Food Policy
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – October 10, 2019
On September 30, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a one-year extension for farmers to replace livestock sold in response to severe drought conditions. According to Notice 2006-82, qualifying sales are limited to livestock owned for draft, dairy, or breeding purposes. The livestock must have been sold entirely on account of drought, and the farmer or rancher must have qualified for the four-year replacement period. Farmers in applicable regions may now delay replacing livestock until the end of the tax year following the “first drought-free year” and may also defer capital […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 29, 2019
Checkoff Programs: Court Dismisses Challenge Regarding Use of Pork Checkoff Funds
On August 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the government improperly used funds collected under the pork checkoff program (Humane Society of the United States v. Perdue, No. 18-5188). Under the Pork Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act, the government may collect “assessments” from producers for the purpose of “strengthen[ing] the position of the pork industry in the marketplace.” Known as “checkoffs,” these assessments are paid by producers to the National Pork Board (Board) who in turn uses the […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—July 25, 2019
Pesticides: Court Reduces Jury Award in Roundup Case
On July 17, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reduced a jury damage award regarding the herbicide Roundup from over $80 million to over $25 million (Hardeman v Monsanto Company, 3:16-cv-00525). Previously, a jury found that plaintiff Edwin Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup. According to the jury, Monsanto had negligently failed to warm Mr. Hardeman of the risks associated with Roundup. As a result, Mr. Hardeman was awarded $5,267,634.10 in compensatory damages and $75,000,000 in punitive damages. The court ruled, however, that while “[t]he […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—June 27, 2019
Food Policy: SCOTUS Rules USDA Does Not Need to Disclose Certain SNAP Information Under FOIA
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not need to disclose certain private commercial or financial information from retail stores that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Docket No. 18-481). Previously, Argus Leader Media filed a FOIA request seeking the names and addresses of all retail stores that participated in SNAP for fiscal years 2005 through 2010. Additionally, […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—June 20, 2019
Air Quality: EPA Issues Final Rule Exempting Animal Waste Air Emissions from EPCRA Reporting
On June 13, 2019, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published notice in the Federal Register of a final rule amending the reporting regulations under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (84 FR 27533). Under the final rule, air emissions from animal waste at farms is specifically exempted from EPCRA reporting requirements. Additionally, EPA stated that the final rule adds definitions to the terms “animal waste” and “farm” to the EPCRA regulations so as “to delineate the scope of this reporting exemption.” The final rule […]
