Clearly, the way ag subsidies are done is largely down to corruption, essentially politicians chasing votes from farmers/rural areas, as well as being bought by

Clearly, the way ag subsidies are done is largely down to corruption, essentially politicians chasing votes from farmers/rural areas, as well as being bought by the ag lobby. I wish to challenge two things you've said, though. > The EU could decide to encourage organic farming rather than industrial agriculture based on Monsanto seeds and pesticides. The latter make possible high levels of production, but to a huge cost for biodiversity and even climate dereliction. I hear alarm bells when I hear people criticizing "Monsanto seeds" and "pesticides". It reminds me of activists who are detached from practical trade-offs or who've bought into woo around GMOs. As if organic pesticides are much better or proven to be much safer? And if they are slightly safer, who is to say the current consideration of trade-offs is wrong? What's wrong with Monsanto seeds? > Cereals are heavily subsidized and the same dependency is organized to keep Central & South American dependent for basic food. I am almost certain this is false. It's attributing calculating, conspiratorial malice to forces that can be easily explained by the stock standard self-interested behavior of politicians and an industry lobbying group.