A Different View of Vilsack
The President's Choice
President-elect Obama has not indicated his choice for Secretary of Agriculture. Therefore, predictions on the outcome of this process are, at best, speculative. We have no special insight into the President-elect's selection process. However, multiple media reports have established an unofficial "short list," and my colleague Steph Larsen wrote an excellent post reviewing the potential field of candidates (also posted at Ethicurean).
The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported that Governor Tom Vilsack is the "near shoo-in" in this process.
I have known Governor Vilsack for over a decade. Considering all the ongoing speculation and critique of the former Governor, I thought I should weigh in. There are a lot of questions that one might ask a potential Secretary of Agriculture. I picked three.
Reforming Farm Programs
Historically, Governor Vilsack has shown consistent support for reforming farm programs; especially making farm program payment limits more effective, reducing subsidies to the nation's largest farms and investing the savings in conservation, rural development, nutrition, etc.
A 2006 Washington Post article wrote of the Governor:
There may be no better sign of the changing debate over the nation's farm subsidies: A Midwestern governor running for president calls for cuts in a system that has steered hundreds of millions of dollars a year to his state...
Politicians such as Vilsack have joined a host of interest groups from across the political spectrum that are pressing for changes in government assistance to agriculture. They want the money moved from large farmers to conservation, nutrition, rural development and energy research. Vilsack, for example, favors programs that improve environmental practices on farms...
Governor Vilsack has reiterated these positions since that time, both publicly and, quite recently, to me. Last week I had a conversation with Governor Vilsack about these issues. I asked him what areas need investment the most, to which he responded that such a question is like asking which of his two sons he loves the best. "There will be an opportunity next year with the re-authorization of child nutrition programs to address that need first. The Conservation Stewardship Program must be more adequately funded than in the past to preserve our most precious resources - our soil and water. And rural entrepreneurial development, next generation biofuels, expanded wind/solar/geo-thermal uses for land, specialty crops, local foods efforts and rural, high-speed broadband internet access need investment," Vilsack added.
Biotechnology
Governor Vilsack's most ardent detractors have focused on his promotion of biotechnology as an economic opportunity for Iowa and Iowa farmers. Organic farmers and organic consumer advocates have great trepidation regarding Vilsack's full-throated support for biotechnology, fearing the destruction of the integrity of identity-preserved and organic production, processing, transportation and marketing systems from contamination by genetically modified materials. They have legitimate concerns.
Because those concern are, arguably, the most significant criticism of Governor Vilsack as a potential Secretary of Agriculture and because the conflict between biotechnology and organic farming is so fundamental and structural in nature, I felt there was no other way of finding out more than to ask him. So, last week, I did.
He offered his priorities for protecting organic farmers and organic production systems: labeling to provide consumers a stronger voice in the marketplace and create opportunities for farmers to develop high-valued markets for their products, coupled with separation distances and other similar production, transportation and processing requirements that would protect organic crops from contamination, and establishment of clear liability from the biotechnology company, processor or handler responsible for the contamination when it occurs.
Additionally, Governor Vilsack talked about the importance of preserving and strengthening the integrity of the approval process for new biotechnologies; that, from USDA's perspective, new technologies should have the burden of proof that they will not harm markets for conventional, identity-preserved and organic products; and they should be of benefit to farmers, not just biotechnology companies.
Precautionary approval of new biotechnologies is crucial. The introduction of pharmaceutical corn in Iowa, for example, could threaten conventional markets for export and domestic human consumption as well as organic farmers. I have disagreed with Governor Vilsack over biotechnology issues several times. But I am encouraged by the responses above and by his open-minded approach and willingness to learn from past experience and mistakes alike.
Livestock Market Reforms
I still have the pen that Governor Vilsack gave me that he used to sign the livestock market reform and price reporting legislation that I worked on in the Iowa Legislature in 1999. I know from the experience of working on that legislation and during subsequent debates over livestock market reforms that Governor Vilsack has consistently supported crucial livestock market reforms.
I asked Governor Vilsack how USDA should address the challenge of more effective enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, considering the abysmal record of the Packers and Stockyards Administration over the last decade. He pointed out that the 2008 farm bill contains, for the first time ever, a livestock competition title and that the first priority for USDA's enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act will be proper implementation and aggressive enforcement of the provisions in that title. And, he added, that prioritization includes writing effective rules for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards prohibition of "unreasonable preferences" in order to prevent price discrimination by packers against family farm livestock producers.
He also told me, "I agree with President-elect Obama's support for the provision in the farm bill that would have prohibited packers from owning livestock - support that he expressed both during the farm bill debate and his campaign. And I agree with Senator Harkin and Senator Grassley who, along with a number of other Senators from farm and ranch states, have been ardent supporters of ending this kind of direct vertical integration by prohibiting packer ownership of livestock."
Reforming livestock markets is another one of those crucial, fundamental, structural issues that is, in my opinion, a litmus test for the next Secretary of Agriculture. Governor Vilsack's track record in this area is good, if somewhat limited. His public statements as Governor and as a candidate for President have been supportive of livestock market reforms, but have never figured prominently in either his campaigns or his gubernatorial priorities. Although, to be honest, that does not separate him from most other elected officials or public figures at this level.
Vertical integration decreases market access for family farmers, decreases prices paid to independent producers, and fuels the construction of more and more CAFOs and the demise of more and more family farms. The Senate has twice passed the legislation banning packer ownership of livestock - in two farm bills - but both times it was removed in conference.
During the last 12 years, three Secretaries of Agriculture have said virtually nothing and never lifted a finger to do anything about this issue (despite considerable authority under existing laws and myriad opportunities in both farm bill debates). Support from the Secretary of Agriculture and the White House could make all the difference in finally securing this necessary reform.
At the end of the day...
It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict when, where and from whom leadership will emerge. The book on Tom Vilsack is not complete, and perhaps that is a good thing. He does not get a perfect score on my litmus tests. But, when I disagree with him in the future I will continue to engage him, just as I always have, whether he is a private citizen or the Secretary of Agriculture. And he will engage me, just as he always has.
I hope that, at the end of the day, our next Secretary of Agriculture is the kind of leader that can help create a future for rural America with thriving family farms and ranches and vibrant rural communities. I believe Governor Vilsack can provide that leadership. Perhaps he just might get the chance.
Comments
Vilsack for US Sec of Ag? You've Got to be Kidding!
Well, Mr. Crabtree,
I'm sure you would be very happy if your good friend Tom Vilsack became Sec. of Ag. But this would be a poor choice. Certainly, a candidate's position on biotechnology is a litmus test for me, and you said it: "Vilsack's full-throated support for biotechnology".
Your attempt to placate the sustainable ag community regarding Vilsack's support of biotech misleads your readers. Your focus solely upon the issue of contamination of organic crops ignores the other areas of deep concern over the technology that many people, not just in the sust ag community but also many conventional farmers, scientists, food safety experts, etc. legitimately have about this il-concieved industry.
You state that Vilsack's priorities include: "...labeling to provide consumers a stronger voice in the marketplace and create opportunities for farmers to develop high-valued markets for their products..." This is mumbo-jumbo. It doesn't say that Tom Vilsack supports mandatory labeling for all foods that contain GMO'-- a position almost universally held by the sust. ag. community, not to mention American consumers. I doubt Tom thinks GMO food should be labeled. It's misleading for you to imply that.
A person who identified himself as frankpatton left a comment on the Huffington Post blog on a post about Vilsack being considered for Ag. Sec. He says it all:
"Vilsack for US Sec of Ag? Are you kidding!
* Vilsack's support of pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry
Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder
and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=2001_0920_01
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of
economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning
dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many
people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of
ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free
buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor
of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it
right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness
biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country
were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to
appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube
animation about Vilsack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that
Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet."
do I look like I'm kidding?
Chrys, thanks for your comments. But, just because you don't like what I have to say or agree with my opinions, doesn't mean I'm being disingenuous. I'm not trying to placate anyone, in fact I spend most of my time trying to get people riled up. I have an opinion, and enough experience to back up my opinions.
You have the right to disagree with my opinions and my conclusions. But I also have the right to express them, not only to the readers of this blog but to our current and future administrations as well. And I do so with every confidence that I am right in what I say, whether it is popular or not.
It is not misleading to say that I asked the Governor a question and then report his answer. I asked him about his priorities, and he said he supports labeling GM foods. I promise you I will be the last person to say that you or anyone else should not do everything in your power to hold him to his word, in fact, I encourage you to do so. Doubt his veracity if you like, but just because you do and just because you disagree with me does not disuade me from my own confidence in my own opinions.
Of course there are more questions to ask about biotechnology. There are also more questions to ask about farm programs, conservation, rural development, the industrialization of livestock production and on and on. But my colleagues told me my blog post was too long as it was, and I presented the issues, three issues, that were, in my opinion, the most crucial to examine.
I have said what I think about Governor Vilsack as a potential Ag Secretary, and you have responded, for which I thank you even if we do disagree. I hope you will do me the courtesy of telling me who you think should be the next Secretary of Agriculture because, honestly, there has not been enough of that is all of this discourse. I promise that I will respond to your suggestions as fairly as I am able. John Crabtree
Not Kidding
John,
I'll start by offering you an apology for going over the edge in the way I personalized my comment. While I'm vehemently opposed to Tom Vilsack becoming Agriculture Secretary, and while I believe the way agricultural biotechnology has evolved is such a travesty that it should simply be wiped out and corporate and government players in some of its more nefarious schemes tried and sanctioned, I don't know you and it was rude of me to treat you as if you are some kind of shill as well. I have a lot of respect for the CFRA, so you can't be all bad that you're hooked up with this organization.
At this moment I'm listening to NPR's piece today on Obama's rural policy and someone quoted Obama as saying he wanted to have a Department of Agriculture and not a Department of Agribusiness. Appointing Vilsack would be, in my opinion, decidedly a move in the direction of agribusiness-- the wrong direction.
You're right, there hasn't been enough discussion among the sustainable agriculture movement about who the next Secretary of Ag should be. I agree with your colleague Steph Larsen that our discussions and recommendations should have happened many months ago. That said, I believe our voices are being heard and that our voices will continue to be heard, loud and clear, during the confirmation process. I can hope that despite the rawness of emotions, the discourse can be civil as it is passionate. I'll try and do my part in that regard.
In terms of who I'd like to see, I refer you to my little blog. My preferences, for Ag Sec. as well as for consideration for subordinate positions, are the first ten names in my list.
all kidding aside
Chrys, thanks for your gracious words, no apology is necessary. I think you're wrong about Tom Vilsack - especially as regards having a Sec. of Ag instead of a Sec of Agbiz... But it doesn't really matter anymore because I found out yesterday from a very reliable source that Governor Vilsack is no longer in the running for Secretary of Agriculture. I wish I knew more and could write more about why.
I'm hearing Collin Peterson's name more now, perhaps we should all take a look at him on all of these issues. I know one thing, he fails all of the litmus tests I applied to Governor Vilsack. I'll look at your list of 10 potential ag officials - cannot all be Secretary but I'm sure most of any list could be part of making USDA "the people's department" again (as President Lincoln liked to call it in his day).
Thanks for your kind words about the Center for Rural Affairs. I'm proud to work here, proud to have your support and proud that we can have this "debate". thanks again, John Crabtree
Chrys? I'm curious -
Thanks!
Vilsack Back!?
I was amazed when, after apparently no longer being in the running, Gov. Vilsack has just been selected by Obama as Secretary of Agriculture. I appreciate John Crabtree's analysis, based on personal interactions with Tom Vilsack, and can only conclude that Obama and/or his transiton team had equally in-depth conversations with the former Iowa governor, and were satisfied that his commitments to family farms and fair markets are firm, and that his pro-biotech drive can be moderated sufficiently to protect public health, organic farmers and the environment.
Vilsack would certainly not be my choice (try Kirschenmann or Hightower); however after reading this blog, I am hopeful that we can work with him.
NO ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BIOTECH ARENA FOR EMPLOYEE's ILLNESS
A California biotechnology company that searches the world for the "novel" microorganism to be used in the place of chemical pesticides, insecticides, fungicides... etc. broke NUMEROUS federal and state laws when an employee got sick after only working 5 months and 9 days at the company.
It is Federal and California LAW that "knowing" or even a "suspicion" of a harmful effect to human health or the environment has occurred from a pesticide product (biological included) HAS TO BE REPORTED.
This was never done in this employee's case as it would have had a very negative impact on the company, ie: investors and put a stop (or at least a slowing down) of the company's registrations with the EPA.
This employee has 19 bacteria and fungus in either his blood, nose and/or sputum cultures and/or positive to HIGH POSITIVE IgG levels that are all related to the company. He has had 4 MAJOR sinus surgeries, countless other sinus procedures in physician offices, the loss of an intact immune system resulting in 3 years of IV immunoglobulin infusions every 28 days, and constant ongoing infections.
Still, this company is allowed to conceal what they have done.
And for the record, people don't understand that these biotech companies only have to "report" the "ACTIVE INGREDIENT" in their products.... some are as low as 0.07%, 1.34%. The "other" ingredients do not have to be disclosed to anyone. It would be advantageous for everyone to search the United States Patent Office for biotech companies patents. You will be surprised that the do in fact use "chemicals". It's in black and white.
How can we be assured that the new Secretary of Agriculture isn't going to be in bed with the biotech companies as has the Bush Administration? Is he going to open the EPA libraries? Is he going to suppress scientist's warnings as did Bush?
Only time will tell, but I truly hope and pray this administration has some ethics.
GMO's are not as safe as everyone is led to believe. Further evidence of this can be found in the pharmaceutical arena. Both industries merely plead "trade secrets" and don't have to be accountable or even comply with Federal and state Right-To-Know laws of hazards in the workplace (HAZ COM) (Hazard Communications).
When is this grievous practice going to stop? Don't the rights of the American worker mean anything anymore? Doesn't everyone have the right to "life", or is that up for debate depending on which profession one choses?
www.biotechawareness.com
Anti-contamination to enable, not disempower agribusiness?
Dear John and Chrys,
I am not an expert on Tom Vilsack nor the 6 candidates recommended to Obama's transition team leading up to Vilsack's appointment. However, I am an informed consumer, extremely concerned about the environment and the health of our food.
I am researching Vilsack now, trying to make up my mind about whether to sign the petition against his appointment and send it out to my concerned friends and colleagues.
John, you emphasized Vilsack's prioritizing the separation of organic and GE foods to guard against contamination. However, I was concerned by the fact that, given the opportunity to voice his support for family and organic farming, these anti-contamination measures were as bold as he got. It does not appear to indicate much gusto on his part.
Then I read this article, which Chrys provided (EDITORIAL: LIFT THE MORATORIUM A BIOTECH BLACKBALLING OF THE CORN BELT IS BASED ON FEAR, NOT SCIENCE at http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html).
The article leads me to believe that strong anti-contamination measures would be motivated to enable GE corn production for pharmaceuticals. (With anti-contamination measures, Iowa would be able to participate in the huge business opportunity, and now they are not due to the fear of contamination of foods meant for human consumption).
Can either of you shed any more light on this matter specifically?
Any additional information on other themes is welcome as well. Are there hidden incentives for Vilsack to support the measures he claims? Has there been any evolution in his position on these issues? Specifically what kind of labelling is he really claiming to support? I am trying to connect the dots, because frankly, I am appalled that Obama would make such a poor choice, if Vilsack is indeed as bad as so many sources are claiming. And if he did, I want to know about it in order to take action.
Thank you both,
Anne
in response to your question
Anne, I'm sorry that I did not respond to you much earilier. I hope that this response finds it's way to you somehow.
Your first question, whether or not Gov. Vilsack showed "gusto" (your word) in his comments... I thought his answers regarding GM crops and organic crops and related issues were good, better than I expected. Perhaps some missing gusto is due to my questions, not just the answers.
I'm not sure I understand your question about the articles about the BIO letter. Gov. Vilsack was wrong with his letter. But the point your make in your comment is on the money, there was a lot more to BIO's extreme seperation idea that meets the eye. And their only purpose for it was to allow pharmaceutical crops to move forward. BIO's notion of a "security protocol" that included moving pharmaceutical crops out into the middle of a desert or some other such place was disingenuous, at best. It had the advantage of sounding logical but substituting real safety protocols with "just move it out into the middle of a desert or something where there isn't any corn" wasn't going to work either. That doesn't make Gov. Vilsack's support for the development of such crops any better in my eyes but does, perhaps, provide some context.
I think Gov. Vilsack's response to my question do show that his positions on these issues have evolved. And I hope they continue to evolve. john
Maybe its just me but I
Red you make a great
Red you make a great point. Frankly speaking, I am disgusted with the Govenor of Illonois for trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder.
You would like of all the major politicians in the country today, there would at least be a handful of good, honest ones.
Vilsack Was Ran for President
I know what you mean! It
I thought the Obama campaign
Obamas campagin will never
Thanks awfully, I am learning
You raised here a good point