Mainers to decide on 1st ‘right to food’ amendment in US

[CaroleW]

At least there's one sane law passed in this country this year. Law or not I intend to feed myself and those around me as much as possible from stewarding our own land and flocks.

 

[BlueBaby]

At least there's one sane law passed in this country this year. Law or not I intend to feed myself and those around me as much as possible from stewarding our own land and flocks.

I wonder if other states will pass one too?

 

[Daphne_loves_mealworms]

Having grown up in Maine, I was interested to read about this. My stepmother, who still lives in Maine, said that the Maine Veterinary Association and some of her friends were against it. I haven’t had a chance to delve into it too much. I’m guessing their concerns would be regarding the lack of oversight to ensure the welfare of the animals and the proper processing of them?

 

[BlueBaby]

Having grown up in Maine, I was interested to read about this. My stepmother, who still lives in Maine, said that the Maine Veterinary Association and some of her friends were against it. I haven’t had a chance to delve into it too much. I’m guessing their concerns would be regarding the lack of oversight to ensure the welfare of the animals and the proper processing of them?

Maybe you could ask them what the concern's were?

 

[MTKitty]

Hoo, boy. I guess I’ll be the minority here, as I don’t believe this is a good idea. Changing a state-wide constitution for something so basic as food is problematic. Part of the amendment, as quoted in the news article included “and consume” food of a person’s choice without any further restriction on where that food comes from. It opens the door, imo, for residents to claim food someone else has produced and to argue the state must provide it because it’s in the constitution.

The US Constitution allows that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights. I believe that covers obtaining food, shelter, and clothing for oneself, within the requirements of the local community. If local government bodies put restrictions on gardens or animals used for food, the place to change it is at that lowest government level, not in such a far reaching and imprecise amendment to a state constitution.

 

[CaroleW]

Hoo, boy. I guess I’ll be the minority here, as I don’t believe this is a good idea. Changing a state-wide constitution for something so basic as food is problematic. Part of the amendment, as quoted in the news article included “and consume” food of a person’s choice without any further restriction on where that food comes from. It opens the door, imo, for residents to claim food someone else has produced and to argue the state must provide it because it’s in the constitution.

The US Constitution allows that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are unalienable rights. I believe that covers obtaining food, shelter, and clothing for oneself, within the requirements of the local community. If local government bodies put restrictions on gardens or animals used for food, the place to change it is at that lowest government level, not in such a far reaching and imprecise amendment to a state constitution.

I'm not sure what the motiviation behind the amendment was. I would agree we shouldn't need an amendment IF the constitution was followed. I tend to think that more government or more laws is not the answer. The "Powers That Be" always (from thier own ideological perspective) TRY to make things better BUT they rarely think thru the logical outcome of law they've enacted to see what craziness might ensue. Even if they did listen to the other side of the argument they don't want to undermine their own ideology so it is often dismissed. This brings me back to original motivation. Motivation behind a movement is very important to understand what original problem are they trying to solve.

Perhaps if the origianl motivation is they don't care to consume plant based or lab grown everything in the future this could make a lot of sense of the need for the amendment.

 

[Daphne_loves_mealworms]

Maybe you could ask them what the concern's were?

The fiends of my stepmother are not in my social circle, and me, being the supreme introvert that I am, have zero urge to reach out to them. I did do a little research and found that the Maine Veterinary Association and a few other organizations have concerns that the bill could weaken existing animal cruelty laws among other things. I even read about a concern that it could lead to the release of invasive species. That, I’m scratching my head over a little bit!

 

[MTKitty]

.... I even read about a concern that it could lead to the release of invasive species. That, I’m scratching my head over a little bit!

Maybe a real life example: If you are familiar with aquaponics, you may recall the preferred fish in such a system is tilapia. When I started looking into aquaponics for myself, I discovered my state has tilapia listed as an invasive species forbidden from ownership. This is likely because, if someone decides to stop keeping them and dumps their extras in a lake or river in my state, tilapia could compete with and possibly destroy breeding populations of native species.

 

[MTKitty]

...

Perhaps if the origianl motivation is they don't care to consume plant based or lab grown everything in the future this could make a lot of sense of the need for the amendment.

I agree with the idea of producing one’s own food - no argument, there. I just happen to believe it (and many others) is an issue that should be more locally focused over a more widespread “shotgun” approach, particularly as I see legislation like this as a slippery slope for more government control where it shouldn’t be.

It appears residents of Maine wanted the amendment, so now they have it.

 

[Daphne_loves_mealworms]

Maybe a real life example: If you are familiar with aquaponics, you may recall the preferred fish in such a system is tilapia. When I started looking into aquaponics for myself, I discovered my state has tilapia listed as an invasive species forbidden from ownership. This is likely because, if someone decides to stop keeping them and dumps their extras in a lake or river in my state, tilapia could compete with and possibly destroy breeding populations of native species.

That makes perfect sense. Thank you!