For those of you who haven't heard, Bush vetoed the Farm Bill yesterday. We said this was to be expected, even in light of a veto-proof majority in Congress. With all the news coverage out there, you should check out a piece by Katherine Ozer, the Executive Director of the National Family Farm Coalition, called "The Irony of a Bush Farm Bill Veto."

She begins by saying that Bush is correct in wanting to limit payments to wealthy landowners, especially those who don't farm. (This is his reason for vetoing the bill.) But, as Ozer explains, this Administration has consistently provided corporate agribusiness, grain traders, and the livestock industry nearly everything they've asked for. "The Bush Administration is virtually silent on the real bad actors contributing to our broken industrial food system," she says.

For example, the Administration opposed real structural market reforms to restore competition in the livestock markets, as proposed by Senator Grassley. And Bush's Justice Department may soon approve an acquisition in the beef packing sector that would make a Brazilian company the largest beef packer in the world. I'm not sure anything could be worse for American ranchers.

As Envirovore reported, Bush encouraged people to buy food from local farmers as a way to deal with current food challenges and that we should help other nations build infrastructure to better sustain and support their food needs. Yet the Administration supports free trade and the WTO, which have undermined domestic food production in these countries.

It's crucial that debates around the Farm Bill include a proper premise, and Ozer says it well: "It has never been more critical to the survival of millions around the world that we define the problem correctly and pursue a solution that builds food sovereignty."

Source: AlterNet