Civil Eats

This week’s selection of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture lit up sustainable food systems listservs like a switchboard. Vilsack’s nomination is not without controversy. He has been criticized for his ties to agribusiness and his support of biofuels and biotechnology. To many, Vilsack represents “agribusiness as usual.”  But Vilsack also has a reputation for being a good listener and being able to work successfully with those who hold differing viewpoints. Those are reasons to be hopeful. Read More

Today President-elect Obama announced that former Iowa governer Tom Vilsack, who has a history of dealings in favor of agri-business, will be his Secretary of Agriculture.  This is a disappointment for many grassroots organizers and food policy activists, who had hope that the President-elect and his team would take a leaf from the petition, signed by over 55,000 individuals, which suggested sustainable and qualified choices for the position and represented a true change for the way the government views food production in our nation.  It is clear that while our new president will bring much needed change to how we do business in other realms in Washington, that food has not yet become a part of that equation. Read More

Yesterday evening, while we were all polishing off the leftovers of our Thanksgiving feasts, Bill Moyers Journal featured Michael Pollan speaking about the changes he proposed for our food system in his article Farmer-in-Chief, from the New York Times Magazine.  The article has developed a life of its own, and a following of individuals who have proposed Pollan be selected as the next Secretary of Agriculture.  But Pollan states that he has “an understanding of [his] strengths and limitations,” and that being a part of a government system so beholden to corporate agribusiness would make it very hard for any independent-minded person to get things done.  What he proposes instead, is the appointment of a White House food policy czar (another job he would not like to be selected for), who would connect the dots between the health crisis, hurtles to energy independence, failing education and immigration policies, and global warming, which all have roots in the food system currently in place.  His argument for this position was that there is “a war going on between the public health goals of the government and the agricultural policies. And only someone in the White House can force that realignment of those goals.” Read More