\n<\/p>\n
Audry Thompson\u2014Research Assistant<\/span><\/p>\n Brook Duer\u2014Staff Attorney<\/span> Want to listen to this Weekly Review? Check out the<\/span> <\/span>Penn State Agricultural Law Podcast<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Animal Welfare: Ninth Circuit Upholds Denial of Injunction Against California\u2019s Proposition 12\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n On October 15, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a <\/span>memorandum disposition<\/a> <\/span>affirming the U.S. District Court (USDC) for the Central District of California\u2019s November 22, 2019, denial of a preliminary injunction against California\u2019s <\/span>Proposition 12<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 <\/span>North American Meat Institute, et al. v. Becerra, et al.<\/span>,<\/span> No. 19-56408.\u00a0 The underlying complaint remains pending before the district court. <\/span>North American Meat Institute et al. v. Becerra, et al.,<\/span> <\/span>2:19-cv-08569<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Proposition 12 requires that all pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens housed in California, and all products s<\/span>old in California which are derived from <\/span>pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens <\/span>no matter where produced, be produced according to enumerated minimum confinement standards. \u00a0 According to the memorandum, the law: (a) is not discriminatory on its face because it treats out-of-state and in-state producers the same and does not substantially burden interstate commerce; (b) does not impact an industry that is inherently national or requires a uniform system of regulation, and; (c) is not a price control or price affirmation statute.\u00a0 Although multiple stakeholders have challenged Proposition 12 on various grounds in various California federal courts, none have yet been successful.\u00a0 For more background, see <\/span>ALWR\u2014week ending June 26, 2020<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>\u201cNational Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Appeal California Proposition 12 Ruling\u201d and <\/span>ALWR\u2014week ending April 30, 2020<\/span><\/a>, \u201cFederal Court Upholds California Proposition 12.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Nutrition Programs: Federal Court Vacates USDA SNAP Rule<\/span><\/p>\n On October 18, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a <\/span>memorandum opinion<\/span><\/a> vacating the final rule at <\/span>84 FR 66782<\/span><\/a> titled, \u201cSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents,\u201d issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service.\u00a0 <\/span>Dist. of Columbia, et al. v. USDA, et al.<\/span>, <\/span>No. 1:20-cv-00119<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 The Court found that USDA provided insufficient notice of the rule changes and held that the rule was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.\u00a0 The final rule, which was to become effective April 1, 2020, revised the area unemployment rate calculation method and other measures related to states\u2019 abilities to request waivers of the time limit for which able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may receive benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).\u00a0 However, the Court previously issued a preliminary injunction staying that effective date.\u00a0 USDA appealed the injunction and that proceeding remains pending before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit. For more background, see <\/span>ALWR\u2014January 23, 2020<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> \u201cFourteen States, New York City, and District of Columbia Sue USDA Over SNAP Benefit Rule Changes\u201d and <\/span>ALWR\u2014week ending May 22, 2020<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>\u201cUSDA Appeals SNAP Ruling.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Antitrust: Federal Court Denies Dismissal of Meatpackers’ Antitrust Class Action Suit\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n On October 16, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota issued an <\/span>order<\/span><\/a> denying Defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, allowing a lawsuit of thirteen consolidated class actions alleging price-fixing to proceed against multiple meatpackers, including Hormel Foods, LLC, JBS USA, Smithfield Foods, Inc., and Tyson Foods, Inc.\u00a0 <\/span>In re Pork Antitrust Litigation<\/span>, <\/span>No. 0:18-cv-01776<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 The suit alleges that the meatpackers conspired to limit production of pork through publicly unavailable data from Agri Stats which they used to monitor each other\u2019s production, and through public statements about the need to reduce pork production which they used to signal to each other that \u201csolidarity existed\u201d among the companies.\u00a0 The Court found that the Complaint sufficiently pleaded parallel conduct and a continuing violation to state a claim under the Sherman Act.\u00a0 Previously, the court dismissed a different assortment of antitrust claims against some of the same defendants.\u00a0 See <\/span>ALWR\u2014week ending October 2, 2020<\/span><\/a>,<\/span> \u201cPacker Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissed.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n COVID-19: Farmers to Families Food Box Program Receives Fourth Round of USDA Funding<\/span><\/p>\n On October 23, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) <\/span>announced<\/span><\/a> an additional $500 million in funding for a fourth round of the <\/span>Farmers to Families Food Box Program<\/span><\/a>, authorized by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (<\/span>Public Law No: 116-127<\/span><\/a>).\u00a0 The fourth round of the program adheres to the same purchasing priorities as the third round\u2014fresh produce, meat, dairy, and milk.\u00a0 USDA stated that it anticipates awarding contracts by October 30, 2020 for food box deliveries from November 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020.\u00a0 For more on this topic see <\/span>ALWR\u2014week ending August 28, 2020<\/span><\/a>, \u201c$1 Billion Added for Third Round of Farmers to Families Food Box Distributions\u201d and <\/span>ALWR\u2014April 23, 2020<\/span><\/a>, \u201cUSDA Announces Coronavirus Food Assistance Program.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n International Trade: USTR and USDA Release Report on Agricultural Trade Under the U.S-China Trade Agreement<\/span><\/p>\n On October 23, 2020, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) <\/span>announced<\/span><\/a> publication of an <\/span>interim report<\/span><\/a> on agricultural trade under the January 15, 2020 Economic and Trade Agreement Between the United States of America and the People\u2019s Republic of China.\u00a0 According to the report, China has fulfilled 71% of its 2020 target purchases and bought $23.6 billion in agricultural goods for the 2020 year since the agreement became effective February 14, 2020, although it is yet to be determined whether the country will meet its target.\u00a0 S<\/span>ee<\/span> <\/span>ALWR\u2014January 16, 2020<\/span><\/a>, \u201cUnited States and China Sign Agreement Impacting Agricultural Exports To China.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Environmental Policy: Environmental Quality Incentives Program Final Rule Published<\/span><\/p>\n On October 23, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) <\/span>announced<\/span><\/a> the publication of its <\/span>Environmental Quality Incentives Program<\/span><\/a> final rule at <\/span>85 FR 67637<\/span><\/a> which modifies the program in accordance with the 2018 Farm Bill.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Organic Agriculture: USDA-NASS 2019 Organic Survey Released\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n On October 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) <\/span>issued<\/span><\/a> the results of the <\/span>2019 Organic Survey<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 The last NASS Organic Survey was performed in 2016. Among many other notable results, Pennsylvania led the nation in organic broiler chicken sales with $360,059,291 and organic egg sales (chicken) with $104,000,815.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n COVID-19:\u00a0 CFAP 1 and CFAP 2 Pennsylvania Data\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Weekly, USDA updates aggregate <\/span>Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 1<\/span><\/a> (CFAP 1) and <\/span>Coronavirus Food Assistance Program 2<\/span><\/a> (CFAP 2) payments.\u00a0 The latest available Pennsylvania totals are below:\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n PENNSYLVANIA CFAP 1 <\/span>\t\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span>Payments<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>Approved Applications<\/u>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0(<\/span>as of 10\/18\/20)<\/span><\/p>\n Dairy<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>$105,857,188<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>2,757<\/span><\/p>\n Livestock<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>$33,931,486<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span> <\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>5,866<\/span><\/p>\n Non-Specialty Crops<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 $22,597,539<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>5,019<\/span><\/p>\n Specialty Crops<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>$8,419,358<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>167<\/span><\/p>\n Aqua Nursery Flora <\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 $1,048,668<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 20<\/span><\/p>\n TOTALS<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 <\/span>\t<\/span> <\/span>$171,854,239<\/span>\t\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>1<\/span><\/span><\/span>3,829<\/span><\/p>\n PENNSYLVANIA CFAP 2<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>Payments<\/span>\t<\/span><\/span>
<\/span>The Agricultural Law Weekly Review provides an update of recent agricultural law developments from local, state, national, and international levels.\u00a0 Subscribe at <\/span>pennstateaglaw.com<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n