A new state law designed to “boost Rhode Island agriculture and seafood industries” will provide grants to farmers and the fisherman to help them market their products locally. It will also create the Interagency Food and Nutrition Policy Advisory Council that would, “develop solutions to regulatory and policy barriers to developing a strong sustainable food economy and healthful nutrition practices,” according to a press release.
Here’s the full press release:
Introduced by Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski and Rep. Deborah Ruggiero, the Rhode Island Local Agriculture and Seafood Act (2012-S 2611A, 2012-H 7701aa) directs the state Department of Environmental Management to establish program to provide small grants and technical assistance to farms and seafood businesses to promote sales of locally grown products. The bill also creates the Interagency Food and Nutrition Policy Advisory Council, which will help remove regulatory barriers that stand in the way of the local farming and fishing industries’ success.
The legislation is aimed at assisting local farms and fishing operations succeed as small businesses and helping them market their wares locally.
“We tend to think of economic development as growing jobs inside a plant or a building, but Rhode Island’s fishing and farming industries generate over a billion dollars to the outdoor economy,” said Rep. Deborah Ruggiero (D-Dist. 74, Jamestown, Middletown). “One of the benefits of this legislation is the state will provide funding for small farmers, farmer training, nutrition programs and ensure a sustainable local food system in our state.”
Assisting local agriculture and fishing businesses could have a substantial affect on not only Rhode Island’s economy, but also on the quality of life and health for the public, say the bill’s backers. Open land, jobs, nutritious and safe foods and educational opportunities for youth are all among the benefits of prosperous local industry.
“More and more, we hear about the importance of buying local, and this bill is aimed at helping to connect the small farmer or fishing boat operator to the consumer. Encouraging the buy-local movement is a big win for Rhode Island, because it means the success of small businesses, more jobs, and better, healthier, more plentiful and available food choices for the public,” said Senator Sosnowski (D-Dist. 37, South Kingstown, New Shoreham). “Local food gets from farm to table in fresher condition, and more local farms means more green space in our state. Food that travels less also means fewer trucks on the road, and less air pollution. Overall, more people eating more local food means better health for people and for our environment.”
Under the bill, DEM will administer the grants program, which is to be funded through a restricted receipt account with help from any federal, state or local agency, private foundation, or individual who wishes to contribute grant money or gifts to the cause. Grants of up to $20,000 each are to be given to help start or sustain small farms or fishing operations for projects and programs that help them – and the industry as a whole – become more viable and self-sustaining. DEM must hold a public hearing and issue an annual report on the grant program’s performance.
The legislation enhances the responsibilities of the DEM to help market local seafood and agriculture. The bill directs DEM to develop programs to promote interaction and business relationships between farmers and fishermen and restaurants, grocery stores, institutional cafeterias and other potential institutional purchasers of local agriculture and seafood products, including statewide and regional promotional events.
Additionally, the legislation creates the Interagency Food and Nutrition Policy Advisory Council, made up of leaders of the Department of Health, the Department of Environmental Management and the Department of Administration. The council is to develop solutions to regulatory and policy barriers to developing a strong sustainable food economy and healthful nutrition practices.
So more economic protectionism and central planning from the “government experts.” That’s what will save Rhode Island’s economy for sure. Government is so much more efficient at allocating resources than market systems based on consumer choice and price signals, after all.
Why stop there? RI should buy local for everything since self-sufficiency is clearly the path to wealth, not trade or specialization. Then RI can join its rightful place among booming “buy local” economies of the world like Nepal and the Central African Republic.
“ more economic protectionism and central planning from the “government experts.” ”
??? It’s called promoting an industry. It’s how the West became rich.
”self-sufficiency”
Self-sufficiency?
”booming “buy local” economies of the world
By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
It’s like you didn’t even read the press release. Last I checked, advertising still had a place market systems based on consumer choice. Really off on a tagent this time. And God forbid the government worked to “remove regulatory barriers.” The horror!
I immediately thought of this…
“Cassie Tharinger Returns Cider to Rhode Island”
So I take it you think the current regulations prohibiting the sale of cider at farmers markets are simply a product of the natural workings of the world?
Subsidies and protectionist policies subvert consumer choice and market price mechanisms – that is the point of them. They give certain industries and businesses advantages over others based on the top-down decionmaking and whims of politicians rather than the decentralized preferences of consumers. I (and the vast majority of reputable economists) view such central economic planning as harmful to the long-term health of economies. There is essentially zero evidence that “buy local” incentives and industry subsidies have net economic benefits, and so much has been published on the costs of such policies that it’s hardly even worth debating.
Removing needless regulatory barriers is a good thing. I took no issue with that in my post.
“the decentralized preferences of consumers”
These preferences don’t exist until after the industry and the market are created through the actions of government.
“will provide grants to farmers and the fisherman to help them market their products locally.”
Farmers and fishermen don’t know how to market their products? And this requires taxpayer subsidies because…? Seems like more corporate welfare RI can’t afford.
“It will also create the Interagency Food and Nutrition Policy Advisory Council that would, “develop solutions to regulatory and policy barriers to developing a strong sustainable food economy and healthful nutrition practices,””
Does anyone have any doubt that this will be another abject failure? Politicians write policies that restrict economic growth and in response they create this group of bureaucrats to figure out what those crappy policies are? And then what?
“Farmers and fishermen don’t know how to market their products?”
No. Why would they?
”And this requires taxpayer subsidies because…?”
It will produce a good return on investment.
“No. Why would they?”
Running a business involves finding customers to sell to, does it not? If it’s not a skill you’re born with, then you learn it or you pay someone to do it for you. That applies to all businesses, not just farmers and fishermen. So why do they get singled out for special treatment?
“It will produce a good return on investment.”
Lol. So if it’s corporate welfare you don’t like, it’s the “rich stealing from the poor” (think Big Oil subsidies), but if it’s corporate welfare you do like, it’s called “investment”. And here I thought progressives had principles.
“Running a business involves finding customers to sell to, does it not?”
No. It involves meeting a demand, which the legislation means to increase through marketing.
“So if it’s corporate welfare you don’t like, it’s the “rich stealing from the poor” (think Big Oil subsidies), but if it’s corporate welfare you do like, it’s called “investment”.”
Yes. It’s called rhetoric.
You disparage the government subsidy you dislike and praise the government subsidy you approve of.
I don’t know why this is hard for you to wrap your head around, but there it is.
“No. It involves meeting a demand”
Double lol… And what, people just fall out of the sky and magically land in your store looking to buy?
“people just fall out of the sky”
No. There are lots of ways to create demand. One of them is to advocate for industrial policies that favor your business.
There’s nothing strange about this. All industries use government to increase demand for their goods and services. People decide which industries they like or don’t like, for whatever reason, then support policies that help those industries. What don’t you understand?
“[I]ndustrial policies that favor your business” don’t put people in *your* store. You can have all the taxpayer-funded handouts in the world, but if nobody knows you exist, aka marketing, you’re not going to last long. And that brings us back to my original question — what makes farmers and fishermen so special that they should receive a taxpayer-subsidized marketing budget? And let’s not forget, just because they have this money doesn’t mean it will be spent effectively.
“People decide which industries they like or don’t like, for whatever reason, then support policies that help those industries.”
And that’s somehow a good thing?
“what makes farmers and fishermen so special that they should receive a taxpayer-subsidized marketing budget? And let’s not forget, just because they have this money doesn’t mean it will be spent effectively.”
I agree this is the major point. From what I’ve heard, the Rhode Island farm is a growth industry (haha), and they have pretty effective coordination through Farm Fresh RI, an expanding farmers market network, and increasing numbers of locally-oriented restaurants. Some fishermen banded together (semi-inspired by Rhody Fresh milk) into co-ops of a sort and sell fish direct to the public via natural food stores and farmers markets.
Really, any program where the government has discretiionary grant power is worrisome to me. Especially without knowing how much money they will have, and if the intention is to fund many or few.
So doesn’t that imply there will be winners and losers within the local farm and fishing community based on government decision? Is that a good intervention in an already growing market?
“what makes farmers and fishermen so special”
Food.
“don’t put people in *your* store”
So? That’s where competition within the state comes into play.
“That’s where competition within the state comes into play.”
Huh? How does competition get people into *your* store?
“Huh? How does competition get people into *your* store?”
Jesus. Really?
The legislation promotes the whole local industry. Within that environment, individual businesses compete to get customers ‘into their store’.
It is just mind-boggling that all of this is over your head. Every industry works like this.
@turbo
“The legislation promotes the whole local industry.”
But that’s not what this legislation ultimately does. This legislation would provide taxpayer handouts to qualifying farmers and fishermen as a way to subsidize their marketing budgets. That doesn’t promote their industry so much as it helps them promote their specific business. I fail to see how that’s the proper role of gov’t — to help some businesses at the expense of everyone else.
By the way, Susan Sosnowski owns a farm in South Kingstown. It’s sad that a bill can be pushed by a legislator without anybody here even noting the likelihood for material benefits to that legislator.