Secretary of Food and Agriculture

Its the middle of the night, my last night in Harbin for a while. I am packing, writing reports, and entering survey data entered into my computer. Tomorrow night I take the train to Beijing where I will spend a couple days before returning to the US on Monday. I am feeling a combination of excitement to get out of here and seeing familiar faces and catching up and also dread of leaving my research behind.

But in the meantime, I am getting energized reading emails coming in through various 'foodie' list-serves about the yet-to-be named Secretary of Agriculture. Each is urging readers to call on Obama to name a reformer. Even The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof called for the position to be re-named the Secretary of Food. I don't agree with Kristof to drop the Agriculture altogether, but I am all for re-naming the position Secretary of Food and Agriculture. To drop the agriculture in favor of all the consumers would be to neglect the important role of farmers who are not necessarily part of the industrial operators who have taken over what we now consider American agriculture. Re-naming the position Food and Agriculture--even if its just a bureaucratic step--would be to recognize the connections between how and where food is produced and consumed.

I situate my research in an interdisciplinary field of research that is growing considerably called agro-food studies. Research from this field tries to bridge the gap between food production and consumption. Especially in light of the growth of so-called alternative food movements, agro-food studies looks at where and how links have been broken from where food is produced to how and where it is consumed. The political and economic system within which food and agriculture exist play important roles in determining how the food we eat winds up on our tables.

In the US, we have the USDA and the FDA. Food safety and agricultural production exist in completely separate bureaucratic entities from one another. In some cases, farmers have to do one thing to meet FDA approval and another thing to satisfy the USDA. I could go on about how and why this is problematic, but I think Kristof gets the major point across.

Over the last five years or so, many Americans are becoming increasingly considered with how their food is produced. Many are not just using their wallets to buy more expensive organic foods, but are actually participating in local food markets in one way or another. Regardless of one's political leanings, food is important. Naming a reformer to the Secretary of Agriculture post is one step Obama can do to bring change to the country to work in everyone's interest (except the few corporate farms).

And it would be a step for the world. Within my small world of Chinese agricultural scientists, I haven't found many scientists who reach beyond agricultural production to consider food consumption. Not many of the scientists I know have much to say about food safety issues in China. I think if they US could do something to make a difference in everyday perceptions of food and agriculture, others around the world might start to see that, too. Maybe. I hope.