Cargill Turkey recall shows dangers of consolidated food supply for Alabama

A great number of small and medium-sized independent farms and processing facilities are the only assurance of a safe and secure food supply.

According to reports from CDC,

Cargill announced Wednesday it is recalling almost 36 million pounds of ground turkey products that may be contaminated with a multi-drug resistant strain of Salmonella Heidelberg, a pathogen linked to at least 76 illnesses across the United States and one death in California.

The recalled meat came from a single processing facility in Springdale, Arkansas, but ended up in dozens of different ground turkey products sold nationwide under a variety of brand names including Honeysuckle White, Shady Brook Farms, Riverside, Aldi’s Fit and Active Fresh, Spartan, Giant Eagle, Kroger and Safeway

According to the CDC, at least one reported illness in Alabama resulted from this contamination.

The danger of so much food passing through a single processing facility should be clear. The possibility of the negligence of one person affecting dozens of states food supply is too great a risk and liability. We should also consider how vulnerable this shows our food supply is to a single terrorist who could intentionally poisons a facility.

It is not just in turkey processing either. For instance, according to this Washington Post article,

Just 192 large egg companies own about 95 percent of laying hens in this country, down from 2,500 in 1987, according to United Egg Producers, an industry group. Most of those producers are concentrated in five states: Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and California.

A resilient and safe food supply system would never be this consolidated. If our food processing system was decentralized, contamination from a single processing facility would be much more limited, localized and capable of constraint. As stated here:

The preservation of our independence and national security rests in our ability to revitalize family farming. A monopoly by commercial agribusinesses and corporate farms endangers our food to accidental and intentional contamination. Before 1940, only twenty percent of tomatoes were produced in California; today, ninety-five percent are. There is one hamburger plant which grinds fifty million burgers per week by itself. Another salad packaging plant, twenty six million servings of salad pass through its washers. One negligent employee, or worse, a terrorist could endanger millions of Americans. We have recently seen massive outbreaks of E.coli in spinach, salmonella in peppers and peanut butter.

A lack of competition and monopolization only breeds corruption.

Step into a grocery store these days and on almost every aisle there’s an item tied to a federal investigation: dairy distributors, egg producers, citrus firms and seed developers are all the targets of federal lawsuits or investigations. Starting next month, the Justice Department and the U.S. Department of Agriculture will hold meetings to gather complaints and hear concerns over lack of competition in the dairy, grain, livestock and poultry sectors.

Relocalizing our food supply and decentralizing its production is also good for creating much needed jobs, too.

A powerful study entitled “The Local Food Impact: What if Georgians Ate Georgia Produce?” has recently been produced from the University of Georgia. While the study particularly emphasized Georgia, a similar answers would emanate if you ask “What if Alabamians ate Alabama Produce.”

According to the study,  if each household in Georgia spent $10 per week on produce grown in Georgia, more than $1.9 billion would be pumped back into the state’s economy. And for every 5 percent increase in local produce purchased, the state would see 345 additional jobs, $43.7 million more in sales, and $13.6 million more in farmer income.

Georgia Organics Executive Director Alice Rolls stated here: “I hope this study gets leaders state-wide asking why we don’t see every day foods for our Southern diets growing in the fields of Georgia.”

I asked here could Alabama not produce its own tomatoes? And here about eggs? This study examined the production-consumption gap for lettuce in Georgia.

. . .simply closing the gap in one commodity­, lettuce, for example ­could mean an additional $83.6 million of direct revenue to local producers.

What is the lettuce gap? . . .  the average Georgian eats about 30 pounds of fresh lettuce per year, or about 285 million pounds state-wide. Yet the state produces less than 245,000 pounds per year, which is less than one-tenth of one percent of the amount of lettuce that Georgians consume. Closing that gap would generate an additional $83.6 million in lettuce sales.

The study found similar gaps for other products:

$228 million gap for apples
$62 million gap for bell peppers
$46 million gap for a broccoli
$12.8 million gap for carrots
$124 million gap for pecans
$235 million gap for tomatoes
$93 million gap for watermelon.

UPDATE: A total of 107 people in 31 states have now been linked to the multi-drug resistant Salmonella Heidelberg ground turkey outbreak, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

Employing the power of anchor institutions

How far could we move toward strengthening our locally-owned businesses if we spent our local money locally. Or more narrowly, what if just our anchor institutions within our communities mostly bought local? How many farms would spring up if school cafeterias bought their produce from local grocers and farms? Or consider if our hospitals, jails, and colleges were added to the scenario. An article which appeared in the Michigan Citizen answers discusses these questions:

Far too much of our recent history has been shaped by efforts to recapture the giant industrial production of a century ago. These efforts dominate our public policies in spite of the fact that statistics demonstrate that small, community-based businesses drive economic and creative development.

Small businesses generated 64 percent of the net new jobs over the last 15 years, creating more than half of our GNP. The majority of these businesses are locally based, employing a range of skilled workers, including about 40 percent of all high tech workers in the country, and they produce 13 times the patents per employee of large firms.

Several anchor institutions have voluntarily committed to increasing local purchasing there in Detroit:

Fostering small cooperative businesses means redirecting our spending in ways that encourage local production. That is why we should all welcome the recent efforts by the Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Hospital and Wayne State University to increase their local purchasing. These are key anchor institutions in Detroit that could have a tremendous economic impact on the local business community. Currently the combined spending of these institutions is about $1.6 billion annually. Less than 10 percent of that is spent in Detroit.

The City of San Francisco has taken it one step further by enacting policies for all municipal agencies and municipally-owned anchor institutions:

The city of San Francisco has taken even more direct measures. In an effort to stimulate local employment, San Francisco passed a local hire ordinance that requires all county-funded projects worth $400,000 or more built within 70 miles of the county borders hire at least 20 percent of their people from the city by the end of this year. Over the next seven years, the goal will be to hire 50 percent of all workers from within the city limits.

The author encourages their municipal leadership to set minimum purchasing requirements:

There is no reason why our mayor and city council cannot begin to establish policies that direct local spending by all of our anchor institutions. A modest goal of increasing local spending by these institutions to 15 percent would more than double what they are currently spending, stimulating further activity.

Think of the economic impact if our anchor institutions: the Clay County Hospital, Southern Union University, and all public schools in Clay County for instance purchased just 15% of their food and needs from within 30 mile radius? As noted elsewhere before:

Each school, prison, and public hospital should purchase a percentage of its food from local farms and ranches. We could rapidly revitalize local, family farming if a percentage of every school lunch was grown within its county’s borders. Consider the impact on small farming operations if each prison purchased all its food from nearby.

A recent study from the University of Minnesota corroborates this policy direction (ht to my mom).  According to the study:  Filling school lunch trays with fresh, locally grown foods that are easy to incorporate into school menus can contribute as much as $430,000 annually to a regional economy, according to new research from University of Minnesota Extension.

The study focused on five rural counties with only 20,840 students and examined the potential economic impact of farm-to-school programs. According to the author, “a $400,000 annual impact could support two to three full-time farms.”

$400,000 could go a long way in east, central Alabama too. Combine this $400,000 with the monetary velocity of money spent locally, the impact multiplies to $1.6 million.

 

Local food enterprises will be catalyst to resilience in our Local Economies

I have often argued the importance of redeveloping local food supply chains (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) If we think it is bad being dependent on foreign oil, think about being dependent on foreign food. Our dependence on foreign supplies of food is a critical weakness of our local economies, maybe the issue creating the most fragility.

A new study commissioned by Bill and Melinda Gates, ”Community Food Enterprise: Local Success in a Global Marketplace,”  evidences the importance of local food economies for economic development. “Food is a catalytic place to begin.” As discussed in this Bloomburg Business week article,

The 190-page report, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, highlights the role local food businesses play in economic development—creating jobs and bringing money into a community. Michael Shuman, an economist at the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies and co-author of the report, sees economic development intertwined with developing local food systems.

What were some of the findings of the study of local food enterprises on their communities:

• Greater income for farmers, workers, and suppliers.
• Concerted efforts at workforce training
• Scrupulous environmental conservation and stewardship
• These local food enterprises “pump up their community economies by hiring locally, buying local inputs, and engaging in and contracting for local value-added production.”
• and enhanced empowerment of minorities.

 

Oregon enacts bill to empower locally-owned businesses

While the Alabama Legislature was busy with political payback and base political pandering, the Oregon enacted legislation which will assist Oregon small businesses and help secure a resilient local economy.  Oregon HB 3000 allows state agencies and local governments to give preference to goods made in Oregon and services perfomed by local businesses, even if it entails paying up to 10 percent more than the cost of out-of-state suppliers. (Alabama only allows a three percent local preference rule currently.)

“Oregon government purchases a lot of goods and services. We should be buying Oregon products first. We think as many of these products as possible should be purchased from small businesses within our state, particularly when the price of those products is very similar. This bill allows Oregon companies to take advantage of the state’s purchasing power to grow their businesses and create more Oregon jobs,” said Rep. Clem. . . .

Another State Senator explained further:

“This bill will help Oregon businesses by encouraging the development and growth of our local supply chains, which will help create local jobs and revitalize our state’s economy,

Efforts like this such as leveling the playing for locally-owned businesses by removing tax advantages and closing loopholes  for out-of-state corporations and establishing minimums for local purchases by state agencies, we too can stride down the road to economic resiliency. Restoring local family farms, securing a strong local food supply, empowering local entrepreneurship, authentically supporting locally-owned, small businesses, should be at the top of any policy priority list. As I wrote before:

We import so much unnecessarily into our local economies. Job security and economic resilience cannot be achieved by focusing exclusively on recruiting big industries like the automotive sector in Alabama. A balanced approach should be adopted which encourages the development of home-grown, import-substituting local manufacturers. We must identify the leaks of investment out of our local economies and enact policies which catalyze the local production of many items we now import. Only then can we have some peace of mind concerning a future prosperity.

Long term stability of our local economies and job security will not be achieved by the current models of economic development.  New ideas which defy standard definitions and break traditions need be brought to Montgomery.

 

Good Ideas into Great Jobs

What if Alabama Democrats would lead the charge for creating 50,000 new jobs, gaining Alabama energy independence, and empowering local communities all by one set of policies?

It can be done and now is the time to strike. Of course, the Republican leadership and their corporate sponsors would never let this happen, however, Alabama Democrats will be branded with for whatever we fight. Let next-generation energy and energy independence be one brand.

As I referenced here,

The United States is currently importing about 70 percent of its renewable energy systems and components,” said Phil Angelides, chairman of the Apollo Alliance. “If that trend continues, we stand to lose out on estimated 100,000 clean energy manufacturing jobs by 2015, and nearly 250,000 by 2030.

Currently, Alabama maintains no goals for renewable energy. Alabama Democrats must take the lead on this issue and propose forward-looking initiatives; the Republicans will continue to rant “Drill, baby, drill.”

This is no tree-hugger pipe dream. “There are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources,” according to Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. “It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will.”

We can look to other states, regions, and countries that have already experimented with various policies; we will not be proceeding blindly.

For example, we can look to Ontario for lessons.

Alternative Energy Manufacturing Plant Applications since its Green Energy Bill in 2009

Ontario enacted its Green Energy Act in 2009. Since its enactment, 30 companies have publicly announced plans to set up or expand manufacturing facilities in Ontario that produce equipment for wind or solar power projects.  Ontario’s clean energy program is built around a strong commitment to local manufacturing and it has attracted as many as 43,000 new jobs at a reasonable cost per job.  The two primary planks provide alternative energy producers preferable rates and a local-content rule. Ontario announced the approval of 184 renewable energy projects worth $8 billion under theis Feed-In Tariff program.  The Ontario Green Energy Act includes these major components:

• A Feed-In-Tariff program, which allows individuals and companies to sell renewable energy — like solar, wind, water, biomass, biogas and landfill gas — into the grid at set rates.
• Domestic content requirements, which would ensure at large percentages (60%) of wind projects and solar projects be produced and manufactured in Ontario.

These two policies should be modified for implementation in the Alabama. (Several other countries and cities have employed the Feed-in Tariffs such as  Germany, Vermont, Australia, Switzerland, Gainesville, Florida, and Sacramento, California.)  For instance, the priority for wind and solar projects reflects Ontario’s region; Alabama might expand its list of priorities to include tidal, geo-thermal, hydro, and biomass because of our unique geographic.

Solar Array at School

 

In addition to these two policies, we should advocate that newly constructed government buildings be fitted with alternative energy with “buy-local” preferences for parts and equipment; old government buildings such as schools and jails can be retrofitted accordingly.   We should follow the example of Lee County which has unveiled a roof-mounted, 36- panel, solar-powered system that will supply up to 90 percent of the hot water used at the county jail.

Solar Array on a Residence

Finally, the feed-in tariff should be offered to anyone that is a renewable energy producer, no matter how small. Think 100,000 mini-power plants instead of a few centralized dams and nuclear plants. The goal would be that that majority of residences and small businesses will shift from mere energy consumption to actual energy production.  This can be accomplished with the feed-in tariffs,  net-metering, and on-site consumption rules.

The core of these policies would create a reason for alternative energy producers to locate to the Alabama and cause alternative parts manufacturers to locate to Alabama as well. For me, most importantly, it decentralizes energy production (no brown outs), builds greater resilience to our regional economies, and empowers ours local communities.