Is Obama's Plan for Tackling Hunger Just Another Chance for Big Ag and Biotech to Cash In?

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Aug 11, 2009 at 05:42:22 AM PDT

Much of the piece follows the money and connections behind Obama's current policy to "help" Africa by helping Monsanto. It's not just a money and influence problem, it's also an ideology problem. And it's really tragic because real lives are at stake here.

Hillary and Vilsack To Promote GMOs in Africa

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Aug 04, 2009 at 15:10:15 PM PDT

Also during the high-level tour, the top US diplomat will on Wednesday afternoon visit the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) laboratories along Waiyaki Way.

She will be accompanied by US Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas J. Vilsack, together with U.S. Representatives Donald M. Payne and Nita M. Lowey.

"The visit will focus on KARI's contributions to Kenya's food security and agricultural development. It will include a laboratory tour, discussion with KARI staff and collaborating partners, observation of a maize research plot, and ceremonial tree-planting," according to a brief from the US embassy in Nairobi.

Here's what the USDA says about Vilsack's trip to Africa:

As part of the Obama Administration's efforts to enhance global food security, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack will attend the 8th U.S.-Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum in Nairobi, Kenya from Aug. 4-6, 2009. At the forum, Vilsack will highlight the USDA's ongoing food security efforts in Africa and other places throughout the world which is focused on building the agricultural industry in developing countries.

Here's what the press release says about his visit to KARI with Secretary Clinton:

Finally, he plans to visit the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and meet with women scientists receiving African Women in Agricultural Research and Development fellowships.

Who are those research grant winners that Vilsack is meeting with? If you scan the list, you'll notice several are involved with biotechnology. One works with the Uganda agency that is partnering with Monsanto to create drought tolerant corn.

Below I've included a press release from the U.S. Food Crisis Working Group about Clinton and Vilsack's trip and visit to KARI.

UPDATE: A few more links...  "KARI Adopts Genetically Modified Maize" and a post about pros and cons of a Kenyan biosafety bill

No, Vilsack! Bad Secretary!

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 14:30:34 PM PDT

Ann Tutwiler - Senior Advisor for International Affairs. Previously, she was advisor on International Trade for the Africa Bureau's Sustainable Development group at USAID. Before joining USAID, she was Managing Director, Agricultural Markets, for the Global Development Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Before joining the Hewlett Foundation, she served as president and chief executive officer of the International Food & Agriculture Trade Policy Council. She was Director of Government Relations for the North American oilseed crushing and corn refining companies of Eridania Beghin-Say. She has served on the board of the International Fertilizer Development Council, the Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa and the Dean Rusk International Studies Program at Davidson College. Tutwiler received a degree in political science from Davidson College and a Masters in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. She also received certificates in agribusiness management from Purdue University and INSEAD. She was recently awarded the John W. Kuykendall Award for Community Service from Davidson College.

So, what's the International Food & Agriculture Trade Policy Council, where she used to work? Here are their funders (which includes her other employer, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation):

IPC Funding and Donors
Annual Structural Support, 2008
Bunge North America (United States)
Cargill, Inc. (United States)
Croplife International (United States)
Fonterra Cooperative Group, Ltd. (New Grain and Feed Trade Association (United Kingdom)
International Fertilizer Association
Deere & Company (United States)
Monsanto Company (United States)
Nederlandse Zuivel Organisatie (The Netherlands)
Nestlé (Switzerland)
Rabobank International (The Netherlands)
Syngenta International AG (Switzerland)
Unilever N.V. (The Netherlands)
Universal Corporation (United States)
World Wildlife Fund (United States)

Project Support and In-Kind Support, 2008
Hogan and Hartson LLP
Illinois Farm Bureau
Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry
North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA)
National Oilseed Processors Association

Government Support, 2008
Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Foundation Support, 2008
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Follow the Money

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 17:07:33 PM PDT

Who doesn't want us to believe that organics can feed the world? All the people who would lose money if we went organic: oil companies, biotech companies, pesticide companies, and fertilizer companies. And who funds The Chicago Council on Global Affairs? Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Foods, Monsanto, Caterpillar, BP, McDonalds... you get it.

The Chicago Council released a report funded by the Gates Foundation that outlined a plan to feed the world. They then presented that report in testimony at a Senate Foreign Relations committee hearing earlier this year. In a Washington Times op ed (where I always get my news), they summarize the findings of the report, calling for a Second Green Revolution. On their side is Dick Lugar, who co-authored another Washington Times op-ed with Norman Borlaug (father of the first Green Revolution) who say we need higher yields and GMOs in the developing world if we are to fight hunger. Lugar has co-sponsored a bill that the Chicago Council sees as a vehicle to enact their plan, but now it seems that a new effort is afoot and Hillary Clinton is leading it (as her department will be the ones carrying out the bill).

To gain more support for their plan, the Chicago Council is hosting a breakfast with Secretary Tom Vilsack as a guest. They've also held a past event with Senator Dick Durbin.

Meanwhile, our government is entirely ignoring an alternative viewpoint to feeding the world, one presented by the IAASTD report (from the World Bank and UN), which specifically rejects GMOs as tools to help the developing world, saying they are poorly suited to meet the needs of poor and subsistence farmers. They call for agroecological approaches to farming as the best tool to feed the world. And, because the crop inputs used in the developed world are so expensive and thus often unavailable to poor farmers - the very people we are trying to help - those farmers achieve higher yields using organic (agroecological) methods.

Don't hold your breath, Secretary Vilsack

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 10:50:54 AM PDT

[USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service administrator Michael] Michener declined to discuss the department's strategy for promoting international acceptance of biotechnology, saying it's still in the works. But he argues that the Obama administration can be more effective than the Bush administration, which went to the World Trade Organization to unsuccessfully break European resistance to the genetically engineered crops.

Vilsack is taking a lighter approach, Michener said, recounting a discussion the secretary had with his German counterpart.

Vilsack "made this very creative argument on how during the eight years of the Bush administration, the Europeans would lecture us on how we had to bring our citizens along and educate them on the science of climate change. He turned that around and said, 'You know, you've got a similar responsibility on biotech'" Michener said.

That certainly is a "creative" analogy. Getting Americans on board with serious policies on climate change may be our only hope for avoiding a catastrophic global warming scenario. Gaining European acceptance for genetically-modified crops has no comparable global benefit (no, these crops won't magically end world hunger).

But a more important point is after the jump.

Liberal Policy: Let Them Eat Arugula

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:39:14 PM PDT

Children are a target audience. Vilsack said the gardens will help educate them on how their food is produced. Mrs. Obama invites local school groups to help maintain the White House garden.

"We want people, and particularly young people, to understand the connection between the land and their food," Vilsack said.

Vilsack stumped the crowd with a question as what is the largest-volume commodity that his department provides to schools. It's not potatoes or chicken nuggets. It's mozzarella cheese.

Kids need a more balanced diet, he said.

"Part of our challenge is to figure how to make the kids' choice be the salad rather than the pizza slice."

Wait, what? The National School Lunch Program has long been a dual purpose program that simultaneously feeds kids and subsidizes farmers. And while the free commodities provided by the USDA to schools for lunches do include some fruits and vegetables, that amount is dwarfed by the (often high fat) meat and dairy provided. Essentially, the mix of commodities provided turns the food pyramid on its head. So does this new statement signify any movement or effort by Vilsack to change that problem?

(h/t Tom Laskawy)

Vilsack, How Can You Pledge to Fight Obesity While Supporting a System that Promotes It?

by: Jill Richardson

Fri May 22, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

I've included Vilsack's statement below.

WaPo asks Vilsack if Organic, Small Farms Can Replace Industrial Ag

by: Jill Richardson

Thu May 21, 2009 at 23:29:35 PM PDT

ROMANO: Can organic farming, homegrown farming replace industrial farming?

VILSACK: You know, interesting thing about the Census that was done recently of U.S. Agriculture, it showed 108,000 new initiatives and new entrepreneurial opportunities--starting in--in the country. These are small farmers, probably selling a couple thousand dollars' worth of product.

It is a growth opportunity for agriculture. It's a--it's a way in which we can re-populate rural communities. It's a way in which USDA can be engaged by promoting community-supported agriculture, by promoting farmers' markets and a new take to rural development, which is important, and we'd like to see those small operations migrate into a mid-sized operation. So we're going to look for ways to link them up with local consumers and institutional buyers.

So you're going to see a lot more support for that kind of activity.

I think, frankly, we're going to need all of our agriculture, all kinds of agriculture, and the reason for this is that, again, remember it's not just the 300 million Americans that we need to be concerned about. It's the 6 billion people who live on this earth, and the reality is that number is going to continue to grow.

ROMANO: Can you bridge the conflict, though, between the environmentalists and the industrial producers?

VILSACK: Well, you know, I think you have to recognize that there are very passionate feelings on all sides of this, but I think what USDA has to do is it has to be supportive of all types of agriculture. Asking me to choose between organic and production agriculture is sort of like asking me which of my two boys I love the most. I love them both.

I'm not surprised with Vilsack's answers, but he's still not as enlightened as I'd like. I'll die of shock the day the USDA recognizes the concept of food sovereignty and decides to work against undercutting farmers in other countries with cheap, American imports. More from the interview is at the link - they cover topics ranging from food safety, to civil rights, to foreign policy.

Tell Vilsack: No Foxes in the USDA Henhouse

by: Jill Richardson

Tue May 19, 2009 at 15:12:11 PM PDT

The U.S. has obviously had a number of major food safety problems in the recent past. There are two ways to deal with the problems this present to business: 1) Actually fix the problem or 2) Cover up and deny the problem. Obviously option 1 benefits eaters and option 2 means more people will get sick or die. So we need to go with option 1. My fear is that industry wants to go with option 2. It's the USDA's job to do the right thing instead of caving to industry pressure. And right now, it seems like industry really, really, really wants to see Michael Doyle - their guy - in charge of food safety at the USDA. Word on the street has it that Doyle's the nearly definite pick for the job.

Why am I not so hot on Doyle as a choice? Let's start by looking at the company he keeps. He's the director of the University of Georgia's Center for Food Safety, whose board of advisors includes Coca-Cola, Cargill, ConAgra, Kraft, Hormel, McDonalds, and more. You can buy a seat on the board for a mere $20,000, and that will get you the opportunity to "provide input on food safety research needs of the industry" in the words of Doyle (in a letter he sent out inviting companies to buy influence donations).

He's also gotten mucho dinero for research from corporations Con-Agra, FreshExpress, and Ecolab. Small surprise then that he favors industry friendly techno-fixes that cover up the problems of food safety without correcting them at their sources.

That includes fixes like using carbon monoxide to keep the color of beef red - a practice consumer advocates call problematic because color is a major indicator of tainted meat so an unsuspecting consumer might not know that his still-red carbon monoxide-treated beef has gone bad. Doyle says that consumers can still use odor and "use by" dates to tell if the product is bad.

Another favorite for Doyle is irradiation - a practice Safe Food author Marion Nestle calls "a late-stage techno-fix to a problem that should never have happened in the first place." In other words - first put the poop in the food, then nuke it so nobody gets sick. Riiight. But Doyle thinks that's A-OK. He's been quoted as saying:

Well, I agree that irradiation is a very safe process, and it will make the product much safer - NPR's "Talk of the Nation Science Friday," August 29, 1997

Here's another good one from Doyle, from "Healthy Living: How safe is our Food?: With terror attacks possible, experts weigh in on risks, security measures" by Elizabeth Lee, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 9, 2002. He was asked if food was safe. He answered:

I don't think we should be overly concerned about processed foods, especially those that are fully processed by major companies.

I want somebody who is less trusting of major corporations, who isn't accustomed to letting them buy influence, and who wants to actually fix problems instead of merely covering them up or sterilizing them after they occur. Vilsack, the American people deserve better than this. Especially now, in light of the food safety problems that the Obama administration has clearly made it a priority to fix. Please, actually fix those problems.

Hell Yeah Congressman Hinchey! You Tell 'Em! (Plus, A Look at the 2010 Obama Ag Budget)

by: Jill Richardson

Fri May 15, 2009 at 13:00:00 PM PDT

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., told Vilsack at a House appropriations subcommittee hearing on Wednesday that livestock are "jammed together" in "very, very nasty circumstances." ...

Hinchey asked Vilsack if there is an effort to "reform" livestock farming to "stop these animals from coming so close together."

Vilsack's response? A very diplomatic statement about how most farmers care very much about their livestock and that the USDA is looking into it. Mmm hmm. This is the same thing we hear from factory farmers and their lobby groups constantly. They talk about how well they treat the animals and they frequently use the words "wholesome" and "high quality." What's so wholesome about animals standing shoulder to shoulder, ankle deep in their own manure?

This hearing was on the 2010 budget for the USDA. Vilsack provided testimony outlining the Obama administration's budget requests. I'm going to turn to the experts to understand the budget, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. Highlights from their email on the budget are below.

A Bad Food Safety Appointment Is Likely

by: Jill Richardson

Sat May 09, 2009 at 06:46:30 AM PDT

Let's start with who's behind his nomination: Saxby "I hate sustainable agriculture" Chambliss. Yes, the very same Saxby Chambliss who got his Senate seat by accusing the incumbent Senator, a war hero (who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam), of being for the terrorists. Plus several Senators from states with major factory farm interests. And then there's the details on Michael Doyle himself:

Doyle is currently Director of the Center For Food Safety at the University of Georgia, and a professor in the department of food safety and technology. His work at the land-grant university has been heavily funded by major meat industry concerns, and Doyle has won big acclaim for his industry-friendly policy wonking, in particular from the American Meat Institute, a huge pro-meat/low-government intervention lobbying force on The Hill. He's also received big funding and support from the National Chicken Council, another industry lobbying group.

Please, send an email to AgSec@usda.gov and tell Vilsack you don't want Doyle to get the nomination. He's got too much of a conflict of interest. Or, put another way, he's the fox and FSIS is the henhouse.

Obama Administration Takes 1 Step Forward (Organics) and 2 Steps Back (Ethanol)

by: Jill Richardson

Wed May 06, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

The two steps back came with the announcement of a major government push for ethanol. Step one is the creation of a new Biofuels Interagency Working Group that includes the cabinet secretaries for Energy, EPA, and USDA. Step two is the potential increase in the amount of ethanol allowed in our fuel - the "blend wall." It is currently set at 10% and may go to 15%.  

Mmm, Pork! Says Vilsack (And Stop Calling it Swine Flu!)

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PDT

"This morning I had pork for breakfast. Last night I had pork. I'm going to continue to eat pork and I'm going to encourage American consumers to do the same," Vilsack said in an interview on CNN this afternoon from the White House.

I'd just like to remind him about the recent study that showed that daily consumption of beef and pork leads to increased chances that you will die in the next 10 years. That makes his pork consumption only slightly better than this photo op of a British politician and his 4 year old daughter taken during the mad cow scare:

Vilsack wants the news media to switch to using the scientific term for the virus, H1N1, rather than swine flu.

Vilsack's request comes on the heels of a similar request by several meat industry lobby groups. If I were Vilsack, I'd just cross my fingers that the next food scare happens over a food I'd prefer to eat. Chocolate perhaps? Microbrewed beer? I'd gladly drink a nice ale or a stout to prove that the country's beers are safe.

On a more serious note, this is all pretty ridiculous. Whether or not this flu came from a factory farm, I don't think the fact that factory farms are a problem is really up for debate. Vilsack comes from a state totally overrun by them so he should know best. No, the flu doesn't come from pork, but that doesn't mean that Vilsack or anyone else should be promoting an unsustainable industry with a product now shown to lead to increased mortality if consumed frequently.

USDA Says Our Pork Is Safe

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 13:48:15 PM PDT

U can't get swine flu fr eating pork. Eatup. Regardless of epidemic

Here's what Vilsack had to say:

First, let me say again to consumers, there is no evidence at this time that U.S. swine have been infected with this virus.

Second, I want to reiterate the same message to our trading partners - our pork and pork products are safe. The discovery of this virus in humans is not a basis for restricting imports of commercially produced U.S. pork and pork products. Any trade restrictions would be inconsistent with World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines. USDA is working closely with the U.S. Trade Representative's office on these issues.

And third, I am reminding the pork industry as well as owners of pigs about being consistent and thorough in their practices to prevent the introduction or spread of disease.

USDA already has in place, and did so before the last week's events, a surveillance system to monitor animal health. I asked USDA to reach out to agriculture officials in every state to affirm that they have no signs of this virus type in their state's swine herd. As of this morning, no cases have been reported.

I hope this is a lesson to Chuck Grassley that perhaps his communications are better suited to media that allow more than 140 characters.

Also, note that the mess over swine flu has resulted in several countries (China, Russia, Indonesia, Philippines, Jordan, and Thailand) halting imports of U.S. and Mexican pork. As you can see, countries tend to react over-cautiously in cases like this (particularly considering that there are no known cases of U.S. hogs with swine flu, just people). Vilsack and Grassley fear what swine flu will do to our export markets as well as to our domestic pork market.

Tom Vilsack Shills for Large Corporations at G8

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

So what ARE we doing for the world's hungry, if not backing the establishment of grain reserves?

The Obama administration, for its part, has indicated that it wants to make global hunger issues a priority.

The administration has called for doubling agricultural development aid to $1 billion and appointed experts on development to key Department of Agriculture positions. Vilsack has pledged to redouble U.S. efforts to promote the acceptance of genetically engineered seeds. He said the technology is critical to poor farmers.

Mmm hmm. Paying lip service to fixing the problem, pretending that biotechnology will solve all of our ills, and appointing biotech-friendly people to high up positions at the USDA (in addition to Vilsack himself, I believe the article refers to Rajiv Shah).

The more I learn about the biotech industry, the more I see that they are absolutely dead-set on being named "THE answer to global hunger" and all other agricultural problems. They suppress independent research, and a recent UCS report shows that they do not live up to the promises they make for increased yields. When biotech companies or lobby groups participate in efforts to solve the world's agricultural problems, if they don't get their ways they take their balls and go home. (In those cases, even saying that biotech is ONE of the tools we have to solve our problems doesn't seem to be good enough for them - they want to be THE solution and won't accept anything less.)

I'm glad that the current administration is interested in helping the world's hungry and poor but they are not going about it the right way at present. I'm disappointed that Obama and Vilsack do not see through all of the biotech industry's bullshit. Nor do they wish to ruffle the feathers of meatpackers or grain processors. I'm not saying that it's a grain reserve or nothing - I don't know what the right answer is. But I've definitely seen what finding the right answer looks like. It means following the process of the IAASTD report, a report published by the World Bank and the UN that calls for sustainability in agriculture (among other things). They tried to pull knowledge from all possible sources, including indigenous populations, and they balanced the input they received so they would include all regions of the world, consumers, scientists, governments, academics, NGOs, etc. That exists in stark contrast from the corporate, Western-led approach the Obama administration has taken so far (along with Dick Lugar in the Senate and the Gates Foundation). If we are interested in doing what's good for the world's hungry, then that has to mean we aren't looking out for the interests of American corporations first.