Eric and Joanna Reuter own and operate Chert Hollow Farm, LLC, a diversified Community Supported Agriculture farm offering weekly deliveries of fresh produce and more to Columbia, MO.
‘Right to farm’ is wolf in sheep’s clothing
Selective protections favor corporate ag.
by Eric and Joanna Reuter
Columbia Daily Tribune
Excerpts:
Missouri’s proposed “right to farm” amendment says “the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed.” For eight years, we have operated a diversified farm in northern Boone County, managing produce, dairy goats, poultry, timber and more. This experience, along with one of us spending several years on the board of a local farmers market, has made us quite open to a discussion about ways to protect farmers from unnecessary interference and regulation. As we follow this debate, however, the current approach is not aimed at benefiting all of Missouri’s diverse agriculture equally.
Our farm recently experienced a close encounter with a crop-dusting aircraft spraying conventional fields 1,000 feet to our north, with a north wind blowing. We have been unable to reach the farmer involved despite repeated attempts to find out what was being sprayed and potentially drifting onto our food crops. Such a situation is a serious problem for a farm whose customers demand chemical-free produce. What does right-to-farm have to say about a situation like this? Would it ensure the offending farmer’s right to apply airborne poisons regardless of neighbors’ concerns, even other farmers, simply because crop-dusting is an agricultural practice? Growing chemical-free produce for local sale is also an agricultural practice, one that is our full-time business, but would right-to-farm really protect us against infringement by “conventional” agriculture? The rights of all farmers cannot be simultaneously guaranteed.
We’ve also experienced governmental infringement on our farming practices. As just one of many examples, we were informed several years ago by the Missouri Department of Agriculture that it would be illegal to raise and sell any of our pastured hogs that had been fed vegetables (even those raised on our farm) because of an overly strict reading of an old, obscure garbage-feeding law. We wrote about the issue on our website and contacted media outlets but could generate little support. Our state representative at the time effectively blew us off, and we were told the only way we could fight back was to sue the state, a black hole of time and money that we couldn’t afford. If ever there was a need for right-to-farm, this was it, but farms like ours don’t seem to count when it comes to lobbying power. Why is a corporate hog lot deserving of legal protection but a small pastured pork farmer is not?
Continue reading the article here.
Vote NO and Protect Missouri Family Farms
ACTION ALERT
by Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund
Oppose Amendment #1 Change to State Constitution
On August 5, 2014, Missouri voters will decide on whether to pass Constitutional Amendment #1, also known as the “Right to Farm Amendment” (aka the “Right to Harm” amendment).
While the right to farm is something everyone should support, Amendment One serves as a bio-tech/concentrated animal feeding operation protection act–doing little to help the family farm. Supporters of the amendment include Monsanto, Cargill, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Cattleman’s Association, and Missouri Pork Association–all entities working to further the interests of industrial agriculture.
Amendment One is a broad, vague measure that will make factory farms and biotechnology companies increasingly unaccountable for their actions.
TAKE ACTION – Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment #1
Significant agribusiness money has gone towards the passage of Amendment One. The small farm community is strongly opposed to the amendment and needs a strong grassroots turnout to be successful on August 5.
The amendment will benefit biotech and mega farm companies, not Missouri’s small family farms nor consumers seeking wholesome locally grown food.
“BAIT & SWITCH” PHRASING – Missouri citizen?
Amendment #1 poses to add a new section to the Missouri Constitution, Section 35. The question posed on the ballot will read:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?”
What is deceptive is that the actual language going into the Missouri Constitution is different. It will read:
Section 35. That agriculture which provides food, energy, health benefits, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri.
This language resulted from passage of the Missouri House Joint Resolution 11 (HJR 11) earlier this year.
The phrase “farmers and ranchers” can easily be interpreted to mean not only “corporations” but even “foreign corporations.” Smithfield, which has a substantial presence in Missouri, was recently sold to a corporation in China. According to the online magazine, Food Processing:
Smithfield Foods, the world’s biggest pork producer, was acquired Sept. 26, 2013 by Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd., which changed its name to WH Group Ltd. WH Group is the majority shareholder of Henan Shuanghui Investment & Development Co., which is China’s largest meat processing enterprise and China’s largest publicly traded meat products company.
Smithfield Foods has been a target of animal rights activists and was pressured into agreeing to phase out the use of gestation crates. Smithfield food brands include Smithfield, Eckrich, Farmland, Armour, Cook’s, Gwaltney, John Morrell, Kretschmar, Curly’s, Carando, Margherita and Healthy Ones.
ORIGINAL INTENT – Protect Big Ag
This constitutional change could control over any other laws governing factory farming and the use of biotechnology. The push for Amendment One came about due to the passage of a bill regulating puppy mills in 2011 (SB 161) which resulted in the establishment of the Canine Cruelty Prevention Unit to enforce the new law. Supporters of Amendment #1 argued that the measure was needed to protect farmers from radical animal rights groups but it was clear there were other motives for the amendment as well.
Earlier versions of the amendment contained the phrases, “modern farming and ranching practices” and “agricultural technology and modern and traditional livestock production and ranching practices.” Such terminology easily encompassed the use of GMOs including genetically engineered plants, animals, herbicides and pesticides as well as CAFOs raising livestock under conditions so deplorable that antibiotics are added to the feed to mitigate the stress of confinement in limited space. These practices are not only an assault on the environment but also on human health.
These phrases were omitted from the final version of the bill that passed but the measure on the ballot is still broad enough to be interpreted in a way such that there could be no consequences for the damage caused by biotechnology and factory farming practices.
BIG AG DOLLARS TALKING – Ambiguous language
The vague language in the amendment would likely lead to many court challenges. Missouri already has a right to farm act that protects agricultural operations from nuisance suits “so long as all county, state, and federal environmental codes, laws, or regulations are met.” Biotech and factory farming corporations can afford the lawyers and attack laws regulating their operations until they get the results they want.
The Missouri Farm Bureau’s Fund to Protect Farming & Ranching and the Marion County Farm Bureau Committee were the only campaign committees registered with the Missouri Ethics Commission as supporters of Amendment #1 which have raised over one million dollars. Per Ballotpedia.org, the top five contributors to the campaign’s are: Missouri Soybean Association $100,500.00; Missouri Pork PAC $75,000.00; Missouri Pork Association $60,500.00; FCS Financial $48,000.00; and Missouri Farm Bureau $47,342.77.
Go to the Action Alert.