The (very) long and (not so) short of Proposition 1 by Connie Christians, longtime horticulturist, Mizzou alumnus and Missouri farmer concerning Ballot measure certified for the August 5, 2014 Primary Election: sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/ Constitutional Amendment 1 or Prop 1 (Incorrectly, and intentionally, mis-named Right to Farm) The real statement that is being made here is: farming in Missouri is under attack. What are the facts and who are the players? And why is it on the Primary Ballot and NOT the November General Election Ballot? All good questions deserve an answer: When legislators start using terms like destroy our way of life - I question their agenda: *Theyre pumping up the emotional volume to the threat of incursion by outside interests. *These are the same folks who passed legislation lifting a ban on foreign ownership of farmland (read: factory hog farms that are Chinese owned). *A proposition placed on the August ballot is strategic for less media reporting, lower voter turn-out and an easier path to approval. (Why be bothered with a bunch of pesky food-consuming voters?) The Fine Print: If passed, Amendment One could limit future legislation or ballot initiatives seeking to regulate agriculture (and this is the important part) BY CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION. The Agriculture industry, that is ever changing, will be closed to the rights of citizens to address any future, yet unknown, issues. This includes local and county government and private land owners - they wont be able to contest large factory animal confinements or determine/secure their own agriculture future. A big concern rests with the risk of heavy environmental pollution by factory hog farms... would you want one built upstream of you and your water supply? (Check out neighboring Iowa for the disastrous fallout there.) Another concern focuses on the unregulated future of plant genetic modification used in large crop plantings- this contaminates heritage seed-saving efforts by smaller organic farmers. We just dont know what the future holds for tech advances in this area. The Hidden Point: this particular Proposition is nationally important. The precedent will be set for other states to follow suit and pass similar legislation with much more ease. Missouri voters, this primary election is are being watched- this could herald future national events affecting million of people. Is it a good future or a bad one for folks who farm and those of us who eat (everyone)? History Lesson (or Whatever Happened to 2010s Proposition B?): Support for the current amendment goes back to 2010 with passage of Proposition B, a Missouri ballot initiative purportedly designed to limit dog-breeding operations. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) went all-out with a media campaign embracing the initiative, which won in a close vote split along rural and urban/suburban lines. The HSUS does support livestock regulations that have passed in other states. While the initiative narrowly passed, the General Assembly subsequently passed legislation to weaken it and Gov. Jay Nixon signed it into law. There exists a prejudice against the HSUS that some people can not get past. The organization has supported opposition of this amendment with a lot of money for publicizing their opposition. But, this once, I think they are the right side of the argument, whatever their agenda. Proposition B only CHANGED MISSOURI LAW, but Amendment One would MODIFY THE CONSTITUTION, which is more difficult to change or contest. Quotes and Positions by the Big Players: Public criticism of this amendment: Large farmers groups are distracting from a big-money, corporate agriculture agenda by casting fear of HSUS meddling in local farming business, as they have battled in other states leading to limits on animal confinement. Case in point: Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, does not address how this benefits the interests of Monsanto and Cargill, their main funding comes from these corporations. Hurst claims that Missouri agriculture needs both diversity in its ranks and protection from outside interests (HSUS). His probable motive : as is recommended from savvy researchers and journalists who are searching for the truth: Follow the Money. Missouri Farm Bureau supports this amendment citing that: Missouri’s farm families will be protected from animal rights activists and environmentalists who do not understand the rural way of life or farming businesses. For a complete list of supporters, visit mofarmerscare (that URL looks a lot like MO Farmer Scare, doesnt it?)- a lot of Big AG, they’re basically all farmer-led co-ops or farmer-led associations. Quotes from both sides: “The concern basically (is that) animal rights (groups) can come in and do initiative petitions, said Missouri Farmers Cares Dan Kleinsorge. Former Democratic Missouri Senator Wes Shoemyer,an advocate against confined animal feeding operations and supporter of seed-saving by farmers, says that the amendment is too vague and could tilt the balance in favor of larger, corporate farms. ***** Interesting stats: Missouri ranks second in the nation in terms of number of farms and beef cows. * Number of farms: 105,000 * Number of people employed in agriculture: 245,513 * Annual value farming adds to the economy: $12.4 billion **** Other Ballot measures certified for the August 5, 2014 Primary Election: Right to keep and bear arms- Constitutional Amendment 5 Temporary sales tax for highways- Constitutional Amendment 7 Veterans Lottery Ticket- Constitutional Amendment 8 Secure electronic communications for search & seizure- Constitutional Amendment 9
Posted on: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 20:02:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015