Jonathan Shorman

News-Leader

The passage of Proposition B in 2010 — setting standards for dog breeders — was a turning point in the debate over farming rights.

Rep. Sonya Anderson, a Republican whose district includes northern Springfield and much of northern rural Greene County, said that moment "woke a lot of people up" in agriculture.

Now, as a lawmaker, Anderson is trying to persuade voters to approve Amendment One in August. The measure, called "Right to Farm" by supporters, would enshrine a right to agriculture and ranching within the Missouri Constitution.

If passed, Amendment One could limit future legislation or ballot initiatives seeking to regulate agriculture.

The official ballot language reads: "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?"

Anderson, who co-owns Show Me Horses and Farrier Service, contends out-of-state interest groups such as the Humane Society of the United States have been pursuing an animal rights agenda that threatens the state's agricultural producers.

"We must ensure we have a common-sense approach when it comes to regulation," Anderson said.

Not all farmers support the idea of putting their industry into the state constitution. Sheila Nichols farms about 43 acres near Nixa. She also sits on the Humane Society of the United States' Missouri Agriculture Council.

Nichols said Amendment One is actually about corporations seeking protections and that the focus on outside interest groups, such as the Humane Society, confuses the issue.

"It's a fear tactic that they're using that they're hanging their hat on," Nichols said.

Proposition B

In some ways, the debate over the so-called Right to Farm has been brewing since at least 2010 when Missouri debated another ballot question: Proposition B.

Proposition B was narrowly approved. The measure required anyone who had more than 10 breeding dogs to meet certain standards for housing, food and veterinary care. Owners were limited to no more than 50 breeding dogs.

The legislature eventually watered down some of the restrictions in the measure.

Opponents had warned that Proposition B would affect licensed dog breeders that follow the rules and could make it more expensive to buy pet dogs. Others feared the measure would be a precursor to additional regulations for animal agriculture.

The Better Business Bureau produced a report about puppy mills in 2010 that called Missouri the "national hot spot of the puppy industry." It said the state contained 30 percent of all breeders licensed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

At the time, there were 1,451 licensed breeders in Missouri, 235 of which are in Greene and the surrounding counties, according to the state Department of Agriculture.

The Humane Society of the United States was a primary supporter of Proposition B, and opponents feared the measure would only be a first step for the group.

In an October 2010 News-Leader story, Karen Strange, a lobbyist for the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, said she worried animal rights groups would next target other agriculture for restrictions, a charge the groups denied.

Stopping future restrictions

Large Republican majorities in the General Assembly, including rural lawmakers, ensure the legislature will likely not pass any severe restrictions on agriculture.

Proponents of Proposition B did not need the legislature, however. The people changed the law for them.

And if voters were convinced once to pass restrictions on puppy mills, it is possible they could vote again in the future to approve other restrictions.

If it is placed in the Missouri Constitution, so-called Right to Farm language could act as a firewall against such restrictions.

"Like other constitutional protections, its applicability will be determined by the courts. It is intended to strengthen legal arguments against legislation and ballot measures that place unreasonable restrictions on farming and ranching," said an FAQ posted by the Missouri Farm Bureau, which supports the amendment.

Amendment One, if passed, could undercut the ability of Missouri voters as well as the legislature to place future restrictions on farming or other agricultural-related practices. Proposition B only changed Missouri law, but Amendment One would modify the Missouri Constitution, which is more difficult to change.

"They would have blanket protection from here on out until maybe we could put together something to override the amendment," Nichols said.

Anderson said Amendment One would not invalidate any current laws. The group Missouri Farmers Care, which supports Amendment One, says on its website that all rights are subject to reasonable regulation and that the right to farm would be included.

"It's not a blank check and it's not giving free range to the farmers and ranchers," Anderson said.

Nichols said the Humane Society is not anti-agriculture and that supporters of Amendment One are attempting to paint the group as a boogeyman because of the push to regulate puppy mills.

"We aren't farming dogs and cats for food that I know of yet. It's a very different thing. Agriculture is the leading economic force in the state of Missouri," Nichols said. "Why would we want to do away with agriculture?"

The Humane Society does support livestock regulations that have passed in other states, however.

The Missouri Farm Bureau supports Amendment One, and in an FAQ said seven "anti-agriculture" initiatives have been enacted in the U.S.

Six of the seven measures banned gestation stalls and veal calf stalls. Female pigs may be kept in a gestation stall (or crate) during pregnancy. The stalls, one to a pig, restrict the movement of the pigs, which the Humane Society says is cruel. Those who employ the stalls say pigs become aggressive when kept together.

On its website, the Humane Society says it has worked with other animal protection advocates to pass laws in nine states prohibiting use of the stalls.

Different perspectives

At its core, the debate over Amendment One illustrates the different perspectives in the agricultural community and whether a constitutional amendment will truly protect farming or simply make future changes more difficult.

For Anderson, new protections are key in a country where the population has become more distant from the process by which their food is grown.

"We are at a point in history where most people are now several generations removed from the family farm," Anderson said.

As Nichols sees it, agriculture is constantly changing. It does not make sense to make a constitutional change when the methods and techniques used in farming will look different in the future.

"I have a horrible feeling that we're going to look back," Nichols said. "If it passes, we're going to look back on August 5, 2014, and we will say, 'Oh my gosh, we saved the state' or 'Oh my gosh, that was the day that things changed forever."