AUGUSTA, Maine — Even though the Maine Senate voted last week against a proposed amendment to the Maine Constitution that states every individual has a “natural and unalienable right to food,” supporters of the change are not giving up the fight.
The idea of “ food sovereignty” is a hot-button issue in Maine, where many people have said they would like to have the ability to buy and sell food that is locally produced without the interference of government regulations. Many towns around the state are adopting local food sovereignty ordinances, with the town of Liberty in Waldo County becoming the 17th municipality in Maine to adopt such an ordinance last weekend at its annual town meeting.
“Senators’ phones are ringing off the hook this weekend,” Betsy Garrold, the president of the board of directors of Food for Maine’s Future, said Saturday. “I’ve been told that this is one of the really rare bills that they’re getting phone calls and emails about. … [The amendment] is a way to rebuild the local food infrastructure. It’s a way to rebuild communities.”
But perhaps the only thing certain about LD 783, which was proposed last year by Rep. Craig Hickman, D-Winthrop, is its ability to generate passionate opinions in both supporters and opponents.
It has been a roller-coaster week for the proposed amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in each chamber for passage. Last Monday, the Maine House voted 97-45 to send the bill to the Senate, but senators on Wednesday voted it down by 18 to 13. The following day, the Maine House insisted that it ought to pass, which means that the proposed amendment will be sent back to the Senate for another crack, perhaps as early as this week, according to Garrold.
But staunch opponents like Rep. Jeff Timberlake, R-Turner, owner of Ricker Hill Orchards, one of New England’s largest apple farms, said that his mind won’t be changed about the proposed amendment. He believes that food safety regulations establish standards for sanitation of equipment, tools and facilities to prevent foodborne illnesses, such as botulism and E. coli.
“I think it’s an outright disaster for the state of Maine,” he said of the proposed amendment. “My personal opinion is that this is all about people’s right to sell food to whoever you want to sell food to — that people should have a right. And I’ll tell you that people do have a right. They have a right to safe food.”
If the proposed amendment is accepted by senators on its second go-round, it will still need to be ratified by voters at referendum.
“All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to acquire, produce, process, prepare, preserve and consume the food of their own choosing, for their own nourishment and sustenance, by hunting, gathering, foraging, farming, fishing, gardening and saving and exchanging seeds, as long as no individual commits trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the acquisition of food,” the proposed amendment reads. “Furthermore, all individuals have a right to barter, trade and purchase food from the sources of their own choosing for their own bodily health and well-being. Every individual is fully responsible for the exercise of these rights, which may not be infringed.”
Hickman, who advocates for Maine’s burgeoning local food movement and operates Annabessacook Farm in Winthrop, said last April during a public hearing in front of the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee, that it is critical to guarantee the right to food.
He said that in the last decade, there have been dozens of farm raids around the country and a lot of legal action taken around food rights. States have sued farmers, farm customers have sued states, and multinational biotechnology companies have sued farmers for seed patent theft.
In this heated, often litiginous atmosphere, regular people are losing access to the food they want, Hickman said.
“The right to food is a fundamental liberty right,” he said last April. “It is a right increasingly infringed. If we protect it in our Constitution, the strength of the law shifts away from corporate and government control of our food and our lives … who, other than you, should decide what you are allowed to eat for your own nourishment and sustenance?”
Supporters are not against food safety, but are against one-size-fits-all government regulations that impede the ability of small farms and producers to do business, according to Garrold of Food for Maine’s Future.
“The constitutional amendment puts the responsibility on you. You have the right and the responsibility. If you buy from someone, you probably should know what their milkroom looks like,” she said. “What we’re talking about is right-sized regulations.”
But amending the state Constitution is a permanent fix to a problem that does not clearly exist, according to opponents that include Sen. Peter Edgecomb, R-Caribou, and the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, the agency tasked with enforcing food safety regulations.
“We believe all citizens in Maine already have access to any and all the food they want and the need for this proposal as a constitutional amendment seems unnecessary,” Ellis Addition, director of the state Bureau of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, told the Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee during a public hearing last April. “The problem this bill is trying to address is unclear, and it is also unclear why this topic would rise to the level of a constitutional consideration.”
Edgecomb, a longtime educator and Christmas tree farmer, said he believes the amendment would be passed if it goes to a referendum vote.
“Of course, people will say we have a right to eat what we want,” Edgecomb said, adding that support and opposition of the bill has not exactly broken down along party lines. “The funny thing is, I think we’re overregulated in the state. But when it comes to food safety, I’m really concerned about this. I think it could be really damaging.”
Maine food activists have tried for years to decrease the regulatory burden on small farmers by changing state laws but have been unsuccessful, Garrold said. That is in part because large corporate food companies do not want to open the door to smaller farms and producers, she said.
“The reason we went to the constitutional amendment is that we’re just so tired of feeling like we’ve won, and then having laws killed in appropriations,” she said. “Maine has such a vibrant young farm population. If we want to maintain that growth, we’ve got to find a way to get them into the market.”