Chews Wise

"What's Her Name" (USDA Deputy Secretary Merrigan) Concerns Grassley

This just in from Think Progress: The Des Moines Register asked Sen. Charles Grassley, the Iowa Republican who sits on the Senate Agriculture Committee, if he had any response to Obama's recent subcabinet appointments at the Agriculture Department. He responded by saying that he believed that most of the nominees were "well qualified" except for -- referring to Kathleen Merrigan -- "the woman from Tufts" who was confirmed by the Senate in April. 

GRASSLEY: I think everybody's well qualified to do what they're doing, and there's only one that I would raise a question about. And I probably shouldn't be raising a question except some things that I've read about where she's coming from, and I don't remember her name, but the woman from Tufts. 

QUESTION: Kathleen Merrigan. 

GRASSLEY: What's her name? 

QUESTION: Kathleen Merrigan.

Big Win for Sustainable Ag! Merrigan tapped for No. 2 Post at USDA

President Obama named Kathleen Merrigan, a Tufts professor and a central figure for more than two decades in organic and sustainable farm policy, to the No. 2 position at USDA.

This amounts to a major win for organic, sustainable and local food advocates, since Merrigan is not only well-versed in these issues but has been a tireless advocate for them. Most notably, she wrote the Organic Food Production Act -- the law that governs the entire organic food sector -- as a staffer for Vermont Sen. Leahy back in the 1980s, then worked at USDA and the Wallace Center, before moving to Tufts.  

Although she had put forth her name for an undersecretary position -- I blogged about her here -- I hadn't heard any talk that she was in the running for the No. 2 position. 

"Sustainable and organic farmers are excited ... that someone who has been associated with these issues her whole career is going to be at that level in the department," said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

That sentiment will be echoed far and wide.

- Samuel Fromartz

Organic Heavyweights Back Vilsack

In an interesting move, a number of heavyweights in the organic food and farming world have launched a website supporting the nomination of Tom Vilsack as secretary of agriculture.

The people behind this effort include Denise O'Brien, the organic farmer who ran for secretary of agriculture of Iowa; Walter Robb, co-president of Whole Foods; Gary Hirshberg, founder and CEO of Stonyfield Farms; Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation; Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States; and many others.

I'm curious that this coalition felt compelled to take this step -- presumably to counter the criticism of groups like the Organic Consumers Association and possibly to leave open the door to Vilsack's office, once he is confirmed. As Scowcroft says on the site:

In recent weeks I have spoken to many of my colleagues in Iowa and to others in the sustainable and organic agriculture communities nationwide. They spoke of a governor who listened seriously to their concerns and when politically possible provided workable solutions. Mind you I have no illusions concerning how “Washington works” and the challenges facing a USDA (never mind the nation and the world!) mired in systems that are unsustainable and in many cases broken beyond repair. The agro-industrial status quo will not easily give up its hold on power. Nevertheless many of us are working hard to advance highly qualified candidates for the Deputy Secretary and the under secretary positions. Governor Vilsack and the Obama Transition committee have taken our nominations seriously, and I believe they are working to bring a number of these candidates into the new USDA leadership.

Obama's USDA Secretary "Maybe Won't Suck?"

Obama's pick of former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary set off a round of criticism in the blogusphere, because many of us were hoping that a more progressive leader would have a shot. It wasn't to be. 

Unlike his visionary pick of Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Obama tapped a centrist with a long cozy relationship with Monsanto -- the GMO king -- a soft touch on CAFOs (factory animal farms) and a taste for corn ethanol. These might be called the three deadly sins of sustainable agriculture.

The indefatigable Kerry Truman over at Huffington Post has a fine round up of all the criticism, but then does one better: she actually contacted someone who worked with Vilsack for years, Denise O'Brien, the organic farmer who ran for Iowa's Secretary of Agriculture in 2006. O'Brien's comments are illuminating, because she actually tried to shift the status quo in the heart of corn country. She found Vilsack listened, and even offered his support when she had a shot at state office. Sadly, she lost.

I won't summarize her sentiments -- just click on over on the link. The upshot?  Maybe the dial shifts a bit with Vilsack. But for it to go further, advocates of a very different vision of food and farming will have to keep up their work. Recall, after two decades of pushing for reform, it's still the early innings on the national stage.

Organic Sustainable Department of Food?

Jim Riddle, a former chair of the National Organic Standards Board who is now organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota, tells me he is actively seeking a position at the USDA.

If he is named as organic adviser to the secretary, or head of the Agricultural Marketing Service, this would be a big gain for sustainability. Riddle worked tirelessly for years on the NOSB, trying to keep organic food truly organic. And he did that while working in partnership with the USDA -- not an easy feat. He has trained organic inspectors since the late 1980s and walks the talk.

"My wife, Joyce, and I have lived off the grid since 1984, producing all of our power from the sun, wind, and woods, living in our owner-built, energy-efficient earth-sheltered home. We raise a big garden and put up much of our food. For us, sustainability and green living are not just slogans – they are a way of life," he says.

I already noted that Kathleen Merrigan of Tufts is angling for a major post in the department. If Obama is serious about change -- in the food and agricultural sector -- these are the type of appointments his team should make, mirroring the encouraging news of Nobel Laureate Steven Chu to head the department of energy.

As for agriculture secretary, Nicholas Kristof put it well in the NY Times -- it's time for Obama to shift the focus of the department away from agribusiness interests and put it squarely on food.

He also linked to a petition advocating several names to head the department -- which I previously signed. The Ethicurean blog also has a good post summing up the leading candidates, the gist of which is that no front-runner has emerged.
- Samuel Fromartz

Fast-Tracking Sustainability at USDA

A lot of rich and worthwhile discussion has taken place lately about what government could do to promote greener agriculture, healthier food, and small scale farming, most notably in the comprehensive NY Times article by Michael Pollan. Supporters have gone so far as to petition the Obama transition team to appoint Pollan secretary of agriculture (he demurred in a comment on Ethicuraean).

Rather than push a dark horse, however, people interested in sustainable food and agriculture do have a real opportunity to support a significant appointment at the USDA. I'm speaking of Tufts University professor Kathleen Merrigan, who has been raised as a possible candidate for Undersecretary of Marketing and Regulatory Programs.

Who is Merrigan and why should we care?

I first heard about Merrigan while working on Organic Inc., looking into the origins of the Organic Food and Production Act of 1990 and sustainable agriculture policy. She was mentioned repeatedly by people I talked to, because as a senate staffer for Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Merrigan had drafted the organic law. She then went on to work at the USDA's agricultural marketing service (AMS), which runs the organic program. Even before then, she was involved in sustainable agriculture policy and has been ever since -- in organics,  conservation, food access, and small farm issues. While Pollan helped put these issues onto the national agenda, people like Merrigan have long been doing the wonky policy work.

Outside government, she has worked for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture, served on a the Pew commission on biotechnology and has been active in the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. She now heads the Agriculture, Food and Environment Program at Tufts School of Nutrition and Policy. As marketing and regulatory undersecretary, she would oversee AMS, GIPSA (Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration), and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) - touching virtually every aspect of agriculture.

In short, this is a real shot for a major position at the USDA by someone who has pursued the change mantra in agriculture for nearly two decades. The political awareness Pollan has driven about agriculture could well sweep Merrigan into a position at the USDA -- and push a sustainable agenda ahead.

While we're on this topic, the Blog for Rural Affairs has an in-depth look at Tom Vilsack, who WaPo is calling a "near shoo-in" for Ag Secretary. It's well worth a read and not just for his view on organics and biotech.

- Samuel Fromartz

Image: Tufts University

Organic Pasture Rule, Part II

There was an early sense of relief at the USDA's newly proposed organic pasture rule, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. I've been hearing questions about the rule and its mandates that fall outside the much-debated 120-day, 30% forage minimum. I haven't digested the criticism or concern yet, so if you have, post a comment. I hope to write on this further as the issues gel.
- Samuel Fromartz

USDA Kills Grass-Based Research Program

In the Bush administration's proposed budget, a well-regarded grass-based research program at State College, PA, got the ax. A letter from the researchers states:

The research program at University Park seeks to develop profitable and sustainable animal, crop, and bioenergy producing enterprises while maintaining the quality of ground and surface waters. The loss of this research unit would end cutting edge research on nutrient management, forage and grazing land management, water quality, integrated farming systems, and bioenergy cropping systems for the northeastern U.S.

I know one of the researchers, Kathy Soder, who spent a lot of time explaining sustainable grazing practices to me while I was researching my book Organic Inc. In light of the growing demand for grass-fed meat and pasture-based dairy farming in the northeast, I find it incredible that this program is being killed.  We need more research into sustainable agriculture, not less. Click here for the researchers' letter about their fight to maintain funding.

Organic research has fared a bit better in the farm bill now on the Hill. The Senate allocated $16 million in mandatory money for organic research grants, while the House version of the bill only put up $5 million. The Organic Farming and Research Foundation is now lobbying to make sure the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative gets funded at the $16 million level and is looking for businesses and other organizations to sign its letter seeking this support. Contact OFRF.

Be aware that $16 million still represents less than 1 percent of the USDA's ag research budget -- even though organic farming represents 3 percent of food sales. The letter states:

This discrepancy in the share of research funding spent on organics is detrimental to an industry that relies intensively on management and information for its success. In fact, lack of knowledge is the biggest limiting factor for farmers and ranchers who are looking to take advantage of the growing organic market demand and profits that it brings.

- Samuel Fromartz

Can Organic Farming Feed the World?

By Samuel Fromartz

Organic food is often portrayed by its critics as a low-yielding farming method that undercuts the main goal of food production – feeding the world.

These critics also argue that if organic farming were to grow much beyond its tiny elitist niche, forests would have to be plowed under because a much greater land mass would be needed to make up for far lower crop yields.

Pretty sad picture isn't it? Organic farming is portrayed as an inferior agricultural method that ends up raping and pillaging the natural world.

The only problem with this argument is that it doesn't square with the facts. (Nor with the actual picture if you check out the organic wheat field pictured above that was part of a USDA trial).

Although many studies have countered these arguments, three recent ones deserve notice.

First, researchers at the University of Michigan recently published a new study in the Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems that evaluated 293 studies comparing conventional and organic farming.

They found that in the developed world, such as the US, Europe and Japan, organic farming methods yielded slightly less than conventional methods.

But importantly, in the developing world, where food-scarcity is most pronounced, organic methods were actually two- to three-times as productive as conventional agriculture.

Farmers in poorer nations often could not afford the chemicals and fertilizers that are required by high-yielding seed varieties. By farming organically, they could enhance soil fertility by composting waste sources on their farms.

The researchers write that organic farming could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.

"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you can’t produce enough food through organic agriculture," said Ivette Perfecto, a professor at University of Michigan's School of Natural Resources and Environment, and a principle on the study.

She added that the idea people would go hungry if farming went organic was "ridiculous." (You can listen to a brief interview with the researcher).

Another report out of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Iowa is also significant, for it demonstrates the long-term yield potential of organic methods.

The now nine-year-old trials "convincingly show greater yield, increased profitability, and steadily improved soil quality in organic over conventional rotations," the Leopold Center stated.

The longest running rotation of corn, followed by soybeans, oats with alfalfa, and then another crop of alfalfa, produced 188 bushels per acre of organic corn in 2006. The traditional corn-soybean rotation on conventional fields yielded 177 bushels/acre – a 6 percent deficit from the organic fields.

In soybeans, the organic fields produced 45 bushels per acre in this long rotation, compared with 43 bushels on conventional plots.

Over eight years of data, here's the average corn yield in the various methods:

• Conventional corn, soybeans rotation, 160 bushels per acre of corn
• Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa rotation, 150-1/4 bushels/acre corn
• Organic corn, soybean, oats mixed with alfalfa, alfalfa rotation, 160-1/4 bushels/acre corn

Those include the first three years of the organic transition. If you back those years out, and only look at the organic fields post-transition you get these average yields:

• Conventional corn, soybeans rotation, 173.2 bushels per acre corn
• Organic corn, soybean, oats with alfalfa rotation, 162 bushels/acre corn
• Organic corn, soybean, oats with alfalfa, alfalfa rotation, 176 bushels/acre corn

The study shows that well-managed organic crop rotations, which are key to organic farming practices, actually lead to slightly higher yields than conventional chemical methods and rotations. And in the current ethanol-infused corn boom, farmers are forgoing the traditional corn-soybean rotation and growing continuous corn on corn, which requires a greater amount of chemical fertilizers to keep the yield up.

Finally, organic farming gets criticized for its tillage practices, which critics say leads to soil erosion and leaches nitrates into groundwater. These critics say conventional "no-till" farm methods, associated with genetically modified crops and heavy doses of herbicides, are superior.

But again, the facts point to a different conclusion. USDA researchers report that organic farming methods actually produced healthier soils than no-till conventional methods.

In a nine-year study at the Henry A. Wallace Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland, USDA researchers found that the addition of organic matter in manure and cover crops more than offset losses from tillage.

In a final three-year study, corn was grown with no-till practices on all plots to see which ones had the most productive soils. The organic plots had more carbon and nitrogen and yielded 18 percent more corn.

Needless to say, critics won't be convinced by this evidence. But then neither do those who continually assert, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that global warming doesn't exist.

We know better.

Wal-Mart Unmoved

Wal-Mart has issued a response to the Cornucopia complaint about its labeling practices. "Wal-Mart officials say that the company has done nothing wrong," according to Business Week.

The company notes it has has more than 2,000 locations that offer up to 200 organic selections, in addition to thousands of nonorganic offerings. It called the mislabeling an "isolated incident."

But many retailers sell far more than 200 organic offerings but seem to get the labeling right. Why doesn't Wal-Mart simply admit it made a mistake and plege to correct it? Instead, they are facing two potential investigations on mislabeling by the state of Wisconsin and the USDA.