Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pesticide Lobbyist Gets Posted as Chief Agricultural Negotiator
Confident after his success with health insurance reform, President Obama exerted his executive power on Saturday by making fifteen appointments during the Senate's recess. Among the appointments was Islam Siddiqui, who will now be serving as the Chief Agricultural Negotiator in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (I've written here about what that job entails).
Siddiqui had been working since 2001 as a lobbyist and then later as vice president of science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a lobbying organization for the pesticide and biotech industries. CropLife famously sent Michelle Obama a letter trying to convince her to use pesticides on her organic garden on the White House lawn. But while that move pushed the group into the media spotlight, behind the scenes the group in which Siddiqui has had a strong hand in leading has been lobbying to weaken regulations on biotechnology, pesticides and other agriculture chemicals both in the US and abroad, including securing exemption for American farmers in a worldwide ban of the ozone-depleting chemical methyl bromide in 2006, taking part in secret discussions with the Environmental Protection Agency to be allowed to test pesticides on children, and Siddiqui personally chided the European Union for "denying food to starving people" for using the precautionary principle in the case of GMOs.
While his nomination was held up for other, partisan reasons, over 80 environmental, consumer and farm groups opposed the nomination in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee, and tens of thousands of people called their senators and signed a petition in opposition. But as President Obama ramps up his effort to increase our exports in agricultural and other products abroad (which I critiqued here), he has sought a warm body to fill this position - and I've suggested before, a ‘bad cop' to balance Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's ‘good cop' abroad.
The Pesticide Action Network North America was one of the groups opposing Siddiqui's nomination, and Senior Scientist Marcia Ishii-Eiteman had this to say about his posting:
It is unfortunate that many of President Obama's nominations have been held up, largely due to partisan politics. But what President Obama seriously misjudged this weekend when he appointed Siddiqui without allowing a full Senate vote is that a huge swath of the American public is outraged at the idea of putting a former pesticide lobbyist in charge of US agricultural trade.
When 90,000 people petition their public servants (which is what Senators and the President are, after all) to say that a nomination is unacceptable, and that these revolving door appointments have to stop, and the President proceeds anyhow, what I see is a dereliction of duty. Expediency trumping democracy is how we end up with industry lobbyists running the regulatory agencies in the first place.
The forces protesting Siddiqui are not fringe, are growing, and will prove more powerful than I think President Obama wants to acknowledge. This March over 100 groups -including family farmers and farmworkers, anti-hunger, faith-based, sustainable agriculture, consumer and environmental groups across the country -wrote their Senators a second time, reiterating their opposition to this appointment in no uncertain terms.
During his confirmation hearing, Siddiqui attempted to appease public criticism, claiming that he would include the views of both organic and conventional agriculture-but we know from his tenure at USDA that Siddiqui's vision of organic farming includes use of toxic sludge, GMOs and irradiation.
Siddiqui also pledged to recuse himself for two years from taking part in decisions directly affecting his former employer. But this so-called "ethics pledge" does nothing to assure the American public that Siddiqui will value and protect the interests, health and livelihoods of family farmers, farmworkers, rural communities and urban consumers, over the interests of large multinational agribusinesses. Just about everything Siddiqui has said indicates his ongoing support for what is widely viewed as a failed model of agriculture that has led to dumping cheap and unhealthy agricultural products on consumers, polluting our air and water, and preventing small-scale and family farmers from being able to make a decent living.
What it comes down to is this: Both Siddiqui and Congress now face a well-informed and outraged citizenry as well as an unprecedented mobilization of public interest groups. The American public will be closely monitoring Siddiqui at his new job, and evaluating whether his actions will truly benefit small-scale family farmers in the US and abroad, workers, consumers and the environment-or whether they will benefit large corporations such as Monsanto, JPS, Cargill and Archer Daniel Midlands.
Siddiqui's posting is a serious setback for those hoping for "fair trade" and for those who believed that President Obama had sustainable agriculture on his agenda. This Chief Agricultural Negotiator means business as usual.
- Posted in


14 Comments so far
Show AllThis nomination should make all of the people that are so scared of the GMO seed developments happy. With the use of GMO seed, the need for pesticides are reduced dramatically. Take your pick, one or the other will be used by agriculture, but not both at the same time. He could have put in an organic promoter, but then eventually only the well-off would have food and the poor could go without. Sustainable agriculture also means making enough profit to stay in business, which is why organic farming, although a fine idea for some producers, will remain small scale.
Kernelz,
There are so many premises to challenge in your post that I don't know where to start, so I will keep it brief and to one point.
You claim going organic would mean only the well-off would eat, and I assume you mean that organic production is too expensive. But you conveniently ingnore the massive subsidies provided to large agri-businesses and the massive health care costs associated with a diet based largely on corn calories.
If the organic industries received the same subsidies, or if we removed all subsidies from large agri-businesses, we would see the price difference shrink dramatically. We pay equally for both, but the costs for low priced food are hidden from our eyes.
As seems to be the case, the magic of the free market is manipulated by the men behind the curtain.
Corporate propagandists and their lackeys in government have refined the art of funneling every issue into two bad choices and telling us we need to pick one...no alternatives. Kernelz would no doubt also tell us that if we want electrical power we have two choices...burn coal or privatize profits and socialize losses for the nuclear industry.
Great points, rastaman.
Joe
Organic farming is how indigenous people farm and how they have survived for generations. Many of them are dry land, organic farmers because they do not have expensive irrigation systems, and cannot afford pesticides and fertilizers even if they wanted them. After NAFTA, the U.S. flooded Mexico with cheap corn, driving these indigenous farmers off of their land. So they come up here and become "poor people" who have trouble getting food. If we hadn't supported policies that allowed corporate agriculture to grow cheap corn and then undercut native farmers around the world, these "poor people" would still be happily eating their own organic food.
I suppose you could call me a reactionary, because for so many reasons (ecology, pollution, health, economic equality) I feel we must restore the practice of smaller local food-based agriculture. For our own good, we should allocate money and effort to help these farmers survive, prosper, go organic and implement more humane animal policies rather than driving them out of business. Cash crop monoculture has impoverished so many farmers, driven them off the land and led to malnutrition through lack of fresh food variety.
There is, however, a problem of scale now that so many live in cities where there is not enough land to feed the local population. But these problems can be tackled if we have the will. In the least we should stop all policies which force local farmers to compete with agribusiness, which can afford to take a loss long enough to drive everyone else out of business and establish a monopoly.
Not being anyone important, and living in a city high rise, all I can do is shop for local organic food in preference to processed, packaged food shipped from long distances. It makes me happy to do so whenever I can. Cooking at home helps save money to support this practice. One of my kids, who has a 10 by 20 foot yard is growing huge amounts of vegetables fertilized by a worm bin. If millions did this, it would help in the USA. I do not know about India, Mexico, etc. This is a serious problem and all I can do is to not support NAFTA like policies. Perhaps the new Latin American alliance that excludes the United States can formulate some policies to address the food issues.
Joe
my family spends a good chunk of our income on organic food. it may be a little more expensive but better to pay more now and eat real food instead of paying later in doctor and or hospital visits from eating the subsidised corn/soy food.
oh, and doesn't the GMO crops have to be sprayed with roundup?
we vote with our fork.
how do you vote?
I like that patrick - "vote with your fork".
Joe
This is merely the tip of a huge iceberg.
Find a copy of Food, Inc. Even if you already know the facts presented, actually seeing what's going on will change your preception.
It's a bigger issue than organic vs. the pesticide industry. It's bigger than the GMO fight.
We MUST stop supporting corporate farming... totally.
Demand REAL food... not "notional" food!
Our very survival depends on it.
Start now! Grow your own veggies. Keep a handful of chickens for eggs and meat. Find a local dairy products supplier that is not a corporate farm.
Investigate Square Foot Gardening! Anyone can do it anywhere!
----------
A "friend of Ishmael"
The dirty Fu<#1^g hippies... were right - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4
Another typical Obama appointment, where political correctness--the man's name is Islam Siddiqui, after all--is supposed to trump politics. In today's U.S., all you have to do is show women, people of color and from other oppressed groups in positions of power to pass for enlightened and progressive. Never mind the actual political beliefs of these people. It's Condoleeza and Colin Powell all over again.
Hell, it's Obama all over again.
This is the essence of liberalism. It's what allows us to dump genocidal weapons on the brown people of the Middle East and South Asia and still feel okay about it.
Or have the staff tend an organic garden on the White House lawn and give the rest of us pesticide laden "food" ala Islam Siddiqi. There are definitely a lot of new job niches for light brown corporatists, both in policy making positions and in the media. Maybe that's what's bugging the Republicans. Their policies are being implemented all right, but by upstarts, not by a uniform sea of manicured old white men.
Joe
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Do we see pattern now?
Those of us who'd like to see more small and local can . . . go small and local. It's fun and doable, as Homeless Bob says here (great handle, HB!).
We can rail against the machine or get our hands dirty. Agribiz does what agribiz does and our complaining about it is likely to make us feel powerless and unhappy. Growing something usually feels pretty good. The good news about gardening can't be kept underground forever yukyuk.
www.RadicalRelocalization.com
"They'll never see us coming."
Great post, thanks.