Farmers markets are fun and even inspiring places for many of us. We get the opportunity to purchase locally produced food products directly from farmers and artisans. Sometimes there are more sellers of jewelry and caramel corn than I might like, but there’s nearly always enough good stuff to make it worthwhile.
There’s a political side to farmers markets, though, that occasionally rears its ugly head. A number of the raw dairy investigations in New York and Pennsylvania have been launched via undercover agent purchases at farmers markets. In a few cases, regulators have complained to farmers market operators about raw milk herdshare operators recruiting new participants, or distributing dairy products, and from what I’ve heard, the farmers market operators have pretty much avoided doing the regulators’ dirty work—instead of throwing the dairy people out, the farmers market reps have simply maintained a hands off attitude.
But another kind of dispute has come to light recently related to the matter of who gets to sell their products at farmers markets. We may like to assume farmers markets are open to whomever wants to sell their products, but that’s not the case. Not surprisingly, at busy farmers markets, there may be more farmers wanting to sell their products than there are spaces available.
I’ve heard sellers at the weekly popular Norwich, VT, market I sometimes shop at discuss this matter. A few sellers have told me they only get to sell every other week, or sometimes just on a space-available basis, when other vendors don’t show up.
But beyond the space-availability issue is another: the “balance” of the market. In other words, how many cheese sellers or chicken sellers or tomato sellers should there be? This is an important question if you’re one of five tomato sellers at a market, and suddenly the market operator allows three new tomato sellers in to sell. You may have been selling at the market for five years, during the bad times as well as the good times, and now that the market is suddenly very popular, you don’t want your sales diluted by a bunch of newbies.
This very dispute came into the open at an upstate New York market. A tomato seller wasn’t allowed into a market, and then the local town provided the seller with a special permit. Good use of government authority?
Such matters come up in shopping malls all the time. There are clauses limiting the number of competitors. So then a mall opens down the block and others get in. The government doesn’t involve itself in such matters.
It’s tempting to want farmers markets to be entirely open to whomever wants to sell. Maybe because there’s a holistic, from-the-land feel about farmers markets. Bottom line, though, I don’t think farmers markets should necessarily be all that much different than other markets. That’s what one local commentator seems to be saying about the New York dispute.
The last thing I want is the government intervening and setting rules (aside from rules about racial and religious discrimination, and antitrust matters designed to prevent unfair competition via monopolies) about who can and cannot sell at farmers markets. Same as I don’t want the government telling me what foods I can and can’t eat.
It would appear that this market doesn’t really have "enough" tomato growers, since her winter customers weren’t satisfied with the tomatoes already offered at the farmer’s market and were trying to track her down. It also sounds as though the hydroponic grower is a local farm too.
I am a fan of the old-fashioned yellow peaches, especially the O’Henry variety. My favourite peach grower is not allowed to sell his wonderful peaches at my local farmers market because the market manager has determined that they already have "too many peaches" for sale at this market. The peaches that are available from other vendors at this market taste like cardboard and aren’t worth eating, so I don’t buy them. I have to drive 40 miles north to another farmer’s market if I want to buy good peaches so I don’t get them very often. Is this fair? I don’t think so.
We drive to two markets in adjacent towns, one six miles away, the other ten miles away, because they are bigger markets with more vendors and more selection (although I still can’t get my O’Henrys) than our own town’s market that is only two miles away.
We tend to buy from the same local farmers/producers each week because we have built up a relationship with them and like what they produce. New vendors to the market are not a threat to this relationship. The bigger markets in our area attract larger crowds (more customers) because they are bigger and offer more choices.
Some of the markets have started doing food demos with local chefs to showcase the products that are abundantly in season. Rather then ban a new grower, I would hope to see the market stage a "tomato fest" or similar give customers ideas on how to use more tomatoes and perhaps attact more customers overall.
For the past several years we have been able to purchase all of our food items except for the grains (flour, cooked cereals, rice etc), legumes (lentils & dry beans), some cooking oils and some spices at the farmers market. We are ever hopeful that these items will one day appear. I am thankful that raw milk IS available at the farmers market here. We have a standing weekly order. I’m pretty sure that our milk vendor sells out every week.
I think this is a marvelous idea! It would encourage/teach what to do with local in-season foods.
http://www.cafarmersmarkets.com/
Not all farmers markets are certified here in CA. Some markets sell produce from other countries. UC Davis market on Hwy 16 is NOT certified, sells produce from all over. That was a disappointment, I expected better from UCD.
Don’t really know who they are. I had thought it meant certification that the food sold at those particular markets had to be grown in California. NO imports from outside of CA Supposedly the "govt" makes sure the farmer truely grows whatever they are selling
The local Farmers Markets Ontario association however, which runs several of the markets is on a campaign to deter what they call "hucksters" or resellers who they say go to the food terminal, buy produce and then sell it at the markets as if they were farmers.
The FMO is instituting a certification program to certify that farmers do in fact farm and are selling only what they grow.
Some organic markets in the area are less than enthusiastic about the program because they feel it confuses customers who they feel should be concerned more about whether a farmer is certified organic rather than just being certified as a farmer.
The organic markets also typically don’t mind if a farmer sells stuff he bought from a neighbour. Huckster-style resellers are not a problem at organic markets, as perhaps they are at other markets.
Of course no Ontario farmers market is allowed to permit the sale of raw milk. Even unpasteurized apple cider is frowned on in some jurisdictions. And eggs must be graded in a government inspected facility. Ungraded eggs can be sold at the farm gate, however.
Health regulations for farmers markets vary across the country for things like eggs. However, to the best of my knowledge no jurisdiction in Canada allows the sale of raw milk at farmers markets, although there are cow share operations in Ontario and British Columbia.
These cowshare operators however, have to distribute their product through channels other than local farmers’ markets. Of course I’m sure raw milk would be a big draw at Canadian farmers markets if it were allowed to be sold.
But, as I mentioned earlier, the recent proliferation of markets — a lot of it fueled by government grants — has meant that farmers here don’t have any trouble finding a market that will be happy to have them come and sell their produce. In fact, some farmers are selling at more than one market.
"Creating Opportunities for Small Farmers:
California agriculture is known worldwide for the volume of agricultural products that are produced; for the diversity of fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains that are grown throughout the state; and for the high quality of these products.
Building this reputation was no accident, but was instead the result of the hard work of thousands of California farmers and the vision of the state’s leaders that put a system into place that helped to ensure that when California agriculture was shipped around the country and evenually around the world, that it would arrive in excellent condition and be of the highest quality. This system encompasses a set of rules defining how agricultural products were to be selected, packed and shipped. Today this system is often referred to as "standard pack."
While the standard pack regulations helped to build California’s agricultural export business, they had an unintended consequence: it made it more difficult for small farmers to deliver their farm products within the state. A small farmer from the Fresno area who wished to take 10 boxes of fresh peaches to San Francisco to sell, was required to pack his fruit in the same way as a large farmer shipping 10,000 boxes by rail for sale to a grocery store in Chicago. For the small farmer, it was not cost effective. The regulations threatened both the viability of small farmers and the access of California’s urban areas to the Califonia Grown fresh fruits and vegetables.
In 1977 the state of California addressed this challenge by creating direct marketing regulations. These new regulations allowed farmers to be exempt from standard pack regulations when selling their products in a certified farmers’ market. The direct marketing regulations also stated that only certified producers (farmers), local governments, and nonprofit organizations could operate certified farmers markets. PCFMA was founded as a nonprofit organization to operate certified farmers’markets and create economic opportunities for California’s small farmers. "
http://www.pcfma.com/abhistory.php
"Under California law, farmers may only sell directly to consumers rather than middlemen, retailers or resellers only at the point of production or in an area certified by a county Agricultural Commissioner for sale of farm products: a Certified Farmers Market.
Only California-grown agriculture may be sold in a Certified Farmers Market. These agriculture products include fruits, vegetables, greens, nuts, herbs, berries, eggs, flowers, nursery stock and honey.
Most Farmers Markets also have an adjacent area in which complementary items are sold. These are typically food products such as breads, pastries, sauces, and prepared foods. These areas are not under the control of the county Agriculture Commissioner, but are instead regulated and inspected by local health authorities.
California law also states that Certified Farmers Markets can only be operated by local governments, certified producers (farmers) or nonprofit organizations like PCFMA. "
http://www.pcfma.com/aboutcfm.php
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, the locavore/slow food/eat wild etc movements are fairly strong. There are many farmer’s markets from which to choose. All of the ones that I am aware of are certified farmers markets. The vendors display their certification at their booths. Most markets are a mix of conventional and organic growers. Some markets are organic only. Many customers do ask where things are grown and do check for the certification at the booths.
I have seen coffee bean vendors at some of the farmers markets. I think they are allowed at the market because they roast the beans in the state. California isn’t really a coffee producing area. If we were, the coffee beans would have to have been grown in the state to be sold at the certified market.
The poor lady had been so hammered by bureaucracyrules, regulations, and their paid enforcersthat her family’s sanity, and livelihood, were in danger. She was creeping to the point where it was better in her mind to withdraw from the effort of feeding others in order to escape the threats and the fees and the taxes and all the other thefts of personal and financial freedoms. Most ironically, of course, she was producing a very popular product that would sell very well if left alone, without interruption by rule-makers.
According to the USDA the number of farmers markets have at least tripled in the last 15 years. Their rate of growth seems to be accelerating. No government grants nor certifications nor public health rules have been at the cause. Quite the opposite. Government only hinders natural business.
We talk about official certifications as if it’s impossible for a consumer to ask a human being where the food came from. A proper farmers market is run by people, not faceless regulations. Let them and their consumers work out their issues.
No doubt fraudulent sellers would not last long in in a true farmers market. The only fraud with real holding power is that which is given hiding places behind the complexity of government rules.
Another lens on the same issue: Michael Pollan again connects the dots – today’s article argues that reforming healthcare might be one way to get at the big-ag food system, once it is made less profitable to amputate diabetics’ limbs than to provide healthy food which doesn’t foster the disease (i.e., what good is healthcare without health?): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/opinion/10pollan.html?th&emc=th
It sounds to me that the concept of a "certified" farmers market came about as a way to allow farmers to sell direct again. The industrialization of agriculture into ‘agri-business’ rather then ‘agri-culture’ that created the ‘standard pack’ concept most likely caused more damage to small producers than the need to have their products certified as grown in the state.
Regarding …the concept of a "certified" farmers market came about as a way to allow farmers to sell direct again.
Where did the notion come from that anyone should NOT be allowed to sell a legal product? The proper way to allow farmers (or gardeners, or church ladies at a fund-raising pie sale) to sell their food is to simply get out of their way.
And regarding The industrialization of agriculture …most likely caused more damage to small producers than the need to have their products certified as grown in the state.
That is certainly true, but choosing between more damage or less damage is a false dilemma. There should be NO damage. If there is any justification for such third-party interference, it is with corporate ag, which disconnects the (human) producer from the (human) consumer.