![]()
He’s the last man standing from the original Obama Cabinet: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, now in his final year as the nation’s top authority on farm and food policy. Under Vilsack’s lead, the USDA has helped shape the new laws changing what Americans eat, such as the 2014 farm bill, which increased support for the organic industry, produce and nuts, and required convenience stores accepting SNAP benefits to stock more fresh foods. Vilsack’s agency has also enforced the reforms of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, the marquee legislation driven by first lady Michelle Obama that overhauled school cafeteria meals, to the excitement of nutrition and health experts and the consternation of some school districts and kids.
But that law expired in September, and for now is running on autopilot with Congress unable to agree on its reauthorization. And Vilsack faces a number of other challenges as his term winds down, including getting Congress to set some kind of national standard for GMO labeling before a Vermont law turns the issue into a national free-for-all.
After seven years trying to balance pressure from public health advocates against the pull of the agriculture industry and its allies on Capitol Hill, Vilsack sat down with POLITICO agriculture reporter Catherine Boudreau to talk about what Washington has done and still needs to do to help improve health through food — and, in a larger sense, why it should be involved at all. He defended the USDA for helping move agriculture policy closer to the nation’s larger public-health goals, and suggested the government still has work to do, including expanding access to fresh foods.
The following Q-and-A has been edited for length and clarity:
Catherine Boudreau: Part of USDA's mission is promoting a healthy diet, but food seems like such a personal choice. Some people raise the question: Why is the government in the business of telling us what to eat?
Tom Vilsack: It is important to all of us, because health care costs are incurred when we are in a situation, as we are today in this country, where a lot of folks are obese or overweight. There are chronic diseases that impact the quality of their life and the amount of medical and health care expenses we are all spending. It's also a situation where we won't be as productive, and we're particularly concerned about our children and the fact that nearly a third of our children are obese or at risk of being obese. So, it's something that needs to be focused on.
CB: School nutrition has been a big priority of first lady Michelle Obama's. Does having a first lady who cares so much about nutrition make your job easier or harder?
TV: It's made it much easier. The first lady has been a great advocate. She has brought attention to this issue and elevated it in the minds of the people in this country which, in turn, made it easier for us to get the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act passed by Congress. This law allows us to reformulate and restructure the meals in schools so that they are healthier, have less sodium, sugar and fat content and more fruits and vegetables, dairy and whole grains. It’s an opportunity for us to make sure our snacks are also consistent with those meals and expand access to school breakfast so that kids get a good, healthy start.
She's been able to elevate this conversation to not only “calories in” but also, as she says, the “calories out,” and having youngsters be more physically active. Our kids spend a lot of time in front of screens. We need to make sure that they are outside, being active at least 60 minutes a day. So, her Let's Move! initiative has really helped to galvanize the public's attention and that makes it easier politically to get laws passed and rules through the process.
CB: How closely have you worked with her? Did you have to be on board with that plan when you interviewed for the job?
TV: When the president hired me for this job, the first thing he told me was that he wanted the children in this country to be fed well. Because of that instruction from the president, and the first lady's initiative and involvement, we have been very closely connected, working together collaboratively as we try to encourage Congress, for example, to reauthorize the school nutrition program. It's the first lady's voice that is most significant. We add [USDA’s] voice to amplify her message in Congress to get this process through.
CB: The USDA’s missions can conflict with one another, like promoting nutrition but also promoting the interests of farmers. The most recent example seems like the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, when the advisory committee appointed by the USDA and HHS in its original report recommended that Americans should eat less red meat, but after pressure from the meat industry, the final draft backed off. What happened?
TV: People have to understand that when the dietary guidelines are formed, they are pursuant to instructions from Congress in the form of a statute or law. … I think we were pretty clear in the dietary guidelines that there are substitutes for red meat, so that folks can look at multiple ways to get the protein they need, and that we want folks to think about a more balanced approach. That's perfectly sensible, perfectly reasonable, and that was in the dietary guidelines. The dietary guidelines are controversial because everyone has a stake, everyone has an interest in what is being purchased and what is being grown. But I don’t think they’re necessarily inconsistent messages. I think it reflects the difficulty of being the secretary of Agriculture, that you have a number of competing interests.
CB: You’ve talked about how important it is to have diversification in agriculture. There is criticism of USDA policy favoring large-scale commodity farming over smaller growers, and that is part of the reason why American's diets are in poor condition. What do you have to say about that?
TV: Those who have that approach, I don't think they understand fully what the USDA does. I hear people say, ‘Well, you only subsidize commodity crops.’ That fails to recognize the incredible support we're giving to fruits and vegetables, for example, in our school lunch program. It doesn't focus on the fact that we are purchasing surplus commodities, most often specialty crops, to reduce surpluses to support the market. It doesn't reflect the fact that we've expanded risk management and crop insurance programs to specialty crops that didn't exist before. It doesn't reflect the enormous work we've done to advance organics. I think what people need to understand is this is a changing USDA. It is not the same USDA as it was seven years ago, and it's going to continue to change and evolve.
As far as the cause of obesity, it is a complex problem and it is, in part, because we're not as physically active as we once were. That's a critically important part of this, particularly for our kids. If you're spending seven hours a day in front of a screen, and you're not outside moving around, running around and exercising, you're obviously putting yourself at greater risk.
We're beginning to see the food industry reformulate and restructure foods. We're beginning to see obesity rates among our youngest children come down. We didn't get into this situation in a short period of time and we're not necessarily going to get out of it overnight, but I think we are absolutely heading in the right direction.
CB: At this point, do you think that agriculture policies are aligned with America’s public health goals?
TV: If you understand everything that has happened in the last seven years, you'll feel more comfortable in knowing that there is better alignment, because we are providing options. We are seeing our children eating more fruits and vegetables, an explosion of farmers' markets that we at USDA have helped to support and expand, the development of farm-to-school programs and food hubs. There is a lot of activity going on here, and the challenge sometimes is that people are dealing with the way USDA was. They haven't caught up to the progress that's been made here.
CB: I want to turn to the GMO labeling debate. Why do you think it's been so difficult to get the food and agriculture industry on the same page as consumer advocates?
TV: There has not been a total understanding of why we label in this country. We have labeled in the past for two primary reasons: to provide consumers information about the nutritional value of the food they're consuming. … the other is to warn people of a particular hazard associated with a product if you have a condition. So, if you have a child who has a peanut allergy, you’ll want to know that this product contains peanuts. Now folks are saying, ‘We want to know how food was produced.’ That's not a warning or a nutrition issue. It's something different.
The challenge is finding the delicate balance between giving consumers the information they want to know about their food, while making sure it is not conveyed in a way that sends the wrong message. If you create an on-package label, you could potentially give consumers the mistaken impression that this is unsafe to consume. That would be wrong, based on the studies that I have seen. There is not anything unsafe about GMO foods. The question then is, how can you find that delicate balance?
CB: You’ve said Congress needs to find some kind of national GMO labeling bill it can agree on.
TV: I think Congress has the responsibility to act on this, because we face a circumstance where consumers are going to be very confused, and the marketplace will either increase the cost of food or potentially limit access to food. Why do I say that? If each state crafts its own labeling law, similar to what Vermont has done, we're going to have confusion in the marketplace. The key here is getting a national standard that everybody can follow so the industry knows precisely what it has to do, but recognizes that folks want to know. They want more information, so let's provide them information.
CB: Looking back, related to food and nutrition, what are some of the changes at USDA that you're most proud of?
TV: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act changes to the school meal program, and then a 97 percent acceptance rate by schools and the fact that young people across the country have been surveyed to indicate they like the changes. Also, the work that we've done with the [The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children]. Improving that package has been helpful in reducing obesity among young children.
I think we've done some incredible work in expanding outreach about the SNAP program to folks who were eligible but weren't receiving benefits from the program. Seventy-two percent of eligible people were receiving it when I became secretary. Today, it is 85 percent. That is helping a lot of families move out of poverty, particularly children.
The work we've done in expanding access for SNAP to farmers' markets and local and regional food systems has been a double win. It helps the families on SNAP access fresh fruits and vegetables. It allows them to be part of this community-building experience and also generates additional customers for a growing local and regional food system. That creates alternatives for producers, particularly small- and medium-sized producers. We are excited about continuing that, which is why the reauthorization of the school nutrition bill is so important to get done now, before the end of this administration.
