International Trade
Agricultural Law Weekly Review – January 23, 2020
International Trade: USMCA Receives Congressional Approval, Awaits President’s Signature
On January 16, 2020, the U.S. Congress completed the statutory approval process for the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). It now awaits the formal application of the President’s signature, which has yet to be scheduled. Pursuant to the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015, 19 U.S.C. 4201 et seq., (generally referred to as “Trade Promotion Authority” or “TPA”), Congress granted approval through passage of HR 5430, titled the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act. HR 5430 was introduced on December 13, 2019, passed the U.S. House by a 385-41 […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review —January 16, 2020
International Trade: United States and China Sign Agreement Impacting Agricultural Exports To China
On January 15, 2020, The United States and the People’s Republic of China executed an agreement titled, “Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China,” which serves as a settlement agreement of certain enforcement actions initiated by the White House under authority of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. According to the February 27, 2019 testimony of United States Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer before the House and Ways Committee, such an agreement does not require […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review —December 19, 2019
International Trade: United States and China Reach “Phase One” Trade Agreement
On December 13, 2019, the White House announced a “Phase One trade deal” with China that requires “changes to China’s economic and trade regime,” including agricultural trade, and “a commitment by China to make substantial additional purchases of U.S. goods in the coming years.” However, no specific details have yet been provided in writing by either the White House or the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The text of a Fact Sheet on the USTR website […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review —December 12, 2019
Dairy Policy: PMMB Enters Order Mandating Cooperative Costs Recovery
On December 4, 2019, the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) entered an order, titled “Interim Order Regarding Cooperative Milk Procurement Costs Hearing,” (Interim Order) mandating that, from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, milk dealers pay $.20 per hundredweight as part of the producer price paid to dairy cooperative members for milk produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania as reimbursement for cooperative services such as field, laboratory and calibration services, producer payroll, sales invoicing, and dispatch and logistics. The Interim Order resulted from a compromise agreement reached in PMMB […]
Agricultural Law Weekly Review —November 28, 2019
Agricultural Labor: House Judiciary Committee Acts on Farm Workforce Modernization Bill
On November 20, 2019, the United States House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee passed out of committee H.R. 5038, titled “Farm Workforce Modernization Act,” by a vote of 18-12. The passage out of the Judiciary committee is a first step for the bill which was introduced on November 12, 2019, with 25 Democratic and 23 Republican co-sponsors. It remains under consideration in three other House committees. The bill is the first farm workforce bill to be advanced out of any committee in 2019 and may become a focus of farm workforce […]
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 […]
