DOCSLIB.ORG

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Journal of Food Law & Policy Journal of Food Law & Policy Volume 9 Number 1 Article 1 2013 Journal of Food Law & Policy - Spring 2013 Journal Editors Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp Recommended Citation Editors, J. (2021). Journal of Food Law & Policy - Spring 2013. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 9(1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp/vol9/iss1/1 This Entire Issue is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Food Law & Policy by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. of LAW Volume Nine Number One Spring 2013 Articles AN OVERVIEW OF ARKANSAS' RIGHT-To-FARM-LAW L.Paul Goeringer & Dr. H.L. Goodwin THE FORGOTTEN HALF OF FOOD SYSTEM REFORM: USING FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL LAW TO FOSTER HEALTHY FOOD PRODUCTION Emily Broad Leib THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCY? A "HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES" CASE STUDY Lindsay F. Wiley UNITED STATES FOOD LAW UPDATE: SHROUDED BY ELECTION-YEAR POLITICS, STATE INITIATIVES AND PRIVATE LAWSUITS FILL IN THE GAPS CREATED BY CONGRESSIONAL AND AGENCY OSSIFICATION A Bryan Endres, Lisa R. Schlessinger, & Rachel Armstrong Comment LOCALLY GROWN FOOD: EXAMINING THE AMBIGUITY OF THE TERM 'LOCAI IN FOOD MARKETING Brad Rose A PUBLICATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW Journal of Food Law & Policy University of Arkansas School of Law 1045 West Maple Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 479-575-2754 Fax: 479-575-3540 [email protected] The JournalofFood Law & Policy is published twice annually by the University of Arkansas School of Law in Fayetteville, Arkansas. This issue was printed at Joe Christensen, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska 68521. Subscription Information: The Journalof Food Law & Policy is available to subscribers for $34.00 per year. Subscribers may mail a check and contact information to the Journal offices. Changes of address should be sent by mail to the address above or to [email protected]. The Journal assumes each subscriber desires to renew its subscription unless the subscriber sends notification, in writing, before the subscription expires. Back issues may be purchased from William S. Hein & Co., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209-1987, 1-800-828-7571. Citation Format: Please cite this issue of the Journal of Food Law & Policy as 9 J. FOOD L. & POL'Y 1 (2012). Manuscripts: The editors of the Journal of Food Law & Policy encourage the submission of unsolicited articles, comments, essays, and reviews on a wide variety of food-related topics. Manuscripts should be double-spaced, with text and footnotes appearing on the same page, and all submissions should include a biographical paragraph or additional information about the author(s). Manuscripts may be sent to the Editor-in-Chiefby traditional post to the Journaloffices, or by e-mail to [email protected]. Manuscripts sent via traditional post will not be returned. Disclaimer: The Journal of Food Law & Policy is a student-edited University of Arkansas School of Law periodical. Publication of the Journal has been supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-8201-9-115 with assistance provided through the National Center for Agricultural Law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the Journal articles are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National Center for Agricultural Law, or the University of Arkansas School of Law. Postmaster: Please send address changes to the Journal of Food Law & Policy, University of Arkansas School of Law, 1045 West Maple Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701. Journal of Food Law & Policy 2012-2013 Editorial Board BROOKE N. SOUTH Editor-in-Chief BRAD ROSE ALEXANDRA WILCOX Executive Editor Articles Editor KELSEY EATON Note & Comment Editor BROOKE JACKSON CORTNEY V. PRICE* Note & Comment Editor Note & Comment Editor ELIZABETH M. COOK Managing Editor Members BRYANT CROOKS MELANIE L. JOHNSON* ADAM T. KENT SONIA A. SYLLS Candidates TIMOTHY J. ALEXANDER MARK B. BARRET STACY L. COONCE ANDREW D. CURTIS GARY DEWITT TYLER R. FARRAR CHASE HORTON HANNAH J. JEPPSEN MICHAEL MCKIRGAN A. CAROLINE MITCHELL KAYLA PHILLIPS DONAVON SAWYER FacultyAdvisory Committee SUSAN SCHNEIDER * DENOTES KAITLIN LABUDA AWARD RECIPIENT C 2012 Volume 9 Number 1 2013 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SCHOOL OF LAW FACULTY AND PROFESSIONAL STAFF ADMINISTRATION UCHE EWELUKWA, Dip. L., LL.B., B.L., LL.M., LL.M., STACY L. LEEDS, B.A., M.B.A., J.D., LL.M., Professorof Law Dean and Professorof Law JANET A. FLACCUS, B.A., M.A., J.D., CARL J. CIRCO, B.A., LD., LL.M., Associate Deanfor Academic Affairs and ProfessorofLaw Professorof Law SHARON E. FOSTER, B.A., M.A., J.D., LL.M., TERRI CHADWICK B.A., LD., Associate ProfessorofLaw Assistant Director of CareerServices BRIAN GALLINI, B.A., J.D., LL.M., JAMES K. MILLER, B.S.B.A., J.D., Associate Professorof Law Associate Dean for Students MORTON GITELMAN, LD., LL.M., RHONDA B. ADAMS, B.S.E., M.ED., DistinguishedProfessor ofLaw Emeritus Assistant Dean and Registrar CAROL GOFORTH, B.A., J.D., LYNN STEWART, B.S., B.S., C.P.A., M.B.A., Clayton N. Little Professor ofLaw Budget Directorand Building Executive D'LORAH HUGHES, B.A., J.D., SUSAN E. SCHELL, B.A., M.A., J.D., Associate Professor ofLaw Directorof Career Planningand Placement DONALD P. JUDGES, B.A., J.D., PH.D., PATTI Cox, B.A., E.J. Ball Professorof Law Directorof Development & External Relations CHRISTOPHER R. KELLEY, B.A., J.D., LL.M., Associate Professor ofLaw FACULTY ANN M. KILLENBECK, B.A., M.A., M.ED., CARLTON BAILEY, B.A., J.D., J.D., PH.D., Robert A. Leflar DistinguishedProfessor of Associate ProfessorofLaw Law MARK R. KILLENBECK, B.A., M.A., M.ED., LONNIE R. BEARD, B.A., J.D., LL.M., J.D., PH.D., Professorof Law Wylie H. Davis DistinguishedProfessor of Law HOWARD W. BRILL, A.B., J.D., LL.M., Vincent Foster University Professor of Legal KAREN KOCH, B.A., J.D., Ethics and ProfessionalResponsibility Assistant ProfessorofLaw CHAUNCEY E. BRUMMER, B.A., J.D., STACY L. LEEDS, B.A., M.B.A., J.D., LL.M., Professorof Law Dean andProfessor ofLaw DUSTIN BUEHLER, B.A., J.D., ERIC LEACH, B.S., J.D., Assistant Professorof Law Visiting Assistant Professorof Law CARL J. CIRCO, B.A., J.D., ROBERT B LEFLAR, A.B., J.D., M.P.H., Associate Deanfor Academic Affairs and Ben J. Altheimer Professor ofLegal Professorof Law Advocacy ANGELA Doss, B.A., M.A., LD., ClinicalAssistant Professorof Law MARY ELIZABETH MATTHEWS, B.S., J.D., ROBERT & VIVIAN YOUNG Sidney Parker Davis, Jr. Professor of LAW LIBRARY Business and Commercial Law CHRIS ABEL ROBERT B. MOBERLY, B.S., J.D., Computer Systems Administrato Dean Emeritus and Professor ofLaw EMMY R. BULLOCK CYNTHIA E. NANCE, B.S., M.A., J.D., Stack Maintenance Associate Nathan G. Gordon Professor of Law CATHERINE P. CHICK, B.A., M.L.S., PHILLIP E. NORVELL, B.A., J.D., Reference Librarian Professor ofLaw Jo ANNA COLLINS LAURENT SACHAROFF, B.A., J.D., Circulation Manager Assistant Professor of Law JACQUELINE M. DUNN KATHRYN A. SAMPSON, B.A., J.D., Business Manager Assistant Professor of Law LORRAINE K. LORNE, B.A., J.D., M.L.S., SUSAN A. SCHNEIDER, B.A., J.D., LL.M., Assistant Director and Reference/Access Professor ofLaw and Director of the LL.M Services Coordinator Program in Agricultural & Food Law NANCY J. PHILLIPS STEPHEN M. SHEPPARD, B.A., J.D., CERT. Library Supervisor INT'L L., LL.M., M. LITT., J.S.D., William H. Enfield Professor of Law and CHAD POLLOCK, B.A., M.Div., M.A., Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Electronic Services Librarian Development JASON SPRINGMAN, B.A., M.S., J.D., ANNIE B. SMITH, B.A., J.D., Instructional Services Librarian Assistant Professor of Law MONIKA SZAKASITS, B.A., J.D., M.S.L.I.S., TIMOTHY R. TARVIN, B.A., J.D., Associate Director Associate Professor of Law RANDALL J. THOMPSON, B.A., J.D., M.L.S., DALE WHITMAN, B.E.S., J.D., Director Visiting Professor of Law ROBERT E. WHEELER ALBERT M. WITTE, PH.B., M.A., LL.B., Audio Visual Aids Supervisor Professor ofLaw Emeritus COLLEEN WILLIAMS, B.A., J.D., M.L.I.S., ELIZABETH YOUNG, B.A., J.D., Reference Librarian Associate Professor of Law ADAM ZORZIN Computer Support Specialist The University of Arkansas School of Law is a member of the Association of American Law Schools and is accredited by the American Bar Association. AN OVERVIEW OF ARKANSAS' RIGHT-TO-FARM LAW L. Paul Goeringer*& Dr. H.L. Goodwin** I. INTRODUCTION.........................................1 II. DISCUSSION.........................................2 A. Right-to-FarmLaws Generally.........................2 B. Arkansas's Right-to-Farm Law.........................3 1. What is an "Agricultural Operation"...................3 2. Types of Defenses Available........................5 i. Using Practices Commonly Associated with Agriculture...........5 ii. The "Coming to the Nuisance" Defense ..... ........... 6 iii. One-year Limitations Period........ ................... 7 3. Attorneys Fee Provision. ........................... 9 4. Exclusions to the Law.......................10 5. Law's Affect on County and Local Ordinances.. ........... 11 C. Constitutionalityof the Right-to-Farm Law........ ............. 13 III. CONCLUSION......................................16 I. INTRODUCTION In the1980s, state legislatures in all fifty states enacted statutes commonly referred to as "right-to-farm" laws.' Arkansas enacted its right- to-farm law ("the Act") in 1981.2 While there are similarities, these laws differ from state-to-state. 3 All right-to-farm laws provide agricultural producers with statutory defenses to nuisance challenges, subject to certain * Goeringer is a Research Associate with the Center for Agricultural and Natural Resources Policy, Department of Agricultural and Natural Resources Economics, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Maryland.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rrp50 Garth David Transcript [9.19.13]
    Rich: Hey everybody. Before we begin, I just wanted to thank you. Today will mark our 50th episode of the podcast. When I started this show back in December, I would have never dreamed that it would have developed the audience that it has. It’s all because of you guys. I just wanted to thank you for all the support. If you’ve been enjoying this show, the only thing we ask is that you tell a friend. If you haven’t done so already, go to RichRoll.com and sign up for our newsletter so you can be the first to be apprised of all the great trading and nutrition information. I’m going to start sharing exclusive content, podcast updates, giveaways, product offers, all kinds of good stuff. If you’ve been using the Amazon banner ad at RichRoll.com for your Amazon purchases, we thank you. Please keep doing so. Thanks for the support and on to the show. Male: The Rich Roll Podcast. Rich: Hey everybody, I’m Rich Roll and this is The Rich Roll Podcast. Welcome to the show. If you’re new to the show, who am I? Well, I am an ultra-distance triathlete, multisport athlete, avid outdoors person, living in beautiful southern California. I am a father of four lovely children, married a little over 10 years, been together about 15. I am an author. I wrote a book called Finding Ultra which you can find on Amazon. It’s an inspirational memoir of my journey from overweight, unfit, disaffected, depressed middle-aged guy to being the athlete that I am today and the outspoken advocate of plant-based nutrition, the plant power revolution, which is a big subject on this show.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Battle Over Factory Farms
    The Battle over Factory Farms -- It’s Time to Take a Stand i John Ikerdii We are currently in the midst of a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people – a battle that ultimately will determine the future of farming and food production. A barrage of public controversies have seriously eroded trust in American agriculture. A recent exposé of factory farming in The Chicago Tribune1 is but the latest in a torrent of negative publicity, reflecting growing public concerns about how America’s meat, milk, and eggs are produced.2,3 The inhumane treatment of animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) tends to capture much of the public attention. However, Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the multitude of environmental, social, and rural economic problems that invariably arise from the industrial approach to animal production – commonly called factory farming. In reality, factory farms have far more in common with factories than real farms. Growing concerns about today’s industrial agriculture are certainly not limited to industrial animal agriculture or factory farms. For example, a 2015 Fortune Magazine article: “The war on big food,” begins, “Major packaged-food companies lost $4 billion in market share alone last year, as shoppers swerved to fresh and organic alternatives.”4 The article identifies artificial colors and flavors, pesticides, preservatives, growth hormones, antibiotics, and genetically engineered foods among growing consumer concerns. All of these concerns are linked directly or indirectly to industrial food production, including industrial agriculture – and CAFOs or factory farms are the epitome of industrial agriculture. If we win the battle against factory farms, we can win the war against industrial agriculture and Big Food.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning Errors 224 I Know What I Think—Don’T Confuse Me with Facts
    SIXTH EDITION Becoming a Critical Thinker A User-Friendly Manual Sherry Diestler Contra Costa College Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo In loving memory of Anne and Al Goldstein. And for John, Zachary, Nicole, Semaje, Stuart, Jenna, Laura, and Amy, may we continue their legacy of discernment and compassion. Editorial Director: Craig Campanella Operations Specialist: Christina Amato Editor in Chief: Dickson Musslewhite Art Director: Anne Bonanno Nieglos Executive Editor: Ashley Dodge Interior and Cover Designer: Ximena Tamvakopoulos Project Manager, Editorial: Kate Fernandes Cover Image: © Michael Krabs/imagebroker/Alamy Development Editor: Maggie Barbieri Director, Digital Media: Brian Hylan Director of Marketing: Brandy Dawson Digital Media Editor: Rachel Comerford Senior Marketing Manager: Laura Lee Manley Full-Service Project Management and Composition: Director of Production: Lisa Larkowski Douglas Bell, PreMediaGlobal Managing Editor: Maureen Richardson Printer/Binder: R.R. Donnelley & Sons Project Manager, Production: Shelly Kupperman Cover Printer: Lehigh/Phoenix Senior Operations Supervisor: Mary Fischer Text Font: Sabon 10/12 Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on pages 483–484. Copyright © 2012, 2009, 2005, 2001, 1998, 1994 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Pearson Education, 75 Arlington Street, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02116 or Pearson Education, 1 Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. All rights re- served. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise.
    [Show full text]
  • A/76/179 General Assembly
    United Nations A/76/179 General Assembly Distr.: General 19 July 2021 Original: English Seventy-sixth session Item 75 (b) of the provisional agenda* Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms Human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment Note by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the General Assembly the report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 46/7. * A/76/150. 21-10024 (E) 160821 *2110024* A/76/179 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd Healthy and sustainable food: reducing the environmental impacts of food systems on human rights Summary In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, David R. Boyd, identifies healthy and sustainable food as one of the substantive elements of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. He describes the catastrophic environmental and health consequences of industrial food systems, unhealthy diets and food waste and the associated consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, with disproportionate adverse effects on vulnerable and marginalized groups. He highlights procedural and substantive State obligations related to ensuring healthy and sustainable food, as well as the responsibilities of businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Institutional Case for Judicial Review
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2012 The Institutional Case for Judicial Review Jonathan R. Siegel George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation 97 Iowa Law Review 1147 (2012) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A3_SIEGEL.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/6/2012 4:03 PM The Institutional Case for Judicial Review Jonathan R. Siegel ABSTRACT: The “popular constitutionalism” movement has revived the debate over judicial review. Popular constitutionalists have attacked judicial review as being illegitimate in a democracy or inconsistent with original intent, and they have argued that the Constitution should be enforced through popular, majoritarian means, such as elections and legislative agitation. This Article shows in response that the judicial process has institutional characteristics that make judicial review the superior method of constitutional enforcement. Prior literature has focused on just one such institutional characteristic—the political insulation of judges. This Article, by contrast, shows that the case for judicial review rests on a whole range of institutional distinctions among the judicial, electoral, and legislative processes. Most important among these distinctions are that the judicial process is focused (it resolves issues discretely, without entangling them with other issues), whereas the electoral process is unfocused; and the judicial process is mandatory (a complainant can invoke it as of right), whereas the legislative process is discretionary.
    [Show full text]
  • Putting a Gag on Farm Whistleblowers: the Right to Lie and the Right to Reamin Silent Confront State Agricultural Protectionism
    Journal of Food Law & Policy Volume 11 Number 1 Article 6 2015 Putting a Gag on Farm Whistleblowers: The Right to Lie and the Right to Reamin Silent Confront State Agricultural Protectionism Rita-Marie Cain Reid University of Missouri, Kansas City Amber L. Kingery Texas A&M University-Central Texas, Killeen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Agriculture Law Commons, Animal Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Food and Drug Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legislation Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Reid, R. C., & Kingery, A. L. (2021). Putting a Gag on Farm Whistleblowers: The Right to Lie and the Right to Reamin Silent Confront State Agricultural Protectionism. Journal of Food Law & Policy, 11(1). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jflp/vol11/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Food Law & Policy by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PUTTING A GAG ON FARM WHISTLEBLOWERS: THE RIGHT TO LIE AND THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT CONFRONT STATE AGRICULTURAL PROTECTIONISM Rita-Marie Cain Reid* & Amber L. Kingery** I. INTRODUCTION.................................................32 II. AGRICULTURE PROTECTIONIST LEGISLATION. ..................... 33 A. First GenerationProtections......................34 B. CategoriesofState Ag-Gag Laws.... .................... 37 C. The Evolution ofAg-Gag Enactments........... .............. 38 D. Ag-Gag Litigation...................................40 E. Continuing ProtectionistLegislative Agenda........... .....43 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Mobilizing Public Will for Social Change
    Salmon, C.T, Post, L.A., & Christensen, R.E. (2003, June). Mobilizing public will for social change. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. Examines the theory and strategies of “public will” campaigns and offers tangible criteria for their evaluation. It provides a rich inventory of strategies for use in mobilizing the public will through an integration of models of agenda building, social problem construction, issues management, social movements, media advocacy, and social capital. In addition, the paper provides cases and examples of public will campaigns directed at various social problems, along with criteria for evaluating these campaigns at various stages of a social problem’s life cycle. Mobilizing Public Will For Social Change Charles T. Salmon L.A. Post Robin E. Christensen Michigan State University Prepared for the Communications Consortium Media Center June 2003 Page 2 Table of Contents I. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 II. The Philosophy of the Public Will Campaign................................................................ 4 III. Challenges for Public Will Campaign Planners............................................................ 6 A. Beyond the Ideology of Individualism....................................................................... 6 B. ‘Effective’ Public Opinion......................................................................................... 7 C. Community as the Mechanism of Change ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tort, Speech, and the Dubious Alchemy of State Action
    TORT, SPEECH, AND THE DUBIOUS ALCHEMY OF STATE ACTION Cristina Carmody Tilley∗ ABSTRACT Plaintiffs have historically used defamation, privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to vindicate their dignitary interests. But fifty years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court reimagined these private law torts as public law causes of action that explicitly privileged speech over dignity. This Article claims that Sullivan was a misguided attempt at alchemy, manipulating state action doctrine to create more of a precious commodity—speech— while preserving a tort channel for the most deserving plaintiffs. In Sullivan the Court departed from its usual practice of narrowly defining the relevant state action in constitutional challenges to private law matters. Instead, it defined state action to include not just the isolated verdict being appealed but the entirety of the private law that produced the questionable verdict. This approach aggrandized the Court’s authority to “fix” private law in the dignitary tort arena, where it seemed to fear that insular communities could chill important news coverage by imposing parochial norms onto the national community. The Court used its enhanced remedial authority to design a national constitutional common law of dignitary tort. In the quasi-statutory scheme that emerged, the Court attempted to strike an ex ante balance between valuable speech and wrongful behavior by conditioning liability on different scienter requirements for different categories of plaintiff. But the Sullivan project is rapidly failing. Operationally, insignificant but injurious speech such as revenge porn has flourished under the Court’s brittle categorization matrix. Conceptually, the private law message that speakers owe some duty to those they discuss has been supplanted with a public law message that they have no duty of care.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Organic: Legal Issues in Marketing Uncertified Organic Products
    Alternative Organic: Legal Issues in Marketing Uncertified Organic Products by Rita-Marie Cain Reid* *Professor of Business Law, Bloch School of Management, University of Missouri-Kansas City Alternative Organic: Legal Issues in Marketing Uncertified Organic Products Abstract: This research scrutinizes the current state of the USDA organic label. In response to growing concerns about USDA’s organic label and what it represents, some non-certified producers are directly marketing their organically-grown products through personal relationship with buyers and eschewing the USDA-sanctioned organic brand. This paper analyzes the rights of this emerging “alternative organic” movement to market products as organically grown, without USDA certification. I. Introduction In 1990, the United States adopted its National Organic Program (NOP) in the Organic Foods Production Act (the 1990 Act).1 At that time, organic food production and demand in the U.S. had been increasing steadily for approximately twenty years.2 Twenty-two states had some form of organic food labeling or organic certification for producers.3 That state-by-state regulatory environment, however, made interstate sales of organic products difficult. The NOP was intended to facilitate interstate commerce in organic production, establish national standards for organic production methods, and assure consumers that items sold met those standards.4 A decade later, when the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finally released its original rule on national organic standards, then-Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman stated, “Let me be clear about one other thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.”5 Today, Glickman’s perspective seems startling and naïve.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Billion Downstream Thursday, March 2 Through Sunday, March 5, 2000
    Six Billion Downstream Thursday, March 2 through Sunday, March 5, 2000 The Public Interest Environmental Law Conference is the premier annual gath- ering of environmentalists in the world. Now in its 18th year, the Conference I unites activists, attorneys, students, scientists and concerned citizens to share their expertise, experience and insights. With more than 100 panels, keynote addresses, workshops, films and celebrations, the Conference has become world-reknown for its energy, innovation &inspiration for all who par- ticipate. This year's theme, Six Billion Downstream, focuses on the interde- pendence of all livingthings. This year, the Earth's population reached six bil- lion people, making environmental concerns more pressing than ever. Not . onlymustweunderstandthat our ac- tions affect all people, animals and natural systems of the planet, but we must also understandhow we depend on other people, animals and nature for our own welfare.As we begina new millenium,environmentalstewardship mustbe a unitingprinciplebecauseev- eryone lives downstream. About the Art Registration This year's conference artwork was created by Deb Carson Thomas, all Registrationfor the Conferencewill be around outdoorswoman, dedicated environmentalist, whitewater river guide, on the front steps of the University of loving mother and wife. Deb died in a tragic automobile accident in April Oregon Law School at the corner of 1996. Her husband, Mark Thomas, a University of Oregon School of Law Agateand 15thStreet.Registrationwill alumni and former Land Air Water member, donated this work to LAW. A begin at 2:00 p.m.Thursday, March 2 portion of the proceeds from the sale of goods with this artwork willbe do- and will continue throughout the con- nated to an education fund for their son.
    [Show full text]
  • Oprah Winfrey V. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act
    University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive History Honors College 5-2011 Oprah Winfrey v. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act Kathleen Mullins University at Albany, State University of New York Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/honorscollege_history Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Mullins, Kathleen, "Oprah Winfrey v. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act" (2011). History. 5. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/honorscollege_history/5 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at Scholars Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in History by an authorized administrator of Scholars Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Oprah Winfrey v. Texas Cattlemen, Food Libel Laws in the United States and the Constitutionality of the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act By Kathleen Mullins Senior Honors Thesis Advisor: Professor Hamm Spring 2011 2 Introduction In 1996, Britain experienced an outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, commonly known as Mad Cow Disease. Cattle initially contracted the disease and twenty-three people subsequently died from eating the contaminated beef of these cattle.1 Although at the time there had been no trace of the disease in the United States, anxieties ran high among Americans who were fearful of the chance that the disease could spread overseas. All aspects of the media thrived on discussion of the possibility of the disease emerging in the United States, including the popular Oprah Winfrey Show.
    [Show full text]
  • The Science of Wine: Washington State University Scientists and the Development of the Washington Wine Industry, 1937-1992
    THE SCIENCE OF WINE: WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WASHINGTON WINE INDUSTRY, 1937-1992 By Cynthia Stewart Kaag A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of History December 2008 To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of CYNTHIA STEWART KAAG find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. _____________________________________ (Chair) _____________________________________ _____________________________________ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv ABSTRACT v ABBREVIATIONS vi GLOSSARY vii LIST OF FIGURES x DEDICATION xi INTRODUCTION 12 CHAPTER 1: GRAPES AND WINES IN WASHINGTON FROM 1937 TO 1959 27 CHAPTER 2: A GROWING INDUSTRY: THE 1960S 41 CHAPTER 3: CORRESPONDENCE: A CAREER IN A YEAR 74 CHAPTER 4: GRANTSMANSHIP IN THE 1970S 100 CHAPTER 5: FROM PROJECT TO PUBLICATION 150 CHAPTER 6: MATURING WINES AND WINES: THE 1980S 164 CHAPTER 7: COMING OF AGE: THE EARLY1990S AND AFTER 182 BIBLIOGRAPHY 192 APPENDICES 201 Appendix A: WSU Theses Related to Wine, 1948-1992 Appendix B: WSU Wine Publications Appendix C: Biographical Sketches Appendix D: Grape Varieties Recommended for Washington State iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For their support and encouragement I am deeply indebted to the members of my committee, Drs. Orlan Svingen, Carolyn Ross, and most especially my advisor Jerry Gough. I was especially privileged to have the opportunity to take classes and seminars with Dr. Gough, during which he helped me toward an understanding of the role and significance of science and technology in our history and culture. I also benefited very much from classes with Drs.
    [Show full text]