How you feel about food is how you feel about the world.

There is no other way to read a flood of e-mails in response to my recent column featuring the suggestion of Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., that it's high time to develop a metropolitan and local agriculture policy, diverting some of the massive subsidies for big commodity producers to sustainable farm production close to where we all live.

Some readers were close to ecstatic about the pluses of close-to-home agriculture. Jennie Davis, a student at Bastyr University in Seattle, wrote: ``Without chemicals to ruin the soil and without the pollution of traveling thousands of miles to reach our grocery stores, eating a locally grown organic apple is akin to saving the planet.''

In lieu of massive, mechanized farm operations, noted Ken Hargesheimer of the Gardens/Mini-Farms Network, small farms and ranches that rotate their crops and cattle grazing, and which rely on such practices as organic fertilizers, pesticides and disease control, not only protect the environment but ``can produce all the food this country will ever need.''

One example: Joel Saladin of Virginia's Shenandoah Valley uses movable hoop houses for raising free range poultry. When the houses are moved every day or two, cattle then consume the fertilized grass. Consumers, some from afar, line up for eggs, broilers, packaged beef and pork.

But, wrote Ben Hobbs of Sugar Land, Texas (in Tom DeLay's district), that society is ``ignoring the backyard gardener and an educational effort to teach low-income families how to add significantly to their diet with a four-foot by 12-foot grow bed, three chickens and rabbits.''

Recollecting the Victory Gardens of World War II, Hobbs turned his back yard into a 1,200 square-foot garden, using curbside resources of grass clippings and leaves to build productive soil, so he's reaping harvests of tomatoes, potatoes, corn, squash, peppers, fall greens, broccoli, onions and spinach.

Some readers faulted agribusiness not just for its heavy (and polluting) oil consumption but it's ``highly processed, refined fats and carbs that contribute to so many health problems.''

But I discovered the best connect-the-dots analysis by Paul Hawken of the Natural Capital Institute, at the Urban Land Institute's World Cities Forum in London last month:

``Food supply chains are getting longer, more dependent on packaging, refrigeration and energy. Small farmers lose out to distant agribusiness and sell their land for suburban development. More agricultural inputs are used in agribusiness than on smaller farms, creating runoffs that destroy rivers, waterways, fisheries and rural jobs.''

The sins of agribusiness, Hawken asserts, range from loss of meaningful work for the poor to loss of genetic variety as companies standardize products in their search for profits. Finally, he complains, ``loss of face-to-face contact between vendors and customers is a loss of conviviality, culture, and security.''

But do all agree? Local agriculture ``makes good political chatter but it's simply not economically feasible,'' Leonard Kyle, professor emeritus of agriculture economics at Michigan State University, e-mailed. People, schools, supermarkets and hotels, he added, all want products delivered on a daily, year-round basis; locally grown fruits and vegetables are seasonal and no substitute for long-distance agriculture transport.

Of course there is no reason that institutions and grocers couldn't enter contracts to buy substantial amounts of local crops all the months they are available. But Eugene Miller of Shelton, Conn., asserts that local farm prices may be higher, and he goes further to argue that ``a kind of romantic haze conceals the awkward realities of small-scale agriculture, year-round farmers' markets, organically grown produce.''

Foods from afar, he argues, are often as flavorful as local ones; small-scale farming was declining even before federal agriculture subsidies; there's ``little or no evidence'' organically grown food is healthier; and with multiple long-distance suppliers, ``our food supply is more secure now than when food was grown locally.''

Clearly, food issues evoke a major clash of world views. Rawly put, it's the power of today's economics versus concerns about tomorrow's environment and sustainability; it's faith in today's muscular, profit-driven national and global food market versus a desire to foster personal contact, community, self-reliance and accountability for the long haul.

For some, it's even a spiritual issue. California-based environmentalist Gerald Bentryn e-mails how a group he organizes plans a yearly meal grown entirely within 30 miles of their homes. ``We prepare the food and bring it together with stories of who grew it, where, and what the fields looked and felt like. I call it the 'Thanksgiving Conspiracy,' a celebration of the joys of food, landscape and culture.''

My guess is we can't and don't want to return to 100 percent local food supplies (just think winter lettuce and fruits). But it's within our power to grow and distribute dramatically increased foodstuffs locally, within or close to our metropolitan regions. The dividends, if we do, could be dramatic.

Neal Peirce's e-mail address is nrp(at symbol)citistates.com.