USDA discussion live on Facebook

USDA Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan will hold a Live Facebook Chat about local food systems on Thursday, October 1 at 3:45 pm ET. Comments and questions can be submitted via the USDA Facebook page.

The discussion is a part of the "Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food" initiative launched in early September. According to the website:

USDA-wide effort to create new economic opportunities by better connecting consumers with local producers. It is also the start of a national conversation about the importance of understanding where your food comes from and how it gets to your plate. Today, there is too much distance between the average American and their farmer and we are marshalling resources from across USDA to help create the link between local production and local consumption.

As a former student of Kathleen, I am reminded of something she told us in her policy class: "think big!" She is dedicated to the "People's Department" being just that, and this is her way of including all in the conversation.

Some news on GM crops

One of the main concerns for advocates against Genetically Modified (GM) crops is the growing number of pesticide tolerant or resistant weeds and their affect on crop yield. According to an article published in Geoforum by Binimelis et al, in 2009 a glyphosate-resistant biotype of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)) appeared in Argentina and now covers at least 10,000 ha. They explain that no preventive strategies are deployed against the invasion. The reactive measures are based on "gene-stacking" that allows the use of still more glyphosate or new combinations of herbicides. A new phenomenon called the "transgenic treadmill" is identified. A colleague of mine pointed out that since the EU is the largest importer of soybeans, European awareness of the local impacts of imported soybeans (as feedstuffs and/or agro-fuels) should not focus only on deforestation, but also consider the socio-environmental consequences apart from the loss of productivity.

Bonnie Azab Powell at the Ethicurean recently posted “The Failure of Science”: New paper makes a damning case against genetically modified food crops" where she mentions the new book “Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet" by technology reporter Denise Caruso and recent articles published in the International Journal of Society of Agriculture and Food. The two part series Part 1: The Development of a Flawed Enterprise and Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity highlight the conflict between science and society through a historical perspective, tactics used, and regulatory flaws and failures.

This year's Global Food Security Act of 2009 introduced by Senator Richard Lugar, "would authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to provide assistance to foreign countries to promote food security, to stimulate rural economies, and to improve emergency response to food crises, to amend the Foreign Assistance Act(FAA) of 1961." Sounds like a great bill for the US to help alleviate world hunger except that it creatively amends the FAA of 1961 by makinging the first sentence include "research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology." Consequently, the bill specifies that the U.S. MUST fund GMOs and biotechnology, a change in policy up to this point.

The bill was nicknamed "the REAL Monsanto bill" by the Organic Consumers Association. According to Monsanto's first quarter lobbying reports, the company spent $2,094,000 in the first quarter 2009. Their specific lobbying issues were Biotechnology acceptance, S. 384- Global Food Security Act of 2009, Sustainable Yield Initiative, Crop insurance/Biotech yield endorsement and USDA Rulemaking - 7CFR Part 340. (thanks to La Vida Locavore who was contacted by Monsanto who denied involvement in the bill).

In the waning months of the Bush Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a proposal to completely overhaul its regulation of genetically engineered crops, significantly weakening its oversight. USDA also published the rules before publishing the full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by law, and in the absence of public review of the data needed to make regulatory recommendations. A comment period for USDA's Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release into the Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms has been extended until June 29th.

If you wish to submit a comment using the Internet, go to the Federal eRulemaking portal. Then click on “Add Comments.” This will also allow you to view public comments and related materials available electronically. Using the Federal eRulemaking portal is the best way to ensure that your comments will be associated with the right docket and reviewed by the right people. Consideration will be given to all comments received on or before June 29th.

Merrigan speaks on organics across USDA

USDA Deputy Secretary Pledges Full Organic Integration Across Department

Attendees at the third annual Organic Summit in Stevenson, Wash. in early June heard USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan pledge that organic agriculture will be integrated across all agencies in the department. View Merrigan's full video statement. (Length 11:22)

A Student's Perspective on Merrigan

Contagious glee filled the classroom Wednesday morning as we eagerly awaited the arrival of our Agriculture, Science and Policy class lecturer. A Reuters UK story hit the internet earlier Monday night and immediately went viral among the food world. A jubilation of Facebook status changes, GChats, text messages, emails, blog posts and phone calls carried the evening into the night. While any of the Friedman School students at Tufts were astute enough to know that something was coming, we were certainly astonished when we saw “No. 2 USDA post.” The class broke into applause as Kathleen, as her students call her, sheepishly entered the room. “Okay, so I’ve been holding a secret,” she claimed.

I met Kathleen my first semester at Tufts through two courses that she was instructing, both in the arena of policy and agriculture. Her approaches to teaching policy involved a mix of structural theory, ambiguous creativity, and story telling. One of the underlining themes, which she proposed the first day, was to “think big.” No idea was too ridiculous. While there may be a science to policy making, there is also a human element that keeps it imaginative and inspired. One of my favorite “big ideas” from class was the idea to build grocery stores in the shape of the food pyramid.

Kathleen holds an extraordinary appreciation for democracy and the role of government holding servitude to the people. She made it a point to show our classes how transparent the government really is, and the opportunity (and duty) that each of us has to participate in the rules that govern our land. Following a comment from a student on how struck they were at the “opportunities that exist for any citizen to try to influence policy by adding their voice, if they were just aware that they are out there,” Kathleen walked into the seats, requested the student stand and wrapped her arms around her in gratitude.

Kathleen’s classes were spent looking at many problems with solution based approaches, all the while peering through a historical window. Her background in the organic and sustainable agriculture, pesticides, animal and plant health, marketing, conservation and business, is impressive, but more importantly is her understanding of the processes of government and how to get things done by bringing all interests to the table.

So what can we expect from Kathleen? I think it is advantageous to note her use of Deborah Stone's Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making text that she utilizes in class. From this we can see that Kathleen appreciates and utilizes the theories of government and policy that are flexible, yet strategic, that uphold equity and focus on real root problems when developing solutions.

Any special interest group that believes their and only their agenda is going to be served by this nomination is undermining the process that makes this country great. While this news is in fact the most exciting news for those citizens who know we are overdue for a revamp in the country’s food system, I would argue that the work has only just begun. While Kathleen will help implement Obama and Vilsack’s agenda, it remains our duty to be imaginative and vigilant in solving the problems facing our own communities.

On a personal note, Kathleen has had an esteemed influence on me. Some of that endearment probably comes from her time spent earning her Masters in my hometown of Austin, but moreover, she has always had an open door and honest and realistic perspective. She is pragmatic and powerful, yet modest and civilized. I am honored to have had the opportunity to learn from ‘the best.’ I know I speak on behalf of all of her students when I say how truly proud I am of her and how excited I am to be in this field during this time. It is a bitter sweet loss for the Tufts community, but I think our “policy window” is wide open.

Pinocchio- Save us from obesity!

Many of my friends know that I have been joking lately about naming my first son Pinocchio--Don't laugh, I wanted to bring it back. Alas, I don't have to! Tom Vilsack and the Ad Council are doing it for me. All in the name of obesity prevention. Nice. Now I need another name. Hmmm?

From PRNEWSWIRE:

The new television, radio, print, outdoor, and online PSAs, created by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, remind parents that healthier lifestyle habits are critical for a child's mind and body and illustrate how much fun it can be to "Eat Right. Be Active." and "Make it Balance." Parents and caregivers are encouraged to visit the campaign's website www.MyPyramid.gov and use the USDA's My Pyramid to assist them in making healthy choices for their families.

"I am delighted to continue our partnership with USDA and to work with Secretary Vilsack on this critical campaign to educate parents and children about My Pyramid. I hope these PSAs motivate parents to begin taking simple steps today with their child's nutrition and physical activity habits because a healthy lifestyle can lead to a bright future for our children," said Peggy Conlon, President and CEO of The Advertising Council.

Tufts Merrigan -Deputy Secretary of Agriculture

I can finally announce that my Agriculture Science and Policy professor has been officially chosen for Deputy Secretary of Agriculture under Tom Vilsack. Change is in the works. I am blessed to have had her for my policy classes. Obviously learning from the horse's mouth is the best. This is a very exciting time for Tufts faculty and students. Congratulations to Kathleen. From Reuters:

President Barack Obama chose Kathleen Merrigan, an assistant professor at Tufts University who helped develop U.S. organic food labeling rules, for the Agriculture Department's No 2 job, the White House said on Monday.

Merrigan, tapped for deputy secretary of Agriculture, was head of USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service from 1999-2001 during the Clinton era and helped develop USDA's rules on what can be sold as organic food. As a Senate aide, she worked on the 1990 law that recognized organic farming.

"Sustainable and organic farmers are excited ... that someone who has been associated with these issues her whole career is going to be at that level in the department," said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Hoefner encouraged the Senate to confirm Merrigan for the post.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was confirmed on Jan 20. The deputy agriculture secretary usually oversees day-to-day operations of USDA.

Merrigan, who went to work at Tufts in Boston after serving at USDA, has worked at the Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture and as a consultant for the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization from 1994-99. She worked on the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee from 1987-92. She has a doctoral degree in environmental planning from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The food lobby goes to school

The Food Lobby Goes to School, a video created by The American News Project, gives some insight into the process of deciding standards for the National School Lunch Program. While some may think that the people deciding policy are Registered Dietitians, health professionals, school lunch workers and policy advocates, the fact of the matter is, like with most policy, lobbyists warm the seats. These are the same big names that grace the expo hall at the national and state American Dietetic Association meetings.

To a large degree, it is the Federal Government. Congress and the Department of Agriculture approve what foods can (and can't) be served to over 30 million American school children who get daily meals from the National School Lunch Program. The government gets a ton of pressure from a food and beverage industry frantic to keep kids hooked on a diet of sodas, snacks and hot dogs. The competition for a piece of this $10 billion market is particularly fierce right now because this year the School Lunch Program is being reviewed and revised.

Despite the enormous nutritional and financial stakes at play, ANP was the only media to cover a recent panel set up to discuss the school menu. While nutritionists outnumbered the press, corporate lobbyists outnumbered everyone.

This op-ed in the New York Times by Alice Waters and Katrina Heron, No Lunch Left Behind further discusses the issues and hurdles.

Implicit subsidies to corn sweeteners & obesity

The Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University has released a policy brief: Sweetening the Pot: Implicit Subsidies to Corn Sweeteners and the U.S. Obesity Epidemic.
Alicia Harvie, a Masters candidate in Agriculture, Food, and the Environment at the Friedman
School of Nutrition Science and Policy and a Research Assistant, along with Timothy A. Wise the Director of the Research and Policy Program at the GDEI produced the document.

They explore how much cheaper high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), a critical ingredient in the American diet, was from 1997-2005 due to corn prices below corn’s cost of production and the possible connection to USDA subsidies.

"While this (corn subsidies) may not have reduced soda prices to an extent that would account for rising consumption, there is little doubt U.S. agricultural policies have indirectly subsidized a sector that may be contributing to health problems."

The research was mentioned in Farm Subsidies, Bitter and Sweet, by Grist blogger, Tom Philpott.

Victory is ours?

I am a little in awe of the news coming out of Washington today. Vilsack is turning out to be a dream come true. I first read a few articles on Grist. One called Prepping the Soil by Tom Laskawy in which he says:

There was some curiosity as to what stance U.S. Department of Agriculture chief Tom Vilsack would take in his speech this week before the National Association of Wheat Growers. Surprisingly, he came as the bearer of bad tidings. According to this report:

Vilsack called on farmers to accept the political reality that U.S. farm program direct payments are under fire both at home and abroad and therefore farmers should develop other sources of income. In his remarks to the groups he said he intends to promote a far more diversified income base for the farm sector, saying that windmills and biofuels should definitely be part of the income mix and that organic agriculture will also play an increasing role.

Then, I read a couple other articles on Grist. One by Tom Philpot, called More to Vilsack than Meets the Eye and another by Tom Laskawy called Vilsack sets the table: It's official: Nutrition will play a big role in reform at the USDA. Both articles allude to the change in the air at USDA. Should I be rubbing my eyes? Apparently YES, because then I found this news release from USDA today:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12, 2009 -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today "broke pavement" on the inaugural USDA The People's Garden during a ceremony on the grounds of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) commemorating the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln. The Secretary declared the stretch of pavement permanently closed and returned back to green, and encouraged other Administration officials and the general public to join in to protect the Chesapeake watershed.

"It is essential for the federal government to lead the way in enhancing and conserving our land and water resources," said Vilsack. "President Obama has expressed his commitment to responsible stewardship of our land, water and other natural resources, and one way of restoring the land to its natural condition is what we are doing here today - "breaking pavement" for The People's Garden."

The dedication comes on the 200th anniversary of the birth of the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln founded the Department of Agriculture in 1862 and referred to it as "The People's Department" in his last annual message to Congress.

The commemoration of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial is only the first step in the Department of Agriculture's celebration of President Lincoln's life. During today's ceremony, Secretary Vilsack announced the goal of creating a community garden at each USDA facility worldwide. The USDA community garden project will include a wide variety of garden activities including Embassy window boxes, tree planting, and field office plots. The gardens will be designed to promote "going green" concepts, including landscaping and building design to retain water and reduce runoff; roof gardens for energy efficiency; utilizing native plantings and using sound conservation practices.

The USDA People's Garden announced today will eliminate 1,250 square feet of unnecessary paved surface at the USDA headquarters and return the landscape to grass. The changes signal a removal of impervious surfaces and improvement in water management that is needed throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

The new garden will add 612 square feet of planted space to an existing garden traditionally planted with ornamentals. The garden will showcase conservation practices that all Americans can implement in their own backyards and green spaces. As a component of the garden, pollinator-friendly plantings will not only provide important habitat for bees and butterflies, but can serve as an educational opportunity to help people understand the vital role pollinators play in our food, forage and all agriculture. The garden plot is adjacent to the site of the USDA Farmer's Market.

About 100,000 streams and rivers thread through the Chesapeake's 64,000-square-mile watershed, which is home to almost 17 million people in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, New York and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in North America, with a length of 200 miles and 11,684 miles of tidal shoreline, more than the entire U.S. West Coast. The Chesapeake Bay supports more than 3,600 species of plants, fish and animals.

USDA leads efforts on public and private lands to help reduce the impact of nutrient and sediment pollution on wildlife habitat, forest lands and water quality, as well as supporting community involvement in managing natural resources, urban green space and land stewardship. For more information about USDA, the People's Garden, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and other conservation and agriculture related programs available in local communities, visit a USDA Service Center or go to the USDA Web page at www.usda.gov.

Further research on the USDA website revealed this picture of Vilsack "breaking ground" on the garden.

(USDA Photo 09di1236-028)

I would have to agree that this is ground breaking. Cheers to Vilsack for making a bold statement and taking a stand to the status quo.

Vilsack names top advisors and 48 other appointments

The patiently awaited announcement from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has arrived as he releases his chief of staff, and deputy chief of staff as well as 48 other appointments filling key points at USDA.

Drum roll please!

Chief of Staff is John Norris. According to the press release:

John Norris has been chairman of the Iowa Utilities Board since 2005 and served as Governor Vilsack's first chief of staff in 1999. He served as Senator John Kerry's Iowa Caucus Campaign Manager and as National Field Director for the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. He was the Democratic nominee for Iowa's Third Congressional District in 2002. Norris is a graduate of Simpson College and the University of Iowa Law School. He also served as state director of the Iowa Farm Unity Coalition in the mid-1980's. He is married to Jackie Norris, who serves as Chief of Staff to First Lady Michelle Obama. They have three sons.

Deputy Chief of Staff is Carole Jett.

Carole Jett recently left federal service after 33 years to participate on the Obama Agriculture campaign team in Indiana and served as Co-Lead of the President's Transition Team USDA Agency Review Group. She served as Farm Bill Coordinator for USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) prior to her retirement. Previously, she led the NRCS 2002 Farm Bill implementation effort and served on assignment with the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee.

Sarah Wyant at Agri-pulse has collected a list the 48 other appointees. As far as I can tell, I don't see any of the "sustainable dozen that Food Democracy Now has petitioned for in the last few months. As Jill Richardson points out on La Vida Locavore, many of the positions have "acting" in front of them, meaning they are doing the job until they are official appointed or replaced.

Vilsack's first line of business was repealing the proposed $3 million dollar cut to the Fruit and Vegetable Program, proposed by the previous administration. A nice 'good-bye gift,' I guess. He also has extended the comment period for 2008 Farm Bill Farm Program Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility rulemaking process. Vilsack discussed his priorities in a teleconference call:

"Let's be clear - in no way is this move(extending the comment period) a signal that we will modify the rules for the 2009 crop year," Vilsack said. "Sign up has begun and it's important that clear and consistent rules remain in place so that producers can prepare for the crop year and manage their risk appropriately."

To date, USDA has only received seven comments on the payment limits rule and Vilsack says that by extending the comment period additional farmers and other interested parties will have the opportunity to comment.

"In keeping with President Obama's recent pledge to make government more transparent, inclusive, and collaborative, I would like to pursue an extended comment period so that more farmers and other individuals can participate in this rulemaking process," he said. "I'm particularly interested in suggestions that would help the Department target payments to farmers who really need them and ensure that payments are not being provided to ineligible parties for future crop years."

USDA releases 'naturally raised' marketing claim standard

The USDA Agriculture Marketing Services has issued a voluntary standard for 'naturally raised' livestock and meat marketing claims.

Naturally raised, often used as a marketing tool to attract consumers concerned about animal welfare, has up until now not had a official definition.

The new standard states that livestock used for the production of meat and meat products have:

1. been raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics (except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control)

2. have never been fed animal by-products

The voluntary standard will establish the minimum requirements for those producers who choose to operate a USDA-verified program involving a naturally raised claim. USDA analyzed over 44,000 comments from producers, processors, consumers, and other interested parties in the development of this standard.

Many are concerned that:

a) the standards aren't stringent enough on what it means to 'naturally raise' an animal. Under this ruling, animals raised in CAFO's (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) can still be tagged natural.

b) the new label will undercut the USDA Organic certification and/or farmers pushing to establish sustainable raised meat.

The Consumers Union and Food and Water Watch say the new standards sanction un-natural practices.

"This regulation will allow an animal that has come from a cloned or genetically engineered stock, was physically altered, raised in confinement without ever seeing the light of day or green of pasture, in poor hygiene conditions with a diet laced in pesticides to be labeled as ‘naturally raised.’ This falls significantly short of consumer expectations and only adds to the roster of misleading label claims approved by USDA for so-called natural meat," said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Senior Scientist and Policy Analyst at Consumers Union.

"These last minute rules for the 'naturally-raised' label on meat practically invite agribusiness to greenwash their products and rip off consumers" stated Patty Lovera, assistant director for consumer group Food & Water Watch. "Until these standards are revised, consumers will have to navigate another set of misleading labels at the grocery store."

USDA said it received more that 44,000 comments about the rule, while Consumers Union and FWW generated more than 36,000 signatures stating that the USDA's proposed standards for "naturally raised" were flawed, would only confuse consumers and should be withdrawn.

A national telephone poll conducted by Consumer Reports’ National Research Center released in November 2008 showed American consumers want the “naturally raised” meat claim to mean more than USDA's proposed standard, including that it came from an animal that:

• Had a diet free of chemicals, drugs and animal byproducts (86%)

• Was raised in a natural environment (85%)

• Ate a natural diet (85%)

• Was not cloned or genetically engineered (78%)

• Had access to the outdoors (77%)

• Was treated humanely (76%)

• Was not confined (68%)

GROW GROW VIRAL, Obamivore's Dilemma!

Obamnivore’s Dilemma: Foodies suggest Ritchie as “sustainable” ag secretary
By Paul Schmelzer 12/4/08 1:26 PM

A cast of big-name characters is vouching for Secretary of State Mark Ritchie — only their advocacy has nothing to do with the statewide election recount he’s overseeing. Food and environmental activists from Minnesota’s own Winona LaDuke to Omnivore’s Dilemma author Michael Pollan, Diet for a Small Planet author Francis Moore Lappé, restaurateur/food activist Alice Waters and poet Wendell Berry have signed a letter [pdf] to Barack Obama calling on him to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture who’ll use the job to address the environment, rural economies and human health. Ritchie, who co-founded the Twin Cities-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy prior to his current high-profile gig, is fifth in a six-name list of options for “the sustainable choice for the next U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.”


The 88 signatories — which includes Minnesotans like restaurant owner Lucia Watson, IATP president Jim Harkness and Susan Stokes, head of the Farmers Legal Action Group, among others — write that the secretary’s vision should encompass: “recreating regional food systems, supporting the growth of humane, natural and organic farms, and protecting the environment, biodiversity and the health of our children while implementing policies that place conservation, soil health, animal welfare and worker’s rights as well as sustainable renewable energy near the top of their agenda.”


The six suggested candidates and the letter’s text, after the jump.


1. Gus Schumacher, former Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services and former Massachusetts Commissioner of Agriculture.
2. Chuck Hassebrook, executive director, Center for Rural Affairs, Lyons, Neb.
3. Sarah Vogel, former Commissioner of Agriculture for North Dakota, lawyer, Bismarck, N.D.
4. Fred Kirschenmann, organic farmer, distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Ames, Iowa, and president of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, Pocantico Hills, NY.
5. Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State, former policy analyst in Minnesota’s Department of Agriculture under Governor Rudy Perpich, co-founder of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
6. Neil Hamilton, Dwight D. Opperman Chair of Law and director of the Agricultural Law Center, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.


Read the full letter:


Dear President-Elect Obama,


We congratulate you on your historic victory and welcome the change that your election
promises to usher in for our nation. As leaders in the sustainable agriculture and rural
advocacy community we supported you in record numbers during the caucus, primary
and general election because of the family farm-friendly p olicies that you advocated
during your campaign.


As our nation’s future president, we hope that you will take our concerns under
advisement when nominating our next Secretary of Agriculture because of the crucial
role this Secretary will play in revitalizing our rural economies, protecting our nation’s
food supply and our environment, improving human health and well-being, rescuing the
independent family farmer, and creating a sustainable renewable energy future.


We believe that our nation is at a critical juncture in regard to agriculture and its impact
on the environment and that our next Secretary of Agriculture must have a broad vision
for our collective future that is greater than what past appointments have called for.


Presently, farmers face serious challenges in terms of the high costs of energy, inputs and
land, as well as continually having to fight an economic system and legislative policies
that undermine their ability to compete in the open market. The current system
unnaturally favors economies of scale, consolidation and market concentration and the
allocation of massive subsidies for commodities, all of which benefit the interests of
corporate agribusiness over the livelihoods of farm families.


In addition, America must come to understand the environmental and human health
implications of industrialized agriculture. From rising childhood and adult obesity to
issues of fo od safety, global warming and air and water pollution, we believe our next
Secretary of Agriculture must have a vision that calls for: recreating regional food
systems, supporting the growth of humane, natural and organic farms, and protecting the
environment, biodiversity and the health of our children while implementing policies that
place conservation, soil health, animal welfare and worker’s rights as well as sustainable
renewable energy near the top of their agenda.


Today we have a nutritional and environmental deficit that is as real and as great as that
of our national debt and must be addressed with forward thinking and bold, decisive
action. To deal with this crisis, our next Secretary of Agriculture must work to advance a
new era of sustainability in agriculture, humane husbandry, food and renewable energy
production that revitalizes our nation’s soil, air and water while stimulating opportunities
for new farmers to return to the land.


We believe that a new administration should address our nation’s growing health
problems by promoting a children’s school lunch program that incorporates more healthy
food choices, including the creation of opportunities for schools to purchase food from
local sources that place a high emphasis on nutrition and sustainable farming practices.
We recognize that our children’s health is our nation’s future and that currently schools
are unable to meet these needs because they do not have the financial resources to inve st
in better food choices. We believe this reflects and is in line with your emphasis on
childhood education as a child’s health and nutrition are fundamental to their academic
success.


We understand that this is a tall order, but one that is consistent with the values and
policies that you advocated for in your bid for the White House. We realize that more
conventional candidates are likely under consideration; however, we feel strongly that the
next head of the USDA should have a significant grassroots background in promoting
sustainable agriculture to create a prosperous future for rural America and a healthy
future for all of America’s citizens.


With this in mind, we are offering a list of leaders who have demonstrated a commitment
to the goals that you articulated during your campaign and we encourage you to consider
them for the role of Secretary of Agriculture.


Signatories:


1. David Murphy, Clear Lake, IA
2. Paul Willis, Thornton, IA
3. Michael Pollan, Berkeley, CA
4. Bill Niman, Bolinas, CA
5. Nicolette Hahn Niman, Bolinas, CA
6. Diane Halverson, Northfield, MN
7. Marlene Halverson, Northfield, MN
8. Aaron Woolf, Elizabethtown, NY
9. Judy Wicks, Philadelphia, PA
10. Wendy Wasserman, Iowa City, IA
11. Anna Lappé, Brooklyn, NY
12. Cornelia Butler Flora, Ames, IA
13. Eleanor Bertino, San Francisco, CA
14. Wes Jackson, Salina, KS
15. Wendell Berry, Port Royal, KY
16. Alice Waters, Berkeley, CA
17. Marion Nestle, New York, NY
18. Bill McKibben, Middlebury, VT
19. Rick Dove, New Bern, NC
20. Ann Cooper, Berkeley, CA
21. Michel Nischan, Fairfield, CT
22. Jerry DeWitt, Ames, IA
23. Michael Dimock, San Francisco, CA
24. Jim Harkness, Minneapolis, MN
25. Frank Reese, Lindsborg, KS
26. Jeff Odefey, Irvington, NY
27. Cathy Liss, Alexandria, VA
28. Eric Schlosser, Monterey, CA
29. Leigh Adcock, Ames, IA
30. Dan Barber, Pocantico Hills, NY
31. Francis Thicke, Fairfield, IA
32. Josh Viertel, Brooklyn, NY
33. Peter Hoffman, New York, NY
34. Tom Philpott, Valle Crucis, NC
35. Hillary Wilson, Valle Crucis, NC
36. Dan Imhoff, Healdsburg, CA
37. Michael Stumo, Sheffield, MA
38. Simran Sethi, Lawrence, KS
39. Lisa Stokke, Clear Lake, IA
40. Sarah Willis, Thornton, IA
41. Peter Kaminsky, Brooklyn, NY
42. Kurt Michael Friese, Iowa City, IA
43. Carl Safina, Stony Brook, NY
44. Anthony Garrett, Washington, DC
45. Eliza Maclean, Snow Camp, NC
46. Odessa Piper, Silver Spring, MD
47. Edward Behr, Barnet, VT
48. Phyllis Willis, Thornton, IA
49. Larry Cleverley, Mingo, IA
50. Jesse Ziff Cool, Menlo Park, CA
51. Curt Ellis, Austin, TX
52. Wenonah Hauter, Washington, D C
53. Patty Lovera, Washington, DC
54. John Ikerd, Columbia, MO
55. Lucia Watson, Minneapolis, MN
56. Deborah Madison, Galisteo, NM
57. George DeVault, Decorah, IA
58. Melanie DeVault, Decorah, IA
59. Andrea King Collier, Lansing, MI
60. Rosiland Creasy, Los Altos, CA
61. John Jeavons, Willits, CA
62. Samuel Fromartz, Washington DC
63. Frances Moore Lappe, Cambridge, MA
64. Denise O’Brien, Atlantic, IA
65. Arnell Hinkle, Berkeley, CA
66. Marjie Bender, Pittsboro, NC
67. Winona LaDuke, Ponsford, MN
68. Diane Hatz, New York, NY
69. Cory Schreiber, Portland, OR
70. Rick Bayless, Chicago, IL
71. Angie Tagtow, Elkhart, IA
72. Ralph Paige, East Point, GA
73. Clara Bingham, New York, NY
74. Arie McFarlen, Dell Rapids, SD
75. Bret Kortie, Dell Rapids, SD
76. Dwight Ault, Austin, MN
77. Amy P. Goldman, Rhinebeck, NY
78. Judith LaBelle, New York, NY
79. Patrick Martins, New York, NY
80. Mary Berry Smith, New Castle, KY
81. John Fisk, East Lansing, MI
82. Tim LaSalle, Kutztown, PA
83. Susan Stokes, St. Paul, MN
84. Jude Becker, Dyersville, IA
90.Ashley Colpaart, MA

Flood Tolerant Rice Breakthrough

An article in the Sacramento Bee reveals that a geneticist at UC-Davis is receiving an award for her work developing a flood-tolerant rice. What is most exciting, is that the research, which was funded partly by USDA, did not use genetic engineering. Scientists identified a gene, called Sub1A, that is responsible for flooding tolerance in rice. "Identifying the gene allowed plant breeders to use "precision breeding" to create new rice varieties that could recover after severe flooding and "produce abundant yields of high-quality grain," the release says.

Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology, Julia Bailey-Serres, a UC Riverside genetics professor and David Mackill, of the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, will be given the 2008 U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative Discovery Award Friday at UC Riverside.

Implications

Other than their flood tolerance, the new plants are virtually identical to popular high-yielding varieties.

Flooding in Bangladesh and India reduces rice yields by up to 4 million tons each year, enough to feed 30 million people.

Researchers anticipate the flood-tolerant rice plants will be available to farmers within the next two years.

The plants are not subject to the regulatory testing that can delay release of genetically modified crops because they are the product of precision breeding, not genetic modification, the release states.

Study Background

Ronald led the effort to isolate the gene, and her lab showed that the gene is switched on when rice plants are submerged in water. The project took 13 years to complete.

"To be part of this project as it has moved from my lab in California to rice fields in Asia has been inspiring, and the project underscores the power of science to improve people's lives," Ronald said in a written statement.

The research that led to the gene's isolation was funded by USDA grants to Ronald, Mackill and Bailey-Serres. The breeding work was funded by the USDA and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

All told the USDA allotted nearly $1.45 million to the research project, a UC Riverside news release states.

Country of Orgin Labeling, Oh, How COOL!

Oh, How COOL!
Ashley Colpaart, RD LD
Policy Chair, HEN DPG

Many of you may have noticed yet another “thing” on your food labels. While Country Of Origin Labeling (or COOL if you wanna be cool) was already printed on wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, the 2008 Farm Bill has expanded the list to cover some muscle cuts of meats, ground meats, perishable agriculture commodities, ginseng and nuts. The implementation is the responsibility of the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service and so far, as expected, their job has been far from

The legislation has roots in the 2002 farm bill. On January 27, 2004, Public Law 108-199 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2006. On November 10, 2005, Public Law 109-97 delayed implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until September 30, 2008.

The bill has been framed as effort to provide consumers with information to make informed decision regarding where their food comes from, partially due to the recent attention to local food movements. What they tried to avoid was the ‘elephant in the room’ to all of us, food safety. The reason to avoid food safety? Maybe it is admitting that there is a problem with food safety in this country? Or maybe we don’t want to offend the countries we trade with? Whatever the reason, you are now going to know if you cow was a Canadian or if your tomatoes have been on further vacations then you.

Like most pieces of legislation there are a few exemptions to rule:
Non-PACA licensed stores- (PACA) Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act is a federal law that regulates the produce industry (this could be butcher shops, convenience stores etc)
Food Service Establishments
Certain Processing Productions
- any covered commodity that has undergone processing that results in a change (cooking, curing, smoking, restructuring)
- any covered commodity that has been combined with another food product that is not water salt or sugar (does this mean a rise in peas and carrots? Oh dear!)

And it is these “exemptions” that seem to be causing a lot of ruckus. Say for instance:
Mixed salad versus bagged spinach? Mixed salad wouldn’t be covered, but the spinach would require labeling. How about a fruit cup that contains melons and strawberries? Nope, does not require a COOL label.

Dried fruit is not subject to COOL labeling requirements since the drying process changes the character of the fruit. Mushrooms, if fresh, are covered. Dried mushrooms are not covered. Packages of different colored sweet peppers (green, yellow and/or red) different colored sweet peppers combined in a package will require country of origin notification because there is one U.S. Grade Standard for sweet peppers, regardless of the color.

And if you think the produce industry is confused on how to implement, the coolness continues for the meat industry responsible for muscle cuts beef, veal, pork, lamb and chicken and the ground counterparts.
a) Product of the U.S.—meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the United States or from animals present in the United States on or prior to July 15, 2008. b) Product of the U.S., Country X—meat from animals born in Country X and raised and slaughtered in the .
c)Meat from these animals were not exclusively born, raised, and slaughtered in the United Statesor imported for immediate slaughter.—meat from animals imported into the for immediate slaughter.
d) Product of Country X—foreign meat imported into the United States

Attempt at implementation has been revealing how meat is carried through the supply chain. From birth, to stockyard, to feedlot, to slaughter, animals can have quite a stamped passport and these complexities of the livestock industry may have some product labels listing multiple countries. That's especially true of ground beef, because some meat processors combine cuts from a number of countries to make ground meat and hamburger patties.

Meat packers and large agribusinesses initially opposed the rule because they want continued access to imported (often cheaper) meat, without facing a penalty in the marketplace from consumers who may think American meat is safer. They also argued that the label is unnecessary, too expensive and would be a record keeping nightmare (in this case, "they" was Tyson vice president testifying against COOL at USDA education session)

Proponents for the bill consider COOL a feather in their cap. They believe the greatest advantage is knowing exactly where your food comes from. They argue that COOL gives consumers the ability: to support more local economies, to choose fresher food, and could ultimately prevent food safety problems associated with imported foods.

Some caveats, because what would policy be without them?

1. There is a loophole: Food further processed in foreign countries, may still receive US determination i.e. baby carrots

2. Commingled commodities: goods from mixed countries require all countries to be identified i.e. a mixed bin of tomatoes

Whether you are for or against Country Of Origin Labeling, what this bill teaches us is that these laws are never cut and dry. Once the rule making and regulation begins, what sounded like a great idea, can sometime turn into something that is not-so-COOL.

Merrigan for Undersecretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Tuft's very Kathleen Merrigan's name has been popping around the bloggersphere for a possible position as Undersecretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs. As a student in two of Merrigan's classes, I can attest that she is a strong choice for anyone looking for "hope" for the American food system. Kathleen's admirable work in developing the USDA Organics standards, oversight in the Agricultural Marketing Service and breadth in the inner-workings of Washington's political climate all position her as a quality candidate. Of course, her student's would find the news bitter/sweet, I think they would all agree that her place in Washington is well needed.

You can read a bit more on Merrigan at Chewise.

foodies loose their focus?

While I honor and respect idealism more than the next guy (it is encapsulated in my blog title after all), I am disgruntled to see this post on the Comfood listserv this morning:

I have just begun and am soliciting help in my quest. I would love it if you could assist me in getting the word out.Direct link to petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/MPoll4Ag/petition.html

And my blog (petition can be signed directly from blog): http://pollan4ag.blogspot.com/

I would first like to thank Blane Friest and welcome him to the movement and the 493 signers of the petition for thinking big and having passion. While this is an exciting time in the US to push for change, we (the food movement) have to be strategic and realistic about our agenda. A good friend once told me, "passion without focus is futile" and it indeed is. Not understanding the history of US Agriculture, not understanding the status quo and not understanding politics may be our biggest downfall. While we all want to move mountains, my friend, mentor, and farmer Mary Jo Forbord would ask “do you think it doesn’t make any difference to move a glacier an inch?” I had to admit, that’s a pretty powerful movement. It has helped me through discouragement time and time again. Progress can be slow, but you never know when a breakthrough will occur. "Mice make elephants dance"

"The solutions are in the connections."

The idea for Michael Pollan for Secretary of Agriculture is far fetched. Lord knows he won't want to take the salary cut. But what can we do? I think that the great Debra Eschmeyer said it best:
It has been quite public who the main candidates are:

Rounding out the list of prospective nominees are Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, National Farmers Union President Tom Buis, House Agriculture Chairman Collin C. Peterson, D-Minn., Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, North Dakota Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson and and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. (House 1979-87; Senate 1987-2005).

Why not use this opportunity instead to educate the new Administration-elect on what our priorities are for a good, fair, and safe food system?

Let's not talk about individuals, let's talk priorities through policies and action. Here are some very quick examples:

Child Nutrition Reauthorization--Every four or five years (coming up in 2009), there is an opportunity for all of those concerned with the health of our nation’s children to evaluate, defend, and improve the federal Child Nutrition Programs. Nourishing kids and community is the promise of farm to school. With the authorization of the National Farm to School Program in 2004, and the tremendous growth and interest in farm to school programs, the time is ripe to support that promise and voice ideas that include locally and regionally grown foods in national meal programs. Learn more: http://www.farmtoschool.org/policies.php.

Other Campaigns underway:Eat the View: "Eat the View" is a campaign to urge President-elect Obama to replant a large organic victory garden on the First Lawn with the produce going to the White House kitchen and to local food pantries."Eat the View" is coordinated by Kitchen Gardeners International, a Maine-based 501c3 nonprofit network of 10,000 gardeners from 100 countries who are inspiring and teaching more people to grow some of their own food.

White House Organic Garden: TheWhoFarm (aka The White House Organic Farm Project) is a non-partisan, petition-based initiative to respectfully request that our 44th President oversee the planting of an organic farm on the grounds of The White House, our nation’s First Home, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC.

Food Declaration: The Declaration is meant to provide 1) A clear statement of what kind of policy is needed now, endorsed by a broad base of organizations and individuals with a long-established commitment to a healthier food and agriculture.; 2) An invitation to all Americans to join in the improvement effort by taking action in their own lives and communities and by offering them a way to call on policymakers to support comprehensive change. 3) A set of principles from which policy makers can craft policy that will lead to a healthier system.

This topic is also covered by Steph Larson at Ethicurean.

And now for something completely different:

Obama's Secretary of Agriculture

The one appointment that "foodies," "locavores," policy makers, farmers, food companies and manufactures and any other group interested in food, have their sites on is the Secretary of Agriculture. It can make or break the movement towards sustainability and set the agenda on a "status quo" route or a "change" route.

There is much speculation in the bloggersphere on this appointment, but it is hard to say how serious any of the names being kicked around are. This is a cross post from the Organic Consumers Union about the dangers of Govern Vilsack of Iowa:

• Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head is a Terrible Idea
  OCA, November 12, 2008
  
  

Nov. 12, 2008

* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=200...

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

USDA expands its Recall of Beef

Food safety is becoming a national crisis. I think the strong media attention to these issue only reinforces the necessity for people to take on the role of knowing where their food comes from. Relying on government just doesn't cut it. It is just like the tomatoes. How many pounds if tomatoes were tossed because of that saga? Now BEEF being flushed down the drain...contaminating our water a second time. This country has got to curb its beef addiction and fast. Especially when 7 pounds of grain produces 1 pound of beef. Good grief.

Wall Street Journal
USDA Expands Its Recall of Beef
Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. -- The Agriculture Department expanded a beef recall after USDA investigators determined that Nebraska Beef Ltd.'s practices on June 24 couldn't have effectively controlled E. coli bacteria.

USDA investigators decided that 160,000 pounds of meat should be added to the Aug. 8 recall after examining the June 24 records for the Omaha plant. Most of the meat produced that day was included in the recall announcement, but the company omitted some meat produced later in the day after it switched to a different product. About 1.36 million pounds of beef is now included in the recall

USDA Child Nutrition and WIC 2009 reuthorization

USDA held a listening session in Austin, Texas at the beautiful LBJ Wildflower Center. I was speaker #28.

Some highlights:
A lady pointed out the use of the euphemism--food insecure--as opposed to hunger or hungry. This is a point I made when they made the change. It acts to mask the issue of hunger in the United States and makes the society less aware of the widespread problem.

A man from Borden milk tauted their efforts to switch their milk cartons to plastic instead of paperboard. Well that's environmentally friendly! Apparently customers are buying less of the plastic jugs due to high prices. Duh...plastic is made out of petroleum. He also asked USDA to allow the use of artificial sweeteners in their flavored milks so they can stay below the sugar standards. Yuck! He complained about the decrease in milk consumption as kids get older. Yeah...I think you should stop drinking milk around, uh 2...2 1/2. Mothers milk that is; Cows milk is for cows.

My presentation was simple. I talked about the importance of strengthening the WIC Farmers Market voucher program.

On Childhood Nutrition I spoke of competitive foods and how they should be taken out of the schools once and for all. Competitive foods are just that, COMPETING with the healthy foods. I told them that I realized I don't have the amount clout or lobbying power as the beverage or snack industries to make a difference, but that it's about time we had an overhaul and a different approach.I described the nutrient-based criteria as being a slippery slope for companies to formulate products that slip under the cut points. Key word being FORMULATE....in a lab. The problem is the foods people are eating....adding more "soluble fiber" "vitamin C" and "calcium" to a snickers is all well and great, but you're still eating a SNICKERS.

I also quoted some research out this month from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Key Findings:

Vending machines were present in elementary (17%), middle (82%) and high schools (97%).

Food items sold separately (a la carte) were found in 71 percent of elementary schools, 92 percent of middle schools and 93 percent of high schools. Of these schools, almost 80 percent provided unhealthy food items in their a la carte options.

The food environment summary score was higher (healthier) in lower grade levels.

The food environment score was not significantly associated with the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch or the percentage of students who belong to a racial/ethnic minority.

I then asked:
What we can learn from foreign countries nutrition policies?-

Britain will ban junk food from school meals and in-school vending machines beginning in September. (Is it possible that we do the same? GASP?!)

In France Many schools already employ their own nutritionist(Registered Dietitian), who works with a parents' committee to ensure lunches provide a healthy, balanced diet.

Much more is spent per meal than in Britain, with a French school lunch costing anything from £1.50 to £4 a head, depending on region. Poorer parents pay only a portion of the total.

And there's no pandering to children's love of pizzas, burgers or chips; these are adult menus served in child-size portions, as the French believe good eating habits start early.

I finished with this from Alice Waters, Today’s American children, “are bombarded with a pop culture which teaches redemption through buying things.” But schoolyard gardens, like the one she helped create at the middle school a few blocks from her home in Berkeley, “turn pop culture upside-down: they teach redemption through a deep appreciation for the real, the authentic, and the lasting—for the things that money can’t buy: the very things that matter most of all if we are going to lead sane, healthy, and sustainable lives. Kids who learn environmental and nutritional lessons through school gardening—and school cooking and eating—learn ethics.”

E. Coli and Ground Beef Recall, Again

Maybe the importance of food saftey is gaining ground. Once again, the USDA has announced a recall by Kroger, an Ohio based retailer, on their ground beef due to E. Coli.
From USDA:
"The products subject to recall include all varieties and weights of ground beef products bearing a Kroger label sold between May 21 and June 8 at Michigan and Columbus and Toledo, Ohio Kroger retail establishments. These ground beef products also include a sell-by date between "05/21/08" and "06/08/08."

32 are already sick. And its a Class I recall:
USDA Recall Classifications

Class I This is a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.
Class II This is a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.
Class III This is a situation where the use of the product will not cause adverse health consequences


Beef...it's not what's for dinner...at least in Ohio and Michigan.