Today, the vast majority of the United States' food system can be characterized by extraction, exploitation, and extermination. Picturesque family farms and morning roosters have been replaced with toxic smoke, lagoons of manure, supervisors who bet on whether their meatpacking employees will contract COVID-19, and animals who live in squalor and confinement. Big Ag isn't about ensuring everyone gets fed—it's about ensuring the players at the top get paid very well.
So, it comes as no surprise that when President Biden nominated Tom Vilsack to serve a third term as U.S. Agriculture Secretary, groups and advocates from across the agriculture and farming world scrambled to prevent his appointment. Article after article emphasized Vilsack's wrongdoings during his two terms under President Obama. These included industry handouts, misdeeds rooted in racism, chairing the failed anti-opioid commission and approving GMOs and their toxic pesticide counterparts.
Fresh off four years making millions of dollars as a revolving door lobbyist with the U.S. Dairy Export Council, a trade group supported by a checkoff fee paid by dairy farmers, Vilsack knew he needed to assuage his critics' concerns. In classic political fashion, Vilsack publicly expressed he would be different this time, emphasizing his willingness to tackle today's greatest agricultural challenges. At the same time, during his confirmation hearing, Vilsack clearly indicated to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry that his leadership approach would be predicated on "voluntary and incentive-based programs," implying that under his watch, agriculture will continue to be largely unregulated and profit-focused. Over the course of the first year in his third term, Vilsack has demonstrated that—despite the looming and calculable threat of the climate crisis and the many opportunities to transform our harmful agricultural systems—his leadership will maintain the status quo and leave us worse off for it.
It only takes a few notable events and hearings to showcase that, despite his smooth talking, Vilsack intends to use his position of power in much the same way as before, that is, operating as an industry darling. Any statement made by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on the global stage should not be taken lightly. At G20, a meeting of the world's 20 largest economies held last October, Secretary Vilsack criticized the European Union's (EU) "Farm-to-Fork" strategy, a thoughtful plan with concrete targets to drastically reduce harmful inputs and increase sustainable farming over the next eight years. "I believe you have to sacrifice productivity for sustainability or that you have to sacrifice sustainability for productivity," Vilsack stated.
But is it worth it to sacrifice sustainability if productivity itself, as it exists in its extractive, exploitative form today, cannot be sustained? This suggestion of necessary trade-offs dismisses the possibility of a middle-ground of cooperation and collaboration in the name of food security and environmental protection. Vilsack did not dismiss the EU's strategy because of its infeasibility, but because it asks the industry to take responsibility in ways it has never been asked to in America, while also taking steps to assure family farmers can make enough money to survive.
Countering the EU's strategy, Vilsack announced the U.S.' Sustainable Productivity Growth Coalition (SPG Coalition), phrased as an alternative approach to reach net-zero agricultural greenhouse gas emissions. This approach would be, as discussed in his hearings, "market-oriented," "incentive-based," and "voluntary". Under Vilsack's purview, agriculture would be transformed with the use of market-based innovation and production that the politician routinely describes as "climate-smart." In addition, Vilsack announced the United States' partnership with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a notable ally because the UAE boasts large reserves of oil and natural gas, that is, inputs needed to produce synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers. The latter are critical for maintaining a fossil fuel-powered U.S. agribusiness and signal Vilsack's intention to ensure a steady supply of inputs for Big Ag.
At his January address to the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of the most powerful agribusiness interest groups in the country, Vilsack announced a new initiative with the United Soybean board, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Pork Board called "Farmers for Soil Health." Utilizing USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Incentives Program (EQIP) and funded by taxpayers via the Farm Bill, Vilsack announced a new pilot program to expand corn and soybean acreage across 11 states. This was spun by Vilsack as a measure to experiment with the inclusion of "cover crops," a climate-friendly agricultural method often used in organic agriculture that, in this context, would not displace harmful production methods.
Corn and soy production in the U.S. is dependent upon agricultural methods known for having long-term harmful effects on the soil, such as the use of synthetic fertilizer and ever increasing quantities of chemicals. Further, the reinforcement of large-scale commodity production contributes to other harmful agricultural systems such as feed for confined animals, highly processed foods, and polluting biofuels. Lastly, cover crop application as a method to sequester carbon is imperfect in this context and not nearly as effective as politicians suggest. Unsurprisingly, this is not the first time Vilsack has directed EQIP funds to Big Ag. In the 2014 Farm Bill, Vilsack directed half of the EQIP money to Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for methane digesters on dairy farms—another greenwashed, industry-backed effort to siphon off public funds and ameliorate public concerns without having to completely usurp business as usual.
Testifying before the House Agriculture Committee in January 2022, Vilsack made the astute observation that, "an extraction economy is an economy that essentially takes things from the land and off the land." Vilsack urged the committee to support him in the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill to help move rural America from "an extractive economy" to a "circular economy." Unfortunately, this weak attempt to support rural communities is largely in conflict with Vilsack's consistent support for industrial agriculture. Consolidated factory farms reign supreme across the country, commodity farmers already receive large government subsidies, and the high cost of land does little restore rural communities.
Vilsack's decision-making, like many politicians', acknowledges the urgency of climate change and community-building, but the proposed solutions do not challenge the status quo or his vested industry interests. No one employs more people in the civilian side of government than Tom Vilsack, and the Secretary has a significant level of autonomy over where agricultural funding is allocated, as well as where to direct governmental oversight. To create food systems that serve everyone, Vilsack could: dismantle vertically and horizontally integrated monopolies across the food sector; set transformative environmental targets and a meaningful plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; enforce obligatory requirements for the industry; promote and fund practices that are genuinely sustainable, support human health, and dismantle oppressive working conditions and animal husbandry practices. The Secretary could push agribusiness to change in ways it has never been asked to before, but actively chooses to hold back. When the head of USDA so overtly permits the agricultural industry to regulate itself and drives the rest of farming into the ground without consequence, will you remember his name?
