Positivity, choice are themes for farming amendment campaign

Nevada Daily Mail

If there's one thing the Missouri Amendment One campaign is trying to be, it's positive.

The proposed constitutional amendment, also known as Missouri House Joint Resolution Numbers 11 and 7 or the "right-to-farm" amendment, looks to create a level of protection for Missouri farms in case of controversial regulations. If passed, it will modify the state constitution to ensure farming and ranching is a fundamental right. Voters will have a chance to approve or nix the amendment later this year, though which ballot it will appear on -- August or November -- will not be known until May.

Garrett Hawkins, National Legislative Programs Director for the Missouri Farm Bureau, hosted a joint meeting with the Vernon County Cattlemen's Association Thursday night to discuss the amendment.

Hawkins said the campaign's focus this election year is to exhibit a positive message by showing the importance of Missouri agriculture. He said he hopes those messages will contrast with election season ads put out by other organizations, like The Humane Society of the United States.

"How many times have we seen videos from HSUS?" he asked a Vernon County crowd of nearly 40. "We want to focus on the positive. It's really about portraying to consumers a positive message."

Hawkins said the amendment is focused on protecting Missouri farmers from a variety of advocacy groups, such as animal rights organizations and groups in favor of new regulations like labeling for genetically modified foods. He said the amendment could help protect farmers and ranchers from possible economic issues if industry-changing regulations were put into place.

"Within Farm Bureau, we talk about 'with rights come responsibilities'. And that's what amendment one is about. It's about protecting the heritage, it's about protecting what we do, and what we do well in this state," Hawkins said.

The push for a Missouri constitutional amendment has come after multiple states have applied regulations that affect commercial trade between states, specifically, laws modifying allowed farming techniques. In 2011, Oregon banned cages for egg-laying hens, while Rhode Island prohibited gestation stalls and veal calf stalls in 2012 -- just two examples among a variety of other regulations elsewhere. A California ban on cages for egg-laying hens, approved by voters in 2008, prompted Missouri Attorney General Christ Koster to file a lawsuit in Eastern California's U.S. District Court, earlier this year.

A Feb. 4 press release from Koster's office stated he thought the farming law violated the constitutional Commerce Clause, which prohibits all states from creating legislation that regulates business activities outside of its borders.

"California has placed restrictions on the sale or transfer of a commodity based on production methods that have nothing to do with the health or safety of California consumers," Koster said in the release. "If California legislators are permitted to mandate the size of chicken coops on Missouri farms, they may just as easily demand that Missouri soybeans be harvested by hand or that Missouri corn be transported by solar-powered trucks."

Hawkins said the language brought forth in the amendment is intended to protect Missouri farmers from situations like the hypothetical one Koster presented. The vague wording -- what Hawkins called "broad," -- states "the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state."

Hawkins said the language will be beneficial when it comes to interpretation for any legal cases, and compared the wording of the amendment similar to that vagueness of the U.S. Constitution.

"This will be the safeguard to see if something is more onerous and infringes upon our rights," he said.

That doesn't mean all laws and regulations currently in place would be nullified if this amendment is enacted. Hawkins said there's the possibility that Missouri farmers and ranchers could face more regulations in the future. But, he thinks the amendment will be a test for any legislation working to become law.

Missouri is the second state to propose a farmers' rights amendment, following North Dakota, which enacted a "Right-to-Farm" law in 2013. But while remaining states do not have specific constitutional amendments protecting agricultural workers, many have some kind of legislative protections for resident farmers and ranchers.

Those protections, Hawkins said, extend to consumers as well. He said the amendment would benefit consumers by ensuring continued, steady food production, meaning lower prices at grocery stores.

"Why should consumers care? Because amendment one protects your choice to consume the types of food that you want."

Although, according to a Keep Missouri Farming pamphlet -- the supporting campaign -- the amendment could attempt to hinder regulations that require labeling of genetically modified foods.

The pamphlet labels the move towards mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods to be a restriction on the food choices for consumers, a point that could be contested by shoppers and voters later this year.

Hawkins expects the recently formed organization, Missouri's Food for America, will be one of the amendment's largest opponents during this election cycle. The group is supported by The Humane Society of the United States, and advocates for sustainable and humane agricultural practices.

In the mean time, the amendment campaign is looking to a variety of places and faces to continue spreading the word about the constitutional addition. Hawkins said farm tours in urban areas are one inroad to creating support for the agriculture amendment in communities who are distanced from daily farm life. He said the Missouri Farm Bureau hopes to raise enough funds to do television and radio advertisements in those areas, too.

And in the agriculture industry, all producers -- regardless of size, crop or livestock -- are being encouraged to spread word about the right-to-farm amendment.