I write in response to the story in the Watertown Times on May 2 titled "Bion blasts farmer's 'misinformation.'" I take issue with the tone and implications of Jeffrey Kappell's response to the St. Lawrence County Farm Bureau's finding that Bion's proposed 84,000-head, integrated beef and ethanol facility should not receive public subsidies.

It is clear that Jon Greenwood was acting in his capacity as a Farm Bureau representative and spokesman and was relating official bureau policy to the press and public. The statements presented by Mr. Greenwood for the Farm Bureau did not impugn the integrity and motives of Mr. Kappell or other Bion officers. The statements were measured and logical. They are based on an assessment of current economic, political and community conditions relative to Bion's proposed extremely large-scale livestock and ethanol facility.

It is possible to come to different conclusions than the Farm Bureau's from a consideration of the same information. However, Bion and Mr. Kappell did not attempt to engage in a debate about the bureau's findings. Mr. Kappell ignored the fact that Mr. Greenwood was acting as the spokesman for an influential local institution with a long history of representing farmer and rural community interests. Instead, Mr. Kappell attacked Mr. Greenwood's motives as economic self-interest at the expense of the interest of the larger community.

Jon Greenwood is a longtime resident, active citizen and successful businessman in St. Lawrence County. The fate of his farm and others like it is a relevant issue that needs to be discussed and debated in regard to Bion's plans. In addition, Mr. Kappell ignores the fact that other organizations representing smaller farm interests such as North Country Grown Cooperative and GardenShare have also expressed skepticism of the efficiency and wisdom of implementing such a large-scale investor-owned facility in St. Lawrence County. It is misleading to assert that the Farm Bureau's statements in this area are driven primarily by the narrowly drawn economic interests of larger-scale family farms in the county.

In sum, many sectors of the local community are opposed to Bion's proposed project and to its receiving public subsidies, and Mr. Kappell's attempt to suggest otherwise should be seen for what it is, an attempt to deflect attention away from broad local opposition to an ill-conceived project.

Dan Bradburd

Potsdam