Biotechnology
Proposals that would formally designate several “ag-related days” in Ohio, allow Ohio Farm Bureau to provide healthcare benefit coverage to its members, regulate imitation meat and egg products, and expand homemade food production opportunities are receiving attention in the Ohio legislature. Here’s a summary of the bills and where they stand in the legislative process.
H.B. 65 – Agriculture Appreciation Act
The Ohio House of Representatives passed H.B. 65 on April 2, and the bill was introduced in the Senate on April 8. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina), the act proposes the following official designations:
- “FFA Week” as the week ending with the last Saturday in February.
- “4-H Week” as the week ending with the second Saturday of March.
- “Agriculture Day” on March 21.
- "National Farmers Market Week" as the first full week of August.
- “Ohio Stormwater Awareness Week” as the first week of October.
- “Farmer’s Day” on October 12.
- “Ohio Soil Health Week” as the second full week of November, to celebrate and raise awareness for the importance of soil health and in honor of the birthday of soil pioneer and advocate David Brandt.
Readers might recognize some of H.B. 65’s proposed designations, and that would be because a similar bill nearly passed the legislature last year. A last minute amendment in the Senate prevented the proposal from making it through the General Assembly before December 31, 2024, however.
S.B. 100 and H.B. 99 – Exemption from insurance regulations for nonprofit agricultural membership organizations
Identical bills that would exempt healthcare benefits offered by “nonprofit agricultural membership organizations” from insurance regulations has passed the Senate and is moving through the House Insurance Committee, despite opposition from a number of health care advocacy groups. H.B. 99, sponsored by Rep. Bob Peterson (R-Sabina) and S.B. 100, sponsored by Sen. Susan Manchester (R-Waynesfield) would define a “nonprofit agricultural membership organization” as an organization that was incorporated in Ohio on or before December 31, 1919 to promote the interests of farms and that provides contractual healthcare benefit coverage exclusively with members of the organization and their families. Healthcare benefit coverage provided by such an organization, according to the proposal, is not “insurance” and is not subject to insurance regulations. The bill would also allow the nonprofit organizations to assume or reinsure the risks arising out of healthcare benefit coverage with a company authorized to provide insurance in Ohio. Opponents who testified in the bill’s third hearing before the House Insurance Committee on April 8 fear the legislation would allow discrimination against persons with pre-existing conditions.
H.B. 10 – Imitation Meat and Egg Products
A bill that would prohibit the sale of foods that are “misbranded” as a meat or egg product has received two hearings before the House Agriculture Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Jack Daniels (R-New Franklin), H.B. 10 defines “misbranded” meat and egg products as those that: contain manufactured-protein food products or fabricated-egg products, are offered for sale by a food processing establishment, and have a package label that includes certain “meat” or “egg” terms. A food processing establishment that sells misbranded meat and egg products would be subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day. The bill would also require Ohio agencies to request a USDA exemption of cultivated-protein food products and fabricated-egg products from eligibility under SNAP and WIC food programs and would require Ohio school districts and state institutions of higher education to adopt policies preventing the purchase of cultivated-protein food products or foods misbranded as meat or egg products. Several agricultural organizations testified in support of the bill in its second hearing on April 2, 2025.
H.B. 134 - Microenterprise home kitchen operations
A bi-partisan bill would add Ohio to the small but growing list of states that have adopted “food freedom laws” to loosen regulations on the sale of homemade foods. Sponsored by Rep. Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester) and Rep. Latyna Humphrey (D-Columbus), H.B. 134 would create a new “microenterprise home kitchen operation” registration that would broaden the types of foods a person could produce at home and sell directly to customers. Ohio law currently allows a person to sell certain “cottage foods” and “home bakery” foods with minimal regulation but requires producers of other foods to produce the foods in a commercial kitchen and operate under state and local food licenses. H.B. 134 would remove those requirements and allow a registered microenterprise home kitchen operation to produce and sell any homemade foods (except those containing alcohol or drugs), including items such as canned goods and hot meals. The annual $25 registration would require an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture to ensure the microenterprise home kitchen operation meets requirements in the law regarding operations, food safety, storage and preparation, and sales and delivery of the food. H.B. 134 received its second hearing before the House Agriculture Committee today, April 9, with two proponents testifying in support of the bill.
Tags: Ohio legislation, Insurance, imitation food, imitation meat, imitation egg, food freedom bill, cottage foods, microenterprise home kitchen
Comments: 0
We are back with another edition of the Ag Law Harvest, where we bring you rulings, laws, and regulations that affect the agricultural industry. This month's Ag Law Harvest is bringing the heat with H-2A wage rule injunctions, cultivated meat ban challenges, sales and use tax issues, and an emergency order from the EPA.
Federal Judge in Georgia Blocks H-2A Wage Rule for Named Plaintiffs. A Georgia federal judge has limited the U.S. Department of Labor's enforcement of a rule titled "Improving Protections for Workers in Temporary Agricultural Employment in the United States" (the “Final Rule”). This rule, challenged by 17 states led by Kansas and Georgia, as well as by Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association (the “Plaintiffs”), is claimed to be unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs argued that the Final Rule violates the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by granting H-2A farmworkers greater organizing and collective bargaining rights than those afforded to U.S. citizen agricultural workers, effectively bypassing the Act. The U.S. District Court in Georgia sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that the Department of Labor's Final Rule improperly creates a right that Congress did not intend and did not create by statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies, including the DOL, cannot create laws or rights that Congress has not established. The court criticized the DOL for overstepping its authority, stating that while the DOL can assist Congress, it cannot assume the role of Congress. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the DOL from enforcing the Final Rule, but only for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the preliminary injunction will only apply in Georgia, Kansas, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The injunction will also apply to Miles Berry Farm and the Georgia Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association. We will keep you updated as the case goes up on appeal and how this ruling affects other H-2A lawsuits across the country.
Florida Cultivated Meat Ban Challenged. A California business has filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, challenging a law that bans the sale of cultivated meat. The company argues that Florida's prohibition is unconstitutional, claiming it violates their right to engage in interstate commerce by restricting their ability to sell their products across state lines. Upside Foods, Inc., the California based company, alleges that Florida Senate Bill 1084 (“SB 1084”), which bans the manufacture, distribution, and sale of cultivated meat, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause because SB 1084 “is expressly preempted by federal laws regulating meat and poultry products.” Furthermore, Upside Foods alleges that SB 1084 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause because SB 1084 “was enacted with the express purpose of insulating Florida agricultural businesses from innovative, out-of-state competition like UPSIDE.” Upside Foods has asked the district court in Florida to declare SB 1084 unconstitutional and to issue an injunction preventing SB 1084’s enforcement. Proponents of SB 1084 argue that the law protects Floridians, however, Upside Foods alleges that the Florida ban isn’t meant to protect the public, rather it was passed to “protect in-state agricultural interests from out-of-state competition.”
Board of Tax Appeals Finds Utility Vehicle Not Exempt Under Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. Claugus Family Farm LP (CFF), an Ohio timber farm, purchased a 2015 Mercedes-Benz utility vehicle and claimed it was exempt from sales tax under Ohio’s Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption. After an audit, the Ohio Department of Taxation assessed the sales tax on the vehicle. CFF petitioned for reassessment, but the Ohio Tax Commissioner determined that CFF did not provide enough evidence to prove the vehicle was primarily used for farming as required by law. CFF then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, arguing that the vehicle was mainly used for farming operations, such as transporting people around the farm, monitoring tree health, applying pesticides, maintaining equipment, and carrying supplies. CFF claimed the vehicle was used 95% of the time on farming activities. Upon review, the Board of Tax Appeals noted that “the use of vehicles for transportation around a farm, as well as general uses such as delivering parts and cutting and hauling of wood and brush, do not constitute direct farming activities.” The Board held that the vehicle was used primarily for these purposes and not directly in farming and thus found the vehicle to be subject to Ohio’s sales and use tax.
EPA Emergency Order Suspends Use of Pesticide DCPA/Dacthal. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) issued an Emergency Order immediately suspending the registration and use of all pesticides containing dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (“DCPA” or “Dacthal”). The EPA cited the danger the substance poses to pregnant women and unborn babies. The agency determined that the continued sale, distribution, or use of DCPA products during the cancellation process would present an imminent hazard, justifying the emergency suspension without a prior hearing. Despite efforts by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the sole registrant of DCPA products, to address these concerns, the EPA concluded that no practicable mitigations could make the use of DCPA safe.
Tags: ag law harvest, H-2A, pesticides, EPA, Cultivated Meat, U.S. Constitution, Ohio Sales Tax, Agricultural Sales Tax Exemption, Ag Law, Farm Law
Comments: 0
Happy last day of June! We close out the month with another Ag Law Harvest, which brings you two interesting court cases, one about an Ohio man asserting his right to give away free gravel, and another which could decide the constitutionality of “Ag-Gag” laws once and for all. We also provide a few federal policy updates and announcements.
Ohio Department of Agriculture Prohibited from Fining a Landowner for Charging to Load Free Gravel. In May of 2020, Paul Gross began selling gravel and topsoil (collectively “gravel”) that he had accumulated from excavating a pond on his property. Gross charged $5 per ton of gravel, which was weighed at a scale three miles from his property. After receiving a complaint of the gravel sales, the Madison County Auditor sent a Weights and Measures Inspector to investigate Gross’s gravel sales. The Inspector informed Gross that the gravel sales violated Ohio Administrative Code 901:6-7-03(BB) (the “Rule”) because the gravel was not being weighed at the loading site. Under the Rule, “[s]and, rock, gravel, stone, paving stone, and similar materials kept, offered, or exposed for sale in bulk must be sold . . . by cubic meter or cubic yard or by weight.” As explained by the Inspector, Gross’s problem was that he was selling gravel by inaccurate weight measurements because the trucks hauling the gravel lose fuel weight when traveling the three miles to the scale.
Instead of installing scales on his property, Gross decided to start giving away the gravel for free. However, Gross did charge a flat rate fee of $50 to any customer that requested Gross’s help in loading the gravel. According to Gross, this $50 fee was to cover the cost of his equipment, employees, and other resources used to help customers load the gravel. Unsatisfied with the structure of this transaction, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) decided to investigate further and eventually determined that even though Gross was giving away the gravel for free, the flat fee for Gross’s services represented a commercial sale of the gravel and, therefore, Gross was in continued violation of the Rule.
For the alleged violation, the ODA intended to impose a $500 civil penalty on Gross, who requested an administrative hearing. The hearing officer recommended imposing the penalty and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas agreed. Gross appealed the decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which found that Gross was not in violation of the Rule.
The Tenth District reasoned that customers were paying for the service of moving the gravel, not for the gravel itself. The court explained that the purpose of the Rule is to protect consumers by ensuring transparent pricing of materials like gravel. Since Gross was not in the business of selling gravel and the transaction was primarily for services, the court concluded that the ODA’s fine was impermissible.
North Carolina Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Ag-Gag Law.” In 2015, the North Carolina Legislature passed the North Carolina Property Protection Act, allowing employers to sue any employee who “without authorization records images or sound occurring within” nonpublic areas of the employer’s property “and uses the recording to breach the [employee’s] duty of loyalty to the employer.” After the act’s passage several food-safety and animal-welfare groups, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”), challenged the Property Protection Act in an effort to prevent North Carolina from enforcing the law.
A federal district court in North Carolina struck down the law, finding it to be a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling also reasoning that the law’s broad prohibitions restrict speech in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment. Now, the North Carolina Attorney General, Josh Stein, has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking the Court to reverse the 4th Circuit’s decision. If SCOTUS decides to hear the case, the justices will be tasked with determining “[w]hether the First Amendment prohibits applying state tort law against double-agent employees who gather information, including by secretly recording, in the nonpublic areas of an employer’s property and who use that information to breach their duty of loyalty to the employer.”
We have reported on several Ag-Gag laws and the court challenges that have followed. If SCOTUS decides to take up the case, we may finally have a definitive answer as to whether Ag-Gag laws are constitutional or not.
Lab-grown Chicken Given the Green Light by the USDA. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Food Safety and Inspection Service granted its first approvals to produce and sell lab-grown chicken to consumers. Upside Foods and Good Meat, the two entities given the green light by the USDA, plan on initially providing their “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” chicken to patrons of restaurants in the San Francisco and Washington D.C. areas. However, the timeline for such products showing up in your local grocery store has yet to be determined.
USDA Suspends Livestock Risk Protection 60-Day Ownership Requirement. The USDA’s Risk Management Agency issued a bulletin suspending the 60-day ownership requirement for the Livestock Risk Protection (“LRP”) program. Normally under the LRP, covered livestock must be owned by the producer within the last 60 days of the specified coverage endorsement period for coverage to apply. According to the bulletin, “[d]ue to the continuing severe drought conditions impacting many parts of the nation, producers are struggling to find adequate supplies of feed or forage, causing them to market their livestock sooner than anticipated.” In response, the USDA is allowing producers to apply to waive the 60-day ownership requirement, subject to verification of proof of ownership of the livestock. The USDA hopes this waiver will allow producers to market their livestock as necessary while dealing with the current drought effects. Producers will be able to apply for the waiver until December 31, 2024.
USDA Announces Tool to Help Small Businesses and Individuals Identify Contracting Opportunities. Earlier this month, the USDA announced a new tool “to assist industry and small disadvantaged entities in identifying potential opportunities for selling their products and services to USDA.” USDA’s Procurement Forecast tool lists potential contracting or subcontracting opportunities with the USDA. Until now, businesses could only access procurement opportunities through the federal-wide System for Award Management (“SAM”). The USDA hopes the Procurement Forecast tool will provide greater transparency and maximize opportunity for small and underserved businesses.
Tags: Ag Gag, Ag Law, USDA, ODA, Ohio department of agriculture, Gravel, livestock, Livestock Insurance, Insurance, Supreme Court of the United States, SCOTUS, First Amendment, Food Labeling
Comments: 0
Did you know that Giant Panda cubs can be as small as a stick of butter? A panda mother is approximately 900 times bigger than her newborn cub, which can weigh less than 5 ounces. This is like an 8-pound human baby having a mother that weighed 7,200 pounds – this size difference may explain why so many panda cubs die from accidentally being crushed by their mothers. However, not everything is doom and gloom for the Giant Panda. Chinese officials have officially downgraded pandas from “endangered” to “vulnerable.” Although the International Union for Conservation of Nature re-labelled, the Panda as “vulnerable” in 2016, China wanted to make sure that the population of its national treasure continued to grow before downgrading the panda’s classification.
Although it seems as though pandas are thriving thanks to conservation efforts in China, not all animal species in China are so lucky. This week’s Ag Law Harvest takes a trip around the world to bring you domestic and international agricultural and resource issues. We take a look at court decisions, Congress’ latest actions, China’s struggle with African Swine Fever, and President Biden’s latest executive order.
Iowa Supreme Court Dismisses Raccoon River Lawsuit. Environmental organizations (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against the state of Iowa and its agencies (“Defendants”) asking the court to compel Defendants to adopt legislation that would require Iowa farmers to implement practices that would help reduce the levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in Raccoon River. The Plaintiffs argued that Defendants violated their duty under the Public Trust Doctrine (“PTD”), which is a legal doctrine that requires states to hold certain natural resources in trust for the benefit of the state’s citizens. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The Iowa Supreme Court agreed with Defendants and found that a ruling in Plaintiffs’ favor would not necessarily remediate Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, and therefore the Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The Iowa Supreme Court also found that Plaintiffs’ issue was a nonjusticiable political question. The political question doctrine is a principle that helps prevent upsetting the balance of power between the branches of government. Under the doctrine, courts will not decide certain issues because they are better suited to be decided by another branch of government. In this case, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs’ issue was better suited to be resolved through the legislative branch of government, not the judicial branch. The Iowa Supreme Court decision is significant because, as it stands, agricultural producers in the Raccoon River Watershed will not be required to adopt any new practices but the decision leaves it up to Iowa’s legislature to determine whether farmers should be required to adopt new practices under the PTD to help reduce nitrogen and phosphorus in Raccoon River.
U.S. House of Representatives’ spending bill increases focuses on climate action and environmental protection. Before the July 4th break, the United States House Appropriations Committee approved the first of its Fiscal Year 2022 (“FY22”) funding bills. Included in these bills is the agriculture funding bill, which will be sent to the House floor for full consideration. The bill provides $26.55 billion in the discretionary funding of agencies and programs within the USDA, FDA, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Farm Credit Administration – an increase of $2.851 billion from 2021. In total, the agriculture funding bill includes $196.7 billion for both mandatory and discretionary programs. The bill focuses on: (1) rural development and infrastructure – including rural broadband; (2) food and nutrition programs to help combat hunger and food insecurity; (3) international food assistance to promote U.S. agricultural exports; (4) conservation programs to help farmers, ranchers, and other landowners protect their land; (5) ag lending; (6) climate-related work to help research and remedy the climate crisis; and (7) enforcement of environmental programs. The agriculture spending bill will, however, have to be reconciled with any spending bill produced by the U.S. Senate.
U.S. House Agriculture Committee advances rural broadband bill. The House Agriculture Committee (the “Committee”) unanimously voted to advance the Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America Act (the “Act”), which would authorize $4.5 billion in annual funding, starting in fiscal year 2022, for the Broadband ReConnect Program (the “Program”) through fiscal year 2029. The existing Program is set to expire on June 30, 2022. To demonstrate Congress’ commitment to expanding rural broadband, the Program was only given $742 million in 2021. It is unclear whether the Act will be included in the infrastructure package that is currently being negotiated between Congress and the White House. Under the Act, the USDA must give the highest priority to projects that seek to provide broadband service to unserved communities that do not have any residential broadband service with speeds of at least 10/1 Mbps. The USDA will then prioritize communities with less than 10,000 permanent residents and areas with a high percentage of low-income families.
Small hog farmers in China no longer required to seek environmental approval. China is the world’s largest pork producer and over the past few years, its hog herds have been decimated. A deadly African Swine Fever (“ASF”) has wiped out about half of China’s hog herds, especially affecting small farmers. According to Reuters, China relies heavily on small farmers for its pork output, but because of ASF, small farmers have been left with little to no product and mass amounts of debts. Further, Chinese farmers are hesitant to rebuild their herds because ASF is an ongoing risk and farmers stand to lose everything if they continue to raise diseased hogs. Addressing these concerns, China’s agriculture ministry will no longer require small hog farmers to get environmental approval from the government before breeding their hogs. China hopes to reduce the costs and red tape for small farmers as China tries to incentivize small farmers to rebuild their hog herds. African Swine Fever is a highly contagious and deadly viral disease affecting both domestic and feral swine. The ASF poses no threat to human health but can decimate domestic hog populations. Germany has recently reported its first two cases of ASF in domestic hogs. Currently, ASF has not been found within the United States, and the USDA hopes to keep it that way. To learn more about ASF, visit the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service website.
President Biden signs executive order to reduce consolidation in agriculture. President Biden’s recent Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy seeks to address inadequate competition within the U.S. economy that the administration believes holds back economic growth and innovation. The Order includes more than 70 initiatives by more than a dozen federal agencies to promote competition. With respect to agriculture, the Order seeks to break up agricultural markets “that have become more concentrated and less competitive.” The Biden Administration believes that the markets for seeds, equipment, feed, and fertilizer are dominated by a few large companies which negatively impacts family farmers and ranchers. The Biden Administration believes that the lack of competition increases the costs of inputs for family farmers all while decreasing the revenue a family farmer receives. The Order directs the USDA to consider issuing new rules: (1) making it easier for farmers to bring and win lawsuits under the Packers and Stockyards Act; (2) prohibiting chicken processors from exploiting and underpaying chicken farmers; (3) adopting anti-retaliation protections for farmers who speak out about a company’s bad practices; and (4) defining when meat producers can promote and label their products as a “Product of the USA.” The Order also requires the USDA to develop a plan to increase opportunities for small farmers to access markets and receive a fair return and encourages the Federal Trade Commission to limit when equipment companies can restrict farmers from repairing their own farm machinery. Follow this link to learn more about President Biden’s recent Executive Order.
Tags: USDA, Executive Order, African Swine fever, congress, Rural Broadband, Raccoon River, Iowa Supreme Court, Public Trust Doctrine, Agriculture, ag law harvest
Comments: 0
"Farm Office Live" returns this summer as an opportunity for you to get the latest outlook and updates on ag law, farm management, ag economics, farm business analysis, and other related issues. Targeted to farmers and agri-business stakeholders, our specialists digest the latest news and issues and present it in an easy-to-understand format.
The live broadcast is presented monthly. In months where two shows are scheduled, one will be held in the morning and one in the evening. Each session is recorded and posted on the OSU Extension Farm Office YouTube channel for later viewing.
Current Schedule:
| July 23, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am | December 17, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am |
| August 27, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am | January 19, 2022 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm |
| September 23, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am | January 21, 2022 | 10:00 - 11:30 am |
| October 13, 2021 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm | Februrary 16, 2022 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm |
| October 15, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am | February 18, 2022 | 10:00 - 11:30 am |
| November 17, 2021 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm | March 16, 2022 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm |
| November 19, 2021 | 10:00 - 11:30 am | March 18, 2022 | 10:00 - 11:30 am |
| December 15, 2021 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm | April 20, 2022 | 7:00 - 8:30 pm |
Topics we will discuss in upcoming webinars include:
- Coronavirus Food Assitance Program (CFAP)
- Legislative Proposals and Accompanying Tax Provisions
- Outlook on Crop Input Costs and Profit Margins
- Outlook on Cropland Values and Cash Rents
- Tax Issues That May Impact Farm Businesses
- Legal Trends
- Legislative Updates
- Farm Business Management and Analysis
- Farm Succession & Estate Planning
To register or to view a previous "Farm Office Live," please visit https://go.osu.edu/farmofficelive. You will receive a reminder with your personal link to join each month.
The Farm Office is a one-stop shop for navigating the legal and economic challenges of agricultural production. For more information visit https://farmoffice.osu.edu or contact Julie Strawser at strawser.35@osu.edu or call 614.292.2433
Tags: Farm Office Live, farm management, Farm Succession, Estate Planning, Farm Business, Dairy Production, Farm Tax, Agricultural Law, Resource Law
Comments: 0
Written by Ellen Essman and Peggy Hall
This edition of the Ag Law Harvest has a little bit of everything—Ohio and federal legislation responding to COVID issues, new USDA guidance on bioengineered foods, and a judicial review of Bayer’s Roundup settlement. Read on to learn about the legal issues currently affecting agriculture.
Ohio COVID-19 immunity bill stalls. While the Ohio House and Senate agree with the concept of immunity for COVID-19 transmissions, the two chambers don’t yet see eye-to-eye on the parameters for COVID-19 liability protection. H.B. 606, which we reported on here, has passed both the House and Senate, but the Senate added several amendments to the legislation. The House won’t be addressing those amendments soon because it’s in recess, and doesn’t plan to return for business until at least September 15. The primary point of disagreement between the two bills concerns whether there should be a rebuttable presumption for Bureau of Workers’ Compensation coverage that certain employees who contract COVID-19 contracted it while in the workplace. The Senate amendment change by the Senate concerns exemption from immunity for "intentional conduct," changed to "intentional misconduct.” Currently, there is not a plan for the House to consider the Senate’s amendments before September 15.
Lawmakers propose bill to avoid more backlogs at processing plants.
Most people are aware that the COVID-19 pandemic created a huge backlog and supply chain problem in U.S. meatpacking plants. A group of bipartisan representatives in the House recently proposed the
Requiring Assistance to Meat Processors for Upgrading Plants Act, or RAMP-UP Act. The bill would provide grants up to $100,000 to meat and poultry processing plants so the plants could make improvements in order to avoid the kind of problems caused by the pandemic in the future. The plants would have to provide their own matching funds for the improvements. You can find the bill here.
Revisiting the Paycheck Protection Program, again. In a refreshing display of non-partisanship, Congress passed legislation in late June to extend the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). Employers who haven’t taken advantage of PPP now have until August 8, 2020 to apply for PPP funds to cover payroll and certain other expenses. Several senators also introduced the Paycheck Protection Program Small Business Forgiveness Act, a proposal to streamline an automatic approval process for forgiveness of PPP loans under $150,000, but there’s been little action on the bill to date. Meanwhile, the American Farm Bureau Federation is in discussion with the Senate on its proposal for other changes to PPP that would expand access to PPP for agriculture.
More clarification for bioengineered food disclosure. You may recall that the National Bioengineered Food Law was passed by Congress in 2016. The legislation tasked USDA with creating a national mandatory standard for disclosing bioengineered foods. The standard was implemented at the beginning of 2020, but USDA still needed to publish guidance on validating a refining process and selecting an acceptable testing method. On July 8, 2020, that guidance was published. The guidance provides steps for industry to take when validating a food refining process under the rule. A lot of food refining processes remove traces of modified genetic material. So, if a refining process is validated, there is no further need to test for bioengineered material to disclose. The guidance also contains instructions on testing methods. Basically, “any regulated entity that is using a food on the AMS List of Bioengineered Foods and does not want to include a bioengineered food disclosure because the food or ingredient is highly refined and does not include detectable modified genetic material” should follow these testing instructions. Therefore, any entity with highly refined foods that do “not include detectable modified genetic material” should follow the recently published guidance.
Bayer settlement proposal under scrutiny. Last month, Bayer, the owner of Roundup, announced that it would settle around 9,500 lawsuits related to alleged injuries caused by using the product. Not only was the proposal supposed to settle previous lawsuits, but it was also meant to address any future lawsuits stemming from purported injuries caused by Roundup. A judge from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently pumped the breaks on this plan, stating that any settlement that would resolve “all future claims” against Roundup must first be approved by the court. A hearing will be held on July 24, where the court will decide whether or not to “grant preliminary approval of the settlement.”
Tags: COVID-19, COVID-19 immunity, Paycheck Protection Program, meat processing, bioengineered food, roundup, Harvest
Comments: 0
There was a great deal of action last Friday in the case that vacated the registrations of XtendiMax, Engenia and FeXapan dicamba-based products. Despite a barrage of court filings on Friday, however, nothing has changed the current legal status of the dicamba products in Ohio, and Ohio growers may use existing stocks of the products now but must end use by June 30, 2020.
Here’s a rundown of the orders that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued in the case last Friday:
- The court denied the emergency motion that the petitioners (National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America) filed on June 13. That motion asked the court to enforce its previous mandate to vacate the registrations, to prevent any further use of the products, and to hold the EPA in contempt for issuing the Cancellation Order the agency had made that allowed continued use of existing stocks of the products. The court did not provide its reasoning for denying the motion.
- The court granted amicus curiae (friend of the court) status to CropLife America and American Farm Bureau (representing itself as well as national soybean, cotton, wheat, corn and sorghum association interest.) Those parties filed their amicus curiae briefs in support of the EPA’s Cancellation Order and in opposition to the petitioners' emergency motion.
- The court granted also emergency motions to intervene in the case filed by BASF Corporation, maker of Engenia, and DuPont (Corteva) , maker of FeXapan. The companies argued that they did not know that the scope of the court’s order on Bayer's XtendiMax product registration would also affect their dicamba product registrations and they should now be permitted an opportunity to defend their products.
- BASF filed a motion asking the court to recall the court's mandate that had cancelled the registrations of the products, claiming that the court had not followed appropriate procedural rules. In its brief, BASF also suggested that the company would be filing petitions for rehearing since BASF had not had an opportunity to be heard when the court vacated the registration of its Engenia product.
- The court ordered the original petitioners to file a brief in response to BASF’s motion to recall the mandate by June 23, and for BASF to reply to that brief by June 24.
The companies that make the dicamba products clearly intend to challenge the vacatur of their product registrations, even though the EPA's Cancellation Order allows continued use of existing stocks of the products until July 30, 2020. This dicamba battle is not yet over, and we'll keep you posted on new developments.
Read our previous posts on the court's vacatur in National Family Farm Coalition here, on the EPA's Cancellation Order here, and on the Ohio Department of Agriculture's ruling on use of the products in Ohio here.
Tags: dicamba, National Family Farm Coalition, dicamba drift, pesticides, FIFRA
Comments: 0
The dicamba roller coaster ride continues today, with a statement issued by the Ohio Department of Agriculture clarifying that the use of XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan dicamba-based products in Ohio will end as of June 30, 2020. Even though the US EPA has issued an order allowing continued use of the products until July 31, 2020, use in Ohio must end on June 30 because the Ohio registrations for the three dicamba-based products expire on that day.
As we’ve explained in our previous blog posts here and here, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the registration of the dicamba products on June 3, 2020. In doing so, the court stated that the EPA had failed to perform a proper analysis of the risks and resulting costs of the products. According to the court, EPA had substantially understated the amount of acreage damaged by dicamba and the extent of such damage, as well as complaints made to state agriculture departments. The court determined that EPA had also entirely failed to acknowledge other risks, such as the risk of noncompliance with complex label restrictions, economic risks from anti-competition impacts created by the products, and the social costs to farm communities caused by dicamba versus non-dicamba users. Rather than allowing the EPA to reconsider the registrations, the court vacated the product registrations altogether.
The EPA issued a Cancellation Order for the three products on June 8, stating that distribution or sale by the registrants is prohibited as of June 3, 2020. But the agency also decided to examine the issue on the minds of many farmers: what to do with the products. Applying its “existing stocks” policy, the EPA examined six factors to help it determine how to deal with stocks of the product that are in the hands of dealers, commercial applicators, and farmers. The EPA concluded that those factors weighed heavily in favor of allowing the end users to use the products in their possession, but that use must occur no later than July 31, 2020 and that any use inconsistent with the previous label restrictions is prohibited.
Despite the EPA’s Cancellation Order, however, the Ohio Department of Agriculture is the final arbiter of the registration and use of pesticides and herbicides within Ohio. ODA patiently waited for the EPA to act on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling before issuing its guidance for Ohio users of the dicamba products. In its guidance released today, ODA stated that:
- After careful evaluation of the court’s ruling, US EPA’s Final Cancellation Order, and the Ohio Revised Code and Administrative Code, as of July 1, 2020, these products will no longer be registered or available for use in Ohio unless otherwise ordered by the courts.
- While use of already purchased product is permitted in Ohio until June 30, further distribution or sale of the products is illegal, except for ensuring proper disposal or return to the registrant.
- Application of existing stocks inconsistent with the previously approved labeling accompanying the product is prohibited.
But the roller coaster ride doesn’t necessarily end there. Several dangling issues for dicamba-based product use remain:
- We’re still waiting to see whether the plaintiffs who challenged the registrations (the National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America) will also challenge the EPA’s Cancellation Order and its decision to allow continued use of the products, and will request immediate discontinuance of such uses.
- Bayer Crop Science, as an intervenor in the Ninth Circuit case, could still appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision, as could the EPA.
- All of these orders add complexity to the issue of liability for dicamba damage. That issue has already become quite controversial, often pitting farmer against farmer and requiring the applicator or damaged party to prove adherence to or violation of the complicated label restrictions. But the Ninth Circuit’s attention to the risks of adverse impacts from the products raises additional questions about whether an applicator who chooses to use the products is knowingly assuming a higher risk, and whether a liability insurance provider will cover that risk. For this reason, growers may want to have a frank discussion with their liability insurance providers about coverage for dicamba drift.
The dicamba roller coaster ride will surely continue, and we’ll keep you updated on the next development.
Read the ODA’s Official Statement Regarding the Use of Over-the-Top Dicamba Products here.
Tags: dicamba, pesticide drift liability, pesticide registration, EPA
Comments: 0
When we explained in our last blog post the recent Court of Appeals decision that vacated the registration of three dicamba-based products, we mentioned that one possibility for answering the “what happens now” question was for the EPA to issue a cancellation order that would allow end users to use existing stocks of the products. That’s exactly what happened yesterday, when the US EPA made a final order that cancels the registrations of XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan but allows for movement and use of the products. Here’s a summary of the agency’s order.
Authority to issue the cancellation order
After reviewing the background of the dicamba product registrations vacated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week for lack of “substantial evidence” supporting the registrations, the EPA stated that it was relying upon the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to establish provisions for the disposition of existing stocks of registrations that are found to be invalid. “The Administrator may permit the continued sale and use of existing stocks of a pesticide whose registration is suspended or canceled under [sections 3, 4 or 6 of FIFRA] to such extent, under such conditions, and for such uses as the Administrator determines that such sale or use is not inconsistent with the purposes of [FIFRA]” stated the agency.
The EPA noted that FIFRA does not prohibit the use of unregistered pesticides, but only prohibits the sale and distribution of unregistered pesticides. The agency noted that without its action, end users holding stocks of the products aren’t prevented from using the stocks without following the now voided label directions and restrictions. And the agency pointed to a similar action it took after a 2015 court order that vacated the registration of sulfoxaflor and a 2010 court decision that vacated the registration of spirotetramat. In both cases, the EPA utilized a cancellation order to establish terms and conditions for the disposition of existing stocks of the products.
Existing Stocks Determination
Back in 1991, the EPA established an “existing stocks policy” to help the agency assess how to treat existing stocks of cancelled pesticides, both when no significant risk concerns have been identified and when there are significant risk concerns for a cancelled product. The agency noted that it considered the six factors outlined in the policy for considering significant risk concerns associated with a cancelled pesticide and reached the conclusion that “distribution and use in certain narrow circumstances is supported.” The six factors the agency considered in determining what to do with the existing stocks of dicamba products are:
- Quantities of existing stocks at each level of the channels of trade
The agency noted that due to the current timing of the growing season, significant existing stocks are present in the possession of end users and throughout the channels of trade. Stating that it couldn’t determine the exact quantities of existing stocks at each level of the channels of trade, the EPA estimates that “approximately 4 million gallons could be in the channels of trade.”
- Risks resulting from the use of the existing stocks
Again concluding that because the product registrations were vacated and the labels therefore voided, end users were not legally bound to follow label restrictions if using the dicamba products. The agency concluded that such non-label uses would have greater potential for adverse effects than if the agency issued an order allowing and regulating the use of the existing stocks. Such an order is imperative, said the agency, to ensure that any use of the products would be consistent with previously approved labeling and could be enforced in order to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. Surprisingly, the EPA gave little attention to the volatility concerns raised by the Ninth Circuit in its decision last week, and evidence the court pointed to in that case that suggested that even applications by those who carefully followed the label restrictions were subject to drift and damage.
- The benefits resulting from the use of existing stocks
Capitalizing on the unfortunate timing of the Ninth Circuit’s vacation of the pesticide in regards to immediate needs for the current growing season, the agency concluded that “the benefits resulting from the use of the products are considerable and well established, particularly for this growing season.” The EPA reiterated many of the numerous communications it had received stating how essential the over-the-top products are, especially with the growing season underway. It also concluded that allowing non-over-the-top uses would result in substantially greater benefits to users and society than would disposal of the products.
- The financial expenditures users and others have already spent on existing stocks
Echoing the concerns of many farmers and again pointing to the current growing season, the agency concluded that “the costs to farmers are not limited to their existing stocks of these dicamba products, but include other sunk costs made in expectation of the availability of these products (seed purchase, tilling, planting, etc.) as well as the lost opportunity to switch to a different crop or to another herbicide or weed management method.”
- The risks and costs of disposal or alternative disposition of the stocks
The EPA concluded that disposal of the existing stocks of dicamba products would incur substantial costs for all and for stock already in the hands of end users, “may be neither feasible nor advisable.” Additionally, the agency pointed to disposal or return of opened containers which would have high risks of spillage and increased expenses for proper disposal.
- The practicality of implementing restrictions on distribution, sale, or use of the existing stocks
Another option available to the agency under FIFRA would be to issue individual stop sale, use and removal orders to all end users holding dicamba products, but the EPA concluded that such an action would be unwarranted under the present facts because tracking the existing stocks would be burdensome, inaccurate and impractical and that “hard-pressed farmers who have made large investments in their existing stocks may be uncooperative with a cancellation order that requires disposal.”
Final Order
After weighing the six factors above, the EPA concluded that the six factors weigh heavily in support of allowing end users to use existing stocks of the dicamba products in their possession. However, the agency imposed a July 31 , 2020 cut-off date for use of existing stocks in order to “further reduce the potential for adverse effects.” Here are the final orders the agency made for distributed, sale and use of the products:
- Distribution or sale by the registrant. Distribution or sale by the registrant of all existing stocks of the products listed below is prohibited effective as of the time of the order on June 3, except for distribution for the purposes of proper disposal.
- Distribution or sale by persons other than the registrant. Distribution or sale of existing stocks of the products listed below that are already in the possession of persons other than the registrant is permitted only for the purposes of proper disposal or to facilitate return to the registrant or a registered establishment under contract with the registrant, unless otherwise allowed below.
- Distribution or sale by commercial applicators. For the purpose of facilitating use no later than July 31, 2020, distribution or sale of existing stocks of products listed below that are in the possession of commercial applicators is permitted.
- Use. Use of existing stocks of products inconsistent in any respect with the previously-approved labeling accompanying the product is prohibited. All use is prohibited after July 31, 2020.
Now what?
While the manufacturers of XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan are prohibited from selling and distributing their products effective as of June 3, 2020, the EPA’s cancellation order allows others to return, dispose of, or use the products according to the previous label restrictions and no later than July 31, 2020. But a few other factors come into play:
- Some states have already taken actions to restrict the use of the dicamba products within their states, which is within a state’s authority. Ohio has not done so, and instead has stated that it has been awaiting US EPA guidance on the legal status of the products and will communicate options for farmers afterwards. This means that users in Ohio should keep a close eye on the Ohio Department of Agriculture to see if it will go along with the US EPA’s guidance or direct otherwise.
- A cancellation order issued by the EPA is a final agency action that is subject to appeal, so we might see an immediate of the cancellation order and a request to stay the order pending appeal. Such an appeal could challenge whether the EPA has the authority to regulate existing stocks of the products and whether the agency’s analysis sufficiently addressed the risks of adverse impacts from continued use.
As seems often to be the case with dicamba, there’s a mixed sense of drama and dread with what lies ahead. We’ll be sure to keep you posted on the next legal news for dicamba.
Read the US EPA’s cancellation order for XtendiMax, Engenia, and FeXapan here.
Dicamba has had its share of legal challenges, and a decision issued yesterday dealt yet another blow when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the product’s registration with the U.S. EPA. In doing so, the court held that the EPA’s approval of the registration violated the provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), which regulates the use of herbicides and other chemicals in the U.S. Here’s a summary of how the court reached its decision and a few thoughts on the uncertainty that follows the opinion.
The challenge: EPA’s approval of three dicamba products
We first have to step back to 2016, when the EPA approved three dicamba-based products-- Monsanto’s XTendiMax, DuPont’s FeXapan, and BASF’s Engenia--as conditional use pesticides for post-emergent applications in 34 states, including Ohio. Although dicamba has been around for years, the approval came after the companies reformulated dicamba to make it less volatile and in anticipation of the development of dicamba tolerant soybean and cotton seeds. The agency conducted a risk assessment and concluded that if used according to the label restrictions, the benefits of the dicamba products outweighed “any remaining minimal risks, if they exist at all.” The EPA also provided that the registrations would automatically expire if there was a determination of an unacceptable level or frequency of off-site dicamba damage.
Before the conditional registrations were set to automatically expire in late 2018, the EPA approved requests by Bayer CropScience (previously Monsanto), Cortevo (previously DuPont) and BASF to conditionally amend the registrations for an additional two years. The approval came despite widespread concerns about dicamba drift and damage during the 2017 growing season. To address those concerns, EPA chose not to conduct a new risk assessment and instead adopted additional label restrictions that had been proposed by Monsanto/Bayer to minimize off-field movement of dicamba. Many states added restrictions for dicamba use that exceeded the label restrictions, including banning any use of the product during certain periods.
Several organizations challenged the EPA’s dicamba registration approvals. The National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Food Safety, Center for Biological Diversity, and Pesticide Action Network North America filed suit against the EPA, claiming that the agency violated both FIFRA and the Endangered Species Act in approving the product registrations. Monsanto requested and was granted permission to intervene in the case.
The Ninth Circuit’s review
To approve the request to amend the dicamba registrations, FIFRA required the EPA to make two conclusions: first, that the applicant had submitted satisfactory data related to the proposed additional use of the pesticide and second, that the approval would not significantly increase the risk of unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The task before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was to review the EPA’s 2018 decision and determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the EPA's conclusions and amend the registrations.
The conclusion that drew the most attention from the court was the EPA’s determination that amending the dicamba registrations for two years would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. The court determined that the EPA erred in making this conclusion when it substantially understated several risks of dicamba registration, such as:
- Misjudging by as much as 25% the amount of acreage on which dicamba would be used in 2018.
- Concluding that complaints to state departments of agriculture could have either under-reported or over-reported the actual amount of dicamba damage, when the record clearly showed that complaints understated the amount of damage.
- Failing to quantify the amount of damage caused by dicamba, “or even to admit that there was any damage at all,” despite having information that would enable the EPA to do so.
But that’s not all. The court pointed out that the agency had also “entirely failed to acknowledge other risks, including those it was statutorily required to consider,” such as:
- The risk of substantial non-compliance with label restrictions, which the court noted became “increasingly restrictive and, correspondingly, more difficult to follow” and to which even conscientious applicators could not consistently adhere.
- The risk of economic costs. The court stated that the EPA did not take into account the “virtually certain” economic costs that would result from the anti-competitive effect of continued dicamba registration, citing evidence in the record that growers were compelled to adopt the dicamba products just to avoid the possibility of damage should they use non-dicamba tolerant seed.
- The social costs of dicamba technology to farming communities. The court pointed out that a farmer in Arkansas had been shot and killed over dicamba damage, that dicamba had “pitted neighbor against neighbor,” and that the EPA should have identified the severe strain on social relations in farming communities as a clear social cost of the continued registration of the products.
Given the EPA’s understatement of some risks and failure to recognize other risks, the Court of Appeals concluded that substantial evidence did not support the agency’s decision to grant the conditional registration of the dicamba products. The EPA “failed to perform a proper analysis of the risks and resulting costs of the uses,” determined the court. The court did not address the Endangered Species Act issue.
What remedy?
A critical point in the decision is the court’s determination of the appropriate remedy for the EPA’s unsupported approval of the dicamba products. The EPA and Monsanto had asked the court to utilize its ability to “remand without vacatur,” or to send the matter back to the agency for reconsideration. The remedy of “vacatur,” however, would vacate or void the product registrations. The court explained that determining whether vacatur is appropriate required the court to weigh several criteria, including:
- The seriousness of the agency’s errors against the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed,
- The extent to which vacating or leaving the decision in place would risk environmental harm, and
- Whether the agency would likely be able to offer better reasoning on remand, or whether such fundamental flaws in the agency’s decision make it unlikely that the same rule would be adopted on remand.
The court’s weighing of these criteria led to its conclusion that vacating the registrations of the products was the appropriate remedy due to the “fundamental flaws in the EPA’s analysis.” Vacating the registrations was not an action taken lightly by the court, however. The judges acknowledged that the decision could have an adverse impact on growers who have already purchased dicamba products for the current growing season and that growers “have been placed in this situation through no fault of their own.” Clearly, the court places the blame for such consequences upon the EPA, reiterating the “absence of substantial evidence” for the agency’s decision to register the dicamba products.
What now?
The court raised the issue we’re all wondering about now: can growers still use the dicamba products they’ve purchased? Unfortunately, we don’t have an immediate answer to the question, because it depends largely upon how the EPA responds to the ruling. We do know that:
- FIFRA § 136a prohibits a person from distributing or selling any pesticide that is not registered.
- FIFRA § 136d allows the EPA to permit continued sale and use of existing stocks of a pesticide whose registration is suspended or canceled. The EPA utilized this authority in 2015 after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA’s registration of sulfoxaflor after determining that the registration was not supported by substantial evidence. In that case, the EPA allowed continued use of the existing stocks of sulfoxaflor held by end-users provided that the users followed label restrictions. Whether the agency would find similarly in regards to existing stocks of dicamba is somewhat unlikely given the court's opinion, but remains to be seen. The EPA’s 2015 sulfoxaflor cancellation order is here.
- While the U.S. EPA registers pesticides for use and sale in the U.S., the product must also be registered within a state in order to be sold and used within the state. The Ohio Department of Agriculture oversees pesticide registrations within Ohio, and also regulates the use of registered pesticides.
- If the EPA appeals the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, the agency would likely include a request for a “stay” that would delay enforcement of the court’s Order.
- Bayer strongly disagrees with the decision but has paused its sale, distribution and use of XtendiMax while assessing its next step and awaiting EPA direction. The company states that it will “work quickly to minimize any impact on our customers this season.” Bayer also notes that it is already working to obtain a new registration for XtendiMax for the 2021 season and beyond, and hopes to obtain the registration by this fall. See Bayer’s information here.
- BASF and Corteva have also stated that they are awaiting the EPA’s reaction to the decision, and will “use all legal remedies available to challenge this Order.”
- Syngenta has clarified that its Tavium Plus VaporGrip dicamba-based herbicide is not part of the ruling and .that the company will continue selling that product.
For now, all eyes are on the U.S. EPA’s reaction to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, and we also need to hear from the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Given the current state of uncertainty, it would be wise for growers to wait and see before taking any actions with dicamba products. We’ll keep you posted on any new legal developments. Read the court's decision in National Family Farm Coalition et al v. U.S. EPA here.
Tags: dicamba, pesticide registration, FIFRA
Comments: 0
Pages
