U.S. Agriculture Nominee Attracts Controversy
President-elect Barack Obama nominated the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, to serve as his secretary of agriculture earlier this week.
If approved, Vilsack will oversee the world's most productive farmlands, and therefore, some of the world's most daunting environmental challenges. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will influence decisions of ethanol production and global food shortages, growing meat demand and livestock-related greenhouse gases, genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture, rural poverty and agribusiness consolidation.
Vilsack critics say he supported larger farms more than local, organic food production during his two decades in government. Yet observers from Iowa also describe the Democrat as a centrist who balanced the demands of farmers, environmentalists, and industry groups.
"I honestly believe he will listen to a broad sense of voices, having been through a lot here in Iowa," said Jerry DeWitt, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.
The nomination angered some environmental groups, mostly from the organic community, because of Vilsack's support for large agribusiness and biotechnology.
"Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration," said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, in a press release.
Vilsack signed legislation in 2005 that preempted local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds. Yet, according to the Center for Rural Affairs, he reportedly said biotechnology corporations should prove their products are safe before the seeds become available on the market - a more stringent requirement than the law currently states.
The organic association also opposes Vilsack's nomination for his record on "aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." When Vilsack was governor from 1998-2006, the number of hogs per farm in Iowa - the No.1 live animal exporter in the nation - rose from about 800 to more than 1,800 [PDF]. Meanwhile, the number of hog farms fell almost 50 percent.As a state senator, Vilsack voted for a 1995 law that almost excluded livestock operations from public nuisance lawsuits because of significant demands on the plaintiffs. The Iowa Supreme Court later overturned the law as "flagrantly unconstitutional."
"We continue not to really come forward and recognize the impacts of more and more concentration of animals in our state," said Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, a lobbying group that represents more than 70 state organizations. "That is a big disappointment."
But the Humane Society of the United States supports his nomination, citing his responsive record on various animal rights measures. Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, said he was not "extremely familiar" with Vilsack's record on factory farming, but Vilsack was the Humane Society's top choice, nonetheless.
"When you consider the other possible choices - like Rep. John Salazar and former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, who are closely aligned with the agribusiness industry - it becomes clear just how meaningful it is that someone like Vilsack was selected instead," Makarian said in an e-mail. "We expect him to be a reasonable and moderate voice on factory farming issues, and not someone who will automatically side with the knee-jerk positions of agribusiness."
As governor, Vilsack supported water pollution controls, renewable energy, and livestock market reforms.
After farm runoff contributed to growing problems of water pollution throughout the state, Vilsack expanded the state's annual water monitoring budget from $33,000 to $3 million. In his second term, he hosted a multi-stakeholder water summit that resulted in a new state water resources council.
"He really took on issues of impaired water and water quality, and it became...a pretty high profile focus of his administration," Heathcote said.
The agriculture secretary will have to collaborate with rural landowners in efforts to expand renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and geothermal nationwide. As governor, Vilsack strongly advocated alternative energy and helped usher some of the world's largest wind energy companies to his state - now the country's third largest wind energy producer.
Yet it was large clean energy corporations, more than local landowners, that generally profited from the investments, according to Iowa Renewable Energy Association board member Ed Woolsey.
"His forte is not working with landowners or farmers," said Woolsey, president of Green Prairie Wind Development and a Union of Concerned Scientists consultant. "His forte is working with big business and regulatory agencies to smooth the way for them to install large developments."
The energy policy that has captured most environmentalists attention has been Vilsack's strong support for ethanol. The next agriculture secretary will inherit the Bush administration's mandates for high ethanol production - 10.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol is required next year and 15 billion gallons by 2015.
Vilsack acknowledged ethanol's limitations, however, in a Rolling Stone interview after he announced his presidency in 2006. "Frankly, corn-based ethanol is not necessarily the wave of the future," he said. "Ethanol may be, but corn is not. There's not enough corn. There needs to be focus on switchgrass, on municipal waste, on timber, on other ways to produce ethanol that is more efficient."
Sustainable agriculture advocates [PDF] had hoped someone from within their community would be picked for the job. Despite the organic community's apparent disappointment, Vilsack garnered the support of several national environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and National Wildlife Federation.
Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.
For permission to reprint this article, please contact Julia Tier at jtier@worldwatch.org.
Comments
Almost a billion people can
Almost a billion people can barely, if at all, feed themselves or their children, and world hunger is reaching pandemic proportions. About a month ago, a resolution went before the floor of the United Nations for a vote, and the resolution was over whether or not food was a fundamental human right. The resolution passed a staggering 180 to 1 vote. 7 nations were absent, and none abstained, but the only country to vote negatively was the United States of America. The richest country, with the greatest of agricultural resources, voted against the idea that human beings have a natural right to be able to feed them selves and survive. A logical justification has to exist for it, and the claim is that the wording of said resolution was not acceptable by American standards, because the alternative is beyond all realms of logic. So if you think that there's some sort of shame to resorting to options like shopping at the Dollar store, or getting payday loans, there isn't any. Be glad those are the options that seem unpalatable, and remember that citizens of the nation of Haiti are literally eating dirt to survive. For more about the UN and world news, read this article at the payday loans blog.Mr. Vilsack is the most
Mr. Vilsack is the most unfortunate cabinet selection Mr. Obama has made so far, along with his ignorant introductory statement upon the former Iowa governor's nomination: "As governor of one of our most abundant farm states, he led with vision, promoting biotech to strengthen our farmers and fostering an agricultural economy of the future that not only grows the food we eat, but the energy that we use. Tom understands that the solution to our energy crisis will be found not in oil fields abroad, but in our farm fields here at home. That's the kind of leader I want in my cabinet." Rather sickening. Biotech (Genetically Modified Organisms or GMO's) will not feed us in the future if it goes along creating bizarrely concocted biologic constructions including virus genes that cause intestinal and allergic problems and who knows what else to match the more difficult to create herbicides like Round Up (glyphosphate). As time has rolled along we know from various scientific studies and statements that rats fed genetically modified potatoes, as one example, had smaller brains, testicles and livers than did the control rats fed the unaltered parent line of the very same unaltered potatoes! Plus increased size of villi in the intestines of the subject rats can indicate a tendency to cause cancer (TBA). We also know that nature has already provided increased resistance to chemicals like Round Up, increasing the 'necessary' use of this herbicide. Here are some facts about Round Up, GMO's, and what other nations are experiencing and doing relative to the scourge of current biotech attempts to profit by patenting life forms from my just published book: With 90% of USA soybeans being genetically altered, and the majority of these being of the ‘Round-Up Ready’ Monsanto variety, pounds per acre use of Round-Up or glyphosphate on average is now 2-5 times greater than herbicide usage on non-genetically altered soybean fields. In Argentina, one of the big five countries producing genetically altered crops, so much Round-Up has been sprayed on the soil, ‘the bacteria needed for breaking down inert vegetable matter’ are ‘being wiped out...dead weeds did not rot.’ Denmark has officially banned Round-Up/glyphosphate effective September 2003. Reports show that ‘the toxic chemical is not breaking down in the soil and, as a result, is polluting their water at a level that is five times what is considered safe for the environment and human health.’ In addition, scientific information is adding up, implicating glyphosphate’s adverse affects on animal/human tissue. The June 2005 scientific journal "Environmental Health Perspectives" reported that this herbicide damages human placental cells at exposure levels ten times less than what Monsanto claims is safe. A study in the August 2005 journal “Ecological Applications” found that even when applied at concentrations that are one-third of the maximum concentrations typically found in waterways, glyphosphate/Round-up still killed up to 71 percent of tadpoles exposed. Similar glyphosphate studies around the world have been equally alarming. The American Academy of Family Physicians epidemiological research has now linked exposure to the herbicide with increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a life-threatening cancer, while a Canadian study has linked glyphosphate exposure with increased risk for miscarriage. A 2002 study linked glyphosphate exposure with increased incidence of attention deficit disorder in children. Despite these studies, Monsanto continues to advertise Round-Up, sprayed heavily on 140 million acres of genetically engineered crops across the world, as one of the "safest" pesticides on the market. Mr. Vilsack supports GMO's, plus all the other industrial agriculture practices we all should hate. CAFO's and the pollution from them. The so-called Monsanto laws, pre-empting communities from banning GMO crops. There is too much more. The Sierra Club and the other organizations supporting the ex-governor should be ashamed of themselves. Ignorance is not bliss. Mr. Obama promised to label GMO's in his communications with the Organic Consumers Association. Let us see if he will do this, with Mr. Vilsack sitting in the agriculture dept driver's seat. (87% of Americans polled want GMO's labelled. Europe has all but eliminated GMO's because of knowledge about their ill effects.) And corn, switchgrass, all of the forms of ethanol generation except sugar cane (8X more energy produced than consumed) and sugar beets (2X more energy produced than consumed), are terrible net-energy-consuming sources to generate ethanol. The real best things to do are: help farmers, all farmers, switch to organic farming (No, GMO's are NOT organic, of course), eliminate GMO's and label them in all our foods that use them (~80% of our processed foods do), forget ethanol in the USA (except for maybe Hawaii that can produce sugar cane - but if we do produce it again there, do it in a non-polluting way) and SACK VILSACK! Conrad Miller M.D. Author: The Most Important Issues Americans THINK They Know Enough About - Edition III http://www.crestofthewave.com