Vilsack in perspective

An Iowa sustainable-ag legend speaks on her experience with the former governor 5

This is a guest post by long-time Iowa organic farmer and food activist, Denise O’Brien, who narrowly lost a bid for the state’s secretary of agriculture post in 2006.

——-

The phones, emails, and blogs are abuzz with the Obama appointment of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as the new secretary of agriculture. On one hand, people are ballistic because he is a trial lawyer and doesn’t come "from the farm." On the other hand, many who have known and worked with him in Iowa are not happy with his relationship with big ag, especially Monsanto.

Here’s the story: Vilsack was the first Democrat to hold the office of Governor in Iowa in 40 years—yes, 40. The last Democrat holding the seat was Harold Hughes when many of us were children or not even born.

Many were ecstatic that a Dem had made it to this high office, and that at last, we would have access. There is no doubt about it—the Governor’s office was accessible. For the first time in years, Dems could walk into the office of the Governor and talk to a Governor of the same party. Expectations were high among the progressive farm and labor folk. We thought we could stop confined animal feeding operations, do something about genetically modified organisms, and have a voice for fair trade. But alas, we found that even though we were of the same party, there were some differences.

Over the years, the Governor’s office was open for a number of meetings relating to trade: prior to the Seattle WTO meeting, occasionally to solve the farm financial crises that emerge every few years, and sporadically to develop food policy. During Vilsack’s administration, we were in his office more frequently than all of the past 20 years of farm activism combined.

During his administration it quickly dawned on many that our Governor Tom Vilsack was a centrist like former President Bill Clinton, and we were likely to disagree on a lot of issues. What’s a progressive to do? Give up? Not bother to even engage in discussions about relevant issues?

The best thing to do was to keep talking and to keep exposing the governor to a more progressive line of thinking. We resigned ourselves to the fact that our expectations of a democratic governor were exactly that—expectations—and that there was still a lot of work to do.

There were a number of times that Governor Vilsack did act on issues that were more in line with a progressive agenda: He brought people together for problem solving; he appointed a strong leader as the head of the Department of Natural Resources who worked hard, ultimately unsuccessfully, to rein in CAFOs; and he also appointed people to the Environmental Protection Council who were intelligent and outspoken in their opposition to the CAFOs. Alas, big ag still had the upper hand.

One of the best progressive accomplishments under his watch was the creation, by executive order, of the Iowa Food Policy Council. This was the second statewide council of its type to form in the United States. A number of progressives served on IFPC, and we were able to make inroads on issues of food security, local foods, farmers markets, and programs addressing the needs of people in poverty—food stamps and WIC. Yes, this happened in Iowa, the "Belly of the Beast" of agribusiness, and Vilsack was the leader that made it happen.

The bottom line is that we can work with Governor Vilsack. I know this from a personal perspective. When I ran for secretary of agriculture in the state of Iowa, I had to first win a primary. Vilsack encouraged and supported a man who had worked for him during his governor years. My opponent had much help—money and volunteers—to make his campaign successful, but it didn’t work.

I was able to win by a margin of 14 or 15 points. And the night I won the primary, Governor Vilsack called me up and told me that a large check would be waiting for me when I saw him the next day. I admire that. I beat the pants off the man he supported, but when the contest was over, he gave his full support to me.

During the months prior to the election, Governor Vilsack often attended at the same events as me, and he heard my platform many times: "Safe and Healthy Families, Safe and Healthy Farms and a Safe and Healthy Iowa." I can’t help but think that some of what I said has taken root and that he will be an ally to us.

With regard to Vilsack’s appointment, I want the progressive community to know that I am not selling out. I am not naïve; I am, however, a realist. As a progressive, I am not happy that someone from the foodie constituency was not chosen, but the sustainable/organic ag/foodies/local foods progressives have not quite arrived to the point of having as much influence as we would like to believe.

Many times I feel that I live in a bubble and that everyone is on the same page with me. It is a time like this, when a mainstream person is appointed to an influential position, that I realize there is still a lot of work to do.

My years of being a farm and food activist have taught me how to work with what I’ve got and to never give up. What we have is Tom Vilsack and what we have to keep in mind is that he knows the sustainable/organic/foodie community in Iowa and beyond. He knows we are hardworking, serious individuals who believe passionately in the issues of food and farm.

My hope is that this will be present with him as he moves into his work as the secretary of agriculture. Our work is cut out for us. It is important to keep the pressure on and continue to recommend people to fill the positions that will facilitate the scaling of work we have already accomplished. The pathways of agriculture and agribusiness are complex. The new secretary of agriculture needs our help to maneuver that path.

We have much work to do, and we must continue to carry the message of hope.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Erik Hoffner's avatar

    Erik Hoffner Posted 8:16 am
    19 Dec 2008

    good to hear itDenise,
    Good to know that progressives can work with Mr. Vilsack.
    Forgot that you ran for that post in 2006! Man, if the founder of the Women Food and Agriculture Network had won, thereby bringing her sustainable ag grassroots savvy to that office, Iowa would have a pretty different ag-landscape now. You should run again.
    Erik

    The Orion Grassroots Network: supporting grassroots groups working for conservation, justice, & more

  2. randino Posted 9:38 am
    19 Dec 2008

    An excellent post. Years ago, I heard that activists have to learn how to walk on two feet. I interpret it to mean that you have to be a functional schizophrenic. Interesting post from the trenches.  
    Randy Cunningham

    Cleveland, OH

    Randy Cunningham
  3. Bud Dingler's avatar

    Bud Dingler Posted 5:30 am
    20 Dec 2008

    nice post i like your point "but the sustainable/organic ag/foodies/local foods progressives have not quite arrived"
    that may be an understatement when you consider the vast legions of people who shop Costco etc and buy the heavily processed crap some call food.
    like any emerging cultural shift I think we are still in our infancy. for instance the freak out attitude and in general disinformation campaign on GMO is a good issue to look at and see that "we" the progressives are too extremist on refusing to consider the use biotech to reduce or eliminate the widespread use of farm chems and other weather and practical issues farmers face.
    how many people that have a strong opinion against GMO's even understand the basic science behind GMO'?
  4. Jim Goodman Posted 3:57 am
    22 Dec 2008

    We can work with him?I hope we can, because we know Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organization can work with him, as they have had lots of practice. Apparently it has been a very mutually beneficial relationship.
    Will Vilsack be able to promote both bio-tech crops and organic crops and have them coexist without GM contaminating the organic crops. I am anxious to see how these mutually exclusive farming systems will work together.
    We know that small scale organic/sustainable farming has the best possibility to feed developing countries. We also know it is a system that, for health, economic and environmental reasons, we must adopt in the US.
    We know GM crops offer no proven benefits other than high profits for the agribusiness industry that promotes them, the same industry folks that are praising Obama's selection of Vilsack.
  5. mwildfire Posted 3:50 am
    24 Dec 2008

    GMO mythologyBud Dingler says that anti-biotech people need to grow up and get informed, and then we would see that we need GMOs to "reduce or eliminate the widespread use of farm chems and other weather and practical issues farmers face."

    Bud, where is your evidence that GM technology has ever done any of those things? What is your reason to think it will do so in the future? So far what it has done is two thingsL one, allow farmers to save labor by spraying weeds with Roundup without killing their crops--and not incidentally, created a huge financial boost for Monsanto whose patent on Roundup was about to expire. Two, reduce some insect problems by the splicing Bt, a naturally occurring bacterial pathogen,  into the germ plasm of crop seeds. Trouble is, having this bacteria present in every cell of every plant from planting to harvest (and beyond, in residue) naturally and predictably leads to much-speeded up evolution of resistance in the affected bugs, thus taking away an important weapon in the arsenal of organic farmers.

    Apparently "life sciences companies" as they call themselves now, are in fact working on strains that would resist drought or excess wetness or heat or salt, etc, which could be very useful, especially in a world in which agriculture is made even more chancy by climate change. But they are not planning to give the fruits of the labors to the farmers of the world--they will patent their discoveries, and insist on big profits for their shareholders before releasing any useful discoveries. Perhaps they'll use the research of some years ago on ways to arrange for these useful traits to be locked up in the plants, to be activated only by spraying with a particular proprietary chemical--which would, of course, be owned and sold by Monsanto.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement