Secretary of Food
In an op-ed at the nytimes, Nicholas Kristof lays out 'what is increasingly obvious' about the changes needed in Food policy in this country, and suggests one of the biggest moves Obama can do to signal change (aside from appointing someone who would actually reform) is to rename the post with a more apt title.
A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 percent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat....A former secretary of agriculture, John Block, said publicly the other day that the agency should be renamed “the Department of Food, Agriculture and Forestry.” And another, Ann Veneman, told me that she believes it should be renamed, “Department of Food and Agriculture.” I’d prefer to see simply “Department of Food,” giving primacy to America’s 300 million eaters.
And, of course, Pollan sums up the issue bluntly:
Even if you don’t think agriculture is a high priority, given all the other problems we face, we’re not going to make progress on the issues Obama campaigned on — health care, climate change and energy independence — unless we reform agriculture.
Read it here.