Last Friday I attended a terrific conference sponsored by American University Washington College of Law’s Health Law and Policy Program and the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) on the FDA – Past, Present, and Future. From a discussion with four former FDA Commissioners—Califf, Hamburg, Kessler, and von Eschenbach—to a conversation with four former FDA chief counsels—Cooper, Hutt, Masoudi, Troy—the conference provided a fantastic perspective on the agency, both current and historical. There was a keynote address by Henry T. Greely, the Director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School, and a plethora of fantastic breakout sessions on drugs, devices, tobacco and cosmetics, food and animal products, and biological products. You can find the agenda and conference papers here. This was a conference for the ages, and I was lucky to be there.
By: Joseph Pileri, Contributor
Last month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation legalizing street vending across California. This bill prohibits California localities from outlawing street vending outright or treating any violation of street vending regulations as a criminal offense, limiting penalties to administrative fines payable only on an as-needed basis. The law also requires prosecutors to dismiss any currently pending prosecution brought under street vending regulations.
This bill follows years of efforts by advocates in Los Angeles to legalize street vending in the city. For years, street vending was illegal in Los Angeles despite the near ubiquity of fruit carts, taco stands, and hot dog vendors. There was a blanket ban on street vending that exposed any street vendor to potential fines and criminal violations. Advocates recently renewed their push to change this law so that thousands of immigrant street vendors would not find themselves facing deportation because of operating a street vending business.
Los Angeles was not alone in its treatment of street vending. Municipalities around the country have criminalized street vending or the violation of street vending regulations. This is an example of what I term “the criminalization of microenterprise” – local jurisdictions completely outlawing street vending and other business activities or treating violations of licensing rules as a criminal offense. I am working on a project to survey municipalities around the country and study their treatment of street vending. The results, thus far, are surprising. Though many localities require street vendors to be licensed and may impose fines and civil penalties for violating these licensing requirements, cities from Detroit to Houston treat the failure to comply with street vending regulations as a criminal violation. Washington, DC attempted to criminalize street vending in 2014.
These laws have disproportionately negative effects on would-be entrepreneurs who already face barriers to entering the formal economy. Immigrants, those with legal status and those without, individuals returning from incarceration, and individuals with time-consuming childcare and family obligations often look to start microenterprises like street vending to provide for themselves and their families. When these types of businesses are criminalized, vulnerable individuals may be deterred from starting these enterprises or may face severe penalties, including deportation or incarceration, for what would otherwise be a simple licensing violation.
Concerns about public health and safety – particularly when it comes to food – are understandable. The public has a right to know that food, even when bought and consumed on the street, is safe. The California law, however, does not force Angelenos to take health risks with every bite of their al pastor taco. This legislation explicitly permits cities to pass ordinances related to public health and safety. Cities may even have an easier time regulating the safety of food sold by street vendors now that proprietors of these businesses no longer face potential criminal penalties.
Much work remains to understand the extent to which cities and states criminalize street vending and other microenterprises. California has taken an important first step that both protects the health of the public and allows individuals to support themselves and their families. Angelenos who love grabbing a pupusa or a bacon-wrapped hot dog on the go will also be appreciative. By criminalizing microenterprise, cities raise barriers to entry for vulnerable entrepreneurs, unduly burden those entrepreneurs most at risk, and detract from the vibrancy of communities. I hope that California is only the first to reverse this trend.
 2018 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 459 (S.B. 946) (WEST).
 L.A., Cal., Municipal Code Section 42.00 (1994).
 Detroit, Mich., City Code § 41-6-2 (2017).
 Hous., Tex., Code of Ordinances § 22-91 (2018).
Last week, the Los Angeles Food Policy Council (LAFPC) held a community networking event on the concept of regeneration, a broad idea that addresses healing and transforming our food system, and encompasses health, access, human rights, social justice, and animal welfare. In its description of the event, the LAFPC wrote, “At LAFPC, we envision regeneration as a paradigm shift–one that goes beyond extraction, beyond inputs and outputs and even beyond sustainability. To be regenerative, our food systems need to not only feed people, but restore our planet. Regenerative food systems give birth to new opportunities for transforming our earth, our communities and the people who inhabit them.”
The program included talks by Clare Fox, the Executive Director of the L.A. Food Policy Council, and Gunnar Lovelace, the co-founder and co- CEO of Thrive Market, an online wholesale buying club for organic and natural foods, and “learning hubs,” which divided the attendees into small groups to discuss how regeneration resonated with various aspects of the food system.
The concept of regeneration goes beyond “organic,” “clean,” “natural,” and even beyond “sustainable,” and the conversation at the event ranged from how to indicate such a concept to consumers, to how to create incentives for big agriculture to embrace regeneration, and whether change would start at the individual or systemic level, or both.
To see more LAFPC events, see their website, here.
This fall the California ballot will include an initiated state statute, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, or California Proposition 12. This statute would ban the sale of meat and eggs from calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens confined in areas below a specific number of square feet, repealing and replacing part of a 2008 California law that also addressed the humane treatment of animals.
Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam provides an interesting perspective on Prop 12 in the blog post, below, which is cross-posted from her blog, Biobeef Blog. Dr. Van Eenennaam is a Cooperative Extension Specialist in the field of Animal Genomics and Biotechnology in the Department of Animal Science at University of California, Davis. I also recommend reading her series of three posts on this issue that she posted in January. The first is linked here.
Back in January I wrote a blog entitled Proposition 2 déjà vu about a proposed California ballot initiative entitled “The Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act”. Sure enough that initiative qualified for the 2018 ballot, despite the clear data on the impacts as detailed in my three blog posts on this issue (Six hens a laying, Evidence-based animal welfare recommendations, Proposition 2 déjà vu).
I am quaintly of the opinion that objective evidence should drive public policy, and not emotions, despite having lived in California for over 30 years. And as a public scientist I remain convinced that objective facts and data are the best way to inform policy.
However, ballot initiatives in California are basically a pay-to-play scorecard. If you have the money to get the requisite number of signatures (365,880 valid signatures), then your initiative will be on the ballot, facts be damned. And so it was with Proposition 12, a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)‐backed initiative addressing animal confinement, which has raised $5.37 million to date… And so now let’s cue the opposition funding which will no doubt be “big ag” or “corporate farming” or “evil egg” or “big chicken”, or a tearful segment of a mother on Dr. Oz, or a shockumentary on NetFlix…..but no – crickets (actually cage-free, mute crickets to be precise). As in no organized-opposition from those who grow your food, or research the best way to produce food sustainably (Hint: people who might know some things).
Wait – what? Agriculture and scientists have had enough. We know science and facts are useless (see my previous 3 blogs re this initiative and almost all of the outreach work I have ever done in agricultural science), and there just is no point in fighting initiatives funded by wealthy animal activist industry groups who use persuasive arguments based entirely on emotion while conveniently failing to mention the multiple trade-offs and unintended consequences associated with their proposed course of action. And so the usual adversaries of demonstrably bad agricultural policy i.e. “big ag”, known as farmers by the general public, and “tobacco scientists”, known as public university faculty and researchers to most, have thrown in the towel.
And I understand that response. It is exhausting trying to fight these large, well-funded activist groups who will stop at nothing to get their way – facts and scientific consensus be damned, and it can be a lucrative pastime. Ask those trying to fight the anti-vaxxers, or the anti-GMO industry. Slowly I see my animal scientist colleagues quietly retreating into the “spiral of silence” – a tranquil place where no one fabricates facts, and where pure science can be carried out peacefully sans messy public confrontations – sometimes referred to as “the ivory tower.”
Last time UC Davis got involved in this discussion by providing objective facts regarding Proposition 2 “Treatment of Farm Animals” over a decade ago in 2008, it cost the taxpayers more than a million dollars in a lawsuit with HSUS – money that did not go to educating our students or carrying out research, and the lawsuit about wore out one of my faculty colleagues. Likely UC administration is happy we are playing dead this time around on Proposition 12 too.
And who can blame the University? It is not fun to be in the middle of a politicized, scientific controversy. However, if professionals in the field are unwilling to stand up for objective data and evidence-based decisions, who will? And that is where this discussion gets interesting.
Who is opposing Proposition 12 – if not industry or subject-matter experts? The Humane Farming Association (HFA), an animal cruelty organization that opposes the proposition on the grounds that it legalizes for several more years some practices HFA opposes. So Proposition 12 does not move fast enough for the Humane Farming Association.
Say again? With a modest $550,000, a committee backed entirely by the Humane Farming Association, is the sole funder of opposition to Proposition 12, the “The Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals”. And here is where it gets good. Who doesn’t like a little Humane vs Humane mud wrestling?
Bradley Miller, spokesperson for HFA’s Californian’s Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud “Stop the Rotten Egg Initiative” stated of rival HSUS
“The Humane Society of the United States [HSUS] is once again deceiving voters, flip-flopping on the issue of cages, and perpetuating the suffering of egg-laying hens” HFA
There is a video made by HFA (below and can be accessed here) summarizing their version of the June 19, 2018 California State Legislature hearing regarding Proposition 12 which contains some interesting conflict-of-interest footage, including some questioning as to how much money HSUS was making from Proposition 12 (Spoiler alert: HSUS does not have those numbers).
According to HFA, HSUS ended up collecting 664,000 signatures for the ballot, but less than a quarter (164,000) of those were collected by volunteers, the remaining signatures were collected by HSUS paid-“bounty-hunter” signature gatherers, like the one I met at the CA Davis market in January, telling me that Proposition 12 would remove non-existent “veal-crates”, and sow “gestation crates” from California production systems. This video is worth a listen, as Miller suggests the major opposition to Proposition 12 will be the humane farming associations.
Miller further stated on the HFA “Stop the Rotten Egg” page:
“Prop 12 is now just a publicity stunt in search of a lawsuit. Not only does this come at taxpayer expense, HSUS’s reckless exploitation of California’s ballot measure system is putting in grave danger a wide array of existing consumer, animal, and environmental protection laws. Of the initiatives appearing on the November ballot, Proposition 12 is the dirtiest of the dozen. We’re confident that California voters won’t get fooled again and that this fraudulent initiative will be decisively rejected.” HFA
“This initiative should be fiercely opposed by everyone who cares about farm animal suffering. HSUS’s collusion with the egg industry is disturbing. From legalizing battery cages to allowing as little as one square foot of space per hen — this initiative would be a disaster for millions of egg-laying hens who would still be left suffering in battery cages throughout California.” FoA
“Beware! This initiative is being painted in rosy terms, but don’t be fooled… What it would actually do is allow farms to keep egg-laying hens in cages until 2022, at which time factory farms would still be able to confine uncaged hens to massive, crowded sheds with only 1 square foot of space per bird.” PETA
“Time and again HFA has accurately identified fatal flaws in legislation advanced by HSUS.” Animals 24/7
So what is a voter to do? Be guided by The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Humane Farming Association (HFA), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Friends of Animals (FoA), or Animals 24/7? Some of the above, none of the above, one of the above? Who is representing animal welfare, and how can you tell? You could try asking the scientific community who have spent their careers researching these questions, or farmers who happen to know a thing or two about farming – but that does not seem to be a popular route.
In the absence of objective, evidence-based measurements – there is just a “blob” of emotions, competing world-views, and fund-raising agendas. And that is not a great foundation upon which to base decisions around animal agriculture or public policy. Case in point: Proposition 2 from 2008 (see what that did to California farmers: Six hens a laying).
So it seems some cracks are appearing in the humpty dumpty coalition of “animal-themed corporations” also known as the “humane community”. And perhaps nowhere is this rift more bizarrely illustrated than in this “Stop the Rotten Egg” page animated video, “Proposition 12: California’s Caged Chickens Say NO!”.
For anyone that has ever met the former President and CEO of HSUS, Wayne Pecelle, who resigned February 2018 in a #MeToo moment after a number of women accused him of sexual harassment, the big-toothed male lead featured in this animated video is a thinly disguised provocation from one humane society (HFA) whose operations are based on the West Coast in California to another (HSUS) based on the East Coast in Maryland. Ironically the largest egg producing state in the US by far is Iowa.
On an unrelated note, buried in the fine print of Proposition 12, are the following strikeouts (and additions) that remove the scientific and agricultural research exemptions that were previously written into SECTION 5. SECTION 25992 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (line A below).
The proposed Proposition 12 language includes the following exemptions:
“This Chapter will not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural medical research.”
In other words, scientific and agricultural research animals at universities and other research facilities are subject to the provisions of the initiative – just like all of the farm animls. The implications of this change to the research exemption on things such as teaching, scientific or agricultural research, especially for genetic and nutrition research (we need individual cages to collect observations or phenotypes on each animal, and to record which egg comes from which hen), may well not be discovered until after the ballot votes are cast when agriculturalists and scientists go to perform specialized research on calves, pigs, or poultry.
It may be that those university researchers retreating to the “spiral of silence” to avoid the discomfort of a heated public discussion of Proposition 12, will eventually find their research projects thwarted by the inevitable passage of the initiative (I may have quaint opinions on how objective evidence should drive public policy, but I am a realist living in California). Yet another casualty of public policy based on emotion and propaganda, rather than informed by objective evidence and science-based recommendations.
As Mr. Miller, spokesperson for HFA’s Californian’s Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, ironically lamented during his testimony before the California State Legislature, including the words “farm animal” and “protection” in a ballot initiative in California is enough to get it passed, irrespective of how the text reads, and what the ultimate impacts of its passage will be on the welfare of animals, and the people of California.
I am excited to share that the Resnick Program and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council have published the third Los Angeles Food Policy Tracker, compiled by Ellison Griep, who spent the summer working with both the Resnick Program and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council.
The Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy and the Los Angeles Food Policy Council actively follow Los Angeles food policy actions. In the Los Angeles Food Policy Tracker 2018, substantial policy actions undertaken at both the City and County level are identified. Specifically, the tracker documents policies that were adopted, administratively closed, or are currently pending during the time period from January 1, 2017 to July 1, 2018.
We hope this valuable resource is a useful tool for the Los Angeles food community, and for the food community more broadly.
by Diana Winters
I was lucky over the last few days to attend and present at the MSU College of Law Global Food Law Program’s fantastic Global Food Law Current Issues Conference. At the conference there was a mix of academics, practitioners, scientists, and industry representatives, and a truly global focus. Wednesday’s discussions of dietary supplement labeling, developments in organic foods, issues regarding animal food labeling were fascinating, and the keynote on food litigation by Bill Marler, was, for a food law aficionado, a dream come true. Thursday’s talk on professional consumers in China and their effect on food safety provided an opportunity to reflect on the absence of a citizen suit provision in the FDCA, and the discussion of new technologies in product supply chains was a chance to engage with blockchain, 3D printing, and other fun stuff. These are only a few highlights of the conference, which also included discussions of intellectual property, food security, and innovation in the food space, as well as opportunities to explore the food and environment of greater Lansing, Michigan. Note: if you find yourself in East Lansing, don’t miss the Zaha Hadid designed Broad Museum of Art—a short walk from campus (picture above).
The value of a conference that provides a space for academics, practitioners, and scientists to meet and mingle is immense, and I’m so glad I went.
The House Committee on Agriculture recently failed to pass its version of the farm bill, legislation that sets farm and food policy every five years. Despite obesity rates looming at all-time highs, H.R. 2 Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 proposed to weaken the very programs we know improve diets—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed), and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Assistance Program (EFNEP). The changes H.R. 2 proposed would have disrupted local nutrition education services, affecting already vulnerable individuals. Understanding how these changes would have harmed public health and public health infrastructure could prevent the Senate from including these misguided provisions in its version of the farm bill.
Protecting SNAP is and should be advocates’ priority. Preserving programs that enhance food assistance and promote healthy eating is also crucial to our nation’s health. Program participants, media, and advocates have articulately denounced cuts to SNAP. Less has been written about the concerning changes being proposed to our nation’s largest nutrition education program. Below, I explain what the term “nutrition education” means, how the farm bill affects nutrition education, and why the proposed changes are problematic. I also suggest several ways to provide stronger, more effective support for nutrition education.
What is Nutrition Education?
Nutrition promotion; obesity prevention; consumer education; food literacy; food policy, systems, and environmental change—these are just a few of the many names people use to describe nutrition education. Nutrition education has so many names because, as the widely-accepted definition for the term explains, it involves “any combination of educational strategies accompanied by environmental supports” that provide people with the motivation, skills, and knowledge to eat well. Cooking demonstrations, gardening lessons, school wellness policy support, healthy retail projects, and recipe distribution are all examples of nutrition education for which the farm bill provides funding.
In fact, there are at least 26 initiatives that can support nutrition education included in the farm bill. For some initiatives, nutrition education is both the main focus and required. SNAP-Ed, which funds direct education for low-income individuals as well as policy, systems, and environment changes in schools, stores, and other community locations, is an example.
Other initiatives have a main focus distinct from nutrition education, such as providing food, but still require such education. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides low-income seniors food and resources such as recipes, is an example of this second type of initiative.
Others still have a broader main focus—such as increasing fruit and vegetable sales—and allow, but do not require nutrition education. The Specialty Crop Block Grant, which states have used to support farm to school programs, is an example of this third kind of initiative. See Table 1 below for a full list of nutrition education initiatives in the farm bill.
Table 1: Nutrition Education in the Farm Bill
How the 2018 House Bill Would Have Affected Nutrition Education
The House Bill would have altered the structure of many of these initiatives, but most importantly, it would have combined the two largest nutrition education programs, SNAP-Ed and EFNEP. To combine the programs, H.R. 2 reallocated responsibility for SNAP-Ed from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the agency currently responsible for EFNEP. The bill repealed EFNEP, but maintained funding for the combined program at a level similar to current funding and added $65 million in annual discretionary funding.
At the state level, H.R. 2 shifted primary administrative responsibilities for SNAP-Ed away from state agencies to land grant universities (LGUs). The bill also altered states’ funding formula, basing future funding only on a jurisdiction’s current SNAP population, and not in any part on historical funding levels. Ultimately, merging SNAP-Ed and EFNEP as proposed would have created potential problems while failing to measurably improve either program:
- Taking SNAP out of SNAP-Ed—Naming NIFA, rather than FNS as the administering agency for SNAP-Ed, would decouple the program from SNAP and other FNS low-income nutrition education programs. At the federal level and through regional offices, FNS coordinates numerous nutrition education initiatives such as SNAP-Ed, Team Nutrition, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Moving SNAP-Ed to NIFA, a research focused sub-agency, would create inefficiencies, not improve coordination.
- Shifting Administrative Responsibilities to Land Grand Universities—Giving LGUs primary administrative responsibility for SNAP-Ed is also problematic. LGUs are one of several important agencies that administer SNAP-Ed; health departments and community-based nonprofits also administer the program. If LGUs were solely responsible for administering SNAP-Ed funds, they could choose not to share funds with other agencies, impacting the diversity and reach of organizations that implement the program.
Even if LGUs were to share funding, sub-contracting would be difficult; LGUs typically do not have contract managers the way state social services and health departments do. Many LGUs would need to create new administrative systems to manage SNAP-Ed, though this infrastructure already exists in other state agencies. And, realistically, LGUs would have trouble spending less than 10% of grant funds on administration, as the bill required.
- Altering SNAP-Ed’s Funding Formula—R. 2 did maintain mandatory funding for the proposed, combined program, but too abruptly changed how states provide SNAP-Ed. The proposed changes to the funding formula could leave many struggling to provide public health services. The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act established a stepped-down formula that considers a state’s funding history and incrementally introduces pro rata distribution based on its current SNAP population. A sudden shift that considers only current SNAP participation would hurt states with a strong record of matching federal funds, as well as less-populated states. Changes to SNAP-Ed funding, when paired with recent cuts to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants for diet-related disease control, would leave some states reeling with very little funding for nutrition education and obesity prevention.
Nutrition Education Recommendations for the 2018 Farm Bill
Nutrition education helps to prevent obesity and encourages individuals to eat healthy foods American farmers grow. The 2018 Farm Bill should ensure not only that these programs receive adequate funding, but that they are structured to succeed. The Senate bill should:
- Preserve SNAP-Ed and EFNEP’s Strengths—Combining SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, as the House Bill proposed, may be politically inevitable. Whatever form farm bill nutrition education takes should maintain the funding and flexibility of SNAP-Ed and the efficacy and peer-education emphasis of EFNEP.
With SNAP-Ed, state agencies receive more than $414 million a year to contract with land grant universities, local health departments, and community-based organizations. These groups empower people to eat well through social marketing, direct education, and policy, systems, and environment changes consistent with current public health practices.
EFNEP, though funded at only $67 million a year, has a great return on investment; for every $1 spent, EFNEP saves $10 in future health care costs. EFNEP also has the advantage of hiring peer educators. The program not only provides low-income community members with jobs, but its instructors understand the challenges and strengths of the communities in which they work.
- Maintain FNS as the SNAP-Ed Administrator—FNS’s structure ensures that people can access and afford nutrition assistance programs, driving demand for nutritious foods through nutrition education. FNS should consult with NIFA on program administration and maintain control of SNAP-Ed.
- Gradually Adjust SNAP-Ed Funding Based on States’ SNAP Population—Currently, USDA allocates 50% of a state’s funding based on its SNAP population, and 50% based on historical match. Instead of immediately altering states’ funding, USDA should adjust funding by 10% each year until 100% of funding is based on SNAP populations. This will allow states to better plan for the program going forward.
 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011 et seq.; §§ 2036a et seq.; §§ 3175 et seq.
 See e.g. Ed Bolen et al., House Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill Would Increase Food Insecurity and Hardship, Center on Budget & Pol’y Priorities (April 25, 2018), https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/house-agriculture-committees-farm-bill-would-increase-food-insecurity-and.
 Isobel Contento, Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory and Practice (3rd ed., Jones & Bartlett 2015).
 Julia McCarthy, Claire Uno, Pam Koch, & Isobel Contento, Empowered Eaters: A Road Map for Stronger New York State Nutrition Education Policies and Programs, 31 (Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Educ. & Pol’y, Program in Nutrition at Tchr. College, Columbia U. 2018), http://www.tc.columbia.edu/media/media-library-2014/centers/tisch-center/Empowered-Eaters-STATE-FINAL.pdf.
 7 U.S.C. §§ 2036a et seq.
 7 U.S.C. §§ 612c et seq.
 7 C.F.R. §§ 1291 et seq.
 McCarthy, supra note 4.
 Pub. L. 111-296 § 241(d) codified in 7 U.S.C. § 2036a(d)(2).
 See e.g. M. Vine et al. Expanding the Role of Primary Care in the Prevention and Treatment of Childhood Obesity: A Review of Clinic and Community-Based Recommendations and Interventions, J. Obesity (2013);
- Prelip et al., Evaluation of a School-Based Multicomponent Nutrition Education Program to Improve Young Children’s Fruit and Vegetable Consumption, 44(4) J. Nutrition Educ. & Behav. 310-318 (2012).
 U.S. Dep’t Agric., Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education (SNAP-Ed) Budget Allocation for Fiscal Year 1992 to 2017 (2017), available at https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/snap/Guidance/SNAP-EdBudgetAllocationFY1992-2017.pdf.
 U.S. Dep’t Agric., Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) FY 2018 Request for Applications, (Aug. 8, 2018), available at https://nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resources/FY18-EFNEP-Modification-882017.pdf; Jamie Dollahite et al., An Economic Evaluation of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, 40 J. Nutrition Educ. & Behav. 134-143 (2008).
 7 U.S.C. § 3175(c).
 7 U.S.C. § 2036a(d)(2).
Julia McCarthy is a Senior Nutrition Policy Associate at CSPI, focusing on healthy retail policies. Prior to joining CSPI, she was a policy analyst at the Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education, and Policy. McCarthy has worked as a legal fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. She attended Georgetown University and has a law degree from New York University where she was a Root-Tilden-Kern scholar.
Today, Farm Bill Law Enterprise members–including Allison Korn, the Assistant Dean for Experiential Education at UCLA Law and the Director of the Food Law and Policy Clinic, Beth Kent, a UCLA Law student, and Emilie Aguirre, a former academic fellow at the Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy and a doctoral student at Harvard Business School–spent the day on Capitol Hill, advocating for a better farm bill and opposing the House farm bill. See below for pictures of Dean Korn and Beth Kent, and the whole group together. We look forward to hearing from the participants when they return!
The Farm Bill Law Enterprise (FBLE) is a novel partnership between eight law school programs that came together under the leadership of the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic to substantively engage with the farm bill and identify viable steps toward reform. In addition to Harvard, FBLE members include: UCLA School of Law Resnick Program for Food Law and Policy; Duke Law School Environmental Law & Policy Clinic; Harvard Law School Environmental Policy Initiative and Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic; Harvard Law School Health Law and Policy Clinic; Pace University Elizabeth Haub School of Law Food Law Initiative; Vermont Law School Center for Agriculture and Food Systems; and Yale Law School Environmental Protection Clinic.
In addition to members programs, FBLE recruited law students from across the country to work on the project. In 2016, the newly-formed FBLE dove into collaborative research. Together, faculty and students analyzed each of the farm bill’s components and developed shared goals for a farm bill that meets the long-term needs of our society. These goals include a reliable and nutritious food supply, an honest living for farmers, a healthy environment, and a strong safety net against hunger.
At the end of March 2018, FBLE released three reports making recommendations for how the next farm bill can begin to meet those goals by maintaining key programs that work, adding new programs, and redistributing funding in ways that are better for health, the environment and justice.
Each report focuses on a specific theme: Diversified Agricultural Economies; Food Access, Nutrition and Public Health; and Productivity and Risk Management.
The reports can be found at www.FarmBillLaw.org.