| Earlier this week I wrote about Vilsack's attempt to implement stricter voluntary labeling standards. I left part of the story out though. The existing COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) rules, weak as they are, really piss Canada off. And Obama is in Canada this week.
Well, the man chickened out. At the last minute, he canceled his press conference on the subject (due to a "scheduling conflict"). Looks like Canada's winning this round - beating out the 92% of Americans who want their food labeled with country of origin:
The Canadian government has criticized strict labeling rules on meat in the U.S., fearing that American consumers would prefer homegrown beef, and is likely to raise objections to Mr. Vilsack's plans.
Canada would resume its World Trade Organization complaint against U.S. labeling rules for meat and fresh produce if Obama decides to change them, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz told Bloomberg news. "Should the Obama administration continue on with protectionism, we will then re-ignite our WTO challenge," Ritz said.
Obama listed COOL on his platform during the campaign and once in office. Vilsack said that Obama will discuss it with the Canadians during his time there. Obama's got until March 16 to do something about Bush's weak COOL rules (they'll be permanent as of that day). Let's hope he can come to some agreement with the Canadians.
But Obama Foodorama has even more speculation - is the problem that held up Vilsack's press conference perhaps meat industry lobbyists, and not Canada at all?
More on Vilsack below (about his recent public appearances)... |
| Vilsack's had a busy first few weeks in office, speaking to wheat growers, rice growers, and cotton growers. Hear what he said to wheat growers here (as I've already reported, he used the "O" word - organic). (Hat tip to Tom Laskawy, who kindly gave me the rice growers link since he knew I was looking for it!)
From his talk to the cotton growers, where he got a "lukewarm" response:
Vilsack, the former two-term governor of Iowa who became secretary on Jan. 21, said producers must begin to think creatively and innovatively about how they can use their land to absorb carbon, how they can structure a financial market for the use of their land and provide additional support for everyone who farms.
"I don't think that is unrealistic," he told delegates to the National Cotton Council's annual meeting in Washington Monday. "I think we need to be focused on this because it is coming, and I don't want agriculture to be left at the station. I want us to lead that effort because I think we have a critical role to play here."
The article mentioned that he was "echoing" comments of environmental groups, calling for a replacement of traditional farm programs with conservation payments that reward those who reduce their carbon footprints. When asked about their current safety net, he said:
"I think it is important to maintain a safety net, but I'm going to be honest: There will be challenges to the safety net," he said. "The reality is you can't sustain trillion-dollar deficits out into the future. The challenge will be for us to find new ways in which we can continue to support production agriculture.
"Do not underestimate the capacity and the power for climate change to be a vehicle for helping, and that is in all parts of the country and all parts of agriculture."
Cotton growers do have a reason to be concerned. Cotton is one of the dirtiest crops to grow, and in the last farm bill, an amendment was proposed to cut cotton subsidies and use the money for conservation instead (it lost). Cotton growers don't need to be totally worried though - the subsidy programs aren't going away just yet:
"He said he would be reluctant to dismantle the farm program so that it focused on environmental enhancements without assuring U.S. crop production."
Vilsack noted the latest agricultural census and the loss of mid-sized farms in our country. He said we need to do more to help out those farms in the middle.
Vilsack's talk to the rice growers was similar. The article on it emphasized his support for a single food safety agency (mentioned here before but still big news since it's a shift from his position just a few weeks ago), and his concern about implementing the farm bill on a limited budget. In the cotton growers talk, he mentioned a $1 trillion deficit. To the rice growers, he mentioned the cost of fighting 2 wars. Either way, he's feeling the pinch financially and he's trying to prepare farmers for what may come in the near future. |
