USDA_Hijacked_by_Agribusiness_-_New_Report

[Guest guest]

> Subject:

> GMW:_USDA_Hijacked_by_Agribusiness_-_New_Report

> " GM_WATCH " <info

> Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:20:10 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ------

> " It is not surprising that USDA is slavishly

> following the agenda of agribusiness when you

> consider who holds many of the top jobs at the

> Department. The upper ranks of USDA are filled with

> industry veterans... "

> --------

> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

> JULY 23, 2004

>

> CONTACT: Organization for Competitive Markets

> Ben Lilliston (202) 223-3740

> John Lockie (406) 698-3043

> Mark Smith (617) 354-2922

> Philip Mattera (202) 626-3780 ext. 32

>

> New Report: USDA Hijacked by Agribusiness

> http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0723-02.htm

>

> OMAHA - July 23 - A new report released today finds

> that regulatory policy at the U.S. Department of

> Agriculture (USDA) has been " hijacked " by the

> agribusiness industry, which has seen to it that

> many key policymaking positions at the agency are

> now held by individuals who previously worked for

> the industry.

>

> The report, titled USDA INC., was commissioned by

> the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative (AAI), a

> network of family-farm and public-interest groups

> concerned about the growing power of the big

> agri-food corporations. It is being released today

> at a conference in Omaha sponsored by the

> Organization for Competitive Markets. The report can

> be found online after 9am Eastern Time at

> <www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1>.

>

> " In its early days, USDA was known as the People’s

> Department, " said Fred Stokes of the Organization

> for Competitive Markets, which first proposed the

> paper. " Today, it is, in effect, the Agribusiness

> Industry’s Department, since its policies on issues

> such as food safety and fair market competition have

> been shaped to serve the interests of the giant

> corporations that now dominate food production and

> distribution. "

>

> " It is not surprising that USDA is slavishly

> following the agenda of agribusiness when you

> consider who holds many of the top jobs at the

> Department, " said Philip Mattera, Director of the

> Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First and

> author of the report. " The upper ranks of USDA are

> filled with industry veterans, while people formerly

> associated with family-farm, consumer or

> public-interest groups are just about nowhere to be

> found. "

>

> In addition to working directly for agribusiness

> companies such as ConAgra and Campbell Soup, top

> USDA officials came to the Department from industry

> trade associations (such as the Food Marketing

> Institute) and producer groups (such as the National

> Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork

> Producers Council), which are closely aligned with

> big processing companies and are partially funded by

> them. Even Secretary Ann Veneman, who has spent most

> of her career as a public official, has a past

> industry connection: she served on the board of

> directors of Calgene Inc., a biotechnology company

> that was later taken over by Monsanto.

>

> " It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that

> agribusiness has packed USDA with its people, " said

> Peter O'Driscoll of the Center of Concern,

> coordinator and co-sponsor of AAI.

>

> The report illustrates the hijacking of USDA

> policymaking through five case studies:

>

> · USDA’s refusal to adopt strict safety and testing

> measures for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE),

> despite the appearance of a case in Washington State

> last year.

>

> · USDA’s refusal to vigorously enforce rules against

> anti-competitive practices in the cattle industry,

> despite the growing tendency of the big meatpacking

> companies to force independent ranchers into

> so-called captive supply arrangements.

>

> · USDA's promotion of weakened slaughterhouse

> inspection practices in the face of a resurgence of

> health hazards such as E.coli bacteria and listeria.

> The Department also continues to promote dubious

> “solutions” such as irradiation.

>

> · USDA's continuing boosterism for agricultural

> biotechnology, despite a lack of consumer acceptance

> and the plunge in exports due to international

> resistance to genetically modified crops.

>

> · USDA's support for concentrated animal feeding

> operations (CAFOs), despite the growing evidence of

> serious public health effects of these factory

> farms. The Department has also supported the

> misguided policy of using conservation dollars to

> subsidize the futile attempts of CAFOs solve their

> manure problems.

>

> In each of these cases, the report notes the

> presence of industry veterans among the chief

> officials responsible for adopting or maintaining

> these questionable policies.

>

> The report concludes with a set of recommendations

> on how to begin loosening the grip of agribusiness

> on USDA’s policies. These include:

>

> · Reappraisal of ethics rules to prevent government

> officials from overseeing policies that directly

> affect the interest of their former employers;

>

> · Enhancement of Congressional oversight over

> regulatory appointees;

>

> · Evaluation of whether USDA can continue to serve

> both as a promoter of U.S. agricultural products and

> a regulator of food safety; and

>

> · Further research on revolving-door conflicts of

> interest at USDA.

>

> Progress on these measures, the report argues, will

> begin to turn USDA Inc. back into an arm of

> government that represents the public interest.

>

> The report was commissioned by a working group of

> the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative. The

> following working group members helped research and

> edit the paper:

>

> Scotty Johnson, Defenders of Wildlife

>

> Ben Lilliston, Institute for Agriculture and Trade

> Policy

>

> Patty Lovera, Public Citizen

>

> Larry Mitchell, American Corn Growers Association

>

> Peter O’Driscoll, Center of Concern

>

> Mark Smith, Farm Aid

>

> Fred Stokes, Organization for Competitive Markets

>