Inside D.C.
All presidential candidates need to take Ag 101
At last count, there are 17 Republicans and five Democrats – maybe six if Vice President Joe Biden makes up his mind – running for President. Some call this an embarrassment of riches; others look at it, well, differently.
Whichever way you view it, smart folks see this broad field as an opportunity to educate the person who may one day be this country’s leader on not only the importance of U.S. food production – and the folks involved therein – but the fundamental need for the White House resident to understand and champion the technologies that are the backbone of American food production.
The woman or man sitting in the White House, unfortunately, is like most Americans. Whether that person will admit it or not, he/she likely takes for granted all that stuff so nicely arrayed in meat cases or stacked in supermarkets. Heck, when you look at the campaign map most of the states where food is produced are “fly-over” states – no high-profile campaign appearances – with, of course, the exception of Iowa and its February, 2016, caucuses.
The candidates and their campaign staff must understand the need for modern, science-based livestock and poultry housing; they need to understand the need for the prudent use of animal drugs and the importance of veterinary medicine, and they must understand that to feed the U.S. and a good chunk of the planet, they need to see biotechnology as the next best hope for animal health, welfare and productivity.
I’ve watched industry react in shock when a presidential candidate or a candidate’s spouse makes some truly ignorant statement about food and/or farming. One candidate told the Iowa caucuses some years back that farmers needed to “diversify” crop production, recommending the widespread planting of Belgian endive. Then there was the candidate, who when quizzed about genetically modified food ingredients, told his audience “you can always buy organic stuff.”
The Iowa politicos get it. In pursuit of presidential support for agriculture broadly and biofuels tax credits specifically, all of the then-declared candidates were invited to a March forum at the Iowa Fair Grounds to talk – and commit to – agriculture. The organizers said up front their goal was to elevate ag and food production among issues affecting the races. The New York Times described the meeting this way: “The industry-sponsored summit — in which each hopeful answered questions on energy, the environment, immigration and food safety in solo sessions… — highlighted the demands that Iowans place on candidates to pay attention to the state that hosts the first presidential caucuses.”
All should take a page from the Iowa political playbook. We can’t permit candidates to make “correct” but meaningless statements about farming, ranching and technology. State and national organizations should create questionnaires to be submitted to at least the two people who win their party’s nomination. And when the groups send them to the national campaigns, they must make it clear they want not just coddling, but commitment. In Washington, DC, we call it “scoring” a vote; you make sure the lawmaker knows that his/her actions will reported back to the voters. If the answers are substandard, tell the membership; all candidates understand if he/she says or does the wrong thing, they suffer the consequences.
Another key point for any candidate is that the new President must view the secretary of agriculture job – the man or woman in charge of feeding the country – with as much seriousness as the secretary of state or the secretary of health and human services nominees. This job can’t be a B List appointment, a political “reward” for election support. It must go to the best and brightest, someone who actually knows and understands agriculture and its need for technology.
Our neighbors to the North are in election mode as well. The following is a teaser from a Canadian newsletter that tracks activist behavior: “With the election campaign underway, activists are taking full advantage. Both polling and third party advertising are being used to pressure election candidates and to promote activist issues.”
Enough said.
So your saying you Need someone who says yes….yes to factory farms…puppy mills and horse slaughter?