 2005, UNH

was the first land-grant

university to establish an

organic dairy farm for

research and teaching.


15/32

15Fall 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 farmin New Hampshires 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 peryear 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 toaddress 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 civilizedsociety 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 FoodCarlo

Petrinian honorary degree.

Regarding outreach to primary and

secondary education, the New Hampshire

Farm to School Program, developed and

supported by UNHs Office of Sustainabil-

ity and the New Hampshire Coalition for

Sustaining Agriculture, connects loca

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 assessmen

of the economic, cultural, and ecologica

resources of the communitys agriculture

and foodways. The CFNP findings will be

used to provide baseline data on the Uni-versitys 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 19 t

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.


16/32

16 Fall2006

Portland State University Initiates aSustainable Food Program

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-

Iby Jennifer Allen and Wynn Calder

ing students about sustainable food choic-

es (Allen, May 26, 2006). City representa-

tives noted that no other university has

initiated a sustainable food service program

on this scale and integrated it so strongly

into its contract (Ibid.). The contract, withfood contractor and industry giant Sodex-

ho, may also be the first to include concern

for animal welfare through its focus on Food

Alliance certified products. Representatives

of PSUs sustainability programs emphasize

that they are working to transform the mar-

ket and supply chain by inserting new val-

ues into the food system.

Sustainable Food ContractAs part of its ongoing initiative to in-

fuse sustainability into all colleges, schools

and programs, Portland State University

developed an ambitious Request for Pro-

posal (RFP) in 2004 for a new 7-year food

contract. Sodexho, one of three companies

that responded, was awarded the contract

in 2005. RFP requirements included the fol-

lowing:

Contractor will move incrementally

toward the goal of environmental

sustainability in the operation of all

aspects of campus dining.

Food vendors will specify products

produced in environmentally friend-

ly and socially responsible ways.

Vendors will educate the public aboutthe benefits of sustainable agricul-

ture (Allen, October 6, 2006).

Contract goals also included Food Al-

liance Equivalent Standards,1 requiring

contractors to procure food products that

meet sustainability standards equivalent to

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

and fair working conditions;and provide healthy and hu-

mane care for livestock.

Lessons from developing RFP

It is important to have a sustain-

ability champion on the committee

creating the RFP and reviewing pro-

posals.

It is important to have support from

others, such as the business affairs

office, in incorporating sustainabili-

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 contrac

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 PSUs Sustainable

Facilities team.

Most suppliers are responsive to

sustainability considerations.

Food Alliance, which is located inPortland, 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 commitmen

to sustainability.

Challenges in successful contract implementation

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 o

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 locaand 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 companys way of doing business

(Allen, May 26, 2006). PSUs contract is

unique in that it may help raise additiona

awareness about the opportunity to bring


17/32

17Fall 2006

concern for animal welfare into a sustain-

able food services program.

For more information on PSUs 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. Jennifers 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 Universitys 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 andoperates 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.

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

Guidelines and Certification: A

Forum

This forum explores a range of guidelines, standards, and third party certification

schemes for humane, just and sustainable food.

agribusiness is criticized for creating large

monocultures, exploiting workers and ani-

mals, much the same as conventional in-

dustrial agriculture. The use of synthetic

fertilizers, which organic farming shuns, has

dramatically increased crop yields. On the

other hand, organic practices are more ef-

fective at preserving the long-term health

and stability of the soil. Fair Trade and Cer-

tified Humane are critiqued respectively as

not being fair or humane enough and are

seen by conventional agribusiness as add-

ing costs that make such certified food too

expensive for the average consumer. What

ever their flaws, these guidelines and stan-

dards are partial attempts to fix a broken

system and to cope with a deeply complex

set of challenges.

T

The United Farm Workers have de-

veloped standards for the fair treatment

of farm workers and achieved various col-

lective bargaining agreements and major

Date post:	10-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	center-for-respect-of-life-and-environment
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Fall 2006 Earth Ethics Newsletter, Center for Respect of Life and Environment

Documents