Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
Harvest Public Media is a reporting collaboration focused on issues of food, fuel and field. Based at KCUR in Kansas City, Harvest covers these agriculture-related topics through an expanding network of reporters and partner stations throughout the Midwest.Most Harvest Public Media stories begin with radio- regular reports are aired on member stations in the Midwest. But Harvest also explores issues through online analyses, television documentaries and features, podcasts, photography, video, blogs and social networking. They are committed to the highest journalistic standards. Click here to read their ethics standards.Harvest Public Media was launched in 2010 with the support of a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Today, the collaboration is supported by CPB, the partner stations, and contributions from underwriters and individuals.Tri States Public Radio is an associate partner of Harvest Public Media. You can play an important role in helping Harvest Public Media and Tri States Public Radio improve our coverage of food, field and fuel issues by joining the Harvest Network.

What does the Right to Farm mean in Missouri?


Members of Congress are throwing their support behind a proposed “right to farm” amendment in Missouri’s constitution. But critics are pointing to the measure’s ambiguous language as problematic.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Republican from the central part of the state, is one of several U.S. representatives pushing for Missouri voters to approve the amendment in a state-wide primary election Aug. 5.

The proposed amendment says, in part, “The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in the state.” The measure basically attempts to protect farmers and ranchers from any state laws that would change or outlaw practices they currently use.

It's very vague as to what a local government may or may not be able to do...

Hartzler, who sits on the House Agriculture Committee, says this amendment is essential to prevent what she calls the overregulation of the industry that she’s seen in other states.

“Outside entities with a lot of money have come in and regulate and impose on the farmers, ranchers and people of that state their views of how livestock should be raised and how crops should be grown,” she said.

U.S. Reps. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Jason Smith and Billy Long – all Missouri Republicans -- have echoed Hartzler’s comments. They’ve also said that if it doesn’t pass, consumers could eventually see price increases at the grocery store, though it’s not clear food prices would rise if the state fails to put a “right to farm” on the books.

Critics of the amendment say the vague language could lead to self-interested interpretations. Some worry adding this provision to the state Constitution could make it more difficult to bring legal or legislative challenges to operations that pollute the environment or raise animals improperly.

The Humane Society of the United States has come out strongly against the amendment and says the provision favors conventional agriculture and food companies, such as Monsanto and Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, which could increase the amount of concentrated animal feeding operations and squeeze out non-GMO farms.

Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri political science professor, says the “right to farm” language that was approved by state legislators and is on the ballot could lead to various legal interpretations down the road.

“It’s very vague as to what a local government may or may not be able to do, whether we will have land-use conflicts or local governments trying to limit the ability of farmers or ranchers engaged in certain activities,” he said.

Credit Kristofor Husted for Harvest Public Media
Rep. Vicki Hartzler of Missouri supports a proposed "right to farm" amendment to the state's Constitution.

Groups opposed to the amendment say it could pit farmer against farmer and rancher against rancher, as well. Imagine a farm growing organic crops is contaminated with genetically modified plants from the farm next door, would there be any recourse? Or could the farm using GMO seeds just point to the amendment?

Beyond that, if the amendment passes by gaining approval from a majority of Missouri voters the state will have to define exactly who is a farmer and who is a rancher.

“That would be one thing they’d have to thrash out pretty early on,” Squire said. “Is it anybody who engages in raising any animal or any sort of plant a farmer? Is it a percentage of what income you may generate? It’s just very vague and ambiguous.”

And don’t count on the courts to pick up the slack in defining these terms or hearing cases related to the proposed right to farm language, Squire says.

“It’s not clear if anybody will want to seize on this in the future should it pass and try to use it to overturn a decision that may have been reached in the legislature or local governments or maybe even by the voters,” he said. 

Missouri Farm Bureau President Blake Hurst, who supports the amendment, said he expects the courts to interpret the language and listen to cases concerning the amendment – just like any other piece of legislation.

North Dakota passed a similar amendment last year, albeit with a bit stronger language. Similar efforts are on the horizon in at least two other states, including Iowa.

How would you vote on Missouri’s "right to farm" amendment, which reads in part, "Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure that the right of Missouri citizens to engage in agricultural production and ranching practices shall not be infringed?"

Click here to share your perspective through the Harvest Network.