In this Friday, July 27, 2012, file photo, workers harvest wild blueberries at the Ridgeberry Farm in Appleton, Maine. Maine's wild blueberry growers had a bounce back year this summer after struggling with low prices and small crops sizes in recent seasons. Credit: Robert F. Bukaty / AP

Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to letters@bangordailynews.com.

In this digital age, many of us fail to read the fine print. It is a trend that could cost us and our planet dearly, especially when it comes to Question 3.

Proponents of Question 3 say that it will protect citizens and small farmers against overreach by big agriculture, but the actual language of the proposed constitutional amendment does not support that claim.

In fact, due to the ambiguous wording of the “Right to Food” amendment, that lacks reference to existing state laws and local ordinances, Question 3 could clear a legal pathway for industrial agriculture giants, such as Monsanto, to violate existing Maine regulations that manage pesticide use, animal welfare, protect clean water and air and may even threaten carefully crafted food sovereignty ordinances enacted in approximately 90 communities throughout Maine.

Although I support the intent of Question 3, as written, I believe this proposal works against Maine’s proud heritage of local control, which in turn, threatens the ability of town governments and citizens to protect the environment and the health of their communities.

I have read the fine print of this constitutional amendment. What the proponents of Question 3 intend versus what the language of the proposed amendment accomplishes are not aligned. As a result, I am voting “no” on Question 3 this November.

Susanna Richer

Portland