I just learned , initially with some joy, that earlier this month the State of Maine amended its Constitution to incorporate the Right to Food on it, becoming the first US State doing so.
There are a number of countries, including India, some Southern African countries and most of LAC that have incorporated the right food in their legislation. A small group have even amended their Constitutions for that very purpose (e.g. Kenya, Nepal) but I believe this is the first time a place in the Global North is doing so.
The right to food, as it is understood internationally refers mainly to the right to have access and availability of nutritious and affordable food, and usually entitles a mandate to the Government to ensure so. For instance, this is how the Constitution of Mexico describes the Right to Food:‘Every person has the right to adequate food to maintain his or her wellbeing and physical, emotional and intellectual development. The State must guarantee this right’.
In the case of the Maine amendment, it is actually a very different way to see it: the emphasis is not on the right to access the food…but the more on right by the people to produce food: '(…) all individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being’.
In other words, Maine has transformed what normally is considered a social right, into a ‘freedom right’. You are free to produce whatever you want wherever you want and the way you want.
I wonder what the practical implications of this will be…would the people in towns and cities in Maine now be able to feed cattle in their suburban backyards, of grow pigglests in their parking lots? Is this a free-ride too grow, for instance, alucinogenous mushrooms for self-consumption ? and, more importantly: are other US States going to follow the trend?....
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario