Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It's the Agronomy, Stupid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
nosmokes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-08-07 05:37 PM
Original message
It's the Agronomy, Stupid
A very thorough and deliberate look at the Farm Bill by one of the best Ag writers around today with a lotta food for thought that's not part of the usual suspects talking points from any of the interested parties. Definitely worth a read.
--###--

original-grist

It's the Agronomy, Stupid

Why gutting subsidies shouldn't be the focus of Farm Bill reform efforts
By Tom Philpott
08 Nov 2007
A lot of people, myself among them, have spent substantial time this year trying to demystify the 2007 Farm Bill. But as it lurches into its stretch run -- with passage possible by year-end -- I fear that the bill is more shrouded in mystery than ever, even among sustainable-agriculture advocates.
Here's what we can all agree on: Late last month, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a version of the bill that would generally preserve the crop subsidies that have become so infamous. It would also add funding to some important conservation and nutrition programs, the result of hard lobbying by sustainable-ag and anti-hunger activists.

The committee's version has now passed to the full Senate, and is currently under debate. The proposal has unleashed a hailstorm of criticism in sustainable-agriculture, public-health, and environmental circles, where hope had swelled for policy reform. Anger focused primarily on the version's commodity title, which -- like the House version passed last spring -- would continue delivering billions of dollars to producers of a few crops, mainly corn, cotton, wheat, rice, and soybeans.

Writing in The New York Times op-ed page on Sunday, Michael Pollan gave eloquent voice to the dismay. The boost in conservation funding was fine and well, Pollan wrote, but "s long as the commodity title remains untouched, the way we eat will remain unchanged."

~snip~
.
.
.
complete article w/ links to related sources
here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tanglefoot Donating Member (176 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-08-07 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. There's always too many cooks stiring that pot in the ag committee
Even if you get something out of it that's decent reform, too many faction from state to state rip it to shreds on the floor.

I doubt we'll ever see decent ag reform that takes into account the economy, the environment and the dynamic between corporations vs. small farmers as well as the contempt between the farmers and the commodity markets that only enrich the middlemen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC