Maine farmers divided over a ‘right to food’ amendment

PORTLAND, Maine — Depending on whom you ask, Maine’s proposed “right to food” constitutional amendment would simply put people in charge of how and what they eat — or would endanger animals and food supplies, and turn urban neighborhoods into cattle pastures.

For supporters, the language is short and to the point, ensuring the right to grow vegetables and raise livestock as corporatization threatens local ownership of the food supply.

For opponents and skeptics, the wording is deceptively vague, representing a threat to food safety and animal welfare, and could embolden urban residents to raise cows in their yards.

On Nov. 2, Maine voters will be asked whether they favor amending the state constitution “to declare that all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being.”

It’s essentially “the 2nd Amendment of food,” said Republican state House Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham, likening the amendment that he proposed to the U.S. right to bear arms.

“There’s a lot of disturbing trends in the food category, with the power and control that corporations are taking over our food,” said Faulkingham, who also fishes commercially for lobster. “We want to protect people’s ability to ... grow and raise their own food.”

Faulkingham and others say the amendment is a response to increasing corporate ownership of the food supply — a way to wrest control of food from big landowners and giant retailers.

But Julie Ann Smith, executive director of the Maine Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farmers advocacy organization, says the amendment’s language is so broad that it could make the food supply less safe.

That’s a problem in a state where potatoes, blueberries, maple syrup and dairy products are key pieces of the economy: The amendment could let residents buy and consume food that isn’t subject to inspections, proper refrigeration and other safety measures, she says.

“The words ‘to consume the food of your own choosing’ .... [are] so broad and dangerous,” Smith said. “It has the potential to cause serious problems in food safety, animal welfare.”

She says the farm bureau also fears the amendment could override local ordinances that limit where livestock can be raised.

Supporters of the amendment say that local rules would still be enforced, and that it would not allow things like raising chickens wherever one wants or fishing commercially without a license.

The proposal is an outgrowth of the right-to-food or food sovereignty movement, which has expanded in recent years in the U.S. and Canada. The movement includes raw milk enthusiasts, libertarians, back-tothe-land advocates and anti-corporatists.

Maine enacted a food sovereignty law, the first of its kind in the nation, in 2017, allowing local governments to let small food producers sell directly to customers on site.

The movement has led to similar laws in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana and North Dakota, and pushes for the same elsewhere.

Small-town farmer Heather Retberg says the proposal is a chance for communities to become more selfsufficient, and a chance to tackle the problem of “food deserts,” where there is little access to healthy food.

“It gives us more voice in how we want our food systems to be,” she said, “and how we want our communities to look.”