[Corporations] FW: The Rights of Rural Americans

[Mike Spears]

http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/SFT-Rural%20Rights.htm#_ft
n1

The Rights of Rural Americans [1]

by John Ikerd

Changes in agriculture are raising new questions regarding the rights of
all rural Americans.  Historically, farmers have defended their right
to farm, whenever residential development has brought in urban
neighbors with no appreciation for the normal sights, sounds, and smells
of farming. More recently, rural residents have claimed their right of
self-defenseagainst growing threats to their health, safety, and
welfare brought on by new industrial farming methods, particularly
large-scale confinement animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Rural residents have argued with increasing success that industrial
agriculture is not farming, at least not the type farming protected by
right to farm laws.  Instead, they claim that CAFOs represent the
unwelcome intrusion of a dangerous, obnoxious industry into their
communities.  The agricultural establishment has responded with
widespread efforts to restrict or deny the rights of rural communities
to impose any higher standards for protection of public health and the
environment than that required by state law.  Iowa already has such a
law.  Similar initiatives are currently being promoted in Missouri,
Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Kentucky, and undoubtedly other states of
which I am not personally aware.  A similar initiative at the national
level seeks to prevent states from adopting higher public health and
environmental standards than those imposed by federal law. The
fundamental questions seem to be whether local communities have the
right to exceed state standards in protecting their health and
environment, and whether states have the right to exceed federal
standards. The answers boil down to a matter of rights.

Questions of pubic rights can be resolved most clearly by relating them
to personal rights.  After all, government  whether local, state, or
national  is simply the means by which we formalize our relationships,
whenever the numbers of people involved are too large to resolve matters
personally.  Similar questions of rights and responsibilities arise
anytime people relate to each other  whether within nations,
communities, or families.  Its just easier to see the logical answers
to such questions in personal relationships among family members.

The federal government has the right to set minimum standards of
acceptable conduct, as required to protect our constitutional rights.
All rights not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are
reserved for the states.  States obviously are not limited to enforcing
the federal minimums for acceptable conduct.  In fact, the vast majority
of all criminal and civil laws are state laws.  State laws cannot
conflict with federal laws but may go far beyond the federal minimums,
when needed to protect and promote the wellbeing a states residents.
People within families and communities have a responsibility to conform
to both state and federal minimum standards of conduct; otherwise, they
are breaking the law.  It also seems logical and reasonable that
families and communities have every right to exceed the minimum federal
and state standards of conduct, if they choose to do so  just as states
have the right to exceed federal minimums.

The basic right to exceed standards set at higher levels of government
seems obvious when we relate it to standards of behavior among people
within families.  For example, it is generally conceded that parents do
not have the right to physically abuse or willfully endanger the health
or life of their children, although some may disagree with specific
child welfare laws.  But surely, no one would argue that parents do not
have the right to treat their children better than the law requires.
Surely, no one would suggest that parents must consult a team of
pediatric experts before they can give their children better healthcare,
nutrition, and clothing, or a better social and physical environment
than is required by law.  Who possibly could defend a law stating that
parents could not educate their children beyond high school, unless they
could produce scientific evidence that their benefit will outweigh their
costs?  Families obviously have a right to set their own standards of
health, safety, and welfare, as long as they exceed minimum legal
standards.

People in communities have the same basic rights as people in families,
but community standards have to be defined and enforced by laws rather
than social norms and values.  There are simply too many people involved
to resolve all matters personally.  People in communities have the same
basic rights as people in families in setting higher-than-minimum
standards of conduct for people in their community.  States likewise
have the right to exceed national standards of health, safety, and
public welfare.

But, what about situations where community standards have already been
set, as in the right to farm?  In such cases, changes in community
standards would seem to represent a taking of existing rights, as is
argued by the agricultural establishment.  Such arguments would seem
justified in those instances where farming practices are no more
intrusive on their neighbors than when right to farm laws were initially
accepted by the community.  Communities still have the right to set
higher standards, but they dont have the right to force previously
conforming farmers to change.

Again, the family metaphor is relevant, as a grandfather clause is
said to apply to conforming farmers.  In families, grandfathers arent
necessarily required to change their ways, even if the rest of the
family chooses some higher standard of conduct.  But, the rest of the
family certainly doesnt have to limit itself to grandfathers level of
behavior.

Equally important, if grandfather starts misbehaving, by violating his
earlier standards of conduct, the family has no obligation to accept his
new behavior, just because his old behavior was grandfathered in. For
example, if grandfather starts mistreating the grandkids, he will
quickly lose his honored status, even if he is doing nothing that
violates state or federal laws.

So city, township, and county governments have a responsibility to
conform to minimum safety, health, and environmental standards set by
state and federal governments, if we follow the logic of rights and
responsibilities of individuals.  But, the people at each lower level of
government have the right to choose standards that exceed those of the
next higher level of government, without asking permission from some
group of experts or providing scientific proof that higher standards are
necessary.  People in communities should always be open to expert
opinions and scientific information, just as families should always be
open to opinions and information.  However, families dont have to ask
permission to set higher standards of conduct and neither should local
communities.

Following similar logic, farmers who are no more intrusive on their
communities and their environment than when they were granted a right
to farm still have that right; they have been grandfathered in to
farming.

However, this right to farm does not extend to industrial agricultural
operations, such as CAFOs.  Industrial agriculture is fundamentally
different from the family farms to which the right to farm was meant to
apply.  The greater safety, health, and environmental risks of factory
farming are well documented, and the documentation is readily available
to all who are willing to inform themselves of the issue.

All farms smell and all farms have wastes, but factory farms stink and
factory farms pollute.  Smells may be unpleasant to those who are
unaccustomed to them, but stink is just plain obnoxious and not only
causes physical and mental discomfort, but also causes clinical illness.

All farms also create potentially harmful chemical and biological
wastes, which can make their way into groundwater and streams.  However,
when livestock are dispersed across the countryside, on pasture or in
small-scale facilities, they present little risks to human health or
safety.  Likewise, when crops are produced in rotations to control pest
and provide fertility, risk of water contamination by agricultural
chemicals are minimal.  Dispersion and dilution mitigates potential
pollution on real farms.

However, industrial agriculture inevitably pollutes streams and
groundwater, simply because they concentrate too many animals, too many
antibiotics and hormones, and too many agricultural chemicals in too
small a space.  Cities are required to maintain waste treatment
facilities, rather than allow individual septic systems.  Extensive
waste treatment is necessary to protect public health when too many
people and too many industrial wastes are concentrated in too small a
space.  An industrial agricultural operation is more like a city than a
farm, except it has thousands of animals rather than thousands of people
and agrichemicals rather than industrial chemicals.  So, existing
farmers have no inherent right to become industrial farmers, unless they
are willing to meet urban residential standards for use of chemicals and
treatment of wastes.  And, communities have every right to keep new
industrial agricultural operations out of their communities, if they
choose to do so.

This leaves only the argument that state and local health and
environmental regulations cannot be allowed to interfere with interstate
or intrastate commerce  that economic efficiency trumps public safety,
health, and well-being.  Again, the family analogy shows the inherent
foolishness of this argument.  Families have no responsibility to accept
minimum state or federal standards, even when higher family standards
clearly interfere with their participation in the marketplace.  Families
have no obligation to buy materials that they consider pornographic,
even if such materials are legally for sale.  Families have no
obligation to sell their property to someone they consider to be
unethical, even if that person is the highest bidder.  Families have
every right to reject any legal economic opportunity that they view as a
threat to their health or well-being.  And, they dont have to consult
an expert or provide scientific proof of harm.  Communities  counties,
townships, and states  are made up of people and must be afforded
rights as people.  Rural people have every right to allow only
ecologically sound and socially responsible economic development for
their communities.

[1] "Sustaining People through Agriculture series," Small Farm Today
Magazine, Missouri Farm Publications, Clark, MO. Jan-Feb, 2005.