by Ken Midkiff
 |
The Missouri Farm Bureau Federation — an organization to which all Farm Bureau Insurance policyholders belong and provide funding (whether they know it or not) — has taken some curious positions. The positions are far to the right of the American electorate. While endorsed candidates may not subscribe to all these positions, it is worth noting that the Farm Bureau gives its stamp of approval to those politicians who most closely adhere to the values of the organization.
Each year, the Farm Bureau Federation pulls together a conference to ratify resolutions. These statements of policy come from a number of sources. Some are strictly farm-related (such as pesticide and herbicide uses) and come from the county associations or individual members. Others — such as nuclear proliferation — apparently stem from the retrograde leadership of the American Farm Bureau Federation and still others (opposing protecting endangered species) seemingly come from the state offices. For a complete list of these positions, visit www.mofb.org on the web.
This mix of national, state and local positions has led to some flatly contradictory positions. In the preamble to its resolutions, there is a statement that the best government is that which is closest to the people. But, one of the resolutions states that county governments should not be empowered to enact ordinances on agricultural operations that are stricter than state laws.
It should be obvious to the most casual observer that county commissioners are closer to their constituents than anyone in Jefferson City…and consequently should have the ability to make decisions about issues and impacts to those constituents. Fortunately, state statutes have given county governments that ability.
So, what is the Farm Bureau doing advocating that counties shouldn’t be allowed to enact ordinances stricter than state law? In a nutshell, they are sticking up for commodity groups representing industrial agribusiness. Some counties have health ordinances in place to regulate industrial agribusiness facilities — protecting the residents against noxious odors and water pollution.
The counties’ ordinances have been particularly applied to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations — industrial facilities that have thousands, tens of thousands, even millions of pigs or chickens. Numerous peer-reviewed studies show that such operations are harmful to the health of nearby residents. These studies have been made available to county commissioners, who have in turn decided to protect their constituents. Health, it seems, outweighs corporate agribusiness’ profits.
A law was passed in 1995 to provide state regulation of such operations. The last sentence in this law states that nothing above shall be construed to limit counties’ authority.
But, the Farm Bureau is on record as being opposed to counties exercising that authority, and, at the same time, advocating that government is best when closest to the people. Contradictory? Well, yes and no.
When things at the state and federal level benefit the agriculture industry, the Farm Bureau supports those. When the agribusiness industry is benefited by local ordinances, the Farm Bureau supports those. No contradiction — just a failure to determine the difference between agriculture and agribusiness.