A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE.
LEGISLATIVE: Includes New Jersey
NEW JERSEY
S 1016 restricts the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Info here.
LEGISLATIVE: Includes New Jersey
NEW JERSEY
A 4232 creates a matching grant program within the state’s Department of Agriculture for the purpose of providing funding for deer fencing to owners of certain farmland. Info here.
LEGISLATIVE: Includes New Jersey
NEW JERSEY
S 4128 requires that only fruits and vegetables grown and packaged within New Jersey may be labeled by food retailers as local to the state. Info here.
LEGISLATIVE: Includes Virginia
VIRGINIA
HB 828 expands eligibility for participation in the Dairy Producer Margin Coverage Premium Assistance Program to include dairy producers who have an approved Natural Resource Conservation Service nutrient management or soil health plan developed by an approved planner. Info here.
Judicial: Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Food Labeling
In RIGOBERTO SARMIENTO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRESH HARVEST, INC., et al., Defendants., Slip Copy (N.D.Cal., 2022), the court considered a motion for summary judgment in a class action involving domestic and foreign H-2A agricultural truck drivers. Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants for failure to provide minimum wage, overtime wages, and other labor violations. Defendant Fresh Harvest argued that no employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff Sarmiento and defendant. The court first determined whether Fresh Harvest and Fresh Foods were joint employers of plaintiff Sarmiento under the AWPA. The court held that there were genuine issues of material facts that a jury could resolve as to whether Fresh Harvest and Fresh Foods were joint employers. The court denied all Fresh Harvest’s motions for summary judgement.
In Thornton v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 20-2124, 2022 WL 727628 (10th Cir. Mar. 11, 2022), the court reviewed a district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints. Plaintiffs’ alleged that defendants used deceptive and misleading labels on their beef products. Specifically, the “Products of the U.S.A.” label on defendants’ beef products. The court affirmed the district court’s order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints. The court found that plaintiffs wanted to impose labeling requirements that were different than or in addition to the federal requirements. The court also found that plaintiffs’ deceptive-labeling claims were preempted by federal law and plaintiffs also failed to state a claim for false advertising.
REGULATORY: APHIS, FWS
ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
Notice announcing APHIS’ determination that a genetically engineered soybean is no longer considered regulated. Info here.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Final rule announcing that FWS has designated critical habitat for the Big Sandy crayfish (Cambarus callainus) and Guyandotte River crayfish (C. veteranus) under the Endangered Species Act. Info here.