• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund

Protecting, defending, and broadening the rights and viability of independent farmers, artisanal food producers, and their consumers.

  • Membership
    • Member Login
    • Join
    • Renew
    • Testimonials
  • Giving
  • About
    • About Us
    • Board of Directors
    • Team
    • Work With Us
  • News
    • News
    • Events
  • Action Alerts
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

Vote NO and Protect Missouri Family Farms Action Alert

By admin | August 1, 2014

UPDATE 8/6/14: Amendment #1 Passed narrowly [see article]

 

veggie-crate-girl-300x300red-voteNO
Action Alert – Quick Links

  • “Bait and Switch” Phrasing
  • Original Intent
  • Big Ag Dollars Talking
  • 2013 Action Alert

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.


SPREAD THE WORD – VOTE “NO”
Graphic to share in social media (size 300×300):
To embed, copy the code below and change the end brackets [ ] to < > at beginning and end, e.g. < code >:
[img src=”http://farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/veggie-crate-girl-300x300red-voteNOmeme.jpg” alt=”veggie-crate-girl-300x300red-voteNOmeme” width=”300″ height=”300″ class=”alignleft size-full wp-image-16891″ /]

veggie-crate-girl-300x300red-voteNOmeme
Social media link(s) – all lower case works, too:
bit.ly/FTC-MO2
http://bit.ly/FTC-MO2
www.bit.ly/FTC-MO2

Action Alert – http://farmtoconsumer.org/aa/aa-01August2014.htm

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email

This article can be found in: Action Alerts, Food Rights News, Press Room, State News This article is related to: Action Alerts, Missouri, Monsanto, Right to Farm

Primary Sidebar

Raw Milk Map

State-by-State Raw Milk Laws

Cottage Food Map

Map of the United States showing cottage food laws in each state

Poultry Nation©

Red Meat Nation©

State-by-State Slaughter Laws

Footer

  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • YouTube
  • Threads
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact Us
  • Login

Defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods. Copyright © 2007-2025 · For more information: email: [email protected] · Phone: (703) 208-FARM (3276) · Falls Church, VA Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) The content of this website is intended for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended to be nor should it be construed as either a legal opinion or as legal advice. Articles posted here do not necessarily represent the views or the position of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.