Farm groups that said they wanted protection against out-of-state animal rights activists and anti-GMO campaigners failed to persuade Oklahoma voters, who rejected a proposed right-to-farm amendment to the state constitution by a landslide. The defeat, along with passage of a Massachusetts referendum on livestock welfare, dented the reputation of farm lobby, which failed to stop a nationwide GMO disclosure law in July.
Oklahomans defeated the right-to-farm proposal by a 3-to-2 margin. The outcome was similar to pre-election polling, which showed support for the idea collapsing during October. Conservatives, a key bloc in a politically conservative state, turned against the proposal in the final weeks.
“Although we are disappointed in today’s vote, we will not waver in our commitment to ensuring our family farmers and ranchers can continue to operate without fear from outside groups and provide consumers with choice when they go to the grocery store,” said Oklahoma Farm Bureau president Tom Buchanan. State Farm Bureaus were key in passage of right-to-farm amendments in North Dakota in 2012 and in Missouri in 2014.
The Oklahoma Municipal League, worried about access to drinking water for cities, joined environmentalists, small-farm groups and animal welfare activists in opposing the amendment as giving too much power to corporate farms. Two-thirds of Oklahomans live in urban areas.
In Massachusetts, voters, by a 3-to-1 margin, set minimum space standards for farm animals that effectively ban sow crates, veal calf stalls and battery cages for egg-laying hens. It was the latest victory for the Humane Society of the United States against the practices. Farm groups say the new standards — enough room for animals to stand up, lay down, turn around and fully extend their limbs — will drive up production costs and affect grocery prices.
“Voters have approved four of four anti-factory farming ballot measures, by increasing margins,” said HSUS Wayne Pacelle. “The American public has no tolerance for extreme confinement of farm animals.”
In a showdown last summer over GMO food labeling, farm groups wanted Congress to pre-empt state labeling laws and keep labeling voluntary at the national level. Instead, the Senate passed a bill mandating nationwide disclosure of GMO ingredients while giving foodmakers the choice of using a symbol, a digital code or wording on the package to alert consumers of genetically modified ingredients. While it blocks state label laws, the disclosure law is a reversal of long-standing federal policy that labels are not needed because GMO foods are safe to eat.