In their white paper, A National Food Policy for the 21st Century, Bittman, Pollan, Salvador, and De Schutter have outlined a well-reasoned, logical public policy agenda. That said, I think it will take something far bolder than a “memo to the next president” to bring about meaningful change in U.S. farm and food policy. The authors acknowledge the major challenges in redirecting The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) back toward its primary mission of ensuring food security and away from agricultural industrialization, which has become the major threat to food security. I’m convinced it will take a consumer, taxpayer revolt to implement a logical national food policy for the 21st Century. I believe that revolt must be ignited and supported by the widespread public realization of the utter failure and outright deceit of current farm and food policies.

Food security traditionally has been defined as access to sufficient quantities of wholesome foods to support healthy, active lifestyles. Since industrial agriculture has utterly failed to provide food security, efforts have been made to redefine the term to mask this failure. The authors of the white paper clearly document the failure of the industrial food system to provide “wholesome” foods to support healthy, active lifestyles. They refer to food insecurity as hunger and note its persistence. However, they fail to mention that the percentage of food insecure people in the U.S. today is approximately three-times as great as during the 1960s, a time when the priority of U.S. farm policy shifted to increasing agricultural efficiency as a means of addressing food insecurity — through specialization, mechanization, and consolidation into larger farming operations. Revolutionary change is rooted in the recognition of failure.

The authors deal with “administration” of their national food policy near the end of their paper, almost as an afterthought. I think elimination of the U.S. Department of Agriculture should be the cornerstone demand of the consumer, tax-payer revolt. The authors suggest renaming The Department of Agriculture as The Department of Food, Health, and Well-being and redirecting its program accordingly. While their intentions are good, such changes are simply not possible within the current USDA. The political power of the “corporate agricultural establishment” is simply too great to allow anything more than a “window dressing” response designed to placate growing public concerns. Elimination of the USDA would splinter the current political power base and would clear the way for major, lasting change. The only power great enough to regain control of farm and food policy is the power of the people — as consumers, taxpayers, and voters.

If the American people actually knew how their tax dollars were being spent — not to support family farms and provide food security but to subsidize wealthy landowners and corporate investors — they would demand that the USDA be abolished immediately. I won’t go into the detail of these failures because they have been clearly documented by Bittman, Pollan, Salvador, and De Shutter. That said, there are logical, legitimate reasons to have a cabinet level department to ensure domestic food security, particularly long-run food security. Any nation that relies on global markets for its food security simply has no food security — including even the U.S. This is the reason every functional nation has some type of government farm and food policy to ensure food security. So the objective of eliminating the USDA is not to eliminate the legitimate functions of USDA but instead to redirect them to ensuring long-run domestic food security. The policies suggested by the author would be at least a good start in this direction, but are unlikely to be implemented without a major reframing of farm and food issues.

I would suggest the USDA be “replaced” with The Department of Domestic Food Security. The basic mission of the DDFS would be to ensure that the basic food needs of all Americans are met by means that do not diminish opportunities for those of the future to meet their needs as well: In other words, long-run food security requires agri-food sustainability. The only real food security any nation ever has is in the ecological, social, and economic integrity of its system of farming and food production.

The current programs of USDA that are targeted to global competitiveness and international trade should be shifted to the Department of Commerce, where industrial agriculture would compete for funding with other industries. The Environmental Protection Agency should be directed to treat industrial agriculture and factory farms the same as any other industries and factories. The criteria used for determining the size and type of agricultural operations that are subject to EPA regulations should be the same for agriculture as any other business enterprise. Most small and mid-sized farms would still be minimally regulated, but large, specialized agricultural operations, including Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, should be regulated as industry.

Food related programs of the Food and Drug Administration and Department of Health and Human Services should be shifted to the new Department of Domestic Food Security. Food safety, quality, and nutrition for all, not just those can afford it, should be given as high a priority as calories or food availability, as the authors suggest. As the authors suggest, farm programs in the new DDFS should be limited to supporting farmers who implement sustainable farming systems and produce for first local and then domestic markets. Food assistance programs would need to be reorganized and redirected to meet food needs that cannot be met by new sustainable, community-based food systems.

Finally, I am convinced that food security must be treated as a “basic constitutional right” — if the policy agenda suggested by Bittman, Pollan, Salvador, and De Shutter is to be implemented. Article 9 of the U.S. Constitution states that we have basic human rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, but that the Constitution nonetheless clearly states are to be “retained by the people.” There is nothing more basic to the unalienable rights of all to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” than the right to enough safe, wholesome food to support active, healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to protect that same right for our “posterity.” Once we have proclaimed the “right to food” as a basic constitutional right, we will have the ultimate political authority, meaning the “consent of the people,” to do whatever is necessary to implement a new national food policy for the 21st century.

John Ikerd