I received an action alert today from Food Democracy Now. Excerpt:

There's a possibility that former Monsanto executive Michael Taylor and irradiation proponent Dr. Michael Osterholm will be named to top food safety spots in the new Administration. [...]
 1. Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto executive, whose career literally fits the definition of the revolving door between government, lobbying and corporate interests. Before serving on the Obama ag transition team, Taylor made a name for himself rotating in and out of law firms, Monsanto, the USDA and FDA. While at the FDA he helped write the rules to allow rBGH into the American food system and our children's milk.

Now we've learned that Taylor may be in line to run an office in the White House on food safety!

2.  On Monday, Secretary Vilsack is set to announcethe appointment of Dr. Michael Osterholm, a food safety expert, to lead the Food Safety agency at the USDA. According to Food  & Water Watch, Osterholm has been "a zealot in promoting th[e] controversial technology (of irradiation) as the panacea to contaminated food."

Irradiation allows food processors to nuke disease from contaminated food at the end of the production line, while ignoring the root problems that create unsafe food.

For Osterholm, the recent peanut butter fiasco apparently was just another example of how irradiation could save the day. "Clearly it's a problem where the raw peanut butter or paste is consumed and not cooked," Osterholm said.

Food Democracy Now wants people to e-mail Vilsack immediately, asking him to block these appointments. The action alert included a sample e-mail, which I've posted after the jump, but it's always better to write this kind of letter in your own words.

You may recall that in November, the Organic Consumers Association came out strongly against Vilsack for secretary of agriculture, largely because of his connections to Monsanto and other biotech companies. But it's worth noting that President Obama put Michael Taylor on his transition team before he chose Vilsack to run the USDA. If Taylor does end up running a White House food safety office, don't pin that mistake on Vilsack.

There's more...

Jill Richardson's post at La Vida Locavore on extremely low food stamp participation rates in San Diego got me thinking about how much room there is to improve enrollment in this program.

Bleeding-heart liberal that I am, I'd like to see 100 percent of people who qualify for food stamps get them, just for the sake of reducing hunger in our communities.

But let's leave ethical concerns aside for now. Economic researchers, most recently Moody's Economy.com, have calculated that expanding the food-stamp program produces more economic stimulus than any other kind of government spending, and much more than any form of tax cuts.  Every additional dollar spent on food stamps translates into $1.73 circulating in the economy.

This page on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's website contains links to many studies comparing the state participation rates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (the official name for the food stamp program). All of the recent annual reports are pdf files. They show estimated numbers of people eligible for food stamps in each state, as well as an estimated percentage of those who receive food stamps.

In many states, food stamp participation rates have improved over the past six years. The median state in 2003 had an estimated 57 percent of eligible residents enrolled in the food stamp program, but by 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available on the USDA site), that figure rose to about 67 percent. Still, in an average state, only two-thirds of people eligible for food stamps are getting them.

The state-by-state figures reveal huge variation. In the top three states, more than 90 percent of people eligible for food stamps are enrolled in the program. That figure is above 80 percent for the next five states. In the states near the bottom, barely 50 percent of eligible residents get food stamps, and the figure is even lower in some major metropolitan areas.

I can't generalize about what needs to be done to improve participation in the food stamp program, because different states would need to tweak their policies in different ways. The USDA site links to research on factors that affect enrollment, and Jill Richardson talks about many of those factors here.

The economic impact of getting food stamps to more eligible people would be significant. California has consistently been near the bottom in terms of food stamp enrollment rates. The 2006 chart shows the state dead last, with only 50 percent of approximately 3.9 million eligible Californians estimated to be receiving food stamps. Even modest improvement in the enrollment rate would result in hundreds of thousands more people receiving food stamps. Those people would have more to spend on goods and services. Many retailers would benefit as the money flowed through the economy.

Iowa's food stamp enrollment rate is closer to the national average, but if we raised it from the 71 percent estimated for 2006 to 80 percent, nearly 30,000 more Iowans would be receiving food stamps. If we raised food stamp participation above 90 percent, roughly 60,000 more Iowans would be receiving food stamps.

Given the multiplier effect of food stamp benefits on economic activity, this program merits attention from policy-makers. Government spending on infrastructure projects is worthwhile, especially if used for smart investments in our transportation system or for making schools more green. However, food stamp recipients have the potential to get money circulating in the economy, saving jobs in the retail sector, faster than most "shovel-ready" infrastructure projects. Remember, no other form of government spending has more economic stimulus "bang for the buck" than food stamps.

There's more...

Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack appears to be on track for unanimous confirmation by the Senate as Secretary of Agriculture in Barack Obama's cabinet. At his confirmation hearing yesterday, Republicans didn't ask hostile questions, and Vilsack didn't have to explain away any embarrassing behavior like Treasury Secretary-nominee Timothy Geithner's failure to fully meet his tax obligations over a period of years.

Despite the lack of drama, Vilsack made a number of noteworthy comments during the hearing. Join me after the jump for some highlights and analysis.

There's more...

I don't recall nearly as intense a reaction to Bill Clinton's or George Bush's nominees for secretary of agriculture. Either food and farm issues are more salient now than they used to be, or I am noticing it more because Barack Obama is tapping an Iowan to head the USDA.

A few days ago I posted a Vilsack reaction linkfest at the Iowa progressive community blog Bleeding Heartland, but the hits just keep on coming.

Follow me after the jump if you care to read more.

There's more...