nah....really???

[Guest guest]

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 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.