International Trade
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – October 3, 2019
On September 26, 2019, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the Commonwealth Court’s order, holding that local governments cannot impose stricter nutrient management requirements on small farms than those already imposed upon large agricultural operations under the state Nutrient Management Act (NMA) (Russell Berner, et al., v. Montour Township, et al., No. 39 MAP 2018). The question of whether and to what extent the NMA preempts local regulation of agricultural operations that are not “concentrated agricultural operations” (CAOs) became the central issue of this […]
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—August 22, 2019
Right to Farm Laws: Missouri CAFO Closes Following Nuisance Lawsuits
On August 19, 2019, Valley Oaks Steak Co. announced that the Missouri-based company was closing operations due to numerous lawsuits following a proposed expansion of a concentrated feeding operation (CAFO). Previously, on July 30, 2019, the law firm of Humphrey, Farrington & McClain (HFM) announced that 141 property owners had filed suit in the Jackson County Circuit Court regarding a proposed CAFO expansion located in Lone Jack, Missouri. According to HFM, the CAFO—which is owned by Valley Oaks Steak Co.—has been in operation since 2016. HMF stated that Valley Oaks Steak Co. was seeking […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 8, 2019
Pesticides: California Couple Agrees to Reduced Roundup Damage Award
On July 26, 2019, Plaintiffs Alva and Alberta Pilliod agreed to reduce a jury award from over $2 billion to over $86 million for alleged harm caused by Monsanto Company’s glyphosate-based weed killer Roundup (Pilliod, et al. v. Monsanto Company, et al. Case No RG17862702). The Pilliods alleged that exposure to Roundup caused them both to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. On May 13, 2019, a California jury found that Monsanto Company’s actions regarding its product Roundup entitled Mr. Pilliod to over $37 million for economic and noneconomic loss and $1 billion in punitive […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review—August 1, 2019
Food Labeling: Plant-Based Food Company Brings Suit Challenging Arkansas Meat Labeling Law
On July 22, 2019, Tofurky Co., a producer of plant-based food products, brought suit in the Eastern District of Arkansas alleging that the Arkansas law prohibiting the labeling of plant or cell-based products as “meat” violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Tofurky v. Soman, No. 4:19-cv-514-KGB). Under Arkansas Act 501, the term ‘meat’ is defined as “a portion of a livestock, poultry, or cervid carcass that is edible by humans.” The law further states that the term “‘meat’ does […]
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 […]
