A group of NGO chiefs, activists, and Big Organic executives have launched a website and petition to support Tom Vilsack, president-elect Barack Obama’s choice to lead USDA.
Participants in the site, known as supportvilsack.com, include Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation; Iowa sustainable-food activist Denise O’Brien (who recently guest-posted on Gristmill); Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the U.S. Humane Society; Gary Hirshberg, CEO of organic-yogurt giant Stonyfield Farm; Steve Demos, founder of soy-food giant White Wave (now owned by industrial-dairy behemoth Dean Foods); and several others.
Institutionally, the Organic Trade Association—whose members range from tiny producers of hemp products to global agribiz giant Bunge—signed on.
The effort strikes me as bizarre. Why band together to support someone who’s a shoo-in to be confirmed? Vilsack is no firebrand reformer; his nomination will generate little controversy in the Senate.
Moreover, I understand the argument—made on Gristmill by O’Brien and by John Crabtree of the Center for Rural Affairs—that Vilsack is a relatively innocuous pick. After all, Obama’s short list of USDA candidates included some real doozies, like agribusiness lobbyist Charles Stenholm.
But Vilsack isn’t likely to lead U.S. food/agriculture policy in new, more sustainable and socially just directions—at least not without a real push from below. As I’ve written before (and many others have pointed out), he has been a fervent booster of the genetically modified seed and biofuel industries—both of which proffer what I think are dead-end “solutions” to environmental problems and offer little to any but the largest-scale and most commodity-oriented farmers.
I agree with the thesis that the sustainable-food movement should “work with” Vilsack, in the sense of pushing him to chart new directions in food/ag policy. But the “support Vilsack” movement (if it can be called that) seems less like a push than an uncritical embrace. Why, again?
Peterson’s Waxman-Markey amendment: the nitty gritty and what it means
The bad and maybe not-so-bad of the Waxman-Peterson deal
Comments View as Flat
crabtree Posted 2:58 am
06 Jan 2009
vilsack
Thanks for the post Tom. One of your points that I wanted to reiterate, namely that Vilsack is unlikely to lead food and rural policy in new, more sustainable and just directions without a big push from all of us. Of course, I've never known this not to be true of a Secretary of Agriculture. But, I've always known Vilsack to be willing to listen so, perhaps, there is an opportunity for all of us to push for the kind of leadership we've wanted from the Secretary of Agriculture for a long time.
Permalink
BornOnANebraskaFarm Posted 9:01 am
06 Jan 2009
Vilsack
Did anyone read Alan Guebert's column about meeting Tom Vilsack at an Iowa Farmers' Union meeting ten years ago? On Vilsack's campaign literature, according to Guebert, there was no mention of his party affiliation. He was running to succeed a popular Republican... Guebert asked an aide if Vilsack was running as an independent since there was no indication of any party. Guebert took it to mean he was a big middle of the roader and trying to get votes from both Republicans and Democrats without actually saying anything. If Guebert is right, the story illustrates that Vilsack could go either way -- Guebert posits that if has higher political ambitions, he'll carry out Big Ag's agenda. If he doesn't then he may do some things to make USDA lean more sustainable.... Still doesn't give me much hope. On a brighter note -- I had heard that Michelle Obama may take food as part of her portolio -- anybody else heard that?
Eating local makes you happy.
Permalink
Jim Goodman Posted 1:35 am
07 Jan 2009
Obama's plan for agriculture
Based on Obama's choice of Vilsack, the fact that Marshall Matz was Obama's agriculture team leader for most of the campaign and a recent Chicago tribune op-ed by Matz and George McGovern (a big fan of GM crops), I really don't see Obama as doing much to change agriculture policy. I hope I am wrong, I really do.
Matz has formerly worked as a lobbyist for DC firm Olsson, Frank and Weeda. His clients included National Meat Assn. Novartis AG, Altria Group (formerly Philip Morris), McDonald's, and others. Obama also had former Monsanto VP Michael Taylor (they guy who wrote the original rBGH rules for FDA) on his advisory team.
None of this gives me much hope, perhaps a McCain ag program would have been worse, so have we again chosen the lesser of two evils?
Permalink
barthanderson Posted 3:51 am
07 Jan 2009
Can we call you "Papa Bear," Mr. Sec?
Big Organic is down with Vilsack because he'll bring an industrial, agribusiness mindset to the organic industry. The defense of Vilsack (on supportvilsack.com's OCA page) contains this sentence: "He led trade missions to specifically market organic products to other countries in an attempt to open up the organics market to Iowa producers," with a link to a Corn & Soybean magazine article, where Vilsack is promoting, yup, organic soybeans.
Supply is a key vulnerability for Big Organics and Vilsack is a big daddy ag-corporatist, compared to the likes of smaller corporate players like those behind supportvilsack.com. He knows the game much better than they do. Consequently, Vilsack can help make sure organic soybeans, corn, and livestock feed flow.
Big Organic is about to get a whole lot bigger under President Obama.
And that's fine. But it underscores the pressing need for someone overseeing the USDA National Organic Program who prizes strong standards and integrity in the organic industry:
http://www.fairfoodfight.com/fight/petition-draft-jim-rid ...
Permalink