Commenting Guidelines

    • The HSLF invites comments—pro and con. Keep them clean. Keep them lively. Adhere to our guiding philosophy of non-violence. And please understand, this is not an open post. We publish samplers of comments to keep the conversation going. We correct misspellings and typos when we find them.

« Tightening Slaughter Rules for School Lunches | Main | Taking Action on Animal Testing at Home and Abroad »

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Missouri’s Right-to-Harm Amendment

The August 5th primary election in Missouri will ask voters there whether to approve Amendment 1, which seeks to enshrine the “right to farm” in the state constitution. It’s being pushed by the same politicians and special interests who tried to overturn a voter-approved ballot initiative in 2010 to crack down on puppy mills. They want to prevent the state’s voters from protecting dogs subjected to cruel treatment in Missouri's puppy mills or from helping animals suffering the cruelties of intensive confinement agriculture. No on 1 Logo

The opposition to Amendment 1 is being led by family farmers in the state, and a broad coalition of groups that see through this charade, including humane societies, environmental groups, food safety advocates, faith-based groups, and others. They argue that this isn't Missouri's right to farm, but China's right to farm. Amendment 1 will guarantee foreign corporations the right to own Missouri farm land and do as they see fit without any check and balance from the people or the legislature, effectively letting China and other foreign countries and companies control what happens in Missouri’s towns and counties.

Three of the state’s largest newspapers have also weighed in, and are urging Missourians to reject this boondoggle. Here’s what they had to say:

No single industry or occupation deserves constitutional immunity. It’s the legislature’s job to determine the delicate balance among the interests of farmers, consumers and communities. In putting Amendment 1 on the ballot, lawmakers sought to shirk that responsibility. Voters shouldn’t let them get away with it.—Kansas City Star, June 23, 2014

It is the fearful farm faction’s overreaction to the puppy mill reforms. They’re barking at the moon. Because it’s their right. But the rest of the state shouldn’t bark with them.—St. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 16, 2014

Although proponents’ literature doesn’t specify, the August amendment is a virtual "No Trespassing" sign aimed at pesky groups concerned with animal welfare, genetically modified food, use of antibiotics in livestock, etc….The undefined "production" and "practices" are an invitation to sue, which essentially will move the debate from the legislative arena, where it belongs, to the judiciary.—Jefferson City News Tribune, June 8, 2014

If you live in Missouri, please spread the word to friends and family, and ask them to vote No on Amendment 1 on August 5th. Don’t let the politicians and special interests get away with this radical and overreaching right-to-harm amendment.

 

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00e54fa1b0a1883401a3fd25483a970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Missouri’s Right-to-Harm Amendment:

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In.

Get Political
for Animals




Powered by TypePad