Policy Brief on The Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council

Local Policy Brief

            The Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council (SFPC) is a group dedicated to implementing policies in order to improve the local food system in the city of Denver.  According to the SFPC, a local food system “is a structure in which food production, processing, distribution, and consumption are combined to improve the environmental, economic, social and nutritional health of a particular place.”[1]  The SFPC was founded by then Denver Mayor Hickenlooper in October of 2010 in order to address several perceived problems with Denver’s local food system.[2]  One goal is to increase the amount of food that is produced within the city of Denver.  Currently, “less than 1% of the food that is consumed in the metro-region is produced within Colorado.”[3]  Primarily, this hurts Denver economically as producing more food locally will enhance Denver’s economy and it reduces the transport of food over long distances causing logistical and environmental concerns.  Another issue that the SFPC wants to address with food policy is the growing obesity epidemic.  The council believes that moving to locally sustainable food policies will help Denver residents become healthier by having greater access to better quality food.  Another aspect of this is changing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and food stamp policies to allow those in need to use these benefits to purchase locally grown food.[4]

            With Senate Bill 12-048, the state of Colorado passed the Colorado Cottage Food Act 2012, which was a step toward allowing local unlicensed food sales.[5]  At the state level, this law allows people who produce food to directly sell it to consumers.  This would include products such as home-made baked goods and jams and also includes a limited number of egg sales from backyard chickens.  While requiring no licenses, there are restrictions upon sales, such as limiting profit to $5000 annually.[6]  At this time, the city of Denver’s local policies do not fully conform to the state law.  Denver implemented its first policy change with regard to this law in 2011 when it passed an ordinance that allowed Denver residents to raise chicken and goats on their properties.[7]  However, Denver currently restricts residents from selling home-grown produce and goods directly to the consumer, only allowing sales “on school or church sites, at a farmers’ market or restaurant.”[8]  This is one item where the SFPC wants to implement policy change by adding an amendment to the Denver Zoning Code that would allow people to sell items they grew in their garden or made themselves out of their homes.[9]  Currently, Denver zoning laws forbid something as seemingly innocuous as selling a jar of jam someone made to their neighbor.  Proponents of the amendment believe that this would increase the availability of locally grown foods, while those who oppose the amendment believe that it would clutter up residential neighborhoods with signs advertising the sale of home-made food goods.  The SFPC assures that this would not happen as provisions are built into the amendment that disallows obtrusive advertising. [10]

            Another goal that the SFPC is focusing on is a 2020 sustainability goal, which states, “Acquire at least 25 percent of food purchased through Denver’s municipal government supply chain from sources that are produced (grown or processed) entirely within Colorado.”[11]  The SFPC proposes a local purchasing ordinance to meet this goal.  The council sees the first step in this process as a voluntary one, where guidance is provided to local agencies on how to more easily work with local vendors to purchase locally sourced items.[12]  In the future, they recommend amending the policy to allow a “percentage price preference for vendors which source higher amounts from local farmers”[13]  To go along with this, the SFPC recommends reworking contract language to make local procurement easier for both institutions and food vendors.  On the vendor side, the ordinance would support local food producers by providing training on how to work with local municipalities as well as providing incentives for local food producers.

            A third policy goal of the SFPC is increasing the ability for people using SNAP benefits to use their benefits in a wider variety of ways.  Currently, it is not easy for those using SNAP benefits to purchase healthier food alternatives at places like Farmer’s Markets.  The USDA has noted that municipalities should allow people to use SNAP at farmer’s markets as well as local farmers in order to include “more fresh fruits and vegetables in their diet.”[14]  At the federal level, the USDA has implemented several policies to make it easier for farmers to qualify to accept electronic benefit transfers (EBT).  Currently, the USDA will provide vendors with free point-of-sales machines that can accept EBT cards only (versus other types of credit cards).[15]  The SFPC wishes to allocate more funding to this effort locally in order to “ensure that all farmers’ markets in Denver have the means to acquire current and supporting technology, such as EBT machines.”[16]  A main reason to expand the acceptance of SNAP benefits is to allow this in danger of malnutrition to have access to healthier foods.  The Denver Department of Environmental Health states that the “obesity rate of low-income preschoolers is increasing; the highest rates are among children who are Hispanic (16%) or African American (19%).  Among children in Denver, 16% are overweight and 15% are obese.”[17]  The SNAP initiatives are a step in helping address these issues by increasing the availability of healthier foods to those with the most need.

            The SFPC also wishes to enact policy to “support a broad range of food outlets from traditional grocery store models to alternative methods such as food hubs, mobile produce markets, and food co-operatives.”[18]  This would address the problem of “food deserts”—areas in a city where at least a third of a communities population is “more than one mile from a supermarket or large grocery store.”[19]  City Kitchen, a project based on a HUD grant consisting of local leaders from both the public and private sector, proposes a food hub for West Denver to address such concerns, states that,

“With urbanization of the world population and price volatility in global food supplies due intensification of climate change (crop failures from drought, floods and other natural disasters) and diminishing oil reserves (leading to higher transportation costs) comes the need for greater food system resilience.”[20]

The SFPC believes that the creation of food hubs within Denver will not only improve the health of Denver citizens but also support economic development.  According to the USDA, a food hub is “a centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and/or marketing of locally/regionally produced food products.”[21]  Currently, Denver is lacking distribution centers of this type, but the concept has worked well for other cities, such as La Montanita in New Mexico.  Their food hub “buys from over 700 local farmers and producers, and warehouses and processes over 1,100 local products that are sold through the La Montanita retail co-op locations and other retail markets across the state.”[22]  This allows for locally grown food to be more accessible to everyone.

            In conclusion, the policies that the SFPC wishes to implement in regards to local Denver food policy seem prudent.  In addition to their own reasoning, there are many other factors that seem to warrant a focus on local food policy improvement.  For instance, local food hubs naturally reduce the amount of carbon produced by limiting the distance food has to travel to reach its destination.  In addition, it empowers local communities by decreasing their reliance upon corporate factory-farming operations.  Instead, communities will have access to better quality products, since smaller farms generally use less environmentally damaging farming practices.  As the SFPC and USDA state, having access to locally grown food will also grant health benefits and bolster the local community. 

Works Cited

Barham, Jim. "Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs." Blogs.usda.gov. United States Department of Agriculture, 14 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2015. <http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/12/14/getting-to-scale-with-regional-food-hubs/>.

City Kitchen. "West Denver Food Access Issues and How a Food Hub Can Address the Challenge." (2015): 10-11. Denvergov.org. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. <https://denvergov.org/Portals/193/documents/DLP/City%20Kitchen%20small.pdf>.

Colorado Department of Health and Education. "Colorado Cottage Food Act Becomes Law." (n.d.): 1-2. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Colorado Farm to Market. "Food Assistance Programs." Cofarmtomarket.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "About." Http://denversfpc.com. N.p., 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Local Food Procurement in the City of Denver." (2015): 2. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Policy Issues." Http://denversfpc.com. N.p., 15 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Heirloom Gardens & Sustainable Food Denver. "EatWhereULive." Http://heirloomgardens.blogspot.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Mason, Mondi, PhD, MPH. "Food System Policies and Population Health: Moving Toward Collective Impact in Denver." (2014): 4. Print.

Peters, Marianne. "City of Denver Advances Local Food Policy With Public-Private Partnerships." Seedstock. N.p., 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

United States Department of Agriculture. "SNAP Benefit Redemptions through Farmers and Farmers Markets Show Sharp Increase." Fns.usda.gov. N.p., 25 June 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

---

[1] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "About." Http://denversfpc.com. October 15, 2013. Accessed October 28, 2015. http://denversfpc.com/about-2/.

[2] Heirloom Gardens & Sustainable Food Denver. "EatWhereULive." Http://heirloomgardens.blogspot.com. Accessed October 28, 2015. http://heirloomgardens.blogspot.com/2011/01/meet-denver-sustainable-food-policy.html.

[3] Heirloom Gardens & Sustainable Food Denver. "EatWhereULive."

[4] Heirloom Gardens & Sustainable Food Denver. "EatWhereULive."

[5] Colorado Department of Health and Education. "Colorado Cottage Food Act Becomes Law." 1-2. Accessed October 25, 2015. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Reg_DEHS_CottageFoodsAct_Brochure.pdf.

[6] Colorado Department of Health and Education. "Colorado Cottage Food Act Becomes Law."

[7] Peters, Marianne. "City of Denver Advances Local Food Policy With Public-Private Partnerships." Seedstock. April 3, 2014. Accessed October 28, 2015. http://seedstock.com/2014/04/03/city-of-denver-advances-local-food-policy-with-public-private-partnerships/.

[8] Peters, Marianne. "City of Denver Advances Local Food Policy With Public-Private Partnerships."

[9] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Policy Issues." Http://denversfpc.com. October 15, 2013. Accessed October 28, 2015. http://denversfpc.com/policy-issues/.

[10] Peters, Marianne. "City of Denver Advances Local Food Policy With Public-Private Partnerships."

[11] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Local Food Procurement in the City of Denver." April 18, 2015, 2. Accessed October 25, 2015. https://denversfpc.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/15-5_19-localfoodprocurementadvisorymemo-final.pdf.

[12] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Local Food Procurement in the City of Denver."

[13] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Local Food Procurement in the City of Denver."

[14] United States Department of Agriculture. "SNAP Benefit Redemptions through Farmers and Farmers Markets Show Sharp Increase." Fns.usda.gov. June 25, 2015. Accessed October 28, 2015. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2015/fns-0007-15.

[15] Colorado Farm to Market. "Food Assistance Programs." Cofarmtomarket.com. 2015. Accessed October 27, 2015. http://cofarmtomarket.com/additional-information/programs/.

[16] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Policy Issues."

[17] Mason, Mondi, PhD, MPH. "Food System Policies and Population Health: Moving Toward Collective Impact in Denver." December 2014, 4.

[18] Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. "Policy Issues."

[19] City Kitchen. "West Denver Food Access Issues and How a Food Hub Can Address the Challenge." (2015): 10-11. Denvergov.org. 2015. Web. 28 Oct. 2015. <https://denvergov.org/Portals/193/documents/DLP/City%20Kitchen%20small.pdf>.

[20] City Kitchen. "West Denver Food Access Issues and How a Food Hub Can Address the Challenge."

[21] Barham, Jim. "Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs." Blogs.usda.gov. United States Department of Agriculture, 14 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2015. <http://blogs.usda.gov/2010/12/14/getting-to-scale-with-regional-food-hubs/>.

[22] Barham, Jim. "Getting to Scale with Regional Food Hubs."

Colorado Common Core Policy Brief

Policy Brief

            With the United States falling behind global educational standards, education reform in the United States has become a priority.  In 2010, President Obama called for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in an effort to replace No Child Left Behind (NCLB) with a more effective program that will better prepare American children for post high school education and careers (Office of the Press Secretary).  However, since it has been more than a decade since Congress has reauthorized this act—denying Federal level reform—the Obama administration has instead urged states to adopt what has become known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS), which provides common standards for English and mathematics ("ESEA Reauthorization").  Currently, forty-two states have adopted the initiative, including Colorado ("Standards in Your State") .

            By adopting Common Core, states are attempting to address several perceived deficiencies in the national education system.  One such issue is the disparity between educational levels of children in the same grade—not only across the nation but in different areas of a state as well.  By adopting a standard curriculum, Common Core would ensure that a student in first grade in one school is learning the same skills as a student in any other school, regardless of income levels or other mitigating factors.  In addition, this would allow children who change schools to remain at the same place academically as they were in their old school, causing less confusion for transferring students ("Laws, Rules and Standards").

            Efficiency is another area that CCSS is meant to tackle.  In the past, with each state focusing on their own standards, there has been little cross collaboration across state lines.  Since states will now have the same goals for each grade, educators can draw from a bigger pool of resources and develop curricula together.  In addition, this would theoretically save states money because the state can shop for curricula developed by professional organizations that match the common standards more easily.  Moreover, since each grade’s standards are built upon the previous grade’s standards, it ensures that teachers do not have to waste time re-teaching items that should have been learned in the previous grade ("Laws, Rules and Standards").

            Perhaps the most important problem that CCSS is meant to address is students’ lack of critical thinking skills with NCLB’s emphasis on memorization and standardized test scores.  While the standards outline sets of skills that students in each grade should learn, they do not themselves dictate how those skills need to be taught.  Ideally, this would allow teachers to use more creativity in developing a curriculum.  Furthermore, the standards allow students to have a more narrow focus of subjects per grade, allowing them to explore them in greater depth and with greater comprehension.  This, in turn, allows students to learn greater ‘thinking’ skills than simple rote memorization in order to pass a standardized test (Long).

            Currently, since CCSS is so new, there is little data available to determine its effectiveness, though there is strong debate amongst its proponents and critics.  One major complaint is that little testing was done with the new standards prior to state adoption.  However, states were incentivized to adopt the standards because implementation was tied to federal funding, in essence coercing “voluntary” adoption (Strauss, “Seven Facts…”).  Subsequently, hasty adoption has led to lack of preparation in regards to school materials such as textbooks, lesson plans, and curricula.

Additionally, teachers are fearful of being held accountable for low test scores when they feel that new tests will not take into account the problems inherent in switching over to an entirely new set of teaching practices (Strauss, “Seven Facts…”).   The tests themselves are also not currently standardized, so some argue that the tests themselves are not equitable or fair, which negates many of the positives of adopting CCSS in the first place.  CCSS is further compounded by confusion over what the standards exactly entail.  There are many articles that hope to clear up the “myths” surrounding CCSS, but the fact that there is so much confusion on the subject demonstrates its lack of careful construction. 

Another issue with CCSS is that it does not address the fundamental problem of equity between schools, as it was meant to do (Strauss, “The Myth…”).  Stating that schools need to adopt these standards without giving them the resources to do so is meaningless.  It seems that the richer school districts will still have access to greater materials and supplies.  The rigorous standards could cause poorer schools to fall even more behind because their students and teachers simply do not have the means to teach the required skills for each grade.

            Since data on the effectiveness of CCSS is lacking, it is helpful to look at some examples of educational systems that the United States would like to emulate.  For example, Finland is held up as having drastically improved their educational system since the 1970s.  However, when examining what Finland did to achieve this, it appears to be very different from what CCSS is enacting.  Finland attributes most of their success in their investments into the teachers themselves.  Finland deemphasized standardized testing and focused on granting teachers further state-funded education.  Locally, these highly trained teachers are given more freedom to develop their own curricula.  Furthermore, schools are not ranked by external test scores, leading to a more cooperative rather than competitive environment (Darling-Hammond).

            While the adoption of a common set of standards is a noble goal and not inherently a bad one, there are too many problems with the current CCSS implementation to fully recommend it at this time.  First, the entire set of standards needs to be rigorously tested and vetted before rolling out the system on a broader scale.  As with any system, only with careful testing can flaws be found, fixed, and revised.  The system should not have been put in place without concrete guidelines and readily available materials.  Moreover, during the adoption process, external testing and ranking should be de-emphasized, so that educators and students have ample time to adjust to the new standards.

            In addition, the adoption of CCSS should not be tied to federal funding.  Voluntary should mean voluntary in the true sense of the word.  Because federal funding is contingent on adopting CCSS, many states adopted the standards before they were ready.  This defeats the purpose of the program in the first place and gives the federal government too much sway in the state’s decision-making process.

            States should also consider Colorado’s approach to adopting CCSS.  Since CCSS only sets standards for English and mathematics, Colorado has integrated it into its own educational reform policy known as Colorado’s Achievement Plan for Kids (CAP4K).  In addition to the CCSS standards, CAP4K adds standards for additional curricula, such as art, social studies and science ("Common Core State Standards as a Part of the Colorado Academic Standards").  Currently, CCSS has too much emphasis on only two subjects, which will be insufficient to prepare a child for college or a career.  Colorado’s approach provides for a much more well-rounded education.  For the most part, states’ current implementation of CCSS seems to provide little improvement over the policies put in place with NCLB.

Works Cited

"Common Core State Standards as a Part of the Colorado Academic Standards." Cde.state.co.us. Colorado Department of Education, n.d. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://www.cde.state.co.us/contentareas/ccss_in_the_colorado_standards>.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "What We Can Learn from Finland's Successful School Reform." Nea.org. National Education Assessment, Nov. 2010. Web. 12 Sept. 2015. <http://www.nea.org/home/40991.htm>.

"ESEA Reauthorization." Ed.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2015. <http://www.ed.gov/blog/topic/esea-reauthorization/>.

"Laws, Rules and Standards." Cde.state.co.us. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2015. <https://www.cde.state.co.us/schoolreadiness/rules>.

Long, Cindy. "Six Ways the Common Core Is Good For Students - NEA Today." Neatoday.org. N.p., 10 May 2013. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <http://neatoday.org/2013/05/10/six-ways-the-common-core-is-good-for-students-2/>.

Office of the Press Secretary. "President Obama Calls for New Steps to Prepare America's Children for Success in College and Careers." The White House. N.p., 22 Feb. 2010. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-calls-new-steps-prepare-america-s-children-success-college-and-care>.

"Standards in Your State." Corestandards.org. Common Core State Standards Initiative, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015. <http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/>.

Strauss, Valerie. "The Myth of Common Core Equity." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 14 Sept. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/10/the-myth-of-common-core-equity/>.

Strauss, Valerie. "Seven Facts You Should Know about New Common Core Tests." Washington Post. N.p., 4 Sept. 2014. Web. 11 Sept. 2015. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/09/04/seven-facts-you-should-know-about-new-common-core-tests/>.