Agriculture's Ed Madigan is cultivating controversy // Nutrition-initiative delays hint he's soft on industry

WASHINGTON There's a giant copy of a newspaper headline hanging onthe office wall: "Ed Madigan says being the secretary of agricultureis easy."

A question mark has been penciled in at the end of the sentence.Edward Madigan did it several months ago, for comic relief.

Since then, the job of agriculture secretary certainly hasn'tgotten any easier - or funnier - for Madigan, who recently revealedthat he was the Cabinet's top check bouncer in the House ofRepresentatives' banking controversy. Madigan wrote 49 bad checkstotaling $30,000 during a three-year period while he served in theHouse.

Two days later, Madigan made the news again when he announcedsweeping regulatory changes for the U.S. Agriculture Department.Among them was a one-year postponement of mandatorynutrition-labeling of processed meat and poultry products.

All of this attention is a change for Madigan, perhaps theCabinet's least visible member and a man who is repeatedly describedas low-key.

It has also been a break from his usual routine as agriculturesecretary, a job that consists largely of giving speeches and holdingmeetings with his constituency - everyone from cattle ranchers tocanola growers to consumer groups.

Agriculture is America's largest industry, and the USDA is thefederal government's fourth-biggest agency, with a budget of $55.4billion - more than the total national budget of most countries.

While much of what the USDA does relates to the needs andinterests of the nation's 2 million farmers, more than 50 percent ofthe agency's budget goes to food and nutrition programs that helpfeed 100 million Americans daily.

It runs the nation's school breakfast and lunch programs, thefood stamp program, the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infantsand Children, and the Nutrition Program for the Elderly. It is thelead government agency for nutrition education. It also inspects thenation's meat and poultry plants.

It is in the role of nutrition educator and inspector that theagency has come under fire. Madigan admits that the agency'sperformance in inspecting the nation's meat and poultry plants lackscredibility.

As for his own credibility, Madigan, a moderate Republican fromDownstate Lincoln, has surprising bipartisan support.

The extension given recently to the meat industry to implementmandatory labeling has led some to say that Madigan's reputation hasbeen tarnished when it comes to nutrition initiatives. Yet hemaintains that the one-year delay still puts the department in thedirection it wants to go. The industry had asked for a three-yeardelay, he said.

Many observers have commented that Madigan acts too much like amember of Congress, fixating on how things will "play" on CapitolHill.

As for his nutrition initiatives, "I can't say it's more thanwindow dressing," said Rodney Leonard, a USDA official during theKennedy and Johnson administrations. But at least it's more than hisprevious Republican predecessors did, Leonard added.

At least nutrition appears to hold a personal interest forMadigan. He lowered his blood cholesterol 100 points to 180 byexercising regularly and eating less meat and more fruits andvegetables. Madigan's typical lunch at the USDA consists of skimmilk and a plate of vegetables - a diet that probably would surprisehis steak-loving constituency.

Madigan says he is committed to improving nutrition education.That commitment led to what Madigan calls a "cause celebre" - theEating Right pyramid.

The pyramid, which had been under development by USDA for almostthree years, was to have replaced the "Basic Four Food Groups" foodwheel. The proposed chart represents the various food groups aslayers on a pyramid, with vegetables, fruits and grains at the broadbase, meat and dairy products in a narrow band near the top and fatsand oils at the tip.

Madigan, who had been in office for a short time and didn't knowthe pyramid existed until he read about it in a newspaper articlelast April, yanked it before its implementation.

Allegations followed that he had been pressured by the meatindustry, which didn't like its positioning on the chart. Madiganmaintained that he was concerned that the graphic had not been testedon low-income consumers or children, and that he had gottencomplaints from many groups.

But he said the criticism came from not only "the beef people,"but from members of Congress, medical experts and the poor.

So the USDA went back to the drawing board, paying $700,000 to aprivate contractor to retest various graphics. Madigan said thedecision, which is promised soon, is between the pyramid once again,or a rice bowl that depicts the food groups with vertical bands.

The pyramid gets across the low-fat message better; the bowl ispreferred by low-income groups, although it doesn't convey the ideaof proportionality as well. Madigan said he is still unsure;whichever decision he makes is likely to be controversial.