Hey, what about Morgan Spurlock, writer and producer of the Super-Size Me movie?  At least his work got an Oscar nomination!

Hm, regional food systems I like, worker's rights I like, make food safe and healthy I like. I am not sure, however, that I am really keen on the idea of an Ag Secretary who sees "supporting the growth of... organic farms" as a priority. I am hardly a market fundamentalist, but this really is one of those matters best left to the market. If consumers want organic produce, they will buy it and the demand will encourage growth of this sector. If consumers do not want organic produce (or at least, if they do not want it as much as they want other things that they can buy with their limited purchasing powers) then any effort spent "encouraging" such farms is a waste of government resources, and our national needs are so stark right now that I would hate to see that sort of waste.

Michael Pollan was on the Bill Moyers Journal on PBS this past weekend. If you missed it, you can check it out online at PBS.org.

Pollan said he's not interested in the Ag Sec post, by the way. But he did a great job of illustrating the problems and the issues that the "foodies" are interested in.

-- ARG

Calling them "foodies" and saying "shove it...throat" is lame. Pollan has laid out the reasoning behind these policies and I think they're pretty compelling. It's not an elitist NPR plot, but one that has significant benefits and is largely plausible to implement. I suggest that you read Pollan's piece in the NYT ("Farmer-in-Chief"); perhaps you have. But this comes across pretty ignorantly to me.

And it's Governor Vilsack, I believe.

Missouri Voter,

We don't have anything remotely resembling market policies in agriculture right now, so to do nothing is to continue on that basis. I'm not sure that any industrialized country does have one.

I am highly concerned about maintaining agricultural fertility in this country, and in reducing antibiotic usage as well. These are pretty critical to the basic long-term welfare of the country. A priority, I'd say. Organic isn't at the center of the equation--Greg has really misinterpreted the essence of the policy.

Bayless is a shill for Burger King. How does he have any standing to lecture the rest of us about food choices?

I'd like to jump in and point out a few of my own blogs on the topic.

I got an e-mail from an old friend tonight asking me about Tom Vilsack and what I thought about him as potential agriculture secretary. The friend subscribes to a newsletter from the Organic Consumers Association. The OCA is trying to submarine the former Iowa governor's chances for being considered by President-elect Barack Obama.

"Ten thousand organic consumers signed OCA's petition last week to Barack Obama, asking him to take a clear position in support of organic agriculture. Thanks to all who joined in to deliver this resounding message to the incoming administration. Unfortunately, it is now being widely reported that former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is being considered for the Secretary of Agriculture position in the Obama Administration. Vilsack is a notorious cheerleader for genetically engineered crops and chemical and energy-intensive industrial agriculture--certainly no friend of organic food and farming. Tom Vilsack's appointment would represent a major disappointment for the Organic Consumers Association and its members. But there is still time to make your voice heard."

And here was my response back to that old friend:

For some foodies, anyone short of Michael Pollan won't do.

I like organic products and I like knowing where my food is from. And we can be that particular because of the wealth of our country and the fact that we have so much food. That really is one of our strengths. We are not energy independent in the U.S., but we don't depend on anyone for food.

I was at a conference today hosted by the World Wildlife Fund. The president of the WWF pointed out that if everyone in the world ate as we do in the U.S., we would need the agricultural production of 11 earths. That doesn't factor in population growth between now and 2050 or how we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while feeding the world and also providing transportation to the world as well.

We have to have biotechnology to increase production because what is "sustainable agriculture" right now isn't sustainable. We can't feed the middle class in China and India, as well as feed the less fortunate in Indonesia and Africa.

I don't want to call that my stump speech, but to set that up for Vilsack, he's very good policy wonk. Vilsack also is pragmatic and he focuses heavily on what can be done on an issue. I've always liked the guy because he looks for finding a result people can live with.

Organic groups just got more money in the farm bill for research and aid to farmers and there is a niche for them. But the ag secretary's job isn't to drive organic production.

The ag secretary's biggest job is to focus on nutrition programs. USDA oversees food stamps and the school lunch program. USDA's job is to ensure people have an abundant, cheap supply of food. Everything else is second to that.

If you have an opinion on what you think agriculture should be then it's important to support that. If you back the views of organic agriculture and want to feed your family through that belief, it's good to do that. Probably part of our problem in this country is too many people don't pay any attention to agriculture, how food is produced, where it comes from or how it got to their plate. That is messed up, but it's only because we largely have what we do that those people can be so careless in their views.

http://online.dtn.com/online/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc1d7428dc011db7d0f43302c9

About that list and any other nominees for Obama's cabinet: I would like to see a serious list of pros AND cons about each candidate. When the Obama team sits down to hire or nominate someone they look at the bad and good about that person and they think about a lot of other factors as well. Why can't these foodies or other activists do the same?

You don't have to be a "peak oil" fanatic to understand how energy intensive our current industrial food complex is. It is entirely dependant on cheap energy, cheap fertilizer, cheap water and cheap labor. That is over, finis. Low oil prices may continue but only because of demand destruction, but all of the input costs on the farm will spike when it comes time to plant next spring.

So it is not going to be a matter choice, our agriculture system is going to change radically wether we like it or not. Choosing somebody like Vilsack wouild be just a chit to a dying industry. We are all going to be locavores in the future.

I too, have some issues with the "foodies" tag in the title. Methinks while attempting humor, you missed the point. Bayless, yes. Pollan, no. Yes, I've read Omnivour's Dilemma. But this is a tad bigger that Pollan's thesis. And for the sake of the discussion, let's clarify what everyone means by "organic." And yes, Ag does have a role in that. Due to the rule-making involved in defining organic, it has pretty much lost whatever meaning it once had. Yes, officially "organic" food is better than the alternative. But these days, you can say that you're chickens are cage free, if you put a door on the shack. You can call your cows grass fed if they're "exposed" to actual grass for an hour or so per day (can't recall the actual amount, I loaned my copy of Pollan's book). Organic food is now big business, and now folks actually want to buy it - which I think is a response to someone above's comment that we should let the "market" decide this. Well, the market is, but currently, the market is being sold a bill of goods.

That being said, certified organic is WAY better than current agribusiness practices when it comes to both saving our topsoil and saving the environment. If you missed it, check the recent National Geographic covers story on topsoil. The way agribusiness works, we won't have any in the near future. Then what?

Not to mention the whole notion of saving farming simply in terms of economic security. Do we really want to get to a place where three companies produce all of our food? Just ignore the ecologic consequences of that. We are in the midst of understanding the consequences of a few large companies engaging in risky behavior for short-term gain. And we have to pay for it or the entire thing crumbles. It's one thing when that's our financial system. It's another when it's food. Money can be had for a loan. Food has to grow.

Wow, shoving down Obama's throat? Are you freaking kidding me? "Foodies"?!?!

Some of the comments are equally as stunning. If any of you think that the free market is going to solve our massive food problems in this country -- and thus the health, environmental and economic fallout of those problems -- then you are smoking some top-shelf GWB brand crack.

People, you need to read up (or wake up). Sustainable food and sustainable ag are:

Better for you, safer and fresher, cheaper, supports local farmers, creates local jobs, uses less energy to transport and store, uses less packaging, and of course, is better for the environment.

Check out: Sustainable Table, Local Harvest, Eat Well Guide.

Will I still get to be a meatitarian?

Bayless is one of the Obamas' favorite chefs. At least his Chicago restaurant, Frontera Grill, is one of their faves.

Personally I respect the ideas in this thread about a good food policy and think it is important.

However, the most important policy issue for any Sec of Ag is and always will be agricultural subsidies.

Agricultural subsidies total around $16 billion a year, and usually grow every year...2 years ago for the first time the Dept. of Ag tracked these subsidies beyond the co-op level and found that a great majority of them went to already wealthy large landowners/corporate farms and not to support family agriculture or farmers in need.

US agricultural subsidies are unfair to global agricultural trade...we enforce a system of free trade when it benefits our economy, but in the only sector which developing economies can really be competitive (agricultural products), we maintain market-distorting subsidies.

Helping the agricultural sector in developing nations will do a great deal to reduce the overall level of global poverty, since most of the poor in developing nations work in the agricultural sector. Also, agricultural trade tends to have broad AND deep economic impacts, unlike the manufacturing sector, which tends to only benefit a small portion of a country's population (see China as a perfect example).

Subsidies also guarantee that agricultural resources are misallocated. It is inefficient for the US to produce sugar and cotton, for example, but we continue to do it because those industries receive heavy subsidies and have a powerful lobby. Without subsidies farmers might find it more productive to grow vegetables, fruits, or other more needed products.

The corn and soy monoculture in the Midwest and all the distorting effects that follow are also largely due to subsidies. And we all have seen the farce that is Ethanol, a fuel which takes more energy to produce than it saves, takes food out of the food supply at a time when demand is growing, and contributes very little to energy independence. The ethanol industry would simply cease to exist without government subsidies propping it up.

Food policy advocates have a good cause, but I don't think the cause will go far until the market for agricultural products is a functioning market without government subsidies.