A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE. 

JUDICIAL: Includes agritourism and food labeling issues.

In The GERALD P. ZARRELLA TRUST et al. v. TOWN OF EXETER et al, No. 2016–301–Appeal (WC 15–18), 2018 WL 444298 (R.I. January 16, 2018), plaintiff sought to hold a wedding on his farmland and was prohibited per zoning laws. Lower court considered Rhode Island’s Right to Farm Act and concluded the statute “merely set forth a list of encouraged uses of farms and farmland, [but] did not preempt the town’s authority to restrict nonagricultural operations such as hosting commercial events.” On appeal, plaintiff cited the Right to Farm Act, arguing weddings should be permitted. Appellate court agreed with lower court and noted the statute “provides only a clear and unambiguous list of mixed-uses that the General Assembly has ‘recognized as a valuable and viable means of contributing to the preservation of agriculture.’” Affirmed.

In DANIEL ZEIGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLPET LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 17-cv-04056-WHO, 2018 WL 452156 (N.D. Cal. January 17, 2018), plaintiffs alleged defendant sold dog food products contaminated with arsenic and lead, and that defendants “knowingly, recklessly, or negligently sold these contaminated products without disclosing their presence on the labels.” Plaintiff made claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and False Advertising Law (FAL). Defendant moved to dismiss with a host of arguments, including that plaintiffs failed to allege an “injury-in-fact.” The court reasoned plaintiffs’ claims “are premised on their allegations that were it not for defendants’ labeling . . . [they] would not have purchased and spent money on their Products.”  To this point, the court concluded that “[s]imilar allegations in the food mislabeling context have repeatedly been held sufficient to establish an economic injury for purposes of both constitutional and statutory standing.” Motion to dismiss denied in part.

REGULATORY: Includes USDA, FDA, and ITA rules and notices.

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT:

Rule providing a correction to the withdrawal published on January 4, 2018, titled, Withdrawal of Certain Proposed Rules and Other Proposed Actions. The document incorrectly stated that the proposed rule published on July 15, 2016, under the title Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State Assessments to the National Program; Technical Amendments (Soybean Promotion) is not considered a candidate for final action at this time. Info here.

Notice USDA has submitted information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review. Title: Importation of Plants for Planting; Establishing a Category for Plants for Planting Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis. Details here.

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION: Rule FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Public Warning and Notification of Recalls Under 21 CFR Part 7, Subpart C; Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff.” Info here.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION: Notice that on July 3, 2017, Commerce published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta from Italy. Info here.