Popular Resistance
North Dakota voters have rejected a measure that would have permitted corporations to own and to operate dairy and pork farms of up to 640 acres. 75.7 percent of voters opposed Measure 1.
North Dakota is one of only nine states that prohibit or limit corporate farming. A 1932 law has long forbidden nonfamily corporate ownership of farms. But in March of last year, the state legislature passed a bill that loosened restrictions for dairy and pork farms only.
The North Dakota Farmers Union opposed the law and gathered more than 20,000 signatures to force a statewide vote on Measure 1. The group spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat the measure, far more than the several thousand committed by the dairy and pork interests. According to its president, Mark Watne, about 1,000 people participated in its campaign, making 90,000 phone calls and knocking on 5,000 doors.
The measure’s victorious opponents contend that the law would have invited large corporations to buy land, creating competition that would harm family farmers. They add that the measure could have threatened the North Dakota’s values and heritage. The state’s politics have long been distinctive. It was the site of the People’s Party (the Populists) organizing during the late 19th century, and the Bank of North Dakota, the only state-owned institution of its kind, was founded in 1919.
Watne argues that family farms are more efficient than corporate farms. “Farm families tend to train the next generation, to take care of the land,” he says. “Corporations reward shareholder profits, which may or may not be in the long-term interest of the land.” Allowing corporations to own land causes consolidation, and “creates a competition level for family farms” that can be “seen in other states, where there is a decrease in family farms with consolidation.” If farmers want to cooperate, he said, they do not need the corporate business model, and can instead form a partnership. Farmers might also organize cooperatives.
In addition to their economic benefits, Watne believes family farms promote healthy communities. Family farmers “tend to live in or near communities where the land is located,” he says. “They’re part of society.”
1 comment:
Very misleading interpretation of what transpired in North Dakota. Perhaps in a technical sense regarding language and definitions, it might be said that certain incorporated transnationals will find difficulty investing in North Dakota. However, if anyone thinks this means the law is a rejection of massive industrial farming on a dominant scale, farming employing the latest in GMO technology and extensive CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), then that person would be mistaken. Farming in the Dakotas is done mostly by Mennonite and Hutterite communities whose farms are merged to one degree or another into community collectives---they are, therefore, de facto corporations acting in ways most folks would with associate formally declared corporate entities. The Hutterites and Mennonites for all practical purposes are the face of Industrial Ag in the region, working in close concert with such transnationals as Cargill, Monsanto, ADM, et al.
In effect, this law was basically a protectionist maneuver meant to preserve the existing monopolistic structure from outside encroachment. In no way can this be interpreted as an advancement for those advocates concerned about sustainable agriculture, the environment, or the propagation of GMO's.
Post a Comment