Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative
applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food
Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He
described the USDA’s plans to improve school nutrition, support local
food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact
of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for
only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

“Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?”

He said yes.

“The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies,
are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune
regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system
damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from
2006 showed that farmers don’t actually increase income from GMOs, but
many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United
States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.

“When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual
friends–I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our
governor–assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable
and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this
position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I’m wondering, have you ever
heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs?
And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard
evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they’ve been put
onto the market long before the science is ready, and it’s time to put
it back into the laboratory until they’ve done their homework.”

The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.

Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.

He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to
learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of
studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was
in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought
proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he
was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances
and protections.