Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 04, 2014

Missourians already have the constitutional right to religion, speech and guns. On Tuesday, they could make a novel addition to the State Constitution: the right to "engage in farming and ranching practices." A coalition of state farming groups and major agriculture corporations have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Amendment 1 to take aim at the Humane Society, which led a successful fight in 2010 to regulate inhumane dog-breeding practices in Missouri. "It's the agricultural establishment trying to build a firewall against growing consumer concerns," said John E. Ikerd, professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri in Columbia, likening it to early regulation of tobacco. "If we'd had a 'right to smoke' amendment at that time, we'd still have smoke-filled offices and airplanes."

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

there is an agri-"culture" in the midwest that i am not too fond of, but i support them in this endeavor.

#1 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2014-08-04 10:06 AM | Reply | Flag:

With the water pollution in Lake Michigan which deprived Toledo of drinking water for days due, in part, to fertilizer run off. It would be foolish to prevent government from being able to regulate farming practices in any way, there are regulations that are necessary and needed.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2014-08-04 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't know enough about this Amendment to engage in a spirited debate, but I certainly see pros and cons.

Pro: could benefit small farmers, microfarmers and even backyard farmers who are battling everything from urban sprawl to rezoning to city restrictions on gardens/chickens/etc.. Everyone should have a right to grow their own food.

Con: Probably didn't start as a grassroots effort, which means it's being pushed by big money corporate farmers, and probably not even farmers. More likely it's being pushed to benefit corporations and co-ops that raise beef, pork and poultry. The fact that the opposition is the Humane Society would certainly indicate that to be true. I'd also like to see how much dark money Monsanto, et al have put into this.

When this passes (and it will), the fallout will be interesting. I expect we will see the unintended consequences appearing shortly thereafter in the form of unusual lawsuits.

#3 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 10:18 AM | Reply | Flag:

#2 I don't think they're arguing against regulation, Danni, but you make a valid point. I will say this about the Great Lakes, though: more damage has been done to that ecosystem by allowing ships from foreign ports to to traverse the lakes than by any other factor.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

The big corps are really good about naming their pet legistlation in such a way as to sound like they are looking out for the little guy.

#5 | Posted by sully at 2014-08-04 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't want my neighbors keeping farm animals.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-04 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't want my neighbors keeping farm animals.
#6 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER AT 2014-08-04 11:01 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

Agreed. I'm OK with them growing their own food in gardens, but no animals. When I was younger, our neighbors owned chickens (in the middle of Houston!) and the noise, poop, and rat problems were out of control. If you want to raise chickens you should live in an area that is zoned for such; your neighbors have rights as well.

#7 | Posted by bartimus at 2014-08-04 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#6 There's nothing wrong with a few chickens, Bruce. They reduce the insect population, fertilize the yard, eat garden scraps, provide eggs and meat, and save you money on an alarm clock. Lots of people are discovering that there are lots of benefits to have a few chickens around the house. Rabbits, too. Like having dedicated furry composting machines that taste great in a stew.

#8 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

more damage has been done to that ecosystem by allowing ships from foreign ports to to traverse the lakes than by any other factor.

You righties are always -------' about the downside of free market capitalism, ain't ya?

But you are right on with #3. I lived in an area with a massive greenhouse
industry where they used to burn their old plastic. Legally, they could have gone down the roads picking up plastic garbage bags to burn to heat the greenhouses, based on "normal farm practices" legislation. It took the local Fire Departments to get open burn bylaws passed to stop this lunacy.

#9 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-04 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

#8

I have to agree with Bart. chickens bring out all of the nasty varmits that try to get them and that affects everyone.

You really need some distance from others if you want to raise chickens, IMO>.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2014-08-04 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Without reading this its unclear what it does.
Might be something bad hidden in it.

But it sounds like its good.

#11 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-04 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Without reading this its unclear what it does... But it sounds like its good.

Now there's some sound reasoning for you.

#12 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-04 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Anything like this with 'Right to' in its name never seems to be a good idea... Basically all this is an amendment to 'protect' big corporate agriculture from regulation. I'll be voting no.

#13 | Posted by HeeHaw at 2014-08-04 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I don't want my neighbors keeping farm animals.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner

They certainly don't belong in a suburban subdivision.

#14 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2014-08-04 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"take aim at the Humane Society, which led a successful fight in 2010 to regulate inhumane dog-breeding practices in Missouri."

Humanity's best friend deserves to be treated better than livestock.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-04 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

#15 I don't think this amendment has anything to do with dogs, unless someone in Missouri is raising them as livestock.

#16 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12 That's the same reasoning every Democrat in Congress used when they passed Obamacare. "Well, we don't know what's in it, but it sure sounds good!"

#17 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't think this amendment has anything to do with dogs"

Article says it is.

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-04 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, we don't know what's in it, but it sure sounds good"

This amendment is 60 words long... not that difficult to read.

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2014-08-04 01:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18 No, it says the Humane Society is funding the opposition and says that they previously led a successful fight to regulate dog-breeding practices in the same state. Your reading comprehension SUCKS.

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-04 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't want my neighbors keeping farm animals.

#6 | Posted by BruceBanner

Don't live in an Agriculturally zoned area then.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2014-08-04 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Well, we don't know what's in it, but it sure sounds good!"

They were just quoting the Republicans' response to the PATRIOT Act.

#22 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-04 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#15 I don't think this amendment has anything to do with dogs, unless someone in Missouri is raising them as livestock.

#16 | POSTED BY MUSTANG"

The problem is that no one in Missouri seems to know what the amendment has to do with anything. But it may have to do with dogs. The Humane Society of Mo is saying this could give dog breeders grounds to have the 2010 law that voters passed to strengthen regulations against puppy mills overturned. On the flip side of that, supporters say this amendment would keep animal rights groups from trying to place similar restrictions on cattle, pig, chicken, etc. farmers.

A lot of farmers are saying this will make it easier for foreign investment, specifically China, to take over much of the farming in Mo. On the other hand, some small farmers are praising it saying it will make it harder for governments to regulate them out using tactics such as zoning laws.

The supporters can't tell you what the actual effects of the proposal may be. Their answers are vague. Lawyers also can't tell you what it will do. They say the language is too vague and offers too much opportunity for the courts to interpret it pretty much anyway they see fit.

Overall, the right to farm in Missouri is not under threat. Farming is a huge part of economy and it is doing just fine without this mystery law. For this reason, I'm voting no.

#23 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2014-08-04 04:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

The big corps are really good about naming their pet legislation in such a way as to sound like they are looking out for the little guy.

#5 | Posted by sully.

Passing laws should be made very difficult. Passing amendments even more difficult. All too often as mentioned above our laws are intended to sound exactly the opposite of what they really are, and slick corporate lawyers in expensive suits have already created loopholes for their own benefit. Laws and amendments are intended as vehicles that big business interests and media propagandists use to benefit themselves while the outcome mostly screws the public and country.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-04 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe the're trying to protect themselves from Monsanto .

#25 | Posted by bat4255 at 2014-08-04 08:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

Looks like your wrong mustang.

#26 | Posted by Tor at 2014-08-04 11:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

#26 How? Because the Humane Society is trying use puppy mills as a scare tactic? The amendments says farming and ranching. I've heard of cattle ranches, horse ranches, goat and sheep ranches, ostrich ranches, llama ranches and at least one Bunny Ranch, but I'm unaware of any dog ranches.

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-08-05 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

All too often as mentioned above our laws are intended to sound exactly the opposite of what they really are, and slick corporate lawyers in expensive suits have already created loopholes for their own benefit. Laws and amendments are intended as vehicles that big business interests and media propagandists use to benefit themselves while the outcome mostly screws the public and country.

#24 | Posted by Robson at 2014-08-04 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I've noticed that corporations will name their own internal initiatives falsely too. If project is called "Customer First" you can rest assured that its a cost cutting initiative that will result in worse customer service.

#28 | Posted by Sully at 2014-08-05 11:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Under Communism, nothing was allowed, unless you had a permit.
Under Capitalism, everything is allowed, unless forbidden.
So, what's the problem?

#29 | Posted by Gerrit37 at 2014-08-06 08:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort