New Hampshire GMO Labeling Bill Rejected by House Committee but Will Still be Voted on by House

On November 6, the New Hampshire House Environment and Agriculture Committee in a 12-8 vote recommended that the full House reject HB 0660 which would require the labeling of food products containing genetically modified organisms.  The bill was primarily opposed by Republican committee members.  The bill will go to the full House in January for a floor vote.

Under HB 0660, products produced with genetic engineering will be deemed misbranded if not labeled as such.  The bill would also require the attorney general to publish on the AG website a list of raw agricultural commodities known to be genetically engineered.  HB 0660 would require the commissioner of agriculture, markets and foods to adopt rules establishing best practices for farmers who raise GM crops.

Media sources report that passing the bill is instrumental in the enactment of Maine’s GMO labeling law which requires five other contiguous state pass similar labeling laws before it can go into effect.

For more information on the bill, visit the New Hampshire House of Representatives website for the full text of the bill, status, and docket.

Written by Alyssa Looney – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

November 18, 2013

The First Public Meeting for the 2013 Farm Bill is Scheduled for Today

On October 23, the House and Senate Agriculture Committee announced that the first public meeting for the 2013 Farm Bill conference committee will be held on October 30 at 1:00 p.m. eastern time.  The meeting will be discussing House Resolution 2642.

Click here for a copy of the Press Release.

Click here to watch the live stream of the meeting on the House Agriculture Committee website.

Written by Joseph Negaard - Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

October 30, 2013

Reid Requests Conference with Senate and House on Agriculture Bills

On October 1, Richard Cox reported on The Hill Blog that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) requested a conference committee between representatives from the House and Senate to resolve their differences over the Farm Bill.

Reid named seven Democrats and five Republicans to the conference, all who serve on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.  The conferees are Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), John Boozman  (R-Ark.), and John Hoeven (R-N.D.).  House conferees have not yet been decided upon; however, under congressional protocol, Frank Lucas, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, would preside over the negotiations.

The existing Farm Bill expired on Tuesday, as lawmakers had not reached an agreement on a new bill.  The Senate passed a bipartisan farm bill earlier in the year which would reduce spending by $24 billion, mostly through restructuring farm subsidies into a crop insurance program.  The House passed a similar bill; however, it reduced food assistance by nearly $40 billion and separated food assistance programs from the agriculture policy.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Stabenow’s statements on the conference can be found on the Agriculture Committee website.  Richard Cox’s original report can be found on The Hill Blog.  For more information on the Farm Bill, see the Farm Bill section of the Senate Agriculture Committee website and the House Agriculture Committee website, as well as our past blog posts from June 7,  June 11, June 20, and July 12.

Written by Alyssa Looney – Research Assistant

The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center

@PSUAgLawCenter

October 1, 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

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

U.S. Representatives Introduce American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011

Photo Courtesy of Dreamstime.com

On September 19, 2011, Representatives Dan Burton (R-Ind.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) introduced House Bill 2466, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act of 2011, that would amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the "shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of any horse or other equine to be slaughtered for human consumption." The Bill would also grant the Secretary of Agriculture authority to detain any horse for examination, testing, or the taking of evidence at a show, exhibition, sale, or auction which the Secretary has probable cause to believe is "sore"; as well as any horse that the Secretary has probable cause to believe has been "shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or donated" in violation of the Act. Finally, the Bill would increase the appropriations for the Horse Prevention Act by ten-fold: from $500,000 to $5,000,000.

Horse slaughter plants no longer operate within U.S borders; however, thousands of horses are still shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter. This bi-partisan measure aims to end the export and slaughter of U.S. equines for human consumption. House Bill 2466 has been referred to both the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

The comparable Senate Bill, SB 1176, was introduced in the Senate on June 9, 2011; has been read twice; and was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

Read the Full Text of House Bill 2466 here.
Read the APHIS Fact Sheet on the Horse Protection Act here.

Posted by Tanya J. Cramoy, Research Assistant