Just two years ago, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was making his historical move to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. On the campaign trail, the mantra of change was on a never-ending looping, leading one to believe that if Obama was elected, no lobbyist would serve in his administration.
Recently, President Obama named Muslim American agricultural scientist Islam A. Siddiqui as the chief aricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative. I have no problem with him being a Muslim, but I do think there may be a problem with him being the vice president for Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife America — where he is responsible for regulatory and international trade issues related to crop protection chemicals, biotechnology and trade. CropLife is a lobbying group that represents Monsanto. Having such a history may imply that he will be more aligned with the interests of big corporate outcomes more so than trade agreements that benefit individual farmers.
In fact, his record shows that the interest of major agribusiness is more important than the interest of the general public. In 2002, Siddiqui falsely claimed that biotech foods had been proven to be as safe as traditionally grown foods when there is no such evidence to support such a contention. Also in 2003, he supported the Bush administration’s decision to seek an end to not allowing genetically modified crops to be imported into America from the European Union over confirmed safety issues. While working as an assistant for Trade at USDA in 1999, he told Japan that if they implemented mandatory labeling of foods containing genetically modified organisms, consumers would have false concerns regarding food safety. In his words, “We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none.”
His organization was even outraged by Michelle Obama’s organic White House garden because she did not use any chemical pesticides. The group started a petition defending chemical intensive agriculture and advocating that the first lady use both pesticides and herbicides. I think the president should reconsider this apppointment, especially given that his incessant campaign mantra implied that he would not have a lobbyist in his administration.
–torrance stephens, ph.d.
