Vilsack Lays Out Menu For Change In The Agriculture Department

Vilsack Lists His Priorities as Agricultural Secretary:  A Play-by-Play Analysis

The text is taken from the USDA’s own news release (link):

“In keeping with President Obama’s recent pledge to make government more transparent, inclusive, and collaborative, I would like to pursue an extended comment period so that more farmers and other individuals can participate in this rulemaking process,” he said. “I’m particularly interested in suggestions that would help the Department target payments to farmers who really need them and ensure that payments are not being provided to ineligible parties for future crop years.”

Analysis: Vilsack is referring to many of Obama’s pledges.  The first is more obvious: the call for governmental transparency and citizen input has been Obama’s mantra since the beginning of his campaign.  Secondly, Vilsack’s promise to “target payments to farmers who really need them” is carrying out Obama’s promise to curb wasteful subsidies.  Obama and Vilsack are right that they should not be funding big-agribusinesses that dominate the market and make profit without subsidies.  I had my doubts about whether or not this promise would be enacted, especially when Vilsack, the governor of subsidy-consuming Iowa, took the post of Secretary of Agriculture.  However, by addressing the issue within days of officially taking the position, he confirms the seriousness with which the administration is viewing fraudulent subsidy claims.

Vilsack also announced that the Department does not plan to implement a proposal developed by the previous Administration that would have cut more than $3 million from the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program, a popular program that promotes the growth of healthy fruits and vegetables.

Analysis:  Thank goodness for this withdrawal.  $3 million may be a drop in the bucket, but this industry needs all the help it can get if it is compete with subsidized corn byproducts.  Definitely, if there is one thing this country needs more of (and to be had more cheaply) it is fruits and vegetables.  Promoting the growth and subsequent consumption of fruits and vegetables would definitely help combat the increasing childhood obesity epidemic, which is one of his top priorities.

Priorities Vilsack discussed with reporters include:

  • Combating childhood obesity and enhancing health and nutrition, indicating that the Department should play a key role in the public health debate and that nutrition programs should be seen as an opportunity to both alleviate hunger and prevent health care problems.

Analysis: Enhancing health and nutrition education will obviously require collaboration with the Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan.  However, getting kids to eat better will mean getting parents and schools to purchase and prepare healthier meals.  For parents, the government needs to recognize that subsidies still make meat (perhaps from the local Burger King or McDonalds) and Fritos cheaper than a dinner of pasta with vegetables.  It is not a coincidence that the poorest people in our nation tend to be the fattest (link).  School systems have done little to improve their lunch’s nutrition levels over the years.  Government contracts are worth billions upon billions of dollars, so why doesn’t the government browbeat its produce vendors into giving them better deals?  If the government is planning to do it for Medicare and Medicaid prescriptions, why not school lunch reform?   Also, schools already get the cheaper leftover meat (”surpluses”) of the nation, so they could and should grab some of the fruits and vegetables too.

  • Advancing research and development and pursuing opportunities to support the development of biofuels, wind power, and other renewable energy sources, saying that USDA needs to make sure that the biofuels industry has the necessary support to survive recent market challenges while promoting policies that will accelerate the development of next-generation biofuels that have the potential to significantly improve our energy independence.

Analysis:  We know Vilsack is a huge supporter of biofuels perhaps because of the enthusiasm for corn ethanol (think of Iowa as the birthplace for the amber waves of grain) (link).  However, the term “next-generation” biofuels leads me to believe he understands the problems that lie with today’s corn ethanol procedures.  The search for better catalysts and biofuel mechanisms could be where Obama directs a lot of his green research and development.  Science will surely save the day.  Huzzah!  If the focus were merely on getting America off of our oil addiction, we could also try lowering the import tariffs on biofuels from Brazil’s sugar cane.  However, the recession (and Democrat majorities) may result in  some protectionist measures and leave the situation as it is in order to help secure more jobs on the home front.

  • Making progress on major environmental challenges, including climate change. Vilsack said it’s important that farmers and ranchers play a role with USDA in efforts to promote incentives for management practices that provide clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat, and help farmers participate in markets that reward them for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Analysis:  It always comes down to money.  It’s not a bad thing if it actually helps direct the farmers and ranchers toward greener goals.  We should all be so glad that the USDA will be using its power to incentivize for the good of the planet.  Furthermore, Vilsack’s priority means he is clearly against pursuing Bush’s last minute proposal to exempt diary and factory farms from reporting pollution emissions to the EPA (link).

  • Supporting the profitability of farmers and ranchers by providing a safety net that works for all of agriculture, including independent producers and local and organic agriculture, and enforcing the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Analysis:  The Packers and Stockyards Act is meant to make the meat industry more transparent.  Its intentions were to prohibit industry moguls from “manipulating markets, restricting flow of foods, controlling the price of dressed meat, defrauding producers and consumers of food and crushing competition” (link).  Fast Food Nation uncovers the myriad ways that this act is thwarted and abused.  Vilsack implies that he will strictly enforce the act and provide appropriate oversight funds in order to do so.  Since the Packers and Stockyards Act has been ignored from when it came into being in the early 1900’s, so I am not holding my breath on this one.

  • Quickly implementing the 2008 Farm Bill; modernizing the food safety system; and investing in programs that alleviate hunger and suffering overseas and support long-term agriculture development.

Analysis:  The first half of this to-do item will be welcomed by many.  I’d like to get more details on that before I applaud Vilsack addressing the urgent need for food safety reform.  The latter half of this proposal is nebulous both in its goals and method of attainment.  For sure, it’s a nice do-good statement that advocates can get behind.  The “long-term development” planning is a nice way of saying that they should not expect an immediate miracle.  In fact, couching it in those terms may even mean that they should not expect tangible progress very soon even if money is devoted right away to seed genomics and updating third-world technologies.

  • Restoring the mission of the Forest Service as a protector of clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat; a provider of recreation opportunities; a key player in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration. Vilsack indicated that it is important that we appropriately budget for wildfires so that the Forest Service has the resources it needs for both wildfires and its other missions.

Analysis:  This is a complete 180 on the position the Bush administration took.  The cronies Bush put in charge of the EPA did nothing but weaken the ability of government to oversee wildlife health and preservation.  Hell, Bush’s EPA had put through a measure that let businesses create their own risk assessments.  It may take a while to dig us out of that hole, but Vilsack seems prepared to trudge through it.  Bush did not treat the Forest Service with any more respect than he gave to the EPA.  Even as late as January 9th (11 days before Obama’s inauguration) he was pushing through regulations that “would make it far easier for mountain forests to be converted to housing subdivisions” (link). Also, because of global warming the incidence of forest fires beyond regrowth necessity is most definitely on the rise.  So, it is prescient of Vilsack to devote ample funds to the Forest Service for this exact purpose.

USDA.gov

All in all, environmentalists and foodies alike heaved a collective sigh of relief the morning of Obama’s inauguration.  Obama gave us the hope, now Vilsack is doing the legwork.

January 27, 2009  Tags: , , , , , ,   Posted in: Politics

2 Responses

  1. Tracy - January 28, 2009

    Thanks for your analysis of the USDA’s new priorities. I’m very new at trying to understand what happens at a government agency like this. I’ve certainly read so much about how the USDA is very heavily influenced by big agribusiness, so I come into this feeling skeptical, how can this possibly change? Is it enough to have a change in administration? I’m so appreciative of finding a fellow citizen’s take on these issues and it gives me another path – of some cautious optimism that new approaches can be taken. Thanks for a balanced and thoughtful review of the specific points.

  2. foodbubbles - January 28, 2009

    Thank you so much for your comments. “Cautious optimism” is rightly the buzzword during the beginnings of the Obama era. After eight years of profound pessimism, it’s the closest thing to confidence in our government that we’ve got.

    You asked how we can stop being so skeptical. Those new approaches Vilsack and others outline must be started quickly, which means finding money to fund personnel for the projects. Where will the money come from is the hard part, especially now. It’s going to take some serious tough love (read: stopping exorbitant subsidies and extinguishing programs that do not work). How hard would you fight to keep your millions or billions of dollars from the government?

Leave a Reply