Article

Obama's 'Secretary of Food'?

December 10, 2008

Publication: The New York Times

As Barack Obama ponders whom to pick as agriculture secretary, he should reframe the question. What he needs is actually a bold reformer in a position renamed "secretary of food.'

A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 percent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat.

Renaming the department would signal that Mr. Obama seeks to move away from a bankrupt structure of factory farming that squanders energy, exacerbates climate change and makes Americans unhealthy — all while costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

"We're subsidizing the least healthy calories in the supermarket — high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated soy oil, and we're doing very little for farmers trying to grow real food,' notes Michael Pollan, author of such books as "The Omnivore's Dilemma' and "In Defense of Food.'

The Agriculture Department — and the agriculture committees in Congress — have traditionally been handed over to industrial farming interests by Democrats and Republicans alike. The farm lobby uses that perch to inflict unhealthy food on American children in school-lunch programs, exacerbating our national crisis with diabetes and obesity.

But let's be clear. The problem isn't farmers. It's the farm lobby — hijacked by industrial operators — and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it.

View Obama's 'Secretary of Food'? on The New York Times site.