In recent years, chickens have come home to roost in backyards across the country. While the numbers are hard to document, cities and towns all over the U.S. are taking up the issue and modifying their laws to allow backyard chickens. Nearly every week in the news, a story appears reporting another town or city considering amendments to local laws that would allow backyard chickens. Proponents in North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, and Nixa, Missouri have been working to amend the law; while just last week, local government in Hampton, Virginia and Howard County, Maryland, approved ordinance amendments to allow backyard chickens.

Seeing this trend as an extension of the local, urban food movement, people are realizing that chickens make great, productive pets. There’s evidence that eggs from backyard chickens have greater nutritional value than commercial eggs, and chickens eat pretty much anything – ticks, grasshoppers, kitchen scraps, weeds, you name it. They even have the added bonuses of being adorable and kids loving them. How could you not love that beak?

Photo Credit: stevenljohnson @ flickr

However, in 2012 an outbreak of salmonella that was traced back to several backyard flocks made at least one NPR blogger wary of the recent trend – dubbing backyard chickens “spreaders of salmonella.” A CDC report found that most of the people infected in this outbreak handled live chickens and that many of them had purchased chicks from one Ohio mail-order hatchery. A single hatchery, in this case, was responsible for the outbreak that affected 195 people in 27 states.

The story, unfortunately, focused on the chickens themselves when instead it should have focused on the bigger picture: when outbreaks can be pinpointed to a single source, it demonstrates the vulnerabilities of a large, global food economy. When there’s a problem, like an outbreak, it tends to spread faster, and farther in our interdependent, global economy. For example, in 2010, a salmonella outbreak that sickened hundreds across the country was traced back to one Iowa egg company and the company had to recall 380 million of its eggs.

And this blogger is not a lone voice in decrying backyard chickens. Alongside the stories of municipalities voting to change laws to allow backyard chickens, you will find stories of municipalities voting to ban backyard chickens, often in the name of public safety. It makes me wonder, how have we come so far as a society to be more skeptical of the food produced right before our eyes than food produced primarily behind closed doors and transported more than a thousand miles before reaching our plates?

Industrial food-animal production is largely responsible for the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, while the lack of appropriate handling of waste at many of these facilities contaminates nearby air and waters with harmful nutrients and toxins. In addition, the focus on profits means animals are raised in as little space as possible and not surprisingly, these cramped, dirty conditions are fertile breeding grounds for diseases. On the other hand, a decentralized, local, scaled-down food economy offers numerous benefits. Local food significantly reduces these types of risks, makes us more resilient, and the food produced tends to be healthier too.

So do backyard chickens pose a public health risk? The facts just don’t bear this out. Consider this: salmonella causes about 1.2 million cases of food poisoning each year in the U.S. The outbreak that was traced back to the mail-order hatchery constitutes 0.01% of the total number of cases.

Photo Credit: edenpictures @ flickr

In addition, research suggests backyard chickens present no more of a health risk than other animals that may be kept as pets. If chickens are well-cared for and are kept in a clean environment, as with all pets, they are more likely to stay healthy. Very few poultry diseases are transmissible to man and salmonella is not an airborne disease (read: salmonella will not simply float from the chickens in your neighbor’s yard into your home). If you do decide to handle a chicken, simply wash your hands afterwards.

For the better part of mankind’s history, food was produced and consumed locally. Prior to World War II, nearly one-third of Americans lived on farms and even if you didn’t live on a farm, you probably bought your meat, milk, and eggs directly from your local farmer. During this time salmonella and avian flu certainly did not run rampant. These diseases that now make the news cycle on a near daily basis – and emerging concerns about antibiotic resistance and indiscriminate pesticide use – are products of our large, industrialized food system. Backyard chickens are a part of a solution that will strengthen our local food economy and at the same time, create foods that are both better for us and the environment.

Photo © Jericho Hills Photography – John Vose

Small farms are part of the fabric of New England, and now – perhaps more than ever – consumers are devoted to supporting local agriculture in our region.  Unfortunately, some proposed federal regulations do not reflect these local values.  The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) proposed new food safety rules  impose confusing and cumbersome restrictions on farm operations in the name of food safety.  We are all in agreement that food safety is extremely important.  But the new FDA rules were designed with large-scale agriculture in mind, and are not compatible with the scale of agricultural production operations in New England. These rules are critically important – they will impact how food in New England and around the country is grown, handled, and processed. Whether you are a farmer, a food buyer or processor, or someone working toward a thriving and resilient New England farm and food system, you have a stake in how new food safety laws are implemented.

CLF will be co-hosting a free webinar on the new FDA food safety regulations on August 13^th from 12-1:30 PM.  We’ll be discussing two rules that were recently issued to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA): the “produce” rule, which addresses farm practices, and the “preventive controls” rule, which governs facilities that manufacture, process, pack or hold food. This webinar will teach you how these food safety rules may affect your farm, your business, your food purchasing decisions or the region’s farm economy and environment—and how you can take action to be sure your voice is heard.   You can register for the free webinar.  If you’re interested but unable to participate in the webinar, please register and we will send you a link to the webinar after it happens so you can watch it at your convenience.  After the webinar, we encourage you to attend the FDA listening sessions in Augusta, ME (August 19) and Hanover, NH (August 20) to provide comments, and to submit written comments to the FDA before the November 13 deadline.

Webinar speakers include:  Dr. Joanne Burke, Food & Society Faculty Fellow, University of New Hampshire; Dr. Richard Bonanno, Extension Educator, UMass Extension and President, Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation; Dr. Lori Pivarnik, Coordinator, Food Safety Outreach/Research Nutrition and Food Sciences Department University of Rhode Island; and  Roger Noonan, President, New England Farmers Union.

Webinar sponsors are: New England Food System Policy Project (a project of American Farmland Trust, Conservation Law Foundation, and Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group); Food Solutions New England; Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation; New England Farmers Union; Rhode Island Division of Agriculture; UMass Extension; and University of Rhode Island.

This article first appeared in the Sunday May 5 edition of the Rutland Herald /Times Argus.

For over a decade, Vermont’s hardworking cows and farmers have been keeping our lights on, curbing greenhouse gas emissions and helping local businesses grow. The renewable energy produced by cow manure in Vermont now powers 2,990 homes and businesses, including Killington Resort, Long Trail Brewing Company and Vermont Clothing Company.

The greenhouse gas emissions avoided by these projects is equivalent to taking over 9,000 cars off the road each year that would have burned 5.3 million gallons of gasoline.

There is no question — Vermont leads in advancing farm methane projects, and our production of this renewable energy continues to increase. It is a legacy to be proud of, and one that will soon be expanding.

The Cow Power program was started by Central Vermont Public Service in 2002 as a way to meet electric customers’ demand for renewable power. With the merger of CVPS with Green Mountain Power and recent approval from the Vermont Public Service Board, the program is now expanded and available to any customer of Green Mountain Power. That’s a good thing, since farm production of power has outpaced the in-state demand. It is time to close that gap.

The program could be replicated by other utilities or expanded to serve other customers. Perhaps someday it will be available statewide — but for now Cow Power is only available to GMP customers.

GMP customers can sign up for the program and make a voluntary 4 cent per kilowatt hour payment on all or a portion of their electric bill. All the proceeds go to Vermont farmers to produce electricity. And all GMP Cow Power purchases provide customers with 100 percent renewable power. It’s a small investment for a cleaner planet and a healthier future for our children and grandchildren.

Here’s how it works. Manure produced on a farm is put into a digester at the farm. The bacteria in the digester convert the waste into methane gas. The gas fuels an engine that runs an electric generator and creates electricity. Heat generated from this process is used to keep the digester warm. Remaining solids are processed for bedding or soil amendments — and the liquid, which still contains nutrients, is used for fertilizer.

The benefits of GMP Cow Power extend well beyond the supply of electricity. With the volatility of milk prices, the option to produce power provides real economic benefits to farmers in tough times. It also significantly reduces odors, making for happier farmers and neighbors. The gases and compounds that typically produce farm odors and contribute to climate change are captured to produce electricity. The gas keeps lights on — instead of creating a stink.

Vermont businesses have been as creative and hardworking as our farms in turning their use of GMP Cow Power into gold and rightfully expanding Vermont’s solid environmental reputation.

In Woodstock, the trolley that runs through town is operated on Cow Power and features creative posters informing riders about Cow Power and how it helps keep the planet clean.

The Vermont Clothing Company in St. Albans produces Cow Powered T-shirts, which it creatively sells in cardboard milk cartons that describe Cow Power. And as the sole supplier of T-shirts to the Deepak Chopra Foundation, the company enhances the foundation’s commitment to a cleaner and healthier planet.

Killington Resort, a business that depends on snowfall and avoiding a warming climate, is using GMP Cow Power to operate cow-painted gondola cars, while promoting the climate change benefits of Cow Power and its partnership with local dairy farms.

Here’s the real beauty of Cow Power: It’s a 100 percent local program, where 100 percent of the proceeds go to help you and your neighbors create a healthier planet for future generations everywhere. This is a success worth building on and expanding, now that it is available to all 250,000 GMP customers in Vermont.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about bringing backyard chickens back to Rhode Island and paid special attention to the ongoing effort to repeal Woonsocket’s chicken ban. A few days later, the Washington Post ran a feature-length article on low-income Woonsocket residents’ struggles to feed their families.

My last post focused on the ways that historical justifications for chicken bans have become outdated, and also noted some health and environmental benefits of backyard chickens. The Post article casts the Woonsocket chicken issue in a new light: Woonsocket suffers from food insecurity, and backyard chickens can help.

The Post article is worth your time to read (here’s another link to it), but here are a few important takeaways: Every month, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) injects $2 million in benefits (formerly called food stamps) into the Woonsocket economy. With a local unemployment rate of 12% and only low-paying jobs available to many employed residents, a full one-third of Woonsocket residents receive SNAP benefits. In fact, some local grocery stores make up to 25% of their monthly profits on the first of the month, the day when SNAP benefits are transferred to recipients. Together, these numbers – and the article’s well-drawn profiles of several Woonsocket residents – present a picture of food insecurity.

Backyard chickens are not a panacea by any means, but they can help to alleviate food insecurity and promote economic self-reliance. They can turn food scraps, beetles, and grubs into fresh eggs. And their droppings (if dealt with appropriately) are great for growing vegetables too. They add resilience to a broken food system. You can read more about chickens and chicken care by poking around Southside Community Land Trust’s website.

Once you’re satisfied that backyard chickens make sense, you should come out to Woonsocket City Hall on Monday, April 1 at 7 p.m. to show your support for repealing Woonsocket’s chicken ban!

A new interactive map released by USDA shows where the greatest challenges, and potentially the greatest opportunities, exist for the growing urban agriculture movement.

In many communities across the country, availability of fresh food is low, or even non-existent. A grocery store may be several hours away on foot, leaving families with little to no access to fresh fruits and vegetables, or other elements of a healthy diet. These areas, known as “food deserts,” usually exist in low-income regions, and they will present stark challenge as we face climate change, an obesity epidemic, and a fragile economy.

USDA’s map undoubtedly presents a sobering picture. However, it also provides a blueprint of opportunity. Areas lacking access to fresh food are exactly where inspiring urban farm initiatives are increasingly cropping up.

Across New England, there is a tangible sense of excitement around the possibilities for an urban agricultural vision. We at CLF believe that building urban farming infrastructure is not just possible—it’s necessary.

CLF is heavily involved in ensuring that such a vision takes root. Our recent study details the economic development potential for urban agriculture in Greater Boston. The report found that urban agriculture can play an essential role in creating a more livable, carbon resilient, healthier, economically vibrant, and environmentally sustainable city—if we put smart policies in place and encourage market development for Boston grown foods. Through our Food and Farm initiative, our advocates are working to build this important infrastructure.

Both challenges and great opportunities lie ahead for urban agriculture as we face a changing climate, and we at CLF are playing an active role in establishing policies that will increase healthy food production, accessibility and sustainability across New England.

A genuine Rhode Island chicken. Image courtesy of eschipul @ flickr.

All over Rhode Island, people want to keep backyard chickens. The trouble is that the law often doesn’t let them.

Until 2010, Providence banned chicken-keeping entirely. That year, a coalition of residents worked together to overturn the ban. These efforts paid off – now, chickens peck away happily at sites ranging from Southside Community Land Trust’s almost-a-whole-block City Farm to my friends’ snug 1700-square-foot lot in the West End.

After this success in Providence, other cities and towns looked more closely at allowing chickens. Swanky Barrington followed Providence. The City Council in Cranston, where I live, repealed the city’s chicken ban; unfortunately, though, our mayor vetoed the repeal so the ban remains on the books (for now). As spring approaches and our thoughts turn to our backyards, a city and town in northern Rhode Island – Woonsocket and North Smithfield – are considering lifting their backyard chicken bans.

The effort to repeal the Woonsocket ban began the same way most repeal campaigns seem to: a Woonsocket zoning officer ordered a responsible chicken owner to get rid of his birds. Alex Kithes says his neighbors didn’t even realize he had chickens until he offered to share some eggs. As word spread, the city found out and issued a citation. Alex is fighting back. He has drafted a city council member to introduce a bill allowing chickens in Woonsocket, and he is lining up individuals and organizations to lend support.

CLF supports eliminating barriers to local food, and that includes legalizing backyard chickens in Woonsocket. When people keep chickens, they can cheaply opt out of industrial egg-suppliers.  A more direct benefit of backyard chickens is that small broods’ droppings make great fertilizer, while concentrated droppings from large egg-laying operations are toxic. Backyard chickens also add resiliency to our increasingly concentrated food system. And backyard chickens can even encourage organic waste diversion, eating table scraps that otherwise might be landfilled. These are the types of broad-ranging benefits that panelists recently promoted at the Rhode Island Local Food Forum.

Legalizing backyard chickens also allows residents full use of their property to grow food and helps to foster community. To better understand these points, we have to take a brief look back in history. Municipal bans on backyard chickens began with New York City in 1877, followed by Boston in 1896. Both cities were motivated primarily by concerns with unsanitary chicken slaughter; wholesale bans on chickens, however, were much easier to enforce than targeted bans on slaughter.

Over time, however, slaughter of backyard chickens has all but vanished (and is still banned in most modern chicken ordinances, though off-site processors may be available for those who want to eat their birds and not just their eggs). Sanitary concerns have largely disappeared (and sanitation is regulated in most modern chicken ordinances). And chicken bans remain on the books primarily due to worries about nuisance and image. But any well-tailored chicken ordinance will take a dual approach to nuisance: both proactive (setting minimum conditions for housing and feeding chickens, and banning noisy roosters) and reactive (allowing neighbors or municipalities to fight actual nuisance conditions). This approach allows people to keep clean, quiet birds on their property if they choose to do so.

And clean, quiet birds not only are perfectly consistent with a positive community image but can in fact foster community. Backyard chickens can be quite stylish (this coop, for example, looks even better in person!) or even all but invisible – I didn’t realize my West End friends had chickens until they paused our daughters’ play date to go outside and feed the birds. Chickens tend to be great with children, and egg-sharing can bring neighbors together. Finally, there are no known data suggesting that backyard chickens negatively affect nearby property values. The fact is that out-and-out chicken bans restrict property rights and prevent environmental benefits for no good reason at all. Everybody loses.

For all these reasons, CLF supports amending the Woonsocket backyard chicken ban. I plan to speak in favor of repealing the ban at Woonsocket’s April 1 City Council meeting, and I hope you will consider joining the growing pro-chicken coalition as well.

Last week I attended the Ninth Annual Rhode Island Local Food Forum, organized by Farm Fresh Rhode Island. The forum’s theme was “Center of the Plate,” reflecting its focus on local protein production. Particularly enlightening was a panel discussion whose moderator, academic chef Bill Idell, posed questions that resonate across the region.  These questions ultimately boil down to two big ones: First, what does a sustainable food system look like? And second, how can we make one happen?

The panel’s meat experts – local guru Pat McNiff of Pat’s Pastured and Mel Coleman from national good-meat powerhouse Niman Ranch – agreed that sustainable meat means raising animals in their natural habitats (not concentrated feedlots) and in a way that feeds both animals and soil. The panelists also highlighted that sustainable food systems require local capacity because geographically concentrated animal operations are at risk from extreme weather: last summer’s drought, for example, “force[d] livestock producers to liquidate herds because feed [wa]s too expensive.” All this means that local meat is not just grown in a place, but it also grows that place by enriching both land (ecologically) and community (economically).

Building capacity for local meat is tough, however, when farmers have limited access to land. This is the case in Rhode Island. Not only is land itself expensive here (as throughout New England), but property and estate taxes can make it almost impossible to keep productive land in agricultural use when it is more valuable as land for development (and is assessed as such for tax purposes). We at CLF are looking closely at this issue.

Moving from the land to the sea, the discussion yielded different insights from the panel’s seafood experts.  “Eating with the Ecosystem” founder Sarah Schumann and seafood-aggregation specialist Jared Auerbach of Red’s Best noted that sustainability means something much different for seafood than for meat, because so many fish and shellfish stocks are wild. They agreed that a sustainable seafood system should be biodiverse – instead of a singleminded focus on cod, for example, a sustainable system would mean sending more fluke, skate, scup, and squid to market. Diversifying the types of seafood we typically eat would allow overfished stocks to recover, and would also contribute to the resiliency of ocean life in the face of climate change and ocean acidification. Furthermore, a sustainable seafood system would mean – to borrow from Sarah Schumann – eating with the (local) ecosystem. Seafood brought in to local ports is easy to trace and to verify species, boat size, and fishing method – factors that are federally regulated but relatively easy to lose track of as more steps are added to the supply chain. Encouraging demand for diverse seafood products, localizing seafood markets with robust tracing and verification systems, and streamlining state and federal fisheries regulations would all help foster local, sustainable seafood systems.

All four panelists, farmers and fishers alike, agreed on another point: we need local, sustainable food systems both to limit and to respond to harms wrought by carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions cause climate change, leading to droughts and other extreme weather that disrupts agriculture; these disruptions, in turn, require robust local systems to add resilience to the global food system. And carbon dioxide emissions also cause ocean acidification, which poses an immediate risk to shellfish and a long-term risk to all ocean life.

All this highlights the importance of CLF’s farm-and-food and climate-change programs. Our work shutting down coal-fired power plants and promoting renewable energy helps to limit emissions that threaten our current food system (not to mention our planet). And our farm-and-food program promotes local and regional food systems that provide a broad range of environmental benefits. As CLF’s newest staff attorney, I am excited to be joining these efforts here in Rhode Island. The Local Food Forum made it clear that there are many good ideas brewing here – we just need to do the work to get our food policy right.

Burying our garbage in landfills is a waste of resources, but it’s also a convenient way to get rid of stuff we don’t need or want. If there were clear alternatives to trashing our resources, would we use them? The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) believes the answer is yes.

The DEP has finalized new rules that provide a permitting pathway for operations that process source separated materials – stuff like food waste or recyclable plastics that are not mixed with other wastes in the general trash stream. Source separated materials are distinguished from “waste”, so qualifying facilities will not be permitted as solid waste facilities. Previously a facility that sought to collect discarded material for recycling or some other reuse was considered a solid waste facility. This created barriers to the productive use of materials like food waste. The new regulations are a good step toward better management of our discarded materials.

Under the new rules, finalized November 23, DEP has created three size-based categories:

1. Small facilities (no permit required)
2. General permit facilities (certain activities permitted by-right)
3. Facilities that will require a new Recycling, Composting, and Conversion (RCC) permit

The good news is that these rules create a permitting pathway for anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities. AD is a process in which organic material, like food waste, is processed in an airtight container to create a gas similar to natural gas (high in methane). AD facilities can use the gas to fuel energy generators to create electricity and heat that can be used onsite or sold in the energy market.

AD facilities, if properly sited and appropriately operated, offer a win-win by managing food waste and generating a renewable gas for energy production. Rather than putting our food waste into a landfill where it does more harm than good, the energy in the food can be efficiency recovered for productive use.

“But what about composting?” you may be asking. DEP’s goals, as stated in the current draft Solid Waste Master Plan, include diverting 350,000 tons of organic waste per year from landfills. Some of this will be accomplished by AD facilities, but some diversion will be accomplished by composting. The new rules clarify which operations are permitted by DEP and which are permitted by the Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR).

Whether we create high quality fertilizers and soil amendments through composting, or energy and fertilizer through AD, we will be diverting organic material from landfill disposal. DEP’s new rules are a step in the right direction to better manage our resources for economic advantage and environmental gain.

Grounded in our Colonial history, America’s harvest feast – Thanksgiving – is a quintessentially New England holiday, a time to be grateful for our region’s rich agricultural traditions of hard-fought bounty and community-minded collaboration.

As we head off to celebrate with our families (as the famous New England poem goes), it is worth remembering that many of our neighbors in New England are struggling, day in day out, to cobble together three meals of good, healthy food. We know that, here in my relatively prosperous state of New Hampshire, more than 1 in 5 households with children experience food insecurity, and more than 130,000 people turn to emergency sources of food like food pantries every year (a number that has more than doubled in the last six years). Hunger and poor nutrition pose special risks for children, who may experience lasting damage to their health, educational outcomes, and economic opportunities.

The stark reality of childhood hunger is one of the driving forces behind CLF’s Farm and Food Initiative, our ongoing work to build a thriving, sustainable food system that grows our region’s farming economy – in rural and urban areas alike – to benefit all people in New England.

In this spirit, CLF is grateful to be a part of a new effort in New Hampshire to tackle childhood hunger, which was formally launched yesterday. Spearheaded by Children’s Alliance of New Hampshire and a diverse coalition of stakeholders known as NH Hunger Solutions, the effort – New Hampshire’s Roadmap to End Child Hunger – has identified three key goals for the state: (1) increase access to healthy food by expanding the number of families that benefit from school meal, food assistance, and nutrition programs, (2) strengthen New Hampshire’s food systems with policies that improve the availability of affordable, local, healthy foods for families of all economic groups and that strengthen farmers’ connections with schools and community food programs, and (3) ensure overall economic security for all families by enhancing public financial assistance for those in need. Yesterday’s rollout of the Roadmap was a terrific event in the gymnasium at Henniker’s Community School, featuring a number of community and food system leaders. You can read more about the event in this NewHampshire.com article.

We at CLF are particularly gratified that the Roadmap recognizes the importance of a strong, resilient food system that connects all people to healthy, affordable foods produced locally and sustainably by New England and New Hampshire farmers. As we noted on Food Day last month, CLF and others are hard at work identifying the policy and practical barriers to this kind of system and developing recommended solutions.

As implementation of the Roadmap begins – in collaboration with the companion efforts of Food Solutions New England to build a statewide Food Advisory Council – we look forward to helping New Hampshire achieve the Roadmap’s ambitious goals. As we share Thanksgiving with our families, CLF and our partners are committed to living up to New England’s heritage of sharing the harvest.