A judge refused to dismiss the state lawsuit against a family that was caught selling raw milk from its distribution stand in a parking lot. The state claims that it’s illegal for farmers to set up any raw milk pickup locations away from their farms.

In a Springfield News-Leader article, the assistant attorney general explains why selling milk “from a farm,” as state statute requires, should preclude off-site pickup spots:

“A farm is not anywhere defined in Missouri statutes as a vehicle in a parking lot away from the farm premises,” Blome argued.

Of course, no one would define a farm as a vehicle temporarily parked in a lot. But that isn’t a good definition of a food establishment, either — and the state, calling this family’s parked vehicle a food establishment, says it should be subject to the same regulations as a mini-mart or a grocery store.

If you can’t pick up raw milk from a farmer’s vehicle, what can you do with it? You can pick it up yourself at the farm. But suppose you drive your car to a parking lot, meet a friend there, and give him a gallon of the milk. Does your car now become a food establishment? Or maybe you bring your milk home, invite guests over, and serve them milk with dinner. Does your house turn into a restaurant?

Now that Columbia permits residents to own chickens, it’s a good time for the city to look into the next trend in urban agriculture — miniature goats:

The Carbondale, Ill., Planning Commission was debating this month whether to allow residents to keep chickens when Priscilla Pimentel, a member of the city’s Sustainability Commission, added goats to the mix.

“If you can have a 250-pound dog in town, why not a miniature goat that can produce milk?” she says. “It’s just common sense.”

Miniature goats are about as big as medium-sized dogs, and can be led around on leashes. Like chickens, they’re domesticated animals that don’t threaten anyone. People should be allowed to own them in cities.

Are farm-to-school initiatives a response to parents’ and students’ demand for local food? This program coordinator in the Oregon Department of Education doesn’t seem to think so. In her interview with the Oregonian, she talks about local food as if it were something constituents had to be cajoled into accepting. Regarding students, she said, “We’re going to [...] educate students to support those changes in the cafeteria,” implying that students don’t support the changes now and wouldn’t come to support them on their own, even once the new policies are established. This reminds me of the coaching some parents give little kids during holidays: “Tell Grandma how nice the toy is and that you like it soooo much!” If local food preferences bring superior fare to cafeterias, as advocates claim, students should welcome the tastier meals without explicit instructions.

Perhaps their parents are more enthusiastic? From the program coordinator’s description, I don’t think so. She suggests that parents, too, require a lot of education. When asked whether parents are learning about local food, she responds:

Not as much as they could be or should be. [...] They need to go to school lunch and share it with their kids [...] And then parents and caregivers, if they could purchase, serve and talk about Oregon foods with their family, phenomenal.

She would love it if parents could do those things, meaning that they aren’t doing them already. The parents have to be won over. It’s a far cry from, “They are educating me with their phone calls and petitions begging for more local food” — the reply I would expect if local food preferences really were implemented at the behest of parents.

I don’t blame Oregonians for their indifference. After all, as the program coordinator correctly states, local foods are not necessarily healthier than foods from other places. Parents might be more supportive if schools focused on procuring nutritional meals, without regard to locality.

One policy I especially hope Oregon will abandon is the preference that the program coordinator affirms for canned and frozen foods from local sources. Local canned and frozen foods have no nutritional advantage over canned and frozen foods from far away; you can’t argue that one is fresher than the other.

Legislators in New Hampshire are debating whether to declare apple cider the official beverage of their state. As is often the case with proposed state symbols, the bill was submitted at the request of a group of elementary school students. Students at another school have lobbied for milk to receive the honor instead.

New Hampshire state representatives talk about the official beverage proposals as if naming these symbols actually accomplished something:

Rep. Leigh Webb of Franklin saw a problem with both drinks, saying, “Neither is unique to New Hampshire. [...] It will help agriculture, but I’m not sure this is the way to do it.”

This legislator implies that state symbols have the power to shape consumption patterns and improve health:

State Rep. Brian Poznanski, a Democrat from Nashua, reflected on his youth in supporting cider.

“In junior high and high school, I drank sugar and more sugar,” Poznanski said. “There’s a huge obesity problem in this country.”

The students’ teacher has a more realistic perspective on state symbols, and acknowledges that an official beverage probably won’t change people’s actions any more than the official recognition of state animals does:

“My students wanted cider to be a symbolic representation of New Hampshire because of autumn and farm stands,” Nichols said. [...]

“We have a white-tailed deer as our state animal, and I’m not sure what that does for the economy, but it’s symbolic because it’s here. That’s what the children were going for, not to exclude milk by any stretch of the imagination.”

It’s clear from her statement that some people already associate apple cider with the state of New Hampshire. Her students nominated it because they’ve seen apples growing and they’ve seen stands selling cider. Many other New Hampshire residents identify these familiar sights with their state.

People are justified in thinking of apple cider as symbolic of New Hampshire. But it’s a bad idea for New Hampshire to create a new state symbol recognizing it, for the same reasons I’ve opposed the proliferation of official symbols in Missouri. Long lists of state symbols encourage people to ask the government to sign off on their opinions and preferences. They give the impression that for a symbol to count, it needs a state imprimatur.

However, there is a positive aspect of state symbols that I’ve overlooked. When people watch their representatives argue about whether cider or milk should be the state beverage, they may conclude that legislators don’t share their priorities. This could prompt them to realize that if they want to get things done in their state, they’re better off finding solutions in the market. Elected representatives are often apt to shy away from making waves about the things that matter to their constituents and instead talk about less consequential things like official drinks. Maybe the official political fish should be the red herring!

The St. Louis Post Dispatch covers both sides of the urban chicken controversy in this article. In the paragraphs that deal with complaints about unwanted chickens, you could replace the word “chicken” with the name of any other pet. When you allow people to keep animals, some owners will be irresponsible and some will abandon their pets. This is no more reason to outlaw urban chickens than the glut of chihuahuas in California animal shelters is reason to forbid chihuahua ownership.

Unwanted chickens will be kept to a minimum if the birds go to people who seek them out of their own volition. Foisting chickens on reluctant citizens will result in abandoned animals. With that in mind, I’m not in favor of the Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District’s plan to encourage chicken ownership. The district has a goal of convincing 50 families to keep chickens. I’m afraid that if it offers too much encouragement, people who aren’t so excited about chickens are going to give in and adopt them, only to abandon them later. A better goal would be to provide information about chickens to anyone who’s interested, without setting a lower bound for the number of chicken owners.

The district’s on-site chicken coop is a good idea; children can learn a lot about animal life cycles from watching chickens. When I was in elementary school, individual classrooms raised chicks. Building one coop for the whole school might allow for more efficient maintenance, and classes could come one at a time to observe the birds. It also could be more practical to keep chickens on a permanent basis than to order new chicks each year and give them away when school’s out.

A proposal in Wisconsin would allow dairy farmers to sell raw milk, with a few conditions:

Under the bill, farmers with a grade ‘A’ dairy farm permit would be allowed to buy a permit to sell raw milk.  They would have to meet certain sanitary conditions for bottling milk and have a sign to let consumers know raw milk doesn’t provide the same protection of pasteurized milk.

The proposed change in law would give farmers greater freedom to sell their milk. And consumers would be able to make their own decisions about whether to purchase unpasteurized dairy products. Everybody would win.

The bill’s restrictions should be enough to protect the public. We don’t station a policeman by every cow to prevent farmers from drinking raw milk, and we needn’t impose that level of surveillance on other people, either. Regulators ought to concentrate on stopping fraud and deceptive advertising, like if a farmer were to display a sign saying “Buy pasteurized milk here!” when he’s really selling raw milk.

If Missouri adopted a similarly free milk policy, it would be a welcome end to the bizarre law that says exchanging cash for milk in a barn is legal, but the same transaction in a parking lot is prohibited.

The Christian Science Monitor describes a Farm to School program in Vermont that encourages local meat consumption. This student has gotten the message (emphasis mine):

“I think it’s really good because we get healthier here than at my old school, and we get more fruits and vegetables and local meat,” says fourth grader Morgan Jones.

The district bought meat from a local farmer, spending an additional $1 per pound above the price it would normally pay.

As Farm to School expands to include products like meat or cheese, it gets harder for supporters to justify the program as anything but protectionism. The appeal of local fruits and vegetables is easier to relate to. Anyone’s who’s eaten delicious fruit right off the tree can sympathize with activists’ support for local produce. (At least, we can sympathize in the early fall and late spring. Activists still have to explain how local produce is superior during the rest of the school year, when very few fruits or vegetables are harvested. Many will say to preserve the local food in the fall — but is locally preserved food really better than food that was preserved somewhere else, or shipped in fresh?)

Meat, on the other hand, has no local advantage at any time of year. There’s no such thing as a hamburger picked fresh off the cow. Meat has to be preserved and prepared no matter where it comes from. Its quality depends on factors like the health of the animals and how safely the meat was handled.

It would be great if Missouri districts could resist this Farm to School trend and refrain from insisting on local meat. Districts should shop around for the safest meat at the best price — and not settle for whatever meat happens to be raised nearby.

The billions of dollars that the federal government doles out in agricultural subsidies each year — most of which go to a few large corporations, influential politicians, and wealthy landowners — do a lot of damage to the economy. The subsidies insulate businesses from the market forces that would, if left unfettered, force them to innovate and improve. They encourage overproduction and irresponsible farming practices: As farmers try to increase their yields in reaction to artificially high crop prices, they expand their farms into less-fertile land that must be blasted with chemicals if it’s to grow anything at all. And the subsidies make it harder for small farmers to enter the market and compete against the corporations that are propped up by price supports and shielded from risk.

Agricultural subsidies are harmful, no doubt about it. But is there a way to mitigate them? Activists say yes. They contend that new laws would counter the subsidies’ damage. To open the agricultural sector to competition, activists suggest — among other ideas — enacting preferential food policies that require school districts to purchase a set percentage of their cafeteria food from local sources. This, it is argued, would take power away from the corporations and undo some of the subsidies’ bad effects.

As much as I oppose subsidizing corporate agriculture, I can’t support the local food mandates. Ordering schools to buy local food is a poor antidote to corporate subsidies, for these reasons:

• There’s nothing to stop corporations from farming near school districts and touting their produce as “local.” Remember, a farm doesn’t have to be small or unsubsidized to count as local; it only has to be nearby. Just as agricultural corporations have stepped up to claim a large share of direct payments and other kinds of farm aid, they’ll also be eager to sell local food — at a premium, because districts won’t have the option to walk away from the sale and buy from businesses located farther away instead.
• Preferential treatment for local farmers could cause as much environmental damage as traditional subsidies. It would lure farmers to grow food near school districts, whether or not the land is suitable for crops. A district’s closest farmer might not always be the most responsible with pesticides and fertilizers. Even if you look around and see that your local farmers are environmentally conscious today, the situation might change when new businesses move in to be near a school district and have a guaranteed customer.
• Local food mandates place an unfair burden on school districts. District administrators didn’t engineer the mess in the agricultural sector, and fixing it shouldn’t be their job, either. They should be free to focus on their main goal — educating children. Let’s not take money that could go toward teachers’ salaries or building repairs and instead use it to pay a higher price for local food, when healthy food is available at a lesser expense from somewhere else.

Local food mandates, by guaranteeing customers for some farmers through public school policy, are themselves a form of subsidy. Neither the market nor the environment will be well served by adding yet another subsidy to the already over-subsidized farming sector. The real solution is to end government aid for agriculture. When farmers are free to compete on their own merits rather than on their political influence, we may see the market change in favor of farmers who were previously overlooked — including, possibly, farmers near your home or school.

An op-ed in the Daily Iowan refutes some arguments against urban chickens, including one I hadn’t heard before:

Bailey was quoted suggesting that urban chickens undermine local economies, saying, “We have a lot of small farmers around here making chickens and eggs available for sale. My fundamental question is: Why aren’t we supporting the regional economy?”

Here is the op-ed’s excellent response:

I would argue that urban chickens would in fact strengthen Iowa’s economy, especially when we consider unique and important businesses such as the McMurry Hatchery in Webster City, known nationally for its collection of rare chicken breeds. Likewise, I highly doubt Bailey would make such an argument when considering whether citizens ought to be allowed to have vegetable gardens.

City residents are also part of the economy, and they shouldn’t have to pass up opportunities to create value for themselves in order to protect people who are already farming. Transactions in which money changes hands aren’t the only economic activity that matters.

In fact, the freedom to raise your own chickens is an important check on the farmers’ power. When customers can build their own chicken coops, farmers aren’t able to overcharge them for eggs or sell lower-quality eggs than what the market demands. If farmers don’t offer acceptable price and quality, customers will walk away and raise chickens themselves.

As we saw in Columbia, Missouri school districts that search in vain for local food to serve are getting a lesson on “where their food comes from.” I’ll give you a hint: It’s not from the Midwest. Indiana is now running into the same problem:

Indiana school districts are lagging behind the rest of the country in procuring locally grown fruits and vegetables for students.

It turns out that buying local food just isn’t practical for Indiana districts:

“I don’t know what local farmers could grow that could last through a school year, but it would be nice if they could,” said Joanne Baierwalter, food service director for Muncie schools. “Potatoes, maybe, but where would you store them? Who would deliver them?”

Some local food advocates would respond that districts should buy up every local produce item when it’s harvested, then carefully preserve it to serve when school is in session. I’m left wondering: When did districts get out of the business of educating kids in order to become canneries?

The Weekly Standard published an article this past week about the realities of buying “local,” written by a Missouri farmer. The farmer’s piece responds to the new $65 million USDA program “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food,” which states its program mission on its website:

It is also the start of a national conversation about the importance of understanding where your food comes from and how it gets to your plate. Today, there is too much distance between the average American and their farmer and we are marshalling resources from across USDA to help create the link between local production and local consumption.

The USDA’s program relies on the premise that local production is a social and environmental good that should be encouraged by the government. Blake Hurst, the author of the Weekly Standard article, debunks the idea that local is necessarily more “carbon neutral.” He cites a study by Hiroko Shimizu and Pierre Desrochers for the Property and Environment Research Center about “food miles.” The study’s abstract includes this conclusion (emphasis added):

The evidence presented suggests that food miles are, at best, a marketing fad that frequently and severely distorts the environmental impacts of agricultural production. At worst, food miles constitute a dangerous distraction from the very real and serious issues that affect energy consumption and the environmental impact of modern food production and the affordability of food.

Certain climates and types of land are better suited for particular agricultural purposes. The local-food movement trumpets locality and proximity above all else, though, ignoring the enormous energy inputs required to grow food on land that is not well-suited for that purpose. An assessment of the environmental impact of food growing needs to take into account all of the inputs — not just the distance traveled from the farm to the store.

The USDA has created its own matrix for evaluating the most important environmental factor for farms — proximity — without taking into account other criteria that could also have significant environmental impact. If an individual thinks it is important to buy locally, that is fine. But that decision should be made by the individual, without the help of a massive advertising campaign by a governmental agency that expends large sums of taxpayer dollars in order to promote their particular environmental model.

(This discussion is related to my recent post about farmers’ markets, and to Sarah Brodsky’s blog posts about local food.)

Another problem, in addition to USDA program’s misguided focus on buying local, are the implications that local food is somehow healthier. Fruit grown in Missouri is not any more nutritious than fruit grown in California or Florida, yet the USDA program seems to conflate the idea with statements like, “USDA wants to expand access to local, nutritious foods,” implying that proximity could contribute to nutritional value. Local food may not even be as fresh as food transported from other locales; in fact, the PERC study found that because larger farms ship much more frequently than small farms, their food is often more likely to be fresh when it reaches market. The USDA’s misleading claims about the purported environmental and health benefits of local food makes its program even more questionable, beyond the way in which it exerts influence on consumer choices.

Buying local food is not always the best way to be environmentally or health-conscious. At any rate, it is not the government’s job to influence consumer behavior, and the $65 million used by the USDA in its program to promote local food surely has a better use.

Today, first lady Michelle Obama launched her “Let’s Move” campaign, aimed at eradicating childhood obesity. Before the she made her announcement, attendees heard speeches from the president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, an urban farmer, two mayors, and a student.

The urban farmer seemed out of place, because he made little effort to connect his locavore ideology to the problem of childhood weight gain. Of course, children will be healthier if they eat lots of fruits and vegetables, but there’s no reason those fruits and vegetables have to be grown in their cities instead of, say, shipped in from a field in California. The farmer railed against buying food from foreign countries — which, again, is no reason to avoid food from California, even if you accept his protectionist premise. Then he concluded with a few more off-topic pronouncements, including, “When farmers are in business, schools are out,” which sounds to me like an argument against relying on local food for children’s nutrition, and a recommendation that cities grow food in vacant buildings. (Not vacant lots, vacant buildings.)

The mayor of Hernando, Miss., offered more relevant comments, although he too gave the obligatory nods to farmers’ markets and urban gardens. He had a lot of ideas about things cities can do to invite physical activity, such as repairing sidewalks and building playgrounds. The mayor’s emphasis on local policies rather than federal mandates was refreshing. (You see, I have local biases of my own.) And I appreciated it when he said that government should not tell people to be healthy because “that’s a private decision.”

The mayor of Somerville, Mass., advocated a more invasive approach for government. His “Shape Up” campaign goes so far as to place a public stamp of approval on certain menu items at restaurants. Even more troubling is the mayor’s declaration, “The healthy choice must be the easy choice.” This recalls the attitude expressed by a student in Clayton when she spoke in support of the proposed smoking ban: If a choice is good, the city should ensure that it is also easy and fun. In other words, you shouldn’t have to make any sacrifices or be at all inconvenienced when you do the right thing — not if the government can help it. Take that way of thinking just a tiny step further, and the government will be making your choices for you.

While most of the speakers had creative plans for cities and schools, none of them explained why the federal government should play a role or why change couldn’t come from the ground up. The first lady emphasized that her campaign won’t try to impose Washington’s vision on everyone, but it’s hard to believe that when she says she’d like to turn convenience stores into produce markets.

Regarding David Stokes’ question of a couple weeks ago about which type of area (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural) is most heavily subsidized by the government, it appears that the USDA disbursed a record amount of money to rural Missouri last year — $1.126 billion. The bulk of the funds were used as a direct subsidy for rural residents:

The Rural Development Single Family Housing Program provided $578.2 million to individuals and families to buy homes or rehabilitate existing homes.

Let me just get this straight: They subsidized the purchase of homes where they are already cheapest, and at a time when there is already a glut in the nationwide housing market? What could go wrong?

The USDA announces that the secretary of agriculture has appointed new members to the National Mango Board. I didn’t know we had a National Mango Board, although until today, I didn’t know about the popcorn, avocado, or watermelon boards, either. (There’s no board for raspberries yet, but the USDA is working on it.)

Why is the USDA involved in promoting individual fruits? Can’t the blueberry growers and the mushroom growers manage their own public relations?

These organizations belong in the private sector. The USDA should follow the precedent set by the state of Missouri and get rid of extraneous boards.

While we’re on the subject of produce, the National Watermelon Promotion Board links to this picture of a bus stop shaped like a watermelon. Check it out.

Diner’s Journal writes that the proposed increase in federal spending on school lunches disappointed many advocates, who had hoped for a steeper rise in funding. By itself, the increase won’t allow schools to change their menus drastically:

Quick calculations show that at best, the president’s plan might offer less than 20 cents more per school lunch.

Schools can still improve the meals they serve, but they’ll have to find other ways to pay for better food. Schools might raise money specifically for their cafeterias, or they could divert resources from things they’ve been paying for that are less important than lunch. Some schools have already succeeded; this charter school, for one, spends a few dollars more on each student’s lunch than the typical public school. The Maplewood–Richmond Heights School District is another example of a school that changed its lunch offerings without federal help. The district was able to add fresh produce to its meals using a grant from a nonprofit organization.

Not every district needs to transform its cafeteria food. In some districts, the lunches aren’t great, but students live in households that can afford to send bag lunches if they choose. Other districts may decide that something else is holding back student achievement and that all resources should be focused on solving that problem before any additional money is diverted to making lunches tastier.

Districts that do want to spend more on food should accept the fact that they won’t receive unlimited appropriations from the federal government. They need to be frugal, and to buy the food they want at the cheapest price. They need to look for foods that are both nutritious and inexpensive. They can’t afford to squander money on pricey fads like “local” or “sustainable” food.

I don’t have a precise answer to the Show-Me Institute Question of the Week, which asks which lifestyles are most heavily subsidized, but I agree with David Stokes that rural communities should be high on the list. The first rural subsidies that come to mind are agricultural ones, like the cotton subsidies that appear in this Southeast Missourian article. Here’s the rationale behind them:

Michael Milam, an agronomy specialist with the Missouri Extension in Kennett, Mo., said that underscores the important role subsidies play in the survival of farmers.

“The subsidies have kept farmers in business,” Milam said. “The help from the government allows the farmers to compete on a level playing field with the rest of the world’s cotton producers. If the farmers that produced not only cotton but other crops dropped out because they didn’t receive the subsidies, I believe you’d see a domino effect of higher prices passed onto the consumer.”

The effect of ending the subsidies wouldn’t be as disastrous as this specialist imagines. Everyone could enjoy a lower tax burden if the government stopped paying Missouri farmers to grow crops that could be grown more cheaply someplace else. And there’s no reason to assume farmers who grow both cotton and more profitable crops would drop out of farming altogether. More likely, they would concentrate on raising crops that the market will pay for.

We shouldn’t try to level the playing field between Missouri and other places, because it’s a waste of money. We could pay farmers to grow oranges and level the playing field between us and Florida, but what would be the point? We can just ship in oranges with less trouble and expense. It’s the same for cotton and all the other crops that don’t bring in a profit when grown in Missouri.

Few policy issues are as as uncontroversial as the idea that the federal government should provide some kind of national defense. Realizing that funding the military is almost universally considered to be a federal obligation, advocates of other policies try to piggyback on that popular support by associating their programs with defense or comparing their concerns to a battlefield.

The latest example is this essay in the Huffington Post by Debra Eschmeyer, Media Director of the National Farm to School Network. Eschmeyer argues for a direct link between school lunches and national security:

Do tater tots, pizza, and soda rise to the level of calling in Janet Napolitano or David Petraeus? Oddly, yes, because the National School Lunch Program was originally created to promote “nutrition in the national defense,” as a solution to young men who were unfit for service in WWI and WWII. The lunch line was actually designed to prepare soldiers for the front lines. (And sadly, 27 percent of the population for military service today are too obese/overweight to serve).

Eschmeyer then turns her attention away from history and calls for a “fight” against poor nutrition.

Is Eschmeyer correct that we need better cafeteria food to keep out foreign invaders? I don’t think so. There are many other factors that prevent people from joining the military, such as criminal records, lack of education, and health problems that are not related to food (including poor eyesight, mental illness, and others). It’s worth noting that the report Eschmeyer cites about military service recommends expanding preschool education in an effort to improve graduation rates, but makes no mention of school lunches.

Fortunately, we don’t need a large percentage of the population to defend the country right now, so it doesn’t really matter that so many people can’t serve for one reason or another. Problems like obesity don’t determine whether we have a military, but which people are employed by it. As a country, we can still enjoy the benefits of national defense. The only people who lose out when the army excludes lots of overweight people are the overweight people who want to serve. And if someone wants to join the armed forces but is barred by weight, he can make nutritional or other lifestyle changes to improve his fitness. In this sense, overweight people are in a better position than others who are disqualified, because it’s possible for them to bring their weight down to military standards through their own initiative.

The fact that a small percentage of the population is eligible for military service can be a good thing, depending on how you look at it. It means that we are living in such a peaceful time in history that our military can afford to be selective, excluding people who don’t have quite enough education or whose weight is just a little higher than the ideal.

The defense argument for better school lunches doesn’t pass inspection. If states like Missouri think kindergartners don’t eat enough vegetables, they shouldn’t frame that as a national security crisis. There’s no need to call in the federal government — or to call forth the militia.

An entertaining AP story reports on the popularity of FarmVille, a game application on Facebook that allows users to manage virtual farms and sell crops. People praise the game for being fun and simple. The AP suggests that it may be also be instructive:

Since its launch last summer, the cartoonish simulation game [...] has become a Facebook phenomenon, luring in everyone from urbanites [...] to actual farmers while gently nudging people to think more about where their food comes from.

I applaud FarmVille for disseminating knowledge about the origins of food without help from preferential local food laws. Advocates of farm-to-school programs and gardening subsidies cite learning about food as one of the main benefits of those policies. It’s good to see that a voluntary activity like playing FarmVille can be just as educational — at no cost to taxpayers.

I really liked this piece by Sen. Jason Crowell in the Southeast Missourian about the proposed property tax increase in agricultural land in Missouri. (Thanks to Mr. Combest for the link.) What I liked most about it was that it focused its ideas on why we should not raise taxes on agriculture, instead of trying to sell the idea that agriculture is already overtaxed in Missouri — which it ain’t. (Note use of term “ain’t” as attempt by said blogger to sound country when writing about farming.) I wrote about this last month when the proposal to raise the assessed valuations of some farmland first came out.

Senator Crowell writes:

Both the director of Missouri’s Department of Agriculture and the Missouri Farm Bureau disagree with the tax Commission’s decision, warning that a tax increase could be extremely damaging to Missouri’s farmers as they work in this struggling economy.

I certainly agree with that. Now is not the time to make food more expensive, and it may never be the right time to do that via tax policy. However, sometimes in the interest of setting proper valuations on which to base property taxes, some people will see their taxes rise while others see them fall. It is important to remind people that some agricultural property would see its assessments — and, thereby, taxes — fall as a result of this study.

I’ll emphasize that I support preventing this new assessment system from going into place, but let’s not pretend for a moment that farm taxes are high in Missouri. That acre of farmland producing valuable commodities that the farmer will sell would only have been valued at $1,270 per acre. That does not entail a tax of $1,270 per acre; as explained nicely here, the tax rates would only be based on that valuation. A tax rate of $7 per hundred dollars of assessed valuation (about average for St. Louis County; it is probably lower in rural Missouri) leads to a property tax of $10.67 per acre — not very much. At that rate, it would take more than 400 acres of the most productive farmland in Missouri to equal the property taxes we pay on our 1/4-acre lot for a starter home in suburban University City. So, keep the taxes as they are; just don’t tell me farmers face a heavy tax burden in Missouri.

If we should be lowering taxes on any one area in Missouri, it should be on commercial/manufacturing property.

Regarding raw milk regulations, the Springfield News-Leader reports:

Most commercial dairy producers are against the unregulated sale of raw milk because they fear if anyone got sick from it, the pasteurized milk industry would suffer from the bad publicity and confusion.

Fear of bad publicity can’t fully explain why Missouri law allows farmers to sell raw milk from their farms but not from makeshift stands in parking lots. Nor does it justify other states’ stricter controls, such as Oregon’s ban on advertising raw milk. If avoiding negative publicity were the only object, it would be sufficient to keep raw milk out of grocery store aisles. There would be no need for fine distinctions between customers ordering milk ahead of time or paying for it on the spot.

In fact, commercial producers who truly hoped to prevent a public relations disaster would want raw milk to be more visible, not less. Confusion might arise if people heard that someone got sick from raw milk, but they didn’t know what raw milk was or where people got it. They might erroneously assume they were buying raw milk themselves. If raw milk were widely advertised and many people saw it available at independent stands and distribution centers, they’d understand that raw milk is not the same product as the milk they find at the store.

The plethora of raw milk regulations are more effective from the point of view of avoiding competition. When consumers can’t hear about raw milk sales because advertising is forbidden, or when there’s no convenient way to pick up raw milk because it’s sold on a distant farm, most will buy pasteurized milk at the store. Producers stand to lose from easy access to raw milk.

When locavores enter the policy arena, they usually focus on education: On school districts’ purchasing decisions, or on initiatives like the University of Missouri Extension Program. Now a public health agency in New Mexico is pushing local food to a wider audience:

With the grant, the Health Council will work toward increasing the availability of fresh, locally grown produce and to help transform the eating habits of the community.

There are two things wrong with the Health Council’s plan. First, there’s the assumption that the government ought to transform an entire community’s eating habits. It’s one thing to say that if a public institution like a school district happens to serve lunch to kids, the food might as well be nutritious. It’s altogether different to set out to engineer a lifestyle change for all of a city’s residents.

The Health Council points to the obesity “epidemic” to justify its plan, but obesity isn’t some kind of contagious disease that the state needs to protect us from. You won’t gain weight from coming into contact with an obese person. While the government might have to take action to prevent the spread of a virus or bacteria, it should leave the choices that can result in obesity up to individuals. They won’t put anyone else in danger if they gain weight.

Second, this is another instance of the government endorsing the idea that locally grown produce is superior to food from other sources. Anyone is free to hold this conviction; however, their belief has no place in policy until they come up with evidence for it. Supporters haven’t demonstrated a connection between local food and health. In fact, some dietitians even recommend frozen produce over fresh:

“[F]rozen produce actually can be healthier than the fresh variety. It is on the plant or tree longer than the fresh variety, so it’s packed with a higher nutrient value.”

If a public school near you is giving preference to food grown nearby, watch out. Your government might begin advocating local food as the correct choice for you, too.

Is a fad robbing students of their right to an education? According to Caitlin Flanagan, the answer is “yes,” and school gardens are the culprit. Flanagan denounces school gardens in an essay in the Atlantic, arguing that for disadvantaged children, every minute spent in school can potentially be used to gain knowledge that will help them escape poverty, but some of that time is instead being wasted on manual labor (i.e., gardening) for the sake of politicians’ whims.

I agree that gardening should not be a top priority for most schools, but I think Flanagan overstates her case. For one thing, students don’t spend that much time in gardens. Flanagan gives the example of a school where students spend an hour and a half per week on gardening and food preparation; that translates into less than 20 minutes per school day. Supposing students spend twice as long on the cross-curricular activities Flanagan condemns so bitterly, there still remain several hours in the day for all the sound academics she believes students miss out on when they’re working with plants.

Second, gardening needn’t be as demeaning and stultifying as it is in Flanagan’s portrayal. Flanagan likens a gardening curriculum for immigrants’ children in California to a sharecropping curriculum for African-American children in the South. This is an unduly harsh analogy. I’m sure schools don’t send children out to the gardens when weather conditions would make the work difficult. And tending to a variety of plants is a small plot can be far more interesting and rewarding than picking a single crop in a vast field. Also, in the event that students don’t like the gardening, they’re free to slack off without fear of retribution from a taskmaster, or of losing their livelihood.

Flanagan is right that some students would gain more from books in the library than from plants in the garden. The problem is not gardening but the monolithic public school system, which mandates that if an activity is beneficial for some children, everyone has to spend time on it. For children who want to work in botany or landscaping when they grow up, or whose parents value gardening experience, offering gardening in school would be worthwhile. (So the garden at Clyde C. Miller Career Academy is entirely appropriate, because some students there study biotechnology and plant science.) Everyone else should be free to opt out. Whenever a public school incorporates gardening, or any task besides basic academics, parents should be able to choose whether their children participate.

I hadn’t noticed a proposal to exempt produce sold at farmers’ markets from sales taxes until I read this column in the Columbia Missourian (link via Combest). The bill in question is S.B. 658.

I’m opposed to exemptions from taxes, be they targeted tax credits or sales tax holidays, because they give the affected businesses an advantage over others. The advantage is the most unfair when the exemption is very narrow.

S.B. 658 certainly qualifies as narrow. The sales tax break would go to goods sold at farmers markets, so an apple sold in a grocery store would be subject to the tax, while the same product sold in a farmers’ market would be exempt. And it wouldn’t even apply to all farmers who sell at markets — the market would have to be a nonprofit or a cooperative.

It gets worse. The bill lists all kinds of products that would be affected, naming them in detail (”flowers,” “maple sugar,” “mushrooms,” etc.). If this bill becomes law, I predict we’ll have to revise it again and again as farmers lobby for additions to the list.

Yesterday, I wrote about the Census Bureau’s “Portrait of America” campaign, which is collecting videos from people as part of its road tour. Today, I returned to the 2010 Census website to watch some of the videos that are already up. (Click on “See Their Stories” if you’d like to follow along.)

These videos are more professional than anything people will produce at the “Portrait of America” kiosks. They show edited interviews with rural, small-town, and urban residents. Each segment tries to convince viewers that the Census is important.

I started with “Broadway” and watched Breanne and Dave talk about their urban garden. The video briefly mentions that the Census helps determine the allocation of grant money, including the funding their garden received. But, mostly, Breanne and Dave list the fruits and vegetables they’re growing. We also get to see a close-up of their coop, and to read this message:

So you can have a say in how your neighborhood grows.

This implies that how people garden in your neighborhood is something we all have to decide collectively — and that if you don’t fill out your Census form, you won’t get to choose between strawberries and tomatoes.

Next, I turned to “Pine Road.” (Who came up with these hokey names? Well, I guess I should just be glad they didn’t call it “Highway Census.”) You can’t miss the farmer’s market. I searched the scene in vain for a raw milk distributor — maybe they’re hiding the milk in one of those coolers in fear of a sting operation.

I listened to Chris’ story — and was amused by the Census Bureau’s stereotypical depiction of free-market supporters. Chris is a taxidermist. He doesn’t have a license to do this, because his state, Texas, doesn’t license taxidermists. That seems unremarkable. Why should you have to get a license to stuff dead wildlife? Who would the license protect? The animals? They’re already dead!

Chris doesn’t think we need any more laws and regulations about taxidermy. Because of this, the website informs us in the written preview of the video, Chris is reluctant to share any information with the government. In other words, this implies, if you don’t want your state to impose a bunch of extraneous license requirements on you, you must be a paranoid Texan who doesn’t want to fill out a form about how many people live in your household. And you probably have a whole herd of dead deer behind you, too.

Then, something amazing happens. The interviewer hands Chris a Census form. Chris has never seen one of these before and doesn’t know what’s on it. (I wonder where he was when we did this 10 years ago. Maybe he was too busy hunting.) In addition to being a skilled taxidermist, Chris is also an expert speed reader. He glances at the sheet for one second, expresses astonishment that it’s only a page long, and is converted. The Census doesn’t ask any questions about income, so Chris is willing to fill it out. The interviewer doesn’t bother to inform him that we tell the government about our income on a different form, one we’re supposed to fill out more often than once a decade.

Breanne, Dave, and Chris are all entitled to their opinions. What I don’t like is that the Census Bureau is using tax dollars to produce videos about them, giving the impression that personal gardens are good uses of federal funding or that Chris’ views are representative of free-marketers. The Census Bureau should stick to its job of administering the Census. If these other people want to share their lives, they can do that on YouTube.

One last thing, in case you’re wondering: If you want to be a taxidermist in Missouri, you’ll need to buy a $30 permit.

I enjoyed this column by Don Curlee about the USDA’s “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative. He asks an excellent question:

Will life be sweeter if we are personally acquainted with the guy who made our bathtub?

Most people have no desire for better knowledge of the workers who did their plumbing or built their garages. (Or who put together their carports, as the case may be.) Those workers contribute to our economy just like farmers do. So why does the USDA single out farmers for us to associate with?

Curlee wisely observes that even if you want to know your farmer, your farmer might not want to know you. Farmers, after all, are busy people with lives of their own. I agree. It’s patronizing of the USDA to assume that farmers want closer acquaintanceship with all the final consumers of their produce, as if farmers had infinite free time or lacked friends.

After reading the many sensible things Curlee says, I’m confused by this statement toward the end of the column:

Somebody at the USDA deserves credit for encouraging a closer relationship between food producers and food consumers.

People should feel free to cultivate relationships based on shared interests, ideas, and personalities — but you shouldn’t have to hang out with someone just because chance juxtaposed the two of you on the food supply chain.

It’s wrong for a federal agency to endorse farmers as uniquely worthy of friendship. For the same reasons, I’m opposed when Missouri schools present this ideology to children as an unchallenged truth.

I discovered my calling while reading this article, which recounts psychics’ forecasts for the coming year. I’ll be shocked if this psychic’s predictions don’t happen:

There will be more children home-schooled. [...] Sports are going to be very big this year [...] In the youth community, the younger people will be brought together by playing sports [...]

Homeschooling has been steadily growing in popularity for years, so we can expect that trend to continue unless something out of the ordinary occurs. And kids will play sports in 2010? I could have told them that.

Another psychic weighs in on agriculture and the locavore movement, a topic I wrote about several times during 2009:

I see locally grown crops. I think people will band together and raise more local food.

I, too, see local food growth in the next year, especially in Springfield, Columbia, Kansas City, and other places where people have been interested in it — and lobbying for policies that would favor it — for a while now.

And there’s another prediction about kids and education, this time from a “spiritual adviser”:

I see a big change coming with schools and education. I see something major with education. I don’t know what that is.

It isn’t exactly precise, but you can’t expect anything more detailed from a quote that was given for free. If you want to know what changes are brewing in education, you’d probably have to pay a psychic for their expertise. Or just be patient and keep reading Show-Me Daily.

The USDA, always eager to tell kids what they should eat, wants to spread its message through a more effective medium than “Know Your Farmer” trading cards. The department is soliciting feedback for a contest to reward creators of online games that teach kids about nutrition.The games must be based on USDA data.

MyPyramid Blast Off Game is the only game I’ve found on the MyPyramid.gov website. It’s cute and colorful, albeit inflexible. Players are supposed to select a day’s menu from a list of foods. The game doesn’t take into account differences in nutritional needs, so every player is scored as an average American. A kid who is lactose intolerant has to choose dairy servings anyway, and a kid with Celiac disease has to add whole grains to the rocket ship’s “diet.” Players see a message that their rocket ship didn’t complete its mission if they go over the recommended calorie limit, even if they go just a few calories past the target with an extra serving of vegetables.

The contest will probably inspire new games that improve on MyPyramid Blast Off. Developers could start from the same premise but add complexity, allowing nutritional targets to vary. There would be no need to solicit personal health information from kids — players could be asked the design menus for hypothetical people. Changing targets would also make the game more fun to play repeatedly. In the current game, once players create menus for themselves, there’s nothing more to do.

I’m less confident that an online game can change a generation’s eating habits. Is it worthwhile for the government to sponsor a nutrition contest that may not have a large effect on public health? As usual, the USDA has lofty aspirations, and I’m left wondering whether we’re all really better off because of its actions.

A video from the USDA shows the erection of hoop houses — also referred to less imaginatively as “high tunnels” — at the White House Garden. The USDA, through its “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” campaign, is launching a pilot study that will subsidize farmers’ hoop house purchases in the interest of increasing the availability of local produce. From the press release:

The 3-year, 38-state study will verify if high tunnels are effective in reducing pesticide use, keeping vital nutrients in the soil, extending the growing season, increasing yields, and providing other benefits to growers.

Missouri is among the states that will participate.

Farmers have sheltered plants in temporary greenhouse structures like these for decades. The practice wouldn’t have continued for so long if it weren’t advantageous, so I’m sure the study will find that hoop houses provide some benefits.

What is less certain is whether the USDA’s high expectations will be borne out. The press release states that the study will look into pushing back the end of the growing season. That seems like a reasonable — even cautious — goal, knowing that farmers already use hoop houses for that purpose. But, in the video, officials blithely assert that you can grow food year-round in a hoop house, in “pretty much any climate.”

Are hoop houses tools that can help some farmers grow crops a little longer? Or are they miracle implements that make plants grow anywhere, anytime? I suspect that if the latter were true, most farmers would buy hoop houses without the inducement of a subsidy. After all, hoop houses sell for anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — not a big up-front expense. That would be a small price to pay for the ability to grow crops during several additional months of the year, no matter the weather.

Last week, the State Tax Commission proposed a plan that would change the levels of taxation for Missouri farmland. Combest had a number of links to stories about this. In short, taxes on higher-quality farmland would rise, and taxes on the lower quality land would decrease. I'll admit that I learned a lot about how farmland is valued and assessed because of this story — which is nice, because it's my job to know stuff like that.

Let's start by admitting that property taxes on farms and farmland in Missouri are very low. That does not mean that I think they should be higher, just that we can all admit they're low. Under the new plan, the value of an acre of the best farmland, for tax purposes, would be $1,270. An acre of land in a nice part of St. Louis County can easily be valued at $50,000 for tax purposes — and that is the assessed value, not just the appraised value. I realize there is a big difference between someone paying taxes on those higher valuations for one or two acres, and a farmer paying them on hundreds of acres, but still it is quite a difference — especially when the farm land is making money for its owner, while the residential acre just sits there and looks pretty.

Farm buildings and equipment are also valued lower than personal property: 12 percent, compared to 33 percent. So, I pay higher taxes on my car than the farmer does on his or her tractor. Then again, my car just gets me around, while that tractor helps feed the world.

We keep farm property taxes low because high property taxes are an impediment to productivity in a resource-heavy usage like farming. Higher taxes on farms would lead directly to higher food prices for the rest of us. The people of Missouri decided a long time ago to encourage farming by levying lower taxes for it than for other land uses. I think that was a good decision then, and still a good decision now. The changes that would result from an average increase in farm taxes are not a good idea for Missouri.

There’s a bill before the D.C. Council that’s even worse than this one that was proposed during Missouri’s past legislative session. The D.C. bill would mandate 30 or 45 minutes of physical education per day, depending on grade level, and would order schools to buy “minimally-processed” food from local farmers. It would also establish a program to oversee and expand school gardens.

The Missouri bill was rife with nitty-gritty exercise and food regulations, too, but in some ways it wasn’t so bad. It was aimed solely at public school districts, whereas the D.C. bill would burden both districts and charter schools with new rules. And I can say this for the Missouri bill’s litany of caloric requirements: It stayed on the topic of student nutrition without straying off toward fads like school gardens and local food.

The sponsoring D.C. Council member takes a different point of view; she says that the local food her bill is preoccupied with should really be the bread and butter of the school day:

“You don’t work on math scores and say the heck with nutrition,” she said. “It’s not that these are fluff ideas. I don’t see this as something subordinate.”

It’s another case of a policymaker mistakenly assuming that local food and healthy food are one and the same. If a school says “no thanks” to local food preferences, that’s different from saying “to heck with nutrition.” It just means the school is open to buying nutritious food from wherever it’s grown.