why vilsack is a bad choice for secretary of agriculture

So I knew the Obama honeymoon wouldn't last that long. He's going to appoint centrists like himself. And you don't win the presidency without incurring a few debts. Iowa is a pretty important place for Obama, not least of all because it was where his presidential journey began. But that doesn't mean that the former governor of Iowa is a good choice for the secretary of agriculture. Far from it.

I want an agriculture secretary that's a visionary, or at least capable of some vision -- towards a different agricultural production system for the 21st century. Obama's shown extraordinary vision to reshape presidential politics. Can we have that sort of vision for our agriculture as well? A recognition of how broken agricultural production is: that farmers don't receive cost of production for the crops they produce; that synthetic fertilizers destroy our soil, are creating a massive dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and are the principal contribution our agriculture makes toward climate change; the list goes on.

Why not Vilsack? In one example: pharmaceutical-producing corn. He's a huge proponent of producing drugs in Iowa cornfields. Never mind the high possibilities of cross-contamination. Never mind that this is a technology that benefits only a handful of farmers and a handful of drug companies. Never mind that the costs of the inevitable contamination will be socialized to all farmers who grown corn in the U.S., when export markets reject our crops.

Maybe he doesn't care, maybe he thinks we can just turn that corn into ethanol and forget the rest of the world. That's not the approach of a 21st century visionary. It's just more of the same American imperialism, shove it down their throats agricultural policy of the last decades. I want change.

Monsanto's missing mice

The Austrian government today released results showing reduced fertility in mice that have been fed a variety of Monsanto's genetically engineered maize: NK603 x MON 810. The variety contains two different genes: one that makes the maize resistant to Monsanto's proprietary weedkilling chemical, Roundup, and the other that makes the maize produce its own pesticide within the plant.

It should come as no surprise that health effects are found long after the variety has been cleared for placing on the market and in the human food supply. Testing of genetically engineered crops is notoriously superficial and long-term studies are done rarely, if ever. A recent review by Jose Domingo presents a strong critique of what passes for safety evaluations.

There is little funding for such studies and little interest on the part of governments to really dig deep into the possible health effects of GMOs. We will see more announcements like these in the future, but unfortunately far fewer than the necessary scientific inquiry to protect public health and the food supply would dictate.