Report Highlights Corporate Control at USDA

[Guest guest]

===========================================

P A N U P S

Pesticide Action Network Updates Service

===========================================

 

Report Highlights Corporate Control at USDA

September 16, 2004

 

A recent report on food industry influence at the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) concludes that corporate influence over the agency has

reached a crisis point. " USDA Inc: How Agribusiness Has Hijacked

Regulatory Policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture " describes the

links

between USDA appointees and agrochemical or food industry corporations,

trade groups and consulting firms that have undermined the regulatory

mission of the agency in favor of the interests of agribusiness.

 

Produced for the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative (AAI) by the

Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, the report reviews agency

decision making and the backgrounds of key employees in five case

studies: biotech foods, concentrated animal feeding operations, meat

inspection polices, competition in meatpacking, and bovine spongiform

encephalopathy (BSE). The report finds the positions of USDA are " much

more

closely aligned with the mega corporations of the food industry than with

consumers, small farmers, or the environment. "

 

President Lincoln called the USDA in its infancy " the People's

Department " because it served fully one half the population. According

to the

report, the agency has become " the agribusiness industry's department,

or USDA Inc., because 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. "

 

Individuals with corporate affiliations and financial ties to the

agrochemical industry staff USDA at all levels. Current USDA Secretary

Ann

Veneman, for example, began her career at USDA in 1986, where, as Deputy

Secretary under the first Bush Administration, she announced the agency

would no longer regulate the FLAVR SAVR tomato, genetically engineered

by biotechnology firm Calgene. Ms. Veneman served on the board of

Calgene (which was subsequently acquired by Monsanto) before returning to

USDA in 2001 as Agriculture Secretary under the current administration.

 

The report also notes that key aides to Secretary Veneman as well as

heads of various USDA agencies are political appointees with career

experience working for agribusiness companies and trade associations.

Veneman's chief of staff Dale Moore was Executive Director for

Legislative

Affairs of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and Assistant

Secretary for Congressional Relations Mary Waters was a senior

director and

legislative counsel for ConAgra Foods, one of the country's largest

food processors.

 

USDA's lax regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops is one

indication of the agency's support for the biotech industry despite

scientific warnings and overwhelming public concern and opposition to

transgenic foods. The department has allowed GE test plots to risk

contamination

of nearby non-GE crops; from 1987 to 2002 USDA rejected only 3.5% of

applications for test sites and authorized 15,461 field releases of

transgenic organisms. USDA currently operates under a notification

process

whereby corporations need only inform the Department that they are

conducting a field trial.

 

According to the report, two primary factors drive the trend towards

corporate control of government agencies: regulatory changes allowing

collaborative research and investment, and rapid consolidation of the

agriculture and biotechnology sectors. Frequent mergers and acquisitions

during the 1980s and 1990s in the agrochemical sector have created mega

corporations with deep pockets for public relations and political

lobbying. These mega corporations also benefit from the 1986 Federal

Technology Transfer Act (FTTA), which enables USDA to enter into business

ventures and partnerships with private corporations. The terms of FTTA

allow

any corporation funding USDA research to gain exclusive license on

inventions resulting from the project.

 

In its conclusion, " USDA Inc. " makes a number of recommendations to

reorient the agency to the public interest including: overhaul and

enforce

of federal ethics rules regarding apparent conflicts of interest;

increase congressional oversight for regulatory appointees; reconsider

the

compatibility of USDA's promotional role with its regulatory function;

and investigate specific conflicts of interest stemming from the

" revolving door " between industry and the agency.

 

Sources: USDA Inc: How Agribusiness has Hijacked Regulatory Policy at

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agribusiness Accountability

Initiative, http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org.

Contact: PANNA.

 

PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and

reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the

mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North

America, a

non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance

sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide.

 

You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and

all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit

http://www.panna.org/donate.

 

===========================================

Back issues of PANUPS are available online at:

http://www.panna.org/resources/panups.html

 

Please note: responses to this message will not be read.

To comment, send an email to:

panna

 

To , send a blank email to:

PANUPS-

 

Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA)

49 Powell St., Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA

Phone: (415) 981-1771

Fax: (415) 981-1991

Email: panna

Web: http://www.panna.org

===========================================