Celebrities have opinions. That was clear when Meryl Streep indicted the apple industry over Alar. They use their fame (if not their fortunes) to push their own ideas of what is right and good for society. Not always with the right result; but are they asking questions we should answer?

While it is easy to sneer with sarcasm when an actor, singer or other famous person just throws out an idea and thousands band together with them to make that idea reality, you have to pay attention. That's true even when the idea is probably not in the best interest of society or the target problem. GMOs are one issue where celebs sometimes ring in more with misinformation and opinion than actual fact.

Celebrity chefs and foodies are making a new case in Washington, D.C., where they say the 2018 Farm Bill should be renamed the 2018 Food Bill. Their logic? "It's about food, isn't it?"

I'm a food fan and a fan of many celebrity chefs, including some of those behind this movement. But I would tell them to their faces that they have this wrong (perhaps over a nice craft beer and a plate of gourmet mac and cheese?).

It's easy to think that a bill that supports the poor by providing them a way to buy food; helps farmers to stay in business to raise food, and includes regulations regarding food inspection and production, would be about food. But the farm bill is far more than that, and has — since it was first created — been designed to help keep farmers going, even when nature and other forces conspire against the industry.

And the farm bill, along with USDA, has evolved to cover more than the simple raising of food. From crop insurance to rural development, from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to market assistance for promoting the export of our abundant food to global markets.

No separation, please
There has been some talk of separating the farm bill from the food-based issues like SNAP, but most policymakers — including those on the House and Senate Ag committees — are not pushing the idea. Whether the celebrity chefs are pushing that or angling to have more food influence on the farm bill is not clear.

Many believe the farm bill provides subsidies for crops that make us fat and do little for true national nutrition. It's a debate that has raged for decades. The key this time around is that the farm bill needs to remain a farm bill. If there are food issues to address, they can be handled in this debate without this name change.

This industry is under enough pressure. Sure, we had a good run a few years ago, but five years of declining farm income means our safety net needs to be strong. Cutting it to push funding to some other kind of food approach could be a disaster.

The foundation of this country is financially solvent commercial farms that can keep going when times are tough, and to be around when lean times end. The farm bill has provisions that make that possible; in addition, the bill really does help low-income families get access to nutrition. Sure, it could be better, and perhaps those chefs will have a dialogue about ways to do that. But for now, it’s the farm bill and should stay that way.

As for that conversation with the chefs, my email address is [email protected], and I'm ready to talk when you are.