More than 80 agricultural trade and advocacy groups have sent a letter to the White House requesting immediate action to implement the Farmer Fair Practices Rules, which would allow farmers to take legal action against foreign and multinational corporate entities to challenge anti-competition practices and contracts to produce livestock and poultry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture previously announced it would not implement the rules, which had been in development since 2010 and were scheduled to take effect April 19, 2017. Signatories include farmer and rancher groups, dairy producers and organic producer associations as well as Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Slow Food USA and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Category Archives Department of Agriculture
The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has reportedly voted to continue allowing food grown in water-based nutrient solutions to be labeled "organic," rejecting a challenge brought by organic-food producers. The board will also allow aquaponics, which combine hydroponic systems with farmed fishing operations, but will prevent products grown with aeroponics—plants suspended in air with the roots exposed—from carrying the "organic" label. The 8-7 vote was reportedly criticized by farmers who argue that some of the benefits of organic farming are its effects on the ecosystem, while hydroponics separates plants from their natural habitats.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced that it will take no further action to implement the Farmer Fair Practices Rules, which were reportedly created to allow farmers the power to sue corporate entities with whom they had contracted to produce livestock and poultry. In April 2017, USDA announced a delay of the effective date until October 19, 2017, to allow time for further consideration of comments. On October 18, USDA announced that it will not implement the rules because of concerns over potential increases in litigation, vagueness of the draft rules’ language, possible conflicts of law and executive branch directions to use the least burdensome regulations possible. Following USDA's announcement, U.S. Sens. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue stating that they “vehemently disagree with the decision” because their constituents believe that the current practices of multinational agribusiness corporations,…
A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study has criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) for their failure to ensure that imported seafood does not contain unsafe levels of antibiotic or other drug residues. According to the GAO, about 90 percent of the seafood eaten in the United States is imported, and about half of imported seafood is raised on fish farms where producers treat fish to prevent infections and foodborne illnesses. GAO makes five main recommendations: (i) FDA should pursue agreements with exporting countries to test for “drugs of concern” and residue levels; (ii) FSIS should conduct onsite audits of fish farms instead of limiting visits to government offices, commercial food processing facilities and food testing labs; (iii) FSIS should require exporting countries to include residue-monitoring plans in equivalence determinations; (iv) FDA and FSIS should collaborate to develop…
The Organic Trade Association has filed a lawsuit to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to implement the Organic Livestock Rule, which was scheduled to take effect on March 18, 2017. Organic Trade Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1875 (D.D.C., filed September 13, 2017). After 10 years of public process and hearing, USDA published the final rule in January 2017 along with formal recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) resulting from consultations required by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). On January 20, 2017, former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum to federal agencies directing them to temporarily postpone effective dates for regulations that had been published but had not yet taken effect. The complaint alleges that public comment should have been permitted on whether the Priebus memo applied to the Organic Livestock Rule because its standards affect only those who…
Following a Center for Food Safety lawsuit seeking information on requirements in the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Safety Disclosure Standards Act, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has released a study identifying potential challenges to implementation of electronic disclosure of genetically modified organism (GMO) content on food labels. The study considered whether consumers or retailers would have sufficient access to smartphones or broadband internet to easily obtain ingredient information, purportedly finding that about 85 percent of consumers experience technical challenges scanning digital links such as QR codes and less than 40 percent of small retailers provide in-store Wi-Fi access.
The Center for Food Safety has filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to proceed with the studies and public comment required to implement the 2016 Federal Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standards Act. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 17-4967 (N.D. Cal., filed August 25, 2017). Passed by Congress in 2016, the act will require food producers to disclose the presence of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The complaint contends that USDA has failed to conduct the studies required by the act to inform its rulemaking, including a specific Congressional mandate to study whether digital or electronic disclosures would be an acceptable alternative to package labeling. If the agency finds no significant barriers to consumer access, food manufacturers could provide a QR code, website link or toll-free number for disclosures. However, the complaint alleges that USDA missed the July 29, 2017, deadline for completion of…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and the Agricultural Marketing Service will sponsor three meetings in September and October 2017 to provide information and receive comments on U.S. positions to be discussed at upcoming Codex Alimentarius Commission meetings. On September 1, the agencies will discuss U.S. positions for the Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, which meets in Uganda on October 2-6, 2017. The public meeting to discuss positions for the Committee on Food Labeling is scheduled for September 13, before the committee meets in Paraguay on October 16-20, 2017. Finally, the agencies will hold a public meeting to discuss positions for the Committee of Food Hygiene on October 11, before the committee’s meeting in Chicago on November 13-17, 2017. Issue 645
Two livestock trade associations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging the agency’s 2016 repeal of marking and labeling regulations violates the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dept of Agric., No. 17-0223 (E.D. Wash., filed June 19, 2017). The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPW) assert that the Meat Inspection Act requires that meat from animals slaughtered outside the United States be “marked and labeled as required for imported articles” and the Tariff Act requires “conspicuous” marking “as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article." After a World Trade Organization ruling against a U.S. requirement to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on imports of livestock from Canada and Mexico, USDA…
Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group, has filed suit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food Safety and Inspection Service over the agencies’ denial of the group’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for the names of companies that opted to participate in the New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS). Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 17-1133 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2017). USDA implemented the optional NPIS in an effort to reduce rates of foodborne illness attributable to chicken and turkey contaminated with Salmonella and Campylobacter. Food & Water Watch requested the identities of the companies that chose to participate in NPIS, but their FOIA requests were denied on the grounds that “the responsive records consist solely of confidential future business plans.” Alleging violations of FOIA, the plaintiff is seeking an order for disclosure of the requested records and attorney’s…
