Yesterday, a Salon article reflected upon the White House garden, its harvest, and Obama’s progress in food policy. While on the campaign trail, Obama talked tough on food. (In a presidential race focused on issues including national healthcare, the war in Iraq and nuclear proliferation, talking about food policy at all is noteworthy.) However, given the pressing nature of many of the issues facing Obama, as well as the slew of recent political developments, it seems that food policy reform has fallen by the wayside. As the article states:
Obama had paid slightly more attention to food policy on the campaign trail than most other recent presidential nominees, pledging to help support small independent farmers, not massive corporate agribusinesses. Six months later, though, the garden is probably the most significant step the administration has taken toward the broad goals the campaign laid out last year.
However, the White House Garden may be more than just an empty symbol of a yet-to-be-fulfilled campaign promise. Of course, on a fundamental level, the garden has already netted positive improvements in DC by outputting over 225 pounds of produce for the White House kitchen and a local food bank. Further, by creating the White House garden, the Obamas (Michelle Obama has been the real leader in this effort) have focused national attention on the importance of local and organic produce. Just by introducing these issues into the American media and political arenas, the garden is serving to raise US awareness of healthy eating practices.
The White House garden movement has spread beyond DC. Municipal officials in several cities have planted gardens of their own on government property, and according to some, seed sales have increased since the garden was announced. The next step in Obama’s food policy is to focus on the reauthorization of the federal Child Nutrition Programs. However, now that these issues are on the table, the path is cleared for Obama to take bold strides in improving America’s food (along with America’s health and environment!).
Update: Thanks to commenter “merry”, I’ve updated the article to reflect that the White House garden is not truly “organic”; creating an organic garden according to the legal definition would require an in-depth certification process over the course of at least 3 years. However, the crops in the White House garden have been raised without fertilizer or herbicides, with a commitment to sustainable production. Perhaps by the end of Obama’s first term, the White House will sport a legally organic garden
CATEGORIES: Uncategorized
Related Posts:
Stay Informed with TakePart:
Get Blog Updates:
Blogroll
- AlterNet
- Amnesty International Livewire
- b-listed
- Boing Boing
- Brave New Films
- CauseCast
- Changents
- Climate Crisis
- Democracy Now!
- Ecorazzi
- EdNews
- Environmental News Network
- Ethicurean
- GOOD
- Grist
- Harvard World Health News
- Huffington Post
- Human Rights Watch
- Inhabitat
- Meatless Monday
- Media Matters
- NewsTrust
- NRDC Switchboard
- Rock The Vote
- SEED Magazine
- SocialVibe
- Sustainablog
- TechPresident
- The Daily Dish
- The Democracy Center
- Think Progress
- TreeHugger
- Truthout
- Why Tuesday?
- Worldchanging



How can you say this is an organic farm when this land has endured DECADES of pesticides? President Obama’s efforts are well-meaning and will surely help to feed people in need and to educate people about the value of fresh produce, but “organic” has a legal definition. You diminish the legitimacy and meaning of this definition when you claim that this White House garden is organic.
If there are decades of DDT and pesticides then after time they will clear. 50 years to make a mess and 50 years to clean it up. Not until then will this be fixed.
The effect of the President’s appointments hasn’t yet been felt. I’m hoping that these will create a geometrically progressive growth in change of policy.
So I called McDonald’s today and asked them for some information on their food products. They said their cows weren’t corn fed! Well how much of that is true? Is there a way to test the meat to see if the cow is grain, grass, or corn fed?
I think that the USDA is a major problem in this country and I am shocked that Monsanto was even allowed through the northern gates of Canada.
How can we get more food suppliers that are devoted to organic and free range?
what will you be doing with the profits from your film?
will it go towards your cause or in someone’s pocket?
Is this a touchy-feely movie that merely condemns what most people would condemn without actually addressing some of the large underlying issues other than the easy target of corporate greed? Does it address how Malthusian forces and population explosion may be contributing to the problem? After all, when you have a nation of 300+ million hungry people, compromises are inevitable.
It’s easy to condemn greedy businesses, but what about advocating for population stabilization, gradual population reduction, and an end to illegal immigration and legal immigration? I suspect that addressing some of the driving forces behind our nation’s food quality problems would be very politically incorrect and that documentary filmmakers just don’t have the cajones to do it.
Just to clarify the relationship between population and food quality, having a higher population means that less land is available for farming and herding and that the land is more expensive. So, instead of being able to have enough land so that chickens and can easily and affordably roam around, they end up in crowded pens. Also, the increased cost for land and resources gets passed right along to consumers, making it more difficult for them to be able to afford more expensive, more wholesome food. (Of course, since people also have to pay more money for real estate and other resources and goods as a result of population explosion, they also have less money for high quality food.)