The overarching concept of foodshed is so sane that I instantly felt more sane myself upon hearing about it and reading these drafts. It brings together so many of the parts about the ethics of land use so many have worked on, and yet we could hardly imagine what something other than unbridled development could look like. OF COURSE we have reached the point where we need to somehow set aside farmlands as we once set aside wildlands as national and state parks to protect them in perpetuity.

That said, my father was a farmer. I know firsthand that antibiotics, pesticides, and petroleum products and water use are largely ungoverned at the farm level, left as they are to the discretionary judgment of the land owner, in spite of what labels and regulations say.

As part of the foodshed concept, we need to rethink the very language we use to communicate about water pollution, for instance. This idea of "off-farm" or "nonpoint source" groundwater nitrate contamination, simply because the pollutant is assayed downstream of what has to be the source of the pollutant, has got to go. The concept of trying to figure out blame, or who is to blame, has to go. As a foodshed, groundwater contamination in that region is the responsibility of all, even post hoc, since pollutants show up in groundwater decades after their release. Perhaps a foodshed management plan can help us to figure out how to share responsibility and learn how, without rancor, to be a "brother's keeper" while also taking responsibility for one's actions. There will have to be a system of accountability.

Likewise, cities need to learn how to stop putting over 8,000 chemicals and pharmaceuticals into the water supply through the sewer system. We have no idea how those chemicals are interacting, how persistent they are, or what they are doing to the myriad life forms that share our common water supply. Water treatment facilities are not designed to detect them or remove them. Already we have evidence of reproductive problems in humans, pigs, fish and amphibians. See the lucid presentation by the Urban Natural Resources Institute: “A Threat to Our Water: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products” http://www.unri.org/webcasts/a...webcast-1/

All of these issues come together under the framework of foodshed.

If you haven't already discovered her work, you'll find Dr Gill Shepherd's publications to be of value re: thinking through the concept of foodshed and foodshed management. The ecosystem approach is her speciality--http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_work/cem_ea/

In particular, the CEM publication "The Ecosystem Approach-- Five Steps to Implementation" was designed to synthesize and condense a complex mosaic of ideas into language and a framework that 3-rd world farmers and politicians could understand. Her articulation of concepts will help in the coming months as you seek to communicate with a broader audience. In fact, if you could get her on board as a consultant, likely she could help you a great deal as a change agent. She's very smart, committed to biodiversity conservation, and really stands her ground.

If, at this early stage, you link the language and principles of the foodshed concept and management plan to those of the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Commission on Ecosystem Managment, you will gain broader understanding and support. Granted, the concept of foodshed and the fact that food production is highlighted as a premier ecosystem service extends even the CEM's work. However, the underlying principles and goals are the same, and the CEM, as part of the UN's mission, gives your work an authority that it otherwise might lack. (The current healthcare debate offers many lessons for how people, even the people who would benefit most from such a commonsense shift in the way we conduct ourselves, might be frightened off by such a fundamental paradigm shift.) One CEM publication offers two key concepts that I believe should be integrated into your draft definitions: 1) people as an integral part of an ecosystem and 2) waste as a primary outcome of our lifestyle. In fact, a CEM publication characterizes waste as our primary problem-- we have run out of places in air, water and landfills to put our waste. That idea as a primary driver leads to some obvious management priorities. Here's the report:

Transition to sustainability: towards a humane and diverse world
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cem/cem_resources/

Waste reduction and recycling, down to capturing nutrient loss from the foodshed and restoring the primary productivity of topsoil, has to be as important as productivity in order for a foodshed to be sustainable.

Here are some good case studies for a bioregional approach to recycling municipal food wastes:

Chicago Recycling Coalition:
http://www.chicagorecycling.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=23&Itemid=60

Cooperative Extension has done several pilot studies on how to set up value chains re: collecting and recycling municipal food and yard wastes to restore regional soil productivity.

I've enjoyed studying your vision plan, and this is my last post. I am enthusiastic about the ROC movement, and its possibilities. Although I am a soil-first ecosystem advocate, I've concluded that the bottom line for me is land--finite land--and how your success will influence land prices and land tenure. The federal indicator, 'poverty level', is insenstive to regional differences in cost of living, particularly home prices and rents. As farm acreage becomes increasingly protected and immune to development pressure (presumably through regional foodshed strategies and Farm Bill supports), the value of urban land will increase as land becomes more scarce for development, and deepen the poverty of low-income workers. The UN's Global Land Tool Network has grappled with this issue in 3-rd world countries, and perhaps has some ideas about how this issue might play out here. In the meantime, I would be interested in seeing more 2009 vs 2030 projections about land prices and protecting land tenure rights for the poor in urban areas if ROC is successful. It would not be sustainable if the problems re: land values of rural small farms and low farm incomes were merely transfered to the urban poor in terms of higher rents and higher food prices. At present, although food stamps are not intended to be used as add-on income support of the urban working poor (the new name SNAP emphasizes "supplemental nutrition", i.e., not a supplement for other living expenses) food stamps are in fact used as a salary support. It appears that if ROC succeeds, the federal food stamp allotment and the minimum wage must necessarily go WAY up to supplement both food and housing increases. As a consumer, and before any ballot measures are put before me, I would need to see these issues addressed. If the idea of a successful "sustainable agriculture" movement boils down to increasing welfare dependency in other sectors, its name is misleading.

oops. just one more comment. The first sentence of the foodshed concept and the first sentence of the mission statement for "The New Mainstream" (presumably the prime directive) appear to target different audiences and outcomes.

Compare "A foodshed is the area of land and sea within a region from which food is produced in order to deliver nutrition to a population base." with the New Mainstream:

"California’s sustainable food system of the future creates a new mainstream that lifts the fortunes of the food and farming industry,..."

The emphasis of the first is the needs of the people, particularly (hopefully) the needs of the most vulnerable--low-income women and children. The emphasis of the second is the fortune of the ag sector, particularly those who practice acceptable land stewardship. It appears to be a trickle-down theory for meeting the food needs of the poor, and not only by improving their access to fresh food but also their ability to purchase it, somehow, to be determined later (hopefully). I, for one, would prefer to see the needs of the poor being placed front and center in both statements. As is, the outcome that comes last in the New Mainstream mission ("leads a worldwide demand for health and quality in everyday living")appears to justify the criticism I've read that the Slow Food movement, with its emphasis on sensory pleasure and ROC alignment with its aims, is in fact elitist.

Israel-- a case study produced by the UN's Global Land Tool Network for how to better utilize urban space for land development to accommodate population growth while preserving farmland:

A GIS-related multi layers 3D cadastre in Israel

http://www.gltn.net/index.php?option=com_external_tools&id=839&task=view&Itemid=129