Report: USDA "highjacked" by corporate interests
COURTNEY LOWERY
Associated Press
Fri, Jul. 23, 2004

OMAHA, Neb. - The U.S. Department of Agriculture has shifted from being a people's agency to an agency for corporate agriculture, a new report by a coalition of agriculture leaders charges.
The 40-page report, released Thursday at the Lincoln-based Organization for Competitive Markets' annual meeting, details five case studies that the authors said show corporate farm interests are taking the reins of the agency's regulatory process.
"The idea is to try to make the world understand that the (USDA) is in the hands of people who are there to extend the agenda of entities that are supposed to be regulated by the department," OCM president Fred Stokes said. "We think it's been hijacked."
The report was commissioned by the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, a network of family farm and public interest groups. It identifies five areas as being influenced by the ties USDA officials have with corporations: biotech foods, mad cow disease, captive supply in meatpacking, concentrated animal feeding operations and meat inspection policies.
OCM general counsel Michael Stumo contends that corporate influence has led the agency to fall short of representing the small-operation farmer and consumer interests.
The report, Stumo said, has brought to light what he sees as "conspicuous hostility to the interest of producers."
Alisa Harrison, the USDA's director of communications, disputed claims that the agency fails to represent some interests.
Harrison pointed to an upswing in farm income, an 11.5 percent increase in 2003, and a boost in the farm economy as signs that the agency is doing well in serving producers both small and large.
The report tries to prove that some interests are better represented than others.
The report calls the USDA "one of the strongest proponents" of genetically modified foods, even though many farmers have been vehement in their opposition. The report charges that the USDA support can be directly attributed to top-ranking USDA officials having ties to biotechnology companies.
The report points to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman's former position on the board of directors of the biotech company Calgene Inc., which was later taken over by bioengineering champion Monsanto Co.
It goes on to note that Neil Hoffman, the Biotechnology Regulatory Services Director of the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, formerly worked for the biotech firm Paradigm Genetics. Nancy Bryson, the agency's general counsel, once co-chaired her law firm's corporate biotechnology practice.
"These industry-linked appointees have helped to implement policies that undermine the regulatory mission of USDA in favor of the bottom-line interests of a few economically powerful companies," the report states.
Harrison maintained that Veneman's supports biotech companies "based on the science and the technology, not because she was on the board of Calgene." She added that while Veneman approves biotechnology, she is adamant about careful regulation. Harrison noted that the Biotechnology Regulatory Service was created under Veneman's administration.
Harrison was named in the report for her former job - executive director of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association - and said the report may make it sound like every official in the agency is catering to industry, which she said is not true.
"There are certain people here who have worked for industry groups," she said. "But they're kind of misrepresenting the numbers."
In her case, she said while she was proud to have represented the "grass-roots producers" in NCBA, she is now proud to be a public servant and is acting in the best interest of the public, regardless of what her former job was.
The panelists at a conference Friday acknowledged it's not unusual for a government agency to bring in officials from industry, but Stumo said the amount of corporate influence in the USDA seems to be growing to unprecedented proportions.
This issue has been raised before, but Stokes said the report is the first of its kind to fully document the situation.
Said Stumo, "We've been lulled into merely shrugging when we hear of the issue."
The report, titled, "USDA Inc.: How Agribusiness has hijacked regulatory policy at the U.S. Department of Agriculture," was compiled by a group of authors that included representatives from the Defenders of Wildlife, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Center of Concern.
Stokes said even though some of the groups are usually on different sides of the fence, they all support "trying to give the farmer a fair shake."
The report offers four recommendations to the USDA to address the group's concerns. It calls for a reappraisal of the ethics rules to prevent government officials from overseeing policies that affect their former employers. It also calls for improvement of congressional involvement. The report also asks for an evaluation of whether the USDA can continue to serve as both a promoter and a regulator. Finally, it asks for further research on what it calls "revolving-door conflicts of interest" within the USDA.
"Progress on these measures will begin to turn USDA Incorporated back into an arm of government that represents the public," the report states.
To mobilize any change, the public - namely consumers - need to be aware of the situation, said Peter O'Driscoll of the Center of Concern.
Stokes said he is optimistic that once the situation gets some exposure, changes will be afoot.
"Daylight is a wonderful disinfectant," he said.