Maine's Mysterious New 'Right to Food': Is this addition to the state's constitution a libertarian advance or a Trojan horse?

• Author: Desrochers, Pierre

Last November, Maine voters approved a "Right to Food" amendment to the state's constitution by a healthy 61%-39% margin. The new section of Article I reads as follows:

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, or acquisition of food. Each chamber of the Maine legislature had, with more than the required two-thirds majority, approved sending the amendment to referendum, though the chambers' Republicans were less enthusiastic than the Democrats. During the referendum campaign, the amendment was supported by a wide coalition that included politicians from both parties. It was opposed by several established organizations, including the Mame Municipal Association, some agricultural organizations, and groups defending animal rights or opposing animal cruelty. Maine is the first state to adopt such an amendment, although many states have constitutionalized rights to hunt, fish, farm, and (in Minnesota since 1906) sell garden and farm products without a license.

On its face, a constitutionally recognized right of individuals "to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing" seems unobjectionable and even sounds libertarian. Indeed, some of Maine's libertarians supported the amendment. John Andrews, a Libertarian member of the Maine House of Representatives, wrote on Facebook that "it's a proactive restriction upon government being able to interfere in an individual's access to their own nourishment." Republican Justin Fecteau, another state representative, rhapsodized:

While most bills are simple text written in statute in order to convey a message, this resolution, to establish a right to food, is pure poetry. Whether it is the theory of Evolution or of Creationism, the Right to Food is the Original Right of all living beings.... This isn't a bill, it isn't a resolution, it's a manifesto of our Original Right. It's a public health statement, it's an affirmation of our relationship with Mother Earth, and it speaks to the spirit of Maine. On the other hand, the amendment contains some strange language. The idea of a right to food, employing such 18th-century terminology as "natural, inherent and unalienable," looks out of place. The expression "right to" suggests a positive right to obtain something as opposed to a formal right o/doing something without interference. Does that mean the government will guarantee food to everybody? The campaigners for the amendment did try to explain to the good people of Maine that this was not their intent.

So, what was their intent? Given the disparate claims of the coalitions on both sides of the referendum, there doesn't appear to be a single, clear answer. The amendment seems to mean...