'Yes We Can' Create a Sane Food Policy in the US | CommonDreams.org

[Guest guest]

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/06-2

 

Published on Saturday, December 6, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

<http://www.commondreams.org>

 

 

'Yes We Can' Create a Sane Food Policy in the US

 

by Bruce Friedrich

 

Two extensive reports released in April indicate that our current method

of devising food policy is broken and that the current system is doing

tremendous harm in many areas, including those that are of particular

interest to President-elect Obama: human health, the environment, and

global poverty.

 

The first of these reports, " _Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm

Animal Production in America_ <http://www.ncifap.org/>, " was produced by

the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, a major project

of the Pew Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health. The Commission comprised 15 members, including ranchers and

health-focused professors (e.g., Marion Nestle) as well as a former

governor of Kansas (John Carlin), a former secretary of agriculture (Dan

Glickman), a former assistant surgeon general/chief of staff to the

surgeon general, and the president of the Western Montana Stockgrowers

Association. After more than two years of research, which included heavy

lobbying by the meat industries, the Commission released its report

explicitly comparing the state of agriculture today to the " military

industrial complex " feared by Dwight Eisenhower. Upon investigation, the

Commission found what it calls an " agro-industrial complex—an alliance

of agricultural commodity groups, scientists at academic institutions

who are paid by the industry, and their friends on Capitol Hill. "

 

One of the truisms of Washington politics is that agribusiness won't

allow a sane food policy in the U.S. This sad fact is just as true of

Democratic as of Republican administrations, as _detailed by

investigative journalist Eric Schlosser_

<http://www.goveg.com/government_madcow.asp> and _the Center for Public

Integrity_ <http://www.goveg.com/government.asp> (CPI). Both wrote their

strongest exposés about the issue during the Clinton administration. And

although I'm currently discussing the executive branch, the problem

infects Congress as well-whether under Democratic or Republican control

(as documented by the Pew Commission, Schlosser, and the CPI).

 

The results of the farmed-animal industry's self-governance have been

disastrous. As the Commission explains, " Our diminishing land capacity

for producing food animals, combined with dwindling freshwater supplies,

escalating energy costs, nutrient overloading of soil, and increased

antibiotic resistance,* will result in a crisis unless new laws and

regulations go into effect in a timely fashion. ... This process must

begin immediately and be fully implemented within 10 years* " [*/emphasis

added/*]. In its executive summary, the Commission writes,

" Commissioners have determined that the negative effects of the [factory

animal farming] system are too great and the scientific evidence is too

strong to ignore. Significant changes must be implemented and must start

now. "

 

A similar report ( " _CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal

Feeding Operations_

<http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/assets/documents/food_and_environment/CAFOs-Uncovered\

-executive-summary.pdf> " )

by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) was also released in April,

reaching similar conclusions and making similar recommendations.

 

In addition to the other issues, the UCS report details the tens of

billions of dollars the meat industry receives in taxpayer subsidies

every year. Remarkably, factory farms are so economically inefficient

that _factory farm representatives claim_

<http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-ap-farm-scene-cow-tax,0,2060635.stor\

y>

the entire meat industry would cease to exist if forced to pay even a

tiny fraction back in the form of meaningful clean-air legislation.

 

Sadly, but not surprisingly, not one of either reports' recommendations

was included in either the House or Senate versions of the Farm Bill—or

even meaningfully discussed.

 

In January—another Obama first—we will have a president who has shown a

keen interest in the problem: The Obamas famously shop at Whole Foods

and eat organic vegetables—so the president-elect has his personal house

in order. Impressively, he also understands and cares about the broader

implications of our food policy.

 

On August 1, at a forum in St. Petersburg, Florida, Obama discussed

(_watch video_

<http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7iiew_barack-obama-responds-to-vegan-ques_new\

s>)

the fact that funneling grains through animals is inefficient, which is

contributing to food shortages and even food riots in the developing

world. At home, he pointed out that agribusiness subsidies are vastly

inefficient, that they neglect the healthiest foods, and that American

health would benefit from a change in diet. He declared that we need " to

reexamine our overall food policy .... "

 

The issue was still on his mind _when he spoke with Joe Klein_

<http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/10/23/the_full_obama_interview/>

from/ Time/ magazine in October, when he brought up Michael Pollan's

recent/ New York Times Magazine/ letter to the " farmer in chief. " Obama

discussed food policy like a pro, arguing that the U.S. needs—but

doesn't have—a comprehensive policy approach. Obama explained that our

lack of a sane and coherent food policy poses significant environmental,

health, and national security problems.

 

Of course, understanding the problem and fixing it are two very

different things.

 

First, Obama must pick a secretary of agriculture who does not have ties

to agribusiness and who has not spent her or his career defending the

status quo. Three names that are being discussed in the media—Charlie

Stenholm, Colin Peterson, and John Salazar—would be horrible choices, as

these men have supported the status quo consistently and would be very

unlikely to support even the most modest of reforms. Even on

noncontroversial animal welfare measures, they have gone against the

will of the American people to support the worst policies

imaginable—including horse slaughter and the sport-hunting of polar

bears—even when the vast majority of Congress, including Sen. Obama,

were going the other way.

 

Second, PETA is recommending the creation of a National Food Policy

Council (NFPC) to coordinate food policy, which is currently far too

disparate to be efficient or wise. We have the National Economic

Council, now run by Larry Summers, that looks at interagency economic

policy, with a focus on efficiency and sound policy. And we expect that

Obama will follow the advice of John Podesta, who recommends a

cabinet-level " Department of International Development " in his superb

book,/ The Power of Progress/. Similarly, we desperately need a

food-policy council, which could include Rep. _Rosa DeLauro's proposal_

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/03/AR2008120303378\

_pf.html>

for a food-safety agency but with a broader mission.

 

One specific policy initiative that the new NFPC should address is the

placement of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in the USDA. The

current situation represents a conflict of interest that is harming the

health of our nation's young people. Because the USDA exists to promote

U.S. agriculture—not to improve human health—the NSLP has become a

dumping ground for the meat and dairy industries at the expense of

children's health.

 

A similar issue exists regarding poverty alleviation. Currently, the

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program provides women with up to 28

quarts of milk or 4 pounds of cheese per month, both of which are high

in saturated fat and cholesterol. However, the program skimps on

vegetables, allowing a monthly total of only 2 pounds of carrots (for

breast-feeding women only) and 1 pound of beans—no other whole

vegetables or fruits are allowed. The WIC program should be administered

by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the USDA, for the

same reasons that there should be a shift for the NSLP.

 

The president-elect has committed to implementing sweeping changes that

will improve the nation's health, protect the global environment, and

address the problems of domestic and global poverty. He should start by

appointing an independent-minded secretary of agriculture who shares his

concern for our nation's youth, our national health, global development,

the environment, and animals, and he should create a National Food

Policy Council and appoint a food-policy " czar " to oversee and

coordinate a comprehensive and forward-thinking policy.

 

Bruce Friedrich is vice president of policy and government affairs for

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals <http://www.peta.org/>. He

has been a progressive activist for more than 20 years.