On Vilsack

Jennifer asks what I think of Obama’s pick of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture. Doesn’t she know that the question of who gives the invocation at the inauguration is much more pressing than our country’s food system? Sheesh!

I only know what I’ve read, and the general impression I get is that Vilsack is likely to be a mixed bag. Some folks, including Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society and Gene Bauer, have pointed to Vilsack’s relatively good record on animal welfare and his stands on global warming and energy independence. However, people in the sustainable agriculture community seem less pleased, highlighting his support for agribusiness and ethanol subsidies.

I think Nicholas Kristof and others are right: we’re dealing here with a structural problem. The USDA as it now stands exists largely to further the interests of industrial farming and only secondarily to look out for the health and well-being of American eaters, much less the welfare of animals. For instance, in his book Meat Market, Erik Marcus points out that the USDA’s support of big ag is inherently at odds with its responsibilities for ensuring the welfare of farmed animals, administering the school lunch program, and dispensing nutritional advice. He suggests moving these responsibilities to other agencies.

Based on what we know, it seems unlikely that Vilsack is the guy to push for that kind of structural overhaul, but if the President made it a priority, it would be change we can believe in. Tom Philpott is skeptical, pointing out that Obama’s views here are less than ideal, but there are other indications that the president-elect has given some serious thought to a reformed food system.