Recent Blog Posts

This edition of the Ag Law Harvest is heavily focused on recent environmental case law at the federal level.  Read on to find out how habitats, migratory birds, environmental and administrative laws, and Trump’s new Waters of the United States rule have fared in recent decisions. 

What does “habitat” mean to you? Think about it carefully, because now is your chance to provide your input to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).  Readers of the blog may remember we reported on a Supreme Court case dealing with critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) a few years ago.  The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals was charged with interpreting the word “habitat.” The Court of appeals then punted the interpretation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, where the parties settled the case.  Even with a settlement, the question of what “habitat” means remains.  To remedy this omission, the FWS and NMFS published a proposed rule on August 5^th to define “habitat” under the ESA.  In this proposal, FWS and NMFS put forward two possible definitions of “habitat”:

• The physical places that individuals of a species depend upon to carry out one or more life processes. Habitat includes areas with existing attributes that have the capacity to support individuals of the species; or
• The physical places that individuals of a species use to carry out one or more life processes. Habitat includes areas where individuals of the species do not presently exist but have the capacity to support such individuals, only where the necessary attributes to support the species presently exist.

The agencies are asking for public comment on the two definitions, and “on whether either definition is too broad or too narrow or is otherwise proper or improper, and on whether other formulations of a definition of ‘habitat’ would be preferable to either of the two definitions, including formulations that incorporate various aspects of these two definitions.” The comment period is open until September 4, 2020. 

Will a lawsuit stop planned changes to NEPA? At the end of July, a number of environmental groups banded together and filed a 180-page complaint against the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).  The complaint challenges the Council’s update to rules under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).  The groups’ basic argument is that the CEQ, under the direction of the Trump administration, published a new administrative rule under NEPA, but did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs agency actions, when doing so.  The lawsuit alleges: “[r]ather than make this drastic change deliberately and with the careful process the APA requires, CEQ cut every corner. The agency disregarded clear evidence from over 40 years of past implementation; ignored the reliance interests of the citizens, businesses, and industries that depend on full and complete NEPA analyses; and turned the mandatory public engagement process into a paper exercise, rather than the meaningful inquiry the law requires.” Basically, the groups argue that the administration ignored the APA all together.  Why is this important? The environmental groups argue that the new rule essentially makes it possible for the federal government to push through projects that might have impacts on citizens and the environment, such as pipelines and roadways, much more quickly, and without much input from the public.  You can read the final NEPA rule here.  We will have to wait and see whether the court agrees that the APA was violated in the creation of this rule. 

Ruling on Migratory Bird Act clips the administration’s wings. Another lawsuit against the federal government was decided on August 11, 2020.  The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York sided with a number states as well as environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Fund and the National Wildlife Federation. The Court found that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and FWS (at the direction of the administration) could not overturn 50 years of DOI interpretations of what “killings” and “takings” of birds meant under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 with a single memo. Traditionally, the killing or taking any migratory bird, even accidentally or incidentally, has been interpreted as a violation of the Act.  DOI’s memo sought to change this, only making the Act only apply to intentional hunting, killing, or taking.  Essentially, if a business or person had a pond full of wastewater, and migratory birds swam in it, eventually killing the birds, it would only be “incidental” taking and not intentional under DOI’s logic in the memo.  Ultimately, Judge Valerie Caproni channeled Atticus Finch by stating “It is not only a sin to kill a mockingbird, it is also a crime,” meaning that one memorandum could not overturn the fact that incidental and accidental takings of birds are still takings punishable by the Act. 

  Another WOTUS lawsuit bites the dust.  There’s always something going on with the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.  In April, the Trump administration published its final rule on WOTUS, which replaced the Obama administration’s beleaguered rule from 2015.  Almost immediately, the rule was challenged in court by those who thought it went too far in protecting waters, as well as those who felt it didn’t go far enough.  The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, which falls into the latter camp, filed suit against the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the 2015 rule, later amending their complaint to address the 2020 rule.  The Association claimed that both the old and new rules went too far, and that EPA did not have the authority to carry them out under the Clean Water Act.  The judge dismissed the Association’s case without prejudice for lack of standing, meaning that the issue may be litigated again, but the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association could not show that its members are being negatively affected by the 2020 rule at this time. 

Welcome to August! Despite the fact that most of us haven’t seen much besides the inside of our homes lately, the world still turns, which is also true for the gears in Washington D.C.  In this issue of the Ag Law Harvest, we will take a look at some recently introduced and passed federal legislation, as well as a proposed federal rule.

Great American Outdoors Act is a go.  The Great American Outdoors Act, one of the last pieces of legislation introduced by the late Representative John Lewis, was signed into law by the President on August 4.  The new law secures funding for deferred maintenance projects on federal lands.  The funding will come from 50% of the revenues from oil, gas, coal, or alternative energy development on federal lands.  The funding will be broken down between numerous agencies, with 70% to the National Park Service each year, 15% to the Forest Service, 5% to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5% to the Bureau of Land Management, and 5% to the Bureau of Indian Education.  You can read the law in its entirety here.

A meat processing slowdown for worker safety? In addition to the Great American Outdoors Act, numerous bills have been introduced to help farmers, ag-related businesses, and rural areas in the wake of COVID-19.  For instance, in early July, Ohio’s own Representative from the 11th District, Marcia Fudge, introduced H.R. 7521, which would suspend increases in line speeds at meat and poultry establishments during the pandemic.  Notably, if passed, the bill would “suspend implementation of, and conversion to the New Swine Slaughter Inspection System,” which has been planned since the USDA published the final rule in October of 2019. It would also make the USDA suspend any waivers for certain establishments related to increasing line speed.  The resolution was introduced to protect the safety of workers, animals, and food.  In theory, slower line speeds would make it easier for workers to social distance. This is especially important in the wake of outbreaks among workers at many processing plants.  On July 28, Senator Cory Booker introduced a companion bill in the Senate.

Will livestock markets become more competitive?  On July 9, a group of Representatives from Iowa introduced H.R. 7501.  The bill would amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 “to foster efficient markets and increase competition and transparency among packers that purchase livestock from producers.  To achieve this outcome, the bill would require packers to obtain at least 50% of their livestock through “spot market sales” every week.  This means that the packers would be required to buy from producers not affiliated with the packer. “Unaffiliated producers” would have less than a 1 percent equity interest in the packer (and vice versa), no directors, employees, etc. that are directors, employees, etc. of the packer, and no fiduciary responsibility to the packer.  Additionally, the packer would not have an equity interest in a nonaffiliated producer.  Basically, this bill would make it easier for independent producers to sell to packers. This bill is a companion to a Senate Bill 3693, which we discussed in a March edition of the Ag Law Harvest. According

New bill would make changes to FIFRA.  Just last week, a new bill was proposed in both the House and Senate that would alter the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.  The bill is called the “Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act of 2020.” In a press release, the sponsoring Senator, Tom Udall, and Representative, Joe Neguse, explained that the proposed law would ban organophosphate insecticides, neonicotinoid insecticides, and the herbicide paraquat, which are linked to harmful effects in humans and the environment.  Furthermore, the law would allow individuals to petition the EPA to identify dangerous pesticides, close the loopholes allowing EPA to issue emergency exemptions and conditional registrations to use pesticides before they are fully vetted, allow communities to pass tougher laws on pesticides without state preemption, and press the pause button on pesticides found to be unsafe by the E.U. or Canada until they undergo EPA review.  Finally, the bill would make employers report pesticide-caused injuries, direct the EPA to work with pesticide manufacturers on labeling, and require manufacturers to include Spanish instructions on labels.  You can read the text of the bill here. 

USDA AMS publishes proposed Organic Rule.  Moving on to federal happenings outside Congress, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service published a proposed rule on August 5. The rule would amend current regulations for organic foods by strengthening “oversight of the production, handling certification, marketing, and sale of organic agricultural products.” The rule would make it easier to detect any fraud, trace organic products, and would make organic certification practices for producers more uniform.  Anyone interested in commenting on this proposed rule has until October 5, 2020 to do so.  You can find information on how to submit a comment on the website linked above. 

In a decision that turns largely on scientific methodology and reliable data, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday allowed continued registration of the Enlist Duo herbicide developed by Dow AgroScience (Corteva).  Unlike last month’s decision that vacated registrations of three dicamba herbicides, the two-judge majority on the court held that substantial evidence supported the EPA’s decision to register the herbicide.  Even so, the court sent one petition back to the EPA to further consider the impact of Enlist Duo on monarch butterflies in application areas. One dissenting judge would have held that the science used to support the Enlist Duo registration violates the Endangered Species Act.

The case began in 2014, when the same organizations that challenged the dicamba registrations (National Family Farm Coalition, Family Farm Defenders, Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety and Pesticide Action Network North America) and the Natural Resources Defense Council each filed petitions challenging the EPA’s registration of Enlist Duo.  The EPA later amended the registration in 2015 and 2017, eventually allowing use of the herbicide on corn, soybeans and cotton in 34 states.  The petitioners challenged the 2015 and 2017 registrations as well, and the Ninth Circuit consolidated the challenges into the case at hand.

The court’s opinion begins with an explanation of why it agreed with the parties who brought the challenges that they had the legal right to do so, or had “associational standing.”   Likely of higher interest to our readers is how the court answered the questions of whether the EPA adequately examined the potential impacts of Enlist Duo under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).  Here’s what the court had to say about the petitioners’ claims under each law:

The FIFRA claims.  The monarch butterfly issue was the only successful FIFRA claim advanced by the petitioners.  The court agreed that the EPA didn’t properly assess adverse harm to monarch butterflies that would result from increased 2,4-D use on milkweed in application fields, despite evidence suggesting that the butterflies might be adversely affected.  The EPA stated that it didn’t do so because the approval of Enlist Duo would not change the amount of milkweed being controlled by herbicides—those milkweeds would still be controlled with or without Enlist Duo.  The court disagreed, stating that FIFRA required the agency to determine whether any effect was “adverse” before then determining whether the effect on the environment was unreasonable, which EPA didn’t do in regard to the monarch butterfly.

The court rejected all of the petitioners’ other arguments under FIFRA:

Applicable standards.  Several claims that the EPA applied the wrong FIFRA registration standards failed.  The agency correctly used the broader and more stringent standard, which was to determine whether the registration would cause any unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.   

Increased glyphosate use.  Petitioners also argued that the EPA erred in determining that approval of Enlist Duo would not cause unreasonable adverse effects on environment because glyphosate was already being used.  The registration would only impact which glyphosate was being used but not how much glyphosate was in use.  The court agreed with EPA’s assertion that due to the “nearly ubiquitous use” of glyphosate across the country before the approval of Enlist Duo registration, there would not be an increase in overall glyphosate use and no increased risks.   Interestingly, the court distinguished increased use from new data about glyphosate use, stating that “this does not mean, of course, that new data about glyphosate will go unconsidered….”

Volatility risk.  The court also rejected volatility risk arguments, one of the science-heavy parts of the opinion (begin at page 37 for a good read).  The EPA had concluded the type of 2,4-D in Enlist Duo exhibits lower volatility and off-site vapor drift than other forms of 2,4-D.  EPA reached this conclusion based several studies and data points:  a laboratory study that examined degree of visual damage, six publicly available studies assessing plant growth and survival damage, data from a vapor flux study used to perform computer modeling to determine dose level and air concentration in order to predict adverse damages to plants off-field, a second type of modeling that assesses drift of wet and dry depositions, and atmospheric monitoring data.  Petitioners claimed limitations to the studies and methodology used, contradictions between EPA scientists, failure to follow regulatory guidelines and to consider large enough field sizes in its modeling.  The court commented that the evaluation of volatility “probably could have been better,” but found no evidence showing that EPA’s conclusion was wrong or that volatility fears had materialized since approval of the herbicide.  The court explained that the agency may apply its expertise to draw conclusions from probative preliminary data and “it is not our role to second-guess EPA’s conclusion.” 

Mixing risks.  Petitioners also argued that Dow intended to mix Enlist Duo with glufosinate and EPA failed to account for the synergistic effect of such mixing.  With no evidence other than an abandoned patent application for a mixed product by Dow, the court held that FIFRA doesn’t require an analysis of theoretical tank mixing but only that which is contemplated on the label. 

Nearly all of the EPA’s FIFRA decisions were supported by substantial evidence, the court concluded, with the exception of the monarch butterfly analysis. 

The ESA claims.   Science is a recurring theme in the court’s analysis of the petitioners’ ESA arguments, and also the source of sharp disagreement on the court.  ESA’s section 7 requires a determination of the biological impacts of a proposed action.  ESA consultation among the agencies is required if determined that an agency’s action “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat in an “action area.”   The petitioners claimed that EPA failed in its determination on several grounds, requiring the court to review whether the EPA’s determination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.  Here are the arguments, and the court’s responses:

“No effect” finding.  The petitioners argued that the EPA erred in determining that Enlist Duo approval would have “no effect” on plant and animal species and the court responded with another lengthy science-heavy discussion of “risk quotient” methodology and legal requirements  to use the “best scientific and commercial data available.”  The EPA employed a risk quotient methodology to conclude that there would be exposure to the herbicide but that such exposure would not lead to an effect on plants and animals.  The two judges in the majority were willing to defer to the agency on this conclusion and its dependence on the risk quotient methodology, but Judge Watford strongly disagreed.  Pointing out that the National Academy of Sciences had advised the EPA that the risk quotient method was “scientifically unsound,” the dissent concluded that the data derived from the methodology did not qualify as “scientific data” and therefore violated the ESA.   The majority stated that the risk quotient methodology doesn’t violate the duty to use the best scientific and commercial data available, which means that the EPA must not disregard available scientific evidence that is better and does not require the agency to conduct new tests or make decisions on data that doesn’t exist.   Deference to the agency was warranted, said the majority, and restraint against second guessing or using the court’s judgment.

Action area.   For its ESA determination, the EPA limited the “action area” to treated fields, while petitioners argued that the herbicide would drift beyond treated fields.  Again turning to the EPA’s science, the court held that the agency had science-based reasons for limiting the target area.  The EPA had appropriately accounted for drift through empirical data, mitigation measures, and label restrictions and no evidence in the record supported that the agency had made an error.

Critical habitat.  The final argument advanced by petitioners was that EPA did not meet its duty to insure that there would be no “adverse modification” of critical habitat from the registration.  Although there were 154 species with critical habitats in the states where Enlist Duo would be approved, EPA concluded that 176 of the species would not be in corn, cotton or soybean fields.  Of the eight species remaining, the agency determined that there would be no modification to their critical habitats as a result of Enlist Duo registration because none of the species’ essential features or “primary constituent elements” were related to agriculture.  Petitioners challenged the methodology EPA employed to reach this conclusion, but the court once again disagreed and deferred to the agency.

What remedy?

With only the monarch butterfly impact analysis in need of further study, the Ninth Circuit declined the petitioners’ request to vacate the Enlist Duo registration.   The court chose instead to remand the petition without vacating the registration, stating that the EPA’s failure to consider harm to monarch butterflies was technical and not a “serious” error.  Pointing also to the “disruptive” consequences of removing a pesticide that has been in use for over five years, the court stated that vacatur was not warranted when the EPA had substantially complied with FIFRA and fully complied with the ESA.

What’s next?

Enlist Duo registration will continue.  The EPA must address evidence that its destruction of milkweed in fields harms monarch butterflies, however.  The court advised the agency to “move promptly” in doing so.

Further action by the petitioners is likely.  According to correspondence with DTN, the petitioners are disappointed and will fight the decision.  They will likely also follow the EPA’s science quite closely as it reexamines the monarch butterfly issue.

Read the Ninth Circuit's decision National Family Farm Coalition et al v. U.S. EPA and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Wheeler, here.

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.”