The (Un)Importance of Being USDA Secretary

Oscar Wilde's play culminates in the hero's realization of the importance of being earnest/Earnest; the greens need to learn the unimportance of being Secretary of Agriculture.

(I write after a few weeks of concern and agitation over who Obama's Secretary will be. The latest is this post at DTN: will animal rights be a top concern or will the Secretary roll over for GM crops? The first, of course, was the omnipresent Michael Pollan in the Times Magazine, on whose piece I've drafted many more comments than I've posted.)

But the reality is, in my experience, the Secretary:

1. can't create a new program, only Congress can do that.
   
2. can't move money from one program to another, only the appropriations committees can do that.
3. can't reorganize the department, only Congress can do that (just ask Secretary Glickman, who spent much time and effort to prepare a combination of the administrative support personnel for NRCS, FSA, and RD, only to have Congress veto it).
4. can't close offices (without time consuming negotiation and consultation with the affected member of Congress)
5. can't talk to the public, without telling Congress first (okay, that's an exaggeration--the prohibition is not across the board).
6. can try to sway Congress when the farm bill is being prepared (ask Venneman and Schafer how well that worked), unfortunately there's no farm bill due during Obama's term of office.
7. is limited in what he or she can direct USDA employees to do (like proposing user fees).

See Sec. 712 of the Agricultural Appropriations Act for an example:'"a) None of the funds provided by this Act, or provided by previous Appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in the current fiscal year, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds which--

(1) creates new programs;

(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;

(3) increases funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted;

(4) relocates an office or employees;

(5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or

(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed by Federal employees; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds."

(I admit, I exaggerate a bit--John Block in 1983 created a big expensive program, using CCC inventories, without Congressional authority and by strong arming the attorneys. But we don't have big CCC inventories now and Bush gave strong use of executive power a bad name.)

Obama Channels Pollan

:-( See this story in the Des Moines Register. Hat tip: Brownfield Networks.

Contra Michael Pollan--Farmers Comment

I'd like to note some comments on Michael Pollan's recent NY Times mag piece, mostly from self-identified farmers or farm-raised people

Marcie

Shana

Rp, a farmer from Canada

Allen Hurlburt, CA

Fred Schumacher, MN and here

Who, Me Biased?

Not at all. We must not have the full picture of Michael Pollan's garden here. It looks rather small, certainly nothing to match his grandfather's garden, described here, in a piece I like rather better than his more recent work.

Of course, Pollan must be busy flying around the country promoting his books, too busy to maintain the year-round garden that must be possible in California. I'd hate to have his travel schedule over the next weeks, or his carbon foot-print.

Dana Says It Better Than I Have

At The Edge of the American West, Dana writes on Pollan' Omnivore's Dilemna. As she notes, many of the health problems of our diet are lower class, while Pollan's suggestions work best for the middle. (Actually I'd say upper middle, since we have no upper class in the U.S., at least none who cook for themselves.)

Why the Amish Stay Slim

They work, not office work, physical work. So even if their genes favor obesity, they're slim. So says this study.

I buy it. A rural society with lots of physical labor is not stout. "Stout" is a word from the past. Of course many so-called farmers now have a pot, "so-called" because they just drive tractors and because I'm feeling grumpy today. Contra Professor Pollan, the key variable is not the diet, it's the labor.


(Decided since I'm fascinated by the Amish, I need to add a tag for them.)

Michael Phelps and Food

Everyone else is writing about Michael Phelps, so I might as well join the parade. He's gotten lots of publicity for his 12,000 calorie diet, including this webmd piece (which is skeptical).

It doesn't seem to include the right proportions of fruits and vegetables, but it may include the secret behind Mr. Pollan's "In Defense of Food" blurbs on behalf of traditional diets. A traditional diet, whether the all-meat diet of the Inuit or the cattle-blood diet of some cattle herding tribes, is usually matched by a traditional way of work. Michael Phelps' diet, and that of other athletes, is coordinated with the work they do. You can eat a traditional diet if you do the traditional work. If not, not.

Changes in Eating Patterns

The NY Times does a graphic article on changes in food consumption patterns between 1970 and now, based on ERS figures. Click on the multimedia link to get the graphics.

We've increased food consumption by about 10 percent, with a big drop in dairy and big increases in fats, grains, and fruit. (Pardon my pointing out that's not quite the picture painted by people like Professor Pollan--at least not the areas of increase. To be fair, I expect the oils and grains are consumed mostly as baked or deep fat fried foods, but the article doesn't specify our menu.)

Bottled Water; or Michael Pollan Might Be Right

I typically respond negatively to those, like Michael Pollan, who say that food manufacturers have stuffed Americans with high sugar drinks. Don't they realize Americans are independent thinkers not to be led around by the nose?

But then I read a story on bottled water, like the one by Shenkar Vedantam in Monday's Post, "What's Colorless and Tasteless And Smells Like . . . Money?" and I think, maybe they have a point; maybe cola companies do have the power to stuff us with sugar water and make us pay for it.

Eating Your Own Dog Food, Or Something

There's phenomena among the chattering classes, I believe on all sides of the political spectrum, of eating their own dogfood. That is, when they have an argument to make, their citations tend to be to the secondary, or tertiary, literature, not to primary source material. What it means is there's a tendency to talk in an echo chamber, to repeat the same urban myths, and to ignore facts or alternatives.

There's an example here:

"The last time food prices shot up, in the 1970s, the U.S. response was to put more land into agricultural production. This was the infamous "fencerow-to-fencerow" policy of Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz that Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, has linked to the glut of corn -- and corn syrup -- that has so profoundly affected global diets. "

The whole piece discusses how North Korea was and is a canary warning the world of imminent catastrophe.

Pollan on the Farm Bill--Can't Beat Something with Nothing

Michael Pollan writes at EWG on what went wrong with the farm bill. His basic answer is: his camp didn't have a constructive proposal for replacing the current system. And proponents of the current system did a good job of "logrolling", also known as co-opting people by throwing them a bone.

I suspect that's about right, although I'd add another factor: the opponents made a lot of noise, but never showed a good, big organization. You get the attention of politicians by whacking them with grassroots support, not posts on blogs, etc., or even best sellers.

Finally, the history of farm legislation is that changes occur incrementally--the institution of the Conservation Reserve Program in the 85 bill and Freedom to Farm's direct payments were, in my opinion, the two biggest changes we've had since 1965.

Pollan's Thesis Takes a Hit

One of Michael Pollan's arguments in "In Defense of Food" against what he calls nutritionism is that idea that, since the 1970's, our health has declined even as nutritionists have had more influence over what we eat. A report in Wednesday's Washington Post seems to counter that position:

The difference in death rates between highly educated and poorly educated people in the United States is very wide and growing wider, according to new research.

For Americans with less than a high school education, the risk of dying prematurely is on the increase -- rising most quickly for white women in that category. In contrast, the risk of premature death among college graduates is falling -- fastest of all for black men.

It's true that much of the decline is due to changes in life-style (i.e, no smoking) but it certainly doesn't support the idea the health of educated, monied people (the ones who buy Pollan's books) is declining. And here's the CBO's take on the issue