You may have read Michael Pollan’s recent essay published in the Food & Drink Issue of the New York Times Magazine about the significance of California’s Prop 37 initiative to the food movement at large. “Is this the year that the food movement finally enters politics?,” Pollan wonders. Is this the year that it will “engage in the hard politics of Washington — of voting with votes, not just forks”?
A new food advocacy group called Food Policy Action (FPA) has answered that call to arms, as it were. “There has never been a better time,” reads FPA’s blog, “to turn the food movement from a social and economic movement into a political force.”
FPA was launched on October 24 of this year, and it aims “to highlight the importance of food policy and to promote policies” that support a wide range of food-related causes. As Tom Laskawy explains on Grist, “The meat of the effort — and the thing that distinguishes it from other groups — has to do with the sometimes mind-numbing but essential subject of federal legislation.”
At its launch, FPA issued the first-ever National Food Policy Scorecard, enabling the public to hold members of Congress accountable for their positions on food policy. The Scorecard rates each member on 32 floor votes taken over the past two years. “The good news in the results is that consumers have plenty of champions in Congress on both sides of the aisle,” says FPA. “The bad news is that some of the most powerful members of Congress have the lowest scores.”
50 members of Congress received a perfect score of 100 percent — every single one of them Democrats but one — including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD), Sen. Barbara Boxer (CA), Sen. Ron Wyden (OR), Rep. Adam Schiff (CA), Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY) and Rep. Charles Rangel (NY).
How do your lawmakers fare? Find out here. The website allows you to search by politician or zip code and to browse by food-related bill to view the complete results for that vote.
Among GOP lawmakers who rank as friend more than foe to the food movement are Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania.
Some of the worst-scoring, prominent members of the House and Senate include House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Rep. Steven Stivers (R-OH).
FPA’s Board of Directors features some familiar names and organizations, including Tom Colicchio (celebrity chef), Gary Hirshberg (co-founder and chairman of Stonyfield Farm), Wayne Pacelle (CEO and president of Humane Society of the United States), Ray Offenheiser (president of Oxfam America), Michael Jacobson (executive director of Center of Science in the Public Interest) and Ken Cook (president of Environmental Working Group).
The importance of the work that Food Policy Action has set out for itself can’t be underestimated, and you’ll learn a lot from the information they’ve published on the website. “The FPA will be keeping an eye on our elected leaders on behalf of the voters who sent them to Washington,” said Offenheiser in a press release. And now, Cook adds, Americans “can actually vote for lawmakers who have stood with them, not with big food or industrial agriculture.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.