NEWSBYGREG PLOTKIN

When I tell people that I run a camp at Flying Pigs Farm in rural Washington County, New York, they immediately think that I walk children through a petting zoo to hand-feed alpacas and hear about all the happy animals they see on the farm. The truth is that I teach some of the country's most influential food leaders how to kill animals (and much, much more).

Farm Camp at Flying Pigs Farm has been carefully designed to educate urban food leaders — ranging from chefs to journalists to policy advisors — about the realities of farm production so that they can make informed choices to help reshape America's food system. During two-day sessions, campers tour farms representing a wide range of industries, hear presentations from experts on topics like farmland protection and extended-season vegetable production, and get their hands dirty castrating piglets (among other dirty jobs).

Let me make one thing clear about this camp: It's not a "how-to" for those who want to be farmers. There are many organizations out there that help young farmers get started, but from what we've found, there are almost none that help those already involved in the food industry truly understand what it takes to get food from farm to plate.

In an effort to curb the rising tide of obesity that is costing Empire State taxpayers $8 billion per year in health care expenses, a proposal is being considered in New York City that will ban the 1.7 million city residents receiving food stamps from purchasing soda and other sugary drinks with their benefit cards.

According to reports, New York Governor David Paterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will ask the United States Department of Agriculture to temporarily add sugary beverages to the food stamp program's list of banned items alongside cigarettes and alcohol (among others). If approved, it will be the first time in the history of the food stamp program that an item has been banned solely because of its lack of nutritional value.

The facts related to obesity in New York City show that action is necessary and must be taken now in order to ensure that the city's children are able to grow up into healthy adults. Currently, 57 percent of adults and 40 percent of children in New York City are overweight or obese, with these numbers even higher in low-income communities.

New York is requesting a temporary change to the food stamp program so that over the next two years researchers can study the effects that a sugary drink ban would have on broader public health in the state and throughout the nation. However, it is still likely to come under criticism from advocates for the poor who say that restricting what items can be purchased with food stamps benefits unfairly stigmatizes those that are receiving federal assistance. In fact, this is the reaction many Change.org readers had when I proposed a similar ban a year ago.

If there's one thing that the recent egg recall has taught us, it's that the companies that are responsible for the safety of the nation's food supply don't always put consumers' health first. And unfortunately, according to a new study, this "profits before people" mentality isn't limited to just the egg industry.

Earlier this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists sent a survey to 8,000 employees working on food safety issues at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to gauge the influence of private business interests over the safety of the country's food supply. What respondents of the survey had to say should be startling to anyone who expects the government to keep the food products sold to us safe.

Of the 1,700 government employees that responded to the survey, 38 percent conceded that "public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests" at the FDA and USDA. In addition, 31 percent said the presence of top agency decision makers who have worked for the food or agriculture industry "inappropriately" influences decisions.

This survey is yet another example of the antiquated and sometimes corrupt s

As the practice of raising livestock shifted from letting animals roam in wide-open fields to sticking them in huge buildings with tiny cages, farmers have chosen to raise just a few ultra-efficient breeds that are suited to mass food production. This sort of selective breeding has led to a potentially catastrophic problem that is rarely talked about in food circles:  The rapid loss of livestock species throughout the world.

Just as the intensive farming of a small number of high-yielding plant varieties decimated the diversity of our agricultural systems, the same is happening with the many breeds of livestock modern agriculture was built upon.

For example, 99 percent of the turkeys raised in the United States (and that will probably be on your table this Thanksgiving) are a single variety, the "Broad-breasted White." These turkeys have been bred to grow so quickly that they are no longer able to perform the act of procreation naturally. All need to be artificially inseminated, and many grow so fast that they are unable to walk.

If you could boost your state's economy just by purchasing local apples instead of those grown across the county, would you pony up the extra cash?

While it seems unlikely that small changes in food purchasing decisions can result in a full-scale reversal of a state's economic condition, a new study shows just how important local food dollars are (or can be) to a state's economy.

The University of Georgia's Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development recently published a study finding that state residents could significantly increase Georgia's tax revenue by spending just a little more on local food each year. Specifically, if each of the state's 1.7 million households spent just $10 more annually on locally produced farm products, Georgia would collect an additional $1.9 billion in funds, enough to cover the entire $1.7 billion budget shortfall predicted for the state in 2012.

For a company that's reached near cult status in the eyes of many conscious foodie consumers, we know surprisingly little about both the products sold in Trader Joe's stores and the general operating practices of the niche grocery darling.

As our own Sarah Parsons reported back in June, Trader Joe's repeatedly ignores calls from consumer groups to disclose where its organic products come from. And it's not just organic products that hide their true sustainability behind the Trader Joe's private label. In a recent, unprecdented look into the corporate practices of Trader Joe's, Fortune notes that some products like Trader Joe's tortilla chips are actually manufactured by companies like Frito-Lay, the PepsiCo subsidiary that has been farm-washing its way across the country with its mobile greenhouse.

But that's not all. Did you all know that Trader Joe's is not even an American-owned company? Oh yes, it's true.

While the Monrovia, C.A.-based company remained in the hands of its founder

With the current state of the economy in mind, it's pretty easy to understand why many people balk at the thought of giving up $1 double cheeseburgers for $3/lb broccoli. The reality of our current food system is that fresh fruits and vegetables are more expensive than processed foods, a main reason why so many low-income Americans struggle to balance their budgets with their health.

However, a new pilot program being launched by the USDA seeks to make healthy food purchasing decisions in low-income communities a little easier by subsidizing the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables.

The $20 million Healthy Incentives Pilot — authorized in the most recent Farm Bill — will allow citizens of Hampden County, Massachusetts who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, previously food stamps) benefits to recoup 30 cents for every dollar they spend on fruits and vegetables using their EBT debit cards. The western Massachusetts county was selected for the program because of its nationally-representative demographics.

As Jane Black notes over on The Washington Post's "All We Can Eat" blog, perhaps the most significant part of this new initiative is the shift it represents in thinking about hunger and obesity. Previously, policymakers have dealt with these issues in silos, rather than recognizing and addressing how our food system creates both food scarcity as well as the mass availability of cheap and largely empty calories.

In a victory for animal rights activists across the country, Ohio farmers recently conceded to the demands of the Humane Society of the United States and have accepted a set of new regulations that will restrict the close confinement of hens, hogs, and veal calves in the state.

Although state farmers are unhappy with the agreement, their acceptance of these new animal welfare requirements is an effort to avoid even stricter regulations like those passed in California in 2008. By reaching a compromise with animal rights groups, Ohio farmers have in essence blocked a more stringent set of regulations from being put in front of state voters this November.

Specifically, the compromise "bars new construction of egg farms that pack birds in cages, and phases out the tight caging of pregnant sows within 15 years and of veal calves by 2017."

I'm obviously all for treating animals humanely (I work for a small rare-breed, pastured hog farm). However, I would be more supportive of these animal welfare ordinances if they were backed by groups of concerned consumers advocating for a change in how meat is produced rather than animal rights groups that don't believe animals should be farmed for meat at all.

In the immediate aftermath of the Senate's decision to slash food stamp funding by $6.1 billion, the legislative body passed also passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act that will increase monetary allocations for the National School Lunch Program for the first time since 1973.

While the passage of the new child nutrition bill is an important victory for school lunch advocates everywhere, cuts to the food stamp program send a puzzling message about just how committed our leaders are to ending hunger in America once and for all.

The number of Americans receiving food stamp benefits reached an all-time high of nearly 41 million in May, the 18th straight month that food stamp enrollment has set a new national record. With more and more Americans needing emergency food assistance every month, how does it make sense to drastically reduce the funds devoted to the program?

We have become a country of consumers that rely on labels to tell us what food we should buy. For better or worse, this means that terms such as "organic" and "free-range" carry more weight than ever. Unfortunately for the country's small-scale organic farmers, this reliance on labels is restricting where and at what price they are able to sell their chemical-free products.

Even though USDA organic certification would open up new market opportunities for these farmers and allow them to sell their products at a premium price, many have chosen not to pursue certification because of the high costs imposed by the USDA. For example, Wally Niezguski farms just a quarter acre of organic vegetables in Michigan, but was told he would have to pay between $1,000 and $4,000 per year to label his products as USDA organic. Niezguski says he brings in just $2,500 a year selling his vegetables, making it "hardly worth the cost to get certified."

In the early days of modern organic farming in America, most of the farm products grown without the use of pesticides and fertilizers were sold locally. This fact has led consumers to believe that when they purchase organic products, they are supporting small family farmers. However, statistics show this is not the case.