Opponents of the proposed "Right to Farm" amendment that Missouri voters will consider Aug. 5 say the supporters are circulating "myths" about the amendment that need to be corrected.
But Dan Kleinsorge, spokesman for the supporters group Missouri Farmers Care, argues the opponents' "talking points ... are opinions, not facts."
Kevin Stamps, the opponents' spokesman, said Saturday: "This gets to the heart of the issue - Amendment 1 is so vague and so broad that its real effects are uncertain.
"Our legal experts say these will be the consequences and legal ramifications, if passed. There will certainly be legal challenges to existing regulations."
The opponents staged a rally at the state Capitol last week, attracting about 75 people.
The rally was led by former state lawmaker Wes Shoemyer, D-Clarence, a Monroe County farmer who told reporters he organized the "continuing committee called Missouri's Food for America, specifically to oppose "Right to Farm.'"
In his response to the opponents' "Myths versus Reality" list, Kleinsorge refers to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) a half-dozen times, including calling Shoemyer's committee a "front group" for HSUS.
"If Amendment 1 was really good for Missouri and Missouri's family farmers, then they would argue their case - rather than their typical go-to response of blaming the HSUS," Stamps said.
The amendment's supporters have said a number of times that the amendment is needed because some groups - especially the HSUS - want to change agriculture and agriculture practices.
Lawmakers last year wrote the proposed amendment, and the ballot language that voters will see Aug. 5: "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?
"The potential costs or savings to governmental entities are unknown, but likely limited unless the resolution leads to increased litigation costs and/or the loss of federal funding."
Here's the opponents' list of what they say are "myths" about the proposed amendment, followed by what they claim is the "truth" about the amendment along with rebuttals from Kleinsorge as the amendment's supporters' spokesman.
• Myth - Amendment 1 ensures Missouri's family farming heritage and protects family farmers' rights.
Opponents' "Fact" - Amendment 1 would take current protections away - forbidding any state rules to protect agriculture and opening the floodgates for foreign corporations to buy Missouri farmland.
Supporters' comment: Amendment #1 will not remove any current protections. Every right is subject to reasonable rules and regulations. Just as people cannot shout "fire" in a crowded building, Amendment #1 will not give farmers a blank check.
It will protect family farmers from extremist groups like HSUS and the Sierra Club that seek to use the ballot initiative process to impose their radical views. For example, Proposition B stated no dog breeder could have more than 50 females.
Amendment #1 will provide a legal course of action should HSUS decide to impose the same arbitrary limit on cows, sows or hens.
• Myth - Missouri farmland will not be sold to foreign companies.
Opponents' "Fact" - 50,000 acres have already been sold to a Chinese conglomerate. Amendment 1 will guarantee foreign corporations the right to own Missouri farm land and do as they see fit without any check and balance from the people or the legislature.
Supporters' comment: Amendment #1 has nothing to do with foreign ownership of farm land. Foreign ownership is already dealt with statutorily; HSUS is intentionally conflating these two issues in an attempt to confuse voters.
• Myth - Amendment 1 will allow Missourians to retain control of their farmland.
Opponents' "Fact" - Amendment 1 will remove any checks or balances from Missouri voters or the legislature. Food safety, the environment, animal welfare, and local control will be pushed aside - effectively letting China and other foreign countries control what happens in our towns and counties. And since the law will be written into the constitution, we won't have a say to change anything.
Supporters' comment: Again HSUS is using scare tactics to claim that Amendment #1 will harm farmers and farm land. Amendment 1 will not strip local governments of power, that is why the final line of the amendment was added, to keep local control at the status quo: "To protect this vital sector of Missouri's economy, the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state, subject to duly authorized powers, if any, conferred by article VI of the Constitution of Missouri."
Nor will Amendment 1 change the way in which farmers deal with federal rules and regulations.
But, Stamps said Saturday: "The only exception to this amendment's reach is charter forms of government. They are granted their own legislative power in Article VI Section 18 of Missouri's Constitution.
"All other counties only have the powers which are granted to them by the Legislature and are, therefore, subject to legislative laws which, in turn, will be subject to being overturned if Amendment 1 is adopted."
• Myth - Amendment 1 will generate significant economic benefits for Missouri farmers.
Opponents' "Fact" - The only economic benefit Amendment 1 will generate is Missouri money in the pockets of foreign corporations. The Chinese executives acquiring Smithfield Foods - the world's biggest pig producer, with operations in Missouri - received almost $600 million.
Supporters' comment: Agriculture is the largest sector of Missouri's economy and Amendment #1 will protect family farmers and ranchers of all sizes and types.
• Myth - Amendment 1 is just about Missouri farms.
Opponents' "Fact" - Amendment 1 is being pushed by special interests opposed to Missouri laws that crack down on abusive puppy mills. Voters, and then their elected representatives, acted to set standards of care for large-scale dog breeding operations. The puppy mills want to hide under a "Right to Farm" measure that would prevent any future restrictions.
Supporters' comment: The only special interest at work here is the deep-pocketed HSUS, which has added (former lawmaker and lieutenant governor) Joe Maxwell to their executive staff in an effort to drum up unfounded opposition to Amendment 1 based on misinformation and scare tactics.
• Myth - Missouri farmers are the real beneficiaries of Amendment 1.
Opponents' "Fact" - Amendment 1 will result in costly litigation over which farming practices are allowable based on constitutional rights. Only courts will be able to decide what is included in the "right to farm" - meaning the only thing ensured by Amendment 1 is more business for lawyers.
Supporters' comment: Family farms and ranchers not only support, but have contributed financially to the campaign to pass Amendment 1. In addition, virtually every farmers-led organization in the state supports Amendment 1. Litigation will result if animal rights radicals continue to attack Missouri family farmers, and Amendment 1 provides a legal avenue to do so.