Milk Hauling Bill Approved by PA Senate

On June 26, 2013, the PA Senate approved a bill that will allow dairy haulers to obtain a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) to increase the weight of their shipments of milk to 95,000 lbs. The bill will amend the PA Vehicle Code (Title 75) to authorize overload permits for trucks hauling bulk fluid, condensed, and evaporated milk. Currently in Pennsylvania, dairy haulers can only ship 80,000 lbs. of milk at a time. Senator Gene Yaw introduced the bill, SB 1010, because he believes that Pennsylvania dairies are at a disadvantage compared to New York where shipping 95,000 lbs. at a time is legal. Senator Yaw stated that this bill will make PA dairies more competitive in the milk market.

The next step will be for the PA House’s Agriculture and Rural Affairs committee to consider the bill.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 28, 2013

EU Reaches an Agreement on Farm Subsidies

On June 26, 2013, European Union member states reached an agreement with the European Parliament on the next Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The new CAP contains several key provisions. First, the new policy aims to “green” Europe’s farms and make farms more sustainable by requiring farmers adhere to certain environmental practices to be eligible to receive a basic payment. A farmer will be required to respect certain types of environmental criteria and producers will have to maintain permanent grassland, promote biodiversity, and protect “ecological focus areas.” Second, CAP member states will be allowed to allocate a portion of their direct payment budget to coupled subsidies. Third, the new policy will not provide subsidies to airports, railway services, water works, real estate services, and permanent sports and recreational grounds. Lastly, production quotas for sugar will be phased out by 2017. The new policy must be and approved by Council and once finalized will be implemented in 2014.

For more information on the agreement please see the European Parliament’s Press Release.

Written By Clara E. Conklin - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 27, 2013

Proposed PA Bills Concerning High Tunnel Buildings Under Consideration by PA Senate

Several bills were reported in the House on June 11, 2013 and passed by the House on June 19, 2013. Also on June 19, the bills were sent to the Senate for consideration. These bills deal with tax exemptions under the real estate tax for buildings known as “high tunnels,” and the construction code for agricultural buildings.

·         HB 1438 renames agricultural structures that are exempt from taxation regardless of whether the structure is permanent or temporary as “high tunnels” and provides a definition of a high tunnel. This bill amends the General County Assessment Law which applies to Philadelphia and Allegheny counties.

·         HB 1439 amends Title 53 (Municipalities Generally) to include high tunnels as tax exempt and also a definition of high tunnels. This bill applies to 2A through 8^th class counties.

·         HB 1440 amends the construction code’s definition of “agricultural building” to include structures utilized to grow agricultural or horticultural products.

The bills have been subject to consideration once by the Senate. The next step is for further consideration, and the Senate may amend the bills. If amended, the bills will return to the House for reconsideration. If they are not, they will be approved and sent to the Governor for signing.

For more information, please see the PA General Assembly’s website.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 26, 2013

Governor Signs Bill to Regulate Captive Swine for Hunting

On June 24, 2013, Governor Tom Corbett signed SB 644 into law as Act No. 25. This Act amends the definition of “wild animal” in Title 34 of the PA Consolidated Statutes to exclude any “species or variation of swine, pig or boar” that is kept in captivity. Act 25 also adds a subchapter, entitled Swine Hunting Preserves, to Title 3 of the PA Consolidated Statutes. The subchapter requires all male swine kept for hunting be neutered. In addition, the subchapter gives the authority to regulate captive swine kept for hunting, previously belonging to the Game Commission, to the Department of Agriculture.

For more information on Act 25, please see Pennsylvania’s General Assembly’s website.

Written By Clara E. Conklin – Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
June 25, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to EPA’s E15

On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari from a group of refiners, auto manufacturers, and grocery wholesalers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) E15. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia previously found that the group had no standing to challenge the E15.

The E15 is a combination of two waivers passed by the EPA allowing for the addition of up to 15% ethanol to gasoline for use in light-duty motor vehicles manufactured from 2001 to 2007. Several oil industry groups, like the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), opposed the waivers, claiming that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to grant the E15 waivers, and that the use of 15% ethanol in motor vehicles can cause engine damage.  AFPM President Charles Drevna stated the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal will negatively impact consumers.

In contrast, biofuel companies are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Growth Energy, a biofuels advocacy group that supports the E15, hailed the decision not to hear the challenge.  Growth Energy’s CEO Tom Buis stated that he hoped that oil companies would work with biofuel producers to create new blends that will reduce cost for consumers, create jobs, and be mindful of the environment.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 25, 2013

PA Governor Signs Bill Requiring Biennial Inspection of Agricultural Conservation Easements

The Governor of Pennsylvania signed House Bill 84 into law as Act No. 19 on June 24, 2013.  This bill amends the Agricultural Area Security Law.  These amendments require county governing bodies to inspect all agricultural conservation easements to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement.  The amendments contained within this bill will take effect immediately.

Act No. 19 requires county agricultural land preservation boards conduct biennial inspections of all agricultural conservation easements for compliance with the deed of the easement.  The first inspection must occur within one year of the easement sale.  The bill further requires that land owners be notified of a pending inspection and the inspection time and date must be agreed upon beforehand by the county and landowner.  Following the inspection, reports of the findings must be provided, within 10 days of the inspection, to the landowner.  Violations found during the inspection must be reported to the land owner via certified mail.  Furthermore, the county board and the State Agricultural Land Preservation Board may inspect the land, without prior notice, if there is reasonable belief that a violation of the deed has taken place.

For the full text of the bill, please see the PA General Assembly’s website. 

 

For more information, please visit the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center Agriculture Area Security Law Resource Center.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 25, 2013

PA Senate Approves PA House Amendments to Bill Concerning Exhibition Animals

On June 24, 2013, the PA Senate concurred with the PA House amendments made to SB 526, which concerns sanitation standards for livestock being transported for exhibition. The bill requires that owners of animals at exhibitions must present a valid Pennsylvania health certificate for their animals or an interstate veterinary certificate of inspection proving a veterinary consultation relationship to the operator of the exhibition. A description of previous action on this bill can be found here.

The next step will be for the Governor to sign the bill into law.

For more information, please see the PA General Assembly’s website.

 

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 25, 2013

Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board Adjusts Over-Order Premium

On June 19, 2013, the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board issued two orders which become effective July 1, 2013 and end December 31, 2013. Order No. A-983 decreases the over-order premium from $1.85 to $1.60 per hundredweight. The Board decided to decrease the over-order premium because the mandated Class I premium was negatively affecting in-state processor’s in-state sales. Order No. A-982 will decrease the fuel adjuster add-on which was previously set at $0.83. The Board concluded the current add-on no longer reflected current market conditions and ordered the add-on be set at a minimum of $0.25 per hundredweight. The add-one will be adjusted based on a bracket system and for every $0.10 change in the on-highway price of fuel the add-on will be adjusted by $0.02 per hundredweight. The Board ordered the base of the bracket be set at $4.073.

For more information, please see the Milk Marketing Board’s Press Release.

Written By Clara E. Conklin – Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 24, 2013

 

“Death Tax Repeal Act of 2013” Introduced in House and Senate

On June 19, 2013, legislation known as the Death Tax Repeal Act of 2013 was introduced in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate that would permanently repeal the estate tax. The legislation would also maintain stepped-up basis, and make permanent a 35 percent gift tax rate and $5 million lifetime gift tax exemption indexed for inflation. The American Farm Bureau Federation supports the legislation, noting the crippling effects the estate tax can have on family agribusinesses and surrounding communities when the tax exceeds cash and liquid assets possessed by surviving family partners.

The full text of the bills (S 1183 and HR 2429) is not yet available on the Library of Congress website.

Written By Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
June 21, 2013

House Fails to Pass Farm Bill

On June 20, 2013 the United States House of Representatives voted down their version of the five-year farm bill (H.R. 1947). In the end the vote was 195-234, with 62 Republicans and 172 Democrats joining to defeat the bill. The bill was defeated in large part because many Democrats have opposed the more than $20 billion the House bill proposed to cut from the SNAP program. In addition, some Republicans have opposed the House bill saying more cuts to SNAP need to be made.  The Senate passed their version of the farm bill last week. The 1949 farm bill is set to go back into effect if Congress fails to pass a new farm bill before the 2008 farm bill expires on September 30, 2008.

For more information on the 2013 farm bill, please visit the Current Issues section of the Agricultural Law Center’s website.  

 

Written By Clara E. Conklin – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 20, 2013

Court Issues Proposed Order Setting Schedule of Deadlines for FDA Implementation of FSMA Rules

** Updated 8/15/2013: See Final Order

Enacted on January 4, 2011, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) imposed many obligations on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Attached to these obligations were deadlines for implementation of rules. Due to the failure of the FDA to implement rules according to these deadlines, on August 29, 2012, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a complaint in the Northern District of California alleging that the FDA was in violation of FSMA and the APA, and asked the court to compel the agency to implement rules. On April 22, 2013, the court ordered the FDA and the CFS to jointly submit a schedule of deadlines for the implementation of FSMA rules.

On June 10, 2013, both the FDA and the CFS submitted implementation schedules. These schedules were submitted separately, however, as neither party could agree to a compromised schedule of deadlines. The plaintiffs (CFS) did not agree that the schedule submitted by the FDA was an actual schedule of deadlines and therefore submitted its own schedule. CFS stated that the FDA’s submission contained “target dates” for implementation, rather than the “firm dates” demanded by the court order. The FDA’s submission contained target time frames for implementation. It also contained factors that could potentially affect the time frames, such as the potential need for additional information or the need for re-proposal of a rule.

The court issued a proposed order on June 10, 2013, that requires the FDA to comply with the CFS schedule of deadlines. The order also stated that the FDA is enjoined from seeking additional time for rulemaking related to review by the Office of Management and Budget.  In addition, the FDA must submit quarterly progress reports detailing the rulemaking process to the court with the first report due September 1, 2013.

This case is docketed at 12-cv-04529.

Written By Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
June 20, 2013

USDA Says Genetically Engineered Wheat Found in Oregon Was an Isolated Incident

In a statement issued on June 14, 2013, the USDA indicated the genetically engineered wheat found in Oregon last month has not spread. Following the discovery the USDA launched an investigation into the source of the wheat.  The USDA interviewed several individuals including the farmer who harvested the wheat and the producer of the wheat seed. In addition, the USDA obtained samples of the seed and other wheat grown by the farmer.  Using a test developed by Monsanto, the USDA confirmed the seed and the wheat did not contain GE material. The USDA indicated the investigation is continuing and 200 area growers are expected to be interviewed in the near future.

For a copy of the statement, please see visit the USDA’s website.

Written By Clara E. Conklin – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 19, 2013

Action on Several Bills by the PA General Assembly

There was action on several bills by the Pennsylvania General Assembly this week, including:

·         SB 1003 which will amend Title 3 (Agriculture) or the PA Consolidated Statutes, providing exemptions for those establishments which produce, process, package or sell honey, maple syrup or pasteurized cider from registration of food establishments.

o   This bill had been referred to the Agriculture and Rural Affairs committee on June 6, 2013 and was reported by the committee, without change, and underwent first consideration on June 17, 2013.

·         HB 84 which would further provide for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements and abrogating regulations, requiring county governing bodies to inspect all agricultural conservation easements to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement.

o   This bill was passed by both houses of the General Assembly (Senate – 1/22/13; House 6/17/13) and was signed by the House on 6/18/13.

·         HB 164 which will amend Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) of the PA Consolidated Statutes, criminalizing the possession of animal fighting paraphernalia and further defines what constitutes “animal fighting paraphernalia.”

o   This bill passed in the House on June 17, 2013 and will now move to the Senate.

 

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 18, 2013

House Appropriations Committee Approves 2014 Agriculture Appropriations Bill

On June 13, 2013, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee approved amendments to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill. The bill totals $19.5 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.3 billion less than last year’s appropriations, and about the same as the current level of spending due to sequestration. The amendments include prohibiting funding for the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) implementation of regulations that would impact livestock producers, as well as prohibiting funding for inspection of horse slaughter facilities in the U.S.

Next, the bill will be considered by the full House.

For a complete list of the amendments and their sponsors, please visit the Committee on Appropriations website.

Written by Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 17, 2013

Monsanto Prevails in Federal Court Case

On June 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit Court affirmed the Southern District of New York’s decision that Plaintiffs did not bring forth a justiciable case or controversy in Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto Co. Plaintiffs (a coalition of farmers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations) brought suit in March, 2011, wanting declaratory judgments that specific Monsanto patents on transgenic seeds are invalid, unenforceable, and infringed. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not able to organically grow corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, soybeans and alfalfa because they were threatened by transgenic cross-pollination and that preventing cross-pollination with transgenic crops was costly to their businesses. Plaintiffs wanted Monsanto to waive any future claim for patent infringement and memorialize the waiver by signing a covenant not to sue.  In response, Monsanto referred Plaintiffs to its website where it expresses that Monsanto’s policy has never been to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of patented traits are present as a result of inadvertent means. Monsanto claimed that since Plaintiffs do not intend to ever possess, use, or sell any transgenic seed, fear of suit is unreasonable. On appeal, the court found that Monsanto’s representations on its website and throughout the litigation are binding as a matter of judiciary estoppel and have the same effect as signing a covenant not to sue, so long as cross-pollination does not occur at levels higher than one percent and is inadvertent.

Plaintiffs also claimed that Monsanto’s refusal to sign a covenant not to sue has a chilling effect on farming or seed distribution activities they would like to pursue, and further, they cite a number of alleged potential harms due to health and safety, environmental, and economic issues. The court determined, however, that none of the alleged potential harms caused by cross-pollination can be remedied by declaratory judgment and cannot serve as a basis for jurisdiction. The court concluded that Plaintiffs failed to show any risk of suit and, therefore, lack standing.

The docket number for this case is 2012-1298.

Written By Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 14, 2013

Raw Milk Update: Bill Revising Nevada Raw Milk Sales and Distribution Vetoed by Governor

On June 6, 2013, the Governor of Nevada vetoed a bill that would have allowed raw milk, certified by a county milk commission, to be sold at retail outlets or directly off the farm to anywhere in the state. The bill previously passed in the House and in the Senate with only four negative votes. According to several press releases, Governor Sandoval cited the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, and Nevada’s own state health officer’s concerns that raw (unpasteurized) milk is unsafe for consumption as his reason for vetoing the bill. As of today, Governor Sandoval’s veto message has not been posted.

Currently in Nevada, raw milk can be sold if the county milk commission certifies its sale; however, the raw milk may only be sold in that county. This bill would have allowed for inter-county sales of raw milk.

For the full text of the bill, please visit the Nevada State Legislature’s website.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 13, 2013  

PA House Passes Bill to Allow Wind Power Generation Systems on Agricultural Conservation Easements

On June 11, 2013, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed HB 920. The bill was introduced on March 11, 2013, and amends P.L. 12, No, 43, the Agricultural Area Security Law. The bill allows a wind power generation system to be installed or used on an agricultural conservation easement if the subject land is 50 or more acres. The system may not occupy more than two acres if the subject land is less than 100 acres.  The system may occupy an additional two acres for every 50 acres the subject land is over 100. If any part of the subject land is subdivided, conveyed or transferred the subject land must remain 50 or more acres.  A wind power generation system is defined as “a system designed to collect and utilize wind power” and includes the foundation, appurtenant structure as well as new roads, bridges transmission lines and substations. 

For more information on HB 920, please see Pennsylvania’s General Assembly’s website.

 

Written By Clara E. Conklin– Research Assistant
Penn State Law – Agricultural Law Center
June 12, 2013

Pennsylvania General Assembly Expands PennVEST Funding Eligibility

On June 11, 2013, the Pennsylvania General Assembly presented Senate Bill 196 to the Governor.  This bill amends the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority Act, allowing the Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PennVEST) to utilize federal funding, provided by the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, more effectively.  The amendments laid out in the bill cover storm water runoff management and nonpoint source pollution projects and provide for additional definitions, expanded funding and for an annual report. 

One major shift is that the bill now allows PennVEST to accept funding applications from nongovernmental entities, such as non-profit and watershed organizations, for storm water and nonpoint source pollution management projects.   Projects proposed by entities other than municipalities must be in compliance with all ordinances, regulations and plans adopted by the municipality in which the project is located and the project must also be approved by all other impacted municipalities.  The bill also changes best management practices to include those under the Clean Streams Law or Pennsylvania’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Update.  A project which follows Pennsylvania’s Nonpoint Source Management Program Update, and which has a potential water quality benefit (determined by the Department of Environmental Protection), as required by the federal Water Pollution Control Act, would be eligible for funding. 

This law also requires the PennVEST Board to provide an annual report, detailing the projects which received funding.  The annual reports will be published and maintained on the PennVEST website.

For more information, please visit the PennVEST website.

 

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

 

June 12, 2013

PA House Reps Approve Bill Concerning Exhibition Animals- Return Bill to Senate for Reconsideration

On June 11, 2013, the PA House returned Senate Bill 526 back to the Senate for reconsideration. The bill, which concerns sanitation standards for livestock being transported for the purpose of exhibition, was passed in the Senate on May 14, 2013 and was sent to the House for consideration. The bill requires that owners of animals at exhibitions must present a valid Pennsylvania health certificate or an interstate veterinary certificate of inspection proving a veterinary consultation relationship to the operator of the exhibition. The House made amendments to the bill and passed its version on June 11, 2013. The next step will be for the Senate to reconsider the bill and, if no amendments are made, the bill will be sent to the Governor for approval.

For more information, please see the PA General Assembly’s website.

 

Written By Sarah L. Doyle – Research Assistant

 

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

June 12, 2013

 

Senate Passes Farm Bill

On June 10, 2013, the Senate passed its version of the farm bill, 66 to 27. The final breakdown of the bill includes cuts to the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP), direct payments to farmers, and conservation programs, while shifting additional funding to crop insurance and promotion of U.S. crops overseas. The bill totals at approximately $955 billion in spending over the next ten years. The next step is for the House to pass its own version of the farm bill, and then for the two bills to be reconciled.

For the full text of the Senate farm bill, please click here.

Written By Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

Penn State Law – Agricultural Law Center

June 11, 2013

Washington State Farmers and The Center for Food Safety File Suit Against Monsanto

On June 6, 2013, two Washington state wheat farmers and The Center for Food Safety filed a purported class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against Monsanto. The complaint alleges six causes of action including negligence, public nuisance, strict liability and conversion. The farmers claim they have been injured by the decline in wheat prices following the discovery of unapproved genetically modified wheat in Oregon. The Center for Food Safety claims the discovery has made it more difficult for its members, who desire non-genetically modified products, to produce, sell and eat uncontaminated wheat. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief requiring Monsanto to clean up the contamination and take measures to ensure further contamination will not occur. The case is docketed at CV-13-213-JLQ. A Kansas wheat farmer filed a similar lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on June 3, 2013.

Written By Clara Conklin - Research Assistant
Penn State Law- Agricultural Law Center

June 10, 2013

FSIS Proposes Labeling of Mechanically Tenderized Beef Products

On June 6, 2013, the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) of the USDA proposed a rule requiring the labeling of mechanically tenderized beef products. Under the proposed rule, labels would state that the product is mechanically tenderized and include the recommended end cooking temperature for that product. Recent food-borne illness outbreaks spurred the development of the new rule, as studies show that during the tenderizing process, harmful bacteria is pushed into the center of the beef product. The harmful bacteria then survives the cooking process because consumers are unaware they must cook to a greater degree of doneness than when cooking a non-mechanically tenderized product. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register today, June 10, 2013, for a 60 day comment period.

For additional information, please visit the USDA FSIS website.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

Penn State Law - Agricultural Law Center

June 10, 2013

Senate Votes to End Farm Bill Debate

On June 6, 2013, the Senate voted 75-22 to end the farm bill debate. The Senate version of the farm bill, most recently titled Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013, includes cutting from farm spending by repealing direct payments, among other cuts, and reducing spending on the supplemental nutritional assistance program (SNAP). The next step in the process will be for the Senate to vote for final passage. According to thehill.com, the House vote on its version of the farm bill will likely come later in June.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

Penn State Law - Agricultural Law Center

June 7, 2013

Kansas Farmer Sues Monsanto Over GMO Wheat Discovery

On June 3, 2013, Ernest Barnes, a Kansas wheat farmer, filed suit against Monsanto in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. The complaint alleges eight causes of action including gross negligence, public nuisance and failure to comply with the Plant Protection Act. In 1998 Monsanto began testing genetically modified wheat in fields across the United States including fields in Kansas. Monsanto decided to stop testing in 2005 and as a result the wheat was never approved for sale or cultivation. In April 2013, however, an Oregon farmer discovered the unapproved genetically engineered wheat growing where he had not planted any wheat. Barnes claims the discovery has financially injured him and other local farmers by driving down the price of wheat and causing several international buyers, including Japan, to suspend their U.S. wheat purchases. Furthermore, Barnes claims Monsanto knew there was a high risk that other varieties of wheat could be contaminated by the genetically modified wheat and Monsanto failed to follow the proper procedures to prevent contamination.  The case is docketed at 13-CV-1218-MLB-KHM.

Written By Clara Conklin - Research Assistant

Penn State Law- Agricultural Law Center

June 6, 2013

PA Bills Reported by Committees

Several bills were reported on June 4, 2013 by a number of committees.

The Agriculture Committee bills include:

·          HB 920 which provides for the purchase of agricultural conservation easements for wind power generation systems

·         HB 1196 requires vaccination certification record keeping in animal kennels and boarding facilities

·          HB 1377 amends how restaurant inspection authority is distributed among state agencies

·         SB 155 amends the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act

·          SB 526 deals with interstate animal health certificates and related matters

The Judiciary Committee bills are:

·          HB 164 amends Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses) to include possession of animal fighting paraphernalia within the cruelty to animals offense

·          HB 397 provides limited immunity from liability to agritourism operations

The Environmental Resources and Energy Committee bill:

·         HB 1414 amends the Oil and Gas Lease Act

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

Penn State Law - Agricultural Law Center

June 5, 2013

Connecticut Passes GMO Labeling Bill

On June 4, 2013, Connecticut passed HB 6527 that requires the label of food products containing genetically modified ingredients include the phrase “produced with genetic engineering.” The law defines genetically engineered foods as “food intended for human consumption and seed or seed stock that is intended to produce food for human consumption.” However, the law will not go into effect until four other states, including one which borders Connecticut, pass similar legislation. Furthermore, the law will not go into effect unless the aggregate population of states in the Northeast region who have passed similar legislation exceeds twenty million. The law defines Northeast region as Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Numerous other states have introduced bills requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods. For more information on state legislation see the Center for Food Safety’s website.

Written By Clara Conklin - Research Assistant

Penn State Law- Agricultural Law Center

June 4, 2013 

OIE Upgrades the U.S. BSE Risk Classification to "Negligible"

On May 29, 2013, the world animal health body (OIE), upgraded the U.S. risk classification for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) from “controlled risk” to “negligible risk.” According to the United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the cattle industry has been working to restore the perception of U.S. beef since the discovery of a BSE-positive cow in Washington State in 2003. He credits the implementation of a “system of interlocking safeguards” to keep BSE-infected cattle out of the food supply for the achievement of the upgraded risk status.

The OIE requires that a country must participate in the OIE procedure for the official recognition of disease status to change its risk classification.

For more information, please see the OIE’s website, and its Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

Written By Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

Penn State Law- Agricultural Law Center

June 3, 2013