Is there a constitutional right to food? Mainers to decide
DependPORTLAND, MAINE — ing 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 in an era when corporatization threatens local ownership of the food supply, a constitutional experiment that has never been tried in any state.
For opponents and skep-
tics, it’s deceptively vague, representing a threat to food safety and animal welfare, and could embolden resi- dents to raise cows in their backyards in cities like Port- land and Bangor.
In the Nov. 2 election, voters will be asked if they favor an amendment to the Maine Constitution “to declare that all individuals have a natu- ral, 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.”
The proposal is essen- tially “the 2nd Amendment of food,” said Republican Rep. Billy Bob Faulkingham, who proposed the amendment, likening it to the U.S. constitutional amendment that assures the right to bear arms.
He says it’s a com- mon-sense amendment that would make sure the government can’t stop people from doing things like saving and exchanging seeds, as long as they don’t violate public or property rights.
“There’s a lot of disturb
ing trends in the food category, with the power and control that corporations are taking over our food,” said Faulkingham, who is also a commercial lobster fisher- man. “We want to protect people’s ability to grow gardens, grow and raise their own food.”
Faulkingham and others said the amendment is a response to growing cor- porate ownership of the food supply. They see the amend- ment as 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 largest farmers advocacy organization in the state, argued the language of the amendment is so broad that it could make the food supply less safe.
The amendment could empower residents to buy and cons u me food that isn’t subject to inspections, proper refrigeration and
other safety checks, Smith worried.
“We think it’s very dangerous to have the words ‘to consume the food of your own choosing.’ That is so broad and dangerous,” Smith said. “It has the potential to cause serious problems in
food safety, animal welfare.”
Smith said the farm bureau is also concerned that the amendment could override local ordinances that prevent residents from raising live- stock anywhere they choose.
Supporters of the proposal, including Faulking- ham, said that local rules would still be enforced, and
that the amendment would not mean you could do things like raise chickens anywhere you want or fish commer- cially without a license.
The amendment proposal is an outgrowth of the rightto-food movement, sometimes called the food sovereignty movement, which has expanded in recent years in Maine and states around the U.S. and Canada.
The movement comprises a patchwork of small farm- ers, raw milk enthusiasts, lib- ertarians, back-to-the-land advocates, anti-corporatists and others who want to ensure local control of food systems.
Maine enacted a food sovereignty law, the nation’s first of its kind, in 2017. The law was especially popular with
sellers of raw milk, which can be legally sold in Maine but is more restricted in many other states.