Read the original story on SF Gate

A patchwork of food, farming, conservation and environmental groups fear that lawmakers could act on the 2012 Farm Bill as early as this week with no input from California – the largest agricultural state in the nation.

Leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees are proposing $23 billion in cuts – the 2008 Farm Bill’s five-year budget exceeded $300 billion – and could take their proposed legislation directly to the new congressional “supercommittee” to be passed without votes in their own committees or in Congress.

The supercommittee, made up of six senators and six representatives from both parties, has been tasked to come up with $1.2 trillion in federal budget cuts by mid November to reduce the deficit.

A new Farm Bill, which sets the budget for everything from farm support programs and renewable-energy research to food stamps and conservation initiatives, is passed every five years. Many in California’s agriculture community are concerned the new bill will show favoritism to commodity crops – corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice and peanuts – leaving California, largely a specialty crop state emphasizing fruits, vegetables and nuts, with fewer funds for organic farming, environmental protection and research programs.

Currently, California receives only about 5 percent of the money set aside for farm programs despite producing 12 percent of the country’s total agricultural revenue. And with the proposed cuts, the state could get even less.

“To think that a Farm Bill is being written in a few weeks behind closed doors is crazy,” said Kari Hamerschlag, a senior analyst for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington and Oakland nonprofit that is outspoken about toxic chemicals, farm subsidies and land use. “We think that it’s important that California stand up and look out for what is best for the state.”

Groups such as the California Association of Food Banks, California State Grange, Center for Food Safety, Community Alliance with Family Farms and the Ecological Farming Association have sent a petition with more than 16,000 signatures to California’s congressional delegation and to Gov. Jerry Brown, urging them to make sure that the state gets funding to protect conservation, nutrition and research programs.

What the state wants

In the meantime, the California Department of Food and Agriculture submitted to the Ag committees and supercommittee its recommendations for the Farm Bill, asking to either maintain or in some instances increase funding for conservation, job creation, revitalizing rural economies, investing in research and educationand improving health and nutrition.

Karen Ross, California’s secretary of food and agriculture, said the recommendations are based on the state’s diverse needs. California produces more than 400 different crops, employs 800,000 people and generates annual revenues of $37.5 billion, according to the CDFA.

But she knows that to meet the nation’s mandate to reduce spending some programs will have to go.

“We’re concerned about nutrition programs,” she said. “More people than ever are receiving assistance now from food programs.”

California’s recommendations call for maintaining nutrition funding at current levels and removing eligibility barriers for programs such as SNAP (food stamps) and free school lunches. Last year the state received $6.3 billion in federal nutrition funding.

“There isn’t going to be any program that goes unscathed by the cuts,” said Rayne Pegg, assistant manager of national affairs for the California Farm Bureau Federation. “But getting healthy food access is critical.”

Pest prevention

In addition, the state’s proposal includes recommendations to increase funding for pest prevention nationwide from $50 million to $100 million. Ross said the key to successful farming is to be proactive in eradicating invasive insects that kill crops. Other suggestions include $350 million over five years for specialty crop block grants; maintaining conservation and organic farming programs at the same level and reducing the cost of crop insurance for organic farmers.

Ross said for the first time California is also asking that money be set aside for programs and grants that will invest in young and new farmers. “It’s an area we have to think about if we want to have food security in the future,” she said.

Hamerschlag said she applauds the proposal and specifically supports substantial funding toward nutrition, conservation, organics, local and regional food systems and rural development.

“What we’d like to see is a real shift in the subsidy money used for commodity crops go to healthy food and conservation research.”

From 2008 to 2010, commodity crops across the nation received $20 billion in subsidies, whereas fruits, nuts and vegetable farmers got $3 billion in federal funds and grants, according to the Environmental Working Group, which collects its data from the USDA. Although California receives few subsidies, the state’s upland cotton growers received a combination of direct payments and subsidies totaling $198.1 million in 2009. They only generated $85.8 million in sales that year, Hamerschlag said.

Specialty crops in California received $200 million in federal funds and grants for procurement, marketing, promotion and research programs in 2009. Those crops were valued at $19.5 billion, she said.

End direct payments

“Looking at these numbers, California would be well placed in shifting (those cotton subsidies) into conservation, fruits and vegetables,” Hamerschlag said. There is talk of the new bill eliminating the direct-payment program, which are subsidies based on past acreage planted regardless of commodity prices. The new proposal calls for a program that would only apply to planted acres when prices drop to certain levels.

While some cheer the end of the direct-payment program, there are many in California who still fear that Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., the Ag committees’ top leadership, will look out for their big commodity states. Many Californians are placing their faith in the fourth member of the leadership, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich. Like California, her state grows mostly specialty crops.

“We’re not a traditional farm bill recipient,” said Pegg of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “So it’s important for us to prioritize. It’s not over until it’s over.”

E-mail Stacy Finz at sfinz@sfchronicle.com.

Read the original story from the LA Times

Pity folks carving faces on skinny old zucchini or trying to make watermelons look fearsome this Halloween.

There’s a pumpkin shortage plaguing parts of the country this year, because of drought and storms in the Midwest and Northeastern states.

In California, the nation’s No. 2 pumpkin state, fine weather has made for pumpkins aplenty. Still growers here aren’t trying to make a killing, unless you count the fake blood at the haunted houses some have set up on their farms. With other crops, they’d be looking to export their bounty to cash in on higher prices. But that isn’t — if you’ll pardon the expression — how pumpkins roll.

There are no vast tracts of mechanically harvested fruit or frantic traders swapping pumpkin futures on global commodities exchanges. California pumpkin farms tend to be small, perhaps a few dozen acres at best, and are geared for producing jack-o’-lanterns rather than pie filling. Most Golden State pumpkins don’t travel; the customers do — to roadside stands and pick-your-own patches.

At a time when the national conversation is focused on greed, pumpkins are an exception. They are a different kind of California gold.

“Pumpkins are really different,” said Tom Turini, a farm advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension in Fresno. “We’re not trying to feed the world pumpkins. It’s more about tradition, family. It’s farmers just having a little fun.”

Near Half Moon Bay, growers have helped the coastal community about 30 miles south of San Francisco lay claim to the title of “World Pumpkin Capital.” That might be a stretch considering that other pumpkin-centric cities, including Morton, Ill.,and Circleville, Ohio, make similar boasts.

What’s clear is that the fruit thrives in the region’s warm days and cool nights. Tourists flock to the area in fall for the annual pumpkin festival and to visit pumpkin patches such as those operated by John Muller.

Muller first started planting pumpkins on the flower and vegetable farm founded by the parents of his wife, Eda. It was a way to bring in a little extra cash so that the family could keep farming year-round. Muller has his own way of pricing. A group of pint-size cousins recently lugged five pumpkins to his checkout table. Muller told the children that they could have the lot for 20 bucks.

“It all depends on how big the diamond earrings are, or how under-served the kids look,” he said. “I don’t really call the pumpkins business. I call it sharing. Our city neighbors are sharing resources to help keep us farming. We’re sharing the sights and sounds of a farm, the season changing, the sky getting Indian-summer blue and the weather getting cuddly.”

California’s pumpkin crop totaled 186 million  pounds last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The nation’s top producer was Illinois, at 427.4 million pounds, much of which ended up as canned pie filling.

Illinois will easily retain its pumpkin crown this year, despite a dry summer. But a single pumpkin has already made 2011 a banner year for California. A homegrown specimen came in first at the annual Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Weigh-Off on Oct. 10.

That competition, to see who can grow the largest pumpkin, is frequently won by out-of-state contestants. But this year’s winner was Leonardo Ureña, a Napa Valley grower whose pumpkin weighed in at 1,704 pounds, a state record.

Within days, his pumpkin was on a plane heading to the New York Botanical Garden to join the other winners of regional weigh-offs around North America. The overall champion and new world record holder — a 1,818.5-pound behemoth — came from Canada.

Still, Ureña, who immigrated from Jalisco, Mexico 26 years ago, was pleased just to be in such elite company. He recalled how tightly his oldest daughter hugged him after his win at Half Moon Bay.

“She said, ‘Congratulations, Daddy.’ And I’m crying because it got me right inside,” he said.

After all, growing giant pumpkins is time-consuming. From April to October, Ureña spent more time with his pumpkins than with his family. Raising a pumpkin that weighs about as much as a Smart car requires hand-fertilizing blossoms, feeding the plant constantly and praying the fruit doesn’t explode from growing too fast. The Napa County vineyard and farm where Ureña works lent him land. He went straight from his day job growing regular-size vegetables to caring for his towering pumpkins.  Ureña was recently named grower of the year by the Great Pumpkin Commonwealth, an international organization for growers of gian tpumpkins, for raising a trio of specimens whose combined weight topped 5,000 pounds.

Competition is spirited, yet most Great Pumpkin aficionados trade seeds for free among themselves, even though a lone seed from a champion recently sold for $1,600.

“It’s supposed to be a hobby, not about money,”Ureña said. “To sell one of my pumpkin’s seeds would be dishonorable to the pumpkin world.”

diana.marcum@latimes.com

Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/10/28/4012891/uc-davis-study-questions-link.html

Fast food alone cannot be blamed for high obesity rates among people with low incomes, according to a new UC Davis Center for Healthcare Policy and Research study.

The research calls into question stereotypes that have led some cities in Southern California to cite obesity when passing laws limiting or banning new fast-food restaurants in poorer communities.

Nutritionists and food policy experts, however, said that doesn’t let fast food off the hook – and at least one of the UC Davis researchers agreed.

“I’m not a big fan of fast food,” said J. Paul Leigh, lead author of the study, which will be published in Population Health Management in December. “I’m sure that fast food in general has a big effect on obesity. This research does not contradict that.”

It does challenge the notion that those with low incomes eat more fast food than those with higher incomes.

Health economists Leigh and co-author DaeHwan Kim analyzed data from the mid-1990s and compared household income with visits to fast-food and full-service restaurants.

Rather than finding fast-food visits going down with income, they found visits peak at $60,000 in income, before falling slightly.

“They (people with low incomes) are not spending as much on fast food as lower-middle income or middle income,” Leigh said. “Just to say, ‘Fast food is the sole problem,’ that’s not where the sole problem is.”

Others said the study needs more careful analysis.

“It would be a big mistake to look at the results of this report and say the environments people live in don’t matter, because they do,” said Micah Weinberg, a senior policy adviser at the Bay Area Council who works on public health issues.

The study doesn’t cover what else people eat, nor separate out the rural poor, who may not have access to fast-food restaurants.

It’s also important to look at what else people eat and what other foods are available to them, Weinberg said.

“Is your neighborhood full of 7-Elevens or is it full of Whole Foods?” he asked.

The former is dominated by what he called “convenience store foods,” including highly sweetened beverages.

Those drinks are a problem in obesity, agreed Leigh, although that wasn’t specifically mentioned in his paper.

Adjusted for inflation, the price of soda has actually gone down over the past 30 years, and a 2-liter bottle of name brand Coke may be sold more cheaply than the same amount of water, Leigh said.

“I favor some sort of tax on soda pop with sugar,” he said.

To really make a difference, better-quality foods have to be made available in lower- income neighborhoods.

“If you go to places in Sacramento, it’s harder to get anything in the lowest of low- income (communities),” said Judith Stern, a nutrition professor at UC Davis and a nationally recognized expert on obesity.

“I think we need to make food available in low-income neighborhoods,” she said, meaning wholesome, high-quality foods.

She acknowledged the difficulties working people with low incomes have.

“If you could cook at home, it would be cheaper,” she said. “But where do you have the time?”

Leigh and Kim’s study showed other patterns. Among them:

• People with more education were more likely to go to full-service restaurants.

• Smokers were more likely to go to fast-food restaurants.

• People who worked longer hours were more likely to eat out.

• Men were more likely than women to eat out.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee.  All rights reserved.

Call The Bee’s Carlos Alcalá, (916) 321-1987.

• Read more articles by Carlos Alcalá

Inedible kitchen grease (IKG), once regarded as a waste product and used primarily as an additive for animal feed, has become an elixir in the booming green economy.  The grease’s value as a biofuel is being increasingly recognized.  IKG is now coveted, which makes it a target for theft.

CDFA has responsibility for regulating IKG transport in California and is concerned that increases in theft is costing legitimate industry millions of dollars in lost revenue every year. In an attempt to reduce these losses, the agency is now teaming with a law enforcement agency in a high-theft area to pull over vehicles transporting IKG, making sure they’re in compliance with state law. The partnership, which is in its very early stages, has already detected violators. CDFA will pursue additional partnerships in other high-theft areas.

A recent newspaper article features more information about this issue:  http://capitolweekly.net/article.php?xid=zy1w5awkgid5tq

CDFA Secretary Karen Ross is congratulating the University of California at
Santa Cruz for winning a grant of more than $2.6 million from the USDA for
organic research.  The grant is among $19 million being issued nationally by the
USDA for organic research and marketing.

The UC Santa Cruz project will facilitate a series of seminars, workshops,
newsletters and online resources to share research that will help organic
growers improve environmental sustainability and economic viability.

“With California’s place as the leading agricultural state in the country,
including organic farming, this is an excellent investment of federal
resources,” said Secretary Ross.   “UC Santa Cruz is well positioned to put this
grant to good use by providing targeted research information to our rapidly
growing organic sector.”

The most recent survey of national organic production by the USDA showed
California with 36 percent of all sales of organic commodities, on 470,000 acres
of farmland.  Since the late 1990s, U.S. organic production has seen significant
growth. U.S. producers are increasingly turning to certified organic farming
systems as a potential way to decrease reliance on nonrenewable resources and
compete in high-value markets. Today more than two-thirds of U.S. consumers buy
organic products at least occasionally, and 28 percent buy organic products
weekly.

For more information about the USDA national grant program, please see:  http://www.nifa.usda.gov/newsroom/news/2011news/organic_awards.html