Jury Deems AQHA’s Denial of Registration to Cloned Horses to be a Violation of Antitrust Laws

On July 30, a jury verdict was handed down in a trial that began on July 17, challenging the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) rule preventing registration of cloned horses.  The jury determined that banning cloned horses from the AQHA registry violates state and federal antitrust laws.  The jury did not, however, award any of the six million dollars in damages sought by the plaintiffs.  The lawsuit was brought by two horsemen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, in Amarillo, Texas.  The men own Quarter Horses used for AQHA-sanctioned horse races.  Their complaint claims that the AQHA created a monopoly by banning cloned animals from the registry.  The AQHA approved Rule 277 in 2004, which prohibits the registration of cloned horses and their offspring in its registry. 

To see the text of the complaint, please click here.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

 

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 31, 2013

Court Enjoins Implementation of the New York City “Soda Ban”

On July 30, 2013, an appeals court for the state of New York affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule, commonly known as the Soda Ban, is unconstitutional.

Mayor Bloomberg announced the Portion Cap Rule (“Rule”) on May 30, 2012 as a proposed amendment to Article 81 of the New York City Health Code to require food service establishments to cap at sixteen ounces the size of cups and containers used to offer, provide and sell sugary beverages. His stated purpose was to address the rising obesity rates in New York City. The Board of Health voted to adopt the Rule on September 13, 2012.

Plaintiffs brought suit in the Supreme Court on October 12, 2012 claiming that the Rule violated separation of powers as defined in Boreali v. Axelrod, Boreali v. Axelrod, 71 N.Y.2d 6, 9-14 (N.Y. 1987), and was arbitrary and capricious, and the Supreme Court agreed, declaring the regulation invalid. Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. Dep’t of Health, No. 653584/12, 2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1216 at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2013). On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Rule violated the separation of powers doctrine of the State Constitution that establishes a boundary between the actions of the legislature and an administrative agency by failing the test set out in Boreali. It stated that the Rule “is one especially suited for legislative determination as it involves difficult social problems which must be resolved by making choices among competing ends.” The court enjoined the Board of Health from implementing and enforcing the Rule, but did not address whether the rule was arbitrary and capricious.

To read the court’s opinion, please see the New York Court’s website, at page 47.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 31, 2013

FDA Releases Two Proposed Rules Under the Food Safety Modernization Act

On July 26, 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released two proposed rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Enacted in 2011 by Congress, FSMA requires the FDA to create and enforce a number of rules dealing with prevention of contamination of the U.S. food supply in the United States.

The proposed rule for Foreign Supplier Verification Programs for importers of food for humans and animals deals with the strengthening of oversight of foods imported for U.S. consumers. Importers will be required to perform risk-based activities to verify that imported foods have been produced in a manner that provides the same level of public health protection as is required of domestic food producers. Proposed regulations vary based on the type of food product and several other factors.

The proposed rule on Accreditation of Third-party Auditors will establish a program for accreditation of third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits and issue certifications of foreign facilities and the foods for humans and animals they produce. According to the FDA, generally importers will not be required to obtain certifications, but in certain situations, the FDA may use certifications from accredited auditors in determining whether to admit certain imported foods that may pose a safety risk. The FDA may also use these certifications in determining whether an importer is eligible to participate in a voluntary program under development for expedited review and entry of food.

Both rules are open for comment until November 26, 2013. For more information, please see the FDA website on FSMA.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 30, 2013

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Releases Draft Guidance for Egg Safety Rule Compliance

On July 23, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration released draft guidance to help egg producers, who provide their laying hens with outdoor access, comply with the Egg Safety Rule. The FDA’s goal is to help producers prevent Salmonella in shell eggs through the implementation of food safety measures. The draft guidance offers measures to control SE at a number of different types of poultry houses and outdoor access areas by preventing wild birds and other animals from entering outdoor access areas and advice for conducting environmental sampling for SE.

All interested parties are invited to comment on the draft guidance.  Previous guidance has been published by the FDA dealing with the Egg Safety rule with the most recent release in August, 2012.

For more information, please see the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition/FDA Constituent Update.

 

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 29, 2013

Investigation of Potential Smithfield Purchase Extended

On July 24, 2013, Smithfield Foods, Inc., announced that the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has notified the parties involved that it will conduct a second phase of investigation lasting 45 days in accordance with the Exon-Florio legislation. The Exon-Florio legislation allows CFIUS to review proposed foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies for potential national security concerns. The legislation provides for an initial 30 day review with an option to extend the process for a period not exceeding 45 days. The CFIUS process is confidential.

Smithfield and Chinese food processing company Shuanghui expect the deal to close in the second half of 2013.

For more information on the potential Smithfield purchase, please see our previous blog post.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 26, 2013

U.S. Senator Introduces Bill for Protection of Livestock Producers’ Information

On July 23, 2013, the Senate sent a bill (S.1343) introduced by Iowa Senator Charles Grassley to the Environment and Public Works Committee for review. The bill, intended to protect the information of livestock producers, has been read twice by the Senate thus far. The text of the bill is not yet available, but will be posted on the Library of Congress’s Thomas website.

For more information about this issue, please see our previous blog post on the American Farm Bureau Federation suit filed against the Environmental Protection Agency dealing with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 25, 2013

North Carolina Legislature Enacts Law Limiting Farmer’s Liability for Food Safety Illnesses Among Other Protections

On July 17, 2013, the Governor of North Carolina signed a bill into law known as the North Carolina Farm Act of 2013. The Act provides several protections for farmers and farm-owners among numerous other provisions.

For example, under the Act, a commodity producer is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the producer was not negligent when death or injury is proximately caused by the consumption of the producer’s raw agricultural commodity if the producer meets specified guidelines laid out in the Act.

In addition, the Act limits the liability of farm animal activity and agritourism operators. It also clarifies that equine recreation where the landowner receives no compensation is subject to the Recreational Use statute and not the Equine Activity Liability statute.

The Act goes in to effect on August 1, 2013.

For more information and the full text of the Act, please visit the North Carolina’s Legislative website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 24, 2013

PA Dept. of Agriculture Issues Basic Biosecurity Standard Operating Procedures

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) issued new standard operating procedures to help define basic biosecurity procedures that all PDA employees must follow when they visit agricultural sites.  According to the standard operating procedures, under Act 125 of 2010, PDA employees could face trespass charges and be responsible for any economic damages the producer incurs due to the PDA employee’s failure to observe posted biosecurity measures.

The new standard operating procedures issued by the PDA must be followed by all PDA employees when entering and during the duration of the employee’s visit to any agricultural biosecurity area which does not have posted biosecurity measures in place.  Landowners wishing to implement additional, or different, biosecurity protective measures than required by the PDA’s standard operating procedures may self-define what protective measures are required for entry into their agricultural biosecurity areas.  The PDA’s standard operating procedures do not supersede an individual landowner’s desired biosecurity protective measures, so long as the landowner’s protective measures are reasonable.

To view the PDA’s Standard Operating Procedures for Biosecurity at Agricultural Sites, please click here.
 

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
 

July 23, 2013

Senate Agriculture Committee Holds First Hearing on Commodity Futures Trading Commission Reauthorization

On July 17, 2013, the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee held the first of a series of hearings on the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The CFTC is the agency responsible for regulating commodity markets. Small businesses, global firms, and farmers and ranchers use these markets for trade in traditional and non-traditional agricultural commodities. The Senate Ag Committee is holding hearings on the CFTC in order to revisit the laws controlling the CFTC and consider updates in hopes of ensuring that “markets are operating as intended and that market users... are protected from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices.”

The House Agriculture Committee held their first hearing on the reauthorization of the CFTC on May 21, 2013.

Reauthorization is the process used to update the CFTC’s authorities and recommended spending levels. The CFTC’s statutory authorization expires at the end of the fiscal year. The last reauthorization took place in 2008.

For further information and the input offered by stakeholders on how to improve current laws, please visit the Senate Ag Committee’s websites on the hearing and the CFTC Reauthorization.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July, 22, 2013

California District Court Judge Refers to FDA On Whether Foods with GMO Ingredients May Be Labeled “Natural”

On July 11, 2013, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California referred to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine if foods containing genetically modified ingredients may be labeled “natural.” The referral came after Elizabeth Cox brought suit against Gruma Corp., a tortilla producer, alleging that the Gruma’s “All Natural” labels are false and misleading because their products contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the form of corn grown from genetically modified seeds.

After detailing the FDA’s authority over the labeling of food products, the court noted that the FDA issued non-binding guidance defining the term “natural” on food labels to mean “nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.” The court also noted, however, that both parties agree that the FDA has not addressed, even informally, whether GMO ingredients may be labeled natural. Based on this “gap in the current regulatory landscape”, the court gave deference to the FDA’s regulatory authority to avoid “usurping the FDA’s interpretive authority and undermining, through private litigation, the FDA’s considered judgments.”

The court also stayed the action for a period of six months, with an option to extend the period if the FDA indicates that it intends to resolve the issue, and ordered the parties to cooperate in expediting the explanation of the question presented by the action to the FDA, and to notify the court of any determination by the FDA.

This case is docketed at 12-cv-06502. It can be accessed through Lexology’s website here.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 18, 2013

FDA Releases “Toolkit with Resources for Farmers” Addressing FSMA Proposed Produce Safety Rule

On July 15, 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a “Toolkit with Resources for Farmers,” focusing on the proposed Produce Safety rule, under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) page of its website. The resources include factsheets on FSMA and the proposed Produce Safety rule, a diagram on how the rule applies to farmers, and an interview with Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Michael Taylor, as well as a number of other resources.

The proposed Produce Safety rule is designed to establish science-based standards for growing, harvesting, packing, and holding produce on farms. The rule covers most fruits and vegetables while they are in their raw or unprocessed state. It does not apply to raw agricultural commodities that are rarely consumed raw, like potatoes, or those produced for on-farm consumption or commercial processing such as canning. Some farms are exempted from the rule or are partially exempted based on the monetary value of the commodities they sell or based on to whom they sell.

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2013 and was updated on February 13, 2013. The comment period for the proposed rule ends on September 16, 2013.

For more information, please see the FDA’s website on the proposed Produce Safety rule or its FSMA webpage.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 18, 2013

Raw Milk Update: Maine Governor Vetoes Bill that Would Have Exempted Small Farmers’ Raw Milk From Licensing and Inspection

On July 8, 2013, Maine Governor Paul LePage vetoed LD  1282, entitled “An Act To Help Small Farmers in Selling Raw Milk Products.”  Upon return to the Maine Senate on July 9, the Senate voted not to overturn the Governor’s veto of the bill.

Currently, dairy producers in Maine must apply to the state for licensing and both their facilities and products must undergo inspections.  This regulation applies to both pasteurized and raw dairy products.  LD 1282 would have exempted small dairy producers, those who produce less than 20 gallons of raw milk daily, from the licensing and inspection regulations.  The Maine Legislature passed this bill in June, after the measure was amended to require raw milk producers to test their product regularly, under guidelines set by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.

In his statement concerning the veto, Gov. LePage expressed his support for the majority of the content in the bill, but stated that his concern was the inclusion of provisions which would allow raw milk producers to sell their product at farmers’ markets.  LePage stated that he would support a modified version of the bill which permitted “on Farm only” sales of raw milk.

For more information, please see the Maine Legislature’s website on LD 1282 and the Current Issues section of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center’s website.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 17, 2013

Kansas Legislature Amends State Right-to-Farm Laws to Limit Compensatory Damages for Nuisance Claims

On July 1, 2013, the Kansas legislature enacted SB 168 which amends the state’s right-to-farm laws. Kansas right-to-farm laws have traditionally protected agricultural operations from burdensome nuisance claims. The new law reinforces the protections offered by the right-to-farm laws by differentiating between permanent and temporary nuisance claims, further protecting the expansion of agricultural activities, and ensuring that property assigned, sold or inherited remains under the protection of right-to-farm laws.

Permanent and temporary nuisances will be considered separately, allowing for a fair market value allocation of compensatory damages for permanent nuisances, and for temporary nuisances, the lesser of:

      ·         the diminution in fair rental value of the claimant’s property,

·         the value of the loss of enjoyment of the claimant’s property,

·         or the reasonable cost to repair or mitigate any injury to the claimant can be awarded to the claimant.

In addition, farmland owners can now reasonably expand the scope of their agricultural activities without forfeiting protections under the right-to-farm laws. The law also stated that an agricultural operation that is consistent with good agricultural practices and that was established prior to surrounding agricultural or non-agricultural activities is presumed reasonable and would not constitute a nuisance. Furthermore, the law amends the definition of “agricultural activity” to include the handling, storage, and transportation of agricultural commodities.

For the more information, please see the Kansas Legislature’s website on SB 168.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 16, 2013

Chesapeake Bay Update: The Chesapeake Bay Program Posts Abridged Watershed Agreement for Public Comments

On July 10, 2013, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) released an abridged version of its Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. The agreement, which is in its draft stage, is available for public input until August 15, 2013.

The CBP states that the agreement “outlines new goals and outcomes that will guide partners in protection, restoration and stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay.” The first Chesapeake Bay Agreement was signed in 1983, and the most current agreement was signed in 2000. The CBP hopes to evolve the Chesapeake Bay restoration process and stewardship effort through the new agreement.

The draft agreement contains a number of goals and outcomes including the maintenance of fisheries and enhancement of water quality. The signatories of the agreement will indicate their level of involvement in the Management Strategies developed to execute the goals and outcomes “depending upon relevance, resources, priorities, or other factors enhancing or limiting participation.”

The CBP states that once a final draft is created, stakeholder input will be solicited again.

For more information or to provide input, please see the CBP website on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Please visit our Chesapeake Bay Resource Area for more information on the history of Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreements.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

July 15, 2013

House Passes Farm Bill without the Nutrition Title

On July 11, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed a scaled-back version of the farm bill, removing the Nutrition title, which includes the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provisions.  This bill passed in the House by a slim margin of 216-208, with twelve Republicans and all House Democrats voting against the measure.  The House bill would also remove the current law, under which most farm programs revert to 1940’s levels if a farm bill is not in place.

The House failed to pass a five-year, $500 billion farm bill last month, which would have implemented cuts to SNAP.  The Senate passed their version of the farm bill in June.  The House and Senate must now hash out a compromise farm bill before the end of September 30, 2013, or the reversion to permanent law will go into effect.

For more information, please see the text of the House Bill and the Senate Bill.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 12, 2013

FDA Proposes Limit on Arsenic Levels in Apple Juice

On July 12, 2013, a draft guidance, which would limit the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice, was released by FDA. Arsenic is present in the environment in both organic and inorganic forms. Organic arsenic is naturally occurring and does not present any health risks. Inorganic arsenic is a naturally occurring mineral and was introduced to the environment due to the use of arsenic-containing pesticides. Inorganic arsenic is a known carcinogen and may pose a cancer risk if consumed at high levels or over a long period of time.

In 2008, FDA set the amount of inorganic arsenic allowed in apple juice at 23 parts per billion and under the proposal the level would be set at 10 parts per billion. FDA stressed that currently the levels of inorganic arsenic in the majority of apple juice is already below this level. Last year, FDA released findings showing 95% of samples taken from apple juice tested below 10 parts per billion of total arsenic and 100% of the samples tested below 10 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic. Consumer Reports, which previously pushed the FDA to set limits on arsenic in apple juice, applauded FDA’s decision in a press release.

For more information on this topic, please see FDA’s website and press release.

Written by Clara E. Conklin - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 12, 2013

U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Holds Hearing Concerning the Potential Purchase of Smithfield

On July 10, 2013, experts on U.S.-China trade relations, food safety, global business, and foreign acquisitions, as well as the CEO of Smithfield Foods, testified in a hearing held by the Senate Agriculture Committee about the $7.1 billion potential purchase of Smithfield Foods by Shuanghui, a Chinese meat processing company. The hearing examined how the government review process of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies addresses American food safety, protection of American technologies and intellectual property, and the effects of increased foreign ownership of the U.S. food supply.

CEO of Smithfield, Larry Pope, and the Honorable Matthew Slaughter, professor and Faculty Director of the Center for Global Business and Government at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, supported the acquisition, noting that the U.S. has much to gain through the increased exports of American pork. Dr. Usha Haley, professor and director of the Robbins Center for Global Business and Strategy, West Virginia University, and Mr. Daniel Slane, Commissioner of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, voiced concerns about how the precedent of a purchase of this magnitude and kind would affect future acquisitions by China of U.S. companies, particularly in the agricultural sector.

After testimony, the Senate Ag Committee Chair, Debbie Stabenow, along with other committee members, questioned the experts as to the potential benefits and concerns over the purchase of a U.S. food company by a Chinese firm.

At least one commentator has opined that the hearing was an effort to put pressure the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S.

For Senator Stabenow’s opening statement and the prepared testimony of the witnesses, please visit the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry’s website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
July 11, 2013

PA Governor Signs Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act and Medical Exemption from Rabies Vaccination

On July 9, 2013, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed two pieces of legislation into law, SB 155 as Act No. 65 and HB 82 as Act No. 50. 

Act No. 65, previously SB 155, amends the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act.  Most notably, this law provides for a medical exemption from rabies vaccination.  Further, this law clarifies when rabies vaccinations are due to be given to cats and dogs, requiring that all dogs and cats to be vaccinated against rabies within four weeks after reaching three months of age.  For more information, please see our previous blog post concerning this legislation.

Act No. 50, previously HB 82, the Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act, would allow municipalities and humane shelters to petition the court to recover all reasonable costs of care for animals seized from owners charged with violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-cruelty statute.  The reasonable costs of care recoverable under the statute include food, water, shelter and documented veterinary expenses.   For more information, please see our previous blog post concerning this legislation.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 11, 2013

DOT Grants Waiver for Livestock Haulers

On July 8, 2013, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) granted livestock haulers a 90-day waiver (78 Fed. Reg. 41716 (July 11, 2013)) from the rest-break provision in the new hours-of-service rules (76 Fed. Reg. 81134 (December 27, 2011)). The rules, which seek to improve safety, were announced in December 2011 and took effect July 1, 2013. Under the rules, all drivers are limited to a seventy hour work week and must take a thirty minute rest break for every eight hours of service. On June 19, 2013, the National Pork Producers Council, along with thirteen other livestock organizations, requested a 90-day waiver from the rest break provision. The request stressed that the rest break provision put the health and welfare of livestock at risk because drivers would be unable to care for livestock during the required break.

In granting the waiver the FMCSA noted it was necessary to “ensure the well-being of the Nation’s livestock during interstate transportation” as higher than average temperatures are predicted in the coming months. Under the waiver, carriers transporting livestock, as defined by 7 U.S.C. 1471(2), will not be required to take a thirty minute break. The waiver is limited to carriers with a satisfactory or unrated safety rating. The FMCSA determined carriers with a conditional or unsatisfactory rating will be required to take a thirty minute break because those ratings “indicate that the carrier has safety management control problems.” The waiver is set to become effective July 11, 2013 and will expire on October 9, 2013.

For more information on the new hours-of-service rules and 90-day waiver, please see FMCSA’s website.  

Written by Clara E. Conklin - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 11, 2013

National Milk Releases Updated Animal Care Manual

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) has released an updated version of its Animal Care Reference Manual which sets forth standards for the National Dairy Farmers Assuring Responsible Management, or FARM, program. The NMPF started the FARM program in 2009 as a way to bring consistency and uniformity to animal care and production practices. The FARM program is voluntary and open to all dairy producers. Today about 70% of dairy farmers in the United States participate in the program and are evaluated based on the manual’s guidelines once every three years. The manual provides guidelines and resources in four major areas: 1) nutrition, 2) animal health, 3) environment and 4) facilities and handling. In addition, the manual addresses the care of newborns and special needs animals.

According to a statement from the NMPF, the new manual reflects “evolving management practices on the farm as well as expectations for animal care from the entire dairy value chain.” The new manual features a simplified checklist used to evaluate participating farmers which NMPF hope will simply the process for participating farmers. The new manual also includes updated information on branding techniques, a guideline on horn disbudding, and language encouraging the elimination of routine tail docking by 2022. In addition, new animal observation suggestions, including changes to the locomotion, body condition score and hock and knee lesion guidelines, were added. The manual also updates the housing section and streamlines feed and water evaluation techniques.

For more information on the updated manual and FARM program, please see the NMPF’s press release and website.

Written by Clara E. Conklin - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
July 10, 2013

American Meat Institute Files Suit Against USDA Over Country of Origin Labeling Rule

On July 8, 2013 the American Meat Institute (AMI), together with several American and Canadian cattle and meat associations, filed a complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture alleging that the final mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) rule violates the First Amendment, the Agricultural Marketing Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The revised COOL rule, designed to inform consumers of the country of origin of certain covered commodities, was challenged by Canada and Mexico before the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2012 under the Technical Barriers to Trade agreement (TBT). According to Canada and Mexico, COOL requirements imposed burdens on the meat products supply chain that discriminated against their livestock exports. The WTO Appellate Body agreed, noting that there was no health and safety basis for COOL, and mandated that the United States bring COOL into compliance with the TBT agreement or potentially face retaliatory measures from affected foreign countries. The Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA released the amended COOL rule on May 23, 2013 in an effort to bring COOL in compliance with the TBT. (For more information on COOL, please see our Current Issues Page on the Agricultural Law Center’s website.)

As discussed in our previous COOL blog post, Canada and Mexico as well as many domestic organizations such as AMI were still unsatisfied with COOL. AMI alleges in its complaint that COOL violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because COOL compels speech that serves no substantial government interest since there is no health and safety basis for COOL. AMI also claims that COOL exceeds the authority granted by the Agricultural Marketing Act because COOL was not intended to implement point-of-processing labels as defined in the 2008 Farm Bill. Finally, AMI alleges that COOL violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it is arbitrary and capricious; COOL misleads consumers about the true origin of meat products and exacerbates the WTO violations.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and is docketed at 1:13-cv-01033. More information on COOL and the case can be found on AMI’s website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 9, 2013

Lawsuit Filed to Stop Horse Slaughter

On July 2, 2013, several animal welfare groups and individuals, in an effort to ban horse slaughter, filed a complaint against USDA in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The suit was filed in response USDA’s grant of inspection to two horse slaughterhouses earlier this year. In 2007, Congress effectively banned horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. when funding for salaries of inspection personnel was eliminated. Without the inspection personnel, the required inspections could not be performed and horsemeat was not eligible for USDA approval. In 2011, Congress opened the door for horse slaughter in the U.S. by restoring funding for inspection personnel.

Plaintiffs in the suit are The Humane Society of the United States, Front Range Equine Rescues, Marin Humane Society, Horses for Life Foundation, Return to Freedom and five individuals (one from Missouri and four from New Mexico). Plaintiffs allege USDA violated the National Environmental Protection (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act by providing a grant of inspection to the new plants and establishing a new drug residue testing plan without conducting  an environmental review and producing an environmental impact statement. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs request the court declare the grants and drug residue testing plan unlawful, set aside the grants and enjoin the USDA from granting further inspections and from implementing new drug residue testing plans without an adequate NEPA review. The case is docketed at CV-13-3034.

Until horse slaughter is banned, USDA must provide grants of inspection if a horse slaughterhouse meets inspection requirements. Recently, the House and the Senate voted to cut funding which would eliminate horse slaughter in 2014. In addition, the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, which would not only ban horse slaughter in the U.S. but also ban the shipment of horses across the border for slaughter, was introduced by the House, H.R. 1094 and the Senate, S. 541, in March. 

For more information on this topic, please see USDA’s and The Humane Society of the United States’ websites.

Written by Clara E. Conklin - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 8, 2013

American Farm Bureau Federation Files Suit Against the EPA Claiming Unwarranted Invasion of Privacy

On July 5, 2013, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Pork Producers Council filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for declarative and injunctive relief prohibiting the EPA from releasing the personal information of farmers through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Organizations such as Earthjustice and the Humane Society of the United States have requested information regarding CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) in 35 states under FOIA to date. According to the complaint filed by AFBF, information about the specific location of certain CAFOs, the owners’ names, and other details, has already been disseminated to these organizations in 29 states. This information stands to be rereleased on July 11, 2013 along with similar information regarding CAFOs in six other states. Plaintiffs allege that the information requested about these CAFOs is protected under Exemption 6 of FOIA because the public release of this information is personal in nature. The complaint explains that the locations of CAFOs are often the home addresses of the farmers, and releasing this information is an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Previously, the EPA has justified its policy on the release of personal information under FOIA by explaining that the public has an interest in understanding how the EPA and authorized states are implementing the Clean Water Act, which is applicable to CAFOs.

Please visit the AFBF website for a copy of the complaint. For more information on the EPA’s compliance with FOIA, please visit the EPA’s website on public information regulations.

This case is docketed at 13-01751.

 

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 8, 2013

NJ Governor Vetoes Ban on Gestation Crates

On June 27, 2013 New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of gestation crates. Farmers use gestation crates, a metal stall which limits a sow’s movement, to house sows during pregnancy. The bill, Senate Bill 1921, would have amended Title 4 and made it illegal to confine a gestating sow in a way that prevented the sow “from being able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up or fully extend its limbs.” The use of gestation crates has recently created a debate in both political and public forums. Several states have passed or are considering legislation banning gestation crates and some of the largest restaurants, including McDonald’s, Applebee’s and Subway, are phasing out the use of gestation crates. Animal welfare activists argue the use of gestation crates is inhumane while defenders state the crates are necessary for sow health and safety and improve a farmer’s ability to manage sows. In his veto statement, Christie noted the decision should be left to the New Jersey’s Board of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture who are better situated to determine what is in the best interest of farmers and animals.

For more information on this issue, please see 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

July 3, 2013

PA House Passes Bill which Provides Medical Exemption from Rabies Vaccination

On July 1, 2013, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 155, which amends the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act.  This bill contains amendments which provide additional definitions, grants enforcement powers and duties to the Department of Agriculture and clarifies when rabies vaccinations are due to be given to domestic animals. 

Most notably, the amendments provide for a veterinary exemption from rabies vaccination, which can be renewed annually.  A licensed veterinarian would be required to certify that an animal has been examined and that it would be medically inadvisable to vaccinate the animal against rabies due to an infirmary, physical condition or current therapy regimen. 

Further, the Senate Bill 155 clarifies when rabies vaccinations are due to be given to cats and dogs.  Currently, the law requires that dogs and cats be vaccinated at three months of age.  This left an ambiguity as to whether it was exactly at three months of age, or under four months of age.  The amendments included in SB 155 state that all dogs must be vaccinated against rabies within four weeks after reaching three months of age.

Senate Bill 155 will now return to the Senate for consideration of the House’s changes to SB 155.

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

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 2, 2013

Bill Concerning Exhibition Animal Health Certification Signed Into Law

On June 27, 2013, the Governor of Pennsylvania signed a bill, SB 526, concerning sanitation standards for animals being transported for exhibition purposes into law. The bill, now Act 31, 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 act clarifies that the PA health certificate can be accepted in lieu of a veterinarian-client relationship form, where previously both were needed.

For more information, please see our previous blog post and the PA General Assembly’s website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 1, 2013

@PSUAgLawCenter

PA Senate Passes Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act

On June 30, 2013, the Pennsylvania Senate passed HB 82, the Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act.  The bill, which originated in the House, will now return to the House for consideration of the bill containing the Senate’s amendments.

House Bill 82 states that owners of animals have a duty of care, therefore, the owner is responsible for the costs of caring for the animals and that responsibility extends to care of the animals if they are seized.  This bill specifically exempts activities undertaken in a normal agricultural operation.

The Costs of Care of Seized Animals Act would allow municipalities and humane shelters to petition the court to recover all reasonable costs of care for animals which have been seized from their owners, who have been charged with violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-cruelty statute.  The reasonable costs of care recoverable under the statute include food, water, shelter and documented veterinary expenses.  The statute limits such costs to $15 per day for each animal, plus any additional necessary medical care.  Petitions for reimbursement by municipalities and humane shelters must be filed before the issuance of the final order in the criminal trial for violation of PA’s anti-cruelty statute.

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

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

July 1, 2013