Activist Groups Sue EPA Over Withdrawal of Proposed CAFO Reporting Rule

On August 28, 2013, several environmental and other activist groups filed suit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to the agency’s withdrawal of the Proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Reporting Rule. Plaintiffs contend that the withdrawal of the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The rule, which would have required CAFOs located in focus watersheds to submit certain information about their operations to the EPA, was proposed under the Clean Water Act as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program.  

The agency withdrew the proposed rule in July of 2012. According to the complaint, the only reason the EPA gave for withdrawal of the rule was because it believed that it was more appropriate to determine CAFO information from existing sources like the United States Department of Agriculture. Plaintiffs contend that without the rule, the agency will not be able to fulfill the requirements under the Clean Water Act to regulate CAFO pollution, and that the agency did not give a reasonable explanation for the removal of the rule.

For more information, please see the complaint.

 

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 29, 2013

USDA Reports Conservation Efforts Successful in Lower Mississippi River Basin

On August 27, 2013, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced a new Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) report detailing the effects of environmental practices on cropland in the lower Mississippi River Basin.  The report, compiled by USDA’s National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), asserts that recent conservation efforts have led to a significant reduction in the amount of sediment and nutrient runoff throughout the Mississippi River watershed.   

Employing scientific modeling techniques, CEAP’s lower Mississippi River Basin report assessed the effects of conservation efforts in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee.  The report determined that while there had been a noteworthy decline in the amount of sediment, nitrogen and phosphorous being lost from cropland throughout the region, further efforts are still needed to control surface water runoff and manage nutrient application.  

To view the lower Mississippi River Basin CEAP report, as well as previous river basin cropland modeling study reports, please see NRCS’s CEAP Website.

 

 

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law

August 28, 2013  

Pennsylvania Preserves Additional 3,200 Acres of Farmland

On August 22, 2013, the Pennsylvania Agricultural Land Preservation Board announced the recent purchase of conservation easements on 3,246 acres of Pennsylvania farmland.  The newly preserved farmland is located in Adams, Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Clinton, Cumberland, Dauphin, Fulton, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Lycoming, Mercer, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Sullivan and Westmoreland counties. 

Established in 1988, “the Pennsylvania Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Program (PACEPP) was developed to strengthen Pennsylvania's agricultural economy and protect prime farmland.”  PACEPP allows state, county and local governments to purchase the development rights (known as conservation easements) of specifically targeted Pennsylvania farmland.  Since its inception, PACEPP has spent over $1.2 billion in acquiring conservation easements on 478,246 acres of farmland located throughout fifty seven different counties in Pennsylvania.  

For more information regarding PACEPP, please see the PA Department of Agriculture Bureau of Farmland Preservation Website. 

For more information regarding farmland preservation, please see the Penn State Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center’s Publications Library.

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

Agricultural Law Resource & Reference Center

Penn State University, The Dickinson School of Law

August 27, 2013

USDA Grants Non-Regulated Status to GE Soybean

On August 16, the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced its decision to grant non-regulated status to a genetically modified soybean engineered by Bayer CropScience. The soybean, FG72, is resistant to glyphosate and isoxaflutole, both herbicides that are registered for use on corn.

APHIS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have regulatory authority over GE organisms. APHIS has the authority to regulate the introduction of certain GE organisms and products under the Plant Protection Act and 7 CFR § 340, but a person may petition APHIS to have a regulated article de-regulated by showing under § 340.6 that the regulated item is unlikely to present a greater plant pest risk than the unmodified organism. To achieve non-regulation status, APHIS must then determine that the GE organism is unlikely to pose a plant pest risk through thorough analysis. In addition, the EPA has the authority to regulate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 7 U.S.C. 136. Through testing, the EPA determines if the pesticide will cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans, the environment, and non-target species. EPA also sets tolerances for residues of pesticides remaining on food and feed products. Lastly, the FDA regulates GE organisms under the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) 21 U.S.C. 301. FDA implements voluntary consultations to ensure that food safety issues are resolved before commercial distribution so developers are in compliance with Federal food safety laws prior to marketing.

Bayer petitioned APHIS that FG72 did not pose a plant pest risk in 2009. After considering several environmental, production, socioeconomic and human and animal health issues, as well as public comments, numerous alternatives and cumulative impacts, APHIS granted the non-regulated status to FG72. The FDA concluded in July of 2012 that FG72 is not materially different than comparative soybeans now grown, marketed, and consumed in the U.S. Isoxaflutole is still under review by the EPA, but tolerance of isoxaflutole residues has already been established by final rule in the Federal Register.

For more information about APHIS’s analysis, please visit its website on the Draft Environmental Analysis of FG72.

 

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 26, 2013

USDA Announces Renewal of Agriculture Air Quality Task Force

On August 21, 2013, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the renewal of USDA’s Agriculture Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF). 

Established under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 to provide recommendations to the secretary of Agriculture on agriculture air quality issues, AAQTF is composed of representatives from academia, agribusiness, regulatory organizations, environmental organizations, health disciplines, special government employees (SGEs), and others.  AAQTF representatives are selected by USDA and serve two year terms. 

Among the named 2013-2015 AAQTF representatives is Pennsylvania State University professor Eileen Wheeler.  Professor Wheeler currently teaches agricultural and biological engineering in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences and has served as a member of AAQTF since 2008. 

For more information regarding AAQTF, please see USDA’s Agricultural Air Quality Task Force Website.  

For more information regarding Eileen Wheeler, please see The Penn State University Agriculture and Biological Engineering Website.

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Pennsylvania State University Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

August 23, 2013

Federal Court Allows Intervenors in COOL Lawsuit

On August 20, 2013 the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion allowing the United States Cattleman’s Association (USCA), the National Farmers Union, the American Sheep Industry Association and the Consumer Federation of America to intervene in a pending country-of-origin-labeling (COOL) lawsuit.  

The lawsuit in question seeks to prevent the implementation of the revised COOL regulations announced by the United States Department of Agriculture on May 23, 2013.  The newly named intervenors oppose the lawsuit and support the proposed COOL regulations.  The court’s ruling permits the named intervenors to participate in the remainder of the litigation. 

For more information regarding this lawsuit, please see the July 9, 2013  COOL blog post.

For more information regarding COOL, please see the American Meat Institute Website.

 

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Penn State Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

August 22, 2013

 

USDA Seeks Applications to Fund Small Rural Businesses

On August 15, 2013, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will begin accepting applications for grants and loans specifically designed to support small rural businesses. Under USDA’s Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), any rural business with ten or fewer employees meets the definition of a microentrepreneur or a microenterprise and may be eligible to receive funding.

 

According to RMAP, USDA does not directly fund microentrepreneurs or microenterprises, but instead provides loans and grants to individual Microenterprise Development Organizations (MDOs).  These MDOs are then able to loan funds to microentrepreneurs or microenterprises that are unable to qualify for conventional credit.  Additionally, each MDO may receive USDA grants that allow the MDO to provide microentrepreneurs and microenterprises with technical assistance and training. 

All RMAP grant and loan applications must be submitted to USDA by September 13, 2013.  For information regarding how to apply for RMAP funding, please see the August 14, 2013 Federal Register.  

To learn more about RMAP, please see USDA's Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) Website.   

 

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Penn State Law Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

August 21, 2013

EPA Seeks Comments Regarding Produce Safety Regulation

Under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been charged with creating a new produce safety regulation that reduces the risk of illnesses associated with fresh produce.  In turn, FDA has announced its intention to “prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that will evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed rule.” 

As part of preparing the Produce Safety Regulation EIS, FDA has initiated a “scoping process” which seeks public comments to help determine which issues will be included within the scope of the environmental analysis.  FDA has established that the public comment period will open on August 19, 2013 and close on November 15, 2013.  

For information relating to submitting comments, please see the following Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Constituent Update. 

For information relating to FSMA, please see FDA'S FSMA Website. 

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Penn State Law Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

August 20, 2013

EPA Introduces Pesticide Labels Aimed at Protecting Bees

In an effort to combat declining bee populations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) introduced new pesticide labels which prohibit the use of chemicals known as neonicotinoids where bees are present.

 

Since 2006, researchers have noted a substantial decline in the world’s bee population.  Because bees play a vital role in the pollination of fruit and vegetable crops, recent governmental efforts have been undertaken to protect bees.  

In a May 2013 joint report, EPA and the Department of Agriculture listed neonicotinoids, parasitic mites, diseases and dramatic weather changes as potential causes for the decline in the bee population.  As a result, on August 15, 2013, EPA announced its new pesticide labels directly aimed at limiting the contact bees have with neonicotinoids. 

For more information and to read EPA’s press release regarding the new pesticide labels, please see EPA's Website.

 

Written by M. Sean High – Research Fellow

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

August 19, 2013

USDA Announces Projects Designed to Improve Farm and Rural Business Energy Efficiency

On August 15, 2013, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the availability of funding to help agricultural producers and rural small business owners reduce their energy usage and costs, use renewable energy technologies, and conduct feasibility studies for renewable energy projects. The funding is being made available through the USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which is authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill. Up to 25 percent of an eligible energy production or conservation project can be funded through a grant, and additional support can be provided through a loan. Since 2008, REAP has helped fund approximately 7,000 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects across the United States.

 

For more information, please see the USDA press release.

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

Court Denies FDA Motion for Reconsideration of Deadlines for FSMA Rule Implementation

On August 13, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Food and Drug Administration’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s previous order that set a schedule of deadlines for Food Safety Modernization Act rule implementation. Specifically, the FDA asked the court to reconsider the deadlines for intentional adulteration and sanitary transport rulemaking (two of seven areas the court previously ruled on). The FDA argues that the complexity of the rulemaking for these two areas of FSMA will prevent the FDA from meeting the deadline set by the court.

The court did grant the FDA part of its motion by extending the deadline for publishing the proposed sanitary transport rule and the comment period, although, the date for the final rule implementation remains unchanged. The court denied the request to extend the deadline for promulgation of the intentional adulteration rule, noting that this dispute is between the FDA and Congress. The court states that it is unwilling to permit the FDA to continually delay implementation of this rule because of the clear Congressional directive that FSMA rule implementation be a closed-ended process.

For more information, please see the order filed by the court.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 15, 2013

USDA and the Rural Housing Service Release Notice of Funding for Farm Labor Housing

On August 14, 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture and the Rural Housing Service published a notice of funding availability for farm labor housing loans and grants for off-farm housing. The notice announces the timeframe for submission of pre-applications for Section 514 Farm Labor Housing (FLH) loans and Section 516 FLH grants for construction of off-farm housing for domestic farm laborers. The deadline for receipt of applications is 5:00pm local time, September 13, 2013, to the appropriate Rural Development State Office.

For more information on funding available and the guidelines for receiving a grant or loan, please see the Federal Register notice.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 14, 2013

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State Launch New Agricultural Resource Centers

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences partnered to create three new agricultural resource centers. The Animal Care, Food Safety, and Plant Health Resource Centers were developed as focus points for research and programs as well as a mechanism to address more broad issues according to the College of Ag Sciences website.

-          The Animal Care Resource Center will focus on animal care research and science-based best management practices as well as a number of other issues important to food animal producers.

-          The Food Safety Resource Center will focus on compliance with the Food Safety Modernization Act specifically in Pennsylvania in order to meet regulatory expectations.

-          The Plant Health Resource Center will focus on identification and management of pests and invasive species that threaten native plants in Pennsylvania.

For more information, please see the Penn State College of Agriculture’s website on Resource Centers.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 13, 2013

Office of Inspector General Releases Report On USDA Organic “Access to Pasture Rule”

On July 15, 2013, the OIG released its audit report evaluating organic milk operations’ implementation of the access to pasture rule and their compliance with the USDA organic regulations. Upon review, the OIG found that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) successfully implemented the rule as part of the National Organic Program (NOP) but offered recommendations for improvement.

The access to pasture rule was published in February 2010 to amend provisions in the NOP regarding livestock confinement and the necessary dietary requirements of organically raised livestock, which, according to AMS, were unclear. The access to pasture rule clarified these provisions, requiring that producers provide livestock with access to pasture during the grazing season for their geographical location among other provisions. The rule was fully implemented on June 17, 2011.

Based on the review, the OIG recommends that NOP clarify its origin of livestock rules and ensure that feed-brokers are included within the NOP certification process to ensure there is no commingling or contamination of organic feed. Also, OIG noted that certifying agents did not take consistent action when identifying non-compliance issues with USDA organic regulations and it found that smaller operations were often unaware of the record-keeping requirements of the access to pasture rule. OIG offers recommendations based on these findings. AMS concurs with all of the OIG recommendations.

For the full report, please see the OIG Audit Report 01601-0002-32.

 

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 12, 2013

FDA Extends Comment Period for FSMA Regulations

On August 8, 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued Federal Register notices that the comment periods for the “Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” proposed rule and “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption” proposed rule are extended until November 15, 2013.

The Preventive Controls for Human Foods proposed rule contains provisions requiring hazard analysis and risk based preventive controls as well as revisions to the Current Good Manufacturing Practice requirements found in 21 CFR part 110.

The Produce Safety proposed rule sets science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce on farms. Please see our previous blog post on the Produce Safety proposed rule for more information.

Please visit the FDA’s website and the Federal Register concerning the two proposed rules for further information.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 9, 2013

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Proposes to Amend PA Clean and Green Act

On August 3, 2013, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture proposed rulemaking under the Pennsylvania Farmland and Forest Land Assessment Act of 1974, 72 PA. STAT. ANN. §§ 5490.1-5490.13, also known as the Clean and Green Act. The Clean and Green Act (“Act”) allows owners of agricultural, agricultural reserve, or forest reserve land to apply for preferential assessment of their land to receive an assessment based upon the land’s use rather than the market value.

The proposed rulemaking adds new definitions and makes revisions to implement the recent amendments to the Act (a total of six amendments since 2004). It adds language to clarify the administration of the Act by defining several commonly used terms and providing further information for how “farmstead land” is to be enrolled and assessed. It also addresses the types of recreational activities that are acceptable on enrolled land without adverse financial consequences to the owner and corrects mistakes in the description of the roll-back tax calculation process.

For further information concerning the proposed amendments and recent acts that modify the Clean and Green Act, as well as the text of the Act, please visit the PA Bulletin website. For more information on Clean and Green generally, please see our Clean and Green Resource Area.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 8, 2013

RELATE with the Farm Act of 2013 Introduced in the House

On July 22, 2013, H.R. 2776, entitled Review EPA’s Language on Agriculture and Thoroughly Engage (RELATE) with the Farm Act of 2013, was introduced in the House. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.  The RELATE with the Farm Act of 2013 would establish a process for the Secretary of Agriculture to review rules that the Administer of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to impose.  The bill allows a review of all EPA rules which the Secretary determines would have “significant impact on a substantial number of agricultural entities.”  Included in the Secretary’s powers would be the ability to utilize the Chief Economist of the Department of Agriculture to produce an economic impact statement to assess the estimate potential costs of EPA rules to agricultural entities.

To see the entire text of this bill, please click here. 

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 8, 2013

Pennsylvania DCNR Moves the Beginning of the Ginseng Harvest Season to September 1

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) updated Chapter 45 of the PA Code to delay the start of the ginseng harvest season to September 1.  Previously, the harvest season began on August 1.  The harvest season continues to run through November 30.  DCNR will no longer certify any ginseng harvested prior to September 1.

According to the PA DCNR, this change will allow the ginseng, a Pennsylvania Vulnerable Plant, to fully mature prior to harvest, ensuring sustainability of ginseng production within the state.

For more information, please see the PA DCNR website.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 7, 2013

Judge Temporarily Halts the Opening of Horse Slaughterhouses in New Mexico and Iowa

On August 2, U.S. District Judge Christina Armijo issued a temporary restraining order against two slaughterhouses, in Iowa and New Mexico, which were set to begin the slaughter of horses next week.  The lawsuit, brought by the Humane Society of the United States, and several other organizations, contended that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) failed to do the proper environmental impact studies before issuing the permits which would allow the companies in Iowa and New Mexico to open the horse slaughterhouses.  The injunction will remain in place for 30 days, after which the court will decide whether to extend the order for a longer period of time.

The USDA gave these slaughterhouses the go-ahead to begin horse slaughter in June.  According to the USDA, Congress prohibited the use of Federal funding for equine slaughter inspections in 2006, but did not continue the prohibition in its FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-55).  Therefore, if a slaughterhouse meets all FSIS regulations for equine slaughter, the FSIS must grant Federal inspection to the facility.

For more information, please see the USDA’s Humane Slaughter page or FSIS’ Information Regarding Horse Slaughter page.

Written By Gaby Gilbeau – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 6, 2013

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Issues Gluten-Free Labeling Final Rule

On August 5, 2013, the FDA released the final rule on voluntary labeling of gluten-free foods. The rule defines “gluten-free” as foods that do not include ingredients that contain gluten such as spelt wheat, or ingredients that are derived from a gluten-containing grain that has not been processed to remove gluten such as wheat flour. In addition, gluten-free can mean that the food ingredients contain gluten at less than 20 parts per million or that the food does not inherently contain gluten. Foods already labeled as gluten-free or with a similar label have one year to comply with the standards set by the rule. The FDA hopes to ensure that individuals with celiac disease are not misled by inaccurate labeling and are provided with truthful information in order to live without the adverse health effects caused by the disease.

The final rule was issued under the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 (2004). For the full text of the rule, please visit the Federal Register.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 6, 2013

The World Trade Organization Finds that China Violated Trade Laws Concerning Imports of Chicken Products

On August 2, 2013, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) Panel found that China was acting inconsistently with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCM Agreement) after reviewing the duties imposed by China on U.S. poultry products.

China began imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on broiler products from the U.S in 2009, alleging that the U.S. was subsidizing poultry production and then flooding China’s domestic market with low cost chicken products, causing the sale of domestic poultry to decline (a practice called “dumping”). In 2011, after discussions with China failed to settle the dispute over these duties, the U.S. requested that the WTO resolve the matter.  

After review, the WTO DSB Panel stated that China did not give the U.S. adequate facts or calculations of how they determined the effects of the alleged dumping. In addition, the Panel found that China acted inconsistently with numerous other articles of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and SCM Agreement. The Panel recommended that China conform to the agreements or face potential retaliations.

China has the ability to appeal this resolution within 60 days. If appealed, the Appellate Body of the WTO will review the Panel’s findings and make a determination within 90 days. If China does not appeal and does not conform to the agreements in accordance with the WTO’s findings, then the U.S. and other parties involved may impose retaliatory measures.

For more information, please see the WTO’s findings and the dispute settlement procedures.

Written by Sarah L. Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 5, 2013

French Court Overturns France’s Ban on Monsanto GMO Corn

On August 1, 2013, the highest administrative court in France rejected a government ban on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn. The court stated that according to European Union law, a ban such as this could only be imposed in the case of an emergency or serious health or environmental risk. This is the second time in two years that the State Council has overturned a government ban on growing MON810, a Monsanto variety of GMO corn. According to several press releases, the government of France maintains its opposition towards the cultivation of Monsanto’s GMO maize, reflecting the public’s view that GMO technology poses environmental risks.

Written by Sarah Doyle – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

August 2, 2013

Court Finds that Florida Hog Farmer is Entitled to Compensation from the State as a Result of the Gestation Crate Ban

On July 24, 2013, a Florida appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Stephen Basford of Basford Farms was owed $505,000 plus interest for a taking of certain improvements on his real property by the State of Florida as a result of the “Pregnant Pig Amendment.”

The Pregnant Pig Amendment (Article X, section 21 of the Florida Constitution) was enacted in 2008 after voters approved the Amendment in 2002. The Amendment makes it illegal to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm, in a way that prevents the pig from turning around freely. Basford, one of two mass pork producers who used gestation crates in Florida, claimed that he had to shut down his operation in 2003 after the passage of the Amendment. He stated that he could no longer operate his business and compete with other producers who were not restricted from using gestation crates. Basford sold for salvage value all of his gestation and farrowing crates and other materials used in his operation, stating that it would have cost him $600,000 to convert his hog farming operation to conform to the new law.

The lower court concluded that a taking by the State occurred when the law went into effect on November 5, 2008 and that Basford was entitled to the fair market value of the improvements to his real property valued at the time of the taking less the salvage value totaling $505,000 plus interest. The appeals court affirmed when the taking occurred because the statute of limitations did not begin to accrue until the Amendment went into effect in 2008, therefore not expiring before Basford filed suit. The appeals court also affirmed the Final Judgment that an as-applied taking occurred because, as shown through the lower court’s fact-finding process, there was a loss of value as a result of the Amendment.

For the full opinion, please see the Florida State Court’s website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 1, 2013