Question 3, the food sovereignty amendment, does nothing tangible to “support healthy local food initiatives,” create food security, or provide for the hungry.

Question 3 does nothing to create planning for a “healthy food system that is resistant to disruptions created by volatile weather, supply chain troubles or uncertainty,” nor does it magically create local food production, or “ build a multi-faceted food supply” in Maine. It is an empty gesture, at best, and claims by proponents that the amendment is necessary, solves any current food policy challenges, or that growing our own food could be threatened somehow in the future by the government are unfounded.

In truth, not a penny is provided in this amendment to feed hungry children in Maine, nor does the language include or uphold animal welfare protections in food production.

Mainers already have the right and ability to grow and produce their own food that is supported by specific guidelines to ensure food safety and maintain animal welfare standards. A Press Herald editorial (Oct. 3), noted Question 3 is the wrong way to address problems in the food system, while noting that “it is not clear our right to food is at risk” in the first place.

The problem lies in the vagueness of the amendment’s language, in particular “raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing,” leaves the door open to interpretation as years of costly lawsuits play out in the courts.

That’s no place for Maine’s food policy to be decided. Vote “no” on 3.

Gina Garey
Animal Wellness Action
Portland