Thank you for this insight! I am always wary of anything sponsored by major corporations or our government!

I am against it also. I am glad others oppose it. I was thinking big hog farm or chicken operation and water pollution. No group should have more rights than any other group in my opinion. I think this bill is a response to the effort last year or so to stop puppy farms. My neighbors who are real cattle ranchers were afraid if they could go after puppy breeders, they could regulate their treatment of cattle. These people have five or so dogs in the house and love animals taking good care of their property and cattle. I was for regulation of dog breeders because I consider dogs furry people, but the dog people won. It is correct to think that sometimes the best intentions turn out to have unexpected consequences so it is best to be very careful passing laws.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. I'll be voting against it.

I am in total agreement vote no on this one . GMOs haven't been around long enough to have been proven safe for humans they used to say tobacco was good for you

Thanks for the post Joe, I agree.

Interesting video on how Monsanto is trying to corner the market.

GMO crops are patented, control the seeds and you control the market, and then other options are gone.

Here is a link that might be useful: GMO trap for farmers video

A nice column in the Joplin Globe from an area farmer. It makes one think, why did the legislature last year make it where foreign corporations could own farms in Missouri - (was specifically for a 50,000 acre Chinese Hog producer) yet not give the people of Missouri the right to vote if we want foreign ownership of farms in our state? Yet they want us to vote in this so-called right to farm that takes the word "Missouri" farmer out and just leaves the word farmer, why because it's for foreign farmers who are really giant corporations with huge acreage, it has nothing to do with family farms.

Article starts here:
Darvin Bentlage, guest columnist: Amendment 1: Who’s confusing whom?By Darvin Bentlage 08/01/2014 4:55 PM
Something is terribly wrong when the language on the ballot differs so profoundly from the actual language of the amendment. The ballot language makes voters think they are voting to protect the “rights of Missouri citizens,” but the only mention of Missouri in the text of Amendment 1 refers to the Missouri economy. “Citizens” are missing entirely from the amendment.
Clearly, legislators of this state believe that corporate farming benefits the economy more than independent family farmers.
Missouri’s Constitution consists of about 65,000 words compared to 7,500 words in the U.S. Constitution. The federal amendments are clear and definitive while Amendment 1 is vague as to what will infringe on farming even referring to provisions of Article VI to appear to protect local control.
Agriculture has changed immensely in the past 20 years and who knows what lies down the road? What about water rights, like those being developed in Kansas that look to the future preservation of water for drinking and for agriculture? Adopting environmental regulations that protect natural resources as Arkansas has? Food safety, health impacts, labeling …the list goes on.
Amendment 1 will forever leave the decisions about the definition of what is infringement and what is protected under Article VI to the courts paid for by taxpayers.

Darvin Bentlage, guest columnist: Amendment 1: Who’s confusing whom?By Darvin Bentlage 08/01/2014 4:55 PM
Something is terribly wrong when the language on the ballot differs so profoundly from the actual language of the amendment. The ballot language makes voters think they are voting to protect the “rights of Missouri citizens,” but the only mention of Missouri in the text of Amendment 1 refers to the Missouri economy. “Citizens” are missing entirely from the amendment.
Clearly, legislators of this state believe that corporate farming benefits the economy more than independent family farmers.
Missouri’s Constitution consists of about 65,000 words compared to 7,500 words in the U.S. Constitution. The federal amendments are clear and definitive while Amendment 1 is vague as to what will infringe on farming even referring to provisions of Article VI to appear to protect local control.
Agriculture has changed immensely in the past 20 years and who knows what lies down the road? What about water rights, like those being developed in Kansas that look to the future preservation of water for drinking and for agriculture? Adopting environmental regulations that protect natural resources as Arkansas has? Food safety, health impacts, labeling …the list goes on.
Amendment 1 will forever leave the decisions about the definition of what is infringement and what is protected under Article VI to the courts paid for by taxpayers.

Here is a link that might be useful: read the rest here