California bill enacts strictest antibiotic law

Posted October 13, 2015

California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday signed a bill that sets the strictest government standards in the United States for the use of antibiotics in livestock production, according to a Reuters article available here. Ag Web also published an article available here, U.S. News & World Report here and Bloomberg here.

California is known for its leadership on public health and environmental issues. This move accompanies the growing concern that the overuse of these drugs is contributing to rising numbers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria known as "superbugs."

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2 million people in this country are infected with drug resistant bacteria each year and that 23,000 die as a direct result.

Meat producers will only be allowed to administer the drugs with the approval of a veterinarian when animals are sick, or to prevent infections if there's an "elevated risk." They cannot use the drugs "in a regular pattern." The policy is more restrictive than the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) national guidelines, which don't restrict use for disease prevention, according to Ag Web.

Small cattle ranchers in rural areas may have a harder time getting medicine approved by a veterinarian, said Justin Oldfield, vice president of government relations at the California Cattlemen’s Association. He also rejected the notion that the bill would force producers to drastically change their practices and suggested advocates exaggerated how the use of drugs, according to Bloomberg. 

"We’re not routinely feeding animals [antibiotics] all the time for disease prevention," he said. "We care about antibiotic resistance, just like everybody else does."

The antibiotics are different from the growth hormones used by many food producers that have drawn criticism and that some grocery stores and food chains have phased out. Companies including McDonald's, Chipotle and Panera also have begun promoting their chicken as raised without antibiotics, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The California Veterinary Medical Association expressed concern that veterinarians might not be able to prescribe the drugs preventively to treat diseases for which there is no test available to determine which animals are carriers.

The law, which takes effect in 2018, also eliminates the availability of livestock antibiotics for over-the-counter sales.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Idaho's ag-gag law ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

Posted August 6, 2015

A federal judge struck down Idaho's ban on undercover videos at factory farms, ruling that state legislators wrongly criminalized free speech to protect prominent agricultural companies, according to a LA Times article available here. The Guardian also published an article available here, NPR here and Food Safety News here.

Animal rights advocates called the ruling the first defeat for “ag-gag” law in the U.S. Due to the recent influx of publishing undercover videos showing animal abuse at facilities, the laws have gained popularity in some states.

Idaho is the first state to strike down “ag-gag” statute in a federal court. Seven other states have adopted similar statutes in the past few years, according to Food Safety News.

Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote his 28-page decision in 97 days after hearing oral arguments in the case last April.

The 2012 Mercy for Animals video exposed workers beating, kicking and shocking cows, twisting their tails and dragging them with chains attached to their necks, according to The Guardian.

It led to charges of criminal animal cruelty against multiple workers, including a manager.

The state’s multi-billion dairy industry believed the sting was an attempt to hurt businesses and rallied legislators in the state capitol to pass a law making it a crime to film inside agricultural facilities. A coalition of animal activists, civil rights groups and media organizations lobbied the court to overturn the ban, claiming it criminalized whistleblowers and chilled free speech.

Judge Winmill agreed and said the law violated the first amendment and the equal protection clause.

“The effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment.”

The Dairymen's Association will be asking the state to appeal Judge Winmill's decision, according to NPR.

"Obviously we're disappointed" with the decision to strike down the law, says Idaho Dairymen's Association director Bob Naerebout. "The legislation was designed and crafted to try and protect First Amendment rights while also trying to provide some personal property protection."

Idaho, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Utah and North Carolina are all states that have passed ag-gag laws, according to Food Safety News.

Farmer Sues Pilgrim's Pride for Breach of Contract

Posted May 27, 2015

A West Virginian poultry farmer is suing Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. for breach of contract, according to MeatingPlace. West Virginia Record also published an article available here.

M&M Poultry Inc. filed a complaint May 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, claiming that Pilgrim’s Pride defrauded M&M by using a “tournament” ranking system that pit the plaintiff against follower growers and led to the unlawful termination of its contract. 

M&M owner David Mongold executed a production agreement with Pilgrim’s in June 2009, amending an agreement in January 2010 and “upon insistence of Pilgrim’s” executed another production agreement in February 2012. The company had operated six chicken houses, which could house almost 148,000 birds at peak capacity. 

M&M claims under the terms of the broiler production agreement, Pilgrim’s Pride agreed to deliver flocks of chicks to M&M’s facility, according to West Virginia Record.

M&M claims Pilgrim’s Pride defrauded the plaintiff by imposing and utilizing a tournament system that wrongfully placed M&M in competition with its fellow growers, while requiring M&M to accept chicks which were genetically different, chicks with varying degrees of healthiness and feed of dissimilar quantity and quality.

The defendant knowingly made and continues to make materially false representations about future income, costs, expenses, company policies and working relationships to M&M and its fellow growers, or concealed related material facts and information, according to the suit.

M&M claims the defendant violated the Federal Packers & Stockyards Act and breached its contract with the plaintiff.

M&M is seeking compensatory and punitive damages. It is being represented by Keith Lively of Doyle, Barlow & Mazard PLLC; and J. Dudley Butler of Butler Farm & Ranch Law Group.

For more information on the Packers and Stockyards Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website, here.

Walmart Announces Stricter Animal Welfare Policy

Posted May 27, 2015

Walmart has announced stricter guidelines concerning animal welfare and the use of antibiotics in farm animals, according to a Brownfield Ag News article available here. ABC News also published an article available here and USA Today here.

The new policy eliminates gestation stalls in pork production and battery cages in egg production. The guidelines also restrict antibiotics use to only when medically necessary, with oversight of a veterinarian, and eliminating the use of antibiotics to promote growth in animals.

Concerns are growing that antibiotic overuse is leading resistance to the drugs, making diseases more difficult to treat, according to ABC News.

Shoppers are also influencing changes by expression interest in where their food comes from and if it’s considered healthy or natural.

Walmart said its own research showed 77 percent of its shoppers said they will increase their trust and 66 percent will increase their likelihood to shop at a retailer that improves the treatment of livestock.

Mercy for Animals conducted several investigations from 2012-2014 at pork farms that supply Walmart, finding that pigs were abused and confined in gestation crates for long periods of time. The group applauded Walmart, but said it should make the guidelines mandatory, according to USA Today.

"We urge Walmart to add greater teeth to this announcement by making the new guidelines a requirement rather than a mere recommendation, and to set aggressive timelines for its suppliers to meet its expectations," MFA President Nathan Runkle said. "While there is still work to be done, Walmart's announcement is one of the most sweeping animal welfare policies ever adopted by a major food company."

Walmart did not give a specific timeline for the implementation of those policy changes.

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

McDonald's to Stop Sale of Chicken Treated with Human Antibiotics

Posted March 6, 2015

McDonald's plans to require chicken suppliers to stop using antibiotics in human medicine within the next two years, according to an ABC News article available here. The New York Times also published an article available here, USA Today here, and Reuters here.

The company says their suppliers will still be able to use an ionophores antibiotic that keeps chickens healthy, but it isn't used in humans. Later this year, McDonald's also plans to stop selling milk from cows treated with a particular artificial growth hormone.

The decision by one of the largest buyers of chicken in the United States is likely to have a significant impact on other restaurants that serve chicken, according to The New York Times.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been expressing their concerns about antibiotic use in animal husbandry as more bacteria and pathogens have shown resistance to such drugs. In 2013, approximately two million Americans fell sick because of antibiotic-resistant infections and at least 23,000 die from those infections.

McDonald's has been under increasing pressure from customers and activists to improve the quality of its food. Chipotle and Panera already serve chicken raised without antibiotics, according to USA Today.

“Our customers want food that they feel great about eating all the way from the farm to the restaurant,” said Mike Andres, U.S. president of McDonald's, in a statement. “These moves take a step toward better delivering on those expectations.”

Tyson, the largest U.S. meat processor, said they supported McDonald's decision, and that their chicken operations have reduced the use of antibiotics that are effective in humans by more than 84 percent since 2011. The company expects to continue reductions, according to Reuters.

Two senators have also reintroduced legislation to prevent the use of antibiotics that are deemed high risk of abuse, according to an Ag Food and Law post available here.

For more information on antibiotic use in agriculture, an article from the Congressional Research Service is available here.

Senators Reintroduce Antibiotic Prevention Legislation

Posted March 4, 2015

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) reintroduced the Prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act (PARA), according to a Food Safety News article available here. The Wall Street Journal also published an article here, Feedstuffs here, and Meating Place here.

The bill was previously introduced in June 2013, and it would require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw its approval of medically important antibiotics used for disease prevention or control that are at a high abuse risk.

The legislation also stipulates criteria for determining when an antibiotic is considered safe and effective, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“This lays out a plan for FDA to go forward and standards for determining judicious use of antibiotics in food-producing animals,” says Gail Hansen, a public health veterinarian and senior officer for the antibiotic resistance project at the Pew Charitable Trusts. “The FDA has talked about growth promotion, but that’s only part of how drugs are used for food animals. This is the next big part.”

Sponsors said that the bill addresses a gap in the previous guidelines to eliminate the antibiotics use to make animals gain weight, according to Feedstuffs.

The FDA estimated that 107 antibiotics are used for therapeutic purposes, including disease prevention or control, do not have a defined duration of therapy or are labeled for continuous use. An analysis by the Pew Charitable Trusts estimated that 83 antibiotics used for disease prevention or control have an overlapping dose with a production use.

“These antibiotics are at high risk of being inappropriately administered, which could pose a risk to human health,” said Feinstein.

The American Public Health Association, the Infectious Disease Society of America, Trust for America’s Health, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the Pew Charitable Trusts endorsed the bill, according to Meating Place.

For more information, the prevention of Antibiotic Resistance Act is available here.

For more information on antibiotic use in agriculture, an article from the Congressional Research Service is available here.

U.S. Federal Court Rules Farm are Liable for Manure Pollution

Posted January 20, 2015

A U.S. federal court has ruled that manure from livestock facilities can be regulated as solid waste, according to a Reuters article available here. Huffington Post also published the article here and Environment & Energy Publishing here.

A dairy farm in Washington, Cow Palace Dairy, applied manure to the soil polluting the ground water, ruled Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington.

“The practices of this mega-dairy are no different than thousands of others across the country,” said Jessica Culpepper, an attorney at Public Justice that represented the plaintiffs.

In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) studied the extent of the contamination by testing 331 wells in the Lower Yakima Valley. The EPA found that 20 percent of the wells exceeded the federal drinking water standard for nitrate, according to Environment & Energy Publishing.

Nitrate contamination can be harmful to human health particularly infants. It has been linked to cancer and “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal condition connected to babies fed formula mixed with contaminated water.

The court ruled that Cow Palace violated the “open dumping” provisions, which requires violators stop polluting and clean up any damage, according to Reuters.

The case, Community Association For Restoration Of The Environment, Inc. et al v. Cow Palace, LLC et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 13-CV-301, is scheduled to go to trial in March.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court recently reversed an appeals court ruling that ruled a Washington County farm couple was not responsible for manure run-off.

For more information on environmental law, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Washington Lawmakers Introduce "Ag-Gag" Bill

Posted January 16, 2015

A Washington legislator is fighting for an “ag-gag” law, House Bill 1104, according to a Farms article available here. Capital Press also published an article available here and Food Safety News here.

The law would make it illegal to record activity at slaughterhouses and farms without the owner’s permission and is sponsored by Reps. Joe Schmick (R-Colfax) and and J.T. Wilcox (R-Yelm).

If a person was found guilty, he or she could be sent to jail for up to a year and fined $5,000.

“I view it as a way to protect the farmer,” said state Rep. Joe Schmick, a Colfax Republican.

The bill has the same maximum penalty as Idaho’s law, because Schmick decided to file the bill after reading Idaho’s ag-gag bill.

Kansas, North Dakota, and Montana were the first states to adopt this law in the early 90s. Four more states have adopted similar measures since 2010, including Idaho, Utah, Iowa and Missouri, according to Food Safety News.

Animal-rights groups have opposed ag-gag measures in the legislative process and in federal courts, because they often use recording devices to collect evidence.

Four Californians were recently charged with violating Utah’s ag-gag law, but the court dropped the charges.

Californians Charged with Violating Ag-Gag Law, Charges Dropped

-->

Posted January 8, 2015

Four Californians have been charged with violating Utah’s “ag-gag” law when they took pictures of agricultural buildings last September, according to an All Gov article available here. The Spectrum also published an article available here and The Salt lake Tribune here.

Utah is one of the half-dozen states to ban photographing agricultural operations, including the mistreatment of animals.

Amy Meyer was the first person to be arrested and charged in February 2013 for violating the law by using videotaping workers pushing an injured or ill cow with a bulldozer at a slaughterhouse in Draper, according to The Spectrum.

The charges against Meyer were dropped three months later after she presented evidence that she was on public property during the filming.

According to the attorney, T. Matthew Phillips, representing the four defendants, Robert Penney, 64; Sarah Jane Hardt, 43; Harold Weiss, 34; and Bryan Monell, 50, were standing on public property, photographing the buildings at Circle Four and “wanted to document the ‘trail of tears,’ if you will, from Utah to the slaughterhouse in Los Angeles,” said Phillips. “They are standing on the roadside and they took some pictures of the farm.”

Hardt is a professional photographer, but she declined to comment on any of the photos taken, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

Deputies from the Beaver County and Iron County sheriff’s offices detained the group for five hours, but they were never arrested, only cited.

“All of us looked at each other and said, ‘What is this?’” she said. “Interfering with agriculture? None of us knew what it was. When we get back to L.A., that’s when [Phillips] tells us, ‘That’s ag gag.’”

In 2013, an ag-gag bill failed in California, according to All Gov.

Update Jan 14: Utah prosecutors are dropping the charges against all four activists, according to The Washington Times.

Each activist still faces one misdemeanor count of criminal trespass, said Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett. The charges were dropped because officials from Utah’s Circle Four Farms didn’t want to pursue them, said Garrett.

HSUS Launches Farm Animal Reward Hotline

-->

Posted October 28, 2014

The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has launched a hotline to report cruelty and neglect, according to a HSUS release available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here.

The hotline will be a “whistleblower reward program” to report abuse on factory farms, at livestock auctions and in slaughter houses will empower employees at those facilities who have witnessed cruelty or other unlawful acts.

The HSUS offers a reward of up to $5,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those who have committed cruelty acts to farm animals.

HSUS will work with the United Farm Workers to inform workers at farms, slaughterhouses, and livestock auctions of the hotline

--> (1-888-209-7177), according to Feedstuffs.

“The hotline was launched after agribusiness interests and their legislative allies made it virtually impossible to document cruelty on factory farms in a handful of states. Those states have passed “ag gag” bills, which criminalize undercover investigations of agricultural facilities.”

For more information on animal welfare, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Missouri Right to Farm Act Upheld

Posted September 16, 2014

After all the votes have been recounted, the Missouri Amendment One, “Right to Farm,” stands, according to an Ozarks First article by Matt Lupoli available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and The Republic here.

According to Secretary of State Jason Kander, a total of 499,963 "yes" votes were cast against 497,588 "no" votes. The recount margin narrowed from 2,490 votes to 2,375.

The recount was requested after the ballot passed with a margin victory of less than one-half of a percentage point, according to The Republic.

The amendment protects farmer practices, including early weaning of dairy cattle, neutering and castration, and the planting of genetically modified crops, according to Feedstuffs.

“Although the recount was unnecessary and costly to Missouri taxpayers, we are pleased with the results upholding the passage of Amendment #1,” said Blake Hurst, president of Missouri Farm Bureau.

The secretary of state’s office estimated the recount could cost up to $100,000, according to The Republic.

Jim McCann, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association (MCA) president, said out-of-state organizations were “vehemently” opposed to the Amendment and attempted to mislead Missourians, according to Feedstuffs.

"The Farming Rights Amendment was created with family farms and ranches in mind," said McCann. "It is good to know Missourians welcome family farmers and ranchers and understand the importance of agriculture to the all-around wellbeing of our state."

For more information on Right to Farm laws and for a compilation of states’ Right to Farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

FSIS Amending Poultry Products Inspection Regulations

Posted August 29, 2014

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has amended the poultry products inspection regulations to establish a new inspection system for young chicken and all turkey slaughter establishments.

Young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments that do not choose to operate under the new poultry inspection system may continue to operate under their current inspection system.

The rule is in effect October 20, 2014.

The Federal Register is available here.

Zinpro Corp. Requesting Food Additive Amendment

Posted August 29, 2014

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that Zinpro Corp. filed a petition proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of zinc L-selenomethionine as a source of selenium in complete feed for broiler chickens.

Comments are accepted until September 22, 2014.

The Federal Register is available here.

Citizens Group to Stop New Water Quality Regulations

Posted August 21, 2014

A citizens group, opposing new water quality regulations approved by the Iowa Commission, filed a lawsuit to stop implementation of the rules, according to a WCF Courier article by David Pitt available here. Fairfield Citizen also published the article here, and The Des Moines Register published an article available here.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI) Action Fund along with three women members of the group, filed a petition in Polk County District Court in Des Moines requesting a judge to void the rules, which were approved unanimously Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Commission.

The group is alleging that the vote was illegal due to the fact that five members of the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission have "a direct financial stake in the factory farm industry and should have recused themselves from the vote," according to The Des Moines Register.

"Governor Branstad, for far too long now, has let industry insiders and big money donors run all facets of our government. We are drawing a line in the sand when it comes to clean water for all Iowans," said Barb Kalbach, president of the Iowa CCI Action Fund.

The accused commissioners are Gene Ver Steeg, Brent Rastetter, Max Smith, Nancy Couser, and Cindy Greiman.

State law requires three out of the nine members to be “actively engaged in livestock and grain farming, one in finance or commerce, and one in manufacturing.”

The rules establish new inspection and permit processes for livestock farms, but they do not impose mandatory permits and other stricter provisions sought by the Iowa CCI. Iowa CCI wants all farms that “spill liquid waste to be required to get a permit and the organization called for a three strikes rule that would shut down farms that repeatedly spill contaminants into rivers or streams,” according to WCF Courier.

Iowa is the nation's leading corn, pork and egg producer, and has struggled with cleaning up hundreds of impaired rivers and streams while managing the waste.

Iowa natural resources director Chuck Gipp said after Tuesday's vote that state law prevents the agency from implementing rules more stringent than federal clean water rules. He said the rules bring Iowa into compliance with EPA requirements and will require farms that spill manure to fix their problems or get a permit. He expects the rules will improve Iowa's water quality.

Three Iowa CCI members named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim they have been personally affected by farm pollution, and the commission failed to listen to the three women’s complaints.

The complaint said Rita Dvorak, of Riceville, has been forced to spend thousands of dollars to clean pollution in her pond from a neighboring livestock farm.

Rosie Partridge, of Wall Lake, is surrounded by 30,000 hogs that force her family inside at times. "Sometimes, the odor gets so bad that Ms. Partridge's clothing will retain the smell of pig feces after leaving the area of the odor," the lawsuit said.

Barb Lang, of Des Moines, says massive algae growths and other side effects of farm runoff have ruined water bodies far downstream from the farms.

"This lawsuit seeks to invalidate yesterday's vote by a commission which consists of individuals who clearly had a vested financial interest in the proposal before them," said Joseph C. Glazebrook, Iowa CCI's attorney, in a statement. "We believe that when the executive branch of government fails to protect the general public from this type of harm, it is up to the courts to make sure the people's interests are best served by state government."

For more information on water law, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Minnesota’s “Buy the Farm” Upheld in Court

Posted August 19, 2014

A judge recently ruled that a coalition of utilities that planted a power line through a small organic dairy farm could be forced to buy the whole property, according to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article by Emma Nelson available here. The St. Cloud Times also published an article available here.

Scott County District Court Judge Caroline Lennon turned to Minnesota’s “buy the farm” law when a power line threatened Cedar Summit Farm near New Prague, Minn., which is the only 100 percent grass-fed organic dairy farm.

The public ruling applies only to that farm, but other landowners are preparing legal fights along the route of the CapX2020 line from South Dakota through Minnesota, according to SC Times.

David and Florence Minar chose to force a purchase of their legacy farm instead of operating under the new power lines. Lennon ruled that they were within their rights to do so and now the utility is on the hook for possibly $1.4 million when the case moves into an appraisal phase.

The utility companies argued that the law did not apply, because their transmission structure would cover less than an acre and would not have a “major impact,” according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

The Minars disagreed and worried that a 345,000-volt line would harm the cows and have a negative impact with customers’ perceptions.

Lennon's ruling stated that the line existence "on one portion of the property necessarily affects the entire property which is farmed together for the purpose of producing 100 percent grass-fed organic milk," according to SC Times.

The Minars were pleased with the ruling.

"We're very relieved. We're so glad the judge saw the common sense of the law that was intended to help us get out from under the power line," David Minar said.

For more information on animal feeding operations, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

FDA Not Required to Ban Antibiotics

Posted July 28, 2014

In a 2-to-1 decision, a federal appeals court has rule that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have to ban the practice of feeding antibiotics to “healthy, food-producing livestock, according to a Wall Street Journal article by Ed Silverman available here. Food Safety News also published an article available here, Chicago Tribune here, and Meat and Poultry Journal here.

In 2011, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit to ban the routine practice of antibiotics in healthy animals, unless it could be proven that their medicine would not harm humans.

FDA has been promotion voluntary limits on animal feed containing antibiotics. In December, FDA began implementing a strategy to phase out the feed’s “indiscriminate use” except for when the use is “medically necessary,” according to the Chicago Tribune.

Circuit Judge Gerard Lynch stated that the FDA deserved deference, even if agency officials possessed concern about the safety of the feed.

"While the agency regards the indiscriminate and extensive use of such drugs in animal feed as threatening, it does not necessarily believe that the administration of antibiotics to animals in their feed is inherently dangerous to human health," wrote Lynch.

Chief Judge Robert Katzmann was not in favor of the ruling.

“Today’s decision allows the FDA to openly declare that a particular animal drug is unsafe, but then refuse to withdraw approval of that drug. It also gives the agency discretion to effectively ignore a public petition asking it to withdraw approval from an unsafe drug. I do not believe the statutory scheme can be read to permit those results, and I must therefore respectfully dissent,” said Katzmann, according to the Meat and Poultry Journal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that at least 23,000 people die each year from antibiotic-resistant infections, according to Food Safety News.

FDA spokeswoman Jennifer Dooren said, "The FDA is currently reviewing the decision but is pleased with the outcome."

The case is Natural Resources Defense Council Inc et al v. FDA et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 12-2106, 12-3607.

For more information on food safety, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.