HEY BABY. I'VE BEEN THINKING THAT WE SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVE.

Over at Grist, Tom Laskawy examines Michael Pollan's proposal to make the House Agricultural Committee "exclusive." As Laskawy says, this looks like a better idea than it is. An "exclusive" committee is a committee considered so powerful that members who serve on it cannot serve on any other committees. It's a way of limiting the individual power of congressmen. Currently, only five committees are "exclusive" for Democrats: Rules, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Financial Services. These are much more influential committees than Ag. Imagine you made Ag exclusive. The practical effect would be this: For members who sat on the committee before it was made exclusive, nothing changes. They retain their assignments and they can serve on other committees. For new members, they can only serve on Ag. Which members of Congress would consider Ag such a plum assignment that they'd willingly give up all other committee options? Only farm state congressmen, who would see an Ag assignment as a way to channel pork and ensure their reelection. The problem right now on the Ag committee is that the committee isn't interesting to congressmen who don't care about ag subsidies. This would make that problem worse. So are there any good ways to reorient Congress towards better food and farm policy? The first is simple issue education. If more congressmen understood why they should care about food policy (energy, public health, environmental damage, etc), then more congressmen would. The second obvious reform would be symbolic: There shouldn't be a House Committee on Agriculture. There should be a House Committee on Food. Or on Food and Agriculture. There's precedent for this sort of thing. The House Committee on Education and Labor has gone through a few name changes in recent years. In 1995, when the Republicans took over the House, the Committee was renamed the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. In 1997, it was renamed again as the Committee on Education and the Workforce. In 2007, when Democrats reclaimed Congress and George Miller took back his committee, the name was changed back. George Miller is now the chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor, so named to signal that Labor is one of the committee's chief concerns. Sometimes, symbolism matters. And the House Committee on Food and Agriculture would be rather better than the House Committee on Agriculture. Related: The history of the House Committee on Agriculture is an interesting read, and it includes the definition of the Committee's stated range of jurisidiction, which includes "human nutrition and home economics."