World Food Prize Foundation CEO Tom Vilsack

[Henderson] The World Food Prize Foundation's new leader is very familiar with Iowa and with agriculture production here and around the world. We'll visit with governor Tom Vilsack on this edition of Iowa Press.

[Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Across Iowa, hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses. Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build. Learn more at iowabankers.com.

[Announcer] For decades, Iowa Press has brought you political leaders and newsmakers from across Iowa and beyond. Celebrating more than 50 years on statewide Iowa PBS, this is the Friday, July 11th edition of Iowa Press. Here is Kay Henderson.

[Henderson] Our guest on this edition of Iowa Press has been the mayor of Mount Pleasant. He was a state senator. He served as Iowa's governor for eight years. For 12 years, he was the nation's secretary of agriculture. And since March of this year, he has been the CEO of the World Food Prize Foundation. Governor Tom Vilsack, welcome back to Iowa Press.

[Vilsack] It's good to be back.

[Henderson] Joining our conversation are Brianne Pfannenstiel, the politics reporter for the Des Moines Register. And Erin Murphy, the Des Moines bureau chief for the Gazette in Cedar Rapids.

[Murphy] So, Governor Vilsack, we want to start with your work at the Food Prize. Is there something that attracted you to that job, or is it just that it's become a requirement for former Iowa governor, since your predecessor was former Governor Branstad?

[Vilsack] Well, I do I do joke with Ambassador Branstad that I keep following him in jobs. No, I think it's a continuation of the historic work that I did and we did at USDA in terms of nutrition and food security. Look, it's a it's a major issue globally, and it's a major issue domestically, globally, 733 million people are currently food insecure. One out of every ten people in the world today is malnourished. And tragically, nearly 60 million children are stunted under the age of five. Globally. Here at a home in Iowa, one out of eight Iowans are food insecure. One out of six Iowa children are food insecure, and every county in the state of Iowa experienced an increase in food insecurity in the last year, according to Feeding America. So, it's a continuation of the work that I did and trying to help feed people and make sure that they're fed nutritiously. It's a tremendous organization, and it does more than I think a lot of people in Iowa may realize. We have the one-of-a-kind opportunity every year to award some researcher or scientist that has done extraordinary work in terms of productivity. But we also have youth institutes impacting, affecting thousands of young people all over the United States. And the world. Right now, we have youth institutes that are taking place as we speak in Africa. We also do a lot of recognition beyond the prize. So, we recognize researchers in ag pioneers. And so, it's a it's a great organization. And it's got a terrific mission to elevate innovation in agriculture and to make sure that we continue to look for ways in which we can increase the quality, the quantity and the affordability of food for all.

[Pfannenstiel] Governor, the World Food Prize is hosting the Iowa Hunger Summit next week, and the goal is to focus on the root cause of food insecurity. So, what more do you think needs to be done? And what is the biggest misperception about food insecurity here in Iowa?

[Vilsack] Well, I think some people seem to think that food insecurity occurs someplace else other than Iowa. We like to think of ourselves as a state that cares and is compassionate about people in need. But again, those statistics suggest that we've got some work to do. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, and I think what we're trying to do in the Hunger Summit is to raise awareness of the of the challenge that we face, a challenge that's going to get a little bit more difficult because the federal government has made decisions to sort of take a step back in terms of the assistance that is traditionally been provided. That's going to put the onus on the rest of us to step up our game. And that's why we're bringing people from all over the country to this summit to explore best practices. What can we do? For example, with early childhood? How can we ensure that more people take advantage of the Wick program? What are we doing in terms of improving school meals, and how do we make sure that kids during the summer months have access to good nutrition as well? And what about our seniors? For too many seniors, they don't have the assistance and financial assistance and the wherewithal to be food secure. What can we do there? I think there are a number of strategies that need to be looked at, and that's the purpose of the summit is to basically raise awareness and to inspire people to go out and do as much as they possibly can to help their friends and neighbors.

[Pfannenstiel] Earlier this month, President Trump signed legislation that is expected to cause millions of Americans to lose access to the Snap program. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. What do you see that bill's effect being on Iowa?

[Vilsack] Well, here's the interesting thing about that bill and the impact of the Snap program. When we talk about it, we always talk about the fact that there are going to be millions of people that won't get the assistance and help, which means they're not going to be able to go to the grocery store and purchase as much, which means that the end of the month, they're going to have a tough time. They're going to have to make very tough choices, but it has a far greater impact than people realize. The reality is that $0.20 of every food dollar that's spent at the Hy-Vee’s in the fairways in Iowa, and the grocery stores in Iowa, 20 $0.20 of that food dollar goes to a farmer. So, when you cut snap, you're also cutting farm income. So that will have an impact and effect on Iowa farmers. When you make it more difficult for people to purchase food at a grocery store, well, that means that less food has to be stocked and processed and packaged and transported. Those are all jobs at the grocery store and throughout the entire food supply chain. That could impact an affected by a decision like this. So, it has a rippling impact. When you ask the state to begin to bear some of the cost of the Snap program beyond administrative expense, well, that's going to have an impact on public education, on safety, public safety, and also on, on health care access, because the state budget is already tight. Now you're going to ask it to incur additional responsibilities that it hasn't been factored into.

[Henderson] Your successor, Brooke Rollins, the current Secretary of Agriculture, this week talked about food production and the workers who are in that industry and said there will be no amnesty, but there will be selective deportation efforts at that level. As someone who was in the office, what is your view of the impact that may have on the availability of food in the U.S.?

[Vilsack] Well, it's going to make it more difficult for those who are reliant on migrant workers to basically produce the food that we take for granted here in this country. It will have a profound impact specifically on the dairy industry, that relies a great deal on migrant labor. It will have an impact and effect on fruits and vegetable access. And the reality is there's a solution to this, and it's been out for quite some time. It's the Farm Worker Modernization Act, which essentially creates an opportunity for farm workers to gain legitimacy. The perhaps they have to acknowledge that they came into this country improperly by paying a fine. They are given the opportunity to continue working on the farm under certain conditions, and they are able to get gain citizenship after a ten year or more process. So, there is a way of doing this, and there was significant support for this in farm country. And it passed the House a number of years ago. It just didn't get the 60 votes in the Senate, something like that could work. What we did during the Biden administration is we created a pilot project where we essentially identified workers in El Salvador and Honduras, and we and we provided some grant money to farmers to be able to adequately pay and train these folks. I think that program has been cut back by the Trump administration. So, there are solutions to this that can maintain a quality working workforce. I think it's unlikely that you're going to see a lot of Americans take these jobs. These are really, really, really tough jobs. And I think the secretary has suggested that Medicaid eligible, able bodied folks on Medicaid would be in a position to take these jobs. I think she's going to find that that's not as easy as she may think.

[Murphy] You, as has been established, led the USDA for 12 years. Eight years under President Obama, four years under President Biden, the Supreme Court this week ruled that the current administration's plans for reducing the federal workforce can be allowed to proceed. USDA we heard reports from very early in the administration was one of the agencies impacted thousands of USDA workers, took a payout to resign based on your experience, you work, you headed that organization. You know those people. What kind of impact does that kind of staffing change and even the uncertainty have on the operation?

[Vilsack] Well, I suspect morale is going to be impacted and affected by those who remain. That certainly was the case when I came in to the office. In the Obama years. The morale was at the you know, every year they do a survey and the morale at USDA was at the lowest point. We were like next to last in terms of large agencies. By the time I left, one of the major business publications ranked USDA as the 263rd best place in the in the country to work, because we had really focused on increasing morale. I came back the Biden administration and morale was again at the low end of the federal survey. We got significant improvement. So, I think you'll probably see some significant impacts in terms of morale. Look, elections have consequences in every administration has the right to do what they think is best for the country and for and for the for the workers. But the reality is you can reduce the workforce, but you have to do it strategically and thoughtfully, and you can do it in a way that doesn't necessarily impact the services that people depend on. I think the challenge here, if you're looking at wholesale reductions and massive reductions at one time, that makes it hard on those who are left. They end up having to do 2 or 3 jobs. And at the end of the day, it's pretty hard to do.

[Murphy] And you said earlier to a different question, some of this stuff puts the onus on the rest of us. When you see what's happening at the federal level, do you look at that through the prism of your current job at the World Food Prize and think, what? What role can we play in picking up whatever slack there.

[Vilsack] Well, the World Food Prize historically has had three primary responsibilities. We recognize, we inspire, and we convene. I think we now have a fourth responsibility, which is to raise awareness so that the rest of us know and appreciate that because of actions that have been taken, it does create a greater responsibility on the part of us to try to respond. Now, can we respond to fill the complete void that may be created as the federal government takes a step back on some things that's to be seen, but I think we have to try. And that's why we have the hunger summit. That's why we have an opportunity to travel to India to discuss with our number of farmers in India the work they're doing to increase global food security. And that's why we have, obviously, the World Food Prize that takes place later part of October.

[Henderson] A question about the USDA. During his first term, President Trump and his allies suggested moving the USDA out of Washington, D.C., maybe even locating it to Iowa. Is that a valid idea?

[Vilsack] It's already outside of Washington, D.C. USDA has over 5000 offices, 5000 offices. Most of them are in counties across the country. Virtually every county in Iowa has USDA presence out west. Virtually every area of the west has a Forest Service location. So, you're talking about a relatively small aspect of USDA being located in the nation's capital. They did move the research activities to Kansas City. That was a little bit disruptive the way they did it. And for a period of time, that area was understaffed. We finally got to a point where we actually had it fully staffed. I think if that decision is made, they need to think about it strategically. I don't think it necessarily means it will be closer to the people, because it's already extraordinarily close to the people. I mean, you have county offices, you've got regional and statewide offices, you've got state directors, you have rural development directors that are in every state. So, it is a very, very down on the ground kind of department. So, I don't think you're going to really see a whole lot different if you were to move the, the, the headquarters, if you will. The challenge with moving the headquarters is this out of sight, out of mind. And in Washington, D.C., the people that you want to make sure are always thinking about the USDA are up there on Capitol Hill. The appropriators and the and the standing committees. You want them to be thinking about USDA. You want them to understand the challenges that we face in rural places. And I will tell you, I think there's a major, major opportunity for messaging for USDA. And it's this there's a tendency to think in this country that every farmer is essentially like every other farmer. And the reality today is that we have two groups of farmers. We have large scale, commercial sized operations that represent roughly 10% of all farms. They sell more than $350,000 in sales every single year. They do pretty well, even in difficult times like we're experiencing today. They get 85 to 90% of the of the profit or the income that's generated from agriculture. The top 10% get 85% of the income, which means 1.6 million farms, the other 90% that sell less than 350,000. They get 15% and in some cases 10%. Those top 10% get 60% of all subsidies, which means the other 1.6 million get basically 40%. That top 10% represents 180,000 farms. So, there's a significant distinction between the large-scale commercial folks in terms of their viability and the smaller and midsize folks. And until the Biden administration, there were bits and pieces of a strategy to try to address those 90%. We actually had a full scale, comprehensive effort to try to create an option to getting bigger, getting out. We've lost since 1981 when Bob Bergland left this this job of secretary. He said, you know, I'm a little concerned about what we're doing here. We're focused on production. We're focused on markets. That's great. But that's kind of an impact on the number of farms we've lost 544,970 farms since he issued that warning. That's every farmer today in North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Oklahoma. And a little bit of Indiana. We've lost 151 million acres of farmland that was in farming. That's not in farming today. That's the equivalent of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Maryland, and part of Virginia. So, it's a massive erosion of the basic economic unit of rural America. And I think, you know, the department, the federal government has a responsibility to address that issue. And that's hard to do if you're not in the capital in Washington, D.C., bugging those folks in Congress and in the Senate about the need for adequate appropriations and adequate support.

[Pfannenstiel] Well, here in central Iowa, there's tension kind of building once again over water quality. Central Iowa is dealing with high levels of nitrates in the drinking water again. How do you build the political will to address this issue? And is there a role for the federal government in solving it?

[Vilsack] Well, I think there's definitely a role. And I think the challenge, I think, is we keep looking at this as an either-or circumstance. And I think the challenge and the opportunity is that we need to look at it as an and proposition. So how do you essentially deal with the nitrate issue at the same time, understand the important role of agriculture and at the same time deal with this issue of small and midsize farming operations? How can you do all of that? Here's how you essentially say one of the reasons we have the nitrate problem is because there is an over of manure on ground around the around the state that overapplication results. There's only so much nutrient nutrients that land needs. It gets rid of the excess. It goes into rivers and streams. We got the problems. What if you diverted that manure? What if you created opportunities to basically take that manure and create something more valuable from it, rather than simply overapplying it on land? This is being done in parts of the country today where it's being used to generate energy. It's being used to potentially generate fuel. It's being used to generate a multitude of different products. What if you created a third commodity, if you will, or a farming operation? It's not just corn and soybeans, but it's also the manure that basically it's redirected into a manufacturing process that creates a new product, a new value-added product. You've reduced the level that's applied to land, which reduces nitrates, which deals with the water issue. You've created an opportunity for that farmer to have additional income, which helps with the 10% or 90% that are struggling. And you also create jobs in rural places. What's not to like about that opportunity? How do you do that? Well, you basically fund the research. You fund the capacity, the economic development opportunities to create that kind of world. In addition, you provide farmers with additional sensor technology and the ability to understand that each acre of their land is different. And so therefore, the application depends on the nature and characteristic of each acre. The more they know about the land, maybe the less they need. In some cases. It's been suggested by folks at Iowa State that maybe 30% of our corn acres don't necessarily need fertilizer at all. Well, if that's the case, there's a savings for farmers. So, there are a multitude of ways. The challenge with this debate is it's always an or debate. It's not an and debate. And I think our policymakers, our politicians have to start thinking in terms of an. We are a country now that are thinking in terms of or and that stymies it in essentially freezes us from creative thought and creative solutions. There's a solution there. It's creative and it can be great for rural places and for farmers.

[Henderson] Federal incentives are driving a project in Iowa that would take carbon and ship it to underground storage. Elsewhere in the carbon would come from ethanol plants. Corn growers support it. They say it will help them build the market for ethanol. In some places, a carbon neutral or maybe a very low carbon fuel. There are a lot of landowners in Iowa who don't want that pipeline on their land. What's your view of the use of eminent domain for that project?

[Vilsack] Well, I have a slightly different view than most people have about eminent domain. And I think I you know, my history suggests that I vetoed a bill that the legislature passed some time ago to basically expand the use of eminent domain. I think there's a balance between individual property rights, which are really important to protect, and the need for community to have economic opportunity. And the kind of infrastructure that's necessary for folks to be able to have quality of life in all parts of the country. I think there's a, you know, a challenge here. And the challenge is that that it goes back to this issue of small and midsize farming operations. I think if we had a healthier economy for small and midsize farming operations, we might not have quite the angst that we have out there in the countryside today, which reflects itself in the in the pushback on eminent domain. I think if we had a more opportunity for farm families to generate more multiple income streams from what they do on the farm, right now, 88% of farm families in in America and in Iowa have an off-farm job to be able to keep the farm 88%. I mean, what other occupation, what other profession do you have to work two jobs to be able to do the one job that you want to do? Why can't we figure out a way? Not for the farmer to work harder, but for the farm itself to work harder to generate multiple sources of income? I mentioned things with manure, but there's also opportunities with climate smart agriculture to create new market incentives for that which is grown sustainably. There are ecosystem service market credits that can be paid to farmers because they're reducing the footprint of their farming operation. There's local and regional food systems, which is a much better deal for the farmer than the $0.20 I mentioned earlier. It's a 50 to $0.70 of the food dollar goes to the farmer. Why can't we create a structure and system like that? I think if we had that kind of system, we'd have a little bit less angst. Let me tell you something about the pipeline. You know, we're all proud of our ethanol industry, and our corn growers have done an amazing job. They've continued to expand access to and produce more corn. Some people are concerned about it. Some people think that biofuel industries not necessarily a good thing. It's going to lead to more land in sustainable, unsustainable practices. But here's the deal. Our aviation industry is absolutely intent on having sustainable aviation fuel. You cannot make that fuel in a sustainable way. Cost competitively unless you basically incent certain practices on the farm and you incent the ability to basically capture the carbon that's produced, produced from developing that fuel and redirecting it someplace else. You know, we may not have electric cars today, but at some point, in time we're going to have vehicles that don't need as much transportation fuel as we have today. And the question is, what happens to our ethanol industry? What happens to the jobs connected to the ethanol industry? What happens to the stability of the corn, the corn market and the corn farmers when that occurs? But if you have sustainable aviation fuel, which is a 36-billion-gallon industry twice the size of ethanol, now you've got a sustainable future as well. You've got more jobs, you've got a better environment, and you have more income for farmers. What, again, is not to like about something like that? So, we this is again the or situation, right. This whole discussion is about or somebody needs to talk about well how do we make this an and discussion. Why do we constantly put ourselves in a position where it's either your idea or my idea? Why can't we come together and say, what's our idea?

[Murphy] Well, in that spirit, in our last couple of minutes, we wanted to talk about this stuff and a little bit of Iowa politics. Before we let you go, too.

[Vilsack] Haven't we already been doing that?

[Murphy] Well that's true. Fair enough. In literally the last couple of minutes here, you've been talking to Democrats across the state, working a little bit with the state party to figure out a way that Iowa Democrats can connect with voters a little better than they have in recent elections. What lessons have you learned or what --

[Vilsack] Better? They're not connected at all.

[Murphy] Okay.

[Vilsack] Let's be fair about it. I mean, let's be let's be honest about it. The Democratic Party has not communicated effectively except in a few limited circumstances of people outside of the state where we just haven't simply haven't talked to these folks.

[Murphy] And so what are the lessons in 90 seconds?

[Vilsack] First and foremost, you have to talk about folks in a way that you express appreciation for what they do. What does rural Iowa do? What does rural America do for us? Well, it feeds us. You know, the water that we drink is impacting, affected by what happens there. The energy, all the energy for this show and for our instruments and so forth. And our computers. Where does it come from? It comes from rural places. Where do we go when we want to get away from it all? We don't go to necessarily the big city. We go to the iconic landscapes which are located where in rural places, who sends their sons and daughters disproportionately into military, rural Americans. It's a really important place. So first you got to talk about it and you have to express the appreciation. You also have to understand the stress that they're under, as we've lost 544,970 farm families, that means that there are fewer kids going to rural schools. What does that mean? It means there's more pressure on those rural schools. Eventually, they have to consolidate and merge. Nobody likes that. The small business owner doesn't have as many customers. So that small business owner doesn't survive. What do you put in place, a box store? Where do the profits from that box store go? They don't go in Iowa. They go outside of Iowa. There aren't enough people to basically support the health care system. So, what does that mean? You can't get a doc. You can't support your hospital. It becomes a clinic. You got to drive a million miles to get health care. You watch your children and your grandchildren leave. Devastating. Emotionally devastating. I don't care what anybody says about zoom and about web and about all of that. Great. But you can't hug over those over those technologies. The reality is there's been a slow erosion. So, somebody's got to speak to that. And Democrats need to speak to it, and they need to have a plan. They need to have a vision for how things can get better. So, it's not big or get out in agriculture, but it's get entrepreneurial and create opportunity.

[Henderson] My vision is the clock and we are out of time. Governor, thank you for joining us on this edition of Iowa Press.

[Vilsack] Thank you.

[Henderson] You can watch every edition of Iowa Press at iowapbs.org. For everyone here at Iowa PBS, thanks for watching today.

[Announcer] Funding for Iowa Press was provided by Friends, the Iowa PBS Foundation.

The Associated General Contractors of Iowa, the public's partner in building Iowa's highway, bridge and municipal utility infrastructure.

Across Iowa. Hundreds of neighborhood banks strive to serve their communities, provide jobs, and help local businesses. Iowa banks are proud to back the life you build. Learn more at iowabankers.com.