Subsidize Diverse Sustainable Farms not Corn

We need to have less subsidies to big agriculture and more to small sustainable farms. We need to support small, local family farms so they can provided healthy food at a price everyone can afford. This will not only make us a healthier people but also make our planet healthier. Large scale mono-agriculture is harmful to the environment and unsustainable. This way of growing food requires the use of large amount of pesticides and fertilizes which end up in our drinking water.

Vote
98%
2%
Votes
68
Views
3779

13 Comments

  • all uropian spoil the all pepuls socisety

  • Totally agree. With these profit driven conglomerates our food quality is shite, the chances for mass contamination increases, working conditions are brutal and the list goes on... Monsanto can go choke on a corn cob.

  • , "No more small isuess will be decided on the taxpayer dime?" Ms. Stein, you also wrote, "you should be ready to explain how those votes harmed you or others." How dare you. Who do you think you are? We, the people you serve, should not have to explain how your NO VOTE harmed us. We, the people of this Commonwealth, should not have justify your showing up for work. We, the people of this Commonwealth owe you nothing of the sort. YOU OWE US. You owe us to show up and work toward the good of the entire Commonwealth and NOT just you and your friends. That means, SHOW UP AND WORK MS. STEIN. To clarify. You are not paid by the taxpayer to decide what bill is small or big bill. You are not even paid decide how YOU, the individual, would like the vote to go. You are ONLY paid to find out from your CONSTITUENTS how THEY want the bill to be voted. Do you get that? Should I explain that in more elementary terms? I shall provide an example. For example, we, the taxpayers of this Commonwealth, do NOT want a bill drafted that will waste taxpayer money so state employees can chat all day on the blog created Jonathan Miller and operated by your friend, Mark Nickolas who sits and slanders politicians, judges and public officials all day. While that may be what YOU and your friend(s) want, that is NOT what your CONSTITUENTS nor that taxpayers of this Commonwealth want. That is just one very simple example of how you are not PAID to pass and vote on only the bills YOU think are big or small. You are paid to represent the PEOPLE aka taxpayers and their families. Ms. Stein, now you know what we the people of the Commonwealth expect and demand from all you members of the legislature. You have some audacity to think it is OUR job to explain anything to you, except how WE want our voices heard via the votes you cast for YOUR CONSTITUENTS. It is not that complicated an idea. It's an idea that our founding fathers conceived along with the Federal United States Constitution, it goes like this, once you have been elected to do the "people's work" show up and do the job you were elected to do or get the heck out of that taxpayer paid position you are skipping around Lexington doing, or is that you are not doing.

  • I can aelrady tell that's gonna be super helpful.

  • Appreciate it for a especially oiobvus and advantageous submit. I'm certainly a violator of a lot of these principles. I generally find me conflicted when composing a blog article because I see by myself producing greater than folks desire to go through, but I really feel that I be required to do the topic matter proper rights by thoroughly covering it. I truly feel that by subsequent a few of these guidelines I conclude up slicing out vital elements to the discussion. I guess you've to identify a stability.

  • I object because if a farming method was sustainable and provided healthy food at a price everyone could afford it wouldn't need subsidies. While I agree that there should be less subsidies to big agriculture and I agree that it is important to find a way to support small local family farms, I believe the problem needs to be addressed in a structural way rather than through subsidies.
    Part of the problem is that we now subsidize unsustainable farming practices through subsidizing the oil industry to reduce the cost of fuel. This makes it more economical to grow food hundreds or even thousands of miles away from where it is ultimately consumed. Instead of pouring billions of dollars each year into big oil and big agriculture, we should spend the money buying up land to create local agricultural zones that dedicate more land to agriculture near large population centers. In fact, if each population center was required to get at least 50% of its food from within 100 miles it would force us to rely more on small farmers rather than on large mono-culture farms. This would be more ecologically sound and would help maintain a climate conducive for human life on the planet but it may not result in lower food costs.
    The other issue is that there are too many people on the planet as it is. Artificially reducing the cost of food through subsidies creates an economic incentive for people to have more children than would occur if food were priced at its natural level based on the actual costs to produce it.
    To boil it down I support local sustainable farming practices with mandates that there are enough farms within 100 miles of a major population center to provide 50% of the food consumed there. I don't support crop subsidies but I do support farm insurance subsidies.
    I'm sure this isn't the full and complete answer but I believe it would be a huge step in the right direction.

  • Big agriculture is the worst thing to happen to us. It has reduced they types and varieties of foods we eat to a few select ones that can be massed produced, many of which are now genetically modified (in ways nature never intended or could have achieved in due course) and we are forced to choose these items because they are heavily subsidized (few jobs for lots of profit) while local, small farms with organic and varied produce are going under or barely hanging in. Stop supporting big agro- businesses and get back to protecting the people.

Similar Ideas: