A LETTER FROM GEORGE NAYLOR

Agriculture does not need 'business as usual'

Chicago Tribune
January 22, 2009
By George Naylor

I'm sorely disappointed in George McGovern and Marshall Matz's disturbing commentary piece, "Agriculture's next big challenge" (Jan. 4), which makes a failed argument to continue with business as usual for industrial agriculture. Our current fossil-fuel based system has led to severe degradation of the land, while encouraging giant livestock feedlots and factory farms that severely degrade air and water quality.

Industrial agriculture has also given us diets loaded with high-fructose corn syrup and cheap fast food. No wonder obesity, particularly among low-income Americans, is now an epidemic.

How can McGovern and Matz ignore the broken social system throughout American farm communities and not perceive the human tragedy industrial, Green Revolution agriculture will bring to Asia, Africa, and Latin America? As a corn farmer from a family farm tradition, I would hope that my country through the new Obama administration would champion a vision of family farm agriculture based on food sovereignty principles, where everyone has access to economic opportunity in rural areas and to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food.

The recent landmark report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology, backed by United Nations Agencies and the World Bank and comprising over 400 scientists, showed that commercial agricultural practices are endangering the planet while also failing to rectify the hunger of millions. To reverse this, the report said investments in ecological practices and science that encourages participatory knowledge creation and the integration of indigenous knowledge shows more promise than relying on transgenic crops and other chemical-intensive Green Revolution tactics. It is a false idea that American food can feed the world, an idea that only invites more disdain for American economic arrogance. Developing countries need a democratic vision to become self-sufficient in building their own local food economies just as we need a democratic vision to transform our own.

The planet, our rural communities and our children's diets will be the better as soon as we wake up to scientific facts instead of the usual agribusiness propaganda recycled by McGovern and Matz in their apologetic defense of industrial agriculture. I hope President Obama and Gov. Tom Vilsack's vision for change will confront this challenge head on.

--George Naylor

National Family Farm Coalition

Churdan, Iowa

Los combustibles “verdes” de Obama

Silvia Ribeiro

La Jornada

Durante su campaña Barack Obama, presidente electo de Estados Unidos, promovió continuamente los agro- combustibles como parte de su “nueva economía verde”. Obvió la creciente cantidad de estudios que muestran que los agrocombustibles tienen una eficiencia energética negativa (usan más combustibles fósiles de los que dicen suplantar, empeorando las causas del cambio climático), que compiten con la producción alimentaria (por los cultivos, tierra, agua y nutrientes) y que para alcanzar las metas de uso de “biocombustibles”, no alcanza con la producción en Estados Unidos, por lo que fríamente se cuenta con la producción de granos en países del sur, donde se agravan todos los problemas anteriores. Actualmente, Estados Unidos dedica la tercera parte de su producción de maíz para etanol.

La elección y próximo nombramiento de Tom Vilsack como secretario de Agricultura y Steven Chu como secretario de Energía, revelan que la política de la administración Obama será no solamente continuar con esta dañina industria, a la que ya aseguró nuevos subsidios –que solamente beneficiarán a las transnacionales del sector–, sino también promover agresivamente el desarrollo de nuevas y más riesgosas generaciones de agrocombustibles, basadas en nuevos cultivos transgénicos y biología sintética (seres vivos diseñados con genes artificiales).

Tom Vilsack, ex gobernador de Iowa, fue nombrado en 2001, “gobernador del año” por la Organización de la Industria Biotecnológica (BIO, que agrupa a mil 200 empresas biotecnológicas a escala global, incluyendo Monsanto y las demás que monopolizan los transgénicos), “por su apoyo al crecimiento económico de esta industria”. Anteriormente, había fundado una asociación (Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership) para promover los transgénicos con los otros gobernadores. En 2002 defendió fieramente el uso de maíz para producir fármacos, e incluso criticó a la propia industria, que obligada por las críticas públicas y escándalos de contaminación con ese maíz no comestible, había anunciado una restricción voluntaria de los farmacultivos. Con igual entusiasmo defendió la clonación de vacas lecheras. El apoyo no fue solamente discursivo. Durante su gobierno, Trans Ova Genetics, dedicada a la clonación de vacas lecheras, recibió 9 millones de dólares en subsidios y ProdiGene, la empresa multada en 2002 por contaminación con maíz farmacéutico, recibió 6 millones de las arcas del estado. En 2005 fue el autor intelectual de una ley que restringe el derecho de los gobiernos locales a regular los transgénicos. No sorprende que sea también un entusiasta defensor de los agrocombustibles transgénicos de maíz y soya. Sólo faltaba el elemento realmente “innovador”, que aportará el nuevo secretario de energía, Steven Chu.

Chu es físico y premio Nobel. Viene del Laboratorio Nacional Lawrence Berkeley, donde dirige un proyecto de energía, cuya meta es “producir tecnologías transformadoras en nanotecnología y biología sintética”. Sus principales colaboradores son industriales de la biología sintética. Jay Keasling, fundador de Amyris Biotech, es codirector del proyecto. En una presentación reciente ante el Comité de Energía y Recursos Naturales del Senado de Estados Unidos (Science News, 13/1/09) Chu se declaró dispuesto a desarrollar la industria nuclear y a continuar el uso de carbón a gran escala, siempre que se siguieran desarrollando proyectos de secuestro de carbono. O sea, seguir creando gases de efecto invernadero, pero promoviendo el jugoso negocio –inútil para prevenir el cambio climático– del comercio de emisiones de carbono. Pero en lo que se mostró realmente apasionado, es en el desarrollo de una “cuarta generación de biocombustibles”, a partir de biología sintética, proyecto en el que ha estado trabajando desde hace dos años. Se trata, explicó, de microbios “entrenados” –leáse manipulados con biología sintética, o sea mucho peor que solamente transgénicos– para transformar cualquier tipo de azúcares, no sólo en etanol, sino también en “sustitutos similares a la gasolina, diesel y combustible de jets”. Aseguró que se podría usar cualquier materia prima, como residuos de maíz y otros cultivos, pero lo interesante serían cultivos para forraje y otros para producir etanol celulósico (que necesariamente requieren biología sintética y transgénicos para ser procesados).

Lo único realmente verde de estas nuevas generaciones de combustibles será el dinero que ya están viendo las grandes industrias de los transgénicos, agronegocios, petroleras y farmacéuticas, que son los inversores y asociados de las compañías de biología sintética. Como son trasnacionales no es un problema sólo estadunidense: esto es el impulso que buscaban para expandir estas nuevas tecnologías contaminantes al resto del mundo. En México, la presión por sembrar nuevos maíces transgénicos y farmacultivos, crecerá “oficialmente”. La empresa de Keasling, Amyris, ya tiene contratos en Brasil con grandes productores de caña de azúcar. Lo que nos legará un aumento de la disputa por tierras y agua, los residuos y contaminación transgénicas y los nuevos riesgos de los microbios sintéticos.

*investigadora del Grupo ETC

FROM THE US ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION:

Alert Update of the Week: Vilsack and Riddle Despite a deluge of over 100,000 emails and petition signatures from organic consumers and farmers objecting to the appointment of biotech and biofuels booster Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture, the Senate is scheduled to begin confirmation hearings for Vilsack today. The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is disappointed in this controversial appointment, and we are calling on our national network and allies to pressure Obama to move beyond "agribusiness as usual" by drafting Jim Riddle to head the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the department that oversees organic food, farming, and standards. Riddle is an organic farmer from Minnesota, former Chair of the National Organic Standards Board, and a longtime advocate for sustainable and organic farming. With Riddle heading up the AMS, farmers markets, Community Supported Agriculture, transition to organic programs, and the National Organic Program will finally receive the attention, technical assistance, and funding they deserve. Take action Sustainability Alert: How Much Change Will There Be Inauguration Day? On January 8, the US Senate began confirmation hearings for President-Elect Obama's cabinet. The Salt Lake Tribune sums things up neatly in a headline indicating Obama's Cabinet may be short on reformers. According to Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association. "The latest polls show that 60 percent of Americans say we're in serious straits and need some major changes, but he's going to have to be pushed if we're going to see anything other than small change." Please follow the link below to learn more about the nominees and send letters to President-Elect Obama and your Senators. The Senate is expected to confirm all the nominees in a floor vote on Inauguration Day, so there's not much time left for public input. Take Action Encouraging Statistics of the Week: Farmers Markets Go "Boom" Essay of the Week: The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-sufficient Living... "Sick of flavorless, genetically modified, pesticide-drenched franken-vegetables? It's time to start growing food in your back yard. Before you start thinking that you have to move somewhere else to grow your own food, take another look around. With a couple of notable exceptions, American cities sprawl. They are full of wasted space. As a homesteader, you will begin to see any open space as a place to grow food. This includes front yards as well as backyards, vacant lots, parkways, alleyways, patios, balconies, window boxes, fire escapes and rooftops. Urban homesteading is an affirmation of the simple pleasures of life. When you spend a Saturday morning making a loaf of bread, or go out on a summer evening after work to sit with your chickens, or take a deep breath of fresh-cut basil, you unplug yourself from the madness. Many of us spend a lot of each day in front of a computer. Homesteading hooks us into the natural world and the passing of the seasons, and reminds us of our place within the greater cycle of life." ---- Source Learn more about OCA's "Organic Transitions" campaign designed to mobilize communities and consumers to develop transition strategies in the new era of Peak Oil and climate change, with organic food & farming providing the healthy cornerstone for a new green economy.

ONE GENE, ONE PROTEIN, ONE FUNCTION - NOT SO

Greg Revell

With the abrupt and uninvited introduction of genetically modified (GM) food into our supermarkets and restaurants, many of us are looking more closely into the food we eat.

Recently, Monsanto's apparent transformation from agrichemical giant to philanthropic institution was cynically trumpeted to the world's media: "We will double crops yields!" Such grandiose promises can only be offered if there is a parallel narrative that portrays genetic engineering as being able to permit the precise control of life processes and by extension, provide predictable and controllable agricultural outcomes.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization's public relations campaign explains:

Through modern methods found in biotechnology, researchers can accomplish the desired results, but in a more efficient and predictable manner (than in conventional plant breeding). In this process, a specific gene, or blueprint of a trait, is isolated and removed from one organism then relocated into the DNA of another organism to replicate that similar trait (my emphasis).

But are the techniques that give rise to GM foods as precise and controlled as the PR blurb suggests?

First of all, the scientist has to identify a gene that he or she believes will confer a trait to another organism. Using chemical shears, the foreign gene is cut and pasted into a viral "ferry". Viruses are used because of their unique ability to transfer genetic material across species boundaries, which is usually required in most GM products. To this viral vector are attached controversial "promoter" and "antibiotic-resistant marker" genes.

The entire package is duplicated many times, coated onto microscopic gold and tungsten "bullets" and literally blasted from a gene gun into the Petri dish containing the host cells. The scientist hopes upon hope that the entire package will be neatly inserted into the DNA of a host cell. Most miss their target. Some pass right through without delivering their payload leaving behind damaged DNA. Some cells end up with only portions of the package, some multiple copies. The fact that the DNA of the host organism can withstand such a violent barrage and survive relatively intact, says more of nature's resilience than the precision of the scientist.

Michael Antoniou, molecular geneticist at King's College London says of the biolistics process, "It's the imprecise way in which genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the foreign gene will behave in its new host that results in uncertainty. From a basic genetics perspective, GM possesses an unpredictable component that is far greater than the intended change."

READ THE REST AT: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8283

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kimbrell/obamas-choice-of-vilsack_b_153213.html?view=screen

Andrew Kimbrell: Obama's Choice of Vilsack AgriBusiness as Usual at USDA?

Subdued approval greeted President-elect Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture last week. This came from mainstream environmental groups, such as Sierra Club, and even organizations that have been critical in the past of the Iowa governor's policies. Vilsack comes across in nearly all of the stories written last Tuesday and Wednesday as a solid choice, someone reliable from a farm state who understands farmers.

But, a day or two later the complexion of the Vilsack nomination had changed somewhat. First, the announcement was made in a slightly odd fashion, leaked out ahead of time, as though the Obama transition team were expecting some flak for their choice. In addition, Vilsack -- notably -- had removed himself from the running before jumping back in just prior to his selection by the president-elect.

Today, the lukewarm reception Vilsack initially received has turned into real heat as the Obama transition team finds itself in the fire over the former Governor's appointment. President-elect Obama identified Vilsack as representative of the kind of "new leadership" Washington needs. But now, even those who initially greeted the nomination with some enthusiasm are wondering if Vilsack isn't a signal of business as usual at the USDA, and beyond.

First of all -- as Politico reports -- there is the farm subsidy money that Vilsack has received over time from USDA. According to the piece, from 2000 to 2006, Vilsack and his wife collected $42,782 in subsidies from USDA. In addition, "Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm (Dorsey & Whitney) that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy -- a job that appears to bump up against Obama's promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years." The former Governor recognizes the conflict of interests, and claims he will do everything he can to address the problem, and if he must, he will forgo the payments.

If only that was the sole reason to question the choice of Vilsack; $42K may not be enough of a figure to inspire concern. Vilsack's positions on biotechnology and ethanol are far more troubling.

For those of us who have serious health and environmental concerns about genetically engineered (GE) crops, cloning, and industrial agriculture in general, it would be difficult to pick someone with a worse track record. Vilsack was even named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization for his "support of the industry's economic growth." Small wonder. Under Governor Vilsack, the state of Iowa invested millions of dollars of taxpayer funds in dubious biotechnology start-ups, such as cow cloner Trans Ova Genetics ($9 million) and pharmaceutical corn developer, ProdiGene, Inc. ($6 million). Iowa's investment in ProdiGene was particularly unfortunate. The company not only proved a financial failure, but in 2002, an Iowa cornfield that became contaminated with the company's genetically engineered pharma corn had to be destroyed. One hopes Mr. Vilsack has learned from this experience. He also supported (some say instigated) a bill in 2005 that pre-empted cities and counties from regulating GE crops more strictly than the state or federal government. On biotechnology policy, Vilsack is far from the visionary we had hoped for.

Vilsack has also been a big supporter of ethanol, as is President-elect Obama. On this issue, they're clearly in synch, but their enthusiasm is terribly misplaced. The latest science demonstrates clearly that corn-based ethanol exacerbates rather than mitigates global warming, while so-called "cellulosic" ethanol from crop waste and prairie grass (which might have value, the jury is still out) is years away from commercial use. Even some of ethanol's strongest supporters in Congress, like Senator Tom Harkin, have come to question corn-based ethanol. President-Elect Obama and Mr. Vilsack should make elimination of federal subsidies for corn-to-ethanol -- which now total several billion dollars per year -- a top priority.

However, Vilsack has made some promises that are easy to rally behind. He says he supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination episodes. He has also said that USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE crops.

All this would be welcome, but so far, there is little to indicate that Mr. Vilsack would be the watchdog so promised. There is increasing disappointment in the choice, so we must watch his actions to see if he deserves the public's trust. If he fails on any pledge, it's up to consumers, farmers, and lawmakers to hold his feet to the fire. Ultimately, it is the President-elect's food, farm and energy policies that will guide the USDA in the new administration. While not perfect, there is much promise in these policies.

There were high hopes that Obama would choose a Secretary who would bring real change to the beleaguered USDA. Though more progressive candidates were passed over, Tom Vilsack may not prove to be the AgriBusiness-as-Usual choice that his record would suggest. Some who know him say he is a good listener, and we should not rule out the possibility of change. A president elected on a platform of change needs to implement it nowhere more urgently than in food and farm policy. This nation needs nothing short of a New Green Deal to reverse the Bush administration's abysmal food safety record and assault on the environment through its promotion of industrial agriculture. Although we remain hopeful with the choice of Tom Vilsack, we also have to remain very alert.

An apology from Raj Patel
Taken from http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/node/452

Mr Obama - An Apology

Dear Mr Obama

I owe you an apology. In the run-up to the election, I said that you had been flying around in the Archer Daniels Midland jet, implying that you were still doing it. My mistake. Your team made it clear that you paid for all your own travel.

And although the same team neglected to mention that you’d only been flying around in the ADM jet in your first year of office as a Senator, the fact remains that I was wrong to suggest that this was an ongoing lapse in judgment.

In associating you with ADM, I realize I may have implied that you were, in some way, in hock to the interests of large corporations. This is an implication for which some observers have sought further evidence in the selection of your economic team. With the appointment of Timothy Geithner to the Treasury and Larry Summers to the position of top economic aide, accusations like Obama Chooses Wall Street Over Main Street have been flying through the blogosphere.

On behalf of those authors, I apologise. Even before you have taken office, they have tarnished the reputation of your office with innuendo, raising the trivia of the past, such as Larry Summers' views on women’s brains (they’re not very good at maths), Africans (they could be a lot more polluted than they are), or indeed Mr Summers’ culpability in creating this crisis. These are churlish observations, all. In 2009, we look forward to an era in which economic prosperity reigns once more, a time when the columnists will fill their thoughts not with the ephemera of the past, but the trivia of the future.

And this brings me to the crux of my apology. Like almost everyone else on the planet, I was delighted when you won the presidency. It was a day that showed that an established order could be overthrown through mobilization, that the country and the world had had enough of the status quo, and a day in which we believed that we, the people, could be sovereign.

I’m glad we’ve overcome those feelings over the past few weeks. With your slogans of change and hope, you were careful not to actually commit to terribly much, and it was our mistake to fill that very open policy space with our own little thoughts about how government might be reclaimed by the people, that corporations might be put in their place, that there might be redistribution of power away from a few families, back to genuine progressives. It’s heartening to see in a range of senior positions that having a parent in government is still a valid and legitimate reason to appoint people. Again, we owe you an apology for being so cavalier in our interpretation of hope and change.

Which is why I must apologise for having troubled you with this Food Democracy Now petition. I’m not one to spend too much time signing online petitions, but I thought this one better than most. When you delayed in the announcement of the position of Secretary of Agriculture, it seemed as if there was an opening to pressure you into a wise choice.

Along with 50,000 other people who signed the petition, I thought it’d be a good idea not to have a US Department of Agriculture that, invariably, represented the interests of agricultural business, but a US Department of Food, that represented the interests both of producers and consumers of food. When the New York Times ran an op-ed about it, it almost seemed politically possible, especially since you’d mentioned reading Michael Pollan’s splendid open letter to you in the Times Sunday Magazine.

Now that you’ve named Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack as your choice for Secretary of Agriculture, I hope we can put all this behind us.

On the campaign trail in Iowa, you said “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula? I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.” The right wing media jumped on you, pointing out that there weren’t any Whole Foods in Iowa. Those attacks must have hurt more than you let on. Luckily, Tom Vilsack is a man who knows a great deal about agriculture, and will prevent you from making similar mistakes in the future.

Vilsack is, indeed, a man of the future. He has been touting Iowa as a model for energy security and carbon sequestration, because, to use his words,

“In the past eight years, Iowa successfully changed farm fields into energy fields… In the last seven-and-a-half years, we've had six new power plants built, some of them state-of-the-art coal and natural gas facilities!”

If there are some minor incompatibilities between reducing carbon dioxide output and building coal and gas power stations, I’m sure your new energy secretary will be able to help.

And this confusion in no way diminishes Vilsack’s keen grasp of future prospects. Indeed, he was once rumoured to be John Kerry’s pick for vice presidential running mate in 2004 and, as such, could today be a man who commands the sort of respect that Joe Biden does. Not only that, Vilsack has a sharp eye for future paths for agriculture. In 2004, on a trip to New Zealand, he said

"As Brazil and South America and Africa and some of the other parts of the world get their agricultural act together, our farms are going to be at a serious disadvantage. The only way we in the US and you in New Zealand are going to continue to have prosperity is to figure out something new to add value to the food we're producing. One way to do that is to have a value-added crop designed for a particular application, such as growing crops that are designed to convert to ethanol, or for medicines or nutriceuticals."

That this is exactly consonant with Archer Daniels Midlands' own vision of agricultural change has nothing to do with your flying in their aeroplane. That these priorities for the future of agriculture seem to exacerbate the root causes of this year's food crisis by diverting food crops to non-food uses, and ignore the burdens caused by US agricultural policy on the poor here and abroad, particularly women, particularly in Africa, is something with which I'm sure Larry Summers is well qualified to help.

In conclusion, I’m sure we can look forward to a glorious future for food in the fields of these United States. Food will now become not only something we can eat, but something that’ll give us drugs and something to which we can set fire! As an added bonus, there’ll be no more awkward Whole Foods moments. You’ll soon be able to go into your local pharmacy and remark on the price of arugula, and there are pharmacies in all fifty states! Vilsack is clearly more qualified than any of the progressive candidates mentioned in the petition to guide the Department of Agriculture toward its bright tomorrow, filled with change and hope.

Apologies are due today, and I’m sure will continue to be throughout your administration.

Yours etc.
Raj Patel

U.S. Agriculture Nominee Attracts Controversy

by Ben Block on December 19, 2008

Photo courtesy change.gov

Photo courtesy change.gov

USDA Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack stands alongside Interior Department nominee Ken Salazar (right) and President-elect Barack Obama (left).

President-elect Barack Obama nominated the former governor of Iowa, Tom Vilsack, to serve as his secretary of agriculture earlier this week.

If approved, Vilsack will oversee the world's most productive farmlands, and therefore, some of the world's most daunting environmental challenges. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will influence decisions of ethanol production and global food shortages, growing meat demand and livestock-related greenhouse gases, genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture, rural poverty and agribusiness consolidation.

Vilsack critics say he supported larger farms more than local, organic food production during his two decades in government. Yet observers from Iowa also describe the Democrat as a centrist who balanced the demands of farmers, environmentalists, and industry groups.

"I honestly believe he will listen to a broad sense of voices, having been through a lot here in Iowa," said Jerry DeWitt, director of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University.

The nomination angered some environmental groups, mostly from the organic community, because of Vilsack's support for large agribusiness and biotechnology.

"Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration," said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of the Organic Consumers Association, in a press release.

Vilsack signed legislation in 2005 that preempted local cities and counties from restricting the sale of genetically modified seeds. Yet, according to the Center for Rural Affairs, he reportedly said biotechnology corporations should prove their products are safe before the seeds become available on the market - a more stringent requirement than the law currently states.

The organic association also opposes Vilsack's nomination for his record on "aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." When Vilsack was governor from 1998-2006, the number of hogs per farm in Iowa - the No.1 live animal exporter in the nation - rose from about 800 to more than 1,800 [PDF]. Meanwhile, the number of hog farms fell almost 50 percent.

As a state senator, Vilsack voted for a 1995 law that almost excluded livestock operations from public nuisance lawsuits because of significant demands on the plaintiffs. The Iowa Supreme Court later overturned the law as "flagrantly unconstitutional."

"We continue not to really come forward and recognize the impacts of more and more concentration of animals in our state," said Susan Heathcote, water program director for the Iowa Environmental Council, a lobbying group that represents more than 70 state organizations. "That is a big disappointment."

But the Humane Society of the United States supports his nomination, citing his responsive record on various animal rights measures. Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, said he was not "extremely familiar" with Vilsack's record on factory farming, but Vilsack was the Humane Society's top choice, nonetheless.

"When you consider the other possible choices - like Rep. John Salazar and former Rep. Charlie Stenholm, who are closely aligned with the agribusiness industry - it becomes clear just how meaningful it is that someone like Vilsack was selected instead," Makarian said in an e-mail. "We expect him to be a reasonable and moderate voice on factory farming issues, and not someone who will automatically side with the knee-jerk positions of agribusiness."

As governor, Vilsack supported water pollution controls, renewable energy, and livestock market reforms.

After farm runoff contributed to growing problems of water pollution throughout the state, Vilsack expanded the state's annual water monitoring budget from $33,000 to $3 million. In his second term, he hosted a multi-stakeholder water summit that resulted in a new state water resources council.

"He really took on issues of impaired water and water quality, and it became...a pretty high profile focus of his administration," Heathcote said.

The agriculture secretary will have to collaborate with rural landowners in efforts to expand renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and geothermal nationwide. As governor, Vilsack strongly advocated alternative energy and helped usher some of the world's largest wind energy companies to his state - now the country's third largest wind energy producer.

Yet it was large clean energy corporations, more than local landowners, that generally profited from the investments, according to Iowa Renewable Energy Association board member Ed Woolsey.

"His forte is not working with landowners or farmers," said Woolsey, president of Green Prairie Wind Development and a Union of Concerned Scientists consultant. "His forte is working with big business and regulatory agencies to smooth the way for them to install large developments."

The energy policy that has captured most environmentalists attention has been Vilsack's strong support for ethanol. The next agriculture secretary will inherit the Bush administration's mandates for high ethanol production - 10.5 billion gallons of corn ethanol is required next year and 15 billion gallons by 2015.

Vilsack acknowledged ethanol's limitations, however, in a Rolling Stone interview after he announced his presidency in 2006. "Frankly, corn-based ethanol is not necessarily the wave of the future," he said. "Ethanol may be, but corn is not. There's not enough corn. There needs to be focus on switchgrass, on municipal waste, on timber, on other ways to produce ethanol that is more efficient."

Sustainable agriculture advocates [PDF] had hoped someone from within their community would be picked for the job. Despite the organic community's apparent disappointment, Vilsack garnered the support of several national environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and National Wildlife Federation.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.