We’ve made it through another week! I know many of you are new readers thanks to my surprisingly popular post on Monday about brand registrations. If you missed that post, click here.
Here is a look at some of the ag law stories recently in the news.
* Appellate courts rule on three “ag gag” statutes. I am going to have a more detailed blog post on this coming in the next couple of weeks, but there have been three decisions from federal appellate courts related to “ag gag” statutes around the country. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the Kansas statute was unconstitutional. [Read opinion here.] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a portion of the Iowa statute was unconstitutional, but upheld a provision prohibiting false information provided in employment applications. [Read opinion here.] And finally, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered a challenge to Arkansas’ law and found that the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the law, thus reversing the lower court’s dismissal of the case. [Read opinion here.] Stay tuned in the coming weeks for a discussion of each case, or go read a summary written by Beth Rumley from the National Ag Law Center here.
* EPA will ban Chlorpyrifos use on food crops. Last week, the EPA announced that it will ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos in food crops. The pesticide was previously banned in 2015 under President Obama, but that decision was reversed by President Trump’s EPA. Corteva announced last year that it will no longer continue producing chlorpyrifos. [Read article here.]
* Advanced Child Tax Credit payments explained. When anything tax-related comes up, Kristine Tidgren at the Iowa State Center for Agricultural Law & Taxation is my go-to person. She recently gave a presentation at the Mid-South Ag and Environmental Law Conference where she discussed the Advanced Child Tax Credit payments. Farm Press wrote an article discussing her explanation. [Read article here.]
* Court rules plant-based company can label products “butter” without misleading consumers. The US District Court for the Northern District of California recently ruled that California may not prohibit plant-based food company, Miyoko’s Kitchen, from using the terms “butter,” “lactose free,” “cruelty free,” and revolutionizing dairy with plants” from its Cultured Vegan Plant Butter. The California Department of Food and Agriculture ordered the company to remove the terms because they were misleading to consumers. Miyoko’s Kitchen filed a lawsuit. The court found in favor of the company, rejecting the argument that the label was misleading. [Read Order here.]
I’ve got a couple of virtual presentations coming up. On Friday, September 3, I’ll be presenting for the East Texas Forage Conference on agricultural leases, and the following Friday, September 10, I will be presenting on ag law hot topics for a virtual meeting hosted by Dallas County.
Also, don’t forget we have online courses available for you anytime, on demand! There are a host of topics to choose from. To learn more, click here.
Finally, to see my complete upcoming presentation schedule, click here.