A consumer's farm bill

Taking a break today in a Greencastle, Pa. library, and I saw this on the Web.

"What a consumer-friendly farm bill would look like"

That's what is being addressed in this column by Neal Peirce of the Houston Chronicle. And that surprisingly cogent perspective of farm politics is, of course, positive for fruit and vegetable growers.
He writes.

What if we could write a farm bill? What would it feature?
First, it's fair to suggest, we'd want to foster a reliable, steady supply of wholesome foods reaching our communities.
And we know what's most nutritious: fresh vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, fish and whole grains. All contribute to trimmer bodies, healthy hearts, less disease. Sweets, processed foods, red meats and dairy products are OK, but only if consumed sparingly.
But what crops has Uncle Sam been supporting for the last decades? Corn, for one. It's the source of the high fructose syrup that food manufacturers substitute for regular sugar in the cascading quantity of processed, baked and frozen foods that now account for over 40 percent of grocery sales, compared to a sparse 9 percent for fresh fruits and vegetables.
Also heavily government-supported have been soybeans, a chief source of vegetable oil altered in a process called partial hydrogenation that creates fatty acids, the unhealthiest type of fat.



Peirce goes where few industry lobbyists dare to tread when he takes on the program crops. Produce advocates argue for their fair share, but Peirce takes it a step further when he says America would benefit more if program crops got less. Perhaps it has more resonance coming from him anyway.