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.

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 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.

Some of us lament a world where fake reality TV plots, uber-famous starlets way below my age demographic and head-exploding talk show hosts rule the airwaves, as it can be a bit difficult to get the media spotlight focused past the eye candy and on “the real issues.” You know – the substantive, grown up policy stuff like genuine efforts to bring scientists, industry, citizen groups and government together to solve ocean acidification, species loss, declining fisheries, coastal erosion, and red tides.

Well, say no more, ladies and gentlemen, because the National Ocean Council has brought us the sleekest, the sexiest, the most seductive and alluring draft ocean policy implementation plan of this – or any other – presidential administration.

Am I joking? Maybe a little. But, let me know if you really want to sit down for a 45 minute Powerpoint presentation and discussion that analyzes, for example, the structure of a regional planning body in a comprehensive regional ocean planning process. Because it turns out that real issue is actually a very important component of starting to develop agreement between large companies, day boat fishermen, coastal developers and beach-loving families on how to keep oceans clean, healthy and open for business. Not really TMZ-type material.

The National Ocean Policy is really laid out in a 96 page document called the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and on page 32 it details the nine priority objectives that will implement the National Policy. Today the National Ocean Council released a draft implementation plan for those nine priority objectives. This is a big step forward for implementing the National Ocean Policy and will eventually lead to some serious action on issues such as the need to develop ecosystem-based management approaches to cleaning up the polluted runoff that increasing fouls Cape Cod beaches each summer.

The Final Recommendations took a hard working group of 25 agency leaders (see page B-I) and their staff over a year to hold hundreds of meetings, review thousands of comments and interview dozens of business, economic, national defense, scientific and community experts in a process to develop our Nation’s first ever attempt to get all of its various departments and agencies pointed in the same direction and working together to improve ocean health and management. Creating the National Ocean Council and developing the draft implementation plan has taken another year. That’s because improving ocean health and keeping oceans healthy is hard work. Not having healthy oceans and coasts is costly to our economy, causes job loss and destroys livelihoods and communities. So, spend a few moments to check out the draft implementation plan. Help support the National Ocean Policy. Ask your friends, co-workers and elected officials to support the National Ocean Policy.

Power down the big screen and dive into a real issue.

Image courtesy of dsearls @ flickr. Creative Commons.

While the job of cleaning up New England’s power plants is not complete, we have made a good amount of progress: we have reduced emissions from the plants that are still running and are moving towards closure of some of the oldest, dirtiest and most obsolete plants, like the Salem Harbor Power Plant.

But as Ken Kimmell, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, noted in this radio story, his department still has to advise people not to eat fish caught in streams and lakes: “The mercury levels in the fish are still too high for it to be safe to eat and that’s because we’re still receiving an awful lot of mercury from upwind power plants,” Kimmell says.  The Commissioner is making the essential point here – we are making progress here at home but if we want to truly end the threat of neurotoxic mercury in fish (and the other health effects of power plant pollution) we need to look towards national efforts.

The path forward is clear.  We need to maintain pressure on the sources of pollution here in our region, like the the Mount Tom power plant on the Connecticut River in Massachusetts, while making a strong, affirmative move towards clean energy resources like energy efficiency, wind power, solar, and smart electric storage.

Meanwhile we need for the federal government to stand firm and implement long overdue rules to reduce pollution from the power plants to our west.  The Mercury and Air Toxic Rules that EPA is releasing will prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses (like asthma attacks) and up to 17,000 deaths each year.  The effect of these regulations will be overwhelmingly positive. For instance, every dollar spent on power plant emissions reductions yields $5 to $13 in health benefits.

We all deserve to breathe easier, our children deserve to be free from the dangerous neurotoxic effects of mercury in our air, and our communities deserve the reduced health care costs and increased job opportunities that will flow as we build a new clean energy economy.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“CSAPR”), released today by EPA, is designed to reduce ozone and particulate (e.gt., soot) emissions from power plants in the upwind states to our west that cause death and sickness in the states receiving those emissions, like the New England states (known to some as the “tailpipe of the nation”).  The actions leading to the rule began in the late 90s, when Massachusetts and its fellow Northeast states petitioned EPA under the Clean Air Act “good neighbor rule,” which prevents emissions in an upwind state from harming air quality as prevailing winds transported the pollution.

CSAPR builds on rules the Bush Administration issued, which are resulting in billions of dollars in emissions control investment and air pollution reductions, but which courts struck down as illegally weak.  In finalizing these strengthened  rules which seek to hit the standard set by the Clean Air Act, EPA balanced concerns of industry and health advocates with a new methodology using cost effective controls and providing flexibility by allowing emissions trading – an approach favored by the electric utility industry.

The result will be massive reductions in pollution and over $120 billion per year in benefits from decreased mortality, hospitalizations and sick days.  Because of the actions our states have taken to reduce emissions, the rule does not impose any new requirements in on any New England state but is predicted to result in Massachusetts attaining the air quality standards required by the Clean Air Act.

The rule validates the air pollution control policies adopted by Massachusetts and the Northeast states by leveling the playing  field so that obsolete and high-polluting power plants in the Midwest and Southeast can no longer export their air pollution to states that have already reduced their emissions.

In honor of the 41st anniversary of Earth Day, CLF Board members from across New England have banded together to make an extraordinary $41,000 investment in CLF’s – and our region’s – future. Every new or increased gift you make now through Earth Day – April 22– can be matched, dollar-for-dollar, up to $41,000.

Your gift today will go toward solving the region’s toughest environmental problems, and help us ensure a healthy, thriving New England for generations to come. From Maine to Rhode Island, CLF stands up for your favorite places, for the health of your families and your communities, and for the prosperity of our region. Since the last Earth Day, we:

• Cleaned up the air in Somerset, MA by closing the doors on an old, polluting coal plant
• Won tougher standards for phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain, VT
• Preserved the fragile ecosystem of Great Salt Pond on Block Island, RI
• Saved Mainers millions of dollars on electricity infrastructure
• Helped NH cities and towns save energy and money by increasing energy efficiency

As Earth Day approaches, we are reminded that around the world and right here in New England, our land, our oceans and our air are in peril. On the heels of the 2010 elections, many in the new Congress are pursuing a clear anti-environment agenda, one that cuts directly to the core of the most fundamental protections for our health, safety and well-being. With leadership in Washington sorely lacking, CLF is uniquely poised to take the reins in protecting New England.

Today, we are asking you to help us continue our progress by taking part in our Earth Day Challenge. Your commitment enables CLF to safeguard our oceans, clean up our lakes, rivers and forests, promote clean energy innovations and build healthy, livable communities. We hope you will take part in our Earth Day Challenge by making a donation today to help CLF protect our small but mighty corner of the world.

By now, you’ve heard about Governor LePage’s regulatory “reform” proposals that threaten to dismantle four decades of sound environmental regulations and put Maine’s environment and economy at risk.

CLF is already hard at work evaluating these “reform” proposals and their sources, and has submitted a formal request under Maine’s Freedom of Access Act for the documents, communications and other materials that served as the basis for this proposal.  CLF is ready to work with the new administration to create proposals that make existing regulations and institutions more efficient; however, we are also prepared to hold the LePage administration legally accountable for the changes they propose to implement.

Here’s how you can help:

1. Attend a Hearing

The LePage administration is moving quickly to codify the proposals with a public hearing on LD 1, the vehicle for making these concepts law.  Come stand with CLF and our allies to support Maine’s environment and voice your opposition to these “reforms” by attending the public hearing on LD 1 on Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m. at the State House in Augusta, at which the Joint Standing Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform will take testimony on the Governor’s proposals.

Public Hearing on Governor LePage’s Regulatory Reform Proposals
Monday, February 14 at 9 a.m.
Maine State House
100 State House Station
Cross Building, Room 208
Augusta, ME 04333

Stand with CLF and tell the Governor that his proposals will:

• Threaten Maine’s economy by endangering the natural resources that bring businesses and tourists to Maine from all over the globe and $10 billion annually;
• Eliminate environmental safeguards that have been in place for decades to ensure clean air, clean water and a clean food supply;
• Endanger the health of all Maine residents;
• Perpetuate our dependence on oil; and
• Tear down the solid regulatory foundation that benefits every family and business in Maine.

2. Send a message to the LePage Administration

If you are unable to attend the hearing, you can submit your comments online to Governor LePage and the committee chairs for the Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Fairness and Reform.

Protect Maine. Tell Governor LePage and the committee chairs, Senator Jonathan Courtney and Representative Jonathan McCain, that these proposed “reforms” will threaten the future of the Maine we know and love.

Want to learn more? Check out what CLF Maine director Sean Mahoney had to say on the subject in this Solve Climate News article.

With just one click of your mouse, you can help save 500 million barrels of oil, cut 250 million metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, and produce $41 billion in net economic benefits.

Please take action today: Support EPA’s first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses.

The deadline for comments is Monday, January 31st, so make sure your voice is heard.

Background

Last October, the EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a joint proposal to adopt America’s first-ever climate pollution and fuel economy standards for freight trucks and buses.

These vehicles – from the largest pickups to 18-wheelers – use more than 100 million gallons of oil per day. They are also responsible for about 20% of the climate pollution from America’s transportation sector.

The new standards, which will apply to trucks and buses manufactured in model years 2014 to 2018, will help strengthen our economy, increase our national security and reduce dangerous air pollution. By 2030, the volume of projected daily oil savings from the proposed standards would be large enough to offset America’s oil imports from Iraq.

This proposal follows two previous actions by EPA and DOT to improve fuel efficiency and climate pollution standards for passenger cars and trucks.

The first announcement was in April, when the Obama administration adopted the first-ever national greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2012-2016 cars and light trucks. The second announcement came in October with the announcement of a blueprint for new standards for model years 2017 to 2025.

CLF has led our region in pushing for these initiatives to reduce dangerous emissions from transportation and protect the health of all New Englanders. Please join CLF in supporting these new standards by submitting your comments to the EPA.

The public comment period ends January 31st, so add yours now.