|
||
Obama's Choice of Vilsack: AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA?
Subdued approval greeted President-elect Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture last week. This came from mainstream environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, and even organizations that have been critical in the past of the Iowa governor's policies. Vilsack comes across in nearly all of the stories written last Tuesday and Wednesday as a solid choice, someone reliable from a farm state who understands farmers.
But, a day or two later the complexion of the Vilsack nomination had changed somewhat. First, the announcement was made in a slightly odd fashion, leaked out ahead of time, as though the Obama transition team were expecting some flak for their choice. In addition, Vilsack -- notably -- had removed himself from the running before jumping back in just prior to his selection by the president-elect.
Today, the lukewarm reception Vilsack initially received has turned into real heat as the Obama transition team finds itself in the fire over the former Governor's appointment. President-elect Obama identified Vilsack as representative of the kind of "new leadership" Washington needs. But now, even those who initially greeted the nomination with some enthusiasm are wondering if Vilsack isn't a signal of business as usual at the USDA, and beyond.
First of all -- as Politico reports -- there is the farm subsidy money that Vilsack has received over time from USDA. According to the piece, from 2000 to 2006, Vilsack and his wife collected $42,782 in subsidies from USDA. In addition, "Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy -- a job that appears to bump up against Obama's promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years." The former Governor recognizes the conflict of interests, and claims he will do everything he can to address the problem, and if he must, he will forgo the payments.
If only that was the sole reason to question the choice of Vilsack; $42K may not be enough of a figure to inspire concern. Vilsack's positions on biotechnology and ethanol are far more troubling.
For those of us who have serious health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning, and industrial agriculture in general, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record. Vilsack was even named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his "support of the industry's economic growth." Small wonder. Under Governor Vilsack, the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in dubious biotechnology start-ups, such as cow cloner Trans Ova Genetics ($9 million) and pharmaceutical corn developer, ProdiGene, Inc. ($6 million). Iowa's investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate. The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company's genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government. On biotechnology policy, Vilsack is far from the visionary we had hoped for.
Vilsack has also been a big supporter of ethanol, as is President-elect Obama. On this issue, they're clearly in synch, but their enthusiasm is terribly misplaced. The latest science demonstrates clearly that corn-based ethanol exacerbates rather than mitigates global warming, while so-called "cellulosic" ethanol from crop waste and prairie grass (which might have value, the jury is still out) is years away from commercial use. Even some of ethanol's strongest supporters in Congress, like Senator Tom Harkin, have come to question corn-based ethanol. President-Elect Obama and Mr. Vilsack should make elimination of federal subsidies for corn-to-ethanol -- which now total several billion dollars per year -- a top priority.
However, Vilsack has made some promises that are easy to rally behind. He says he supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination episodes. He has also said that USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE crops.
All this would be welcome, but so far, there is little to indicate that Mr. Vilsack would be the watchdog so promised. There is increasing disappointment in the choice, so we must watch his actions to see if he deserves the public's trust. If he fails on any pledge, it's up to consumers, farmers, and lawmakers to hold his feet to the fire. Ultimately, it is the President-elect's food, farm and energy policies that will guide the USDA in the new administration. While not perfect, there is much promise in these policies.
There were high hopes that Obama would choose a Secretary who would bring real change to the beleaguered USDA. Though more progressive candidates were passed over, Tom Vilsack may not prove to be the AgriBusiness-as-Usual choice that his record would suggest. Some who know him say he is a good listener, and we should not rule out the possibility of change. A president elected on a platform of change needs to implement it nowhere more urgently than in food and farm policy. This nation needs nothing short of a New Green Deal to reverse the Bush administration's abysmal food safety record and assault on the environment through its promotion of industrial agriculture. Although we remain hopeful with the choice of Tom Vilsack, we also have to remain very alert.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
USDA is poised to deregulate the world’s first genetically engineered (GE) industrial crop. Similar to GE pharma crops that use corn for producing drugs, Syngenta’s “Event 3272” is genetically engineered to use corn for energy (ethanol) production and not for food. This unprecedented, industrial application of a GE technology poses a variety of environmental, health, and economic risks that must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the widespread use of this GE industrial corn crop should be allowed on farms across our nation.
In a “business as usual” move, USDA has fast-tracked the commercialization of this GE industrial corn and has forgone conducting a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS), as required by law. Instead, USDA is basing its decision to approve the industrial GE corn upon a shorter assessment that falls woefully short of the thorough review the law requires before a new GE crop is approved. Moreover, USDA has failed to acknowledge that this GE technology requires even greater scrutiny since it transforms a ubiquitous food crop —corn— into an industrial crop — ethanol— making it no longer fit for human consumption. The Obama Administration’s USDA must complete a full EIS to address these concerns. The agency is accepting public comments only until January 20, 2009.
Senate Agriculture Tom Harkin is the key figure. Harkin, with Gephardt, Daschle, Wellstone and others reversed themselves after more than a decade of failure in farm policy. They abandoned the Harkin Gephardt farm bill when Harkin became ag chair. It had price floors with supply management and price ceilings with strategic commodity reserves. They switched to a farm policy worse than that of Butz or Reagan, that of the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act (which they all strongly opposed). The Democrats and Obama know about this issue. I see no commenter here who probably even knows what I'm talking about, even though it's the core of the farm bill, the largest issue by far, historically multrillions in impact. How can we re-awaken the Democrats, if hardly one interested in the range of issues posted here even knows that this issue exists. Learn more at nffc.net, (National family Farm Coalition) and IATP (ie. agobservatory.org). Ethanol, cheap sugar, animal factories, LDC poverty, etc., etc., were been built upon decades of below cost production. So first, let's understand who (Harkin and Ag Committees are key, as Vilsack and Obama don't know the issues), and then what (price floors, etc.) to get at the core issue. Harkin was the world leader on this in the 1980s and 1990s. This is winnable, if I can find some more progressives who know what I'm talking about, or who are willing to learn.
Vilsack seems like a clear political choice to me. I hope I'm wrong.
If we totally depended upon organic agriculture there would not be enough food to feed the present population. North America would have the same food crisis as now occurring in third world countries. We need modern agriculture technologies to feed the world today and and even more advanced technologies for the future. Organic production is not wrong, it is just not as productive as modern agriculture.
Our problem, for decades and today, has been oversupply. But anyway, small farms produce more per acre. Organic agriculture can feed the world, and more cheaply (soon, as fossil fuel prices rise), and with far less fossil fuel.
But people on both sides misunderstand that organic is not a backward traditional approach, though it builds on that. It's a more advanced paradigm of science, one that reconciles more values (creates more wealth) and overcomes the failures of the old, obsolete industrial ("modern," as you all it,) paradigm. Certainly it doesn't violate the science of ecology the way biotechnology massively does. Actually the traditional family farm system created an enormous biodiversity of crops and livestock, (ie. thousands of types of wheat and rice,) while industrial reductionism has us riskily dependent on a very few. We need the post megamodernism of organic systems to survive and thrive. "Megatechnics" (Lewis Mumford, Myth of the Machine) is incredibly powerful technology, but not appropriate (not very capable) for ecological systems, (nor could it successfully rebuild our cities, Mumford, Urban Prospect).
I am becoming more afraid that the one "hope" we had has been duped by the comcept the we can run a government with all sides represented, when we are trying to achieve "change". Working with an agriculture minister who believes that corn ethenal is good for the planet, that which causes soil depleation, water waste and polution seems to be born out of total ignorance.
Then there is the very important issue of genetically engineered crops. This takes total controll out of the farmers hands.
As a small gardener of organic foods and a raiser of oganic layer chickens, I fear for the health and wellfare of my eight grandchildren. Our Native Americans say, "Live to care for the next seven generations." We are not even caring for this generation with desisions such as Vilsack as minister of Agriculture.
What does Obama say in his policy statments (the long ones posted on his website I think) about agriculture? Does it match at all with his choice of leadership in this area?
Yes, basically. Obama's farm policy and choice of Vilsack are both, likely, following the lead of Iowa Senator and Ag Chair, Tom Harkin.
Did anyone here actually listen to Obama's intro of Vilsack at the nomination announcement? He specifically discussed cellulosic ethanol. Yes, Obama and Vilsack supported corn ethanol when they represented their corn producing states. Now they will represent the whole country. It's naive to think that politicians base their positions only on what they themselves think. They must simultaneously be leaders and representatives (i.e. followers). That's why politics is an art and not a science.
As to the author's supposition that cellulosic ethanol is years away from commercial use, I think that depends on how much effort we make. Biodiesel is ready to go right now ( I can buy it for $5/ gallon which was competitive with petro diesel at it's peak.) A steadily rising gas tax (rebated equally to all taxpayers) would quickly tilt the game in favor of renewable fuel.
Rationalization is completely justified when your hero turns out to be working for the corporations.
Just watch what Obama will call universal healthcare.
I am disappointed, yes, and don't expect universal healthcare to materialize in a very desirable form either. But I don't think rationalization is the right response when our hero caters to the very trickle-down system he repeatedly criticized and promised to confront. I am mad as hell, actually, and am wondering this week where the sane voices of dissent have gone.
I think what you are saying is that politicians are beholden to their constituents and not just their own thinking.
Well..... The huge majority of people (if asked) want safe, healthy food that is grown on real farms that don't destroy the ecosystems we depend on. (I know, such radical thoughts all us folks are thinking! ) Are politicians listening, and acting on this? No. Not at all. That's because the folks they listen to are lobbyists and agriBUSINESS interests. Money, money, money.
It isn't about politiicans being stymied and prevented from instituting great ideas because of ignorance among the masses. It is because corporate monsters with no faces and no morals are literally buying politicians and pulling their strings. The only leadership we have is from corporate america. So..... THIS is what needs to change. We need to get our democracy back.
My biggest worry is that Obama might think he can change things for the better without radically changing this skewed balance of power. Without saying "NO" to corporate control of our country. We elected Obama and his talent and aptitude and ethics are great, I believe. But the actual policy issues that need changing will have to come from a HUGE GRASSROOTS EFFORT that will be shouting from the rooftops during his entire presidency. We need to be upfront, in-your-face, and mighty strong to influence him. We need to organize, and not just let Obama organize us with his mighty email list!
Oh course you're right about corporate influence and you're right about shouting from rooftops. But I think Obama is headed in the right direction since he has banned lobbyists and PAC contributions. Let's give the guy a chance.
I think Obama is going to make deals that will be in the right direction but will also appeal to established powers... if only in moderating their losses. People like Vilsack know where the bodies are buried and can cut a deal with corporate agriculture that leads toward renewable biofuels. Obama said he would "reach across the aisle". Apparently he actually meant it and that's a good thing.
This is an absolutely pathetic appointment. Change we can barely recognize.
As Obama shills up with corporate hacks, I know now that my hopes that MAYBE my instincts were wrong about "just another" Harvard trained corporate lawyer were correct. I new it in my gut , but I thought he might get the message as the campign moved along.
There is nothing we can do, Obama doesn't understand the fundimental problem with a corporate run country. He just doesn't get it!
You might be right, but I respectfully (and hopefully) think you're not. He didn't accept corporate donations during his campaign, right? Perhaps Obama is picking people like Vilsack because he thinks they'll be the best at actually effectuating his policies of change, and won't just let them run lose with their own policies. We'll see..
Beleive me, I DON"T want to be right, but what I see does not make me feel good about Obama at this point. I think your point is a rationalization. I find the idea of needing "insiders" to make changes is more of the same. We need people from OUTSIDE to make the changes on the inside. Insiders just can't see any other way to govern. They are in effect corrupted by the system.
yyyaaaawwwnnnnnn.....
Great, accurate posts by most all of you. Villsack is married to corn. What the true greens know that the general population doesn't is the corn based ethanol is harder on the environment than regular gasoline when used as a transportation fuel. It sucks groundwater tables dry, it can't be transported by pipeline, it is highly corrosive.
If ethanol can't be transported by pipeline, then how does it get to the retailers? Toted one tanker at a time by diesel burning trucks. Oh yeah, it should also be mentioned that the plants that produce this ethanol are often powered by coal-fired electrical producers.
Corn based ethanol is the biggest farce of our time. We are better served buying foreign oil for the time being while investing heavily in R&D for a better alternative to fuel vehicles.
Obama's appointments have been incredibly disappointing. His complete disregard for the left has been a travesty, sure he's better than McCain, but he has already betrayed a pragmatism that is a frighteningly Clinton-like. As Chomsky put it so well, we are in for brand Obama, with business as usual in the background. The party is over and the inauguration has yet to happen. Hopefully he has emboldened the liberals in congress enough to actually challenge him. I see Obama ultimately siding with the "centrist" Republicans to block any real inquiry into the Bush years, when this happens the tide will turn against him and he will lose his real base of support on the left that got him elected and could easily end up a one term president.
The Dept. of Agriculture IS the Dept of Agribusiness. And it has to change. Who is that guy who wrote "The Omnivore's Dilemma"? He has written others as well. Now HE is a fresh face (probably also wouldn't want this job and is not a politician) but has a whole take on how agriculture should be grown locally, from MORE locations, so that one bug from Mexico doesn't poison millions of people. And is against this vast raising of animals for consumption.
He's no vegetarian that I know of, just a sensible guy. Michael Pollan, perhaps, was his name.
No..... subsidies to agriculture and big biz gotta go. Ethanol gotta go. I would hope for way better from Obama on this.
Obama's election gave faith in some alternative universe, one where people like Pollan get to make decisions. The reality is Obama is just another Democrat, funny Clinton never gave people this feeling of hope, wonder why?
Were this article about Sarah Palin, there'd be thousands of post, which just goes to show how dummied-down we've become as a society. What a shame that King Corn was designated Secretary of Agriculture. More's the shame that there's zero mention (at my last read on the change.gov site) of the myriad other issues related to the USDA -- even as this has life or death implications in our daily existence.
What about food safety and food inspections -- both domestic and imported? And our pathetic response to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (so-called mad cow disease)? Shall we keep devoting all this tillable acreage to the antiquitated vision of corn ethenol? What about those crops with real promise for biofuel development? And what Monsanto? Any are there plans to protect the integrity of organic agriculture and certification? What about the issues surrounding offensive biowarfare research at Plum Island (and the new bio-warfare lab being constructed, most likely in Kansas)?
Cripes, the list is endless. And it makes the difference between, say, eating dangerous crap or eating safe, nutritious food; between American farmers growing edible food (or not) as the world slowly disintegrates into mass starvations; between the U.S. covertly developing horrific new diseases to kill our enemies, vs. stopping the escalation of biowarfare; between sanctioning (or not) Monsanto, as they victimize farmers the world over, not to mention the hapless consumers who eat their crops.
Unless people complain, nothing changes. And, even then, it's no guarantee.
We need to be effective at change, but we're not. People continually ask Noam Chomsky to tell them just what to do to be effective, but he does not. I recommend Beyond Machiavelli by Roger Fisher, to open some eyes on how to be effective, but as group organizing (Shel Trapp, Dynamics of Organizing, Basics of Organizing).
We need to be well informed. I hope you and urbanfoodguy nick guest below understand the core farm policy issue, the lack of price floors and related policies. I don't see you mentioning it. There's been so much belief that the smokescreen issue (subsidies) is the real one. See nffc.net.
I've been writing about this on my blog for a while now. It's disgusting. I call him the secretary of corn.
If you go to the website for the Dept of Agriculture it looks like the entire department is agribusiness executes who are now on the pay roll of the federal government.
For me, it not only belies Obama's claim about change it really exposes his lies about being concerned about the environment. All the fossil fuels that go into pesticides and fertilizers used to grow the genetically modified corn that then goes to feed the genetically altered cows to allow them to eat the corn which still, even though they (the cows) have been "altered" to be able to process corn still get sick off it causing seriously gassy cows that emit methane contributing significantly to global warming.
Warren was to me an emotional slap in the face, Vilsack is a chilling kick in the stomach to any progressive who thought Obama was about anything but politics as usual.
Urbanfoodguy.blogspot.com
I really don't think Obama is lying and deceiving us. I think it is more complex than that. I don't know what he is thinking, but I trust he does not have nefarious intents or that he wants politics as usual. I am really, really disappointed in who he chose, though. I am not sure what to do at this point.
Vilsack is consistent with the farm policy Obama campaigned on, which is close to that of Senate Ag Chair Harkin. Neither Obama nor Vilsack know much about federal farm policy. Harkin is the key.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
