What does Maine’s ‘right to food’ amendment mean for agriculture in the state? That’s up to the courts to decide.


Maine voters selected to enshrine a proper to meals in their Constitution final Tuesday, turning into the first U.S. state to add such an amendment. The measure could not change a lot, if something, about the state’s legal guidelines surrounding the manufacturing of meals. Or it might solely reshape them.

But, for now, no one is aware of for certain.

It will likely be up to the state’s judges to outline the boundaries of the amendment, which was permitted by about 60% of the state’s voters after clearing the legislature in May. But they will’t try this till points implicating the amendment make their manner into the courts. At this level, it’s not possible to understand how it is going to be interpreted. 

“We are the first state in the country to constitutionalize this right,” Scott Bloomberg, an affiliate professor of regulation at the University of Maine School of Law, instructed Agri-Pulse. “No court has taken a look at this language or any language similar to this before, and so the contours of the right are going to be worked out by judicial review.”

It isn’t typical for Maine to maintain the nationwide highlight when it comes to agricultural points. According to the USDA Census of Agriculture, the state solely had 7,600 farms in 2017 and, that 12 months ranked forty third in the nation in phrases of the market worth of agricultural merchandise bought. But just lately, it has been at the forefront of a motion emphasizing native agriculture and self-sufficiency, and what occurs in the wake of this amendment’s passage might serve for instance to states like West Virginia the place related provisions are being thought-about.

Several of the native teams which publicly opposed passage of the amendment — together with the Maine Farm Bureau, the Maine Potato Board, the Maine Grocers and Food Producers Association, the Maine Veterinary Medical Association and the Maine Municipal Association — voiced considerations about the vagueness of the amendment and its potential to fully upend all state and municipal legal guidelines involving agriculture. But its supporters, like state consultant Billy Bob Faulkingham and the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, say it would neither constrain different rights nor drive the authorities to give individuals free meals, however as an alternative defend a person’s proper to “feed themselves in dignity.” 

The division springs from considerations over how the amendment’s wording may very well be interpreted. State constitutions are the final supply of authority for authorities at the state and native ranges and, whereas Maine’s structure has no energy over federal legal guidelines and rules, it does outline and form a lot of the legal guidelines that the state’s inhabitants work together with on a day-to-day foundation.  

The most watchers can do at this level is analyze the amendment and have a look at the potential methods the judicial system might interpret it. Bloomberg sees its language as pertaining virtually completely to the manufacturing of meals for private use, as in non-public gardens. 

He mentioned it won’t have a big influence on present legal guidelines surrounding industrial agriculture in the state. 

“I think some people may have seen this amendment and feared that, or maybe hoped that it would strike down food, health and safety rules on commercial production and exchange of food and agricultural products,” Bloomberg mentioned. “I don’t think it does that, because it seems that the language seems to be all geared at personal production and consumption of food.”

But Rebekah Graham — a legislative advocate for the Maine Municipal Association, which opposed the amendment’s passage — thinks it might have a a lot larger influence on current legal guidelines surrounding agriculture in the state. She mentioned the amendment takes the democratic course of away from communities and as an alternative strikes it to the courts.

As the judges weigh the instances introduced to them, Graham says they are going to be ready to reshape how legal guidelines work together with meals in doubtlessly each side of the system at the state and municipal ranges: Food security necessities; Animal welfare legal guidelines; School lunch applications; Food operations in jails; Water legal guidelines; Pesticide ordinances; Hunting restrictions; and City animal ordinances. She says all may very well be topic to rulings if they’re introduced to court docket.

Even future areas of regulation that the state or municipalities might discover, like requiring sure farming practices to improve carbon sequestration or cut back fertilizer runoff, may very well be impacted.

“The only way in which a constitutional right is established is through litigation and by the court deciding the parameters of that based upon a case,” Graham mentioned. “So there’s a lot of talk about what folks think the amendment does, but in truth, nobody can say what it does because the court is the only one that’s going to make that decision.”

One of the main considerations for Julie Ann Smith, Maine Farm Bureau’s government director, is that the proper will override meals security rules put in place by the state.

Her worry hearkens again to June of 2017 when the Maine legislature handed a regulation giving municipal governments the energy to regulate meals grown, produced or processed and bought immediately to customers in their municipality — even when these rules didn’t align with state ones. The invoice drew the consideration of the USDA, which threatened to take away the state’s authority to examine small meat processing services as a result of the regulation didn’t stipulate that these processors additionally wanted to comply with federal tips.

In that state of affairs, the legislature averted USDA interference by amending that regulation to require meals merchandise to adjust to relevant state and federal meals security rules. But now that the structure has been amended, Smith believes this downside might emerge once more and, this time round, be much more tough to repair. 

Smith mentioned on Nov. 4, she spoke to USDA officers who warned her the company would take away the state’s meat inspection program if it discovered individuals weren’t following federal requirements. USDA was unable to reply to questions from Agri-Pulse earlier than publication.

In Maine, the state structure can solely be amended two methods: by means of a constitutional conference known as by the state legislature or by being placed on the election poll by a two-thirds majority in the legislature after which voted on by residents. A constitutional conference has by no means been known as since the structure was first adopted in 1820 and getting an amendment on the poll generally is a sluggish course of.

Smith mentioned the USDA representatives she spoke to indicated they are going to proceed to permit the state-inspected program for now. But if it have been to go away, any producers who don’t course of their meat in a USDA-inspected facility, wouldn’t give you the option to promote it in the state’s grocery shops. Their solely choice can be to promote it immediately on their farm.

“Either we’re going to become a wild west of food where there just aren’t regulations in Maine anymore or we’re going to stop having farms because the farmers are going to be competing with their next-door neighbors who don’t have to follow those same regulations,” she mentioned.

Concerns additionally exist for different merchandise, like potatoes. Smith says the state at the moment has a program requiring that each one seed potatoes be examined to establish potential ailments and pests. It’s a problem that each the Maine Potato Board and the American Seed Trade Association have expressed concern about.

Plus, Smith mentioned mental property legal guidelines surrounding seeds may be a problem as effectively. If the proper is outlined to permit residents to save and alternate patented seeds, she mentioned firms with seed patents might determine to cease promoting in the state. 

But state legislator Billy Bob Faulkingham, a proponent of the amendment, instructed Agri-Pulse it’s a person proper and does not apply to industrial manufacturing.

In a public remark earlier than the election, Faulkingham wrote that “seed patents are secured.” Later, when talking to Agri-Pulse, he mentioned he additionally doesn’t foresee it impacting state meals inspection applications.

“Food inspection isn’t going anywhere,” Faulkingham mentioned. “People that want to buy … food from the grocery stores, nothing’s going to change in that food supply. What this is doing is this is protecting people’s right to produce their own food and the food of their own choosing.”

Faulkingham mentioned he thinks the amendment might assist make Maine, which at the moment imports greater than 90% of its meals provide, extra self-sufficient. He known as the amendment’s passage a “critical victory” for defending individuals’s farming, searching and fishing rights.  

“I think what it does is it slams the door in the face of people that would seek to get between us and our food,” he mentioned. 

But, for now, it’s not clear what kind of influence the amendment may have. Nobody — not teachers, not agricultural teams, not Maine’s residents, not even its legislators — can agree on the future. Whatever occurs subsequent is up to the courts to determine. 

For extra information, go to