The amendment was generally agreed by scholars and the media to be poorly written with much room for interpretation by legislators and judges, which would likely cause numerous expensive and time-consuming lawsuits to the detriment of the people and farmers of Oklahoma if passed.

It would inhibit many cities and counties from effectively enacting ordinances to prevent water pollution in the agriculture sector by the fact that it would be too expensive for local governments from a litigation standpoint.

Another argument is that the bill would harm the environment, specifically through polluting Oklahoma's drinking water without the ability to protect it from agricultural chemical runoff and animal waste disposal.

Jones pointed out "the price of eggs rose dramatically throughout the country that year, largely because of the unprecedented devastation to poultry flocks caused by a severe outbreak of avian flu".

[5] Notable opponents included the former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who cited many of these same reasons previously indicated as his rationale for opposing SQ 777 Right to Farm Bill.

Additionally, State Question 780 passed, which reclassified certain drug possession crimes involving small amounts of material from felonies to misdemeanors.

The results - generally perceived as a "liberal" victory in a conservative state - showed that "there is still a strand of Heartland populism that is skeptical of Big Agra" by David Blatt of the Oklahoma Policy Institute.