The new farm bill that has been fighting its way through the two houses of Congress claims to devote more money to both environmental programs and subsidized public school lunches. Unfortunately, it seems like our government's values are more concerned with corporate appetites than with important issues like fighting obesity. Despite the fact that this bill shows some degree of congressional willingness to pay farmers for cultivating their crops in a sustainable manner, it contravenes its stated purpose by continuing to subsidize both unsanitary feedlots and commodity farmers whose cheap products contribute to obesity. The farm bill is an example of elected officials making costly compromises while attempting to shield themselves from the political repercussions of environmental damage. The result: ineffectual legislation meant solely to appease the public.

Admittedly, this legislation is an improvement over the July farm bill, after which people began noticing that the percentage of obese children had skyrocketed during the last couple of years. Rather than blaming their children for stuffing doughnuts into their mouth, parents turned their eyes to the predominance of high-fructose corn syrup and added sugars in popular foods. While no one says that America's agriculture is entirely responsible for the increase in obesity and diabetes, it may be a contributing factor, and it is absolutely in need of reform. When the government subsidizes meatpackers, corn growers and wheat growers to produce cheap, artificial twinkies and hamburgers, it commits more than a passive injustice. By giving these commodity farmers subsidies, Congress keeps the junk food industry afloat, allowing it to continue to thrive and prey on young Americans.

Recently, parents have been exercising their political voices by protesting these excessive subsidies, for the sake of public health. Concerned parents see obesity and diabetes sweeping through this country like a plague, and they have started asking questions and demanding changes. To subdue the cries of our public health community, Congress proposed a farm bill that will allegedly please both the agriculture moguls and the rest of America. Unforunately, a combination of false expectations and negligible changes have made this bill deceptive to the very parents who complained about their children's health.

What, exactly, are the specific flaws of this act? The farm bill, which has already passed through the House of Representatives by a narrow margin, gives two billion dollars to specialty crop growers and nutrition programs. Four billion dollars go to protect the wetlands and grasslands from run off and grazing, allaying some of the concerns of the environmentalists. So how much money is given to appease the commodity farmers? Only $45 billion, more than seven times the amount appropriated for the bill's much-touted positive changes. Apparently, these obesity-enabling agro-industries are still worthy of an amount of money equivalent to the entire GDP of two-thirds of the world's nations. Considering that the money for specialty farmers will be spread thin among small growers in states like California, the actual results of the bill are at odds, to say the least, with its stated purpose.

If the Senate passes the farm bill, undeserving commodity farmers will truly get a deal. However, some critics remain unconcerned that the government plans to subsidize the growers of fatty foods to the point where, as University of California, Berkley Professor Michael Pollan puts it in The New York Times, Twinkies will be "cheaper than carrots." These critics say that the government should devote a large sum of money to the agricultural industry because food stamps are critical to the well being of many Americans. But these opponents must consider the fact that these very food stamps will be used to buy processed food rather than nutritious food as long as sugar and fat are more economically efficient for poor consumers.

Similarly, supporters of the farm bill need to consider its long term effects on the environment. The way Congress allocates this money may perpetuate the pollution of our wilderness. This may seem paradoxical, but when one thinks carefully about the $6 billion devoted to these just causes, it primarily goes to the purpose of cleaning up the mess made by unsustainable farming. When the government pays to clean up farmlands contaminated with the waste of livestock, feedlots that cramp livestock together and force-feed them are encouraged to continue their unsanitary and inhumane practices, rather than to keep their cows on the grass like they should. Soon, the problem will get worse, and Congress will need to keep tossing good money after bad, ad infinitem. Basically, this new bill is buying off the critics of agricultural subsidies for a measly $6 billion. This only leaves more room for the farm industry to further lobby Congress for money that they neither need nor deserve.

There are better alternatives to dumping a disproportionate amount of tax dollars into the sinkhole known as the agricultural industry. Thankfully, the bill can be modified by the Senate before it is passed, and some senators have already proposed a few sound ideas. Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ill.), and Senator Frank Lautenburg (D-N.J.), propose the Fresh Act, which allows the government to subsidize only those farmers whose incomes have dropped over 15 percent because of disasters or price collapses. They predict that if the Fresh Act is passed, $20 billion will be saved and used to pay deficits or will be given to conservation and nutrition programs. Such an alteration would be a welcome and sustainable alternative to what otherwise will be a massive policy fiasco.