Providing locally produced food to Missouri students is a good idea.
The good idea was implemented in Missouri in 2010. Now a Missouri lawmaker believes he can make it better.
We don't necessarily disagree, but we encourage fellow lawmakers to analyze and question the proposal to avoid potential duplication of services and costs.
The existing Missouri Farm to School and Farm to Institution Project began four years ago as an initiative of the Missouri Council for Activity and Nutrition (MOCAN).
The program is part of University of Missouri Extension and is funded by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services through a grant from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
According to the program's website, it is operated by a seven-member staff connected with the university and a nine-member advisory team, representing the university, various state agencies and public schools.
A bill sponsored by House Minority Leader Jacob Hummel, D-St. Louis, would establish a separate program "as a state policy," according to Greta Bax, legislative director for the House Minority Caucus.
The program would: create a coordinator within the state Department of Agriculture; establish a task force to oversee bidding and contracting; and authorize the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority to coordinate grants and loans.
Participation in the existing program is so-so. Hummel said at a recent hearing that 29 percent of Missouri school districts take part, with another 15 percent planning to start.
A focus of Hummel's bill is establishment of a "centralized resource" to link interested schools and farmers. We see that as a potential benefit, particularly if the program garners greater public awareness.
A potential drawback, however, is duplication of expenses and/or services. The new program would not replace the existing program, according to Bax, and the flow of federal money would not necessarily be diverted to it.
We have no quarrel with a single, better food-to-farm program, but we see no merit in competing, duplicative programs.
We encourage lawmakers to scrutinize this proposal accordingly.