Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Food Sovereignty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Amanda Collimore urges Pittsfield to adopt Food Sovereignty ordinance to protect farm stands and bake sales
Summary
Resident Amanda Collimore presented a draft Food Sovereignty ordinance based on Maine’s 2017 Food Sovereignty Act and the 2023 constitutional right to food, saying local adoption would protect producer-to-consumer sales, limit municipal liability and let informal farm stands and bake sales operate without state enforcement action.
Amanda Collimore presented a proposed Food Sovereignty ordinance to the Pittsfield Town Council on July 14, saying the measure would preserve local producer-to-consumer sales and protect small farms, homesteaders and community events from state enforcement that has closed some informal farm stands nearby.
Collimore, who identified herself as a Pittsfield resident (she said she was not speaking in her capacity as a state representative), told the council the ordinance is modeled on laws adopted by many Maine towns and on the state Food Sovereignty Act (2017) and the 2023 Maine constitutional amendment recognizing a right to food. “This will preserve our local control over direct producer-to-consumer transactions,” she said, adding that it would allow farm stands, bake sales, church dinners and similar events to operate promptly at harvest time.
The proposal, Collimore said, contains sections defining producers and processors, states municipal legislative intent, clarifies that federal meat and poultry inspection requirements remain in force, and includes a civil-enforcement provision meant to prevent Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF) field enforcement from shutting down informal sales when a town has adopted food sovereignty. She described reciprocity language allowing producers from other food-sovereign towns to sell in Pittsfield farmers markets.
In questions from councilors, Collimore said the ordinance would not negate property-owner rights or override land-use rules: if a home-scale activity becomes a commercial business or conflicts with local land-use regulations, it would not be protected by the ordinance. She also told the council the proposed municipal liability waiver was intended to protect the town, not to shield sellers from fraud or negligence. “If you are selling something that has peanuts and you said it didn’t, that’s still against the law,” Collimore said.
Collimore cited recent local incidents—including enforcement actions that she said affected stands in Clinton and other towns—as a driver of the draft. She said about 32 towns in Maine had adopted similar language and noted two pending court cases touching aspects of the right-to-food question, which she and others expect may not succeed but are worth monitoring.
The council thanked Collimore for her research and thorough presentation. Chair and councilors indicated the ordinance would be reviewed by the town attorney and the ordinance committee; a councilor suggested aiming for proposed revisions in time for the council’s next packet and a possible committee review by the August 4 meeting. Collimore said she would pursue either council consideration or the petition process if necessary.
The council did not vote on the ordinance at the July 14 meeting; the next step is attorney review and possible ordinance-committee edits before scheduling hearings and readings.
