Vilsack declines pork industry request (for now)

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Aug 12, 2009 at 08:29:09 AM PDT

"We are down to our last $7 or 8 million because there's been such a demand for so many kinds of commodities, including pork. I think in the last fiscal year $62 million worth of pork purchases have been made," [Secretary of Agriculture Tom] Vilsack says. "...So we are trying to meet the demands of everyone."

Vilsack says there may be more money in the pipeline this fall. "When October 1 comes, when the new fiscal year starts, we have a little greater flexibility and at that time we are taking a look at all these requests," Vilsack says, "and we will make determinations at that point in time in terms of what is being requested of us and what we think makes sense." [...]

"We are very sensitive to the concerns of the pork industry. We have tried to respond by asking our institutional purchasers like the Department of Defense and others to purchase more pork products. We'll continue to do that," Vilsack says. "But I think we are stuck by virtue of the amount of money left in the account that we use to do this, but in October 1 it gets replenished and we'll be in a different position."

Meanwhile, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement makes it easy for Iowans to e-mail Governor Chet Culver to tell him they oppose taxpayer-funded bailouts of factory farms. Consider contacting your governor with a similar message if you live in Nebraska, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois or Oklahoma.

No more bailouts for factory farms

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 18:06:09 PM PDT

In contrast, if your factory farm contributes to excess production of pork, high-level elected officials will ask the federal government to bail you out. I learned from Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement today that last week nine governors, including Iowa's Chet Culver,

requested $50 million of taxpayer money from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) to buy over-produced pork off the market.  This follows similar requests made by the National Pork Producers Council in early May and Iowa Secretary of Ag Bill Northey in June.

The hog factory industry, though, has received two recent taxpayer-funded bailouts from USDA -- one for $25 million in March 2009 and the other for $50 million in April 2008 -- to buy over-produced pork off the market. [...]

Ag economists have warned for months that the pork industry must stabilize prices by trimming the fat and reducing the herd size.  But the pork industry has ignored basic economic rules and continues to increase supply as demand goes down.  This is the result of continuous government subsidies and bailouts to the factory farm industry.

"Corporate ag receives government subsidies and guaranteed loans that promote the expansion of factory farms on the front end," said CCI member Lori Nelson of Bayard.  "And then, when they produce too much pork, they ask the government -- that's us -- to bail them out with huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. The factory farm industry is a house of cards that would crumble as soon as you take away taxpayers propping them up."

The governors of Nebraska, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma joined Culver in signing the appeal for federal aid. According to DTN/The Progressive Farmer, "Representatives from the Iowa and the National Pork Producers Councils, Tyson Fresh Foods, Hormel Foods and Paragon Economics support the letter's three proposals for aid."

I've posted the full text of Iowa CCI's press release after the jump. There's no reason to exempt corporate agriculture from basic laws of supply and demand. Taxpayers already pay too much to subsidize factory hog farms, not to mention the hidden environmental costs of air and water pollution.

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.

Last day to help end "factory farm bailout"

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:03:04 AM PDT

Food Democracy Now sent out an action alert on Thursday reminding supporters that comments on making EQIP work for sustainable and organic farmers must be received by the USDA by the close of business on April 17 (today).

You can fax your letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (202-720-4265) or submit your comments online (Food Democracy Now has instructions on that process).

Click here and scroll down the page for talking points and a sample letter on this issue. However, it's always better to put these things in your own words if possible. I've posted Food Democracy Now's sample letter after the jump. If you are writing your own letter, make sure it goes to the correct address and says this near the top:

Re: Docket Number NRCS- IFR-08005 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Final Rules

Last day for comments on closing corporate farm subsidy loophole

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 15:43:38 PM PDT

President Barack Obama promised during his budget speech to a joint session of Congress in February to "end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them." Food Democracy Now's action alert noted,

Today's current subsidy system allows large corporate farms to take advantage of subsidy loopholes that place independent family farmers at a serious competitive disadvantage.

Because of loosely written management and labor requirements in the Farm Bill, corporate farmers are allowed to use multiple partnerships, passive investors and sham "paper" farms to funnel huge multimillion dollar annual subsidy payments to corporate entities that don't do any real work on the farm, but use the ownership as an entitlement to bilk payments from the government.

As a result, giant corporate millionaire "farmers" are driving independent family farmers off the land, using their ill-gotten gains, supplied courtesy of taxpayers, to outbid small, midsized and new farmers who want to buy or rent new crop ground.

Food Democracy Now provided a sample e-mail that you can cope and paste into your own message. I've posted it after the jump, and you can also find it here. If you can put the message in your own words, that's wonderful, but any comment you can send by the close of business on Monday is better than nothing.

However you write the main text of your message, put this in the subject line:

Comment on Farm Program Payment Limitation Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 23, February 5, 2009

Organic farmer plans to run for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture (updated)

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 13:33:54 PM PDT

Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer near Fairfield with a Pd.D. in agronomy and soil fertility, announced yesterday that he has formed an Exploratory Committee to consider running for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture. I've posted the press release from Thicke after the jump. One of his top priorities would be expanding local food networks:

"Growing more of our food in Iowa represents a multi-billion dollar economic development opportunity."  This potential economic activity could "create thousands of new jobs and help revitalize rural communities in Iowa, as well as provide Iowans with fresh, nutritious food," said Thicke.

Thicke would be an outstanding asset to Iowa as Secretary of Agriculture. A working farmer and expert on many agricultural policy issues, he currently serves on Iowa's USDA State Technical Committee and has an impressive list of publications. In the past he has served on the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission, the Iowa Food Policy Council, and the Iowa Organic Standards Board.

He has also won awards including "the Activist Award from the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Outstanding Pasture Management award from the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Friend of the Earth award from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in Washington, D.C."

Here's an interview Thicke gave in 2003 about his organic dairy operation. He also wrote this piece on the benefits of pasture-based dairies for CounterPunch in 2004. I found a YouTube video of Thicke speaking about livestock farming in Pella last year.

Thicke's relationship with the Culver administration is strained, to put it mildly. He did not go quietly when Culver declined to reappoint him to the Environmental Protection Commission. In addition, Thicke is a strong advocate for "local control" of confined-animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge opposes and Culver has not pursued as governor.

If Thicke runs for Secretary of Agriculture, his campaign is likely to become a focal point for environmentalists who aren't satisfied with our current Democratic leadership in Iowa.

UPDATE: Denise O'Brien, founder of the Women Food and Agriculture Network and Democratic candidate for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture in 2006, responded to my request for a comment on Thicke's candidacy:

I have pledged my support to Francis. He has an excellent background to be a strong leader of our state agriculture department. His depth of knowledge of agriculture and natural resource management gives him credibility when it comes to truly understanding the relationship of agriculture to the rest of the world. It is my intention to work hard to get Francis elected.

Iowa farmer won't need special permit for farm events

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:28:55 AM PDT

Last night the Johnson County Board of Adjustment granted Susan Jutz's appeal on a 5-0 vote. The non-profit organization Local Foods Connection passed along the good news in an e-mail alert I've posted after the jump. I was pleased to read that Jutz had so much support from the community as well as prominent figures including Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey.

Farmers shouldn't need a special permit to hold a field day

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 05:23:08 AM PDT

Last fall the Johnson County Planning and Zoning board determined that Susan Jutz would need a "special event" permit if she wanted to hold a harvest celebration at her farm in Solon. She canceled the event because of the expense of obtaining a special event permit and because she did not want to set a precedent that farm tours and celebrations went beyond "accepted agricultural practices."

I've posted the action alert after the jump. Jutz is appealing the board's ruling next week. If you have friends in Johnson County, Iowa, please forward this information to them and encourage them to contact the county officials listed below. Farms all over the country organize tours and harvest parties.  

Food Democracy Now pushing "sustainable dozen" for USDA jobs

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 06:56:32 AM PST

In November, Food Democracy Now started a petition drive urging President-elect Barack Obama to appoint a secretary of agriculture with a vision for a more sustainable food system.

Now that Obama has decided on Tom Vilsack for this position, Food Democracy Now has launched a new petition:

We want to Thank You for signing the original letter at Food Democracy Now! In just three weeks, more than 60,000 Americans have joined Michael Pollan, Wendell Berry, Wes Jackson, Alice Waters, Marion Nestle, Frances Moore Lappé, and Eric Schlosser calling for a sustainable USDA.

Now that the Secretary of Agriculture has been selected, it's more important than ever that we send our message to Washington. Today's farmers need a serious voice for sustainable change at the USDA.

Therefore, Food Democracy Now! has created a list of 12 candidates for the crucial Under Secretary positions that will stand up for family farms, safe food, clear air and water, animal welfare and soil preservation.

We need your help to continue to spread the word to your friends and colleagues to reach our goal of 100,000 signatures in the next two weeks before the Inauguration!

These 12 candidates have spent their lives fighting for family farmers and we're calling them the Sustainable Dozen. Help us send them to Washington.

If you've already signed the petition, please forward this to one other person who cares about these issues to help us reach our goal of 100,000 Americans for a sustainable food system for the 21st century.

Once the Secretary of Agriculture is confirmed, we will deliver this letter with your comments to him and President Obama in Washington DC.

We at Food Democracy Now! are continuing to give voice to these concerns with policy makers at the federal, state and local levels, to gain a seat at the table and keep these issues at the forefront of future policy decisions.

Currently we are MORE THAN 60,000 voices strong. Please help keep this conversation going...Donate today. By donating as little as $5 or $10 you can make a difference in shaping the conversation at the USDA. Through our collective efforts, this letter has successfully reached "the right people" in Washington and we need to continue this vital work to create a future that we can ALL BELIEVE IN.

From all of us at Food Democracy Now! - Have a Happy, Sustainable New Year!

Best,
David Murphy
Food Democracy Now!
http://www.fooddemocracynow.org

The links did not come through when I copied and pasted that message, so please click over to the site to read more.

I've put Food Democracy Now's "sustainable dozen" list after the jump.

More reaction to Vilsack's nomination and good ideas on food policy

by: desmoinesdem

Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:05:41 AM PST

A few days ago I posted a Vilsack reaction linkfest at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland, but the hits just keep on coming.

Follow me after the jump for more.

Ed Fallon asks Obama to name him "White House Farmer"

by: desmoinesdem

Thu Dec 04, 2008 at 22:27:13 PM PST

Michael Pollan advocated the creation of this position in an article for the New York Times Sunday Magazine on October 12. Obama read Pollan's piece (he even paraphrased points from it in an interview with Time magazine), but it is not known whether the president-elect supports setting aside a few acres of the White House lawn to be cultivated by a White House Farmer.

Fallon campaigned for John Edwards before the Iowa caucuses but endorsed Obama immediately after Edwards dropped out of the presidential race. His letter to Obama is after the jump.

Organic Consumers Association against Vilsack for Ag Secretary

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 22:23:58 PM PST

Click through to read the whole case against Vilsack. Among other things, they don't like his advocacy of genetically-engineered crops for food or pharmaceuticals, his tendency to travel in Monsanto's jet, and his support of biofuels.

I can't recall anything Vilsack did as governor to address pollution from conventional farming or to promote sustainable agriculture.

I would much rather see Vilsack in a different post, such as secretary of education. He is very smart, understands policy and works hard, so he would be an asset to the cabinet--just not as agriculture secretary, in my opinion.

Corporate ag increases giving to Democrats

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 02:33:10 AM PST

The gist is that corporate ag interests that have strongly tilted Republican in the past are dividing their giving more evenly between the parties, or in some cases giving more to Democrats than to Republicans this year.

The National Cattlemen's Beef Association endorsed George Bush four years ago but has not endorsed a presidential candidate this year.

Even more surprising,

Organizations and individuals with agribusiness ties have contributed $19 million to Democratic candidates for the 2008 election, up from $15 million in 2004, according to OpenSecrets.org, which tracks campaign funding. Contributions to Republicans have dropped from nearly $40 million in 2004 to under $30 million this year.

Agribusiness interests haven't steered this big a share of their money to Democrats, about 40 percent, since the 1994 campaign. That happens to be the last time Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Groups and individuals representing sugar, corn, wheat and other crops gave 61 percent of their money to Republicans in 2004. This time around, the split was close to even. Some $7.2 million has gone to Republicans, compared with $6.8 million to Democrats.

Sugar growers, who successfully fought this year to preserve their price-support program in the farm bill, were the biggest contributors. Minnesota-based American Crystal Sugar contributed $1.6 million, primarily through its political action committee, and 68 percent of that went to Democrats. An additional $456,750 in contributions came from individuals or the PAC associated with Flo-Sun Inc., a Florida-based sugar producer. Eighty-three percent of Flo-Sun money went to Democrats.

The National Corn Growers Association has contributed $69,375 during this election cycle. Nearly eight in every 10 dollars has gone to Democrats.

The article also credits Barack Obama with reaching out to agribusiness:

Among other things, Obama hasn't been bashing big farms, said former Democratic Rep. Charles Stenholm, a lobbyist for livestock and oil interests who is supporting Obama. And Obama advisers have been telling groups that his administration would base decisions on "sound science" rather than ideology. That is encouraging to livestock groups worried about environmental regulations and the animal-welfare movement.

Obama's campaign has "been very masterful in appealing to a centrist position," Stenholm said.

Notice how the Des Moines Register reporter puts industry on the side of "sound science" while potraying environmentalists and animal welfare activists as ideological. Sigh. If only our system of subsidies and regulations for agriculture were based on sound science! But that's a topic for a different post.

Like I wrote over the weekend, sustainable ag advocates have our work cut out for us even if there's a big Democratic landslide on Tuesday.

Obama states facts about food system, backpedals

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 15:04:57 PM PDT

Assuming Barack Obama wins the election on Tuesday, we will have a president who appears to understand some of the problems with our current energy and agriculture policies. From a recent interview Obama gave Time magazine:

There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.
I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen [sic] about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it's creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they're contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That's just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

The Des Moines Register (cheerleader for conventional agriculture) jumped on this story, which prompted some unfortunate backpedaling from the Obama camp:

The Obama campaign issued a statement on Thursday saying that Obama "was simply paraphrasing an article he read. He believes there are a lot of factors that contribute to obesity, heart disease and other health problems, but he certainly doesn't blame farmers."

But Ron Litterer, a Greene farmer who is chairman of the National Corn Growers Association, said Obama's comments in the Time interview were "in conflict with what he's been saying about agriculture, no question about it."

The Illinois senator supports farm programs and incentives for corn ethanol. He has aggressively courted the corn growers and other farm groups during his presidential campaign. Several past presidents of the corn group have endorsed Obama. [...]

Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who supports John McCain, Obama's rival, said Pollan's ideas would be detrimental to Iowa's economy and increase hunger by reducing food production. Obama has been "very understanding of how farmers contribute to fuel as well as food and fiber," Grassley said.

Obama's campaign said his "strong record of standing up for farmers and America's rural communities speaks for itself."

The statement also said Obama would "bring the change rural America needs by increasing investments in renewable energy and giving family farmers the support they need by allowing them to diversify their crops and increase revenue."

The article goes on to quote Michael Pollan's New York Times article, pointing out that Pollan favors policies that would raise meat prices.

It also cites "a study to be published soon in the journal Food Policy," which allegedly "found no evidence that corn subsidies have affected the consumption of corn sweeteners."

Folks, even with a Democratic president and Congress, we are going to face enormous political and institutional resistance to the "change we need" when it comes to food policy.

Perhaps Obama's backpedaling is just a way to avoid giving Republicans any edge so close to the election, but I fear that even after the election, Obama will not be willing to spend his political capital on trying to change agriculture policies that have bipartisan support in Congress.

I don't have any bright ideas on how to approach this, but I wanted to bring Obama's recent comments to the attention of the La Vida Locavore community.  

Rural development "got the very short end of the stick" in Farm Bill

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Oct 17, 2008 at 09:17:48 AM PDT

I learned today from the Public News Service that Jon Bailey of the Center for Rural Affairs

has done an analysis of the 2008 Farm Bill, and found 233 times more spending on commodity subsidies than on rural development.

"Initiatives that would help start businesses, create jobs, make communities attractive places for people to relocate to, were left out of the farm bill."

In contrast, Bailey notes, the Farm Bill allocates $35 billion for commodity subsidies, which makes the amount for revitalizing rural areas seem paltry.

"There are only three programs totaling $150 million for rural development in the final Farm Bill. Rural development got the very short end of the stick."

Bailey noted that the 2002 Farm Bill included "more than $1 billion in mandatory spending for rural development programs."

If you go to this page at the Center for Rural Affairs, you can find a link to a pdf version of the full report.

As much as I admire Senator Tom Harkin, I was very disappointed by how the Farm Bill (officially known as the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) turned out. I have no idea what can be done to get Congress to redirect government funding toward sustainable farming practices and programs that improve the quality of life in rural areas.

Meanwhile, Susan Heathcote, the water program director of the Iowa Environmental Council and a member of the state Environmental Protection Commission, wrote a good guest editorial for the Des Moines Register about the need for better monitoring of drinking-water sources.

She mentioned two recent incidents of conventional farming polluting drinking water in the Des Moines area. Farms 80 miles upstream contributed to high ammonia levels found in the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers last spring, and a cyanobacteria "algae bloom" prompted the Des Moines Water Works to stop drawing from the Raccoon River in August.