Here’s what I think happened. Critics of farm-policy-as usual– and I count myself among them– did a much better job of demonizing subsidies than they did proposing alternative forms of farm support that would have won over some percentage of the farmers now receiving subsidies. The whole discourse depicting subsidies as a form of welfare — payments to celebrities, rich people in cities, mega-farms etc– convinced many farmers that the ultimate goal of the farm bill’s critics was to abolish subsidies, rather than to develop a new set of incentives that would encourage farmers to grow real food and take good care of their land. Had the reformers crafted proposals that were easy to explain and attractive to even just a segment of commodity-crop farmers, we could have made much more progress. Instead, faced with what appeared like a threat to their livelihood, the old guard hunkered down and defended the status quo, refusing even to negotiate on the central issues. Better alternatives could have split this block, and it was our failing not to devise and promote them. What the Old Guard did instead of negotiating a new system of farm support was what it has always done: pick off the opposition, faction by faction, by offering money for pet programs. The history of the farm bill has long been about such trade offs: Urban legislators support subsidies in exchange for rural support for food stamps. That Grand Bargain has now been extended to supporters of organic agriculture, local food systems, school lunch advocates, etc. The reason that, in the end, most of the activist groups wound up urging Congress to override the veto is that, by the end, they all had been given something they liked in the bill. You could put it more baldly, and suggest they’d all been bought off– that the $300-plus billion bill represents the exact price of buying off all the critics of the farm bill, plus the cost of maintaining the status quo. But this is how the game is played, and the fact is, some good will come of these programs, modest as they are– they will sow seeds of change and legitimize alternative food chains, or so we can hope.

The challenge for the next farm bill is clear: it’s not enough to engage the public, important as that is; we also have to get much smarter about both policy and politics, and craft some attractive proposals that will divide the farm block as well as move us to a healthier and more sustainable food system– economically sustainable for farmers and farm workers and environmentally sustainable. This is the project for the next few years. We’ve got our work cut out for us.

Ethicurean posts an article that Michael Pollan references in the email, it has a good further analysis of the final legislation and what it means for us all. A good debate of pro and con can also be found over at Grist.

Food Recalls and Safety Issues
Tomatoes top the list in current recall notices. Here is a link to the recent CDC warning regarding a tomato-linked Salmonella outbreak. The outbreak involves 57 cases of people sickened primarily in Texas and New Mexico. Seventeen persons have been hospitalized after consuming raw tomatoes and becoming infected with the uncommon Salmonella serotype Saintpaul. An additional 30 reports of illness in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Utah are currently being investigated to determine whether they are also linked to tomatoes.

Meat alerts and recalls include 808 pounds of ground beef tainted with E. coli O157:H7, processed in Lexington, Nebraska and sold through Sherm’s Food-4-Less retail establishment in Medford, Oregon.

An “undetermined” amount of beef products were recalled on May 16, by JSM Meat Holdings Company, Inc., a Chicago, Ill.. The meat may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. The meat was distributed to establishments for further processing in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. With the involvement of several processing facilities in several states, this is going to be a tough recall to enforce. If you buy commercial beef at the grocery store, or eat out, be sure to follow some good safety tips.

I was stunned by what I learned last year - more importantly, I was stunned by what I didn’t know, and I consider myself a sustainable agriculture supporter! I’ve been trying to track the progress of this Bill in its fits and starts and controversial moments, but still find myself quite ignorant and ever-more surprised when I hear or read another piece of this hulking bulk of legislation.Today is my ‘recipe’ day, not that I’ve kept up with the schedule lately AT ALL, but after reading the NY Times article about the latest on the Farm Bill, I just had to write something about this. Sorry. Look for some lighter fare (perhaps easier to digest than the Farm Bill) Monday!

I know there are some great strides in terms of increasing aid for food stamps, food banks and nutritional programs - yeah! Forgive my total ignorance here, but what is up with these fat AND GROWING subsidy programs????

I realize that I have a long way to go to get my wee brain around the logic in these subsidies, but can somebody please explain why we are making these ‘direct’ payments of subsidies to individual farmer’s whose income is over $750k/year? By the way, I believe this relates to personal income rather than farm revenue . . .From that meeting last year, I also learned that nearly all subsidies go to the 5 main big-ag crops - wheat, corn, soy, cotton, ???? (can’t remember the last one, someone, please feel free to set me straight on this) - and that most of the stuff we buy at our local farmer’s markets or from our grocers - lettuce, cucumbers, strawberries, tomatoes, etc. - are specialty crops, AND that a large percentage of those big 5 are shipped out of the country, used for feed or are being made into ethanol or fuel.

While I believe there was progress made in support of smaller farms and farmer’s markets, it seems to me that most of the money is going to non-food subsidies.

I need to learn a LOT more. I feel very strongly that we ALL need to learn a lot more and get active NOW in order to have a greater effect on the next Farm Bill, which will come around in about 4 years.

There are some awesome posts here on the GreenOptions blogs from folks that are far more educated than me. Please visit them:

White House Signals Farm Bill Veto - Will Congress Bend?

Say What? President Bush Encourages Americans to Eat Local

Small Wind Remains in Farm Bill

Farm Bill Redux: A Second Change at Real Reform

According to Ryan Grimm at Politico.com, when asked what the President would do if the current iteration of the farm bill made its way to the President’s desk White House spokesman Scott Stanzel replied, “as it stands now, it is not something the president would support.” Stanzel wrote in an email:

“The proposal before Congress would dramatically increase spending, in part by masking additional spending in budgetary gimmicks and accounting tricks.”

Farm bills pass - that’s what they do

Despite the threat, there may be enough Congressional support to override the veto. According to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), “If the White House is stupid enough to veto this, they’re going to get overridden.”

The farm bill is a very popular funding mechanism for Congressional spending. Every state’s congressional delegation works extremely hard to get their slice of the agricultural pie - not doing so does not bode well in the eyes of powerful ag interests and the voters of agricultural states. In short, farm bills do not get vetoed. At least very rarely do they get vetoed - there are a few exceptions.

One exception to the rule is when a second term president uses a veto (or threatens to veto) an appropriations bill, such as a farm bill - and criticize Congress for loading it with pork and earmarks - without any serious political repercussions. Interestingly enough, the last time a farm bill was vetoed was nearly 10 years ago, when another late second-term president successfully vetoed a farm bill - a veto which Congress made no attempt to override. But the political climate is quite different from that of ten years ago, and I would suspect that this President does not have the political capital to successfully veto the farm bill.
See also: “Small Wind Remains in Farm Bill” :: Green Options (12/2007)

Photo: mike138

The economics will be different for everyone, so I am not necessarily encouraging you all to run out and buy a micro wind turbine. I will also warn you that interconnection laws vary by country, state, province, municipality, etc. So, before spending ANY money on one of these gizmos, be certain that you have an adequate wind resource, and if you are planning on connecting to the grid, that you understand the interconnection standards that apply. Please use this information with caution: you must not cloud your judgment with mental images of backward-spinning electric meters and negative utility bills. While this is possible, you don’t want to spend all of your hard-earned money on a micro turbine that your local HOA, planning board, or zoning commission never lets you put up.

I should also note that while vertical axis wind-turbines may be the wave of the future for small-wind (especially in urban settings), there are lots of companies making big claims about their products right now, and I am not comfortable with my own knowledge of the products to include them in this listing.

Note: prices listed are the manufacturer’s suggested retail price, it is quite possible to find them for less (nobody pays ‘retail’ anymore, right?)
1. Southwest Windpower Skystream 3.7
The Skystream 3.7 is the first fully-integrated, grid-tied wind energy system designed for residential use. The product is an all-inclusive wind generator (with controls and inverter built in) designed to provide quiet, clean electricity in very low winds. Unlike many other turbines, the Skystream 3.7 will turn downwind because it has no tail rudder to keep it facing into the wind.

Cost: $5399 (not including tower and installation materials)
Rated Capacity: 1.9 kW continuous output, 2.6 kW peak
Startup Windspeed:8mph
Rotor: 12 feet (3.72 m); 50-325 RPM
Interconnection: Utility connected or battery charging
Alternator: Gearless, permanent magnet brushless
Voltage Output: 240 VAC (Optional 208 VAC)
Estimated Energy Production: 400 kw per month @ 12 MPH (5.4 m/s)

2. Southwest Windpower Air X
The AIR is the world’s number one selling small wind turbine. The redesigned Air X incorporates a new microprocessor-based technology that results in increased performance, improved battery charging capability, greater reliability and the reduction of “flutter” noise from the machine. The Air X is ideally designed for powering small appliances in off-grid installations, remote communications facilities, marine applications, and communities in the developing world.

Cost: $600
Rated Capacity:400 watts
Startup Windspeed:8mph
Rotor: 46 inches (1.14 m)
Interconnection: Battery charging
Voltage Output: 12, 24, 48 VDC
Estimated Energy Production: 38 kw per month @ 12 MPH (5.4 m/s)

3. AeroVironment Architectural Wind
Architectural Wind is a small, modular wind turbine system designed for installation on buildings in urban and suburban areas. This is done by eliminating the support tower, reducing noise and vibration, and creating a modular housing that installs quickly and easily onto buildings, without penetrating the roof.

The turbine design has received critical praise for a while now, receiving the Red Dot International Design award and a 2007 Annual Design Review award. With a sleek, color-matched series of specially designed, highly efficient and low profile wind turbines, property owners can integrate Architectural Wind systems easily into new and existing buildings. As Preston at Jetson Green pointed out, the AeroVironment turbines have been installed at the new Kettle Chip facility in Beloit, WI that can produce roughly 28,000 kilowatt hours of power per year under normal wind conditions.

Architectural Wind is scalable and works very well in urban environments. The price and output of the machines will vary because of the drastically different requirements of individual installations. If you need more information on cost and specs, you can contact AeroVironment through their website.

4. Southwest Windpower Whisper 500
The Whisper 500 can produce enough energy to power a small to moderately sized home. Formerly the Whisper 175, the Whisper 500 was completely redesigned in 2004 to work in harsh, high wind environments. The Whisper 500 is a two bladed fiberglass reinforced blade and incorporates a patented “angle governor,” designed for quiet operations in high winds.

Cost: $7,095
Rated Capacity: 3kw
Startup Windpeed: 7.5mph
Rotor: 15 feet (4.6 m)
Interconnection: Utility connected or battery charging
Voltage Output: 24, 32, 48 VDC or 240 VAC
Estimated Energy Production: 1500 KWh/month @12.5mph

5. Bergey Excel
The Bergey Excel is designed for high reliability, low maintenance, and automatic operation in adverse weather conditions. It is available in two configurations: battery charging and grid-tied. The Excel is a ruggedly built turbine that comes with a 5 year warranty. In a moderate location, the Excel 10kw can provide enough electricity for the average home.

Cost: $21,900-$27,900
Rated Capacity: 10kw
Startup Windspeed:7.5 mph
Rotor: 22 feet (6.7 m)
Interconnection: Utility connected or battery charging
Voltage Output: 48 VDC or 120, 240 VAC
Estimated Energy Production: 1500 KWh/month @12.5mph

Additional Resources:

American Wind Energy Association - Small Wind

Wind-Works

OTHERPOWER.COM

The Alternative Energy Store

All pictures are courtesy of the manufacturers.

Here’s a summary of Jack Hedin’s story. He farms 100 acres in southern Minnesota, and has found that demand for his organic produce is so strong that he can’t meet it on his land. So last year, he rented 25 acres from two nearby corn farmers, and planted fruits and vegetables on the extra land. It wasn’t long before his landlords ran into trouble with the commodity farm program. This program subsidizes commodity crops, paying farmers who grow corn, wheat, soybeans, rice, cotton, and several others.

While the program was set up to guarantee farmers who grow commodity crops a certain income, it turns out that it also penalizes farmers who then switch to growing fruits and vegetables on “commodity base” acres. This is what happened to the farmers who had rented him the 25 acres. They found themselves out of compliance with the commodity farm program, and would be penalized not only for the subsidy that year for that acreage, but also for the market value of the “illicit” crops.

Mr. Hedin paid his landlords the $8771 in fines and losses they incurred. He learned that the reason for the harsh punishment is that large fruit and vegetable growers in California, Florida and Texas don’t want small farmers supplying their local areas with produce. They don’t want the competition, and they have succeeded in getting federal farm policy to help them block it. The farm bill, currently being reauthorized, will extend these financial penalties for switching land from commodities to fruits and vegetables.

As I said, my email inbox was filled with reactions to Mr. Hedin’s Op-Ed. Our local foods group list serve received a flurry of messages, showing how much passion there is about food policy, local food, the farm bill, and agriculture in general right now.

One of the emails came from the Executive Director of the Farm Services Agency in our area. He is responsible for administering the farm subsidy programs here, and felt compelled to respond the the Op-Ed.

Here are a few things I learned from talking to him. Basically, it’s not quite as black and white as it sounds. Yes, there is a rule, put in place in 1990 with support from the fruit and vegetable industry, to discourage farmers from switching commodity acres to produce. But the farm subsidy program is complicated - the way payments are calculated, the types of payments, the rules, and the penalties. Part of Mr. Hedin’s problems might have been avoided with a better understanding of these programs. Without going into great detail, the farmers could have avoided some of the penalties if they had removed the 25 acres from the books as commodity acres in advance, and chosen the right kind of rent agreement.

Still, for us local food advocates, it sure is discouraging that federal farm policy is discouraging farmers from growing fresh organic food for local markets.

Mr. Hedin’s story highlights a few things about food in America right now. The local foods movement in thriving. Demand for organic, sustainable, healthful and low-carbon foods is skyrocketing. At least in some places, suppliers are striving to meet this demand. Meanwhile, Americans are beginning to realize that the farm bill, something few of us understand, has big impacts on our food and farms, and thus on our lives. Mr Hedin touched a nerve because his story shows how U.S. Farm Policy is creating barriers to what many of us are striving for - a better, healthier, safer, more local, more sustainable, lower-carbon farming system.

Click here for a sampling of Editorials about the reauthorization of the Farm Bill.

How does food policy impact the safety of what we eat?
I mean, it’s just legislation, right? Laws that are supposed to keep the food supply safe. The basis for these laws was established in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt in response to the publication of Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. Ironically, one of these laws, the Meat Inspection Act, was supposed to eradicate the use of “4-D” cattle in meats, meaning dead, diseased, decaying and downed. Over 100 years later we are still facing the same issues.

The other act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, was designed to insure the safety of drugs and non-meat food items. However, the two agencies overlap. A raw egg, in the shell, is the responsibility of the FDA. Once the shell is broken, the USDA is in charge. If a processed sandwich is to be inspected, the USDA would have jurisdiction over the meat, the FDA over the bread. Makes all kind of sense, right?

Learn what you need to know about food safety, policy and what you can do as a consumer after the jump.

So, the system doesn’t work. Worse, it’s not even enforceable.
Case in point, 2007 had a record number of meat recalls, followed closely in 2008 by the largest recall ever. Thus far, absolutely no action has ever been taken to penalize these companies. The two USDA inspectors who failed to report the downer cow incidents at Hallmark/Westland are currently only suspended — with pay. Further, neither agency actually has the authority to demand a recall, unless the recalled item is infant formula.

Politics also get directly in the path of food safety.
Many of the people who run the FDA and USDA, agencies that are designed to enforce food safety, also worked in the industries that these agencies are supposed to police. In fact, as of 2006, the chief of staff at the Agriculture Department used to be the beef industry’s chief lobbyist. Further, the head of the FDA was most recently an executive at the National Food Processors Association. It is indeed, the proverbial case of the fox watching over the hen house.

Farm Policy plays a major role.
Finally, from a farm policy standpoint, our food system is vulnerable. Important legislation such as the farm bill, recently being rewritten, encourages a highly centralized system that relies heavily on imported foods. Less than two percent of imported foods were inspected on entry to the country in 2006.

Farm policy also rewards the farmers in this country for only growing eight commodity crops through a system of subsidies. This near monoculture has been made worse by the misguided focus on ethanol production from corn. Farmers who grow any foods other than the commodity crops are ineligible for subsidies. Thus, we increasingly rely on imported foods for items that can easily be grown locally — our agriculture system just makes this less profitable for farmers to do. In fact, in 2004, less than four percent of total US cropland was planted with fruits and vegetables.

The same farm policies that were put in place under Earl Butz, also fostered a system of “Get Big or Get Out.” The number of farms since 1900 has declined by 63 percent, while the size of farms has increased by 67 percent. The result is a highly centralized system. The risk in such a system is that the product, be it meat or spinach, that is tainted is processed at a central location along with thousands of pounds of non-tainted product. The resulting contaminated shipment is then sent across the country. Instead of an easily traceable and localized illness, citizens across the country will be sickened.

This is how legislation, policy and politics directly impact what ends up on your plate. This is why you can’t separate “pork” politics from the pork chop. But, what is a consumer to do? You do have rights, of course, and choice. Remember that we still live in a demand-generated economy. If the demand grows, and farmers who produce crops other than the big eight can thrive, our food supply will improve as a result. It will take time, but there are many things you can do as a consumer to make this happen.

Here is how you can use your rights:

• You can exercise that right to track your representatives’ votes on the farm bill and food safety issues.
• You can write to your reps and tell them your concerns.
• You can source meats, milk and eggs direct from the farmers who raise food animals ethically and naturally, and process them safely. If you cannot afford to buy in bulk to save money, you can team up with other families and make it an affordable, lower cost than buying at the store.
• You can buy produce direct from your farmers market or a CSA.
• You can stop buying processed foods.
• You can stop buying fast food that is heavily subsidized by our agriculture system.
• You can cook at home and benefit from a family meal.
• Finally, you can stay informed on how and where your food is produced and make your own choices.

As the great hope for a better Farm Bill that included subsidy reform amendment Dorgan-Grassley died, the final proposed bill was just left with some token nods to food program assistance and limited support for specialty farmers. Real reform slipped away into the night along with 2007.

With the new year comes a glimmer of hope.
And, that hope comes from a most unlikely source. It seems that the Bush administration, in a fervor to slash all non-Iraq spending, has promised a veto if Congress does not come up with a farm bill that doesn’t feature additional spending. As a result, the subsidy reforms are being revisited, particularly the income cap for eligibility.

The revised plan would call for a lower cap on income for subsidies, but the amount of that cap is a point that has yet to be agreed upon. The house places the cap at a $1 million “hard” cap and a $500,000 “soft” cap that would not apply to people with at least two-thirds of their income from farming. The Senate proposed a $750,000 “soft” cap.

The White House has called for a much lower $200,000 “hard” cap, saying that this cap would end subsidies to roughly 40,000 people.

Opponents of the approach advise that none of these measures will be effective. There are loopholes large enough to drive a combine through, which would allow the larger producers to evade the subsidy caps. As a result, reform activist group, The Center for Rural Affairs, is calling for voters to again urge Congress to consider better approaches to real subsidy reform, such as those offered by Dorgan-Grassley.Residents who live in Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, and North Dakota are urged to contact their representative now to lobby for reforms. All of us, however, are urged to write the House or Senate Agriculture Committee Chair to encourage real reform. You can learn more about the issue and actions you can take at the CFRA site.

There are other issues at stake besides subsidies.
An increase in funding in the farm bill nutrition title for food stamps and an emergency food assistance program that helps fund food banks is a point of contention as well. The Senate bill can only find funding for the measures for five years of the new bill’s budget. The House funded the measures through the full 10-year budget window by ending a tax benefit for foreign companies, a measure that may cause House Republicans to vote against the farm bill on the House floor. These token improvements to much needed nutrition programs for low-income families were one of the few positives in the proposed bill.

The specialty crop marketing order provision threatens wildlife habitat, water quality and family farms
This new amendment to the farm bill was allegedly intended to protect our nation’s food supply from pathogens such as E. coli 0157. However, it places the responsibility on fruit and vegetable growers and will disadvantage small farms.

The primary source of such E. coli contaminations has been shown to be cattle waste from feedlots and the run off into waterways with most of the resulting contamination found in bagged mixed greens from large-scale farms. However, this Farm Bill provision would force farmers to eradicate wildlife habitat on their farm in the name of food safety. No mandates for the actual source of contamination are contained in the bill.

As a result, organic food growers, and other farmers are being unfairly targeted to solve a larger public health problem that results from an unwieldy industrial food production system.

You can contact your representatives about this issue at this link provided by The Center for Food Safety.

Trees, agricultural waste, storm debris and trash are all viable fuel sources for ethanol, using the Coskata process. This highly flexible technology allows future manufacturing plants to cater to locally available materials, making ethanol viable in parts of the globe that would not use corn or sugar cane for fuel. Argonne National Laboratory tests show that greenhouse gas emissions are up to 84% lower for Coskta ethanol than conventional gasoline. It has a net energy balance of up to 7.7, compared to 1.3 for corn-based ethanol. These results were achieved with a production cost of $1 a gallon when timber was used as an ethanol fuel source.

On face of it, you would think that garbage would be the cheapest way to produce fuel, given the flexibility of the Coskata process. In fact, one of the most available and economically viable fuel sources is trees, with the low price tag of $50 a ton. There is a very efficient infrastructure for harvesting and transporting trees. They are available throughout the year, unlike some agricultural products. It is actually cheaper to use trees than sorted garbage and agricultural waste.

To make a dent in the 140 billon gallons of gasoline consumed in the US each year, new infrastructures and technologies need to be developed. A paradigm shift is needed in how we view and handle “waste.”

A study by the DOE and the USDA found that the US does have “a sufficient sustainable supply of biomass sufficient to displace 30% or more of the country’s present petroleum consumption…About 368 million dry tons of sustainably removable biomass could be produced on forestlands, and about 998 million dry tons could come from agricultural lands.”

Of the forestland biomass in the study, only 14% was comprised of newly harvested trees. We need to gain the ability to economically utilize residues from wood pulp, processing mills and construction debris. Consistent supplies need to be created, while maintaining low transportation and handling costs. It is not logical to send these valuable materials be wasted.

When looking at the agricultural landscape, the situation is ripe for change. Of the agricultural biomass in the study, over 50% is available from annual crop residues and animal manure. Current technology lacks techniques to make these products extremely dense, reducing storage and transport costs. We can put a man on the moon, yet we don’t have adequate technology and infrastructure for transporting agricultural waste to produce cost-effective ethanol.

This is where the marketplace can shine. There is money to be made by advancing the technologies necessary to make ethanol from waste.

Meanwhile, Coskata has hit the ground running. They announced a strategic alliance with IMC, Inc. yesterday, the leading ethanol plant design and build firm, that will construct their first plant. Expected to open at the end of 2010, this plant will utilize the Coskata process.

Coskata is very well positioned to shift the transportation fuels industry. They have formed an alliance with General Motors, who will increase production of flex-fuel cars that run off of either ethanol or gasoline. The Renewable Fuels Standard requires 21 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels to be used by 2022, which excludes corn and sugar as fuel sources. In addition, the Farm Bill offers a $.60-$.67 a gallon producer credit. Oil currently costs $87 a barrel.

The economic conditions are ripe for a shift away from fossil fuels. Coskata ethanol can be produced for under $1 a gallon and $.50-$1.00 less at the pump. Developing technology and infrastructure to utilize agricultural and forestland waste is the next step for large-scale renewable biofuels.

Note: General Motors paid for the travel and meal expenses associated with my tour of the Coskata laboratory.

Photo Credit: Coskata

Barbara Kingsolver's latest book, Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, tells the story of how she and her family lived for a year eating only food they grew themselves or that they purchased from local food-growers.

She was generous enough to take time from her book tour to answer our questions on the importance of keeping in mind that we are what we eat.

The shorter the distance between your meal and its point of origin, the more you can know about it. Certain systems of oversight are meant to help you untangle the great unknowns of a complex system: "organically grown," for example, guarantees that a food item was produced without toxic chemicals. But it still may have accrued the same fuel costs of processing and long-distance transport as the conventional counterpart. And if there's profit to be made, corporate agriculture will be involved, with the likely agenda of watering down all standards.

"Locally grown," by contrast, is a designation that's incorruptible. Buying food from growers at small markets or through Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) is really the only way for most of us to step away from a disordered food system. Food from your neighborhood will likely be whole, unprocessed vegetables, fruits, or animal products grown on small, diversified farms by growers committed to the health of their land. The food is good for you, and the money you spend on it stays in your community, helping to keep those nearby green spaces intact and strengthening your local food economy.

Editor's note: In today's Red, Green and Blue, our political commentators Jimmy Hogan and Shirley Siluk Gregory weigh in on the U.S. Farm Bill and its related subsidies, due for reauthorization this year.

Shirley: If Congress is serious about solving the host of problems it claims it wants to fix -- rising obesity and diet-related illnesses, polluted stormwater runoff and environmental degradation, food insecurity and overdependence on fossil fuels -- it should look no further than the Farm Bill, which is due for reauthorization this year.

As it's crafted right now, the Farm Bill (which, as Michael Pollan writes, should more properly be termed the Food Bill) does little to promote small-scale or sustainable farming. But it's very good at driving chemical-dependent industrial agriculture that floods the market with cheap corn and other commodity crops. The results are an overwhelming supply of corn syrup and corn syrup-derived junk foods that are cheaper than healthy foods, and a system that undercuts family farmers both at home and abroad while helping Big Ag companies like Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto and Tyson reap ever-growing profits and market share.

For the sake of food security, there's certainly a good case to be made for farm subsidies of the right kind, but that's not what we have right now.