Help Support Maine Right to Food (Nov. 2nd Referendum)

National opposition is working to defeat the constitutional protection of freedom of food choice and food security in Maine. The vote next Tuesday (Nov. 2nd) is a bellwether of things to come on your freedom to produce and obtain the foods of your choice. The same forces will be working to restrict freedom of choice in your state; Maine’s fight is your fight. [Click here to view Action Alert – Please donate at RightToFoodForMaine.org/donate]—donations received by 10pm EST Monday can still go toward radio spots running throughout Election Day on Tuesday.

Real vs Synthetic Food in Maine

On November 2nd, Maine voters will decide Question 3, a referendum to adopt a right to food amendment to the state constitution to enshrine the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the foods of their choice.

The resolution is a common sense protection of a basic fundamental right–something that is especially needed with supply chain disruptions and the deprivation of fundamental health freedoms throughout the country over the past year and a half. According to the New England Food Vision (nefoodvision.org) webpage, “Where Are We Now“, the New England region imports 90% of its food and 15% of the residents in the region are food insecure (i.e., “regularly do not have enough to eat”).

The vote should be a lock, but powerful interests from outside the state led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are lobbying against the resolution. The national opposition has now turned Question 3 into a bellwether for freedom of food choice and food security elsewhere in the U.S. The opposition has significant investments in synthetic food which it is pushing on the consumer; less access to real food increases potential market share for synthetic food.

Question 3 on the Maine referendum election ballot reads:

Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to declare that all individuals have a natural inherent and inalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being?

The amendment would add a right to food to the Declaration of Rights in Article 1 of the Maine Constitution. Article 1 would be amended to read:

Section 25 Right to food. All individuals have a natural, inherent and inalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, coaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands, or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.

There is in-state opposition to the proposed amendment from organizations such as Maine Farm Bureau and the Maine Municipal Association, but the lead opponent to the measure is HSUS. According to its 2020 annual report, the nonprofit (based in Washington, DC) has $322.3 million in assets; in 2020 HSUS received $214.4 million in revenue, with $39.6 million dollars earmarked for “public policy and enforcement”[1]. HSUS has hired Preti Flaherty, one of the most influential lobbying firms in Maine to help it defeat the proposed amendment.

The stated reason HSUS opposes the right to food is that the measure doesn’t adequately protect animal welfare. In a flyer the non-profit released titled Vote “No” on Question 3, the Misleadingly “Right to Food” Amendment HSUS claims, “The measure could also be used to thwart companion animal cruelty investigations. If, for example, a person was torturing a dog or cat (or any other animal) they could simply claim that they are raising the animal for food and possibly be shielded from prosecution”[2]. To this point HSUS has not mentioned specific incidences of animal cruelty that the amendment would prohibit prosecution of; it has only brought up hypothetical cases.

Proponents of the amendment point out that its language does not provide an absolute right to food and that the measure does not conflict with existing animal welfare laws. One supporter of the measure commented, “Industrial operations make up 5% of the farms in the United States, yet they receive roughly 95% of animal and safety violations not local Maine farmers. So now the lobbyists of these nonprofits want to divert resources meant to combat industrial meat abuses toward oppressing individual small farmers in Maine?”[3]

Another DC-based nonprofit working with HSUS in lobbying against the measure is Animal Wellness Action (AWA), a corporation founded by former HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle in 2018 [4]. Pacelle has been quoted saying, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in California. Then we will take it state by state”[5]. AWA is currently running ads on The Voice of Maine radio station urging people to “vote no on 3 if you care about animals or the environment.”

When HSUS brought Pacelle in as CEO in 2004, the nonprofit increasingly worked on opposing hunting [5] and stopping or significantly reducing the use of animals in agriculture [6]. A look at its leadership provides evidence that its opposition to the Maine amendment is not based as much on animal welfare as it is pushing synthetic food on the people of Maine. The weaker the rights of Maine residents to raise their own livestock and produce their own (traditional) food, the greater the potential market share for synthetic food.

One name comes up more than any other in HSUS leadership and that is McKinsey & Company. McKinsey has been advising governments, military and corporations for over 90 years; McKinsey’s clients include 90 of the world’s 100 biggest companies [7]. It also manages a $12 billion hedge fund that has been used to assist its clients in increasing profits [8].

One HSUS board member is an active partner at McKinsey; another is a former principal for McKinsey, and the Chief Operating Officer for HSUS is a former partner at McKinsey [9].

The McKinsey Center for Agricultural Transformation partners with governments, donors and companies “to improve evidence-based planning and set priorities for accelerating agricultural transformation” [10].

McKinsey works with European biotech companies to expand markets for their products [11]. It was brought in as a consultant [12] to promote the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation started in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation [13]. The Gates Foundation previously hired McKinsey to assist in implementing vaccine drug trials in Africa [14].

AGRA is pushing changes to seed laws that protect patented seeds and penalize seed trading [15]. McKinsey has been developing policy plans for AGRA and organizing lobbying meetings between agricultural investors and government representatives in African countries [16]. McKinsey is promoting policies in Africa to encourage land-spreading of sludge and industrial waste by farmers [17], consolidation of farmland control, and increased use of AI in farming [18]. Over the past 5 years McKinsey has actively promoted the value of synthetic meat products manufactured by the corporations Beyond Meat [19] and Impossible Foods [20]. Impossible Foods CEO, Pat Brown, has publicly stated, “We have a simple mission: to replace the use of animals as a food production technology, globally, by 2035” [21].

Aside from the McKinsey influence on HSUS, another Humane Society board member is the co-founder and managing partner of Rethink Food LLC [22]. That company is a venture fund investing in agriculture technology, processing and consumer package goods. Rethink Food partners include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, McKinsey and Impossible Foods [23].

For its own part, HSUS–along with Tyson Foods and Bill Gates–invested venture capital in Beyond Meat in 2016 [24,25]. Since that time, both HSUS and AWA have been actively promoting Beyond Meat as a solution to animal welfare concerns [26].

The result of the Maine referendum on Question 3 will be a harbinger of things to come in other states. Will governments protect the freedoms of individuals to produce their own food and help build community food systems and resiliency or will well-financed corporations and foundations be successful in further restricting access to nutrient-dense, real food?

Maine’s fight is your fight. You can support the Maine effort to strengthen freedom of food choice by donating via PayPal to Right to Food for Maine at RightToFoodForMaine.org/donate.

It’s not too late to help. Your contributions will go towards purchasing print ads and radio spots to counter the message of well-financed interests from outside Maine who want to reduce freedom of food choice and prevent a constitutional right to food from getting a foothold anywhere.

Consider this rebuttal to the opposition published by The Ellsworth American [27]:

Federal laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 (amended in 1978), The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act of 2019 and the Endangered Species Act would still apply, contrary to the opposition argument that a yes vote would open the door to animal cruelty and abuse.

Opponents also say the measure will not “fix” Maine’s food-related problems, including hunger. Fair enough, but that’s not the point. A constitution lays out the foundation. From there, we build.

REFERENCES [last updated 10/30/2021]
[1] The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), & The Humane Society International (HSI). (2021). 2020 Annual report: Achievements for animals. (PDF, p. 31). https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-HSI_AR2020_LR.pdf

[2] HSUS. (2021). Vote “No” on Question 3, the Misleadingly “Right to Food” Amendment. (PDF). https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUSNoRightoFoodsheet-flyer-MaineQuestion3.pdf

[3] Davis, D. (2021, October 21). The right to grow, eat the food we choose. Sun Journal. https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/10/21/the-right-to-grow-eat-food-we-choose/

[4] Animal Wellness Action. (2020). Our team. (webpage). http://animalwellnessaction.org/our-team
      Screenshot (2021, October 29) of Wayne Pacelle as AWA founder and former HSUS CEO posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AWA-WaynePacelle-founder-2021-1029.png

[5] Robinson, S. (2014, May 20). Trahan: The rise of the animal rights movement. Maine Wire. https://www.themainewire.com/2014/05/trahan-rise-animal-rights-movement/

[6] HumaneWatch.org. (2016, January 26). 10 Things you should know about HSUS. http://humanewatch.org/10-things-you-should-know-about-hsus
      Updated PDF: HumaneWatch.org. (2020, February). 10 Things you should know about HSUS. https://humanewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/04/10Things_April2020.pdf

[7] McKinsey & Company. (2021) About us: McKinsey today. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/mckinsey-today

[8] Forsythe, M. (2019, February 19). As McKinsey sells advice, its hedge fund may have a stake in the outcome. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/business/mckinsey-hedge-fund.html

[9] HSUS. (2021). Board of directors. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/mckinsey-today
      Board of Directors (see Frankleton, Kumar & Patrick) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUS-BoardofDirectors-fromMcKinsey-2021-1029.pdf

[10] McKinsey Center for Agricultural Transformation. (2021). How we help clients. (webpage). McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/how-we-help-clients/mckinsey-center-for-agricultural-transformation

[11] Le Deu, F, & Santos da Silva, J. (2019, August 23). Biotech in Europe: A strong foundation for growth and innovation. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/biotech-in-europe-a-strong-foundation-for-growth-and-innovation

[12] Malkan, S. (2021, September 9). 200 Organizations ask Gates Foundation to stop funding ‘failed’ green revolution. The Defender. Children’s Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-foundation-stop-funding-failed-green-ag-revolution/

[13] Loffredo, J., & Greenstein, M. (2020, July 8). Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/

[14] Loffredo, J., & Greenstein, M. (2020, July 8). “Guinea pigs in the Global South”. Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/

[15] Curtis, M. (2016, June). “Powerful and profitable monopolies” (p.18). Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good? 2nd ed. (Report). Global Justice Now. https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gjn_gates_report_june_2016_web_final_version_2.pdf
      Report (PDF) download link at https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/resource/gated-development-gates-foundation-always-force-good/

[16] Klawitter, N. (2021, June 9). Agrarian alliance AGRA: Empty promises for Africa’s farmers. The Limited Times. https://newsrnd.com/business/2021-06-09-agrarian-alliance-agra–empty-promises-for-africa-s-farmers.rJWhAgAqd.html
      translated from Falsches Versprechen für Afrikas Bauern. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/agrarallianz-agra-leere-versprechen-fuer-afrikas-bauern-a-2132bf23-24c6-4b2e-bde5-a2e9020389f1

[17] Caner, D., De Clercq, D., & Taksvak, M. (2020, September 1). Needle in a haystack: Patents that inspire agricultural innovation. Kinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/needle-in-a-haystack-patents-that-inspire-agricultural-innovation.pdf

[18] Goedde, L., Katz, J., Ménard, A., & Revellat, J. (2020, October 9). Agriculture’s connected future: How technology can yield new growth. Kinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agricultures-connected-future-how-technology-can-yield-new-growth

[19] Bashi, Z., McCullough, R., Ong, L., & Ramirez, M. (2019, August 16). Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/alternative-proteins-the-race-for-market-share-is-on

[20] Katz, J. , & Lee, D. (2019, August 27). An incredible year for Impossible Foods. (Interview) McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/an-incredible-year-for-impossible-foods

[21] Brown, P. (2019). Impossible Foods’ 2019 impact report & letter from CEO. Impossible Foods. https://impossiblefoods.com/impact-report-2019/letter-from-the-ceo
      PDFposted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Brown-ImpactReport-2019-ImpossibleMeat.pdf

[22] HSUS. (2021). Board of directors. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/board-directors#jakeman
      Board of Directors (see Jakeman) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUS-BoardofDirectors-fromMcKinsey-2021-1029.pdf

[23] Rethink. (n.d.). Corporate Partners. www.rethinkfood.org/corp
       Webpage of logos (see Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, McKinsey, & Impossible Foods) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Rethink-Corp-Partners-2021-1030.pdf

[24] Pacelle, W. (2016, October 11). Beyond amazing news about Beyond Meat. A Humane World: Kitty’s Blocks Blog. (Blog). Humane Society of the United States. https://blog.humanesociety.org/2016/10/tyson-invests-beyond-meat.html

[25] Delbert, C. (2021, February 20). Bill Gates Wants Us to Eat 100% Synthetic Beef. He Has a Point. Microsoft News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/bill-gates-wants-us-to-eat-100percent-synthetic-beef-he-has-a-point/ar-BB1dR02Y

[26] Pacelle, W. (2019, August 1). Where Do The Presidential Candidates Stand On Animal Protection? Animal Wellness Action. https://animalwellnessaction.org/2019/08/01/where-do-the-presidential-candidates-stand-on-animal-protection/

[27] The right to food. (2021, October 22). The Ellsworth American. (editorial). https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinions/the-right-to-food/

The post Real vs Synthetic Food in Maine appeared first on Real Milk.

For the fourth time in 2 years, the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) is trying to water down the state cottage food law, also known as the 2017 North Dakota Food Freedom Act (FFA). The FFA allows the unregulated sale by producers direct to consumers except those foods that have either meat or raw dairy as an ingredient. NDDH has issued proposed regulations that would make illegal the unregulated sale of a number of foods that are currently legal under the 2017 law. In doing so, NDDH is overstepping its authority and is arguably hurting food safety; the proposed regulations are not about food safety–they are about control.

The FFA clearly states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a state agency or political subdivision may not require licensure, permitting, certification, inspection, packaging, or labeling that pertains to the preparation or sale of cottage food products under this section….” Under the FFA, “cottage food product” means “baked goods, jams, jellies, and other food and drink products produced by a cottage food operator”; it was the NDDH that actually convinced the legislature to adopt this definition for the FFA. The legislature initially included the unregulated sale of raw dairy products in the FFA but pulled those foods out of the bill. The FFA excludes the sale of any uninspected products made from meat. There is no exclusion on any other foods in the FFA.

Shortly after the legislation passed in 2017, NDDH issued a guidance document for the FFA that prohibited the sale of a number of foods other than meat and raw dairy. FFA supporters didn’t abide by NDDH’s interpretation of the law; in 2018 the department followed up with proposed rules that would have again banned the unregulated sale of foods that are legal under the FFA. When food freedom proponents and members of the legislature defeated that effort, NDDH through its allies in the legislature introduced a bill in the 2019 session to roll back the FFA. The legislation, Senate Bill 2269 (SB 2269), as introduced would not only have prohibited the unregulated sale of a number of legal foods but also would have banned the unregulated sale of all drink products. The House of Representatives eventually killed the bill. SB 2269 represents the only legal attempt NDDH has made to dilute the FFA.

The proposed regulations have a number of the same changes that were in the bill that the legislature rejected. Among other things, the bill would have changed the law by making the unregulated sale of low-acid canned foods such as carrots, beets or beans illegal. The rules would prohibit the sale of unrefrigerated foods unless they are frozen–foods such as banana cream pie, potato salad, and carrot and celery sticks would all be affected. The proposed rules define “frozen foods” as foods maintained at temperatures no higher than zero degrees Fahrenheit.

The FFA allows the sale of all foods subject to time and temperature control other than those with meat or raw dairy as an ingredient. The proposed rules would limit the sale of time-and-temperature-control foods to baked goods (e.g., cream pies that are “frozen”) and home processed fresh-cut fruits and vegetables that are either “dehydrated or freeze-dried” or “blanched and frozen” ( i.e., no longer fresh).

The FFA specifically states that no government agency can require licensure for anything pertaining to the preparation of cottage food products, but that is what NDDH is trying to do in prohibiting the unlicensed sale of many foods that are currently legal to sell without a license. There are also labeling and certification requirements elsewhere in the proposed rules, both in violation of the FFA.

Beyond the proposed rules exceeding NDDH’s authority, what makes the department’s action a waste of taxpayer dollars is that in the two-plus years the FFA has been in effect, there has not been a single case of foodborne illness attributed to a producer operating under the state cottage food law. Cottage foods are thriving in the state, bringing in an estimated $1.5 million per year for producers and their families.¹ The rules are a “solution” in search of a problem.

The experience of other states allowing the unregulated sale of time-and-temperature-control foods is similar to North Dakota. Towns in Maine have allowed the selling without regulation time-and-temperature-control foods direct from producer to consumer other than meat and poultry as far back as 2011 under local food sovereignty ordinances; no case of foodborne illness has been attributed to any producer operating under the ordinance. Under the Wyoming Food Freedom Act, producers in that state can sell any food product other than meat without regulation; in the 4-1/2 years since the law went into effect, no one operating under the Act has been found to make anyone sick. The same goes for the Utah Homemade Food Act which went into effect over a year-and-a-half ago, that Act allows the sale of all foods other than meat and raw dairy from the producer direct to the consumer without regulation.

The track record in these states indicates that NDDH’s proposed rules would hurt food safety in North Dakota if they become law. Some producers currently selling under the FFA will not be able to afford the cost of compliance if a license is required for the foods they sell require; others currently producing safe and nutritious food will stop if the law requires them to get a license because they don’t want a government inspector in their home kitchens. Fewer local producers will likely result in more purchases of industrial food which has a higher rate of foodborne illness outbreaks then foods produced under the FFA. The more producers operating under the cottage food law the better the public health is served. Instead of trying to dilute the FFA, there are ways NDDH could be spending taxpayer dollars productively to work with cottage food producers. Farmer LeAnn Harner, a leader in the North Dakota Food Freedom Movement, pointed out that the department could help provide education, equipment, and free testing of recipes to cottage food producers.² The more cottage food producers there are, the safer the food supply, the stronger the local economy, the more self-sufficient communities will be in food production, and the better the health of North Dakota residents.

NDDH has a chance to be an agency that promotes the production and sale of nutritious food rather than being a bureaucracy that restricts it or, in the words of North Dakota Representative Daniel Johnston (R-Kathryn), “the Department of Control”.³

North Dakota residents have until October 12th to comment on the proposed rules. It is important to call and or email NDDH asking that they withdraw the proposed rules. The phone number for the Division of Food and Lodging is 1-701-328-1291 or 1-800-472-2927; the email address is foodandlodging@nd.gov.

Please take action now.

If you are a producer affected by the proposed rules, let NDDH know what products you sell and how the Food Freedom Act has helped your business.

Consumers should let NDDH know what healthy nutrient-dense products the Food Freedom Act has enabled them to purchase direct from producers.

</ br>

———

[1] Harner, LeAnn. “Testimony of Cottage Food Rules”. North Dakota Department of Health hearing on proposed rules, Bismarck, North Dakota. October 2, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Dura, Jack. “North Dakota Department of Health accused of ‘arrogance’, confusion in proposed cottage food rules”, Bismarck Tribune, October 2, 2019. Accessed at https://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/north-dakota-department-of-health-accused-of-arrogance-confusion-in/article_d800a478-ac7d-5a88-8a6c-2f841cf81b96.html

</ br> photo by XXX from Pixabay

The post The Department of Control Strikes Again appeared first on Real Milk.

Maine Representative Craig Hickman is proposing an amendment to the Maine constitution that would legitimize and protect private food sales between producers and consumers. “Right to Food” reads: Every Individual has a natural and unalienable right to food and to acquire food for that individual’s own nourishment and sustenance by hunting, gathering, foraging, farming, fishing, or gardening or by barter, trade or purchase from sources of that individual’s own choosing, and every individual is fully responsible for the exercise of this right, which may not be infringed.

Joel Salatin, who recently testified before a Maine legislative committee in support of this amendment, shared a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at this hearing and the tension between the two opposing sides. He describes how 30 people showed up to testify in support of the amendment, while 2 testified against it. Predictably, the two that testified against were from the Maine Farm Bureau Federation and the Maine Department of Agriculture, and their remarks illustrated how “the orthodoxy of the industrial food system has no clue what our food freedom tribe thinks and can’t imagine why we can’t be satisfied with pasteurized milk, Hot Pockets, or microwaveable frozen dinners. They see this as choice; we see it as poison.”

Read more via his Facebook post here, Joel Salatin on Maine “Food Orthodoxy vs. Heresy”.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post Through the Eyes of a Food Freedom Fighter in Maine appeared first on Real Milk.