Before Michael Pollan, and King Corn, the current Deputy Secretary was full of criticism for agriculture as we know it
When the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing to consider the nomination of Kathleen Merrigan to be Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, we heard most of the niceties you would expect for someone who used to be a staff member there. Her former boss, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), offered glowing words of praise, as did most other committee members. Only Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) seemed to probe a little deeper into her past support for organic agriculture, asking whether or not she could be able to represent all of agriculture if confirmed to be the number two political leader at USDA.
Sitting on the sidelines at that same hearing were folks keeping their fingers crossed, hoping and praying that no one would ask about a little known chapter that Merrigan had written as part of a book, “Visions for Agriculture,” published in 1997. In that highly inflammatory chapter, Merrigan took a stab at almost every traditional interest group in agriculture, as well as the Senate Agriculture Committee, whose members she now needed to vote for her confirmation.
In short, she would have had some explaining to do.
But no one seemed to have read that little known piece of work, and no one asked....at least until now. We published several excerpts from the piece on www.Agri-Pulse.com
Read “This is not your father’s (or your mother’s) USDA,
http://www.agri-pulse.com/DownloadLogin.asp?Name=201002102SW1.pdf (subscriber only) It’s a straight up piece, that you can read and form your own opinion.
“The future of U.S. agriculture depends on reinventing government according to three principles: regulation, diversity, and democratic decision making. These principles will help farmers by ensuring market access and environmental stewardship…….To attain my vision of U.S. agriculture, we must undergo a disruptive period of heavy-handed government reforms, followed by a true partnership between the public and private sectors,” Merrigan wrote while she was a senior analyst for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, a Washington, DC-based organization which promotes research and education in sustainable agriculture.
She went on to bash almost every traditional commodity and interest group that has influenced agricultural policy for the last several decades and called for major changes in cropping patterns. Hardly any ox remained ungored.
In this week’s Open Mic interview, we asked Merrigan about her focus at USDA and tried to provide a better understanding of her role. To listen, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com or to download on your PDA, click here:
http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/OpenMic020810.mp3
But now, lots of folks are reading that chapter and wondering: What else should we know about the Deputy? And what else don’t we know about the new agenda at USDA?
We have asked our readers to read and react. Let us know your thoughts on how USDA is doing.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Friday, February 12, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
President Obama signals new emphasis on trade
By Sara Wyant
Prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week, we asked a cross section of farm and rural residents what they would like to hear him say. One theme that came across loud and clear: the need for this administration to get busy creating jobs through an aggressive trade strategy.
“Get busy on trade!” was the advice of Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus. “That means get back to negotiating trade agreements that are USA friendly and work with the administration and Congress to quickly approve the ones waiting out there. Improving global trade will have an immediate impact on our economy.”
President Obama delivered Wednesday night, as part of his State of the Union speech:
“We need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security, he said.
“We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”
For more on the President’s speech: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/Jan2710H2.pdf
Farm groups quickly applauded the President’s focus on trade.
“As leaders of an industry dependent on exports for half its sales, we were thrilled to hear that President Obama plans to give trade a more prominent role in his administration’s economic recovery agenda,” said U.S. Wheat Associates Chair Janice Mattson, a wheat grower from Chester, MT., and National Association of Wheat Growers President Karl Scronce, a wheat grower from Klamath Falls,OR in a joint statement.
The American Farm Bureau Federation also welcomed the news:
“Expanded trade opportunities are vital to America’s farmers and ranchers, and we welcome and support the president’s call to export more of our agricultural goods. We appreciated his support for strengthening trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia. We join President Obama in his stated goal of doubling our exports over the next five years and we look forward to working with the administration on a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman in a statement.
As much as farmers and ranchers are excited about the potential for a new push on trade, the devil is in the details. And for now, there do not appear to be any.
Farm-state senators, like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, wants action sooner rather than later.
“In his speech, the President said exports are important to job creation, and education is necessary for U.S. workers to compete worldwide,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “I agree with those words. Now I’m looking for action. There are two immediate ways to advance these goals. One is for the President to send Congress implementing legislation for the three pending trade agreements that have been ready to go for years. The other is to fund a training program that will help workers get the skills they need for good jobs in the United States.”
So how quickly will the Obama team act? When the New York Times asked the White House for specifics, their editors were told that the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke would provide more details in a speech next week.
For now, all we can say is…..stay tuned.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Prior to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech this week, we asked a cross section of farm and rural residents what they would like to hear him say. One theme that came across loud and clear: the need for this administration to get busy creating jobs through an aggressive trade strategy.
“Get busy on trade!” was the advice of Kansas Farm Bureau President Steve Baccus. “That means get back to negotiating trade agreements that are USA friendly and work with the administration and Congress to quickly approve the ones waiting out there. Improving global trade will have an immediate impact on our economy.”
President Obama delivered Wednesday night, as part of his State of the Union speech:
“We need to export more of our goods. Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security, he said.
“We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia.”
For more on the President’s speech: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/Jan2710H2.pdf
Farm groups quickly applauded the President’s focus on trade.
“As leaders of an industry dependent on exports for half its sales, we were thrilled to hear that President Obama plans to give trade a more prominent role in his administration’s economic recovery agenda,” said U.S. Wheat Associates Chair Janice Mattson, a wheat grower from Chester, MT., and National Association of Wheat Growers President Karl Scronce, a wheat grower from Klamath Falls,OR in a joint statement.
The American Farm Bureau Federation also welcomed the news:
“Expanded trade opportunities are vital to America’s farmers and ranchers, and we welcome and support the president’s call to export more of our agricultural goods. We appreciated his support for strengthening trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia. We join President Obama in his stated goal of doubling our exports over the next five years and we look forward to working with the administration on a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman in a statement.
As much as farmers and ranchers are excited about the potential for a new push on trade, the devil is in the details. And for now, there do not appear to be any.
Farm-state senators, like Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, wants action sooner rather than later.
“In his speech, the President said exports are important to job creation, and education is necessary for U.S. workers to compete worldwide,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley. “I agree with those words. Now I’m looking for action. There are two immediate ways to advance these goals. One is for the President to send Congress implementing legislation for the three pending trade agreements that have been ready to go for years. The other is to fund a training program that will help workers get the skills they need for good jobs in the United States.”
So how quickly will the Obama team act? When the New York Times asked the White House for specifics, their editors were told that the Commerce Secretary Gary Locke would provide more details in a speech next week.
For now, all we can say is…..stay tuned.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Monday, January 11, 2010
Farm Bureau's Stallman Puts Activists on notice: No More Mr. Nice Guy
In a hard-hitting speech, the Texan signals that farmers and ranchers have had enough of those who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule
By Sara Wyant
The farmers and ranchers I know are fiercely independent individuals who are willing to do whatever it takes to take care of their families, their animals and their land. But that doesn’t mean they go looking for fights.
In fact, most of them face so many everyday challenges, like bone-chilling weather and tough economic conditions, that they would just like to stay out of the limelight and live in peace.
But there are a growing number of these battle-scarred men and women who have had enough of the attacks from the growing list of critics, environmental groups and even some of their own elected officials. They have had a long couple of years listening to the Michael Pollans of the world, reading incredibly biased coverage in Time magazine and watching pseudo-documentaries like Food Inc.
You can almost hear them say, “Enough Already!” They are mad as hell and they don’t want to take it any more.
American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman captured that sentiment in his powerful opening speech during the organization’s 91st annual convention in Seattle this week. Stallman, who was elected as the national organization's 11th president in 2000, delivered the most hard-hitting speech I have ever heard him give, and for many of the 4,500 in the audience, it was his best.
It’s been a long time since we have had farm leaders inspire audiences with messages like Mary Elizabeth Lease used to deliver in the late 1800’s, when she reportedly told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell”
Some farmers still remember when the charismatic Oren Lee Staley fired up members of the National Farmers Organization in the early 1960's to fight food processors for higher prices, telling them: "American farmers have retreated as far as they can. We do not intend to retreat any further."
Clearly, there’s been a void in the number of top leaders, both from the public and private sector, who are willing to use the bully pulpit to stand up for American agriculture in more recent years. Stallman indicated that he is ready to take off the gloves and lead the fight. His audience loved it.
(See: “AFBF President calls on farmers and ranchers to unite, fight extremists” http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100110S.pdf
It’s not that the Farm Bureau is unwilling to engage divergent interests. As Stallman stood before his convention attendees, an estimated 4,500 farmers and ranchers from all across America, he pointed out:
“As I scan this hall, I see farmers who embrace all the tools of modern agriculture. I see people who choose modern organic production…I see folks who plant conventional seed and those who use biotechnology. I see families who raise livestock in sheltered, climate-controlled conditions. I see feedlot operators. But also among our ranks here in Seattle, I see farm and ranch families who produce grass-fed beef, free-range pork and cage-free eggs.”
And AFBF is actively working with several environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and The Nature Conservancy on Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.
But enough of that “Mr. Nice Guy” stuff.
“A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule,” said Stallman. “The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”
Consider yourself warned.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
By Sara Wyant
The farmers and ranchers I know are fiercely independent individuals who are willing to do whatever it takes to take care of their families, their animals and their land. But that doesn’t mean they go looking for fights.
In fact, most of them face so many everyday challenges, like bone-chilling weather and tough economic conditions, that they would just like to stay out of the limelight and live in peace.
But there are a growing number of these battle-scarred men and women who have had enough of the attacks from the growing list of critics, environmental groups and even some of their own elected officials. They have had a long couple of years listening to the Michael Pollans of the world, reading incredibly biased coverage in Time magazine and watching pseudo-documentaries like Food Inc.
You can almost hear them say, “Enough Already!” They are mad as hell and they don’t want to take it any more.
American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman captured that sentiment in his powerful opening speech during the organization’s 91st annual convention in Seattle this week. Stallman, who was elected as the national organization's 11th president in 2000, delivered the most hard-hitting speech I have ever heard him give, and for many of the 4,500 in the audience, it was his best.
It’s been a long time since we have had farm leaders inspire audiences with messages like Mary Elizabeth Lease used to deliver in the late 1800’s, when she reportedly told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell”
Some farmers still remember when the charismatic Oren Lee Staley fired up members of the National Farmers Organization in the early 1960's to fight food processors for higher prices, telling them: "American farmers have retreated as far as they can. We do not intend to retreat any further."
Clearly, there’s been a void in the number of top leaders, both from the public and private sector, who are willing to use the bully pulpit to stand up for American agriculture in more recent years. Stallman indicated that he is ready to take off the gloves and lead the fight. His audience loved it.
(See: “AFBF President calls on farmers and ranchers to unite, fight extremists” http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100110S.pdf
It’s not that the Farm Bureau is unwilling to engage divergent interests. As Stallman stood before his convention attendees, an estimated 4,500 farmers and ranchers from all across America, he pointed out:
“As I scan this hall, I see farmers who embrace all the tools of modern agriculture. I see people who choose modern organic production…I see folks who plant conventional seed and those who use biotechnology. I see families who raise livestock in sheltered, climate-controlled conditions. I see feedlot operators. But also among our ranks here in Seattle, I see farm and ranch families who produce grass-fed beef, free-range pork and cage-free eggs.”
And AFBF is actively working with several environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, World Wildlife Fund, and The Nature Conservancy on Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture.
But enough of that “Mr. Nice Guy” stuff.
“A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule,” said Stallman. “The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over.”
Consider yourself warned.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
A world free of hunger?
We have the intelligence and the technology, but can we overcome the political hurdles?
By Sara Wyant
When Dr. Norman Borlaug, father of the ‘green revolution’ passed away in September, leaders from around the globe memorialized the Nobel Peace Prize winner as the "greatest hunger fighter of our time." But even he acknowledged that his work was far from over, especially in places like Africa, where one-third of the population is hungry and malnourished.
A diverse group of business leaders, including MicroSoft founder Bill Gates, is committed to building on Borlaug’s progress and turning the Iowa native’s vision into a global reality. Speaking at the World Food Prize ceremony in mid-Oct, Gates said that, while Borlaug’s passing was “cause for sadness, his life should make us optimistic. In the middle of the 20th century, experts predicted famine and starvation, but they turned out to be wrong – because they did not predict Norman Borlaug. He not only showed humanity how to get more food from the earth – he proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor.”
So how did one of the world’s richest men, who co-chairs the $30-plus billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with his wife and father, come to be so passionate about agriculture and especially the role of science in agriculture?
“When we started our foundation, we agreed that our giving should be guided by our belief that all lives have equal value—that every person deserves the chance to live a healthy and productive life, Gates explained in his speech. “Over time, our search for the greatest leverage brought us to the most compelling challenge in development: how do you help people who live on less than a dollar a day?
“The answer is in the work they do. Three-quarters of the world’s poorest people get their food and income by farming small plots of land. So if we can make small-holder farming more productive and more profitable, we can have a massive impact on hunger and nutrition and poverty.
Trouble ahead?
When it comes to increasing productivity, Gates has clearly done his math, but he’s troubled by the forces who oppose some of the science-based tools necessary to reach those goals.
“Africa is the only place where per capita cereal yields have been flat over the last 25 years,” he explained. “The average farmer in sub-Saharan Africa gets just over half a ton of cereal per acre. An Indian farmer gets twice that; a Chinese farmer, four times that; an American farmer; five times that. The technology and new approaches that are transforming agriculture in other parts of the world can be applied in new ways, and help Africa flourish too.
Gates says the global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two. On one side “ a technological approach that increases productivity. On the other side is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability. Productivity or sustainability – they say you have to choose.
“It’s a false choice, and it’s dangerous for the field. It blocks important advances. It breeds hostility among people who need to work together. And it makes it hard to launch a comprehensive program to help poor farmers.
“The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability – and there is no reason we can’t have both,” he emphasized. “The next Green Revolution has to be greener than the first. It must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the environment.
“The charge is clear – we have to develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get it without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity – especially on small farms in the developing world,” says Gates.
Other business leaders join
At the same World Food event, several other leading agribusinesses provided their support for ending world hunger, as part of the new Global Harvest Initiative (GHI). This effort was founded by Archer Daniels Midland Company, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto Company, but is open to other members. These companies already invest more than $9 million a day in research and development, according to GHI.
“We agree that we must double our agricultural output if we are to meet the needs of the world population in 2050,” said Ellen Kullman, chief executive officer, DuPont. “We believe this must be done in a sustainable way to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint and conserve the precious resources available to us. We know it’s going to require cooperative efforts across industries and geographies, and between private and public entities. With all of us working toward a common goal, we can leverage many opportunities throughout the agriculture value chains to feed our growing, global population.”
Bill Lesher, Global Harvest Initiative executive director agrees that the dynamics may finally be right to make significant headway.
“We are in a prime position to make the difference that Norman Borlaug envisioned. At no time have we encountered such a positive environment for change, such a diverse group of leaders primed to work together,” he adds.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
By Sara Wyant
When Dr. Norman Borlaug, father of the ‘green revolution’ passed away in September, leaders from around the globe memorialized the Nobel Peace Prize winner as the "greatest hunger fighter of our time." But even he acknowledged that his work was far from over, especially in places like Africa, where one-third of the population is hungry and malnourished.
A diverse group of business leaders, including MicroSoft founder Bill Gates, is committed to building on Borlaug’s progress and turning the Iowa native’s vision into a global reality. Speaking at the World Food Prize ceremony in mid-Oct, Gates said that, while Borlaug’s passing was “cause for sadness, his life should make us optimistic. In the middle of the 20th century, experts predicted famine and starvation, but they turned out to be wrong – because they did not predict Norman Borlaug. He not only showed humanity how to get more food from the earth – he proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor.”
So how did one of the world’s richest men, who co-chairs the $30-plus billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation along with his wife and father, come to be so passionate about agriculture and especially the role of science in agriculture?
“When we started our foundation, we agreed that our giving should be guided by our belief that all lives have equal value—that every person deserves the chance to live a healthy and productive life, Gates explained in his speech. “Over time, our search for the greatest leverage brought us to the most compelling challenge in development: how do you help people who live on less than a dollar a day?
“The answer is in the work they do. Three-quarters of the world’s poorest people get their food and income by farming small plots of land. So if we can make small-holder farming more productive and more profitable, we can have a massive impact on hunger and nutrition and poverty.
Trouble ahead?
When it comes to increasing productivity, Gates has clearly done his math, but he’s troubled by the forces who oppose some of the science-based tools necessary to reach those goals.
“Africa is the only place where per capita cereal yields have been flat over the last 25 years,” he explained. “The average farmer in sub-Saharan Africa gets just over half a ton of cereal per acre. An Indian farmer gets twice that; a Chinese farmer, four times that; an American farmer; five times that. The technology and new approaches that are transforming agriculture in other parts of the world can be applied in new ways, and help Africa flourish too.
Gates says the global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two. On one side “ a technological approach that increases productivity. On the other side is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability. Productivity or sustainability – they say you have to choose.
“It’s a false choice, and it’s dangerous for the field. It blocks important advances. It breeds hostility among people who need to work together. And it makes it hard to launch a comprehensive program to help poor farmers.
“The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability – and there is no reason we can’t have both,” he emphasized. “The next Green Revolution has to be greener than the first. It must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the environment.
“The charge is clear – we have to develop crops that can grow in a drought; that can survive in a flood; that can resist pests and disease. We need higher yields on the same land in harsher weather. And we will never get it without a continuous and urgent science-based search to increase productivity – especially on small farms in the developing world,” says Gates.
Other business leaders join
At the same World Food event, several other leading agribusinesses provided their support for ending world hunger, as part of the new Global Harvest Initiative (GHI). This effort was founded by Archer Daniels Midland Company, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto Company, but is open to other members. These companies already invest more than $9 million a day in research and development, according to GHI.
“We agree that we must double our agricultural output if we are to meet the needs of the world population in 2050,” said Ellen Kullman, chief executive officer, DuPont. “We believe this must be done in a sustainable way to reduce agriculture’s environmental footprint and conserve the precious resources available to us. We know it’s going to require cooperative efforts across industries and geographies, and between private and public entities. With all of us working toward a common goal, we can leverage many opportunities throughout the agriculture value chains to feed our growing, global population.”
Bill Lesher, Global Harvest Initiative executive director agrees that the dynamics may finally be right to make significant headway.
“We are in a prime position to make the difference that Norman Borlaug envisioned. At no time have we encountered such a positive environment for change, such a diverse group of leaders primed to work together,” he adds.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
JBS to buy Pilgrim’s Pride out of bankruptcy for $2.8 million
The U.S. subsidiary of Brazil’s meat giant JBS S.A. is to buy a majority share of Pilgrim’s Pride, the largest U.S chicken processor, and allow Pilgrim’s and six of its subsidiaries to emerge from bankruptcy protection in December, the companies announced today. The deal is subject to approval of the bankruptcy court and agreement by U.S. antitrust regulators.
Pilgrim’s was to file today a joint plan of reorganization and disclosure statement under bankruptcy code. The companies valued the transaction at approximately $2.8 billion with Pilgrim's selling 64 percent of the new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's Pride to JBS S.A., through its JBS USA Holdings subsidiary for $800 million cash. Proceeds from the sale of new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's will pay approved creditors in full, either in cash or by issuance of a new note, the Texas company’s statement said.
Existing Pilgrim's Pride common stock will be canceled and shareholders will receive the same number of new common stock shares representing 36 percent of the reorganized company. The plan also calls for exit financing of $1.75 billion provided by a lending group arranged by CoBank and Rabobank. Pilgrim’s said it anticipates the plan will be confirmed by the bankruptcy court in time to emerge from bankruptcy by the end of December, one year after it was filed.
By James C. Webster
Copyright Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
Pilgrim’s was to file today a joint plan of reorganization and disclosure statement under bankruptcy code. The companies valued the transaction at approximately $2.8 billion with Pilgrim's selling 64 percent of the new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's Pride to JBS S.A., through its JBS USA Holdings subsidiary for $800 million cash. Proceeds from the sale of new common stock of the reorganized Pilgrim's will pay approved creditors in full, either in cash or by issuance of a new note, the Texas company’s statement said.
Existing Pilgrim's Pride common stock will be canceled and shareholders will receive the same number of new common stock shares representing 36 percent of the reorganized company. The plan also calls for exit financing of $1.75 billion provided by a lending group arranged by CoBank and Rabobank. Pilgrim’s said it anticipates the plan will be confirmed by the bankruptcy court in time to emerge from bankruptcy by the end of December, one year after it was filed.
By James C. Webster
Copyright Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Big Uneasy
Traditionally, members of Congress leave the sweltering August heat that engulfs Washington, D.C. this time of year to visit with voters back home, stump for fellow lawmakers at fundraisers, and maybe even spend some time with their own families. But this summer has been anything but traditional as throngs of angry voters turned out to see elected officials on their home turf
Some voters have been so angry about pending health care legislation that the town-hall meetings look like screaming matches. That prompted leaders like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to call such unruly behavior “un-American.” Her comments only served to pour more fuel on the health care “fire,” as many citizens reminded her that talking to their lawmakers is as American as apple pie.
Public reaction to climate change legislation hasn’t been much better. Several members of Congress have been booed as they walked along parade routes. Onlookers waved huge signs, with phrases like “Just say ‘no’ to climate change” and complained about what they see as a huge new burden on the U.S. economy
Rural road trip
I spent most of my summer break driving across parts of the middle section of the United States and trying to get a sense of the collective “pulse” of the countryside along the way. Over a two-week time span, my husband, my 92-year old mother-in-law and I drove across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Missouri, visiting some relatives, stopping at small-town cafes, and chatting with local farmers and business people. My summer “road trip” provided a great way to see the tremendous food production system we have in this country, while visiting with a wide variety of ordinary people about how they view what’s happening in Washington, DC. Here are some of my observations and their comments.
Too many unknowns. Whatever the topic, there seems to be an underlying feeling of nervousness about the direction of the country ----whether it’s the economy in general, falling commodity prices, the concern over job losses, or the huge federal deficit that’s looking like an iron-clad anchor on the next generation’s future. Some of this uncertainty may be expected with any new Administration that’s trying to get its feet on the ground and push for a very strong “change” agenda. However, it seemed like the nervousness extended from Obama supporters to conservative Republicans and many political perspectives in between. Some supporters are dissatisfied that change hasn’t happened more quickly, while others want to go slow because they worry that the rush to pass legislation will only lead to unintended consequences.
Concerns about the deficit were almost everywhere I traveled, an unease that will only worsen with news this week that the budget deficit will increase from $7 trillion to about $9 trillion over the coming decade.
Stimulus. What stimulus? In Illinois, home of President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, you’ll see a few road signs telling you that construction projects are paid for with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. The road and bridge improvements are welcomed in a state where traffic congestion is almost a daily burden. And although it may be hard to quantify, there were undoubtedly some new jobs created as a result of the construction.
But six months after the President signed the whopping $787 billion stimulus package with the intention of jump-starting an ailing U.S. economy, the majority of Americans are not seeing results where it counts: their pocketbooks. The Administration has been issuing press releases on almost a daily basis this summer about how the stimulus funding is working, but not getting much public relations boost for their efforts. In fact, many people told me that White House promises to save or create 3.7 million jobs, has actually backfired. Every new article that underscores how much the government is spending seems to generate more skepticism than optimism. “All they do in Washington is spend, spend, spend,” a North Dakota farmer told me. “Pretty soon the Chinese are going to own our government,” he added, referring to the large portion of the U.S. deficit that is financed by Chinese investors.
In a small-town in southwest Missouri, local officials told me they rejected stimulus funds for a sewer project, because it came with too many costly “strings” attached.
“We decided that using traditional rural development programs would be a better route because it would be cost less and be more manageable for our small staff,” an engineer on the project told me.
Health care. President Barack Obama captured 54% of the popular vote in Minnesota and many people from the land of 10,000 lakes find him personally appealing. But many are extremely reluctant to buy his health care reform proposal for a variety of reasons. An Obama supporter who is still going through breast cancer treatment told me that she feared that her doctor would not be able to prescribe the kinds of medicine she needs if some type of health care reform package is passed. “Now I’ve got options and a doctor who looks out for me, rather than a government program making those decisions,” she told me. “I’m scared to death about what choices I might have under new legislation.”
It’s not that people don’t want to see health care coverage improved. Several complained about the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Farmers and other self-employed individuals want to be able to deduct the costs, just like other businesses. But many of these same critics like their current doctors and the availability of medical care. The idea of a far-reaching reform package, costing billions of dollars, seems to create more potential problems than solutions.
Climate change: Farmers either love or hate the prospects of climate change legislation, and there is almost no middle ground. Over 5.5 million acres have been enrolled nationwide in the National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit program, providing some additional income for many cash-strapped farmers. Little wonder then that several NFU members in North Dakota are some of the biggest supporters of climate change legislation. They believe that taking a proactive approach and trying to shape legislation as it moves to the Senate is the best route for those in agriculture. But these folks seem to be in the minority. Many farmers equate the climate change bill to increased costs and less international competitiveness. Several state Farm Bureau associations are leading the charge against new legislation.
Outcome uncertain
President Obama says he still wants to see Congress act on health care and climate change legislation before the end of the year. His supporters are planning massive advertising blitzes and grassroots campaigns to build support for these key initiatives.
When Congress reconvenes on Sept. 8, some of the hot, humid weather may have subsided in favor of cooler, fall days. But after getting an earful from angry voters this month, the heat will still be on lawmakers to listen to these concerns from the countryside.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Some voters have been so angry about pending health care legislation that the town-hall meetings look like screaming matches. That prompted leaders like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to call such unruly behavior “un-American.” Her comments only served to pour more fuel on the health care “fire,” as many citizens reminded her that talking to their lawmakers is as American as apple pie.
Public reaction to climate change legislation hasn’t been much better. Several members of Congress have been booed as they walked along parade routes. Onlookers waved huge signs, with phrases like “Just say ‘no’ to climate change” and complained about what they see as a huge new burden on the U.S. economy
Rural road trip
I spent most of my summer break driving across parts of the middle section of the United States and trying to get a sense of the collective “pulse” of the countryside along the way. Over a two-week time span, my husband, my 92-year old mother-in-law and I drove across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Missouri, visiting some relatives, stopping at small-town cafes, and chatting with local farmers and business people. My summer “road trip” provided a great way to see the tremendous food production system we have in this country, while visiting with a wide variety of ordinary people about how they view what’s happening in Washington, DC. Here are some of my observations and their comments.
Too many unknowns. Whatever the topic, there seems to be an underlying feeling of nervousness about the direction of the country ----whether it’s the economy in general, falling commodity prices, the concern over job losses, or the huge federal deficit that’s looking like an iron-clad anchor on the next generation’s future. Some of this uncertainty may be expected with any new Administration that’s trying to get its feet on the ground and push for a very strong “change” agenda. However, it seemed like the nervousness extended from Obama supporters to conservative Republicans and many political perspectives in between. Some supporters are dissatisfied that change hasn’t happened more quickly, while others want to go slow because they worry that the rush to pass legislation will only lead to unintended consequences.
Concerns about the deficit were almost everywhere I traveled, an unease that will only worsen with news this week that the budget deficit will increase from $7 trillion to about $9 trillion over the coming decade.
Stimulus. What stimulus? In Illinois, home of President Barack Obama and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, you’ll see a few road signs telling you that construction projects are paid for with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. The road and bridge improvements are welcomed in a state where traffic congestion is almost a daily burden. And although it may be hard to quantify, there were undoubtedly some new jobs created as a result of the construction.
But six months after the President signed the whopping $787 billion stimulus package with the intention of jump-starting an ailing U.S. economy, the majority of Americans are not seeing results where it counts: their pocketbooks. The Administration has been issuing press releases on almost a daily basis this summer about how the stimulus funding is working, but not getting much public relations boost for their efforts. In fact, many people told me that White House promises to save or create 3.7 million jobs, has actually backfired. Every new article that underscores how much the government is spending seems to generate more skepticism than optimism. “All they do in Washington is spend, spend, spend,” a North Dakota farmer told me. “Pretty soon the Chinese are going to own our government,” he added, referring to the large portion of the U.S. deficit that is financed by Chinese investors.
In a small-town in southwest Missouri, local officials told me they rejected stimulus funds for a sewer project, because it came with too many costly “strings” attached.
“We decided that using traditional rural development programs would be a better route because it would be cost less and be more manageable for our small staff,” an engineer on the project told me.
Health care. President Barack Obama captured 54% of the popular vote in Minnesota and many people from the land of 10,000 lakes find him personally appealing. But many are extremely reluctant to buy his health care reform proposal for a variety of reasons. An Obama supporter who is still going through breast cancer treatment told me that she feared that her doctor would not be able to prescribe the kinds of medicine she needs if some type of health care reform package is passed. “Now I’ve got options and a doctor who looks out for me, rather than a government program making those decisions,” she told me. “I’m scared to death about what choices I might have under new legislation.”
It’s not that people don’t want to see health care coverage improved. Several complained about the skyrocketing cost of health insurance. Farmers and other self-employed individuals want to be able to deduct the costs, just like other businesses. But many of these same critics like their current doctors and the availability of medical care. The idea of a far-reaching reform package, costing billions of dollars, seems to create more potential problems than solutions.
Climate change: Farmers either love or hate the prospects of climate change legislation, and there is almost no middle ground. Over 5.5 million acres have been enrolled nationwide in the National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit program, providing some additional income for many cash-strapped farmers. Little wonder then that several NFU members in North Dakota are some of the biggest supporters of climate change legislation. They believe that taking a proactive approach and trying to shape legislation as it moves to the Senate is the best route for those in agriculture. But these folks seem to be in the minority. Many farmers equate the climate change bill to increased costs and less international competitiveness. Several state Farm Bureau associations are leading the charge against new legislation.
Outcome uncertain
President Obama says he still wants to see Congress act on health care and climate change legislation before the end of the year. His supporters are planning massive advertising blitzes and grassroots campaigns to build support for these key initiatives.
When Congress reconvenes on Sept. 8, some of the hot, humid weather may have subsided in favor of cooler, fall days. But after getting an earful from angry voters this month, the heat will still be on lawmakers to listen to these concerns from the countryside.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
#30
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Food and Nutrition celebration: An opportunity lost?
USDA officials held an important event recently, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the department’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). As I scanned the 100-plus people assembled for the event in the Whitten Building’s central patio, I found several dignitaries, but kept looking for “aggies” in the room. Unfortunately, I spotted only a handful.
Why were so few representatives of the nation’s primary farm and commodity groups at the invitation-only event? The folks at FNS say it was an abbreviated invite list and focused only on those groups they work with most often. But the fact that many agricultural groups weren’t on the “A” list, underscores a continuing gap between those who most need the food and those who produce most of the food.
In case you are not familiar, FNS administers the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly the Food Stamp Program); the National School Lunch Program, and 13 others. Their efforts touch one in five people across the U.S. with some type of feeding program.
Since 1969, when FNS was officially established the SNAP/Food Stamp Program has issued over $554 billion in program benefits; NSLP has served over 169 billion meals; and $27 billion in USDA commodities have been issued in food benefits for schools and another $23 billion in food benefits for household and emergency feeding programs.
Farmers and FNS “customers” are linked in a variety of ways. Spending on these programs makes up about two-thirds of USDA’s budget and utilizes billions of dollars in farm commodities. Congressional supporters of FNS are a crucial part of the political coalition that enables passage of major farm bills.
The hour-long ceremony, led by USDA’s Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, was everything you might expect from an anniversary celebration: a historical timeline, a progress report, and video to highlight the agency’s accomplishments. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Congressman James P. McGovern (D-MA) presented Merrigan with a resolution honoring FNS for 40 years of fighting hunger and improving nutrition. It was heartening to learn about the millions who have benefited and USDA’s plans to reach out to even more individuals who still go to bed hungry every night.
However, there was little recognition of the important connection between food production and food consumption in the FNS programs. The anniversary video started with one slide of a farm field, but the rest focused on how each of the programs worked and the types of consumers served. There was no discussion about how farm productivity has helped keep costs low so that millions of Americans can eat a safe, affordable food supply. And there was no mention of how plant breeding and biotechnology have played an important role in creating healthier foods.
In recorded remarks, Secretary Vilsack pointed out that President Obama is committed to reducing childhood hunger by 2015. To do that, the Secretary will need plenty of additional funds and lots of good thinkers on this subject. The folks at the FNS will certainly play a key role, but let’s hope they reach out to those who represent farmers and ranchers as part of the process.
At the same time, traditional agriculture groups also need to look for innovative new ways to be engaged with the food and nutrition community. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have already done so by working with Feeding America (formerly America’s Second Harvest) to donate millions of pounds of food. Working through their Young Farmers and Ranchers organization, Farm Bureau provided the equivalent of 6.4 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks across the country last year
There’s an old bumper sticker that says: “If your child ate today, hug a farmer.” More farm and commodity organizations need to figure out how that embrace can go both ways.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
Why were so few representatives of the nation’s primary farm and commodity groups at the invitation-only event? The folks at FNS say it was an abbreviated invite list and focused only on those groups they work with most often. But the fact that many agricultural groups weren’t on the “A” list, underscores a continuing gap between those who most need the food and those who produce most of the food.
In case you are not familiar, FNS administers the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly the Food Stamp Program); the National School Lunch Program, and 13 others. Their efforts touch one in five people across the U.S. with some type of feeding program.
Since 1969, when FNS was officially established the SNAP/Food Stamp Program has issued over $554 billion in program benefits; NSLP has served over 169 billion meals; and $27 billion in USDA commodities have been issued in food benefits for schools and another $23 billion in food benefits for household and emergency feeding programs.
Farmers and FNS “customers” are linked in a variety of ways. Spending on these programs makes up about two-thirds of USDA’s budget and utilizes billions of dollars in farm commodities. Congressional supporters of FNS are a crucial part of the political coalition that enables passage of major farm bills.
The hour-long ceremony, led by USDA’s Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan, was everything you might expect from an anniversary celebration: a historical timeline, a progress report, and video to highlight the agency’s accomplishments. Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Congressman James P. McGovern (D-MA) presented Merrigan with a resolution honoring FNS for 40 years of fighting hunger and improving nutrition. It was heartening to learn about the millions who have benefited and USDA’s plans to reach out to even more individuals who still go to bed hungry every night.
However, there was little recognition of the important connection between food production and food consumption in the FNS programs. The anniversary video started with one slide of a farm field, but the rest focused on how each of the programs worked and the types of consumers served. There was no discussion about how farm productivity has helped keep costs low so that millions of Americans can eat a safe, affordable food supply. And there was no mention of how plant breeding and biotechnology have played an important role in creating healthier foods.
In recorded remarks, Secretary Vilsack pointed out that President Obama is committed to reducing childhood hunger by 2015. To do that, the Secretary will need plenty of additional funds and lots of good thinkers on this subject. The folks at the FNS will certainly play a key role, but let’s hope they reach out to those who represent farmers and ranchers as part of the process.
At the same time, traditional agriculture groups also need to look for innovative new ways to be engaged with the food and nutrition community. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation have already done so by working with Feeding America (formerly America’s Second Harvest) to donate millions of pounds of food. Working through their Young Farmers and Ranchers organization, Farm Bureau provided the equivalent of 6.4 million meals through Feeding America-affiliated food banks across the country last year
There’s an old bumper sticker that says: “If your child ate today, hug a farmer.” More farm and commodity organizations need to figure out how that embrace can go both ways.
Agriculture News, Farm Policy, and Rural Policy
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
