- The board would be appointed. The distance from the public it's supposed to serve bothers me, 'cause that's when the lobbyists can work best.
- The money is very, very lopsided...millions of dollars raised to support the amendment, as opposed to a few thousand raised to oppose it. That smacks of corporate interest to me.
- Small, "niche" farmers are feeling threatened all over the state. At first, I figured that wasn't a big deal (if you aren't up to snuff you go out of business, fact of life)...until I listened to the interview with a farmer who delivers fresh (within 48 hours) milk to his customers with a minimum of processing. I can see why big farmers would want him shut down, and could use the new board to make this farmer comply to standards that eliminate his competitive edge and skyrocket his costs.
- The supporters don't seem to be proposing this to correct problems. They seem to just want to put another regulator into the stream of business to "make sure everything is well and good"...and that just sounds fishy to me.
- It's an amendment to the state constitution, making it very, very hard to undo once put into law. Why be so permanent about this?
At first blush, it makes a lot of sense. "Let's put some vets and farmers on a board to figure out how to take care of the animals!" Until you realize...this isn't solving a problem or addressing specific concerns. There's no real voice for the opposition. And the board would be appointed and thus safe from any feedback the public has.
The more I think about this one, the less I like it. But it's YOUR vote, dammit, so decide for yourself. Here are some links...
Safe Local Food.org (Pro)
Human Society (Against)
Columbus Dispatch (Informative)
PDF of the Amendment (Informative)
Check it out. Do some digging. Decide if I'm being paranoid or am on to something.
PS: Sorry for the late post!
No comments:
Post a Comment