The Right to Farm?

It all comes down to fear. Both proponents and opponents of Amendment 1 are motivated by fear of outside influence and what that influence could mean for the future of Missouri’s largest industry.

Supporters of the proposed amendment such as the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Association say animal rights activists from across the country can utilize the state’s initiative petition process to strip away the rights of Missouri farmers. Those opposed such as the Humane Society of the United States and the Missouri Farmers Union say corporate farmers are the only ones who would benefit from the constitutional change.

The positions will clash at the ballot box on Aug. 5 when Show-Me State voters decide whether to add the broad language to Missouri’s Constitution.

Ruell Chappell, owner of Gateway Farms LLC in Greene County, said he’s traveled the state on his own dime speaking to various groups about why he believes the amendment should be voted down. Chappell is worried the issue will divide folks along party lines.

“This is not a party war. This is ‘for reals,’” Chappell said. “Use your own head. Industries shouldn’t have their own constitutional amendments. Farmers have always had the right to farm.”

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst said the amendment has drawn broad backing from its 117,000 members and a range of agricultural industry groups, unlike its opposition.

“We’ve seen the animal rights movement become larger and more well-funded, so all across the country we’re seeing movements to restrict farmers’ ability to produce food,” Hurst said.

In fact, 88 percent of funding for the opposition’s political action committee, Missouri’s Food for America, comes from the HSUS’s legislative fund.

Hurst cited California’s recent move to regulate size requirements on cages for hens that produce eggs sold in the state as an example of why farmers’ rights should be protected. He also cited Missouri’s Proposition B, passed by voters in 2010 and designed to prohibit puppy mills.

“There was one kicker in there that I think a lot of people forget about. The bill limited dog breeders to 50 female dogs. We’ve never done anything like that in the state. We’ve never limited the size of a legal business,” Hurst said.

HSUS supported both Prop B and California’s Proposition 2 in 2008.

Nixa livestock farmer Sheila Nichols pointed toward legislator’s later compromise on the voter-approved Prop B, saying lawmakers could take the same approach in the future instead of altering the constitution.

“We continue to build up multinational corporations that truly don’t have our interests at heart,” said the family farmer. “It’s their bottom lines they have at heart. It’s not our waterways; it’s not our farmers; it’s not our families; and it’s not our rural communities. But when we support our local farmers, that’s when we start seeing a big difference.”

Nichols said China-based Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. now owns 50,000 acres in northern Missouri via a 2013 buyout of Smithfield Foods Inc., adding that’s the kind of threat Missourians should worry about.

State Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, said the amendment was drafted in his Jefferson City office with the help of stakeholder groups from across the state. He takes exception to the notion that outside corporations provided the impetus for the amendment.

“This was all done with the input of small farmers,” Parson said. “Let me tell you who was not at the table. Large corporations and their representatives were not even in the room. Confined animal facilities? Nobody.”

Amendment 1 could fuel agricultural development in the state, according to Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., who spoke July 25 at the Dairy Farmers of America convention at University Plaza Convention Center.

“We are only three or four common sense decisions away from great opportunities for our state and agriculture. We are only three or four bad decisions away from those opportunities going somewhere else,” Blunt told the crowd of around 200 dairy farmers.

The world’s food needs are only increasing, Blunt said, and Missouri is well positioned as an agricultural and transportation hub to take advantage of opportunities if it is willing to protect farmers.

“If you look at a railroad map of America, if you look at a highway map of America, if you look at a river map of America … they all come together right where we live. The Mississippi River is about to become more important than it’s ever been because that’s the way you’re going to get things to Asia and Europe,” Blunt said.

The opportunity Blunt and other proponents are referring to, according to Joe Maxwell, vice president of outreach and engagement for the HSUS, is the development of concentrated animal farming operations. He said lawmakers in Iowa and Illinois are cracking down on CAFOs, which has operators looking to a less-restrictive environment in Missouri.

Maxwell, a pig farmer who raises between 300 and 360 sows a year near Mexico, Mo., said he works through the HSUS to connect responsible family farmers with humane-minded consumers.

“The Humane Society of the United States is concerned that over the last 30 years we’ve lost more than 1 million farmers … and over 91 percent of the hog farmers during that time,” Maxwell said.

Maxwell helped secure the $375,000 opposition PAC Missouri’s Food for America received from the HSUS legislative fund to defeat Amendment 1. He believes the money is needed to compete with agribusiness groups that support the amendment.

“We will probably be outspent two-to-one, but that will at least make us competitive,” he said.

According to the Missouri Ethics Commission, Missouri Farmers Care, the key PAC raising funds for support of the amendment, had raised $745,750 as of July 30, nearly double the $425,000 raised by opposition PAC Missouri’s Food for America.

Chappell believes the bill’s language is misleading and he’s concerned uninformed voters won’t realize they could be protecting corporation’s rights.

According to the ballot, voters will be asked: “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?”

However, the actual change made to Section 35 makes no mention of “citizens,” only the rights of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices, leaving the door open for a corporations rights debate.

Maxwell believes the vague bill language is the crux of the problem.

“It is so vague and broad you could drive a truck through it,” he said.

Hurst addressed criticism of the broad language, saying any constitutional amendment should be broad by its very nature. He also said the $125,000 the Missouri Farm Bureau raised in support of Amendment 1, through Missouri Farmers Care, came from nearly 2,000 donations, countering the argument the measure only is in the interest of “big ag.”

“Let me tell you, corporations don’t make $70 contributions,” he said.