SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Tom Vilsack meets with staff members on Tuesday September 20, 2016 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
'A Terrible Decision': Progressives Denounce Biden Pick of 'Mr. Monsanto' Tom Vilsack as Ag Secretary
"We need a USDA Secretary on the side of everyday people. If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse, it's pretty damn close."
Dec 08, 2020
President-elect Joe Biden's reported decision to nominate Tom Vilsack to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture was met with immediate backlash from progressives, who argued the former Iowa governor's industry-friendly record as Obama's USDA chief should have disqualified him from returning to the role.
A coalition of environmental organizations and sustainable farming advocates had urged Biden to choose Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) to head the Agriculture Department, but the president-elect opted instead to nominate Fudge as his secretary of housing and urban development.
"Rep. Marcia Fudge would have been a historic first at USDA--a secretary on the side of everyday people, not corporate agriculture lobbyists," George Goehl, director of progressive advocacy group People's Action, said in a statement late Tuesday. Goehl called Biden's selection of Vilsack "a terrible decision."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities."
--George Goehl, People's Action
Critics of Vilsack, who served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007, have pointed to his failure to confront Big Ag during his time as USDA chief in the Obama administration.
Journalist Branko Marcetic wrote for In These Times over the summer that "while his tenure wasn't uniformly bad--Vilsack resisted Republican attacks on food stamps and upped federal support for organic food--he angered progressive groups by letting poultry factories self-regulate, speeding up the approval process for GMO crops, shelving new regulations on big agriculture at the industry's behest, and stepping in to craft an industry-friendly national GMO-labeling bill intended to replace a pioneering stricter standard in Vermont."
"The move," Marcetic noted, "helped earn him the derisive moniker 'Mr. Monsanto' and the enmity of many Bernie Sanders supporters at a time in 2016 when he was shortlisted as one of Hillary Clinton's potential running mates."
Prominent civil rights organizations have also raised alarm over Vilsack's record on issues of racial justice, pointing specifically to his department's treatment of Black farmers and his 2010 firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was smeared by far-right publication Breitbart.
"It would be a slap in the face to all Black people for this administration to appoint him," Corey Lea of the Cowtown Foundation, an organization that advocates for Black farmers, wrote in a letter urging Biden not to select Vilsack.
The Washington Post reported that during a meeting with Biden on Tuesday, NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the president-elect directly that "he did not want Vilsack to be given the agriculture job."
Goehl of People's Action also highlighted the Sherrod firing and added that during Vilsack's tenure as secretary, USDA "foreclosed on Black farmers after they complained about discrimination."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities," Goehl said. "Instead, we're getting a revolving-door appointment. If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse, it's pretty damn close."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
President-elect Joe Biden's reported decision to nominate Tom Vilsack to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture was met with immediate backlash from progressives, who argued the former Iowa governor's industry-friendly record as Obama's USDA chief should have disqualified him from returning to the role.
A coalition of environmental organizations and sustainable farming advocates had urged Biden to choose Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) to head the Agriculture Department, but the president-elect opted instead to nominate Fudge as his secretary of housing and urban development.
"Rep. Marcia Fudge would have been a historic first at USDA--a secretary on the side of everyday people, not corporate agriculture lobbyists," George Goehl, director of progressive advocacy group People's Action, said in a statement late Tuesday. Goehl called Biden's selection of Vilsack "a terrible decision."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities."
--George Goehl, People's Action
Critics of Vilsack, who served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007, have pointed to his failure to confront Big Ag during his time as USDA chief in the Obama administration.
Journalist Branko Marcetic wrote for In These Times over the summer that "while his tenure wasn't uniformly bad--Vilsack resisted Republican attacks on food stamps and upped federal support for organic food--he angered progressive groups by letting poultry factories self-regulate, speeding up the approval process for GMO crops, shelving new regulations on big agriculture at the industry's behest, and stepping in to craft an industry-friendly national GMO-labeling bill intended to replace a pioneering stricter standard in Vermont."
"The move," Marcetic noted, "helped earn him the derisive moniker 'Mr. Monsanto' and the enmity of many Bernie Sanders supporters at a time in 2016 when he was shortlisted as one of Hillary Clinton's potential running mates."
Prominent civil rights organizations have also raised alarm over Vilsack's record on issues of racial justice, pointing specifically to his department's treatment of Black farmers and his 2010 firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was smeared by far-right publication Breitbart.
"It would be a slap in the face to all Black people for this administration to appoint him," Corey Lea of the Cowtown Foundation, an organization that advocates for Black farmers, wrote in a letter urging Biden not to select Vilsack.
The Washington Post reported that during a meeting with Biden on Tuesday, NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the president-elect directly that "he did not want Vilsack to be given the agriculture job."
Goehl of People's Action also highlighted the Sherrod firing and added that during Vilsack's tenure as secretary, USDA "foreclosed on Black farmers after they complained about discrimination."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities," Goehl said. "Instead, we're getting a revolving-door appointment. If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse, it's pretty damn close."
President-elect Joe Biden's reported decision to nominate Tom Vilsack to lead the U.S. Department of Agriculture was met with immediate backlash from progressives, who argued the former Iowa governor's industry-friendly record as Obama's USDA chief should have disqualified him from returning to the role.
A coalition of environmental organizations and sustainable farming advocates had urged Biden to choose Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio) to head the Agriculture Department, but the president-elect opted instead to nominate Fudge as his secretary of housing and urban development.
"Rep. Marcia Fudge would have been a historic first at USDA--a secretary on the side of everyday people, not corporate agriculture lobbyists," George Goehl, director of progressive advocacy group People's Action, said in a statement late Tuesday. Goehl called Biden's selection of Vilsack "a terrible decision."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities."
--George Goehl, People's Action
Critics of Vilsack, who served as governor of Iowa from 1999 to 2007, have pointed to his failure to confront Big Ag during his time as USDA chief in the Obama administration.
Journalist Branko Marcetic wrote for In These Times over the summer that "while his tenure wasn't uniformly bad--Vilsack resisted Republican attacks on food stamps and upped federal support for organic food--he angered progressive groups by letting poultry factories self-regulate, speeding up the approval process for GMO crops, shelving new regulations on big agriculture at the industry's behest, and stepping in to craft an industry-friendly national GMO-labeling bill intended to replace a pioneering stricter standard in Vermont."
"The move," Marcetic noted, "helped earn him the derisive moniker 'Mr. Monsanto' and the enmity of many Bernie Sanders supporters at a time in 2016 when he was shortlisted as one of Hillary Clinton's potential running mates."
Prominent civil rights organizations have also raised alarm over Vilsack's record on issues of racial justice, pointing specifically to his department's treatment of Black farmers and his 2010 firing of USDA official Shirley Sherrod after she was smeared by far-right publication Breitbart.
"It would be a slap in the face to all Black people for this administration to appoint him," Corey Lea of the Cowtown Foundation, an organization that advocates for Black farmers, wrote in a letter urging Biden not to select Vilsack.
The Washington Post reported that during a meeting with Biden on Tuesday, NAACP President Derrick Johnson told the president-elect directly that "he did not want Vilsack to be given the agriculture job."
Goehl of People's Action also highlighted the Sherrod firing and added that during Vilsack's tenure as secretary, USDA "foreclosed on Black farmers after they complained about discrimination."
"We need a USDA secretary on the side of everyday people who rely on the department in rural, urban, and suburban communities," Goehl said. "Instead, we're getting a revolving-door appointment. If this is not the fox guarding the henhouse, it's pretty damn close."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.