Download the full report.Tens of millions of Americans need more nutritious, more affordable food. Tens of millions need better jobs. Just as the Obama administration and Congress have supported a “green jobs” initiative to simultaneously fight unemployment and protect the environment, they should launch a “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative. Given that large numbers of food jobs could be created rapidly and with relatively limited capital investments, their creation should become a consideration in any jobs bill that Congress and the president enact.
Our hunger, malnutrition, obesity, and poverty problems are closely linked. Low-income areas across America that lack access to nutritious foods at affordable prices — the so-called “food deserts” — tend to be the same communities and neighborhoods that, even in better economic times, are also “job deserts” that lack sufficient living-wage employment. A concurrent problem has been the growing concentration of our food supply in a handful of food companies that are now “too big to fail.” A Good Food, Good Jobs program can address these intertwined economic and social problems.
In partnership with state, local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector, the federal initiative would bolster employment, foster economic growth, fight hunger, cut obesity, improve nutrition, and reduce spending on diet-related health problems. By doing so, not only could government help solve a number of very tangible problems, but it could fuse the growing public interest in food issues with the ongoing efforts, usually underfunded and underreported, to fight poverty at the grassroots level.
A Good Food, Good Jobs program could provide the first serious national test of the effectiveness of such efforts in boosting the economy and improving public health. The new initiative should:
- Provide more and better-targeted seed money to food jobs projects. The federal government should expand and more carefully target its existing grants and loans to start new and expand existing community food projects: city and rooftop gardens; urban farms; food co-ops; farm stands; community-supported agriculture (CSA) projects; farmers’ markets; community kitchens; and projects that hire unemployed youth to grow, market, sell, and deliver nutritious foods while teaching them entrepreneurial skills.
- Bolster food processing. Since there is far more profit in processing food than in simply growing it (and since farming is only a seasonal occupation), the initiative should focus on supporting food businesses that add value year-round, such as neighborhood food processing/freezing/canning plants; businesses that turn raw produce into ready-to-eat salads, salad dressings, sandwiches, and other products; healthy vending-machine companies; and affordable and nutritious restaurants and catering businesses.
- Expand community-based technical assistance. Federal, state, and local governments should dramatically expand technical assistance to such efforts and support them by buying their products for school meals and other government nutrition assistance programs, as well as for jails, military facilities, hospitals, and concession stands in public parks, among other venues. Additionally, the AmeriCorps program — significantly increased recently by the bipartisan passage of the Edward Kennedy Serve America Act — should provide large numbers of national-service participants to implement nonprofit food jobs efforts.
- Develop a better way of measuring success. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should develop a “food access index,” a new measure that would take into account both the physical availability and economic affordability of nutritious foods, and use this measure as another tool to judge the success of food projects. All such efforts should be subject to strict performance-based outcome measures, and programs should not be expanded or re-funded unless they can prove their worth.
- Invest in urban fish farming. Given that fish is the category of food most likely to be imported, and given growing environmental concerns over both wild and farm-raised fish, the initiative should provide significant investment into the research and development of environmentally sustainable, urban, fish-production facilities.
- Implement a focused research agenda. The government should enact a focused research agenda to answer the following questions: Can community food enterprises that pay their workers sufficient wages also make products that are affordable? Can these projects become economically self-sufficient over the long run, particularly if they are ramped up to benefit from economies of scale? Could increased government revenues due to economic growth and decreased spending on health care and social services offset long-term subsidies? How would the cost and benefits of government spending on community food security compare to the cost and benefits of the up to $20 billion that the U.S. government now spends on traditional farm programs, much of which goes to large agribusinesses?
For a community to have good nutrition, three conditions are necessary: food must be affordable; food must be available; and individuals and families must have enough education to know how to eat better. This comprehensive proposal accomplishes those objectives. Moreover, in the best-case scenario, it could create large numbers of living-wage jobs in self-sustaining businesses even as it addresses our food, health, and nutrition problems. But even in a worst-case scenario, the plan would create short-term subsidized jobs that would provide an economic stimulus, and at least give low-income consumers the choice to obtain more nutritious foods — a choice so often denied to them.
Tags: Agriculture, AmeriCorps, Civic enterprise, Food, Hunger and nutrition, Jobs, USDA
[...] Modeled after the “green jobs” concept, “Good Food, Good Jobs” would create jobs through projects and businesses that bring healthier food to low-income areas. Food and job deserts could become new oases of economic recovery and healthy living. I detail my proposal in a new paper published today by the Progressive Policy Institute: http://www.progressivefix.com/joel-berg-good-food-good-jobs [...]
[...] Modeled after the “green jobs” concept, “Good Food, Good Jobs” would create jobs through projects and businesses that bring healthier food to low-income areas. Food and job deserts could become new oases of economic recovery and healthy living. I detail my proposal in a new paper published today by the Progressive Policy Institute: http://www.progressivefix.com/joel-berg-good-food-good-jobs [...]
[...] following is an excerpt from Joel Berg’s “Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts into Jobs Oases,” a new policy report from [...]
[...] Joel Berg on a “Good Food, Good Jobs” program. [...]
[...] following is an excerpt from Joel Berg’s “Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts into Jobs Oases,” a new policy report from [...]
Friend of Brenda G. Brenda and I have been talking about a nonprofit for sometime. I have had this idea for about 4 years now, could use some input. We have numerous very large limestone caves here and I want to rent some warehouse space in one and turn it into hydroponic gardens. I want to grow herbs, greens, tomatoes, and mushrooms in these controlled environments. I want to use college and highschool labor with expert gardeners teaching. I then want to sell the product to local restaurants and gov’t agencies etc. With the profits I want ot start a community garden program, utilizing our trained students and county vacant lots around the city. We would be able to feed people in the neighborhoods and if we have excess we could sell it at the city market. We would be able to put all monies earned back into the program to continue to expand it around the city. We sure could use some expert advice as to where to go to get the seed money to start our program.
Thank you for all you do.
Friend of Brenda G. Brenda and I have been talking about a nonprofit for sometime. I have had this idea for about 4 years now. We have numerous limestone caves here and I want to rent some warehouse space in one and turn it into hydroponic gardens. I want to grow herbs, greens, tomatoes, and mushrooms in these controlled environments. I want to use college and highschool labor with expert gardeners teaching. I then want to sell the product to local restaurants and gov’t agencies etc. With the profits I want to start a community garden program, utilizing our trained students and county vacant lots around the city. We would be able to feed people in the neighborhoods and if we have excess we could sell it at the city market. We would be able to put all monies earned back into the program to continue to expand it around the city. We sure could use some expert advice as to where to go to get the seed money to start our program.
Thank you for all you do.
[...] Just as the Obama administration and Congress have supported a “green jobs” initiative to simultaneously fight unemployment and protect the environment, they should launch a “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative. Read more… [...]
Mr. McAdams: Those are ambitious and commendable plans which would certainly face both significant challenges and a potentially highly positive outcome. You may want to check out the Community Food Security Coalition (http://www.foodsecurity.org/) which supports such projects.
I love this concept of creating both good food and good jobs for the poorest of our areas – but I don’t understand why you think it needs to be a Federal government program? Every program that the Fed takes on, gets a) manipulated and distorted to support specific politician’s agenda and who they “owe” b) always end up costing more than the program should because of inefficiencies and c) drain away the resources and money from the people it was supposed to help in the first place. To create a truly long term and successful job market in the “good food” industry it needs to stand on its own in a Free Market. We need to understand the root economic causes for why good food is not affordable and why people in these area don’t value the good food (you can feed a family of 4 on beans and rice for $4)! Why do you need a fed gov program to tell people that?!?! These are the questions I have been asking myself as I have gotten more passionate about accessibility of quality food for the poorest areas. I hope to create either a non-profit organization at some point – or preferably a for profit company that has a product or service that can stand on its own because it is a supply for an existing demand. Please brainstorm ideas that does not require an artificial and ultimately unsustainable support from the government to survive!
I greatly appreciate KGW’s input. First, it is important to note that most of the jobs created under my proposal would be private or nonprofit sector – not government — jobs. Second, I proposed that the initiative be carried out in tandem with “state, local, and tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector” Third, I believe that the federal government should be involved in such efforts only when the private sector cannot – or will not – on its own take actions necessary for the public good. In this case, the largest capital available for food businesses in America is in the hands of the very large entities who believe they have vested interest in preventing small entities from competing with them. Thus, the status quo today is far cry from true free-market capitalism.
Rejecting both the notion that either government or the private sector alone can enact such societal progress, I embrace the “third way” approach through which the government provides seed money and gives need entities a fair change on a level playing field, but then largely gets out of the way to allow true competition to take place.
That being said, I respectfully reject your premise that federal programs automatically fail. Permit me to cite the example of the original GI Bill. Following World War II, the U.S. experienced a tremendous long-term economic boom, which created the most prosperous middle class the world had ever known. Many Americans now assume that such growth was solely a result of the independent productivity of the private sector. But government efforts, most notably the original GI Bill, played a critical role in this growth. The GI Bill enabled returning soldiers to obtain government help to pay for college, enabling millions of Americans, including my father, to become the first in their families to attend college. It’s hard to imagine today, but leaders of some of the most elite institutions of higher education opposed that provision of the bill, assuming that people who couldn’t afford to pay for college probably weren’t smart enough to succeed there. The President of the University of Chicago, Robert Maynard Hutchins, said of the GI Bill, “Colleges and universities will find themselves converted into hobo jungles” and James B. Conant, President of Harvard, found the bill “distressing” because it failed “to distinguish between those who can profit most by advanced education and those who cannot.” Many of these same leaders later retracted their criticisms, admitting that the students who attended their institutions with GI Bill benefits were the most serious and hardworking they ever had. In the peak year of 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college admissions. By the time the original GI Bill ended on July 25, 1956, 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans had participated in an education or training program. Before the GI Bill, America’s universities were exclusionary bastions for the nation’s upper-crust elites. After the law, the nation’s campuses were opened, at least briefly, to people from diverse economic backgrounds. The GI Bill also helped returning veterans put a down payment on a first home or start a small business. From 1944 to 1952, the government backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans. Those benefits – provided as part of civic compact that rewarded service to the nation with a chance at upward mobility – built the great American middle class.
When it comes to fighting hunger, my top area of expertise, many people automatically assume that charities are more efficient than government. Even though I manage a nonprofit group, I would argue forcefully against that myth. Because charities create a system of food distribution that is in addition—and parallel—to the existing commercial food distribution system, they have to spend additional money on overhead. When a national food manufacturer donates food to a national organization, which then ships it to a local food bank, which, in turn, trucks it to local food pantries, such logistics often involve two or three sets of trucks and fuel costs, two or three sets of warehouses, and two or three sets of administrative and fundraising staffs. Dick Gabel, one of the pioneers of the food banking system, once told me that the emergency food system is the “most inefficient system in the world. I should know. I helped create it.” While it is often a great burden to enroll in the Food Stamp Program, once someone receives the benefits, it is usually relatively easy to use them, especially since paper coupons have long ago been replaced by easy-to-use EBT cards. The government merely transfers the money electronically onto EBT cards and then, at virtually no additional cost to the government other than the benefits themselves, recipients are able to use the money solely for food. In truth, the program is a voucher program of the type supposedly lauded by conservatives. That’s why the vast majority of money in the Food Stamp Program goes to food, not to administrative overhead. In Fiscal Year 2007, out of total Food Stamp Program costs of $33.0 billion, the federal government spent $30.3 billion on benefits and only $2.6 billion on administrative overhead. While the federal government pays for 100 percent of benefits, state and localities paid roughly 50 percent of the administrative costs, which means that they spent approximately $2.6 billion as their share of the overhead. Thus, out of the $35.6 billion spent by all levels of government on the Food Stamps Program, $30.3 billion went directly to food benefits. Consequently, 85 percent of all spending went directly to benefits and only 15 percent went to administrative overhead. If government reduced many of the unnecessary barriers to application and recertification, the overhead costs would be even lower. In contrast, some food banks have overhead rates of up to 20 percent. When you add in the overhead of a national organization that distributes to food banks as well as the overhead for local community-based pantries and kitchens that directly feed people, the total overhead for the entire system—from original donation to final distribution—is far greater than 20 percent. Case closed: The Food Stamp Program is more cost-efficient than charities. Not only that, before the modern Food Stamp Program was created in the 1970’s, there was far more serious hunger in America than there is today. Not only is this government program highly cost-efficient, it is highly effective at meeting its main goal of reducing hunger in America.
It is true that some government programs are far less efficient than the Food Stamp Program. But while it would be illogical for liberals to assume that government programs are automatically more efficient than private sector-programs, it is equally illogical to – as a matter of pure ideology – to refuse the accept fact-based examples of when government works more efficiently.
I believe that my food jobs proposal strikes the proper balance between the roles of the private, non-profit, and public sectors.
It looks that you’ve put a good amount of effort into your article and I want a lot more of these on the World Wide Web these days. I truly got a kick out of your post. I do not have a bunch to to say in reply, I only wanted to register to say marvellous work.
Your article was most tweeted by Gardening experts in the Twitterverse…
Come see other top popular articles surfaced by Gardening experts!…
[...] new report only underscores the need for a Good Food, Good Jobs program that I proposed here in December. Low-income areas across America that lack access to nutritious [...]
[...] President Obama’s 2011 budget contains a few notable things for progressives to cheer. One of the items that jumped out at us was its support for an intertwined effort to boost healthy foods and food jobs – an idea that we championed in a December policy paper. [...]
[...] Modeled after the “green jobs” concept, “Good Food, Good Jobs” would create jobs through projects and businesses that bring healthier food to low-income areas. Food and job deserts could become new oases of economic recovery and healthy living. I detail my proposal in a new paper published today by the Progressive Policy Institute: [...]
[...] Download the full report. [...]
[...] Good Food, Good Jobs: Turning Food Deserts Into Jobs Oases [...]
[...] will join the Progressive Policy Institute and FreshFarm Market on Wednesday, May 5 to promote a “Good Food, Good Jobs” initiative—a food jobs program—to fight hunger, foster economic growth and bolster [...]
Been following these same trends for quite some time. Have been involved in grass roots agricuture for many years. Even operated an organic farm for several years. The deck it truly stacked against small time operators. The best hope we have is the trend towards self sustaining methodology.
Thanks for the strategies you discuss through this web site. In addition, a lot of young women who seem to become pregnant usually do not even make an effort to get medical health insurance because they are concerned they would not qualify. Although a few states currently require that insurers offer coverage no matter what about the pre-existing conditions. Fees on these kinds of guaranteed plans are usually greater, but when taking into consideration the high cost of medical care it may be the safer strategy to use to protect your current financial future.