Vilsack: "Everybody's Got To Eat"
As we noted here a few weeks ago, foodies and others with an interest in food policy are hoping that Obama's new Secretary of Agriculture has a very expansive vision of the post.
The food types recently wrote a letter to Obama's transition calling for the new Ag Sec to develop an integrated vision that takes into account everything from childhood obesity to high standards for humane farms to conservation and animal welfare, worker's rights and renewal energy.
How does Obama's choice for the post, Tom Vilsack, view the position? As it turns out, he has now elaborated on his vision for the post in a recent interview.
He, too, seems to view the post expansively, saying that it's a "department that impacts every American." More specifically, his priorities seem to be addressing the international food crisis in a way that enhances American "soft power" abroad, accelerating research into biofuels, improving school nutrition, and food security and safety.
"So there are a lot of issues that that department must deal with, and they're really important because everybody's got to eat," Vilsack said.
One big outstanding question: Whether to honor the ethanol industry's requests for billions of dollars in federal aid as part of the stimulus bill,
On this score, Ezra Klein points out one potential problem with the Vilsack appointment: He's from a state heavily dependent on corn subsidies.
For those of you who like this stuff, Vilsack's interview is here.
I can't resist the line. This is corny.
December 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
This seems like a good pick, but you're correct, corn subsidies and Ethanol are going to be a problem...
December 17, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
seems likely...
December 17, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems the Ethanol Industry is hitting the ground running...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/12/16/ethanol-industry-lines-up-for-washington-help/
December 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not really disagreeing with you, but I guess I wonder how much of Vilsack's historic commitment to corn-based ethanol is a reflection of a sincere belief that corn-based ethanol is a good idea, vs how much is simply a sop to the voters whose votes he was courting.
I remember when Bradley was running for president that he reversed himself completely on the subject of ethanol subsidies, and he was quite frank about his motivation - when he was senator from NJ, his incentive was to do right by NJ voters, and those voters are hurt by ethanol subsidies. When he was a candidate for president, his incentive was to do right by IA voters, and those voters were helped by ethanol subsidies. This is not exactly laudable, but it is entirely understandable.
What if Vilsack turns out to be just like Bradley, only in reverse? That is to say, what if Vilsack, after a career of defending ethanol subsidies, gets to Washington and says "these programs are a bad idea." Would anyone be especially shocked by that? I expect that no one would be at all surprised. In other words, I guess I am inclined to wait and see before I would say with any certainty that corn subsidies and ethanol will be a problem. It could easily turn out that this is a problem that vanishes quickly once Vilsack realizes that his constituency is no longer limited to Iowans.
December 17, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised at all. But first, Obama has to come out himself and say these policies are a bad idea.
December 17, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. I think that the same remarks applied to Vilsack above apply equally well to Obama, however. I guess that I really do not know what Obama thinks about ethanol subsidies. Sure, he was for them when he was a senator from IL, but does that mean that he really thinks that the good of the United States is well served by such a public policy? Maybe, maybe not. Only time will tell.
December 17, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have total confidence in O getting things done. This is just one of the very few issues he has been somewhat fishy about.
December 17, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree entirely.
December 17, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, yeah, it's a good chance that any stance on this one is going to anger a very vocal group, so he (and they) have been playing it safe. Ethanol is such a tricky topic. Yes, using it effectively reduces carbon emissions from vehicles, but what's the math when everything is taken into account (i.e., fertilizer production and tractors use a LOT of energy)? I have no real idea.
I do not think we should subsidize ethanol any more. With gas prices plummeting, there's got to be new incentives for research into solar and wind, because with gas so low, what's the monetary advantage for building or improving windmills?
December 17, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the best comparisons in layman teerms I've read was done by National Geographic.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/10/biofuels/biofuels-text
I don't have the facts to confirm/dispute the data they used, but their basic conclusion is that corn-based ethanol is energy neutral at best, and perhaps even a net negative when you take into account the fuel used farms, ship, and process corn into ethanol.
One of the most depressing facts to me is that most of the U.S. corn ethanol is produced at plants running on coal. And these plants aren't even subject to same emission standards on acid rain as the power plants because of industrial and cogeneration exemptions.
December 17, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be delighted to see the Obama administration, via Vilsack, start to undo the wasteful ethanol subsidy program. And while it's possible that corn-staters could lead the charge against ethanol and other corn-lobby boondoggles more effectively than outsiders, it seems mostly like wishful thinking. I think support for the corn industry's vast subsidies and misguided uses of its products will be one of the policies of the Obama administration that will be least productive for the American people (support for union initiatives like card-check will another). This is the bad we'll probably just have to take with the good stuff, like sane foreign policy and better health care.
December 17, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
If only we would require high fructose corn syrup just to be used in ethanol!
December 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You tryin' to take the sugar outta me coca-cola?
Blasphemy!
December 17, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you tried Mexican coke? They import it to New Mexico and it's made with real sugar (I guess it's an older formula). It's better!
December 17, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No way Vilsack rejects corn based ethanol, and Obama--from number two corn state Illinois--won't, either. Biofuel supporters say making the fuel out of carbohydrates grown for food and feed is a necessary step as we prepare to make it out of trash, as the Energy Bill will require. I have a question for those who are talking about Iowa's "heavy reliance" on corn subsidies...exactly which subsidies are you referring to, and do you know how the commodity program works? I'll bet a lot of you still think farmers get paid for "not growing corn," a policy that was excised about 20 years ago.
December 17, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to be disappointed, I want to believe that Obama knows what he's doing. But choosing a guy this connected to the corn industry -- whence we get the ridiculous ethanol boondoggle and the high-fructose corn syrup that is going to bankrupt any attempt at universal health care if allowed to continue cranking out subsidized corn -- gives me a lot to chew my nails about. I wonder what Michael Pollan thinks of Vilsack...
December 17, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to be disappointed, I want to believe that Obama knows what he's doing. But choosing a guy this connected to the corn industry -- whence we get the ridiculous ethanol boondoggle and the high-fructose corn syrup that is going to bankrupt any attempt at universal health care if allowed to continue cranking out subsidized corn -- gives me a lot to chew my nails about. I wonder what Michael Pollan thinks of Vilsack...
December 17, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the deal with your snide and insulting take on the food security movement? "For those of you who like this stuff..."??? This after your earlier headline about food systems activists trying to shove their choice for Sec. of Ag. down Obama's throat.
The movement to encourage sustainable local food systems and to ensure that everyone has access to fresh wholesome food is engaging hundreds of thousands of activists around the world. This movement is transforming our culture. Helena Norberg Hodge says that local food is a loose thread in the fabric of corporate globalization, and if we pull it, the whole thing will unravel. Enough with the disrespect!
December 17, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the "foodie" label that gets applied to anyone that points any flaws in our current agricultural policy? U.S. "farm" subsidies largely benefit a very few, very large agribusinesses at the expense of the health and the environment enjoyed by the entire U.S. population.
Only a quirky "foodie" cares that the milk we drink is laced with growth hormones, our chicken and beef with antibiotics and growth hormones, our vegetables depleted of nutrients due to the handling necessary in the big-scale processing system. And when that isn't bad enough -- import some toxic food from China.
Our current system of food production is unsustainable in every way. It is ruining our health. When will the health of the nation be more important than subsidies to a few entrenched special interests? When will the media stop marginalizing those championing a clean, healthful food supply.
Be accurate in labeling -- if I am a "foodie" please explain that means caring about the quality of the nations food supply. And please label Vilsack and sadly, Obama, as "proponents of agribusiness" -- and explain all that that entails.
December 17, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is the "foodie" label that gets applied to anyone that points any flaws in our current agricultural policy? U.S. "farm" subsidies largely benefit a very few, very large agribusinesses at the expense of the health and the environment enjoyed by the entire U.S. population.
Only a quirky "foodie" cares that the milk we drink is laced with growth hormones, our chicken and beef with antibiotics and growth hormones, our vegetables depleted of nutrients due to the handling necessary in the big-scale processing system. And when that isn't bad enough -- import some toxic food from China.
Our current system of food production is unsustainable in every way. It is ruining our health. When will the health of the nation be more important than subsidies to a few entrenched special interests? When will the media stop marginalizing those championing a clean, healthful food supply.
Be accurate in labeling -- if I am a "foodie" please explain that means caring about the quality of the nations food supply. And please label Vilsack and sadly, Obama, as "proponents of agribusiness" -- and explain all that that entails.
December 17, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink