BY SARAH ROSS
SALEM- Lawmakers heard a $22.6 million proposal this week to bring local food to Oregon schools.
The law would provide for schools to be reimbursed 15 cents for every lunch and seven cents for every breakfast when the school buys food that was processed, packaged, or produced in Oregon.
State Representative Brian Clem said he was sitting on a tractor at his wife’s family farm just outside Hood River when he wondered if the school next to the farm was getting locally grown produce.
This thought, nearly a decade old, came to him long before running for office and didn’t become a passion of his until he was deciding on the first speech of his campaign for state representative.
The Salem Democrat started working on the bill in 2007 after his election. A similar proposal had been created by the Department of Agriculture, but it was Clem who threw his support behind it in the legislature.
In 2007 he got one position at the Department of Agriculture dedicated to working with schools to obtain locally grown food and another in the Department of Education in 2008. That same year, Clem passed a bill to make Oregon’s official policy to use local food in government institutions like school districts.
While the policy currently does not have a penalty for schools that do not use local food, a few districts purchase locally grown food anyway.
Mel Rader, director of Upstream Public Health, said Clem’s proposal is meant to be a “win, win” for local schools and agriculture.
Rader said schools currently receive $1.10 per student for lunch from the federal government and no state funding. This proposal would provide additional money to the schools and “tie it” to local foods.
“This would be an opportunity for schools to provide a higher quality food and more variety food on that salad bar,” he said, noting that half of schools have salad bars.
The current fiscal request amounts to $22.6 million which would come from the Economic Development Fund.
Clem said because of the current fiscal state in Salem, the program likely will be amended to be a pilot project rather than covering all Oregon schools.
Despite the large fiscal impact of the bill, however, Rader said bringing local food to schools is “absolutely” worth the cost.
“Unlike many of the other things within that Economic Development Fund, there are so many other positive impacts on community health, kids’ health, and the environment,” said Rader.
A study done by Bruce Sorte, an agricultural economist at Oregon State University, showed the proposal could create as many as 806 jobs, split between direct agricultural employees and indirect farm suppliers. These jobs would lead to more local jobs since employees would circulate their paychecks into local economies.
The Oregon Rural Action project has been working in Union County to encourage their local schools to create school gardens and buy locally.
The schools that do buy locally use their federal funding to do so. Powder Elementary School, however, received a grant from the Oregon Department of Agriculture to create their own school garden, the produce of which they serve in their lunches.
Mellisa Free, an active member of the Oregon Rural Action project in Union County, said that the La Grande School District was buying potatoes from a local farmer, fruit from Washington, and other food from the more western part of the state.
“Most of it is the prepackaged, delivered food, though,” said Free, adding that their group has been talking with the district about local spinach and greens.
The La Grande mother said schools still face barriers, such as their budget and that not all schools have full-sized kitchens. This affects their ability to bring local food into cafeterias.
Free said she supports Clem’s bill, which she thinks could break through one of the barriers organizations and parents face when presenting schools with the idea of buying locally.
The proposal had a public hearing on Wednesday in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. It would need to be approved by the committee, pass both chambers of the legislature and be signed by the governor.
“It’s time to put Oregon first,” said Clem. “Let’s reconnect two of our greatest assets: Our kids and our farms.”
Ah yes let’s throw out all of the economic principles such as free trade and comparative advantage.
By this same logic we should just force all Oregonians to only consume what was produced in the state and somehow we would all be better off.
Looks like Clem needs a serious dose of Econ 101.
Yep, let’s add another subsidy to the already staggering list. Clearly Oregon taxpayers can afford it.
Good concept but why do we need to spend more taxpayer money when there already is a government subsidy. Is there a “good buddy” pay off here? Just use the current money allocated to buy locally.
This is the problem – the government can’t pass up an opportunity to spend our money.
WHY pay schools, etc. to do something they should already be doing in the first place? More Nanny Laws in the works.
Ah, protectionism! How fair you appear, and how destructive your ways.
Rep. Clem: read a little. You strive to “protect” the Oregon farmer at the expense of other taxpayers, and imagine that the schools should choose less efficient use of scant tax dollars in order to benefit… oh, that’s right: YOUR FAMILY!
Stop!
Well said Dan!
I wonder if Clem’s tractor was ‘locally grown’, or the miriad other products and services it takes to operate his farm? This is politics, not economics!
“Rader said schools currently receive $1.10 per student for lunch from the federal government and no state funding. This proposal would provide additional money to the schools and “tie it” to local foods.”
Let’s give mercantalism a 21st Century try!
Next, the schools will each be required to grow their crops in their own garden, raise their own chickens, etc. on site. Of course, it is more important for the children to learn composting,horticulture, animal husbandry, etc. than reading, writing, math and the important skills one needs to succeed in this world.
Currently the Federal school lunch program subsidizes huge, multinational corporations that send commodity “food” to schools. I MUCH prefer my tax dollars going to buy Oregon beef and Oregon-grown food.
And just a reminder that when schools only get $1.10 per school lunch they can’t afford to do the “right thing” because they can’t buy quality, local food. They are forced to use low quality and commodity food-like substances and call it school lunch.
Keeping money circulating in local communities by buying local food does so much more than just give kids a better diet. It increases the economic base in each community. Think of the environment cost of food you eat as well. Garbage food shipped all the way across the nation pollutes and does nothing for the local community where you live. Everyone has a choice. Schools should take advantages of local resources at their disposal.
I think this is a great way to make sure Oregon taxpayer money (and all of its benefits) stays in Oregon. In addition to the increase in jobs predicted by respected economist Bruce Sorte (speaking of Econ 101) this bill has important health benefits. Under the current system fresh, healthy foods often cost more (for both individuals and schools) and this has seriously negative impacts on our health, which in turn drives up health care costs. This bill has the potential to increase access to healthy foods for Oregonians.
So let’s see a bill that creates jobs in Oregon, supports small farmers, and improves student health… sounds like a win win WIN to me.
I think we all need to be more open to innovative ways to improve the deteriorating health of our children and of our economy– a large part of which includes the wonderful agriculture in this state. People like Clemm and Free are doing that. Good for them for being creative and supportive of our local resources, and being able to see the opportunity for investment.
In addition to the positive comments stated above, I must add that the additional food that is grown in the garden located on school property can be sent home with children who rely only on school lunches to provide their nutrition for the day. Especially here, in Union County, there are many children who do not get quality food at home and it would be great to see surplus vegetables sent home to these families. I must say that I am suprised by some of the other comments from above. This bill is not ‘forcing’ any school district to buy locally, it is only increasing the reimbusment a fraction of an amount, simply as an incentive. Also, I do not see anything wrong with teaching children the ability to eventually grow their own food. I would much rather see my children utilize their knowledge of science in ways other than being forced into an industry in which they must participate in developing more ‘hybrid’ food growing techniques to feed the current population. Please realize there is much space to be utilized and if all counties allocated their resources in a dynamic way then their probably would not be a food shortage anywhere. Lastly, speaking of economics, the price of locally grown food would decrease if more people purchased it–supply and demand!
Many of these initiatives are already happening in other states. I grew up in oregon and recently moved to Philadelphia, and I have firsthand seen the direct impact of school children eating and participating with local agriculture vendors as well as growing their own food. Not only has the offset of some of these initiatives, (either community-funded or govt funded) actually improved the communities in many neighborhoods, it has actually increased economic development, health, and fostered an interest and new communities supporting sustainability (especially, and surprisingly among lower income economic and racial groups). The programs here where kids have chances to grow their own food as part of the curriculum (in an urban environment) are actually seeing a fall in drug abuse rates and obesity rates.
If oregon prides itself on being “sustainable” “healthy” “efficient” and cares about the future, not just in an educational sense but in an ecological, social sense, then it MAKES SENSE for these types of programs, at least to support those who see the value and the vision of them.
If a city like philadelphia can do it, as run down and battered as it has been, then why not something more clean and conservative ( and lets face it, less racially varied) like oregon?
We can’t talk about facing our problems and trying to see evidence of “progress” until there’s less talk and more walk.
Using economic development funds to support local economic development is a no-brainer. Helping local farmers, improving school nutrition for Oregon children, teaching the connections between farms and schools is a great idea.
We need this in TEXAS!
The rock throwers we see here will continue to hurl their mean spirited tripe until their own lives are mauled by the “creeping rich” who have just about got this country controlled by limiting choices. America’s top 400 families control more American assets than half the population. You can bet they get premium garden fresh fruits and vegetables when they are catered for lunch at their local country club.
Love the post… we recently began cutting out all animal proteins after realizing their link to the initiation of cancer cells (muscle foods) and acting as a cancer growth catalyst (casein). Scary… so we’ve just cut it out all together with the rare exception in baking. We’ve found our immune systems to be much stronger on our plant based whole foods diet as well as our appetite. Since our diet change our children (3 and 6) now beg for broccoli, asparagus, salad, tomatoes, grapes, strawberries, peaches, bananas, etc. Some were favorites before, but others are new! It’s such a great blessing to give our children a healthy lifestyle during their most impressionable years.
We need this everywhere in the world!!