Opinion -- Save Our Bacon Act Attacks States Rights, Enables CAFO Growth

By Matthew Dominguez

Common Dreams

Congress has a choice to make: Protect democracy and states’ rights or hand a blank check to Big Pork lobbyists who refuse to accept that voters, family farmers, and the marketplace have already moved on.

Buried in the House-passed Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill) is a provision known as the “Save Our Bacon Act,” a slickly named attempt to wipe out state farm animal welfare laws like California’s Proposition 12. The House passed the farm bill on April 30 by a vote of 224-200, after the Rules Committee blocked a bipartisan amendment that had the votes to pass on the floor that would have stripped the Save Our Bacon language from the bill.

Now the fight moves to the Senate. And every Democrat and Republican who claims to respect states’ rights should be on notice: This provision is not about saving bacon. It is about overriding voters, punishing family farmers who adapted, and using federal power to erase state laws that powerful corporate interests dislike.

Proposition 12 was passed by nearly 63% of California voters in 2018. At its core, the law set a basic standard for certain animal products sold in California, including pork: A mother pig should have enough space to stand up, turn around, and extend her limbs. That is not radical. It is the bare minimum.

The pork lobby sued anyway, arguing that California had no right to decide what products could be sold within its own borders. They took that argument all the way to the US Supreme Court—and lost, even before a conservative court. In 2023, the court upheld Prop 12.

That should have been the end of it.

Instead, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and its allies went to Congress and asked lawmakers to do what the courts would not: nullify the will of voters through federal legislation. The Farm Bill is their latest vehicle to pass the Save Our Bacon Act.

Supporters dress this up as a defense of interstate commerce. But let’s be honest about what it really is: a federal override of state decision-making.

That should alarm conservatives who believe Washington should not dictate every policy choice from the top down. It should alarm progressives who believe voters have the right to pass laws protecting animals, consumers, workers, and communities. And it should alarm anyone who thinks Congress should be solving actual problems in the farm bill—not sneaking in special favors for a trade group that lost in court, lost at the ballot box, and is now trying to win through backroom legislative maneuvering.

The irony is that Prop 12 has not caused the collapse its opponents predicted. Pork has remained on California shelves. Major producers have adapted. Nearly all major food companies now offer Prop 12-compliant pork. Many farmers invested in compliant systems and rely on the market that Prop 12 created.

In fact, some of the loudest claims against Prop 12 have aged terribly. The NPPC’s own vice president testified before Congress while describing himself as a fourth-generation hog farmer who produces Prop 12-compliant pork—then argued against the very law he already follows. That contradiction says everything. Compliance is possible. The industry knows it. The marketplace has shown it.

The people who stand to lose from the Save Our Bacon Act are not the multinational corporations that have already adjusted. They are the family farmers who spent money to meet higher standards, the small and mid-sized producers who gained access to premium markets, and the voters whose laws would be wiped away because a lobby did not like the outcome.

This is why opposition to the provision has not fallen neatly along party lines. A bipartisan group led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Florida Republican, sought to remove the language from the Farm Bill, joined by Republicans and Democrats including Reps. Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), David Valadao (R-Calif.), Nancy Mace (R-SC), Mike Lawler, (R-NY), and Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ), according to industry reporting.

That bipartisan resistance matters. It shows this is not a left-versus-right issue. It is a question of whether Congress will respect state authority or gut it when a powerful industry lobby complains loudly enough.

For Democrats, the choice should be easy. Prop 12 reflects humane treatment, consumer transparency, and democratic accountability. It was passed by voters and upheld by the courts. A farm bill should not become a vehicle for rolling back animal welfare progress and silencing state-level reform.

For Republicans, the choice should be just as easy—at least for those who mean what they say about states’ rights. If California voters cannot decide that pork sold in California must meet basic animal welfare and food safety standards, then what exactly does “states’ rights” mean? Does it only apply when a state passes laws that corporate lobbyists like?

The Save Our Bacon Act is also a warning shot far beyond animal welfare. If Congress can erase state laws protecting farm animals because they affect interstate commerce, what stops future Congresses from targeting state laws on food safety, environmental protection, public health, labeling, or consumer standards? Opponents have warned that this kind of language could threaten hundreds of state agricultural laws and undermine state and local authority well beyond Prop 12.

That is why lawmakers should strip this language from any final farm bill.

The farm bill should support farmers, strengthen food systems, expand nutrition access, invest in conservation, and build resilience. It should not be hijacked by a narrow industry faction trying to relitigate a Supreme Court loss. And it certainly should not punish the farmers and companies that did the right thing by adapting to higher standards.

Animal welfare progress is real. Across the food system, companies, producers, and consumers are moving toward more humane practices. Cage-free eggs now make up a major and growing share of the market. In pork production, many supply chains have reduced or eliminated gestation stalls. The trend is clear: Extreme confinement is becoming harder to defend and easier to replace.

The progress did not happen by accident. It happened because voters demanded it, farmers built it, companies responded to it, and advocates kept pushing. The Save Our Bacon Act would turn back the clock—not because the system failed, but because it succeeded.

Congress should not reward obstruction. It should not let Big Pork use the farm bill to override voters. And it should not allow a fake “states’ rights” argument to become a federal power grab against the states that actually exercised their rights.

Democrats and Republicans who genuinely believe in democracy, federalism, and fair markets should stand together and reject the Farm Bill if it includes the Save Our Bacon Act language.

The message should be simple: Respect the voters, respect the farmers, respect the courts, and keep this attack on states’ rights out of the Farm Bill. Call your US senators today and tell them to oppose Big Pork’s attack on democracy and oppose any Farm Bill version with the “Save Our Bacon” language included.

Matthew Dominguez is the US executive director at Compassion in World Farming, where he leads a team dedicated to improving the welfare of farmed animals and advancing a food system that is better for animals, people, and the planet.

 Full link to article here.

 

Governor Parson Signs Bill to Overturn Worth County Health Ordinance

On Friday, Governor Mike Parson signed Senate Bill 391 into law. The bill, championed by Sen. Mike Bernskoetter, Rep. Mike Haffner, and many agriculture organizations, creates  what Governor Parson says is a consistent regulatory framework for producers and encourages investment in our rural communities.

“Senate Bill 391 is a big win for Missouri farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses,” Governor Parson said. “I applaud Senator Bernskoetter, Representative Haffner, and House and Senate leaders for sending a strong signal that we support the next generation of Missouri agriculture. We’ve now opened the doors that will allow Missouri to lead the way in meeting a growing world food demand and ensure we keep more agriculture production in our state, strengthening Missouri’s number one industry.”

State Representatives Allen Andrews and J. Eggleston and State Senator Dan Hegeman voted for the measure.

The bill overturns the health ordinance of Worth County and 19 other counties. Opponents of the bill said that the measure would reduce local control, allow concentrated animal feeding operations to build facilities, and that the Missouri DNR did not have adequate jurisdiction to regulate such operations.

Bill to Overturn Worth County Health Ordinance Passes Missouri House

On Tuesday, May 14th, the Missouri House passed Senate Bill 391 by a 103-44 vote. This bill would overturn the health ordinances of Worth County and 19 other counties related to CAFO’s and other large agricultural operations. The bill goes to Governor Mike Parson for his signature. State Representatives Allen Andrews and J. Eggleston both voted for the measure. All 103 “Yes” votes were from Republicans. 39 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted against the measure. The following are opinion pieces for and against the measure.

PRO – By the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association
The Missouri House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 391 Tuesday, May 14, 2019, with a 103-44 vote. The vote was the final hurdle for the legislation in the 2019 legislative session, which concludes Friday, May 17. The legislation now moves to Governor Mike Parson for his signature. The Missouri Cattlemen's Association was a driving force in moving the legislation forward and its president, Bobby Simpson, wasted no time in calling the passage a "historic victory" for farm and ranch families. 

 "This victory was the product of leaders and staff of nearly 30 groups standing together, dedicated House and Senate leadership, unwavering bill sponsors, and elected leaders willing to sort fact from fiction," said Simpson. "Above all else, dedicated farmers and ranchers made this happen. This is their win." 

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bernskoetter (R-6) and led in the House by Rep. Mike Haffner (R-55), prevents county governments from passing rules and regulations on farm and ranch families that are more stringent than scientifically founded rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies. Proponents argue that a patchwork of county-by-county regulations creates regulatory uncertainty for farm and ranch families and prevents them from expanding and stops new operations from starting. The list of proponents include nearly 30 organizations. 

Opponents of the legislation include the Humane Society of the United States, Missouri Rural Crisis Center and Sierra Club. They argue that the legislation only benefits corporate farmers. Simpson said the wild accusations are false and a direct assault on farm and ranch families in the state. He said he is thankful legislators were willing to think independently and sort fact from fiction.
  
"One real story from the next generation wanting a future in Missouri agriculture is more powerful than 1,000 emails with activist talking points," said Simpson. "One real story from a farmer wanting to expand and create more economic activity does more than fear mongering. The opposition didn't have farmers and ranchers at the Capitol every single week of legislative session. Our association's Cowboys at the Capitol program worked. No bogus talking points, just real people with real stories."
Simpson is optimistic Governor Parson will sign the legislation. 

CON – By the Missouri Sierra Club
Senate Bill 391 would negate all agricultural related existing health ordinances in 20 rural counties (that have been passed by local, elected representatives) and would stop any county from passing a new ordinance in order to protect the health and welfare of their citizens from the negative effects of corporate- controlled Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOS). House Bill 951 would effectively block county commissions and health boards from enforcing these health ordinances.

Existing DNR Oversight Insufficient
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) does not have authority to provide oversight of the land application of the millions of gallons of waste that comes from "export only" CAFOs like Pipestone Systems, LLC. So without local ordinances they can spread waste right up to property lines, homes, and water sources.

CAFOs that aren't designated as "export only" can spread waste 50 feet from property lines and homes and 300 feet from water sources.

The DNR does not set any air quality standards for CAFOs with less than 17,500 hogs, 7,000 cattle, or 875,000 chickens.

There are no state setback requirements between CAFOs and populated areas.

CAFOs are not required to obtain construction permits from the State of Missouri.

Bill Overturning Worth County Health Ordinance Passes State Senate

PRO – By the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association
The Missouri Senate passed Missouri Cattlemen's Association priority, Senate Bill 391, Thursday, May 2, 2019, with a 23-11 vote. The legislation now moves to the Missouri House of Representatives for approval. The association was quick to commend legislators for approving the measure that it says advances Missouri agriculture and reduces regulatory uncertainty for its members. 

"This is a huge win for Missouri agriculture. The Missouri Senate has made clear its intent to move Missouri agriculture forward. They sent the signal to current and future farmers and ranchers that we are open for business," said MCA President Bobby Simpson. "We encourage the House to move quickly to pass this important legislation." 

The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Mike Bernskoetter (R-6), prevents county governments from passing rules and regulations on farm and ranch families that are more stringent than scientifically founded rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies. Proponents argue that a patchwork of county-by-county regulations creates regulatory uncertainty for farm and ranch families and prevents them from expanding and stops new operations from starting. The list of proponents include nearly 30 organizations. 

Opponents of the legislation include the Humane Society of the United States, Missouri Rural Crisis Center and Sierra Club. They argue that the legislation only benefits corporate farmers. Simpson said the wild accusations are false and a direct assault on farm and ranch families in the state. 

"The fear mongering and outright lies of the radical extremist groups opposing this legislation do nothing to benefit Missouri agriculture or consumers. We are proud to represent cattle producers in this state and will not back down to those who have no desire to move agriculture and our rural communities forward," said Simpson, who is a former county commissioner. "We are grateful to the senators who supported Missouri agriculture with a yes vote and cannot thank enough Sen. Bernskoetter and Majority Floor Leader Caleb Rowden for their unwavering, bold leadership on this important issue."

CON – By the Missouri Rural Crisis Center
Senator Mike Bernskoetter, the new Chair of the Senate Ag Committee, sponsored and is advancing a bill (Senate Bill 391) that will strip Local Control from rural counties, taking away our right to protect our farms, families, water and air, communities and property rights from the negative impacts of corporate-controlled industrial livestock operations.

SB 391 would negate all existing health ordinances in 20 rural counties (that have been passed by local, elected representatives) AND stop any county from passing a new ordinance in order to protect the health and welfare of their citizens.

The sad truth is that Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources will not protect us.

Here are just a few reasons why:
–DNR has no authority to provide oversight of the land application of the millions of gallons of waste that comes from “export only” CAFOs like Pipestone Systems, LLC (a CAFO corporation from Pipestone, MN). So, they can apply the waste right up to property lines, homes, water sources and communities.

–There are ZERO air quality standards for CAFOs with less than 17,500 hogs, 7,000 cattle or 875,000 chicken broilers.

–There are no state setback requirements between CAFOs and populated areas.

–CAFOs no longer have to obtain construction permits at all.

–CAFOs that aren’t “export only” can spread waste 50 feet from property lines and homes and 300 feet from water sources.

This is why it is imperative we protect Local Control; it’s the only way for us to protect ourselves from corporate factory farms.

And CAFOs are targeting Missouri. Pipestone Systems, LLC said in a public meeting that the reason they are targeting Missouri is because we are a “clean state”, i.e we don’t have the animal disease and dirty water problems that plague states with CAFOs.

The sad fact is our Department of Natural Resources will not protect us from the negative impacts of CAFOs. 

State Bill Would Strike Down Worth County Ordinance on Hog Farms

A bill working its way through the Missouri Senate, Senate Bill 391, would overturn a health ordinance passed several years ago by the Worth County Commission. It would prohibit counties from passing rules and regulations on any agricultural operations that are more stringent than regulations at the state level.

Currently, Worth County has one animal confinement operation near Irena. Several years ago, in response to another effort to put in a hog confinement operation south of Grant City, Worth County commissioners passed a massive health ordinance that imposed strict licensing requirements, required public hearings on such operations every year, and placed the Tri-County Health Department in charge of regulating them. The passage of the ordinance followed two raucous meetings in the Courtroom lobby in which both supporters and opponents of hog confinement operations argued over the ordinance.

About 25 years ago, a hog confinement company sought to locate a facility south of Sheridan and set up a public meeting to discuss the plan in the back of the Bank building. There were a lot of people present. About halfway through the presentation, the late Hale Sanders stood up and walked out of the presentation. The facility was never built. That, in part, was what prompted the City of Sheridan to dig two wells, one on the north end and one on the south end of town, to protect the city water supply against any possible manure runoff.

In 2010, at the Ketcham Center at North Central Missouri College in Trenton, what was billed as a public hearing for Premium Standard (now Smithfield) over a massive lawsuit that the state was filing against them turned into a gigantic pep rally for Premium Standard. Over 3,000 people filled the facility as speaker after speaker touted the economic benefits that the operation brought to the area. The operation was built after the area was gutted even more than usual by the Farm Crisis of the 1980’s. The state was seeking to enforce environmental laws that it said that Premium Standard was in breach of.

The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association is pushing Senate Bill 391 hard. Its president, Bobby Simpson, testified in favor of the legislation, saying the present policy does not provide regulatory certainty. He said in his testimony, “Counties should not have the power to put law-abiding people out of business. There are stringent laws, rules, and regulations rooted in sound science at the state level to ensure people, animals, the land, and its resources are protected.”

Other supporters say that the present policy keeps young people from taking up farming. Traves Merrick, a 5th generation farmer from Miller (MO) testified that the average age of a farmer is now almost 60, and less than five percent are under 35. He testified, “If we do not repopulate the land with the next generation, consumers will be paying more for food, and more of it will have to be imported.” As part of his trade war with China, President Donald Trump has imposed massive tariffs on Chinese goods.

Opponents cite environmental and water quality concerns. They also cite odor problems. While the hog facility just south of the Worth-Gentry County line was in operation, periodic winds would blow the odor north, and people could smell the odor as far north as Grant City. We can smell the odor from the hog operation between Sheridan and Bedford about once or twice a year; the late columnist Mickey Floyd, who lived farther away, west of town, swore he smelled the odor from the facility regularly.

Community Services, Economic Developer Seeking Office Space at Courthouse

(Minutes from the County Commission Meeting of September 26th)
There was a third meeting held about the CAFO issue. Chevy Davidson presented some facts and figures to the commission. Several people were in attendance to voice their opinions.
1. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert made a motion approve the agenda and minutes. Commissioner Rob Ruckman seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
2. Treasurer Linda Brown presented the weekly balance sheet, bills, and payroll.
3. Commissioner Rob Ruckman made a motion to approve the bills. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
4. Commissioner Rob Ruckman reported the gas prices from MFA as gas $3.399 and diesel $3.759
5. Charity Austin, Economic Developer reported on EEZ progress. The Enhanced Enterprise Zone documents have been mailed off. It should be completed in about 3 weeks. She also told the commissioners that they City will no longer house the Economic Developer so they will need to provide an office space.
6. Bridget Gibson voiced concerns about old 169. She wants to know how to make it compliant for the tax rock. The commissioners told her that it would need to be narrowed, ditched, and crowned, and then base rock added to make it compliant.
7. Road and Bridge Foreman Jim Fletchall Report:
· Russell found 2 buckets to look at for the loader. Fletchall will find out more information.
· While working on CR 194 county crew found where Grand River Mutual Phone co had sliced through a tube. Fletchall will call Windstream.
· Fletchall explained a mistake that was made on CR 60. It had been designated as a bi-pass road earlier this spring so Roger Robertson the County rock hauler assumed it was all supposed to be covered with the tax rock, so he started at the wrong end and went all the way through.
· Robertson called to ask the commissioners if he was supposed to put tax rock on CR 164 since it was in the city limits of Denver. Commissioner Ruckman told him to put rock on it as it connected with the county road.
8. As set from Tax Hearing held on September 19th the levies are as follows:
Library tax levy at 0.0999.
The General Revenue Tax Levy at $.4996
General Revenue Temporary Tax Levy at $.35,
Road and Bridge Fund Tax Levy at $.4996
Special Road and Bridge Fund Tax Levy at $.3297
Senior Citizens Fund Tax Levy at $.05
9. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert made a motion to adjourn for lunch at 12:00 pm. Commissioner Rob Ruckman seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

Presiding Commissioner Ted Findley brought the afternoon session to order at 1:45 pm.
10. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert made a motion to go into closed session with David Baird, County Attorney to discuss litigation at 1:48. Commissioner Rob Ruckman seconded. Findley aye, Ruckman aye, Gabbert aye.
11. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert made a motion to come out of closed session at 3:15 pm commissioner Rob Ruckman seconded. Roll vote: Findley aye, Ruckman aye, Gabbert aye.
12. There was more discussion on available space in the courthouse, due to the budget cuts from Community Services, the Community Services office will no longer be housed in the Apblanalp building. Mary Jo Fletchall is seeking free space for her office. Ted Findley is on the Community Services board and mentioned moving the office somewhere in the courthouse also.
13. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert made a motion to adjourn at 4:56 pm. Commissioner Rob Ruckman seconded. All in favor, motion carried.

Hog Farm Controversy Rages On

The debate over the proposed CAFO hog farm south of Grant City raged into its second week as supporters and opponents of the proposal debated before the County Commission meeting Monday. The crowd this week was even larger than the last time as over 40 people were present at the meeting. Brian and Kathy Sherer are proposing to put in a CAFO with 2500-7500 Cargill hogs that would be raised and shipped off to processing facilities. As of Friday, the Missouri DNR had not received a permit application for the facility; they must wait a minimum of 30 days to turn a spade as the DNR reviews their application.

In response, a large group of people have proposed that the county pass a health ordinance regulating CAFO's. David B. Parman said that the goal was not to ban all CAFO's; the goal was for the county to set standards that people should follow. Specifically, he said that it was a matter of determining what the setbacks should be and what the number of hogs should be. The problem, as Chevy Davidson saw, was that it would not be possible to pass such an ordinance without regulating all other farming operations, such as cattle operations.

Both sides came armed with studies; Cargill sent three different representatives to the meeting to address the commission. Davidson quoted a University of Missouri study in which Premium Standard had contributed $1.9 million just to local schools. Worth County only got $2,500 of the pie since there are only six barns on the southern edge of the county. Distribution was spread over much of north Missouri, with Mercer County, where Premium Standard is headquartered, getting almost half of the revenue increase. Davidson said that the economic impact for Premium Standard was around $1.1 billion for the area.

Davidson said that health risks were confined to direct contact and that there were no public health risks regardless of production method. He said that this was a matter of making it possible for farmers to put food on the table for future generations.

The problem for a lot of the opponents of the Sherer facility was the fear that their property values would go down because of the belief that nobody would want to live near such a place. In fact, Josh Nana said that there was a study showing that property values went down by as much as 40% if a CAFO were to move into the area. The facility would be in the new proposed Enhanced Enterprise Zone for the county; however, Commissioner Rob Ruckman said he was not sure if the Sherer farm would qualify.

Mike Sherer, who runs a facility by Bethany, said that this was a matter of bringing grandson Scott back to the area and that it was "terrible the way you were treating him." Sam Martell responded that it was not a personal vendetta that he had but the concern that property values would go down. Mike Sherer responded that he had run 1000 head of hogs all the time when he was younger and that his personal health had actually improved in the last few years since he built his facility.

The Sherer farm would be 3/4 of a mile from the main road and they would inject waste into the ground deep enough so that it would not create an odor problem; they have been in the process of getting easements so that they could do so. Josh Nana said that this was not personal for him and that the Sherers had been good neighbors to both him and his mother, who owns land next to where the facility would be built. But he said that it was a major health issue for the area; for instance, he said that in Iowa, there were 10% higher asthma rates for schoolchildren who live near to such places.

Jerry Foster of Cargill said that the study in question was not peer reviewed and characterized a lot of studies done by opponents as "circular logic." "All they do is quote each other," he said. "You can't go off one study when you do these things." For instance, he said that the study in question didn't control for different situations at the two schools studied that might have affected the data.

Mike Sherer said that odor was not a problem for him and that perfume odor was much more of a problem. "There are places I quit going to because people have too much perfume on," he said. "That's a good point," responded Sam Martell. "You have the option of leaving. People who have to live near one of these places don't have that option."

Brenda Parman said that what the Sherers were doing amounted to taking away property values from other people for their own well-being. "This is not about you," she said. Randall Baker said that if the commission were to do nothing, it would set a dangerous precedent because more and more CAFO's would come in. "We're not willing to gamble our property values in the hopes that this would work," added Martell.

Mike Sherer said that putting up his barn was what kept him in the area. He said that only one of his neighbors ever gave him trouble over the place and that he was not even from the area. "Everyone else knew that it was about farming. This is a farming community," he said.

"But these people are not farmers," said Jerry Roach, referring to Cargill, who would be stocking the facility with their hogs. "They are in it for the money." Mike Sherer said that the alternative was to try to get bigger so that he could compete with giants like Cargill, which he said he could not do.

Herb Petty said that corporate farming was illegal in the state of Missouri. Addressing Brian and Kathy Sherer, he said, "But you're on their contract and doing whatever they are telling you to. This is part of an industrialized takeover of farming." He pointed out that if problems arose with the facility that people would sue them instead of Cargill. Petty said that what they were doing affected everyone. "These people have a whole record of screwing up the environment," he said. Addressing a rejoinder that they dealt with combine odor all the time, Petty noted that combines were not a constant like CAFO's are.

Addressing the studies from the University of Missouri, Petty said that there were just as many other professors who did studies showing that CAFO's were a liability to the state.

Tim Steinkamp of Cargill said that farming hogs could still be done; it was a matter of finding a niche and responding to consumer demand. He said that it was a misconception that Cargill shipped all their food overseas and that the company kept 75% of its food in the US and exported the other 25%.

Steinkamp acknowledged that odor was an ongoing problem and that the company was doing ongoing work to address the problem. While he did not have an exact figure as to how much the company spent, he said that they were involved in several different programs which address odor problems. He said that in places where they were at, there were compliments from neighbors and that with 1/2 mile setbacks from any homes, they did not have a big problem with odors. He said that they would work with local setback requirements. The three barns in Harrison County are around 10 miles apart from each other. He said that there was a big difference between their facilities and the Premium Standard facilities which have been the target of an ongoing lawsuit by the state for the last 15 years. The Sherer facility would have 2400 to 4800 hogs as opposed to the 48000 that Premium Standard houses.

Addressing the danger of gases from such facilities killing people, Jerry Foster said that sort of thing had happened back in the 1970's before CAFO's and that it was an ongoing risk from working in such places. He said that there were studies that cat odor was more toxic that a CAFO one mile away. He said that there were places like Lancaster, PA in which huge chicken barns coexisted side by side with $300,000 homes. In fact, he said that land values went up. However Rhonda Richards said that there was a big difference from Worth County's situation since people were moving from there out of the suburbs of Washington, DC and that land was consequently in high demand. In other words, she said that they were comparing apples to oranges.

Parman said that many health ordinances like the one proposed for the county would require a fee and a cleanup bond in case the project went under. The state has an indemnity fee that they charge in case of abandonment, but Parman said that they had not used it in the last 15 years, meaning that the DNR was very lax when it came to enforcement.

The discussion got heated as Kathy Sherer said that opponents were simply trying to shut them down. "Cargill doesn't care what this community thinks; they don't fit in with us," responded Martell. "You keep using the cattle operations as a defense; that's not a defense," said Brenda Parman. "So you're discriminating against hog operations," responded Brian Sherer. David Parman said that in any health ordinance, existing operations would be grandfathered in and that Linn County and other places were able to work around cattle operations.

Another issue discussed was groundwater contamination. Ann Roach said that when she got up at 5 in the morning, her coffee tasted like hog manure and that they didn't even live that close to the Premium Standard operation. Responding to Kathy Sherer's rejoinder that their operation was different, she asked, "Where does it all end? I have to stand up before one comes on my own doorstep."

The argument continued after the commissioners returned to the meeting room as 15 different people filled the room. Kathy Sherer said that there were adequate safeguards put in place so that groundwater contamination would not be an issue. For instance, both they and the people who they have easements with have to have a manure testing plan filed with the state and that the people applying the waste, out of Mount Ayr, had liability insurance so that would not be a problem. "That's fine that you're going to do the responsible thing, but what about the next people to come in here?" asked Josh Nana.

Dan Yonker of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and a Cargill employee said that farming was different today than it was 30-50 years ago and that the market was becoming more and more specialized. He said that more and more people were wanting lean beef, meaning that these CAFO's were necessary to respond to consumer demand. Yonker said that it was a matter of creating opportunities for people to come back and manage farms and that when they went into Atchison County, it created a huge economic benefit for people that caused a lot of initial opponents to change their minds about the project. However, Nana pointed out that these farms were done on a much bigger scale than the Sherers were proposing and that the benefit would be much less since these facilities have 26000 hogs.

Although Josh Nana said that the DNR was getting 1600 complaints a month about CAFO's, Jerry Foster, who worked for the DNR before going to work for Cargill, said that most complaints that the DNR got were from a small group of people from a small area of the state, whereas these facilities were located all over the state. He said that the DNR's hands were tied to the guidelines given them by the legislature. "It's easy to complain about something, but it's a lot more difficult to substantiate these allegations," he said. Nana said that there had already been objections registered with DNR regarding the Sherer facility, which Foster said was not unusual.

Steinkamp said that there were many counties who had chosen not to go down the path of health ordinances. He said that in that case, they would still be regulated by the state. Josh Nana said that meant that it came down to a question of whether the commission wanted local control or whether they wanted to give up control of the state. "You're the ones in control, not these corporate guys," he said. He said that a better alternative would be for the county to work with the Sherers to find a way that didn't involve CAFO's.

Opinion: Missouri Farm Families Find Success in 2011 Legislative Session

by the Missouri Cattleman's Association


Farm families around the state work tirelessly each year to provide more market value to Missouri than any other industry. Missouri legislators, and agriculture groups, recognized that effort and protected Missouri producers in a big way this year.



This legislative session agriculture had several pieces to negotiate during the process.” said Jeff Windett, executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association. “None of which made it without significant discussion in both chambers.”



MCA and all of agriculture worked hard to promote a positive agricultural message throughout the session and found success with many bills coming out of the general assembly.



The biggest victory for agriculture this session was the Proposition B solution. MCA believes that this bill truly strengthened the basis behind the original Proposition B and finally protects legitimate dog breeders by eliminating limitations on the number of dogs each breeder can have and breeding cycles. The bill also stopped an outdoor exercise mandate and changed the square footage requirements for dog cages. Gov. Nixon gave his approval to the compromise on April 27, 2011.



“It’s safe to say that I’ve never been through so many ups and downs as I have with this issue during the session,” Windett said. “It was a monstrous effort by agriculture groups and legislators.”



Farm families were also protected under Sen. Brad Lager’s, R-Maryville, bill concerning nuisance suits. It restricts the right to sue under nuisance law to those who have ownership interest in property being affected by the nuisance. Farmers are also no longer subject to repeated lawsuits against their crop or animal production farm under one specific nuisance claim.



The omnibus agriculture bill sponsored by Sen. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, has high hopes of being signed by Gov. Nixon and creates the Puppy Protection Trust Fund to compliment the Proposition B compromise. A second key provision in this bill requires the Department of Agriculture to publish a list of weeds considered “noxious” and must be eradicated. It also prohibits the sale of any noxious weeds.



The last piece of legislation to mention is the omnibus judicial bill that will create a Class C Felony for anyone receiving stolen property valued at more than $3,000. Livestock was specifically named as a concern within the language, which marks a huge gain in the efforts to reduce cattle theft in the state. The bill was sent to the Governor for his final approval.

Guernsey Bill on Manure Lawsuits Goes to Governor's Desk

Missouri's House passed a bill that would protect farmers and CAFO's from repeatedly getting sued over the smell of animal manure. Rep. Casey Guernsey, R-Bethany, sponsored the bill and said this bill helps to protect the rights of farmers and Missouri's agriculture industry. He said this is legislation Missouri needs to preserve the industry. "If we don't fix this problem, we aren't going to have the ag industry in this state," Guernsey said. Another supporter of the bill, Rep. Chris Molendorp, R-Cass County, said this bill allows some of Missouri's counties to take care of nuisances. Opponents to the bill, such as Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, said the bill doesn't acknowledge the property value decrease when a farm moves next door. "So that I am to believe that if a big hog farm moves next to me, where morning, noon and night I don't have that great smell of bacon, as the gentlemen from that side of the aisle said the other day ... I have the smell of hog manure, that will not affect the value of my property?" he asked. The bill will go to the governor next to sign into law or veto.

Brad Lager Bill Would Modify State Nuisance Laws

A bill in the legislature introduced by State Senator Brad Lager would modify nuisance statutes in the state. It would add Andrew, Buchanan, and Livingston to the list of counties that may enact nuisance abatement ordinances. The bill has passed the Senate and is now in the House for consideration.

The bill allows these counties to enact ordinances to provide for the abatement of a condition of any lot or land that has the presence of various junk. Any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section shall set forth those conditions which constitute a nuisance and which are detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the county. It provides for inspections, hearings, and enforcement. The building commissioners of these counties can cause the condition which creates these nuisances to be removed and costs can be assessed against the owner's taxes and would be collected in the same manner than other taxes are collected.

It also states that no junkyard shall be established, maintained, or operated within 200 feet of any other state or county road in this state unless fully screened from the state or county road by a permanent tight board or other screen fence to keep people from viewing it. Persons in violation would be considered guilty of a Class C Misdemeanor and shall be ordered to either remove the junk or build a fence as described. Failure to comply or a second or subsequent violation would make them guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor. This section applies to junkyards across the state.

The bill would also limit the amount of damages that could be awarded in a private nuisance suit against CAFO operations or property that is used for agricultural purposes. Permanent nuisances would be awarded based on the reduction of the fair market value of the claimant's property caused by the nuisance, but not to exceed the fair market value of the property. If it is a temporary nuisance, it would be measured by the diminution in the fair rental value.

The bill also clarifies that no person shall have standing to bring such an action for private nuisance unless they have an ownership interest in the property alleged to be affected by the nuisance. Claimants can still seek damages for annoyance, discomfort, sickness, or emotional distress provided such damages are awarded on the basis of other causes independent of a claim of nuisance. An amendment that would have stated that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any claim for private nuisance by a plaintiff whose property ownership precedes the defendant's activities giving rise to the cause of action was defeated.

There have been a rash of nuisance suits against CAFO's in the region and Lager says the bill is needed to protect the 3,000 jobs that he says these operations create. He says that adds up to a payroll of $50 million and higher profits for corn farmers. However, opponents say that the bill takes away property rights and allows corporations to perform what amounts to a private condemnation of land.

The bill has been referred to the House Agri-Business Committee. State Representative Casey Guernsey is the chair of that committee.

Casey Guernsey: Improving Missouri's Business Climate

by State Representative Casey Guernsey

Last week the House of Representatives took important action focusing on improving Missouri's business climate to adequately compete in today's markets. We passed out of the House my legislation putting an end to repeat nuisance lawsuits against farmers and agri-businesses. This is an enormous victory for those of us living in North Missouri and anyone in the farming business. The Senate also took quick action and passed Senator Lager's version of the same bill. The overwhelming super-majority lent to my legislation speaks volumes in and of itself; this is not a Republican or Democrat issue, this is a jobs issue. Anyone in agriculture today knows the threat of a lawsuit alone is enough to potentially put them out of business, it is imperative we send this bill to the Governor to keep Missouri's Agricultural sector the largest in the state. I urge you to contact the Governor's office in support of this legislation, his phone number is: 573.751.3222. If we do not, I fear it will be impossible for us to remain in the animal agriculture industry in Missouri thanks to literally 3 out of state trial attorneys who are manipulating our laws to line their pockets with tens of millions of dollars. His veto would also open the doors to further abuse of our nuisance laws to allow for the suit against any farmer regardless of commodity. We have all heard of farmers in other states being sued for harvesting after hours, stirring up dust, etc. We can not allow these attorneys the same option in Missouri.

The House also took swift action to end one form of double-taxation. Currently, Missouri franchised businesses are taxed both on their income and the value of their assets and stock. As an example this would be like getting taxed on your yearly income, and additionally on all the net income you've made your entire life. Missouri's additional tax on corporations is called the franchise tax. While Missouri has both corporate franchise and income taxes, many states simply have one or the other. As a result, when national corporations or smaller franchises are choosing where to locate, Missouri's double taxation scares them away.or pushes companies to re-locate outside of Missouri. By allowing businesses to keep its money, we know they will invest it in jobs right here in the Show-Me-State. The amount of money we will allow these corporations to save will be the equivalent of 1,700 jobs at $50,000 each. Cutting taxes is the best way to improve the job market for Missourians and I was very pleased to lend my strong support to this common sense legislation.

This session we have focused primarily on creating jobs in our state. We started the session with a plan to turn the state economy around by fundamentally changing the business environment and HB 76 is part of it. HB 76 phases out the state's franchise tax over a period of five years. Without the franchise tax, our state will become more attractive to businesses looking to move here and create jobs. Missouri collects less than 3% of its revenue from corporate taxes of any kind and the franchise tax is only part of this collection. In addition, Missouri entrepreneur's operate on a shoestring budget, and a little bit of tax here or there is the difference between hiring someone new or closing down. The elimination of the double tax will only help our small business owners. Join me in supporting HB 76 to eliminate corporate double-taxation. It's about attracting new businesses and creating new jobs. As always, feel free to contact me anytime with your thoughts or concerns. My phone number is 573.751.4285 and my email is Casey.Guernsey@house.mo.gov.

Opinion: Homeland Security

Opinion pieces are the opinions of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sheridan Express.

by Russ Kremer
Missouri Farmer's Union
Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Good advice. Yet that's what's happening to your food sources. While the president's veto of the federal farm bill and Congress' override made big headlines, another vital issue for consumers gets less coverage: Consolidation of your food supply.
It's called vertical integration, a fancy term for ultimately cornering the markets.
During the past forty years, two culprits -- more concentration, and less diversity -- have eroded market power from farmers and confidence from consumers. Prior to that time, livestock production was commonly part of a diversified farming enterprise. Farmers fed their home grown crops to livestock and applied the manure as a fertilizer. They could depend on a number of livestock buyers, in a competitive bidding system. In fact, hogs used to be called "mortgage lifters" because farmers could dependably bank on profits from their swine enterprise. Rural America prospered as well. Residents benefited from the economic diversity of a multitude of agricultural production and processing activities.
But then the industry took on a new face. Markets became consolidated, concentrated, centralized and vertically integrated. Nowadays, in most locations in Missouri, livestock farmers are captive to one market choice. Numbers of livestock farmers declined dramatically. The 40,000-plus Missouri hog farmers in 1980 shrank to a mere couple thousand. The physical concentration of large numbers of livestock has spawned concerns: Public health. Environment. Animal welfare risks. Because the industry is consolidated by a few major players, food security has become an issue as well.
The recently released Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production systems points out that many of the practices and business structures characteristic of today’s highly industrialized farms are not necessarily smart, sustainable and acceptable to society. The report helps raise the awareness that the negative effects of these systems, backed by strong scientific evidence, are too great to ignore. More Americans are realizing that intense concentration of livestock poses too many environmental and health risks.
Supporters of highly industrialized farm systems contend that inefficiency and environmental regulations forced the dwindling number of farmers. I disagree. There are sustainable livestock production models that can prove that overall cost of production is similar to the larger models. I have found very few producers, if any, that have made the exit due to regulations. It was corporate market muscle that forced this new, controlled production and marketing system. Meantime, because of the captive nature of consolidation and vertical integration, a food item from your supermarket often travels more than 2,000 miles around the country (or the world) before it gets to you. How sustainable or secure is that?
To avoid the tragic consequences of vertical integration --cornering the markets -- we must monitor the consolidation of other segments of the food industry such as retail, distribution and brokerage. Policy should help enable the establishment of regional and local processing in a multitude of rural areas. America can help facilitate institutional purchases of sustainable, local, and regionally produced meat.
It's in the best interest of farmers, consumers, our communities, and the environment. Consumers today are wanting to know more about who, where and how their food is produced. Most parents would prefer that their school age children consume a more natural, local selection rather than Class E beef.
This doesn’t mean we should abandon all of the technology we’ve adopted over the past decades. Just use the technology to build sustainable systems. I’m proud the University of Missouri was one of the nation’s first educational institutions to develop and implement a curriculum for sustainable agriculture.
With a common sense approach, rural communities and society in general will benefit. In 2004, a study by the Missouri Department of Economic Development showed that sole farm proprietorships was the most positive indicator of child well being ratings in a county while the most deteriorating rates occurred in counties that had a large presence of industrialized livestock and poultry systems.
Rural America is at a crossroads. Family farms continue to disappear, as big corporations move next door, and property values plummet. One-source food supply is much more vulnerable to threats. Americans should be aware of the costs of vertical integration.

Editor's Note: Russ Kremer is a diversified family farmer form Osage County, Missouri. He is president of the Missouri Farmers Union which advocates and promotes family farm agriculture and rural opportunities. Kremer also assists the operations of Heritage Acres Foods, a farmer owned and controlled network that markets family farmed, sustainable, natural and organic protein products. He and his organizations’ efforts have been featured in the New York Times, Newsweek and ABC’s Nightline.

Barnes, Hepler Introduce Selves to Local Democrats

6th District Congressional Candidate Kay Barnes and State Representative Candidate Mike Hepler introduced themselves to local Democrats Thursday at a breakfast in Grant City. Barnes carried her message against what she called incumbent Congressman Sam Graves’ support for big oil interests and promised more accessibility to her office than Sam Graves; Hepler promised to address the problem of roads in the area as well as continue the work of Jim Whorton. Hepler is seeking Whorton’s seat; Whorton cannot seek reelection because of state-mandated term limits. Local candidate Rob Ruckman spoke briefly; he is seeking election as East District Commissioner.
Speaking with Worth County Democrats at a breakfast in Grant City, 6th District Congressional candidate Kay Barnes pointed to the clearest example yet of how badly Washington is broken. She criticized Congressman Sam Graves' February vote to protect the tax breaks for the big oil companies less than two weeks after he accepted a $2,000 campaign contribution from ExxonMobil.
Barnes said to those gathered, "Exxon got what they paid for. Congressman Sam Graves delivered for them and not for you. So just remember the next time you fill up your tank - thanks to Congressman Sam Graves you are paying Exxon twice: once at the pump and again with your own tax dollars. Now, many of you are also going to have to use your rebate check to pay for the skyrocketing gas prices. He is making Washington work for the Exxon executives in Texas, and not for the consumers in Northwest Missouri and around the country. That is the formula for the status quo and I'm as sick of it as you are. It is not going to change until we change who we send to Congress."
On February 13, 2008, Exxon Mobil gave Congressman Sam Graves a $2,000 contribution, and 14 days later Graves voted against H.R. 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Act, a bill which would redirect tax breaks away from the big oil companies and toward renewing the production tax credit for wind farms and creating new tax incentives for solar power and ethanol. Graves is one of Exxon's top recipients of campaign cash. Only 14 other members of the House of Representatives have received more campaign contributions from Exxon than Graves since 2006.
Barnes also criticized the national news media for blaming increasing food prices on farmers. "If the editorial writers from newspapers like the New York Times would come down from their ivory towers long enough to talk to real family farmers, they would know that they are working hard to make a living. Now, in addition to coping with high fuel prices, our farmers unfairly have to take the brunt of criticism for what the big oil companies have done to food prices," Barnes said.
Barnes said, "When elected I will fight hard to pass legislation to take the tax breaks away from companies like Exxon and redirect those dollars to our wind farms and ethanol plants right here in Northwest Missouri. Congressman Graves makes Washington work for the corporate special interests and turns his back on consumers everywhere struggling to pay these outrageously high gas prices."
Barnes also promised to hire a senior staff person who specialized in rural economic development who would act as a go-between between her office and constituents. "By working together, we will come up with a plan to develop our rural economy," she said.
Barnes also said that she would create an advisory group from each of the counties that would advise her on local issues. She said that she would push for the Missouri Downtown and Rural Economic Stimulus Act, which she said would allow state and local authorities to participate in certain federal programs. She said that one of the keys would be to help entities navigate through the act and that there needed to be more resources for them to do so. "I don’t want to promise pie in the sky solutions, but there are answers out there," she said.
Barnes said that she liked her chances against Graves; she said that she nearly had as much campaign contributions as Graves did and had ten times as many individual donors as he did. She said that the only reason he had more was because of $700,000 raised by President Bush and Vice President Cheney as the race has drawn national interest.
Hepler said that he had worked at the local level for more than 30 years and that experience qualified him to be state representative. As a county clerk, he was instrumental in getting a 2006 law requiring photo ID thrown out. "It sounds good until you forget your drivers license five minutes before the polls close and you’re disenfranchised," he said.
He said that he had a proven track record of getting things done as a county clerk; he said that his county’s bridge program went from being one of the worst to being one of the better programs in the state. "And now, I want to do that for the 3rd district," he said.
Addressing the problem of roads, Hepler said that there were two reasons for the deteriorating roads in the area; he said that the MODOT had no plan to address the lettered roads in the area and that part of the problem was the rise of Premium Standard and other CAFO outlets; he said they typically use big trucks that lettered roads were not meant to handle. "The state says they are proud of the economic impact that they bring," he said. "If they are so proud of their economic impact, then why don’t they invest more money in our local roads?" he asked.
Hepler said that he wanted to work for more teacher pay, saying that some people who don’t get a college degree make more than teachers. He said that vouchers were a bad idea because the state should take care of the public schools first and give teachers better pay.

Opinion: Open Letter to State Rep. Mike Thomson

by Mickey Floyd
I’ve been around for a few more years than I like to admit to and have been blessed with somewhat of a sheltered life, but I’ve opened enough closed doors and walked in enough dark corrals to have had more of my share of surprises, so I think there’s not much left to shock me. Tuesday night, a week ago, was one of these exceptions; I had just finished my daily dose of "Cops" on TV, and was waiting for my very old computer to warm up as the phone rang. I never answer this device because it’s never for me. The last three calls for me were some idiots trying to sell me credit card protection. If they were not idiots, they would have known that all my cards have been canceled. It would seem that the biggest threat to my credit cards is me, but that’s a whole different story. As the computer was finally bringing up a screen saver, I heard Retha answer the phone and could tell by her side of the conversation that this was anything but a normal call. "Hello...Yes...Who?...Yes, he’s here...Who is this again ...OK ...Mickey, pick it up. State Representative Mike Thomson wants to talk to you." Yea, you’re right. I was surprised. Still thinking this was some type of a gag, I challenged the called and was assured that he was in fact who he claimed.
Seems that while in Jefferson City the day before, I was one of many to leave him a letter of response requesting him to rethink some of the issues on "truth in advertising" on the content of what is or is not in milk. "Local control" where all the problems will be handled in Jefferson City and not at a town or even county level. And CAFO, where the taxpayer picks up the tab (usually in the millions) to try to clean up the mess left after the rape and pillage of our farm lands. Right about here, I am thinking we must have gotten his attention. The next ten minutes was a debate, with him assuring me that I had not read the small print in the bill, and I was confused as to the intent, and at the same time I am assuring him that nothing about forcing farm families to move off their land because it was contaminated confused me except why anyone would knowingly allow this to happen. I did, however, thank him for calling (I’m sure he called most of the people who left letters). And even if I did not change his mind and he did not change mine, we did get to state our views to each other.

(Continued from Page 6)
God Bless America. How many people dies so we could have this type of conversation? There are far too many places in the world today where I would have been put to the sword for disagreeing with the government.
I stared at the wall for a while after we said our "Good Byes" and ignored my computer now ready to do its chores. Had this really happened? Had someone from the government called? This had happened only once before and that time, it had something to do with back taxes. I had been told that hindsight is always 20/20, and that was never more true. I had had a one on one with an elected official and I blew it. There were so many things more I could have questioned him about. Then, just as I was about to take out my frustrations on the computer now humming annoyingly in my ear, it occurred to me, maybe it’s not too late. I know Mr. Thomson cares. If not about how I feel on the issues, at least about my vote, and I can usually negotiate with someone who cares. But how do I contact him? If I call him or e-mail him, I’m sure it will be intercepted by a secretary and he will never see my request. WAIT A MINUTE. He has a news letter in this paper about once a week and just maybe, he reads it as well. So, I shall attempt to contact Mr. Thomson with his choice of media. Here goes....
An open letter to Mike Thomson:
Dear sir:
I am one of the people you called last week in regards to our visit to your office in the Capitol and since our time to communicate was so limited, I am inviting you to come to Northwest Missouri and spend some time with my neighbors and me. You do not even need to prepare a speech. We have heard about all the prepared text we need for a while, but instead, sit down with us, have some coffee, and get to see the faces of some of the good people who live here. People who were raised here and hope to see their children and grandchildren get to grow up in the same type of clean environment. Leave your tie at home, but bring your handshake. My friends are impressed more by an honest handshake than a two hundred dollar tie. You told me on the phone you’re from this area, so it should be like a homecoming, and I assure you my friends will make you feel welcome. Yes, we still wave when we pass on the road whether we know each other or not. That’s just the way it’s done here. Let my neighbors look in your face and ask you their questions of importance. Some will hope you have an insight into the economy, and how can we continue to pay more and more for fuel, utilities, and food. Last winter, the people in this area were without power for as much as eight days, only to find the statement for that month more than if it had not been off at all. Why? While the power was off, we had the added cost of alternate fuels or going to hotels. Is there not some type of state or federal disaster fund to assist us in times like this? And seniors may ask you why, after paying on a house or farm all their lives, must they now lose it due to taxes? Everyone wants to know about potholes. We keep paying more and more in taxes and the potholes get deeper. Why? Does anyone in Jefferson City care?
Mr. Thomson, please come home. Meet with your neighbors, old and new. Refresh your memory of what a great place Northwest Missouri really is. Surprise me again. You have my phone number.
(Editor’s note -- Mike Thomson came to Sheridan Sunday for the Beef and Noodle dinner and visited with area residents.)

Letter to the editor: CAFO's near state parks

Letters are the opinion of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the editor.

Dear Editor Stark:
As you know, large factory farms have sought to set up concentrated animal feeding operations near Roaring River State Park, Arrow Rock and Battle of Athens State Historic Site.
Missouri is big enough — 68,674 square miles — that factory meat farms don’t need to set up near state parks and trout streams. Once a factory farm moves too close to a state park, word can travel fast that a vacation area stinks.
Missourians know, love and utilize Missouri state parks. Tourism in Missouri is a $13 billion industry. And our state has one of the top five parks systems in the nation. But it’s doubtful Missouri parks can weather the perception by potential visitors that we’ve switched from the Show-Me State to the Smell-Me State.
Good neighbors can find sensible ways to keep our parks and factory farms separate.

John Robinson

Former director,

Missouri Division of Tourism

Columbia