Board of Directors Graffiti Board

April, 2001:
How could Harvest Co-op be more environmentally friendly?

May, 2001:
Do you support a moratorium on planting Genetically Engineered crops in Massachusetts?

Current Question:

When should Harvest Co-op get involved in political issues?

Jamaica Plain responses:
Decisions & power play that determine source, quality, availability, types of food and all other products and things needed/used by people is at its essence, political & economic. As soon as one is born and starts to do anything it is political – Yes, Harvest has to be political…! Always! Co-op is by definition a political option (as is non co-op) – We can put our energies and voice in the areas that most concern us – organic, labeling, GMO, etc. But as we exist: we make a political statement – Yes!

I agree completely!

The Co-op is part of a community and part of a philosophy that extends far beyond "food activism". It’s about community, whole loving, member ownership, grassroots participation. I understand that a small co-op cannot be all things to all people & that in trying you dilute or compromise the part of your mission that is about food. I’d like to point out (unintelligible) that there is no space for me to stand and & write this without constantly being jostled & in the way – that right there speaks how marginalized the participatory values of the co-op already are. Yes, I know space is an issue, but allocation of space says a lot about what is valued. At the least, information should be provided about the nutritional value of the food (esp. the produce), who produced it, where it’s from and if there are any labor disputes or boycotts going on – the co-op doesn’t even need to take a position in order to provide the information (though I support the cp-op taking positions, personally)

When should the co-op get involved in political issues? I agree with those who say that a co-op is by definition political. We should extend that as far as we are able w/o compromising the strength of the organization (but that does not mean avoiding controversy and conflict).

Never! Don’t dilute the goals to provide good, affordable food!

When it affects the quality of our food – i.e. GMO, organic, labeling issues.

NEVER!

That’s what the co-op should be doing - food choices are always political.

It is a political statement to be actively concerned about not harming our environment, which is our womb. To be involved in eating food that is not harmful and dangerous to us. It now is political, to have food for people not for profit. I’d say keeping a cooperative food store is politically active in this day and age. Especially if you carry decent food at decent prices. If you want to stay open and keep your principles, you have to stay involved in political issues and education if you are sincere.

I assume that this question involves direct political involvement – endorsements, boycotts, statements, etc. – contrasting with the "indirect" political effect of being cooperatively run, concerned with environment and health, etc. To that end:
1) endorsing political parties or candidates should be verboten, but give all candidates access to the community bulletin board
2) endorsing referenda, boycotts, + the like – only when relevant to the
co-op’s mission and purpose, and by a democratic vote of the members
3) Education on the co-op’s mission and purpose – Absolutely!

What about political involvement in (unintelligible) directly affecting community – e.g. affordable housing, respect for diversity, etc?

Cambridge responses:
All the time. The coop is a community in the larger community. Are we not our brother’s keeper?

Never! The co-op is here to sell food, period.