Gourmet Magzine focuses on Politics: NY Senator Gillibrand joins Committee on Agriculture

The Senate Committee on Agriculture is responsible for U.S. farm policy as we know it—but Kirsten Gillibrand, the committee’s newest member, may help push it in a better direction.
by Sam Hurst

"Gillibrand comes from a family of hunters. Her mother is an avid gardener. One of the first bills she introduced in the New York House after being elected Representative from the Hudson Valley was a proposal to save small-scale dairies. The state’s dairy industry will remain one of her top priorities in the Senate. But these personal interests hardly command a seat on the Committee. What makes Gillibrand different is that she may see agriculture in a way traditional Farm Bloc politicians scoff at. She now represents not just upstate farmers, but one of the world’s largest, most food-savvy and economically influential urban markets.

"Gillibrand’s staff suggests that she will assert herself in areas such as organic marketing, farmers markets, “buy local” networks, and even state and local efforts to keep small farms and rural landscapes from being subdivided and developed. If Gillibrand turns out to be a bridge between farmers and direct markets, her influence could be far greater than expected from a junior senator representing a state that in the past has barely paid attention to farm policy."

Read the full article in the prior post.
http://berkshiregrown.blogspot.com/2009/02/politics-from-gourmet-magazine-nys.html

Politics from Gourmet Magazine: NY's Senator Gillibrand joins Committee on Agriculture

From Gourmet Magazine, by Sam Hurst:

The Senate Committee on Agriculture is responsible for U.S. farm policy as we know it—but Kirsten Gillibrand, the committee’s newest member, may help push it in a better direction.

"Over the years, Iowa has placed 13 different senators on the Committee, and lest anyone forget the importance of agriculture in the hawkeye state, both current senators, Tom Harkin (D) and Charles Grassley (R) sit on the Committee today. The same is true for Nebraska; both Ben Nelson (D) and Mike Johanns (R) have taken seats. Scan a Committee roster and the obvious states jump out—Kansas, Montana, Mississippi, Alabama, Minnesota, Vermont. It is hard for senators from large, urban states to make room for agriculture, though. California has the largest agriculture economy in the country, but neither Barbara Boxer nor Diane Feinstein sit on the “Ag” Committee.

"In the 184-year history of the Committee, New York has seated only three members, and none since Charles Goodell, 38 years ago. The Empire State made its identity clear from the beginning: trade, finance, foreign affairs. It is hard to imagine Charles Schumer (Finance, Banking, Judiciary) or Hillary Clinton (Budget, Armed Services, Environment and Public Works) in the world of agriculture, so it came as a surprise that only days after her selection to replace Hillary Clinton as Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand chose to take a position on the Committee.

"Gillibrand comes from a family of hunters. Her mother is an avid gardener. One of the first bills she introduced in the New York House after being elected Representative from the Hudson Valley was a proposal to save small-scale dairies. The state’s dairy industry will remain one of her top priorities in the Senate. But these personal interests hardly command a seat on the Committee. What makes Gillibrand different is that she may see agriculture in a way traditional Farm Bloc politicians scoff at. She now represents not just upstate farmers, but one of the world’s largest, most food-savvy and economically influential urban markets.

"Gillibrand’s staff suggests that she will assert herself in areas such as organic marketing, farmers markets, “buy local” networks, and even state and local efforts to keep small farms and rural landscapes from being subdivided and developed. If Gillibrand turns out to be a bridge between farmers and direct markets, her influence could be far greater than expected from a junior senator representing a state that in the past has barely paid attention to farm policy."

Tom Vilsack, The New Face Of Agriculture

Wednesday, February 11, 2009; F01 Washington Post

Sustainable-food and farming activists in Washington have long felt they were on the outside looking in. New Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack says he wants to change that. In an interview with staff writer Jane Black, the former Iowa governor, 58, talked about his personal struggles with food and about his vision of how to transform the department -- maybe even rename it -- to serve a broader range of interests. Edited excerpts follow:

Some in the sustainable-food community have worried that you are too closely identified with ethanol and agribusiness. Is that fair?

First, I would ask for the opportunity for people to get to know me and judge me by the actions I take in this office. I'm not sure the full nature of the record was understood.

What don't people know about you that might change their minds?

Food during my early years was a very difficult issue for me. I grew up in an addictive family. My mother had serious problems with alcohol and prescription drugs. I was an overweight kid. I can remember back in those days there weren't the strategies that there are today to deal with those issues. So my parents put this very nasty cartoon of a very overweight young kid with a beanie cap and pasted it on the front of the refrigerator. So every time I opened the refrigerator I had to look at that picture.

Food is a fairly significant aspect of my life. I have struggled mightily with food. With my weight. And I'm conscious of it. So I have a sensitivity to people who struggle with their weight. That's one aspect people don't fully appreciate. I don't want youngsters to go through what I went through.

There are ways we can go do a better job of educating young moms and dads about the vital role they have as the child's first teacher. I think there are ways in which we can partner with local school districts and states to do a better job to provide nutrition options at school. It's our responsibility to get this health-care crisis under control. I think if people understand that history and how serious I am about this and look at the record in Iowa -- the real record in Iowa -- they would be less concerned than they were.

What specific ideas do you have about how to move forward to improve nutrition in school lunches?

Part of my responsibility is to find people who share my concern and have more expertise than I do. People we nominate will be people who understand this issue and have the desire to effect change. The specifics of how we can do this will come from the experts. My job is to listen to the president, who is the ultimate vision maker, articulate his vision to the people who work in this department and add my two cents' worth. The vision is, he wants more nutritious food in schools.

Will local foods play a part?

In a perfect world, everything that was sold, everything that was purchased and consumed would be local, so the economy would receive the benefit of that. But sometimes that stresses the capacity: the production capacity or the distribution capacity. Especially since we don't have yet a very sophisticated distribution system for locally grown food. One thing we can do is work on strategies to make that happen. It can be grant programs, loan programs, it can be technical assistance.

Whom do you see as your constituency?

This is a department that intersects the lives of Americans two to three times a day. Every single American. The department has a global influence in terms of food, in terms of consumers and in terms of some of the moral challenges that a wealthy nation faces in the face of hunger. So I absolutely see the constituency of this department as broader than those who produce our food. It extends to those who consume it.

I know you are aware of the lists of progressive candidates for undersecretary that are circulating. How will you bring new voices into the debate?

As we set up advisory boards and committees, we'll have a better representation of people involved in food and agriculture. I think it's not so much the names on the list as a recognition of the vision: a sufficient, safe, nutritious food supply produced in a sustainable and environmentally supportive way. There's a recognition of the importance of that.

Is it true that you are thinking of changing the name of the department to include a reference to food?

We haven't got to that point. Rather than renaming it, as important as some people may feel that would be, I think [we need] a recognition that this was America's first energy department. If you think of what food is, it's the energy we use to do our daily work. I want people to know about the USDA. This is a very important department. It's not fully appreciated as such.

It's hard to convince people of that sometimes.

You tell them there's a new day here. You tell them every time they pick up a fork, every time they pick up a spoon, every time they slice a piece of bread, remember America's first energy department.

Tom Vilsack - Chosen for Secretary of Agriculture

Read more about Governor Tom Vilsack -- Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture:

A controversy has heated up on the web:

The Organic Consumers Association is trying to stop the appointment, here is an excerpt and a website for more information:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/vilsack.cfm

"While Vilsack has promoted respectable policies with respect to restraining livestock monopolies, his overall record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) or factory farms and promoting genetically engineered crops and animal cloning. Equally troubling is Vilsack's support for unsustainable industrial ethanol production, which has already caused global corn and grain prices to skyrocket, literally taking food off the table for a billion people in the developing world."

A group who support Vilsack's appointment have created this website:
http://www.supportvilsack.com/

Supporters include: Denise O'Brien, the organic farmer who ran for secretary of agriculture of Iowa; Walter Robb, co-president of Whole Foods; Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation; Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States; and many others.

Here is an excerpt from what Gary Hirshberg, founder and CEO of Stonyfield Farms writes:

"I need to be very clear that I am neither blindly nor universally supportive of all of Governor Vilsack’s positions. Indeed, as he is very well aware, I disagree with a number of his past decisions. But even on the issues about which we disagree, I have found Tom to be an open-minded, excellent listener who is genuinely interested in opposing views, and who is actually able to change his views based on new findings. My support for his candidacy as Ag Secretary derives less from his specific views and historic voting record and more from his overall character, outlook, judgment and capacity to hear all sides of an issue and then make reasoned and sound decisions.

"With that said, I will add that I do agree with most of Tom’s judgments, and believe that we could not find a better leader for an agency that is in desperate need of a deep renovation and a long-term vision that truly embraces sustainable solutions. In a nutshell, Tom Vilsack gets it.

"He deeply understands issues of sustainability, of climate change and of the toxification of our nation’s air, water and soils that have resulted from short-term, short-sighted thinking. He has taken principled and visionary positions on biofuels and courageous stands in a corn state that corn is NOT the long-term answer. He deeply understands the critical role that family farmers must play in a resource-stressed planet and believes in the need for new, out-of the-box thinking and solutions that will not just slow the deterioration of our nation’s farms, soils, ecosystems and biodiversity but will actually begin the process of restoring these broken systems. He respects ecology.

"Tom believes in technologic innovation but is not blind to the threats and problems posed by, for instance, biotechnology. Just as he has been among the nation’s truly visionary politicians with wind power, he also sees the promise of the organic foods industry and will be the best organics champion we’ve ever had in that role.

"Tom will also be a leader in an area that gets too little attention – the nutritional quality of our nation’s foods, especially the foods we serve to those in need."

Farm Bill Update from Tom Philpott--grist.org

Congress (almost) passes a farm bill; Bush vows to veto
How should sustainable-food advocates respond to the latest farm bill proposal?
Posted by Tom Philpott at 4:59 PM on 08 May 2008


For months now, the 2007 farm bill has been in limbo, tied up in reconciliation negotiations between the House and the Senate.

On Thursday, the bicameral Farm Bill Conference Report agreed on a final proposal. The latest version will go to the larger House and Senate next week for approval; if all goes well, it will finally go to President Bush's desk.

But since this wouldn't be the 2007 farm bill without a final dose of drama, negotiations seem far from over. "The President will veto this bill," USDA chair Ed Schafer bluntly declared in a Thursday afternoon communique.

The sticking point is subsidy reform, or lack thereof. "This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government," Schafer stated.

Many sustainable-ag and rural advocates would cheer a Bush veto. On the Center for Rural Affairs blog, Dan Owens recently laid out their case:

We will have the opportunity to fight again, and ... I have real hope that we can do better, that we can win more, that we can get a farm bill that is better than the one about to pass Congress. And we can try again in 2009. But if the bill becomes law, we will have to wait until 2013.

Others, however, disagree. They argue that the bill contains valuable provisions that need to be passed -- small victories that will be surrendered if farm policy reverts to the 2002 farm bill.

Below I'll try to sketch out what this latest version contains. I'll also be trying to get movers and shakers in the sustainable-ag/food-justice world to give their perspectives.

The most controversial bit in this farm bill is the commodity title -- the program through which the government ostensibly tries to smooth out the financial uncertainty of farming. The title has evolved over the years into a funnel that delivers the great bulk of the title's cash to the largest farms, doing little to balance out swings in supply and demand.

Bush wants to cut the subsidies because they have become a sticking point in global trade deals, and presumably because of Iraq-related budgetary concerns. Most sustainable-ag advocates would like to see them replaced with more equitable and effective ways of smoothing out supply and demand troubles -- ones that benefit farmers and consumers, not the few agro-industrial corporations that dominate our food system.

This Associated Press piece digs into the details of the current commodity title, and how the limits it places on subsidies fall short of what critics including the Bush administration had wanted. In an emailed communique (Word doc), the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition summarized the title like this:

Comprehensive payment limitation reform was not included in the bill. ... the net result is no change in the highly skewed status quo on payment limits for direct and counter-cyclical payments.

The latest version also includes a controversial "permanent assistance fund" worth $3.8 billion. A couple of months ago on Gristmill, Britt Lundgren and Jason Funk of Environmental Defense Fund called this provision a "a disaster for taxpayers, most farmers, and the environment." They say it encourages farmers to cultivate disaster-prone land. Bush, too, has sharply criticized this provision.

If the commodity title and the disaster fund are considered a disappointment, other provisions -- ones that, unhappily, involve far less money -- have drawn support.

The Community Food Security Coalition reported in a Thursday email that the new version contains funding for Community Food Projects -- vitally important programs designed to bring fresh, healthy food to places that now have little access. Writes acting policy director Steph Larsen:

The great news is that Community Food Projects (CFP) is in the final language, and we have $5 million in annual mandatory funding for the next 10 years! As you may recall, this year we started out with no money due to new congressional budget rules that cuts the funding for small programs. New language for CFP should fix this problem so that for the next Farm Bill, CFP will be able to build on the $5 million instead of starting from scratch with zero dollars. And with mandatory funding, we will not have to fight for these dollars every year.

Larsen added the bill also allows public schools to favor local farms in bids for school food. "This change will eliminate [a major] barrier for schools to support local agriculture and will make Farm to School programs easier to establish."

(Before anyone gets too excited, the bill does not add any funding to the miserly National School Lunch Program budget. Now schools can theoretically buy local; but they still have $.70-$1.00 to spend per day on ingredients for each kid's lunch.)

The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition also points to several victories, especially with regard to the Conservation Title. This title tries to balance the produce-as-much-as-possible thrust of the Commodity Title by giving farmers incentives to manage their land in ecologically sound ways.

The SAC declared the Conservation Title in the current version an overall "win," since it delivers "$4 billion net increase in mandatory spending, combined with $2.5 billion in savings from Conservation Reserve Program, for total new funding of $6.5 billion, and a continued rebalancing toward working lands conservation."

SAC also points to several "wins" in boosting funding for organic agriculture, including a "nearly five-fold increase to help cover the costs of organic certification," and a "a seven-fold increase" in funding for organic farming research and extension." It should be noted, though, these outlays amount to sums in the tens of millions over five years, while the cash devoted to industrial-scale farming runs to billions every year.

As for my beloved "packer ban," which would have forbidden meat packers like Tyson and Smithfield from owning livestock -- well, that didn't survive negotiations.

So, should the sustainable-ag community support a presidential veto -- or fight for a Congressional override?