Cut this one for sure, for the ethanol portion of it at least. If corn can't make it as a fuel with out the subsidy it should not be used.

No one is going to subsidise the American consumer who can't afford to by corn related food products now because so much of the crop is going to one of the most inefficient fuels on the market.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

There's no water left in the tub, and the baby's no where to be found. If we can't have it all, then we should just throw up our hands and "organize locally" (I'll be fair: "for now, organize locally").

Let's be clear - we are fighting tooth and nail for sustainable agriculture programs in the farm bill that are counted in millions of dollars and not the billions that define the piece of legislation. Peanuts.

But the way to achieve the structure that Hendrickson describes is precisely to work on the national policy (that farm bill thing) that defines the agricultural system we live in. We have, for example, a real chance in this farm bill to get a Livestock Title that addresses the very market concentration issues that Hendrickson writes about.

Yes, we must work locally. And regionally. But just focusing on the local ignores the fact that national policy can either enable or obstruct regional and local efforts. (Anyone out there go to a farmers' market? Participate in a community food project? Guess where funding comes from.)

The farm bill is a flawed, agribusiness-happy piece of legislation. But creating a sustainable ag system structure requires working on changing national policies in addition to organizing locally. The baby's here; let's make sure we raise it well rather than throwing it out.

I agree. It is imperative to relocalize infrastructure, but equally, if not more important, is the need to cultivate the next generation of farmers, which the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's first point drives home.  This was crystallized at my local meeting of the Carolina Farm Stewardship Association last night. There is a significant need in the South, to not only preserve land from development, but find farmers 35 and under that will steward the land for years to come.

Bouwerie | Good Farm Movement

We all know that the farm bill is against small and family owned farms and farmers.We have five organic small farms around my little town of 12,000.They are doing it on their own and so must we all.We can not depend on the government,at any level,to help us out.Yes,we do need to organize ourselves and for gods sake IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY.We need to send the message to government that we don't live because they tell us that we can.We live because it is intended that we should.We need to unite to help each other.Wether it be for food,protection,power,and security or just to help each other.

Why not ask why!?

Why in the world would anyone who cares about local food systems, sustainable agriculture, think GEORGE BUSH is a "hero" on the Farm Bill??! Does anyone who works on these issues seriously think Bush would ever do anything that offends his corporate agribusiness backers or seriously challenge the Monsantos, Cargill, Smithfield, Archer Daniel Midlands of the world? Especially when his farm bill negotiator, Chuck Connor, used to be with the ADM/Cargill-led Corn Refiners Association? Perhaps payment limits are not the real "reform" it's backers think it is. The only reason why Bush is now making noises about farm bill "Reform" is because farm subsidies are holding up the WTO. and the only reason why corporate urban newspapers like the NYT and Washington Post are lauding Bush's stance is because they are as gung-ho free trade as he is. Free trade ideology is a direct contradiction to food sovereignty and localized, sustainable food systems. NAFTA and the Peru FTA destroy local food systems while promoting export-oriented industrial agriculture and factory farms. Supporters of a more just food system should be wary of the agenda and policy proposals of the NYT and others, who all supported the Kind-Flake and Lugar "radical" farm bills that proposed cutting commodity subsidies and shifting them to "good' things we all support: nutrition, organic, specialty crops. Many celebrities, good food gruops, sustainable/organic ag types and even Barbara Kingsolver fell for this dangerous bill, which would simply deregulate even further the prices of commodities and fuel more overproduction of corn, soybeans etc, and further fuel factory farms needing cheap feed. And this was done, as Lugar, Kind admitted, to end "trade distorting" subsidies so we could get the WTO Doha Round moving and more free trade agreements! instead of fostering a local, sustainable food system, Lugar-Kind (and its cheerleaders in the corporate media) would have done the exact opposite, all to promote more local-food destroying free trade agreements that are harming family farmers around the world. I hope folks who think Bush's rhetoric represents "good" change or that Kind-Lugar was "real" reform of our food system reconsider and not get sucked into the globalization agenda of corporate America!

Right on! You said eloquently exactly what I was thinking!