Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Egg Production Standards

On July 26, 2012, the Senate Agriculture Committee conducted hearings into proposed legislation mandating that most egg producers comply with national hen housing standards.  Under Senate Bill 3239, over the next 15 to 18 years, egg producers with 3,000 or more hens would be required to eliminate conventional cages and replace them with systems that provide each bird with increased space.  During testimony, proponents of the Bill claimed the need for a consistent, national standard, while opponents of the Bill asserted that the costs of compliance would put many smaller operations out of business.  To view a video recording of the hearing, please click on the link below:

Senate Hearings on s. 3239-the-egg-products-inspection-act-amendments-of-2012

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant

Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

House Passes Bill Aimed at Preserving Agricultural Child Labor Exemption

On July 24, 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “Preserving America’s Family Farms Act.” Currently, the farming industry receives a number or agricultural child labor exemptions. However, on September 2, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a rule which would have narrowed the agriculutural child labor exemptions.   DOL’s action was met with opposition, and on May 29, 2012, the new rule request was withdrawn.  In an effort to prevent DOL from proposing similar changes to the agricultural child labor exemption in the future, Congress passed H.R. 4157 which specifically prevents the Secretary of Labor from putting forward any new rule that is “substantially the same as” the regulations proposed on September 2, 2011.  With passage of H.R. 4157, on July 25, 2012, the Act was referred to the Senate. 

To read the entire “Preserving America’s Family Farms Act,” please click the link below:

112 H.R. 4157

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

New FDA Egg Rule Becomes Effective

On July 9, 2012, a new federal rule regulating medium-sized egg producers went into effect.  The rule was formulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an effort to reduce the risk of Salmonella Enteritidis in shell eggs.  As a result, egg operations with between 3,000 and 50,000 laying hens must now comply with FDA monitoring, cleaning, testing, and recordkeeping guidelines.  Large-sized egg producers with more than 50,000 laying hens have been required to comply with the FDA rule since 2010.

For more information regarding the new FDA egg rule, please click the link below:

FDA Food News

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant

Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

Commonwealth Court Grants Attorney General Partial Summary Judgment in ACRE Challenge

On July 17, 2012, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania granted the State’s Attorney General partial summary judgment on two ACRE challenges to a Locust Township ordinance.  The Court found:  (1) that small farmers, currently exempt under state law, were improperly required to submit and implement emergency and response nutrient management plans, and (2) local water requirements were in excess of state law.  The Court denied summary judgment as to the Attorney General’s remaining claims and counts. 

To read the Courts opinion in its entirety, pleas click the link below:

Commonwealth v. Locust Township

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

Commonwealth Court Denies Packer Township Summary Judgment in ACRE Challenge

On July 12, 2012, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rejected a motion for summary judgment brought by Packer Township in response to an ACRE challenge filed by the state Attorney General.  The Attorney General claimed that a Packer Township sludge ordinance was in violation of ACRE because it interfered with normal agricultural operations, and was unauthorized and preempted by state law.  Packer Township responded to the Attorney General with a motion for summary judgment asserting: (1) ACRE was unconstitutional and violated the rights of local residents to self-government; and (2) the Attorney general was prevented from bringing an action because the challenge to the local ordinance did not involve an affected complainant.  In the alternative, the Township’s motion requested partial summary judgment to have the ordinance’s ban on corporate sludging and community bill of rights removed from the Attorney General’s challenge.  Ultimately, the Court denied the Township’s motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. 

To read the full Commonwealth Court opinion, please click the link below:

Commonwealth v. Packer Township

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant

Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

U.S. Supreme Court Health Care Ruling Does Not Affect Menu Labeling Requirements

On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on some aspects of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), most notably the individual mandate and Medicaid provisions, but did not address menu labeling requirements that were established by the Act.  National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 U.S. 2566.  Under ACA, certain restaurants are required to post calories of each menu item on menus or menu boards and provide written nutritional information upon customer request, while applicable vending machine operators must prominently display each item’s caloric content.  These requirements apply to restaurants with twenty or more outlets and vending machine operators with twenty or more machines.  ACA charged the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with formulating the labeling regulations, which become effective when FDA completes the rulemaking process.  To date, FDA has released a proposed rule, but has not yet issued a final rule.  For more information on menu labeling, visit the FDA New Menu and Vending Machine Labeling Requirements website.

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

Pennsylvania Exempts Family Farms from State Inheritance Tax

On July 2, 2012, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law legislation exempting children and siblings of working farm owners from state inheritance tax.  As a result, effective retroactively to June 30, 2012, when inheriting a working farm, children will no longer pay a 4.5% inheritance tax and siblings will no longer pay a 12% inheritance tax.  However, for the children or siblings to receive the tax break, the inherited property must remain a working farm for at least seven years after the transferor’s date of death.   

To read the legislation in its entirety, please click the link below:

Section 23 of House Bill 761

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

World Trade Organization Appellate Body Rules on Country of Origin Labeling

On June 29, 2012, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body held that the United States’ Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program negatively affects other countries’ rights to trade freely.  WT/DS384/AB/R; WT/DS386/AB/R.  Under COOL, retailers must inform consumers of the country of origin of certain food products, including most beef and pork products.  7 U.S.C. §§ 1638-1638d.  In 2008, Canada and Mexico filed disputes with the WTO, alleging that COOL was inconsistent with the United States’ international trade obligations because it disadvantaged livestock producers who export cattle and hogs to the United States.  Previously, a WTO panel found that COOL resulted in unfavorable treatment to exporting producers and that providing consumers with country of origin information was not a legitimate justification for COOL.  In ruling on the United States’ appeal, the WTO Appellate Body upheld the panel’s decision that COOL had a discriminatory impact on imported beef and pork, but held that COOL can be a legitimate tool to inform consumers about the origin of products as long as it does not affect other countries’ rights to trade freely.

Written by Joseph Negaard, Research Assistant

Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

July 11, 2012

Click Here for the WTO Appellate Body Decision

Commonwealth Court Rejects ACRE and Right to Farm Challenge to Township Ordinance

On June 27, 2012, in an unreported opinion, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court rejected post-trial motions and upheld a ruling that a Montgomery County municipality’s ordinance did not violate the Agriculture, Communities and Rural Environment Act (ACRE) and the Right to Farm Law (RFL). Boswell v. Skippack Twp., No. 389 M.D. 2006. ACRE provides farmers with a process to challenge local ordinances that are believed to be unauthorized due to existing state law, while RFL protects normal agricultural operations from nuisance lawsuits and ordinances. At trial, tree farmers James and Paula Boswell unsuccessfully challenged a Skippack Township ordinance precluding their use of a loud, high-pitched sound device designed to protect crops from deer damage. The Boswells claimed the decision was incorrect because evidence presented at trial proved their use of the sound device was a normal agricultural practice protected under ACRE and RFL.  The Commonwealth Court found no identifiable error in the original determination that use of the sound device was not a normal agricultural practice.  For more information on these agricultural statutes, please visit the Agricultural Law Center's ACRE Resource Area and Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act Resource Area.

Written by M. Sean High, Research Assistant

Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center