North Carolina Passes Bill Legalizing Growing Industrial Hemp

Written by Katharine Richter

On October 31, 2015, North Carolina passed a bill (SB 313) into law and legalize hemp for industrial use.  SB 313 was presented to North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory who failed to approve the law within the prescribed time and by taking no action, the bill became law.

In SB 313 the stated purpose of the bill is to recognize the “importance and legitimacy of industrial hemp” and to promote agricultural employment while being in compliance with Agricultural Act of 2014.  In the first section, § 106-58.50, it states the bill establishes an “agricultural pilot program for the cultivation of industrial hemp in the State,” which will provide data for research on industrial hemp. 

The second section of SB 313, § 16-568.51, defines terms.  The following section, § 106-568.52, defines the creation of the North Carolina Industrial Hemp Commission.  The Commission will be comprised of five members and will serve four year terms with potential for reappointment of second year for another four years.  § 106-568.53 of SB 313 sets the powers and duties of the Commission.  The Commission is the body that will issue licenses for hemp production to the extent  allowed by federal law.  Licensees will be responsible for providing an accurate geographical description of “the location of the industrial hemp farming operation.”  In addition, the Commission is responsible for implementing procedures and rules for growers, studying marketplace opportunities for hemp products and investigating hemp cultivation methods best suited to sustainable growing practices.

Under § 7606 of The Agricultural Act of 2014, growing industrial hemp is allowed “under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research.”  SB 313 complies with the Agricultural Act of 2014 by legalizing the growing of hemp  through  the authorized agricultural pilot program.  

California May Enact Nation's Most Restrictive Laws Regarding Livestock Antibiotic Use

Written by Katharine Richter

On September 11, 2015, the California legislature passed SB No. 27, which proposes strict restrictions on antibiotic use in livestock.  The enrolled bill still needs to be signed by California Governor Jerry Brown (D) to be enacted. 

The bill, if signed by the Governor, would become operative starting January 1, 2018.  The bill would prohibit “medically important antimicrobial drugs” from being administered to livestock “unless ordered by a licensed veterinarian through a prescription or veterinary feed directive pursuant to a veterinarian-client-patient relationship.”  The bill would not allow the administration of antibiotics if the only purpose is “weight gain or improving feed efficiency.”

The bill further requires that the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) develop antimicrobial guidelines and best management practices.  CDFA will also be in charge of surveillance and gathering information.  Any violators will be “subject to a civil penalty of up to $250 for each day a violation occurs.”  A second and subsequent violations will be increased to a “fine of $500 for each day a violation occurs.”

According to the Consumers Union website, this bill will be the toughest law to date on limiting the use of antibiotics in livestock.  The website states that “approximately 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are fed to mostly healthy animals…to make them grow faster and to prevent disease in crowded and unsanitary industrial farms.”  According to a Food Chemical News article, industry groups “haven’t mounted strong opposition to the bill.”  Industry groups recognize the need to address the future effectiveness of antibiotics but the concern with the proposed legislation is the potential burden on rural farmer’s access to veterinarians.  

Law Passed in Minnesota Requiring Riparian Buffers on all Designated Public Waterways

  On June 13, 2015, Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota signed all special session bills passed by the legislature, including the Agriculture, Environment, and Natural Resources Finance Bill (SF 5).  Section 79 (see pg. 138) of the bill mandates all designated public waterways to have riparian buffers to protect water resources.

  Under the new law, buffers for designated public waterways are required to be on average 50-foot width, with a 30-foot minimum.  The implementation of buffers on designated public waterways must be completed by November 2017 and public ditches, which must have 16½-foot buffers, completed by November 2018.  The obligation to determine which streams, headwaters, and ditches require buffers will fall on the state’s 90 county soil and water conservation districts.

   According to a document on the Minnesota Governor’s website, this legislation was one of Dayton’s top priorities and will help to protect Minnesota’s water resources.  The Bill has received criticism from environmental groups.  Environmentalists are stating the law has not gone far enough to protect public water ways.  Steve Morse, Executive Director of Minnesota Environmental Partnership, stated, “We in the environmental community are extremely disappointed in the revised bill released by Legislature today … With the exception of a modest improvement on water quality with more enforcement of vegetative buffers, this bill is absolutely a step backwards for Minnesota’s environment.”  

Written by Katharine Richter - Research Assistant

June 16, 2015