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 speaks on December 11, 2020 after being nominated to serve as Agriculture Secretary. (Photo: Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
Amid Broader Concerns Over Biden USDA Nominee, Watchdog Flags 'Disturbing Suppression' of Science by Vilsack
"Unless he pledges to implement significant safeguards for scientists, Tom Vilsack should not be confirmed. The days in which federal agencies function as scientific gulags should be behind us."
Jan 28, 2021
On top of concerns about his close industry ties, corporate-friendly policy record, and alarming civil rights history, President Joe Biden's Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack is also facing scrutiny over what one watchdog organization on Friday characterized as "disturbing" evidence that he improperly meddled in and suppressed scientific research during his previous tenure as head of USDA.
Throughout his nearly eight years as former President Barack Obama's USDA chief, Vilsack "routinely interfered with scientific work that big agriculture found bothersome," the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in a statement Friday, pointing to the direct testimony and survey responses of department scientists.
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling. Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
--Tom Whitehouse, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling," said PEER's executive director Tim Whitehouse. "Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
One notable example PEER cited is the case of Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, an agroecologist who served as a senior research entomologist and lab supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service during Vilsack's time as head of the department.
In 2015, Lundgren lodged a whistleblower complaint alleging that his USDA supervisors suspended him as punishment for publishing research detailing the harms neonicotinoid insecticides--commonly referred to as "neonics"--cause to monarch butterflies.
"It is USDA policy that political suppression and manipulation of science are not to be tolerated, but it is empty rhetoric," then-PEER staff counsel Laura Dumais, who filed the complaint on Lundgren's behalf, said at the time. "Dr. Lundgren is suffering the proverbial professional death by a thousand cuts precisely because of the implications [of] his scientific work for agribusiness."
To demonstrate that concerns about Vilsack's approach to scientific research were not limited to a few isolated complaints, PEER pointed to a 2016 Office of Inspector General survey showing that around 120 USDA agency scientists believed their research findings had "been altered or suppressed for reasons other than technical merit."
Additionally, less than half of the more than 1,300 survey respondents said they felt USDA strongly promoted a "culture of scientific integrity" under Vilsack's leadership.
"Unless he pledges to implement significant safeguards for scientists, Tom Vilsack should not be confirmed," said Whitehouse. "The days in which federal agencies function as scientific gulags should be behind us."
PEER's scathing assessment of Vilsack's disregard for scientific integrity came days after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups including RootsAction.org and Food & Water Watch launched a campaign urging senators to block the former USDA chief's confirmation.
Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, is expected to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee for his first confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
"Tom Vilsack, aka 'Mr. Monsanto,' served corporate interests for eight years as Secretary of Agriculture under Obama and continued to do so as head of one of the largest U.S. dairy lobbies after leaving office," the progressive campaign's website declares. "Vilsack ushered through a spineless GMO labeling standard rubber stamped by Big Ag, and sped-up the approval process for genetically modified crops. He allowed the meat industry to further monopolize--squeezing out small farmers--and scaled back oversight of poultry processing plants."
Emily Berch, a student at Iowa State University and an editorial intern at The Nation, argued Thursday that allowing Vilsack to return to the top of USDA would add "insult to the Democratic Party's long record of malign neglect toward rural Americans."
"Putting Vilsack back in charge at the USDA also ignores the advice of rural progressives and civil rights advocates," Berch argued. "While institutional knowledge can be an asset, it can also lead to a defense of the status quo, which, for a Vilsack-led USDA, means continuing to prioritize corporate agribusiness by sacrificing everyday Americans."
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.
On top of concerns about his close industry ties, corporate-friendly policy record, and alarming civil rights history, President Joe Biden's Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack is also facing scrutiny over what one watchdog organization on Friday characterized as "disturbing" evidence that he improperly meddled in and suppressed scientific research during his previous tenure as head of USDA.
Throughout his nearly eight years as former President Barack Obama's USDA chief, Vilsack "routinely interfered with scientific work that big agriculture found bothersome," the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in a statement Friday, pointing to the direct testimony and survey responses of department scientists.
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling. Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
--Tom Whitehouse, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling," said PEER's executive director Tim Whitehouse. "Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
One notable example PEER cited is the case of Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, an agroecologist who served as a senior research entomologist and lab supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service during Vilsack's time as head of the department.
In 2015, Lundgren lodged a whistleblower complaint alleging that his USDA supervisors suspended him as punishment for publishing research detailing the harms neonicotinoid insecticides--commonly referred to as "neonics"--cause to monarch butterflies.
"It is USDA policy that political suppression and manipulation of science are not to be tolerated, but it is empty rhetoric," then-PEER staff counsel Laura Dumais, who filed the complaint on Lundgren's behalf, said at the time. "Dr. Lundgren is suffering the proverbial professional death by a thousand cuts precisely because of the implications [of] his scientific work for agribusiness."
To demonstrate that concerns about Vilsack's approach to scientific research were not limited to a few isolated complaints, PEER pointed to a 2016 Office of Inspector General survey showing that around 120 USDA agency scientists believed their research findings had "been altered or suppressed for reasons other than technical merit."
Additionally, less than half of the more than 1,300 survey respondents said they felt USDA strongly promoted a "culture of scientific integrity" under Vilsack's leadership.
"Unless he pledges to implement significant safeguards for scientists, Tom Vilsack should not be confirmed," said Whitehouse. "The days in which federal agencies function as scientific gulags should be behind us."
PEER's scathing assessment of Vilsack's disregard for scientific integrity came days after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups including RootsAction.org and Food & Water Watch launched a campaign urging senators to block the former USDA chief's confirmation.
Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, is expected to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee for his first confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
"Tom Vilsack, aka 'Mr. Monsanto,' served corporate interests for eight years as Secretary of Agriculture under Obama and continued to do so as head of one of the largest U.S. dairy lobbies after leaving office," the progressive campaign's website declares. "Vilsack ushered through a spineless GMO labeling standard rubber stamped by Big Ag, and sped-up the approval process for genetically modified crops. He allowed the meat industry to further monopolize--squeezing out small farmers--and scaled back oversight of poultry processing plants."
Emily Berch, a student at Iowa State University and an editorial intern at The Nation, argued Thursday that allowing Vilsack to return to the top of USDA would add "insult to the Democratic Party's long record of malign neglect toward rural Americans."
"Putting Vilsack back in charge at the USDA also ignores the advice of rural progressives and civil rights advocates," Berch argued. "While institutional knowledge can be an asset, it can also lead to a defense of the status quo, which, for a Vilsack-led USDA, means continuing to prioritize corporate agribusiness by sacrificing everyday Americans."
On top of concerns about his close industry ties, corporate-friendly policy record, and alarming civil rights history, President Joe Biden's Agriculture Secretary nominee Tom Vilsack is also facing scrutiny over what one watchdog organization on Friday characterized as "disturbing" evidence that he improperly meddled in and suppressed scientific research during his previous tenure as head of USDA.
Throughout his nearly eight years as former President Barack Obama's USDA chief, Vilsack "routinely interfered with scientific work that big agriculture found bothersome," the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) alleged in a statement Friday, pointing to the direct testimony and survey responses of department scientists.
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling. Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
--Tom Whitehouse, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
"Tom Vilsack's record on scientific integrity at USDA was appalling," said PEER's executive director Tim Whitehouse. "Government research documenting what is really going in American agriculture does not need a corporate filter."
One notable example PEER cited is the case of Dr. Jonathan Lundgren, an agroecologist who served as a senior research entomologist and lab supervisor for the USDA Agriculture Research Service during Vilsack's time as head of the department.
In 2015, Lundgren lodged a whistleblower complaint alleging that his USDA supervisors suspended him as punishment for publishing research detailing the harms neonicotinoid insecticides--commonly referred to as "neonics"--cause to monarch butterflies.
"It is USDA policy that political suppression and manipulation of science are not to be tolerated, but it is empty rhetoric," then-PEER staff counsel Laura Dumais, who filed the complaint on Lundgren's behalf, said at the time. "Dr. Lundgren is suffering the proverbial professional death by a thousand cuts precisely because of the implications [of] his scientific work for agribusiness."
To demonstrate that concerns about Vilsack's approach to scientific research were not limited to a few isolated complaints, PEER pointed to a 2016 Office of Inspector General survey showing that around 120 USDA agency scientists believed their research findings had "been altered or suppressed for reasons other than technical merit."
Additionally, less than half of the more than 1,300 survey respondents said they felt USDA strongly promoted a "culture of scientific integrity" under Vilsack's leadership.
"Unless he pledges to implement significant safeguards for scientists, Tom Vilsack should not be confirmed," said Whitehouse. "The days in which federal agencies function as scientific gulags should be behind us."
PEER's scathing assessment of Vilsack's disregard for scientific integrity came days after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups including RootsAction.org and Food & Water Watch launched a campaign urging senators to block the former USDA chief's confirmation.
Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, is expected to appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee for his first confirmation hearing on Tuesday.
"Tom Vilsack, aka 'Mr. Monsanto,' served corporate interests for eight years as Secretary of Agriculture under Obama and continued to do so as head of one of the largest U.S. dairy lobbies after leaving office," the progressive campaign's website declares. "Vilsack ushered through a spineless GMO labeling standard rubber stamped by Big Ag, and sped-up the approval process for genetically modified crops. He allowed the meat industry to further monopolize--squeezing out small farmers--and scaled back oversight of poultry processing plants."
Emily Berch, a student at Iowa State University and an editorial intern at The Nation, argued Thursday that allowing Vilsack to return to the top of USDA would add "insult to the Democratic Party's long record of malign neglect toward rural Americans."
"Putting Vilsack back in charge at the USDA also ignores the advice of rural progressives and civil rights advocates," Berch argued. "While institutional knowledge can be an asset, it can also lead to a defense of the status quo, which, for a Vilsack-led USDA, means continuing to prioritize corporate agribusiness by sacrificing everyday Americans."
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.