Vilsack’s Nomination Has Some Wondering: Agribusiness as Usual?

Perhaps some of the posters need to educate themselves on this Frankenfood that Vilsack promotes; i.e. the shill for Monsanto. This GM food does NOT produce more yield; in fact, it is shown to produce less yield, and contamination of the environment and other crops is out of control. Not only is this GM food dangerous to our health and the health of animals - and then again to our health from eating them - it is dangerous to the environment from all the cross-pollination. Vilsack is also a huge proponent of GE'g of animals, cloning, etc. When you eat that pork that comes from Iowa - and god knows where else - remember you will be eating Porky-Mouse now because of the engineering Monsanto and others have done to the pigs to make them hold more phosphorus ... eat up! This crap destroys your reproductive system and your immune system. This is NOT hybridization by a longshot. This is seriously messing with Mother Nature, crossing the species barrier, with untold horrific consequences. Study after study has come out from around the world about the dangers of GM foods. The government should start subsidizing organic farming instead of the Big-Ag corporations and the farmers who don't grow anything. Health, environment, energy, global warming and national security ALL start with organic farming. Please educate yourselves, folks, before you rank on organics or anything else. Perhaps Google, "The World According to Monsanto" and give yourselves a little bit of insight.

Saurabh, the next time you're shopping at Wholefoods, don't kid yourself into thinking that the stuff you're buying isn't from industrial farms, as most of it is. Also, while you're there, take a look at the demographics of your fellow shoppers. They're all upper middle class folks. People on fixed incomes can't afford organics because the input costs are expensive, which are passed on to consumers. Taking food production out of its current paradigm would mean that people on fixed incomes would be priced out of buying meat or dairy. Also, don't forget the wheat shortage last year. People died in bread riots because in African countries, the Middle East and Haiti. Read the article in the April 17, 2008 edition of The Economist called the "Silent Sunami".

It seems there's finally a main stream reporter that really understands the realities of how Big Ag always win, despite monumental promises change...

The reality is, Obama and Vilsack won't be able to escape campaign promises so easily.

Finally, somebody who isn't afraid to speak truth to changiness.

The way to approach the world's hunger problem is to promote local organic farming and crop diversity. We have to help people help themselves. Hunger problems are part of a fundamental societal problem that can not be solved with big business. Promoting local businesses and weening ourselves from big business will re-establish healthy communities. Vilsack has the wrong approach.

Really bad choice. If Obama wants his daughters to grow up eating food that isn't "franken food" (food derived from genetically modified organisms) he should reconsider.

Farm subsidies, while debatable, help keep land in production (even subsidies to land owners and investors who rent acres to smaller and younger farmers) and rein in the end price of U.S. food, since as the current whining about bioenergy indicates, we don't want farmers to enjoy the same income opportunities as others. Most farmers would plow that $48,000 in annual payments back into the hundreds of thousands in equipment and technology needed to grow the stuff. Targeting farm supports to the "little guy" today largely means paying boutique growers who cater to higher-income, hypochondriac consumers. Love this media-driven concept that we have to have an ag secretary who hates farmers.

JPS, are you kidding me? Do you know how the world works? Remember capitalism, and globalization, and markets and all that? The fact is we vastly overproduce our foods. That's why "farm subsidies" exist - that's why the Federal government pays farmers NOT to grow food. That's why American crops flooding foreign markets frequently crash the prices there and force many native farmers out of business. The problem is not, and has not been for decades, that there is not enough food available to feed the world. There is way, way too much, the quality is way too low, and farmers (who, let's not forget, make up the vast majority of the world's citizens) get paid way too little for its worth. Seems like more high-priced organic food is just what the doctor ordered, doesn't it?

Gene L. is exactly right. I am an Obama supporter and am happy with his prudent choice. Organics are great and have a valid place in our market, but as there is vastly too much poverty in our country and the world, we need highly efficient, industrial agriculture to make basic foodstuffs affordable to American and global consumers. With the exception of some land in Brazil, most of the world's fertile agricultural land is currently in use and we can barely feed the number of people already inhabiting out planet as it is. To dismiss modern, advanced agricultural technology would be a humanitarian disaster.

Always beware of anyone who stresses magic words -- whether it be on the left or the right.

There are two problems with this. One, it suggests a myopic dogmatism that is close minded and doesn't really listen to others and pay attention to the content of what they are saying. Two, it encourages the dog whistle effect, where people can use buzz words to suggest things to a small group of people, without actually engaging in civil, open, public discourse.

Joeskeys,

If you think food prices got out of whack earlier this year, you haven't seen anything yet if Iowa switches to organic and/or "specialty crops". The food crisis for other nations would be supremely compounded if Iowa, and other bio-engineered, crop producing states switched to organic production.

If you haven't been back to Iowa in a couple years, you might be surprised how the landscape has changed. Since food prices skyrocketed previously, Iowa farmers took much of the land that was out of production and put it back into production. Granted, this wasn't done out of the goodness of their hearts, but the market economy worked. As grain prices rose, it became more economically feasible for farmers to put more land into production. This, in turn, creates more food, and lowers prices, for the rest of the world.

Did you happen to take an economics class while you were in school at Iowa?

I went to Iowa for 4 years for school. It's got more than just corn and soybeans, but the fact is farming all across America, including Iowa, has been overrun by monoculture and factory farms. Nearly all of those hogs are in CAFOs. Unless Vilsack can change his spots and be more circumspect, it could be another long 8 years for those who want to see our food production improve. At the very least, though, the next generation of farm subsidies should be a bit more equitable for smaller farmers and should encourage the growth of "specialty crops" (like, you know, NOT corn and soybeans) and organic and local foods.

> I suppose this means we'll continue to
> turn food into SUV fuel.

Same kind of cluelessness that wrote the article. 70-75% of corn that is used for ethanol goes back into feed after the oil is extracted. The corn would have gone for cattle feed anyway. There is - nor ever has been - a food as fuel argument to be made.

A much better argument would be that Organic produce is harmful because it cuts production by 50-70%.

I'm currently reading Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma" and have a great deal of respect for his ideas. I also recall a recent interview on Bill Moyer's show where he flat out said he would be "terrible" as a Secretary of Agriculture. Pollan is "cautiously optomistic" that Vilsack will broaden his view. I hope Pollan gets a chance to exert some influence on that broadening. Then I will feel real change is coming.

If you're expecting the Agriculture Secretary nominee to use the word "eaters" at his introductory press conference, you are living too far in the bubble.

Tnfarm,

Sorry for the typo before. I also checked my facts, Iowa and North Carolina account for 43% of US hog inventory, with Iowa number 1 in breeding herd numbers, at 1,100, and North Carolina in a close number 2 at 1,030. Iowa does not just raise corn and soybeans. Tom Vilsack is a fine choice who understands US agriculture and its importance to the entire world.

Tnfarm,

Iowa is the nubmer 2 pork producer in the nation, which puts it up there in rankings in the world. Iowa does not just produce row crops, like you ignorantly stated.

This is a no-brainer for Obama. Iowa put him on the map and now he's repaying the state of Iowa the best possible way he can.

Proof reader off today?
"Vilsack's nomination have some wondering..."

"But reports this morning have many wondering if Vilsack mean agribusiness as usual?"

"Many"? They quote an author trying to promote his book and the nutty IATP who frankly would respond to anything to get their name in the press.

That's two people. Hell, it took two people to write this story.

Vilsack knows about farms, ag trade issues and food production. Those are the things central to the job.

Vilsack is one of Obama's better cabinet members and at this point the 'controversy' is just people trying to get their pet pie-in-the-sky issue air time.

Another pick preloaded with scandal potential...BAD CHOICE!!!