As Barack Obama ponders whom to pick as agriculture secretary, he should reframe the question. What he needs is actually a bold reformer in a position renamed "secretary of food."
A Department of Agriculture made sense 100 years ago when 35 percent of Americans engaged in farming. But today, fewer than 2 percent are farmers. In contrast, 100 percent of Americans eat.
Renaming the department would signal that Mr. Obama seeks to move away from a bankrupt structure of factory farming that squanders energy, exacerbates climate change and makes Americans unhealthy -- all while costing taxpayers billions of dollars....
More like this
The mislabeling and renaming of fish is a problem. It means that consumers are often paying more than they should for their seafood.
But its topical! We have the bizarre and deeply stupid ruling from the EU re the "right to vanish".
Iran has decided to rename Danish pastries "Mohammedan" pastry - a new twist in the crisis which has triggered protest by Muslims throughout the world against cartoons of Mohammed first published in Denmark.(
Brad DeLong has renamed his blog, formerly "J. Bradford DeLong's Grasping Reality with Both Hands," to "J. Bradford DeLong's Grasping Reality with All Eight Tentacles".
I don't see how changing the name is going to make a difference to the lobbying or policy changes that need to happen. More than that, it ignores the increasing role agriculture may play in the generation of fuel and manufacturing materiel.