New Hampshire bill to support farmers
HB 396--which pursues the final step in actual food sovereignty
In 2021, Maine voters approved the constitutional amendment called the “Right to Food.” It is copied here:
Section 25. Right to food. All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable 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, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.
The original effort, which did not pass, included the right to transact, including meat. Quickly, the USDA swooped in and threatened to take over the state meat inspection facilities.
Today’s post is outside of our normal scope, which typically focuses on the impact of New England energy policy on Maine farmland, forests, and fields.
But, since this substack is called Protect Maine Farmland, it’s topical enough.
This week, the New Hampshire state senate heard testimony on HB 396, which is a state sovereignty challenge to the Federal USDA reach.
HB 396 would allow NH farmers to perform on-farm slaughter and sale in-state of meat.
The key point, of course, is the in-state sale. Right now, that is illegal, under the 1982 court interpretation1 of the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act.
In New England, this is a properly bipartisan issue. The Food Sovereignty constitutional amendment in Maine was championed by Senator Craig Hickman (D).
In New Hampshire, HB 396 has been sponsored by Republicans, but appears to have Democrat support as well.
On a federal level, the adversarial stance to local food sovereignty is primarily acted through the Big Ag and Big Meat monopolies or quasi-monopolies—and these have midwestern Republican influence.
But the MAHA agenda—which had a natural base in the Democratic party until 2024— now represents an aspect of the current administration.
So it seems like this is the moment for states to assert their right to food intrastate sales (under powers of health and police, tenth amendment.)
How many federal laws have changed in the past 120 years because states acted first, and forced the hand of the Supreme Court or the Federal Reps to act? Which ones come to mind for you? Might we be at that point today?
Do you think it makes sense to regulate in the same way the meat packer JBS (estimate of processing over 26 million cows per year) with a small farmer who might process 36 and sell to their community?
Is it not more humane to keep animals on their farm until slaughter? Could that not perhaps decrease costs and emissions in transport?
Take a listen to testimony for HB 396 here. The link should open at the right moment, but if not, it’s hour 2:01.
U. S. v. Tremonti, 698 F.2d 1224