Showing posts with label check-off. Show all posts
Showing posts with label check-off. Show all posts

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Agricultural Law Weekly Review—May 5, 2016

Written by M. Sean High – Staff Attorney

The following information is an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to agriculture:

HPAI: Indiana Lifts Final Avian Influenza Quarantine
On May 2, 2016, the Indiana State Board of Animal Health issued a press release announcing that “[t]he last remaining quarantine associated with the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) cases identified in Dubois County, Ind. has officially been lifted.” According to the press release, “[t]his quarantine release coincides with the state achieving avian influenza-free status, after logging 90 consecutive days with no new cases of the poultry disease.”

FSMA: FDA Issues Corrections to Final Rule Regarding Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption
On May 3, 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published notice in the Federal Register that the agency was amending a final rule published in Federal Register on November 27, 2015 (81 FR 26466).  According to FDA “[t]hat final rule established science-based minimum standards for the safe growing, harvesting, packing, and holding of produce, meaning fruits and vegetables grown for human consumption.”  FDA stated that “[t]he final rule published with some editorial and inadvertent errors…[and that] [t]his document corrects those errors.”

Beef Checkoff: Suit Filed Against USDA for Use of Checkoff Tax
On May 2, 2016, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) brought suit against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging that USDA “turns over proceeds from a federal tax on each sale of cattle to the private Montana Beef Council, to fund the council’s private speech, harming R-CALF USA’s members.” According to the complaint, R-CALF USA stated that the production methods of its members “stand in contrast to those used by large, multinational producers who source much of their cattle and beef internationally.” As a result, R-CALF USA asserted “its members object to and disagree with communications espousing that all beef is equal and/or that fail to distinguish between domestic and foreign beef.”

Crop Insurance: USDA Announces Funds Available for Risk Management Education
On May 5, 2016, the United States Department of Agriculture's Risk Management
Agency issued a press release announcing the availability of $4.4 million in funding for the Crop Insurance in Targeted States Program.  According to the press release, “[t]he program backs development of crop insurance education programs where there is a low level of federal crop insurance participation and availability.” The press release stated that the “targeted states are Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.”

Monday, October 26, 2015

USDA AMS Launches Investigation Into Egg Board Dealings

Written by Katharine Richter

On October 20, 2015, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, “sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack…calling for an investigation into the American Egg Board (AEB).”  The allegation levied against the board involves an anti-competitive campaign aimed at eliminating a non-egg mayonnaise from Whole Food’s shelves. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agriculture Marketing Services (AMS) is currently investigating whether federal laws or administrative regulations have been violated. 

The AEB is part of the USDA AMS “check-off” program, which was created in 1937 and is designed to “promote and provide research and information for a particular agricultural commodity.”  According to Senator Lee’s letter to Vilsack, information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act has led to acquiring 600 pages of correspondence which suggest that the AEB staff and USDA officials may have used their power and resources to target Hampton Creek, a producer of vegan mayonnaise.  The aim was to “reduce marketplace demand” for the product because of concerns of the impact on the egg industry.

According to Senator Lee’s letter, the AEB may have violated a law which states that funds received may not be for political purposes.  Further, the USDA AMS issues guidelines that “forbid any advertising considered disparaging or those that depict other commodities in a negative or unpleasant light via either over or subjective video, photography, or statements.”


According to agri-pulse, the USDA review “involves a substantial amount of material and while AMS expects to complete the review in an expeditious manner, a complete review will take some time.”  

Monday, May 18, 2015

USDA Receives Petition for Organic Check-off Program


On May 12, 2015, the Organic Trade Association (OTA) submitted a formal petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requesting the establishment of an organic check-off program. 

Check-off programs are intended to provide specific agricultural industries with a method for furthering promotion and research.  Federally legislated and monitored by USDA, check-off programs are requested, administered, and funded by each specific industry.  Currently, check-off programs exist for the beef, pork, eggs, soybeans, sorghum, and lamb industries.   

According to OTA, an organic check-off program is necessary because many consumers are confused regarding the differences between organic, all natural, and non GMO products.  A check-off program would provide a way for the organic industry to clarify these differences and promote the organic brand.  Furthermore, OTA cites a need to provide the organic industry with research regarding pest management solutions.   

Under OTA’s proposed check-off plan, all organic producers generating $250,000 or more in annual gross organic revenue would automatically be enrolled in the program.  Producers generating less than $250,000 in annual gross organic revenue would have the ability to voluntarily opt into the program.  The program is to be funded through the collection of assessment fees charged to organic producers, organic handlers, and organic importers. 

OTA acknowledges that the main opposition to the organic check-off program is found within the organic community.  Much of this opposition results from a concern that the program will only help large scale organic producers at the expense of small family farms.
 
Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney
May 18, 2015