Musings: Farming Rights

In perusing the Sunday New York Times, I noticed that Missouri voters are being asked to decide whether to add a “right to farm” amendment to their state's Constitution.

Proponents apparently believe it will stave off laws that dictate how livestock and crops are raised in the state, which has some 100,000 farms. They seem to be unaware of the fight under way in Hawaii, where anti-GMO activists are challenging seed companies and farmers, despite the “right to farm” statute in state law.

The Hawaii statute reads:

165-4 Right to farm. No court, official, public servant, or public employee shall declare any farming operation a nuisance for any reason if the farming operation has been conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that a farming operation does not constitute a nuisance.

The proposed Missouri amendment reads:

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.

North Dakota is the only other state to adopt a similar Constitutional amendment, which passed with 67 percent of the vote in 2012.

As the Times reports, it's sparked an emotional debate in Missouri, home of Monsanto, where it's pitting people — including farmers — against one another and attracting big money on both sides. One of the primary opponents is the Humane Society of the United States, which previously supported strict regulations on the state's horrid puppy mills. The amendment is partly in response to what some farmers consider “meddling by outsiders,” though it's hard to see how puppy mills could be considered “farming.”

The Times quoted Blake Hurst, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau:

“When you look across the country, you see a lot of ballot initiatives that are making decisions about how farmers can farm,” Mr. Hurst said. The proposed amendment “doesn’t change regulations we have now, and it can’t possibly change federal law. We’re trying to stop ballot initiatives that limit farmers’ ability to use technology.”

As I read the article, and reflected on how communities like Kauai have been torn apart by the issue, I was reminded again that we need to be having a thoughtful, reasoned, national debate on food in this country, one that addresses humane treatment of livestock and environmental and human health, while also considering consumer demand for cheap, abundant food and the realities of farming today.

But we're not having that discussion. Instead, we're embroiled in emotional, often fear-based conflicts that at best take a piece meal approach to a complex issue while ensuring that lawyers have plenty of work in the years ahead.

Meanwhile, the Small Business Regulatory Review Board has completed its required review of the proposed rules for Ordinance 960 — Kauai's pesticide/GMO regulatory bill, which is on hold pending a court review. The Board's comments were succinct, and primarily addressed the bill's impact on small farmers, as opposed to the chem/seed companies:

Pesticide buffer zones will make tracks (sic) of land uneconomical for growing purposes;

Establishment of an emergency/medical hotline will be costly for small farmers to maintain;

The civil fines proposed for the failure to file annual mandated reports are high and will be costly for small farmers, should they miss a deadline; and

The ordinance will curtail the economic viability and future growth of the agricultural industry as well as create business and economic uncertainty that will lead to less land investment and planning for future use.

The county has scheduled a public hearing on the rules for Aug. 26. According to Beth Tokioka in the mayor's office:

Once the public hearing is complete and provided that there are no substantial changes to the rules, the OED Director [George Costa] shall fully consider all written and oral submissions respecting the proposed rules. The Director may make his decision at the public hearing or announce then the date when he intends to make his decision.  If the Rules are approved by the Director, the Rules will be submitted to the Mayor for his approval as required by HRS 91-3.