The United States Agricultural & Food Law and Policy Blog

Welcome to the U.S. Agricultural & Food Law and Policy Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Ag Law Center) — Sun, 06 Jan 2019 16:11:00 +0000

A comprehensive news, research, and information resource for the nation’s agricultural community.

Provided as a partnership of the National Agricultural Law Center, the nation’s leading source of agricultural and food law research and information, and the American Agricultural Law Association, the only national professional organization focusing on the legal needs of the agricultural community.

Administration moving on trade agenda

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:54:00 +0000

In his State of the Union address in January, President Obama stated it is the goal of the administration to double American exports within five years. Today, the president is expected to sign an executive order that aims to help start the process of meeting that goal.

The executive order will create an Export Promotion Cabinet comprised of officials from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, State, Treasury, and other "federal agencies involved in trade [,]" reports Sewell Chan and Javier C. Hernandez in the New York Times online.

In addition to the new cabinet, the Times reports that the president will also name "an advisory committee on international trade, called the President's Export Council [.]" This council will be led by the chief executives of Boeing and Xerox. "The effort is intended, the administration official said, to improve financing for businesses that want to increase exports, enforce existing trade agreements and help create jobs while making American goods more competitive abroad."

Of course, the Times correctly points out that the president's plan is not without detractors, and Congress, which controls trade policy, has a mixed record in moving trade initiatives. While the Central American Free Trade Agreement was passed by Congress during the Bush Administration, other agreements the Bush Administration negotiated, like with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, stalled in Congress.

We shall see if President Obama's trade agenda is received with open arms, or hostility.

To read the New York Times article click here.

Posted: 03/11/10

Senate Jobs Bill Contains Agriculture Provisions

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:22:00 +0000

Yesterday, the Senate passed a roughly $140 billion jobs bill aimed at stimulating job growth in the struggling economy, as well as covering other areas of concern in this time of economic recession. Also included in the bill were provisions that America's agricultural producers might find helpful.

As Sally Schuff writes for Feedstuffs online, the Senate bill included a $1.5 billion agricultural disaster package and a one-year extension of the biodiesel tax credit that is retroactive to January 1, 2010. According to Schuff, the Senate bill will now proceed to the House "as part of the tax extenders legislation." Agricultural leaders in Congress are hoping the bill will move quickly through the House so the legislation can be enacted and farmers can receive the help they need.

Here's how the disaster money breaks down: $1 billion for crop losses suffered in 2009; $75 million in disaster moneys for poultry; $50 million for livestock; $20 million for aquaculture, "and relief for cotton handlers." There is also $300 million included for specialty crop producers. The bill also includes a one-year extension of the tax credit for short line railroads, "and a one-year tax credit for a new markets program [.]"

Hoosier Ag Today online reports that to be eligible for the disaster payments, those suffering losses must be in a county declare a "primary" disaster area by the US Department of Agriculture. The biodiesel tax incentive will allow biodiesel producers to continue with their current work, or in some cases, even expand production.

As Gail Russell Chaddock reports for the Christian Science Monitor, the $140 billion legislation passed the Senate 62 to 36. In addition to the previously mentioned provisions, the bill also extends unemployment insurance, provides support for state Medicaid programs, and "blocks mandated cuts in reimbursement for doctors service Medicare patients.

The House of Representatives passed a version of the tax extenders legislation back in December, 2009. Since the two bodies of Congress used different offsets to help pay for their legislation, it looks like a conference on the package is inevitable.

How long it will take to proceed to such a conference, let alone conduct one, remains to be seen.

To read the Feedstuffs online article click here.
To read the Christian Science Monitor article click here.
To read the Hoosier Ag Today article click here.

Posted: 03/11/10

Rice Farmer Awarded $1 Million

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:59:00 +0000

The Associated Press is reporting out of Little Rock, AR today that a Woodruff County Circuit Court jury "has ordered Bayer CropScience LP to pay a rice farmer me than $1 million in a lawsuit over [an] experimental rice variety."

According to the article, the decision awards $532,643 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages to rice farmer Lenny Joe Kyle. The jury found that Kyle's crop was damaged when Bayer CropScience's "experimental variety of genetically modified rice was mixed with the rice supply.

While the US Department of Agriculture maintains no risk was created by the mixing, both Japan and the European Union restricted U.S. rice. Naturally, this lead to a drop in rice prices and a decline in US rice exports.

For their part, Bayer CropScience released a statement saying the company disagrees with the decision and is considering its legal options at this point. The company also maintains they did nothing wrong.

To read the AP report, click here.

Posted: 03/10/10

California and Oregon nurseries sue to overturn a South Carolina regulation

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:02:00 +0000

The Natural Resource Report online is running a news release from the Oregon Association of Nurseries (OAN) that reports that the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers (CANGC) and the OAN filed a lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in Columbia, South Carolina "seeking to overturn a new regulation aimed squarely at blocking California and Oregon nursery growers from shipping their plants to that state."

While the US Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has regulations in place to deal with Phytopthora ramorum, or Sudden Oak Death, to protect against the spread of the disease, last year South Carolina passed a bill that prevents California and Oregon growers from shipping to South Carolina unless the growers comply with additional requirements for inspections, documentation, and notice. According to the news release, these state regulations go further than the federal rules. Thus, the two organizations are seeking an injunction to invalidate the regulation.

The organizations believe the South Carolina statute is in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the US Plant Protection Act, "which gives the federal government the exclusive power to protect plants sold in interstate commerce." The organizations also believe they have legal precedent on their side since, in 2004, the CANGC "successfully sued the State of Kentucky under similar circumstances."

As Dana Tims reports for the Oregonian online, "potentially millions of dollars are riding on the lawsuit since most of the plant material grown in the two states is exported to markets in the south, east and Midwest. " This is in part why the challenge is being brought--if South Carolina's actions are allowed to stand what is to prevent other states from doing the same?

Indeed, John Aguirre, executive director of the OAN is quoted in the Tims story as stating, "For us, the problem is much bigger than just South Carolina . . . If other state think this will go unchallenged, there's every likelihood that they will start doing just what South Carolina has done . . ."

Since the organizations feel the regulation is clearly in violation of the Constitution, federal law, and the legal precedent is on their side, they are hoping for a quick ruling from the US District Court in their favor.

To read the OAN news release on the Natural Resource Report online, click here.
To read the Oregonian story click here.

Posted: 03/10/10

Animal Rights Legislation Introduced in House

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:47:00 +0000

The "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act," H.R. 4733, was introduced last week by United States Representatives Diane Watson and Elton Gallegly, both of California.The bill requires that all meat purchased by the federal government for the various federal feeding programs, like free and reduced-price school lunches, only come from sources where the animals are raised free from abuse and cruel treatment.

As John Maday reports for Drovers online, the bill aims to achieve this goal by implementing "federal standards regulating housing and animal treatment on operations that supply food to" the government.

Maday writes that such a law would effect virtually every livestock operation in the nation because the US Department of Agriculture purchases meat products from packers and processors, not directly from farmers. "Without full traceability of every product back to its farm or ranch of origin, packers would need to require compliance from all their suppliers to continue selling meat or dairy products to the government."

Farm Futures online reports that the legislation would require that animals be raised with enough room "to stand up, lie down, turn around and stretch their limbs." Such standards are similar to the requirements the Humane Society of the United States has been successful at implementing at the state level, like in California where Proposition 2 implemented such language through a ballot initiative.

Given all that is going on in Congress at the moment, and the fact that this is an election year, it may be difficult for the California lawmakers to move their legislation. Nonetheless, it is out in the public domain for debate.

To read the Farm Futures online article on the bill, click here.
To read Maday's article in Drovers online, click here.
To check out H.R. 4733, click here.

Posted: 03/09/10

Brazil announces cotton retaliation trade sanctions

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:36:00 +0000

On Monday, Brazil announced it was imposing trade sanctions on several American goods as part of a retaliatory effort authorized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year. As the Associated Press reports in the Washington Post online, last year the WTO "authorized Brazil to set $829.3 million in annual penalties against the United States for anticompetitive subsidies." Brazil says it will keep imposing the sanctions as long as the violating subsidies continue.

The subsidies in question are direct payments made to cotton producers "to protect them against fluctuations in global prices," as well as a loan guarantee program "for international buyers of US cotton," reports the Financial Times. The AP reports Brazil argues that these subsidies allow the United States "to remain the world's second-largest cotton producer by paying some $3 billion to American farmers each year." Brazil is the fifth-largest exporter of cotton.

The Dow Jones reports in the Wall Street Journal online that the sanctions total $591 million. These increased tariffs go in effect in 30 days, following a period of negotiations between the nations to see if the tariffs can be avoided. The plan is for them to stay in effect for one year, again, "pending alterations in U.S. subsidy practices."

Brazilian Foreign Trade Secretary Lytha Spindola stated to Dow Jones that,

"The Brazilian government doesn't believe that trade retaliation is the most appropriate means to achieve fairer international commerce . . . But after eight years of litigation, and in the absence of more concrete options for resolving the dispute, all that's left for Brazil is to make good on its rights as authorized by the WTO, if even only to safeguard the credibility of the system of conflict resolution."

102 imports are affected by the sanctions, from Heinz ketchup, to Ford automobiles. "Among the heaviest penalized imports were U.S. wheat sales, which will see tariff increases to 30% from 10% currently."

The Brazilian government is not quite done with retaliatory efforts either. The country is still seeking to impose the remaining $238 million in retaliations against the U.S., "hoping to punish industries such as those involving intellectual property rights and services." The list of items targeted in this effort is expected to be announced by March 23, 2010.

James Politi and Jonathan Wheatley write in the Financial Times online that the move by Brazil could launch a potential trade war with the US. The Dow-Jones reports that in 2009 Brazil did $35.6 billion in trade with the U.S. According to the Financial Times article, US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Michael Froman, deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, are due to arrive in Brazil today--presumably to continue negotiations with Brazil over the subsidies and the tariffs.

The Financial Times reports,

"Under the Brazilian plan, duties would rise most steeply on cotton products. Many that are currently taxed at between 6 per cent and 35 per cent would be taxed at 100 per cent. The tariffs on beauty products would double, from 18 per cent to 36 per cent. Duties on household goods such as cookers, refrigerators, television sets and video cameras would also double, from 20 per cent to 40 per cent. Duties on cars would rise from 35 per cent to 50 per cent."

For their part, the Financial Times reports that the US trade representative in Washington said they are "disappointed" in Brazil's decision to implement the counter-measures, but both sides remain hopeful a compromise can be negotiated.

U.S. Agricultural leaders were not quiet following the Brazil announcement. U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Chairman Blanche Lincoln (AR) and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss (GA) issue a joint statement on the retaliation efforts, calling them "unfortunate," while maintaining their commitment to settling the dispute, but expressing disappointment in how the negotiations are going, '"We cannot negotiate with a partner that is unwilling to voice what it wants." The senators also expressed their belief that US cotton programs are not '"having a significant impact on world cotton prices."'

The statement also includes a bit of a warning from the senators, "'[w]hile Brazil has chosen to exercise its rights, its future actions will determine the degree to which the administration and the Congress are willing to move forward together in resolving the dispute and other in the World Trade Organization,' said Lincoln and Chambliss."

To read the AP piece in the Washington Post click here.
To read the Dow Jones piece in the Wall Street Journal click here.
To read the Financial Times article click here.
To read the statement from Lincoln and Chambliss click here.

Posted: 03/09/10

House Ag Committee reauthorizes agricultural mediation grant program

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:09:00 +0000

The House Agriculture Committee was relatively busy last week. The committee passed two bills and approved its budget recommendation letter for federal agencies and programs under its jurisdiction.

The piece of legislation that was passed that has national implications is H.R. 3509, which reauthorizes funding for the State agricultural mediation grant program, which was authorized under title V of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987. According to the news release from the committee, the program provides grants to state programs that "help agricultural producers, their creditors and various agencies address disputes, including loan problems and USDA adverse decisions."

As Jerry Hagstrom writes for Agweek online, the vote on H.R. 3509 was unanimous. Hagstrom reports that the program was first created during the "farm crisis of the 1980s." Though the bill allows for $7.5 million to be appropriated to the program each year, last year the program was funded at $4.369 million.

The USDA Farm Service Agency reports that 32 states participate in the program, "which provides matching grants to the states." Since it was created, the mediation program has dealt with disputes involving loans, federal support program payments, conservation programs, and rural issues.

To read the House Agriculture Committee news release, click here.
To read the Hagstrom article in Agweek click here.

Posted: 03/08/10

Justice and Agriculture Department workshops on competition start this week

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:12:00 +0000

This week the Des Moines, Iowa suburb of Ankeny will play host to the first workshop jointly held by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that will take a look at consolidation and competition in agricultural industries.

As Christopher Leonard of the Associated Press reports, many in the industry believe that this workshop will provide insight into the seriousness of the Obama administration in taking on consolidation and competition issues in agriculture. Administration officials believe the meeting on Friday will provide those interested in these issues, from attorneys to regulators, "their first chance to work side-by-side and examine the concentration of power in rural America."

Farmers are certainly interested in what will come out of the workshops to see if their "long-standing complaints" about big business drowning out smaller operations is actually addressed, or if the meetings are mere "political theater." Leonard quotes Tara Smith, the director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, as stating, '"This is certainly a much brighter spotlight than we've seen in the last 10 years [.]"'

Christine Varney, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division has complained that the previous administration was too hesitant to act when concerns over concentration were raised. Varney hopes to change this perception and believes vertical concentration in the market is worth taking a closer look at.

USDA Secretary Vilsack will be joining Varney at the workshops. Vilsack hopes what they hear and learn will yield "policies to foster competition in agriculture, rather than scattered enforcement actions." Additionally, Vilsack stated that if the competition practices are fair, then the government will take no action. It is their hope not to stifle large agricultural business operations, but to create a level playing field.

For their part, as Leonard reports, industry groups do not believe consolidation in the industry leads to price fixing or a lack of competition." The American Meat Institute has filed testimony in which they argue that companies have become consolidated because government regulations require large monetary investments that lead to the merger of companies in order to afford the costs of regulations.

Regardless, both sides, in theory, now have an audience to air their views on the issues. There will also be four other meetings following the meeting in Iowa.

To read the AP article by Leonard, click here.
To read previous US Agricultural & Food Law and Policy Blog Post on the announcement of the workshops, click here.

Posted: 03/08/10

Ignored slaughterhouse violations under congressional scrutiny

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:48:00 +0000

Peter Eisler reports for USA Today online that Dean Wyatt, a supervisory veterinarian for the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), will testify today before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee about how he and other inspectors were "overruled when citing slaughterhouses for violations," and how he was "threatened with transfer or demotion" after citing a plant for violating rules that require pigs be stunned and unconscious before being butchered.

Eisler quotes Wyatt as stating in his written testimony for the committee that "When upper-level FSIS management looks the other way as food safety or humane slaughter laws are broken . . . then management is just as guilty for breaking those laws [.]" The violations Wyatt refers to include "shocking and butchering days-old calves that were too weak or sick to stand[,]" and butchering pigs that were still conscious.

This testimony is not good publicity for the USDA following the past year's numerous product recalls due to food-borne illness outbreaks, and the USA Today investigation that revealed the quality of meat served in public schools as part of the federal free and reduced-price school lunch program was so poor that fast food restaurants would not serve it.

For their part, the current USDA officials point out that the "inaction on Wyatt's reports occured before the tenure of current" USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. Secretary Vilsack maintains the department will enforce the laws on animal treatment.

As USA Today reports, perhaps the most egregious of the violations Wyatt reported that were ignored by his managers involves Bushway Packing Inc., in Grand Isle, VT. Three times Wyatt ordered that Bushway operations be suspended for violations. Eisler reports that one violation included dragging downed calves through pens, where they could come into contact with fecal material that can carry bacterias and pathogens that cause food-borne illnesses, to where they were going to be slaughtered. Each time he operations suspended he was overruled by his managers and Bushway kept operating.

Fast-forward to this past fall when Bushway violations were caught on undercover video by the Humane Society of the United States. The video showed workers "hitting and using electric prods to move calves." As Eisler reports, the plant was shut down and Secretary Vilsack ordered a criminal investigation.

If today's hearing is any indication, the USDA will step up enforcement of slaughterhouse and animal treatment laws, or the department will continue to face congressional scrutiny.

To read Eisler's USA Today article click here.

Posted: 03/04/10

Pollution Suit Brought Against Perdue, Chicken Farm

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:40:00 +0000

Jennifer Hlad has a post on Southern Maryland online reporting that "a coalition of environmental groups" has brought a lawsuit against Perdue Farms Inc. and a Perdue contract poultry farmer, alleging the farm "illegally discharged 'harmful pollution' into the Pocomoke River.

If this lawsuit sounds familiar, it should. Since 2005, the state of Oklahoma has been involved in a case against eleven poultry companies with operations in the Illinois River watershed over the alleged pollution of the watershed. Some believe that if Oklahoma is successful in its suit, it will spawn future suits against the poultry industry using, essentially, the same argument as Oklahoma, and now the environmental groups in Maryland.

Hlad writes that in December the Assateague Coastal Trust and the Waterkeeper Alliance filed a 60-day notice of intent sue. The notice was filed after Assateague Coastkeeper Kathy Phillips conducted a water quality test on water "flowing from Hudson Farms . . . and found high levels of bacteria." Phillips claims the bacteria contained levels of fecal coliform and E.coli that exceed state limits.

The Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) has since inspected the farm. The MDE suggested that a stockpile of Class A sewage sludge be moved away from a drainage ditch. Most recently the MDE took water samples along the drainage ditch, but the samples are still being analyzed, though preliminary results showed high levels of bacteria.

Much like the case in Oklahoma, the case against Perdue has the potential to be quite contentious with serious implications for future lawsuits.

To read the Hlad post click here.

Posted: 03/04/10

House Panel Rejects Proposed Ag Cuts

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:00:00 +0000

The House Committee on Agriculture sent a message to the administration on Tuesday. It was the same message they sent the administration last year. The message was relatively simple--the committee likes the current Farm Bill and the limits that were set in that bill dealing with who, working in agriculture, should be eligible to receive federal support payments.

The current Farm Bill says that crop subsidies will not be paid out to people whoe earn more than $500,000 a year in adjusted gross income (AGI) "from off-farm sources or $750,000 on-farm AGI." The White House, in their fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, wanted to lower the income-eligibility for payments over three years to $250,000 off-farm AGI and $500,00o on-farm AGI. Reuters reports this would affect 30,000 individuals. In addition to lowering the AGI limits, the White House also proposed reducing the annual direct-payment subsidy cap from $40,000 to $30,000. Additionally, cuts "in federal subsidies to privately run crop insurance system" were proposed.

As Charles Abbott reports for Reuters online, the House Agriculture Committee had little discussion in deciding, for the second year in a row, to reject the administration's proposed cuts to agriculture programs. In a letter from the House Agriculture Committee to the House Budget Committee, Chairman Collin Peterson (MN) and the committee members said the 2008 Farm Bill should not be opened to changes, and any changes to farm programs should be done through the next farm bill, which is due in 2012.

Peterson did throw a small bone to the administration in indicating that the House Agriculture Committee will "examine federal spending on crop subsidies, land stewardship, public nutrition, meat safety and other Agriculture Department work." With the success this administration and the previous administration had in cutting agricultural programs, it appears the 2008 Farm Bill will remain relatively untouched until the next reauthorization.

To read the Reuters article click here.

Posted: 03/04/10

Rehearing Granted in Climate Change Case

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:43:00 +0000

Joanne Wojcik reports for Business Insurance online that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has granted a rehearing en banc. to determine whether a climate change lawsuit can go forward. Previously, a three judge panel of the court ruled that the climate change nuisance lawsuit, Comer et al. v. Murphy Oil USA et al., could proceed. By granting a rehearing en banc the court is saying it would like a full panel of nine judges to rehear the matter.

According to Business Insurance online, the case "stems from a 2006 lawsuit" filed by coastal Mississippi residents against various energy companies and chemical companies for allegedly contributing to climate change, and therefore, causing 2005's Hurricane Katrina to be more severe and cause more damage than it otherwise would have. Their are thousands of claimants in the suit, according to a press release issued by Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, found on Open Press online.

In 2007 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed the suit because "global warming nuisance suits raised political questions," and were therefore not appropriated for judicial review, but rather, more appropriate an issue to be dealt with by the Congress.

This ruling was reversed last October by the federal appeals court panel. The appeals court found the plaintiffs did have standing to sue the companies for their alleged contributions to global warming "that intensified the damage the residents and landowners suffered from Hurricane Katrina in 2005."

Following the appeal from the defendants, the court ruled on February 26, 2010 that the case will be reheard by all nine justices. The defendants hope this is an indication that this suit will once again see a reversal.

To read the Business Insurance online story click here.
To read the press release on Open Press click here.
To learn more about climate change case law and statutory law, click here to visit the National Agricultural Law Center's Climate Change Reading Room.

Posted: 03/03/10

Report: Food-borne Illnesses Cost $152 billion in Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:44:00 +0000

A new consumer report issued by the Produce Safety Project at Georgetown University found that the "health-related costs of food-borne illnesses total $152 billion a year," reports Andrew Zajaz and P.J. Huffstutter in the Los Angeles Times online.

According to Elizabeth Weise of USA Today online, this amounts to $1,850 every time some one falls ill from food.

"Health-related costs" in the report include the costs of treating the illness as well as "lost wages and lost productivity." According to the Times article, this number is four times the amount calculated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USA Today reports that the government estimates that 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 76 million illnesses each year can be attributed to food (data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration).

Naturally, speculation has begun that this report will add more fuel to the fire of those looking to reform the nation's food safety system. Their have been numerous outbreaks of food-borne illnesses over the past year from a variety of products, the President appointed a working group to deal with the issue, and the House and Representatives has passed a bill that deals with food safety directly. Of course, action has stalled in the Senate after a bill passed unanimously out of the committee of jurisdiction.

The study showed that the costs of food-borne illnesses varied by state, regional diet and regional health, costs of medical care, "and regulators' ability to quickly respond and curtail food contamination outbreaks." USA Today reports that Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety coordinator for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, observes the costs of food-borne illnesses amounts to "spending $85 billion on the consequences of unsafe food for every $1 billion the government is spending to prevent it [.]"

The Times article states the report is intended to pressure Congress to act on the issue and institute "more stringent food safety legislation" by showing how much the cost of doing nothing can affect the country's economic health as well as physical health.

For their part, the produce industry noted the findings could be flawed because "they do not distinguish between illness caused by mishandling food in the home and sickness triggered by defects in growing, processing and distributing food." A spokesman for the trade group United Fresh Produce Association noted that their research shows that the majority of food-borne illnesses are a result of consumers mishandling products.

While federal legislation may be stalled, states are not waiting to act in the name of food safety, reports the Times. "In the 2009-10 legislative year, 553 bills involving changes to food safety have been introduced in 48 states," according Doug Farquhar of the National Conference of State Legislatures. 37 bills have been introduced in California.

Farquhar points out in the Times article that farmers and ranchers have concerns over food safety as well as consumers because being able to market and sell their products is their livelihood.

We shall have to wait and see whether this new report spurns any federal action.

To read the Los Angeles Times article click here.
To read the USA Today article click here.

Posted: 03/03/10

What Does It Mean To Be Poor?

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:55:00 +0000

As Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post reports, the Obama administration had been asking itself the same question--until Tuesday.

Yesterday the administration announced it is preparing to develop a "Supplemental Poverty Measure," issued by the Commerce Department's U.S. Census Bureau, that the government states is "augmenting, but not replacing, the formula that determines how many people are considered to be in poverty, taking into account a wider range of expenses and income to try to create a truer portrait of which Americans are financially fragile."

The previous definition hails from the mid-1960s. It uses data from the 1950s, and it is based solely on the cost of food and "a family's cash income." As Goldstein reports, the new definition acknowledges that food has become a smaller portion of a family's costs. Additionally, the new formula accounts for costs such as "housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment." Further, the new formula considers "financial help" in determining what resources people actually have. Financial help could be food subsidies, cash assistance programs, and earned income.

As Goldstein correctly notes, the implications of the formula could affect a broad array of federal programs and the eligibility for, and costs of, such programs, like food stamps and free and reduced-price school lunches. Goldstein reports that, in order to avoid the "political minefield" that can come with changing the formula, the administration has decided to keep the old formula "as the basis for the official federal poverty line--the threshold underlying eligibility rules for assistance programs."

Commerce Department Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Rebecca Blank, states in the Commerce Department news release on the new poverty measure, that the new formula's importance will be in "providing an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies."

The Supplemental Poverty Measure was included in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget, and according to the news release, the measure will be released in the fall of 2011. This is the same time official information on income and poverty "measures" for 2010 will be released by the Census Bureau.

To read the news release from the Commerce Department click here.
To read the Washington Post story on the new poverty measure, click here.

Posted: 03/03/10

Salmonella Death Lawsuit Filed in Northern California

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:15:00 +0000

The San Jose Mercury News online is running a story by the Oakland Tribune that the daughter of Donna Pierce has filed a lawsuit against U.F. Union International Food following the death of Ms. Pierce from complications involving a salmonella infection that was allegedly caused when Ms. Pierce consumed some pepper from Union International while recovering from lung surgery at Kaiser Hospital in Hayward, California.

The daughter, Tamara Lucier of Huntington Beach, has enlisted the services of the Marler Clark law firm from Seattle, Washington. Marler Clark specializes in food safety law. The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of Ms. Pierce's family, "including reimbursement of medical and funeral expenses."

The suit was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, California on Thursday of last week. The other defendants in the claim are Foodservice Partners of California LLC and two Delaware-based companies, Foodservice Partners Inc and Sysco Corp.

As the Associated Press reports in Business Week online, the outbreak that caused Ms. Pierce's illness was part of a bacterial outbreak last year that was "linked to spices produced by Union International, which recalled its Lian How and Uncle Chen brands of spices." The spices reportedly sickened 87 people on the West Coast.

To read the story from the San Jose Mercury News click here.
To read the story from Business Week click here.

Trade Adjustment Assistance Available for Farmers

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:25:00 +0000

Farmers feeling the financial pinch as a result of the economic recession and having to compete against cheaper foreign goods over the last several years may soon be able to seek some relief from the US government through the recently launched US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program.

Secretary Vilsack issued this statement on the launching of the program in a USDA news release, '"As we work to help rural America recover from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers Program will create new opportunities for producers hurt by import competition . . . Eligible producers will receive much-needed technical assistance and cash benefits to help them adjust to the current economic environment."'

Since August the USDA has been receiving public comments on just how the program should work and what the eligibility criteria should be. "Comments focused on payment limitations and adjusted gross income, specialty crops, and length of intensive training." The interim rule was published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2010, and it immediately starts the program while also allowing for another 30-day period for public comment.

The TAA was re-authorized as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the program is administered by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service "with the assistance from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Farm Service Agency and the Agricultural Marketing Service."

According to the USDA news release, eligible producers are those who produce raw agricultural commodities, as well as fisherman, "who show a greater than 15 percent decrease-contributed importantly by an increase in imports-in the national average price;" how much is produced; the value of what is produced; "or in cash receipts compared to the average of the three preceding marketing years."

For more information on the TAA click here.
To read the USDA press release click here.

Posted: 03/02/10

Idaho looks to establish livestock care board

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:28:00 +0000

In another story involving livestock care standards, the Associated Press is reporting in Business Week online that the Idaho Senate voted 24-11 today to create "a 10-member livestock care standards advisory board of industry representatives, animal-welfare advocates and lawmakers to define rules of care for livestock and poultry." This legislation must still go to the Idaho House for approval.

This is the latest attempt of state legislatures, many likely following the example of Ohio's Issue 2, to circumvent efforts of animal welfare groups and outside entities to change animal care rules and laws. Indeed, Idaho State Senator Tim Corder, explains the necessity of establishing "acceptable industry practices . . . now on fear Idaho will be targeted by 'radical animal-rights groups' . . ."

Over the years animal-rights organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have been successful in pushing ballot initiatives and other efforts to change state laws when it comes to livestock care. The success of the HSUS has not gone unnoticed. Following Ohio's example, many states are taking preemptive steps to avoid a costly ballot or legislative fight with the HSUS.

In an effort to possibly appease the HSUS, and Idaho is no different, many of the proposed boards contain at least a seat for some representative of an animal welfare group's interests that are reflective of the views of the local populous.

Also passing in the Idaho Senate today was a bill, that won approval by a 34-1 margin, that makes running a cockfighting operation a felony. Dogfightinng is already a felony in Idaho.

To read the AP piece on the legislation in Business Week, click here.
To see previous US Agriculture & Food Law and Policy Blog posts on animal welfare, click here.

Posted: 03/01/10

Livestock Care Bill to become Law

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:58:00 +0000

Hoosier Ag Today online is reporting that in the Hoosier state both the state Senate and the state House passed, without amendment, HB 1099. This means the legislation can proceed immediately to the Governor's desk for signature, where Hoosier Ag Today predicts it will be signed.

The bill is an attempt to avoid efforts from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups to pass alternative legislation or a constitutional amendment that would change how animals could be confined. To prevent this, the Indiana legislature is seeking to pass legislation that would establish in the law who has the authority to set animal care standards, which in this case would be the Board of Animal Health. They would have the sole authority to set the regulatory standards for animal care.

Hoosier Ag Today reports that "most livestock organizations," and the Indiana Farm Bureau, support the bill. The supporters hope "the bill will prevent the kind of issues that have impacted Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, and Missouri livestock sectors, where radical animal rights groups tried to regulate the livestock care standards [.]"

To read the Hoosier Ag Today report, click here.

Posted: 03/01/10

Manure Power Problems in California

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:09:00 +0000

In a time when renewable energy ventures seem to be embraced by much of the government as Congress tries to tackle both climate change and energy legislation, while dealing with their other legislative priorities, farmers seeking to burn methane to produce power in California have run into a problem--state law conflicting with locally enforced federal ordinances.

P.J. Huffstutter reports for the LA Times today that a local farmer in Modesto, California converts the manure from his dairy cows to electricity by putting the manure in tanks where "bacteria consume the waste and release methane, which is then burned in a generator capable of producing enough power" to run the farmer's operation, which includes a cheese factory, "and 200 additional homes."

California has mandates that aim to increase use of renewable energy sources while also cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions. The farmer's operation in Huffstutter's article seems to meet both these goals. So why is he running into problems getting permits for his operation?

Air quality regulators in California have refused to issue permits for more of these generator operations (also known as "dairy digesters") because of their concern that the generators create pollution themselves. Mainly, they are emitting NOx, according to air regulators. NOx, or nitrogen oxides, makes an already tough smog problem tougher, "particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, which has some of the country's dirtiest air." While NOx levels are federally set for the valley, locals enforce the rules.

As Huffstutter writes, "[t]he standoff underscores how conflicting regulatory mandates are making it harder for California to meet its green-energy goals." And this is now, before federal climate change legislation and energy legislation has really garnered much momentum given the other concerns Congress is currently addressing. Still, right now in California the fight is smog vs. climate change. So far NOx is winning the fight for concern, which means no leeway will likely be given to the farmers burning methane with dairy digesters.

The conflict over regulations is not without victims. The problems between the conflicting mandates are costing farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep equipment compliant with both regulations. For some, the regulatory problems and cost issues lead to ruin.

To read the Huffstutter article on the issue in California, click here.

Posted: 03/01/10

USDA Program Expected To Feed 5 Million Children

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:58:00 +0000

Today, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced that the department will donate over 100,000 tons of domestic agricultural commodities, valued at $170 million "(including freight costs and technical assistance)" in the fiscal year 2010.

The donations are being made under the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (McGovern-Dole) Program, which is named for the legislators, former Sens. Jim McGovern and Robert Dole, who created the program. Secretary Vilsack made the following statement in the USDA news release on the donations, '"I am proud of the assistance we provide to the world's hungry children through the McGovern-Dole Program . . . This important program provides a healthy meal, often the only one they receive, for millions of children, mothers and infants in developing countries around the world each day."'

As the USDA reports in the news release, the McGovern-Dole Program is dedicated to the efforts of former Sens. McGovern and Dole to combat hunger and education problems facing children in "low-income, food-deficit countries countries that are committed to universal education." In addition to agricultural products, the program also provides technical assistance and financial assistance for "school feeding and maternal and child nutrition projects."

The USDA estimates that the donations this year will feed over 4.8 million children in 18 developing countries. According to the news release, the program has provided nutrition assistance to over 22 million children through 32 "active agreements" funded with 15 cooperating sponsors in 28 countries. Their are more than five million beneficiaries.

To read the USDA news release and see what countries are getting funding, click here.

Posted: 02/26/10

Bill to increase trade with Cuba introduced

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:50:00 +0000

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (MN) and Congressman Jerry Moran (KS) have introduced bipartisan legislation that the Associated Press on Business Week online reports "would open markets for U.S. farmers and ranchers in Cuba." The bill, H.R. 4645, is called the Travel Restriction Reform and Export Enhancement Act.

According to the AP, the legislation changes how Cubans pay for commodities bought from farmers and ranchers in the United States. Moran and Peterson believe the current law, requiring the payments from the Cubans to go through foreign banks before being deposited in U.S. banks, increases the price of U.S. goods. So, the bill makes it so that payments won't impede trade. To do this, payments will now be allowed to travel directly from Cuban banks to U.S. banks. Additionally, American farmers and ranchers would be able to travel to Cuba to directly market their products.

Hoosier Ag Today online is reporting that the legislation is already receiving positive reviews from those in the U.S. agriculture industry. Both the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) and the American Soybean Association (ASA) have backed the legislation. Chairman Peterson believes the bill will expand "U.S. agriculture exports to Cuba."

NCGA First Vice President Bart Schott, of Kulm, North Dakota, believes the legislation will increase "one-way agricultural trade from the U.S. to Cuba."

The Cattle Network online is reporting that both the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) "applauded yesterday's introduction" of the House bill. The dairy industry believes Cuban market '". . . holds significant promise for U.S. dairy exporters . . ."' states Tom Suber, president of USDEC, in the Cattle Network report.

How much traction this bill will get in Congress, despite its strong early support, remains to be seen.

The bill is not yet available online, but will eventually be available here.
To read the Associated Press report click here.
To read the Hoosier Ag Today post click here.
To read the Cattle Network article click here.

Posted: 02/25/10

High Court will not hear environmental cases

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:46:00 +0000

The Supreme Court has declined to hear three high-profile environmental cases challenging federal environmental statutes and regulations, reports Gabriel Nelson of Greenwire in the New York Times online.

It was a good day for environmentalist, as they praised the Supreme Court's decision not to hear National Cotton Council v. EPA, Texas Water Development Board v. Department of Interior, and Rose Acre Farms Inc. v. United States.

The first cases deals with issues of requiring National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, per the Clean Water Act, in order to use pesticides already regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Cotton Council). The second case (Texas Water Development Board) involves a ruling that the Fish and Wildlife Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

Finally, Rose Acre involves a suit to recover lost revenue that is allegedly owed because the US Department of Agriculture destroyed and implemented selling requirements on the egg farm following a salmonella outbreak. Rose Acre Farms argues the government's actions "constituted a 'regulatory taking,' as defined by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution," reports Nelson.

To read more on these cases and the Supreme Court's rulings, click here to read Nelson's article.

Posted: 02/24/10

Administration speaks up on Child Nutrition Act

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:44:00 +0000

Today, US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack spoke at the National Press Club where he laid out the administration's priorities when it comes to the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act and the national school lunch and breakfast programs as a whole. Secretary Vilsack spoke about the need for a strong reauthorization of the act to address the health and nutrition needs of the nation's children, and how these needs relate to other areas of concern, according to a USDA news release.

Secretary Vilsack states in the release that '"The health of our nation – of our economy, our national security, and our communities – depends on the health of our children. We will not succeed if any of our children aren't learning as they should because they are hungry, and cannot achieve their potential because they aren't healthy . . . This reauthorization is a critically important opportunity to improve the health of our children and reduce hunger in this country."'

As has been widely reported, First Lady Michelle Obama's top legislative priority is addressing the epidemic of childhood obesity. The reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act is a key foundation to dealing with the epidemic. The First Lady's campaign on this issue is called Let's Move.

The administration wants to pass the reauthorization quickly, but they also have priorities for the bill. According to the USDA news release, these priorities include: improving nutrition standards for school meals; increase access to meals; more education about healthy eating; improve access to healthy foods in school; increase physical activities; and enhance food safety--among others.

Also announced today was USDA's support for a "'Race to the Top'" concept whereby states would tackle hunger issues in their communities and would be eligible for competitive grants from the USDA "to implement creative and innovative approaches to eliminating hunger."

To read the USDA news release on the reauthorization click here.
To learn more about the Let's Move campaign click here.

Posted: 02/23/10

Agritourism a bright spot for Tennessee

noreply@blogger.com (Ag and Food Law Blog) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:08:00 +0000

Amidst the current economic recession, farmers in Tennessee have found a way to supplement their incomes while doing what they always do--work their farms.

600 agritourism operations have popped up across the state as farmers and ranchers are opening up their gates for reunions, weddings, hay rides, animal feeding and milking, and other tours and activities.

As Anne Paine reports for the Tennessean, farmers like Billy Donnell "view agritourism as a way to educate the public about farming, while still raising cattle and crops." Donnell notes the tours pay for themselves "plus a little extra [.]"

Some farmers, like Jason and Amy Ladd of Rutherford County, have started their operations with the hope it will provide their primary income. Their biggest attraction are the pettable farm animals, over 100 currently. For the five weeks the Ladd farm was open last year they had roughly 10,000 visitors. With many animals on birth alert, they hope to see that number grow in 2010.

Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Ken Givens notes that agritourism is '"very much a growing industry in Tennessee [.]"' A 2006 University of Tennessee study, which can be accessed by clicking here, reports annual agritourism spending stimulates roughly $32 million in economic activity, with $17 million in direct spending.

It is estimated that 11.5 acres of Tennessee farmland is lost per hour for development, so it is not surprising that conservationists support the efforts of Tennessee farmers and the agritourism movement too. Most recent data "show that 8,500 farms and 600,000 acres have been lost over the six years ending in 2007."

In addition to benefiting the farm owners, state Tourist Development Commissioner Susan Whitaker states in the Paine article that '". . . this new industry of agritourism . . . is good for tourism, but it's good for local communities, too [.]"' The University of Tennessee report notes that for "every dollar spent at an agri-tourism attraction, an additional $.85 of economic activity is generated through multiplier effects."

It appears agritourism will be part of the Tennessee farm landscape for some time to come.

To read the Tennessean article click here.

Posted: 02/23/10