In reality, however, it is likely to trigger a blizzard of court cases against animal noises and smells, especially in built-up areas.

“It did open up a sea of possibilities for individuals to challenge democratically adopted municipal ordinances for resource and neighbourhood protection,” said Rebecca Graham, a legislative advocate at the Maine Municipal Association.

“Ironically, taxpayers may be funding filet mignon for trial lawyers, or at a minimum, diverting funds better spent on hunger programs to answer the legal challenges.”

Mr Faulkingham, a Republican member of the Maine legislature, secured Democrat backing for the measure when he drew up the right to food constitutional amendment.

“It is a basic human right to have food and to feed yourself and you should not be impeded from that,” he told the Telegraph.

“This was necessary because of corporate control of our food system. Ninety-two per cent of the food in Maine is imported, that is not sustainable.

“When the supply chains stop, where are people going to get their food? They are going to turn to their neighbours.”

Marge Kilkelly, a farmer and former Maine legislator, voiced doubts about the practicality of the amendment.

“If I have a constitutional and inalienable right to produce my own food, does that mean I can have a pig in my backyard in Portland?

“Or, if I am renting an apartment which bans pets, can I have two goats because they provide milk for my family?”