NEW HAMPSHIRE SHOWDOWN

As small farmers who produce livestock get more squeezed out of the retail market, at least one state is leading a charge against federal government overreach:  New Hampshire.  Yes, "Live Free or Die."  That state, bless 'em.

                  The legislature passed a bill, HB396, that allows 3 beef, 5 hogs, and 10 goats and sheep to be slaughtered on-farm per month and sold to individuals, grocery stores, and restaurants without inspection.  It does require adequate cooling. It's by far the most aggressive meat-freedom and farm-to-market-access legislation in the nation. 

                  Meryl Nass is on top of the goings-on; thank you for keeping us informed. 

                  But the governor vetoed it.  Here is her justification:

‍ ‍https://www.governor.nh.gov/news/governor-signs-38-bills-law

The Governor’s veto statement for House Bill 396 is below:

“Agriculture is an important part of our state’s economy and heritage, and I appreciate the bill’s intent to provide additional meat processing access for small farmers and producers. Unfortunately, this proposal violates the federal Meat Inspection Act as confirmed in a letter written to the Commissioner of Agriculture Shawn Jasper by Acting Administrator of the Office of Investigation, Enforcement, and Audit Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA.  New Hampshire has not established its own Meat and Poultry Inspection Program and therefore, the state relies on federal inspection of these products.

“The USDA stated that they routinely provide inspection to low volume, seasonal or infrequent producers and are willing to work with local producers to meet their needs. They also noted that they “were not aware of any outstanding or unmet requests for inspection” in New Hampshire. They offered time and resources to work with the state to reduce the burden on small producers. I am sensitive to the needs of our small producers and will instruct the Commissioner of Agriculture to convene a group of our small producers to discuss a path forward that does not violate federal law putting these local producers at risk for federal action and creating potential food safety issues.
“For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill 396.”

                  Aug. 19 the legislature will attempt to override her veto. If they can't override it, be assured they'll be back next year for another round.  The governor is showing both ignorance and weakness.  The legislators know full well the federal government will sue the first farmer who sells a ribeye steak to a neighbor under this new state law.  Numerous pro bono law firms are eager to take the case.  What fun.

                  The legal contention is that federal law extending to intrastate sales is unconstitutional.  The century-old federal laws establishing federal meat and poultry inspection are limited to interstate commerce, not neighbor-to-neighbor.  With only four licensed facilities operating in the entire state, livestock producers often must wait a year or more for a processing slot.  In some cases, they have to make an appointment before an animal is even born.  The USDA contention that this is not a hardship is simply untrue.

                  The governor offers platitudes of risk to farmers who will be in the crosshairs of federal regulators.  How about the risk to farmers when they can't make a living farming?  And the risk to consumers when they can't get safe meat?  Risk runs both ways, governor.

                  At the end of her statement, she cites "food safety issues."  Dear folks, food safety issues arise from the larger, licensed facilities.  So far, the USDA has not recorded a single food borne illness or pathogen problem at uninspected facilities nationwide.  Fearmongering about food safety is a complete fabrication, with no evidence in fact. 

              As legal counsel Pete Kennedy said, "If the bill passes, USDA will likely try to stop its implementation and the matter will go to court. The question before the court should be: Is the 1967 Wholesome Meat Act amendment to the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act prohibiting the intrastate sale of uninspected on-farm slaughtered meat unconstitutional as applied to the farmers and consumers exercising the rights that HB 396 granted them?" He cited the Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Woman's Health Organization that established a two-part test for recognizing an unenumerated constitutional right. The right must be both "deeply rooted in historical tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" (which has been interpreted to mean that the right sought shouldn't impede the government in carrying out its responsibilities under the U.S.Constitution).

There is no explicit right to buy and sell the foods of choice in the U.S. Constitution; so, regarding the right of a farmer to slaughter any animal without inspection and sell the meat from that animal in intrastate commerce, both criteria must be satisfied:

1. Is this right a deeply rooted and historical tradition? Certainly neighbor-to-neighbor meat transactions are deeply rooted in historical tradition, even up to and including the 1970s when our family sold farm-slaughtered beef at our local Curb Market.

2. Would this right impede the government's police powers in protecting the public health?  With few, if any, illnesses attributed to the consumption of on-farm slaughtered meat, this right, if anything, would reduce the government's burden.

                  Clearly on-farm slaughtering passes the two-part test established in the Dobbs case. 

                  I'm cheering on the New Hampshire legislators, hoping a couple more will join this fight for food freedom--we could call it food emancipation--and give farmers market access, buyers additional choice, and a true shot across the bow of the oligarchy.  

                  Do you think this freedom would create a food safety issue?