With the election of Barack Obama and the selection of a new Secretary of Agriculture, there has been an unusual amount of public discussion about food and agriculture.  If we dare to say it, it's a teachable moment when people seem to be open to hearing about at least a paragraph's worth of information about what the key issues are concerning agriculture. 

I heard Michael Pollan on NPR yesterday morning, talking about the pros and cons of the selection of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture.  Pollan himself had been instrumental in turning the conversation to food and the people who eat it rather than big agriculture alone.  Pollan said again that our decisions about the food system need to be integrated into the decisions about climate change, energy independence and health care. 

"The food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gases.  It is responsible for the catastrophic American diet that is leading 50 percent of us to suffer from chronic disease, and that drives up health care costs."

The reasons to be cautious about Vilsack, according to Pollan and many other food and agriculture activists are Vilsack's historical focus on big agriculture; his decision to deny Iowa localities 's the power to control where huge, and hugely polluting, animal feedlots are located; and his support of corn-based ethanol production.  The reasons to be hopeful are Vilsack's suggestion to cap subsidies and use the money gained to fund conservation efforts; and his push for more food production on the local level.

I would add a couple more reasons to be hopeful.  One, a colleague of Vilsack's, Jennifer Donahue, posted a piece at Huffington Post about her experience of co-teaching with Vilsack at Harvard's Institute of Politics.  She said,

"Governor Vilsack has integrity through and through. He is impeccable with his word, and is open about his thoughts. He also has an incredibly unusual quality for a politician (if he even is one): he listens. He has listened to my ideas all semester, conversed with me about life and the election, often joined by his savvy and intelligent wife, and he respects other people. . . . Tom understands the obesity issues that cause the top (and most preventable) diseases."

Secondly, there is now an organized group of outstanding people who will be monitoring the USDA.  Prior to the selection of Vilsack as Secretary, a long-time agriculture writer, OrangeClouds115, wrote about the choices and issues at DailyKos.  He wrote about David Murphy, who has initiated much of the discussion with an organization, Food Democracy Now, that  advocated selecting a new style Secretary of Agriculture, someone who would consider the larger picture of farming policies.  Murphy's website collected over 50,000 signatures to request that Obama and his team select one of six candidates for the office who would meet the approval of sustainable farming advocates.  Among those signing the petition were Michael Pollan, Alice Waters, Wendell Berry, and Eric Schlosser, all of whom believe it is time for a big change at the US Department of Agriculture. 

I don't think these folks will be going away.  I also agree with Pollan when he says that one of the biggest reasons for his cautious optimism about the future of agriculture policy is the selection of Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy.  Chu understands the criticality of seeing agriculture within a larger context and is likely to make his views heard in any discussion concerning energy usage in agriculture, which is almost every current discussion on agriculture.  With luck, Vilsack will be able to alter his viewpoint now that he is holding a national position rather than representing the more narrow interests of Iowa.