Even in these times of relative prosperity, thousands of Californians go hungry or undernourished. Worse, government has taken away more food from more poor people in the past two years than during any other period in recent history.

* At least one million undocumented immigrants have been ruled ineligible for all "non- emergency" federal programs, including food assistance, since the enactment of federal welfare reform in August 1996.

* An estimated 136,000 of the General Assistance recipients who are jobless single adults can receive food stamps for only three months in a three-year period unless they are working or enrolled in workfare or other allowable work programs. This federally-mandated element of federal welfare overhaul took effect September 1, 1997 except in a handful of rural and Northern California counties. In those counties jobless single adults will lose their food stamps on March 31. Many legislators and the Governor have resisted initiatives to replace these losses with a state general assistance program.

* Individuals convicted of drug-related felonies after December 31, 1997 are ineligible for life for welfare, general assistance, and food. The penalty applies regardless of how well the individual performs after release from prison.

* Food bank and soup kitchen users were hit by Governor Wilson's veto of $4.4 million appropriated by the Legislature for the 1998-99 Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program.

* Funding for nutritional programs for children -- school breakfast and summer food service start-up grants -- was cut from $2 million (1996-97) to $500,000 (1997-98).

The Governor's 1998-1999 budget compounds the negative impact of these cuts. If Wilson has his way, low-income Californians can expect to suffer from:

* the permanent elimination of the renter's tax credit;

* continuation of a 4.9% reduction in welfare grants;

* denial of cost-of-living increase for welfare recipients. In other words, all individuals and families receiving public assistance will have even less food buying power than they did a year ago.

One telling indicator of the administration's indifference to food issues is that no reference to food or nutrition appears anywhere in the Governor's budget summary or in the administration's Department of Finance analysis of the Governor's budget. Just imagine the outcry if the Governor or the State Department of Finance failed to mention prisons or schools in their budget publications.

Spearheaded by policies and programs articulated by Southern California urban planning activists, the movement's proponents argue that reorienting the food economy to meet community needs will require analysis and action on issues such as supermarket redlining, food industry consolidation, and excess reliance on long-distance transportation of processed commodity crops. Looking to Third World countries where as many as 700 million people have enjoyed improved nutrition from community as opposed to profit-based agriculture, food security proponents in California are developing direct marketing relationships between small-scale diversified farmers and local schools, food banks, residential rehabilitation centers, and neighborhood and housing project associations. At least as important are the community gardens that food security supporters say provide both nutritious food and build self-sufficiency for low-income urban residents, battered women, and veteran's hospital patients. (See accompanying side bars for more examples). Fighting the perennial transportation problems faced by inner-city residents, two Los Angeles-area grocers have responded to food security advocates by offering van service to their customers. Other solutions to transit-related nutrition problems such as car pooling and re-routing or rescheduling of public transit are being tested in other parts of the state.

In the past two years, food security has caught the attention of lawmakers at federal and local levels. In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed the Community Food Security Act (CFSA) to provide, through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $16 million in toto through the year 2002 in one-time local grants "to build self-sustaining economic relationships between farmers, food stores, and low-income residents." Grants have already been awarded to two projects in California -- one in Los Angeles and the other in Davis.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles City Council has appropriated $280,000 to fund a citywide L.A. Food Security and Hunger Partnership, modeled after food policy councils in other cities such as Austin, TX and St. Paul, MN. The partnership is made up of 18 community members involved in advocacy and food-related businesses. It will coordinate anti-hunger efforts.

At least one state is considering a commitment to food security. Last year, the New York State Legislature began to review a proposal for a statewide "Community Food Security, Empowerment and Economic Development Program." The program would be directed by an advisory council of 18 members "with expertise in food security" and fund projects of nonprofit organizations and local government, both of whom would have the option of forming "limited partnerships with for-profit enterprises."

No similar legislation pends in California. State funding is already indirectly involved through the use of public facilities such as schools, universities, hospitals, and low-income housing for food security projects. In addition, some resourceful municipalities are using existing state funding in partnership with federal and private grants for local food security programs. The City of Berkeley is using California Healthy Cities Project funding to increase local production and consumption of fresh produce, create a community policy board, provide seed money for a WIC Farmers' Market program, increase public access to community gardens, provide nutrition information about locally grown produce, and support community gardens.

Faith-based groups are also beginning to shore up food security by buying shares in Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs. CSA works like this: food consumers buy shares of small farmers' crops as an alternative to depending on commercial food providers. In some parts of the country, members of religious organizations have gotten involved by buying shares on behalf of low-income families, social service agencies, or food banks. Through their investment these faith-driven activists have found a way to support the local food system while improving the quality of food consumed by their less prosperous neighbors.

While there is no single approach that can solve the centuries-old problem of hunger and malnutrition, it is clear that, as two leading food security proponents (Robert Gottleib and Hugh Joseph, writing in the Boston Globe) put it, "food is a basic human need and ... access to an adequate food supply is a fundamental right or entitlement for both individuals and communities."

If our elected officials can be persuaded to combine the food security approach with direct food assistance (food stamps, food banks, school lunch and breakfast programs, and the like), the possibility for a well-nourished California emerges.

Write to the Governor, your state assembly member and your state senator and ask them to:

* restore the cost-of-living allowance for CalWorks recipients;

* appropriate matching money in the state budget for federal dollars available for Food Stamp Employment and Training Programs for able-bodied adults without dependents enrolled in county General Assistance programs;

* allocate funding in the state budget for the WIC/Farmers Market program to bring high quality fresh produce to low-income women and infants;

* urge the U.S Congress and President Clinton to commit their unwavering support to full restoration of food stamps for legal immigrants.

-Ken Larsen

The author is indebted to Michelle Mascarenhas of the California Center for Sustainable Communities/Occidental College and Laurie True of California Food Policy Advocates for much of the information in this report. The views expressed are my own.

California Food Policy Advocates - (415) 291-0282; (916) 492-2064

Community Alliance with Family Farmers - (530) 756-8518

Community Food Security Coalition - (310) 822-5410

Community Food Security Project - (213) 259-1407

Los Angeles Coalition to End Hunger and Homelessness - (213) 746-6511 ext 13

* Battered Women Shelter Program Gardens for Survivors - with funding from the Department of Health Services, shelters are beginning to set up community gardens in shelter backyards, in indoor containers in offices or shelter rooms, or in safe places in the community. Information: Domestic Violence Section of the Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch,k (916) 657-4643.

* Vets' Garden - 15 acres maintained by outpatients from the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Los Angeles. Participants are paid for their work out of garden profits, gain job skills, and are allotted their own small plots as they wish. Most of the harvest is sold to restaurants, but some veterans sell their crops independently, others take produce and flowers home to their families. Information: Andy Fisher, (310) 822-5410.

* Watts Growing - a training project for community gardeners in production techniques, small business management, and produce marketing, with support from the USDA Community Food Project Program. Information: Mark Wall, (213) 244-9190-----------.

As a result of recent rulings by the United States Supreme Court, Assembly Member Joe Baca (D., San Bernardino) has introduced AB 1617 to protect the religious practices of prisoners and those who are not part of the dominant culture. The bill seeks to codify provisions of the California Constitution and case law respecting the free exercise of religion.

AB 1617 is supported in principle by FCL and a broad coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations. The bill passed the Assembly without a dissenting vote and the coalition is working to refine its language.

Current safeguards for the free exercise of religion date back back to the founding of the colonies of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. Roger Williams and William Penn pioneered the idea that there should be no government interference in matters of conscience. Their followers established traditions that contributed to general acceptance of the principle of separation of church and state in the English colonies, and eventually in the country as a whole. Today, non- interference by government in religious practice seems essential to individual freedom. Nearly all of the world's religions have followers in California. This diversity sometines brings about situations where religious practices conflict with public sentiment as well as governmental mandates.

For example:

Can a state university hire a Quaker who for religious reasons cannot affirm the loyalty oath set forth in the State Constitution?

Can a Hmong family be evicted from public housing for practicing a ritual animal sacrifice as required by their religion?.

Can the Department of Corrections require all male inmates to cut their hair to a standard length regardless of the requirements of their religion, such as among Sikhs?

Can a city deny a congregation a use permit to build a church or meeting house?

Can the American Friends Service Committee decline to rent office space to a church whose practices conflict with Quaker principles?

Traditionally, the courts have decided such questions by balancing the interests of the parties. Interference with a religious practice could only be justified by a "compelling state interest" such as the health or safety of the public, or the protection of individuals against invidious discrimination. This approach worked reasonably well but it was suddenly abandoned by the United States Supreme Court in a 1990 case that allowed a puboic entity to discharge an employee for the ritual use of peyote. Congress attempted to restore the "compelling state interest" test, but last summer the court rebuffed that effort in a case where a church was not allowed to sidestep requirements that the historic characteristics of its building be preserved.

Now there is concern that California state courts might follow the federal example, abandoning the "compelling state interest" standard for evaluation of the State Constitution's protections for free exercise of religion. The Department of Corrections has already adopted "emergency" regulations stating that any "legitimate penological interest" (including the budget) may permit restriction of an inmate's spiritual practices. Without statutory provisions that define the process for balancing competing interests, other public agencies may find they lack the statutory guidelines to properly interpret laws that, although apparently neutral, impose serious practical burdens on the free exercise of religion.

Some cities have indicated that they don't like the "compelling state interest" standard. They have adopted resolutions opposing AB 1617, contending that their ability to control zoning would be reduced. Therefore, when writing to support the purposes of AB 1617, please include the members of your city council as well as legislators in Sacramento.

Steve Birdlebough