The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Food Safety and Inspection Service has reportedly approved a Non-GMO Project certification seal and “Non-GMO” statement on labels for products from animals that did not consume feed containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients, such as corn, soy and alfalfa. The certification will attest that the meat, poultry and liquid egg products meet the third-party certifying organization’s standards, which USDA vetted before approving the label. The agency action followed a petition filed by the owner of Mindful Meats, which makes and sells organic grass-fed beef to Northern California restaurants and retailers, and two other companies, Hidden Villa Ranch and Pitman Farms. According to Mindful Meats’ statement, “this is the first time that a U.S. government agency has approved a non-GMO label for beef.” See The New York Times, June 20, 2013; Mindful Meats Blog, June 21, 2013.
Category Archives Department of Agriculture
The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has submitted a petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) asking that the agency require all slaughter establishments to create and implement written animal-handling plans to decrease the “needless suffering of animals during slaughter.” Citing more than 1,000 humane slaughter violations that allegedly occurred at state and federally inspected slaughter plants from 2007 through 2012, AWI calls on FSIS to write regulations that require (i) “all workers who have contact with animals be trained in humane handling,” (ii) “stunning equipment be routinely tested and maintained,” and (iii) “backup stunning devices be available in both the stunning and holding areas of every slaughter plant.” According to AWI, the agriculture department recommended eight years ago that all slaughter plants take a “systematic approach to humane slaughter by developing a comprehensive, written animal handling plan,” yet just 35 percent of federally inspected…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has issued a proposal that would require beef products undergoing a mechanical tenderization process be labeled as such and include new cooking instructions to ensure proper handling. According to an agency spokesperson, “Ensuring that consumers have effective tools and information is important in helping them protect their families against foodborne illness.” Some cuts of beef are apparently pierced by needles or sharp blades to break up muscle fibers and increase tenderness. With the possible introduction of pathogens into the interior of such products, FSIS notes that they “may pose a greater threat to public health than intact beef products, if they are not cooked properly.” Public comments will be requested within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. See FSIS News Release, June 6, 2013.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling affirming the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is not a “plant pest” and thus that it lacked authority to stop its deregulation or to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential environmental impacts. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 12-15052 (9th Cir., decided May 17, 2013). The Center for Food Safety, an organization dedicated to environmental advocacy, has announced its determination to appeal the ruling and to pursue other legal options to stop the planting and cultivation of GM alfalfa. The gist of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that while the plaintiffs’ environmental and economic concerns may be valid, they have no bearing, under the current statutory scheme, on APHIS’s authority vis-à-vis GM crops. The court’s opinion methodically explains how GM alfalfa is created…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued a final rule amending the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate ruling that certain provisions relating to muscle cut meat commodities were inconsistent the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), which includes an obligation “to accord imported products treatment no less favorable than that accorded to domestic products.” Effective May 23, 2013, the final rule requires origin designations for muscle cut covered commodities “to specify the production steps of birth, raising, and slaughter of the animal from which the meat is derived that took place in each country listed on the origin designation.” It also eliminates “the allowance for commingling of muscle cut covered commodities of different origins” and expands the definition for “retailer” “to include any person subject to be licensed as a retailer under…
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently issued a report to explore whether U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed rules on labeling muscle cuts of meats will comply with World Trade Organization (WTO) findings that current country-of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements discriminate against livestock imports. Titled “Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods and the WTO Trade Dispute on Meat Labeling,” the report reviews events that led to the WTO ruling which followed a challenge filed by Canada and Mexico to the 2008 farm bill amendments that adopted the disputed COOL provisions. A WTO arbitrator established May 23, 2013, as the deadline for the United States to comply. Various stakeholders have apparently presented a number of options to bring the United States into compliance, and USDA issued a proposed rule in March. Canada and Mexico have evidently argued that the proposed rule does not fulfill U.S. WTO obligations, and the CRS report notes that this…
University of Arkansas School of Law Professor Susan Schneider has authored a post on the Agricultural Law Blog agreeing with a Federation of Southern Cooperatives post refuting claims by a New York Times reporter of fraud linked to the recovery of settlement proceeds (the Pigford settlement) in litigation alleging U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) loan program discrimination against African-American, Hispanic, Native American, and women farmers. Schneider states that on reading the April 25, 2013, New York Times article, titled “U.S. Opens Spigot After Farmers Claim Discrimination,” “I was alarmed to see errors, omissions, and misleading references . . . [and] I am very disappointed that the author appeared more interested in producing a salacious story than in treating the issue with the respect and depth that it deserved.” She includes a number of details overlooked in the newspaper article and concludes, “casting the story in the cynical tone of political…
Although a recent proposal to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids failed to gain support from the qualified majority of member states on an appeals committee, the European Commission (EC) has announced its intention to proceed with the plan as part of its bid to better protect honeybees. Basing its decision on a European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) scientific report that “identified ‘high acute risks’ for bees as regards exposure to dust in several crops such as maize, cereals and sunflower, to residue in pollen and nectar in crops like oilseed rape and sunflower and to guttation in maize,” the Commission has agreed to limit the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiametoxam “for seed treatment, soil application (granules) and foliar treatment on bee- attractive plants and cereals” for a period of two years starting December 1, 2013. Under the plan, “the remaining authorized uses are available only to professionals,” with possible…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration have announced a June 18, 2013, public meeting in Washington, D.C., to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions for discussion at the 36th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Rome on July 1-5. Agenda items include (i) a report by the chair of the 68th session of the executive committee; (ii) revocation of existing Codex standards and related texts; (iii) “Amendments to the Codex Standards and Related Texts”; (iii) “Financial and Budgetary Matters”; and (iv) chair and vice chair elections and coordinator appointments. See Federal Register, April 23, 2013.
A coalition of more than 200 farm, consumer and environmental organizations has written a letter urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support recently proposed changes to U.S. Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements for meat products. USDA proposed new labeling rules in March 2013 in response to a World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that the old labels discriminated against imported livestock from other countries. The proposed rules would require that that all meat from animals born, raised and processed in the United States bear a “born, raised and slaughtered in the USA” label. “The only acceptable way to respond to the WTO challenge is to make labels more informative for consumers, not water them down,” states the letter. “U.S. farmers and ranchers are proud of what they produce and should be allowed to promote their products.” “Consumers want more information about the source of their food, not less,”…
