Why Tennessee Needs a Constitutional Right to Grow and Choose Our Food

At a time when grocery prices are unpredictable, supply chains are fragile, and families are looking for practical ways to provide for themselves, Tennessee has an opportunity to secure something both timeless and urgently relevant: the right of its people to grow and obtain their own food.

The proposed Right to Food constitutional amendment HJR 780 is not radical. It is, in fact, deeply traditional. For most of human history—and for much of Tennessee’s history—families grew gardens, raised animals, shared harvests with neighbors, and bought directly from local producers. These practices were not political statements. They were common sense. The amendment simply protects that way of life so it cannot be restricted by shifting regulations or arbitrary local rules.

Protecting Food Rights Where They Matter Most: At Home

At its core, this amendment ensures Tennesseans can grow food on their own property, even if zoning rules change. It does not eliminate zoning laws or nuisance protections for genuine harms. It simply prevents governments from using technical classifications to block ordinary food production that has long been considered part of normal household life. 

Likewise, it protects the right to acquire food from sources of one’s choosing—whether that’s a neighbor with backyard eggs, a local gardener with surplus vegetables, or a small producer selling directly to families. This supports local economies, strengthens communities, and preserves farm-to-consumer relationships that once defined American food culture.

Importantly, it does not override private contracts or homeowners’ association agreements. Private property rights remain intact. The amendment simply prevents government overreach—not voluntary agreements between individuals.

Why Constitutional Protection Matters

Some ask why this belongs in the Constitution instead of statute. The answer is durability. Laws can change quickly. Regulations can shift with administrations. Courts can reinterpret rules. A constitutional amendment provides clarity and stability, ensuring that basic food rights cannot be easily narrowed or redefined over time.

A constitutional amendment does not create new authority for government — it sets boundaries on government. It establishes that basic food production for personal use is a protected right, so it cannot later be turned into something that requires permits, fees, or taxation without the consent of the people.

History shows that governments sometimes expand regulatory authority during times of crisis or economic stress. When that happens, everyday activities—like growing food for personal use—can be swept into broader regulatory frameworks. Constitutional protection creates a legal backstop that preserves individual liberty while still allowing reasonable public-health and safety regulation.

Legal experience from other states shows how easily basic food production can be curtailed absent constitutional protection. These below examples also address a question I often hear: if growing food has always been allowed in Tennessee, why do we need an amendment at all?

It is true that Tennesseans have long grown gardens and raised food at home. But just because something is not a problem today does not mean it could not become one tomorrow. Across the country, long-standing practices have suddenly been restricted after zoning changes, court interpretations, or regulatory reclassifications.

In Florida, for example, a local zoning ordinance in Miami Shores banned front-yard vegetable gardens, forcing homeowners to uproot a 17-year-old food garden or face daily fines. Courts upheld the ordinance before the Florida Legislature ultimately stepped in to protect residential vegetable gardens statewide.

This illustrates how local rules can restrict ordinary gardening activities and why higher-level protections are needed.

In Vermont, the state Supreme Court ruled that municipalities may regulate farming through zoning authority, potentially allowing local governments to restrict where and how food can be produced. This decision has raised concerns that local governments could require permits or otherwise restrict farming activities simply through zoning authority, potentially adding regulatory burdens for agricultural producers

Though not a state example, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) confirmed that even wheat grown for personal use on a farmer’s own land could be regulated under federal commerce authority. This case is often cited to show how regulatory authority can sweep broadly — even into activities people might think are purely local or personal.

And as judicial and policy debates around climate change continue, a Minnesota Supreme Court judge acknowledged that government could, in theory, ban or restrict certain food production activities if they conflict with broader regulatory policies — illustrating the very real potential for overreach that could affect what foods people can produce or consume. These examples underscore why simple statutes are not enough; without constitutional clarity, ordinary residents, small farmers, and local producers are left vulnerable to shifting local regulation and broad policy interpretations.

These are not hypothetical scenarios. They demonstrate how easily the definition of “personal use,” “commercial activity,” or “permitted land use” can shift over time. A constitutional amendment does not create new government power—it draws a clear boundary around it. It ensures that ordinary Tennesseans are not forced into regulated commerce or subject to arbitrary permitting, fees, or restrictions simply for growing food for their families.

Strengthening Food Security and Resilience

Tennessee, like many states, depends heavily on food transported long distances. That system works—until it doesn’t. Supply-chain disruptions, natural disasters, fuel shortages, or inflation can quickly affect availability and cost. Encouraging local food production increases resilience. When households and communities can produce even part of their own food supply, they become less vulnerable to outside disruptions. Home gardens, backyard flocks, and small local producers are not fringe activities—they are practical tools for stability.

Access to fresh, locally produced food is strongly associated with healthier diets. When families can grow or obtain fresh foods easily, they are more likely to consume fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed foods. Over time, that can reduce chronic disease risk and lower medical costs—benefits that ripple outward to communities and public systems alike. Parents, in particular, benefit from greater freedom to choose foods they believe are best for their children. The amendment reinforces that parental authority without interfering with legitimate health and safety standards.

Addressing Food Safety Concerns

Some may worry that protecting the right to grow or obtain food directly from local sources could create food safety risks. But real-world experience suggests otherwise. States that have adopted food-freedom protections—whether through statute or constitutional provisions—have operated for years without documented outbreaks linked to producers operating under those laws. In practice, local and direct food systems often increase transparency and accountability because consumers know exactly who produced their food. If a producer provides unsafe products, word travels quickly and buyers simply stop purchasing. In that sense, the most immediate and effective enforcement mechanism is not bureaucracy—it is consumer choice. Protecting food freedom does not weaken safety; it strengthens responsibility by aligning trust, reputation, and accountability at the local level.

Policies in Tennessee already support local food production and direct farm-to-consumer exchange already. We have shown that expanding food freedom can coexist with public safety and responsible regulation. There is no evidence that protecting personal food production rights leads to widespread safety problems. What it does lead to is stronger local economies, more resilient communities, and greater household independence.

A Right Rooted in History, Secured for the Future

This issue does not belong to one political party. Everyone eats. Everyone cares about affordability. Everyone benefits from stable food access. Protecting the right to grow and choose food is a practical step that supports rural farmers, suburban families, urban gardeners, seniors on fixed incomes, and young parents trying to stretch a grocery budget.

The amendment does not dismantle safeguards. It does not weaken legitimate regulation. It simply draws a clear line: basic food production for personal use should not be treated as a privilege granted by government. It is a natural extension of property rights, personal responsibility, and human dignity.

This proposal recognizes that while modern systems are important, they should not replace the simple ability of people to provide for themselves and their families. Enshrining this principle in Tennessee’s Constitution ensures that future generations will retain a right older than any statute—the right to nourish themselves from their own land and community.

House Joint Resolution 780 is not a partisan idea. It is a Tennessee idea — and Tennesseans deserve the opportunity to vote on whether it belongs in our Constitution.

Michele Reneau

TN State Representative

District 27