Agriculture Archives - The National Law Forum

Missouri Cannabis Regulators Show Me a Well-Considered Clarification of Earlier Rule Essentially Banning Hemp Products

I can only assume that being a cannabis regulator is a challenging and usually thankless job. The laws are relatively new and constantly evolving. Operators are always pushing the science faster than regulators can promulgate thoughtful new rules. And of course, there is no shortage of bad actors in the cannabis business.

That said, Budding Trends has been tough on cannabis regulators when it seemed warranted. And we’ve had no shortage of material.

We wanted to take this occasion to applaud the recent letter from the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services announcing a substantial rollback of Gov. Mike Parson’s Executive Order that appeared to ban all “psychoactive cannabis products.”

The governor’s order would, by its terms, essentially destroy the state’s market for products containing hemp-derived THC. To be fair, the stated purpose of the order – to keep psychoactive cannabis products out of the hands of children – is a noble goal and one shared by any responsible operator in the hemp-derived THC business. Unfortunately, the plain language of the order goes much further and threatens to end the sale of most hemp products in Missouri.

In comes Missouri Department of Health & Senior Service Deputy Director and General Counsel Richard Moore to the rescue. In a recent letter, Moore “clarify[ied] any misunderstandings about the Department’s efforts to keep Missourians and their children safe from psychoactive cannabis products, sometimes called intoxicating cannabis products.” As part of this clarification, and in furtherance of the department’s commitment to “transparency in its enforcement efforts,” the department will limit its focus to (1) hemp-derived THC products targeting children and (2) “any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of [hemp-derived THC products].”

The department does not have any intention, however, of initiating enforcement actions against other hemp-derived THC products. Specifically, “[h]emp or cannabidiol (CBD) products which are collected by extraction and have not been changed into a new substance, such as hemp protein powders, hemp milk, hemp flower, hemp teas or other drinks, CBD gummies, CBD drink additives, or foods with CBD” are not the focus of the department’s enforcement efforts.

I believe this represents a fair compromise that accomplishes both the governor’s stated and worthwhile goals of eliminating deceptive hemp operators and those who would sell hemp-derived THC products to children, as well as keeping the hemp regime implemented by the Missouri Legislature in place.

More states would do well to consider this approach. For an example of the opposite approach, consider our recent post on Mississippi’s potential ban on hemp beverages. Consider, too, a much different approach taken by the solicitor general of South Carolina, which we will write about in the coming days.

And perhaps most importantly, consider whether Congress can fashion a similar compromise as it considers federal hemp policy in the next Farm Bill in the coming months.

A Study in THC-O: Unpacking the Recent Anderson Case

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit handed the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) a big loss when it comes to hemp. In Anderson v. Diamondback Investment Group, LLC, the court ruled that the DEA’s interpretation, which classified a host of hemp-derived products as illegal, was incorrect.

I’ve previously written about the impact of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on cannabis and hemp in this blog, and Anderson is one of the first cases to show how courts will handle cannabis law post-Chevron. In Loper, the Supreme Court ended the long-standing doctrine of Chevron deference. That doctrine required federal courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute, so long as it was “reasonable,” even if the court didn’t agree with it. Now, courts don’t have to give the DEA (or any agency) that kind of leeway. If the agency’s interpretation isn’t the best reading of the statute, it is merely persuasive material at best.

This reminds me of my days of clerking on the Court of Common Pleas. Oftentimes, lawyers would cite other non-binding Common Pleas decisions, and the judge would merely say he would consider them but did not view them as binding. It’s almost like déjà vu for me now with Loper, on a grander scale.

Since Loper was decided, everyone has had theories about how it could impact things like cannabis rescheduling or the legality of hemp-derived cannabinoids. In particular, the DEA has been flexing its muscles with opinion letters about what it considers to be legal or illegal cannabinoids. This is where Loper comes into play. In theory, the DEA can still issue its opinions, but the courts aren’t going to roll over and accept those interpretations without question anymore. That’s exactly what happened in Anderson.

Without getting into the weeds of the case too much, here’s the gist: an employee was fired after drug tests allegedly showed cannabis use. She sued her employer, claiming she was using legal hemp-derived products. The court said she didn’t provide enough evidence to prove those products contained less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC—the magic number that separates hemp from cannabis under federal law. So, in the district court’s view, she did not have a case.

But the important part for us is what the court said about the 2018 Farm Bill and the DEA’s interpretation of cannabinoids like THC-O. THC-O is a synthetic compound made from hemp derivatives, and there’s been a long debate about whether products like THC-O or Delta-8 THC fall under the “hemp” umbrella.

The DEA considers synthetic cannabinoid-controlled substances, and they’ve argued that products like THC-O are illegal. The Ninth Circuit took on this issue a few years ago in AK Futures LLC v. Boyd Street Distro, LLC, where they ruled that Delta-8 THC products derived from hemp with less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC were legal under the 2018 Farm Bill.

In Anderson, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s logic, holding that “we think the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Act is the better of the two.” The court went even further, rejecting the DEA’s argument outright, thanks to the post-Loper world we now live in, where the DEA’s interpretation no longer gets automatic deference.

Here’s the key takeaway: according to the Fourth Circuit, if a product is derived from hemp and doesn’t contain more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC, it’s legal—even if it’s been processed into something like Delta-8 THC. But if a cannabinoid is made entirely from synthetic materials, it’s not hemp, and it’s not protected by the 2018 Farm Bill.

Now, before anyone starts thinking this is an all-clear for hemp products, there’s still a lot to unpack. While Anderson pushes back against the DEA’s overreach, it doesn’t mean every hemp-derived product is automatically legal. The 0.3% Delta-9 THC threshold is still critical, and businesses need to make sure they’re playing by the rules. Plus, this ruling doesn’t mean states won’t have their own say about what’s legal within their borders.

To sum it all up, the Anderson decision is important because it reinforces that courts are not bound by the DEA’s interpretations, especially post-Loper. This decision helps the hemp-derived cannabinoid market. As always, businesses must stay compliant with both federal and state laws to avoid legal headaches.

For more news on Hemp Classification Litigation, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, and Drug section.

EPA, USDA, and FDA to Clarify Overlapping Biotechnology Regulatory Frameworks

On May 8, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a joint plan to identify areas of ambiguity, gaps, or uncertainty in their coordinated regulation of biotechnology products. Consistent with a directive issued by President Biden in September 2022, the agencies’ plan identifies specific issues that each has either recently addressed or will work to address to promote such products’ safe use.

Key Takeaways

What Happened: EPA, USDA, and FDA issued a joint plan for regulatory reform under their Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology.
Who’s Impacted: Developers of PIPs, modified mosquitos, biopesticides, and other biotechnology products under EPA’s jurisdiction.
What Should They Consider Doing in Response: Watch the three agencies’ regulatory dockets closely and consider submitting comments once new rules or draft guidance are published that may affect their products.

Background

President Biden’s executive order defined “biotechnology” as “technology that applies to or is enabled by life sciences innovation or product development.” Biotechnology products thus may include organisms (plants, animals, fungi, or microbes) developed through genetic engineering or manipulation, products derived from such organisms, and products produced via cell-free synthesis. These products may, in turn, be regulated under the overlapping statutory frameworks of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Federal Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA), Plant Pest Act (PPA), Federal Meat Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act, and more. Therefore, close coordination between EPA, USDA, and FDA is essential to ensure effective and efficient regulation of biotechnology products.

EPA Sets Sights on PIPs, Mosquitos, and Biopesticide Products

The agencies’ newly released plan identifies five biotechnology product categories where regulatory clarification or simplification are warranted: (1) modified plants; (2) modified animals; (3) modified microorganisms; (4) human drugs, biologics, and medical devices; and (5) cross-cutting issues. Under the new plan, EPA is engaged in all but the fourth category above.

For example, EPA has already taken steps to clarify its regulation of modified plant products, such as exempting from regulation under FIFRA and FFDCA certain plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created in plants using newer technologies. EPA next plans to address the scope of plant regulator PIPs and update its 2007 guidance on small-scale field testing of PIPs to reflect technological developments and harmonize with USDA containment measures.

Regarding modified animal products, EPA intends to work with USDA and FDA to coordinate and provide updated information on the regulation of modified insect and invertebrate pests. Specifically, EPA intends to provide efficacy testing guidance on genetically modified mosquitos intended for population control. As outlined in guidance published by FDA in October 2017, products intended to reduce the population of mosquitoes by killing them or interfering with their growth or development are considered “pesticides” subject to regulation by EPA, while products intended to reduce the virus/pathogen load within mosquitoes or prevent mosquito-borne disease in humans or animals are considered “new animal drugs” subject to regulation by FDA.

EPA also now intends to prioritize its review of biopesticide applications, provide technical assistance to biopesticide developers, and collaborate with state pesticide regulators to help bring new biopesticide products to market more quickly.

Further, the three agencies are making efforts to collaborate with each other and with the regulated community. The agencies jointly released plain-language information on regulatory roles, responsibilities, and processes for biotechnology products in November 2023 and now intend to explore the development of a web portal that would direct developers to the appropriate agency or office overseeing their product’s development or regulatory status. The agencies also intend to develop a mechanism for a product developer to meet with all agencies at once early in a product’s development process to clarify the agencies’ respective jurisdictions and provide initial regulatory guidance; to update their joint information-sharing memorandum of understanding; and to formally update the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology by the end of the year.

Biotechnology product developers should closely monitor EPA, USDA, and FDA’s progress on the actions described above, as well as other USDA- and FDA-specific regulatory moves. Developers should assess the regulatory barriers to their products’ entry to market, consider potential fixes, and be prepared to submit feedback as the agencies propose new rules or issue draft guidance for comment.

USDA Releases Reports on Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry and on Hemp Research and Innovation

On March 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Agriculture honored the second annual National Biobased Products Day, “a celebration to raise public awareness of biobased products, their benefits and their contributions to the U.S. economy and rural communities.” USDA states that as part of its activities to honor National Biobased Products Day, it released two reports:

Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry

USDA states that its commissioned report “An Economic Impact Analysis of the U.S. Biobased Products Industry: 2023 Update,” shows that, based on data from 2021, the biobased products industry has grown nationwide despite the impacts of the global COVID-19 pandemic. According to USDA, key report findings include:

Biobased products, a segment of the bioeconomy, contributed $489 billion to the U.S. economy in 2021, up from $464 billion in 2020. This is an increase of $25 billion — a 5.1 percent increase;
The biobased products sector, and the jobs it supports, are shown to impact every state in the nation, not just the states where agriculture is the main industry; and
The use of biobased products reduces the consumption of petroleum equivalents. In 2017, oil displacement was estimated to be as much as 9.4 million barrels of oil equivalents. In 2021, the displacement grew to 10.7 million barrels of oil equivalents.

USDA notes that the findings span seven major sectors representing the bioeconomy: Agriculture and Forestry; Biobased Chemicals; Biobased Plastic Bottles and Packaging; Biorefining; Enzymes; Forest Products; and Textiles. The 2023 Update is the sixth volume in a series of reports tracking the impact of the biobased product industry on the U.S. economy.

Hemp Research and Innovation

USDA also released its “Hemp Research Needs Roadmap,” which reflects stakeholder input in identifying the hemp industry’s greatest research needs: breeding and genetics, best practices for production, biomanufacturing for end uses, and transparency and consistency. According to USDA, these priority research areas “cut across the entire hemp supply chain and are vital to bolstering hemp industry research.” USDA notes that growing demand for biobased products, like those from hemp, “creates potential for added-value use in food, feed, fiber and other industrial products that can improve the livelihoods of U.S. producers and offer consumers alternative biobased products.”

USDA also announced a $10 million National Institute of Food and Agriculture investment to Oregon State University’s Global Hemp Innovation Center. USDA states that the Center will work with 13 Native American Tribes to spur economic development in the western United States by developing manufacturing capabilities for materials and products made from hemp.

USDA Requesting Comments on New AFIDA Regulations that Could Impact Renewable Energy Developers

On December 18, 2023, the Farm Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture published Notice in the Federal Register that it is considering changes to its FSA-153 Form required to report foreign interests in agricultural land pursuant to the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act (“AFIDA”), 7 U.S.C.A.§ 3501 et seq.

Interested stakeholders are invited to provide comments regarding the proposed changes no later than February 16, 2024. The Federal Register Notice is available in its entirety via the following link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/12/18/2023-27683/request-for-information-on-agricultural-foreign-investment-disclosure-act-afida-fsa-153-form.

Many renewable developers are subject to AFIDA and regularly report long-term wind and solar leasehold interests to the USDA. The changes proposed by the USDA may directly impact the data required to be reported by renewable developers. In additional to comments requested on other AFIDA reporting matters, the USDA requests public input on the following:

(1) Are long-term leasehold filings—particularly those in the wind turbine and solar panel industries—“different enough” from land ownership purchase or sale filings that a separate version of the FSA–153 form should be created? Should a different “logic path” of questions be developed for long-term leasehold filings?

(2) Many foreign wind energy companies have long-term leaseholds on U.S. agricultural land farmed by U.S. producers that trigger the AFIDA reporting requirement. Currently, the entire acreage of the parcel is captured; this is because the number of wind turbines that will be established on the land (if any) is often an unknown at the time of AFIDA reporting. In addition, the existence of the leasehold generally precludes other energy company involvement on the acreage. Does this approach overstate foreign energy company activity on U.S. agricultural land? If so, how should the acreage associated with these leaseholds be captured?

(3) How should solar panels or photovoltaics—which are situated above the agricultural land—be treated for AFIDA reporting given that AFIDA uses an acreage basis for reporting?

(4) Some foreign owners are providing a very low estimate of the value of the lease (as the flat payment is low) on the FSA–153 form while others are providing the estimated value of the entire parcel. How should “interest in the value of the agricultural land” be defined for leases?

(5) In addition to the legal description of each leasehold parcel already required to be reported on Form FSA-153, is it an undue burden on foreign owners or their representatives to require one or more of the following: (a) the longitude and latitude for each parcel; (b) the property tax ID number assigned by the county; and (c) the FSA tract number and the FSA farm number?

As many renewable developers are aware, AFIDA imposes reporting requirements with respect to the acquisition or disposition of interests in agricultural property by a foreign-owned entity or an entity in which a “significant interest or substantial control” is held by a non-U.S. parent.

Sales and acquisitions in particular may be highly scrutinized by the USDA to ensure that a disposition is filed by the selling entity and an acquisition form is filed by the acquiring entity. If, for example, an entity sells a portfolio of wind or solar leases, that entity should file FSA-153 dispositions, and the purchaser should file FSA-153 acquisitions for the same property. In addition to acquisitions and dispositions, reporting of an amended FSA–153 is triggered when the land use changes, the tiers of ownership change, or the name of the foreign person changes.

Although AFIDA’s requirements have been in existence for many years, the USDA’s recent imposition of significant fines and penalties (up to 25% of the FMV of the property) to developers who fail to file (or are late to file) FSA-153 reports has engendered a new interest in AFIDA and made it more crucial to consider these reporting requirements in any diligence analysis.

Significant interest or substantial control is defined by Federal regulations as an ownership interest of ten percent or more. “Foreign owners” also includes long-term leaseholders in the wind and solar industries.

AFIDA generally defines “agricultural land” as ten acres or more of land that has been used for agricultural purposes (e.g. farming, cropland, ranching, grazing, timber production) within the last five years. These definitions apply even if the land has been planned and plotted or re-zoned for nonagricultural purposes.

Agricultural land is categorized as cropland, forestland, pastureland, other agriculture, and non-agricultural land (homesteads, farm roads).

7 C.F.R. §781.2(c) defines “any interest in real property” as all interest acquired, transferred or held in agricultural lands, except:
(1) Security interests;
(2) Leasehold interests of less than ten (10) years;
(3) Contingent future interests;
(4) Noncontingent future interests which do not become possessory upon the termination of the present possessory estate;
(5) Surface or subsurface easements and rights of way used for a purpose unrelated to agricultural production, and;
(6) An interest solely in mineral rights.

CFIUS Determines it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Chinese Land Acquisition

In 2022, Fufeng USA, a subsidiary of Chinese company Fufeng Group, purchased 370 acres near Grand Forks, North Dakota, with the intention of developing the land to build a plant for wet corn milling and biofermentation,[1] prompting opposition from federal and state politicians.[2] North Dakota Senators, North Dakota’s Governor, and Senator Marco Rubio urged the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review the acquisition as a potential national security risk for being located within 12 miles from the Grand Forks Air Force Base, which is home to military drone technology and a space networking center.[3] Following CFIUS’ review of Fufeng’s notice submission, CFIUS determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the transaction. This post summarizes the public information about that CFIUS case and provides observations about the responses by North Dakota and CFIUS in the wake of Fufeng’s proposed investment.

CFIUS Review and Determination

1. Procedural History

In conjunction with rising public opposition to its land acquisition, public reports show that Fufeng USA submitted a declaration to CFIUS on July 27, 2022.[4] North Dakota local news outlet Valley News Live obtained a copy of the CFIUS closing letter to that declaration filing, which stated that CFIUS determined on August 31, 2022 that it lacked sufficient information to assess the transaction and requested that the parties file a full notice.[5] (CFIUS has the option under the regulations to request a full notice filing at the conclusion of the abbreviated 30-day review of a declaration filing.) Based on the CFIUS closing letter to that subsequent notice filing, which was likewise obtained and published by Valley News Live, Fufeng USA submitted a notice on October 17, 2022, and CFIUS subsequently concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transaction in December 2022.[6]

2. Why CFIUS did not Review under its Part 802 Covered Real Estate Authority

According the CFIUS Letter released by Fufeng to Valley News Live, Fufeng submitted its notice pursuant to 31 C.F.R. Part 800 (“Part 800”), which pertains to covered transaction involving existing U.S. businesses.[7] The closing letter made no reference to the transaction being reviewed as a “covered real estate transaction” under 31 C.F.R. Part 802 (“Part 802”).[8] A reason for this could be that, at the time the case was before CFIUS, the land acquisition by Fufeng USA was not within any of the requisite proximity thresholds and, thus, did not fall within Part 802 authority. Under Part 802, CFIUS has authority over certain real estate transactions involving property in specific maritime ports or airports, or within defined proximity thresholds to identified “military installations” listed in Appendix A to Part 802. Grand Forks Air Force Base was not included in Appendix A at that time, nor was the acquired land within the defined proximity of any other listed military installation. Accordingly, the only way for CFIUS to extend authority would be under its Part 800 authority relating to certain acquisitions of U.S. businesses.

3. CFIUS Determined It Lacked Jurisdiction Under its Part 800 Covered Transaction Authority

CFIUS’ closing letter to Fufeng stated that “CFIUS has concluded that the Transaction is not a covered transaction and therefore CFIUS does not have jurisdiction under 31 C.F.R. Part 800.”[9] Part 800 provides CFIUS with authority to review covered control transactions (i.e., those transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person) or covered investment transactions (i.e., certain non-controlling investments directly or indirectly by a foreign person in U.S. businesses involved with critical technology, critical infrastructure, or the collection and maintaining of US citizen personal data). Greenfield investments, however, inherently do not involve an existing U.S. business. As such, greenfield investments would be outside of CFIUS’ jurisdiction under Part 800. Although the justification underlying CFIUS’ determination regarding Fufeng’s acquisition is not publicly available, CFIUS might have determined that it lacked authority under Part 800 because Fufeng’s purchase of undeveloped land was not an acquisition of a U.S. business, but more likely a greenfield investment.

State and Federal Response

Under state and federal pressure, the City of Grand Forks, which initially approved Fufeng’s development of the corn milling facility, “officially decided to terminate the development agreement between the city and Fufeng USA Inc.” on April 20, 2023.[10] This decision was largely impacted by the U.S. Air Force’s determination that “the proposed project presents a significant threat to national security with both near- and long-term risks of significant impacts to our operations in the area.”[11] As of today, the land appears to still be under the ownership of Fufeng USA.[12]

CFIUS’ determination that it lacked authority drew sharp criticism from state and federal politicians. North Dakota Senator Cramer purported that CFIUS may have determined the jurisdictional question too narrowly and indicated that the determination may prompt federal legislative action.[13] Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) concurred, issuing a statement that permitting the transaction was “dangerous and dumb.”[14] In response to the determination, the Governor of South Dakota announced plans for “legislation potentially limiting foreign purchases of agricultural land” by investigating “proposed purchases of ag land by foreign interests and recommend either approval or denial to the Governor.”[15]

On April 29, 2023, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed Senate Bill No. 2371 into law, which prohibits local development and ownership of real property by foreign adversaries and related entities, effective August 1, 2023. Notably, these entities include businesses with a principal executive offices located in China, as well as businesses with a controlling Chinese interest or certain non-controlling Chinese interest.

On May 5, 2023, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the agency tasked with administering CFIUS, also took steps to expand its authority to cover more real property acquisitions. It published a Proposed Rule that would expand CFIUS covered real estate transaction authority over real restate located with 99 miles of the Grand Forks Air Force Base and seven other facilities located in Arizona, California, Iowa, and North Dakota. See a summary of that Proposed Rule and related implications at this TradePractition.com blog post.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development, Valley News Live (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[2] See Letter from Gov. Doug Burgum to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 25, 2022), https://www.governor.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Gov.%20Burgum%20letter%20urging%20expedited%20CFIUS%20review%2007.25.2022.pdf; Letter from Senators Marco rubio, John Hoeven, and Kevin Cramer to Secretaries Janet Yellen and Lloyd Austin (Jul. 14, 2022), https://senatorkevincramer.app.box.com/s/2462nafbszk2u6yosy77chz9rpojlwtl.

[3] See id; Eamon Javers, Chinese Company’s Purchase of North Dakota Farmland Raises National Security Concerns in Washington, CNBC, July 1, 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/01/chinese-purchase-of-north-dakota-farmland-raises-national-security-concerns-in-washington.html.

[4] See, Alix Larsen, CFIUS requesting Fufeng USA give more information on corn mill development (Sep. 1, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/09/01/cfius-requesting-fufeng-usa-give-more-information-corn-mill-development/.

[5] See id.

[6] See Stacie Van Dyke, Fufeng moving forward with corn milling plant in Grand Forks (Dec. 13, 2022), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2022/12/14/fufeng-moving-forward-with-corn-milling-plant-grand-forks/.

[7] See id.

[8] Id.

[9] See id.

[10] Bobby Falat, Grand Forks officially terminates Fufeng Deal (Apr. 20, 2023), https://www.valleynewslive.com/2023/04/20/grand-forks-officially-terminates-fufeng-deal/.

[11] News Release, Senator John Hoeven, Hoeven, Cramer: Air Force Provides Official Position on Fufeng Project in Grand Forks, (Jan. 31, 2023), https://www.hoeven.senate.gov/news/news-releases/hoeven-cramer-air-force-provides-official-position-on-fufeng-project-in-grand-forks.

[12] See, Meghan Arbegast, Fufeng Group owes Grand Forks County more than $2,000 in taxes for first half of 2022 (Apr. 5, 2023), https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/local/fufeng-group-owes-grand-forks-county-more-than-2-000-in-taxes-for-first-half-of-2022.

[13] See Josh Meny, Senator Cramer discusses latest on Fufeng in Grand Forks (Dec. 27, 2022), https://www.kxnet.com/news/kx-conversation/senator-cramer-discusses-latest-on-fufeng-in-grand-forks/.

[14] Press Release, Senator Marco Rubio, Rubio Slams CFIUS’s Refusal to Take Action Regarding Fufeng Farmland Purchase (Dec. 14, 2022) https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/12/rubio-slams-cfius-s-refusal-to-take-action-regarding-fufeng-farmland-purchase.

[15] Jason Harward, Gov. Kristi Noem takes aim at potential Chinese land purchases in South Dakota (Dec. 13, 2022),https://www.grandforksherald.com/news/south-dakota/gov-kristi-noem-takes-aim-at-potential-chinese-land-purchases-in-south-dakota.

For more Global Legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Tenth Circuit Declares No Remedy for Hemp Farmer Whose Federally Legal Plants Were Seized

In January, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a published opinion in Serna v. Denver Police Department, No. 21-1446 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2023), upholding the dismissal of a hemp farmer’s lawsuit against local government officials in Colorado who confiscated his plants.

The farmer – Francisco Serna – brought suit under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (the “2018 Farm Bill”) which legalized hemp across the country and included limitations on states’ ability to prohibit the transportation of certain hemp plants and products across state lines. However, the three-judge panel concluded that no provision within the law allows for a private right of action by an individual to challenge instances of perceived unlawful governmental interference.

Serna grew hemp in Texas and intended to bring several plants home with him from Colorado. But when he attempted to get the plants – consisting of “plant clones or rooted clippings” – through Denver’s airport, a police officer confiscated them under a departmental policy to seize plants containing any discernible level of THC. Even though Serna had documentation showing that the plants’ THC level was beneath the limit authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill – and therefore compliant under federal law – the officer took the plants anyway.

Serna’s Legal Proceedings

Serna sued the Denver Police Department and the confiscating officer under Section 10114(b) of the 2018 Farm Bill, which prohibits states from interfering with interstate transport of hemp and products that comply with the law. Serna asserted that because his plants were complaint, the defendants violated the provision. However, a federal magistrate judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, which the district court adopted.[1] Serna then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit also held that no private right of action existed for Serna to employ. The court’s conclusion rests on the determination that Congress did not intend that hemp farmers, like Serna, should constitute a protected class under the 2018 Farm Bill. Without that status, they cannot sue. The court focused on the plain language of Section 10114(b), reasoning that it “makes no mention of [a] purported class of licensed [hemp] farmers” and merely provides that “no state…shall prohibit the transportation or shipment of hemp” across its borders. Thus, the provision pertains only to “the person regulated rather than the individuals protected,” which is fatal to the private right of action inquiry. The court compared Section 10114(b) with other federal statutes that do create private rights of action, such as Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which specifies that “[n]o person…shall…be subjected to discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

Takeaways

The unfortunate result of this decision is that individuals who comply with the provisions of the 2018 Farm Bill during the course of their business operations cannot seek recourse from improper government meddling. As a result, the law is significantly less protective than anticipated. Rather than suing to protect their interests, entrepreneurs like Serna must instead depend upon other actors – perhaps state attorneys general – to pursue these types of cases. However, those non-stakeholders generally have less incentive to pursue lawsuits, particularly against peer law enforcement agencies, leaving hemp operators with no remedy to enforce their rights under the 2018 Farm Bill.

In a broader sense, the Serna case is a cautionary tale for those who expect federal descheduling of marijuana to resolve the regulatory complexities currently faced throughout the cannabis industry. If hemp operators working with products that are federally legal are unable to utilize the courts to challenge unlawful seizure of their products, then the effectiveness of federal legalization of cannabis may require an express private right of action.

Going forward, Serna has a limited period of time to request that the case be re-heard by the Tenth Circuit en banc (i.e., by the entire eleven-judge court) – otherwise, the three-judge panel’s opinion will remain the operative, binding outcome.

[1] The magistrate judge and the district judge differed on their bases for concluding that Serna could not sue under the 2018 Farm Bill. Specifically, the magistrate judge determined that Section 10114(b) neither created a private right of action nor a private remedy. The district judge, on the other hand, concluded that Congress did authorize a private right of action but no private remedy to enforce it was evident. This additional divergence is another example of how the 2018 Farm Bill is susceptible to conflicting interpretations, which will likely only increase going forward as other courts consider the issue.

Article By Emily M. Leongini, Shahiedah Shabazz, and Morgan R. Pankow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more cannabis legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Washington PFAS Soil Standards

To start off the new year, Washington introduced its “Draft Guidance for Investigating and Remediating PFAS Contamination In Washington State”, which provides guidance principles for companies looking to remediate land of six specific types of PFAS – PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX. The Washington PFAS soil standards follow similar guidance documents by New Jersey (2022) and Pennsylvania (2021). None of the three states have soil standards that would be used for the purposes of identifying potential responsible parties. As other states follow suit, though, it is likely that other states will begin setting PFAS soil standards that include both a remediatory guideline and liability purpose. Companies are well-advised to closely follow developments at the state level with respect to PFAS soil standards.

PFAS Soil Standards In Washington

Washington’s guidance would, if approved, be able to be utilized for both private cleanups (or diligence initiatives) and state-led remediation efforts. The draft guidance document cautions that even if finalized, parties engaged in site cleanup need to be aware that the science and regulations with respect to PFAS are changing, so coordination with the state is key. The state would still need to approve proposed remediation plans, even if in line with the Guidance document, as state approval of remediation proposals is highly fact-specific. In addition, the state will look at proposed plans through the lens of future reopener issues, and will aim to work with parties at the outset to avoid such issues.

Impact On Businesses

As noted above, the PFAS soil standards do not create liability if soil is discovered to contain levels of PFAS above the noted limits. Instead, the regulations provide guidance to site remediators, to provide clarity as to the extent and scope of PFAS remediation necessary from contaminated sites. Nevertheless, companies in Washington are advised to use the limits in the regulations as baselines testing during the diligence phase of any property or corporate acquisition. It is critical to determine whether or not sites owned by the businesses or sites that companies may inadvertently be polluting with PFAS have elevated levels of PFAS such that future liability concerns may arise.

Businesses outside of Washington must be aware of the regulations and closely follow legislation and regulatory action in discussion with respect to PFAS soil standards. While drinking water and wastewater have certainly received the most attention from a PFAS regulatory perspective, efforts are being made in several states to collect data with respect to PFAS soil contamination, with the long-term goal of enacting science based PFAS soil standards.

For more Environmental Law News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

EPA Announces the Release of Its Endangered Species Act Workplan Update

On November 16, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it released an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Workplan Update (Workplan Update) that outlines major steps to increase protections for wildlife and regulatory certainty for pesticide users. The Workplan Update details how EPA will pursue protections for nontarget species, including federally listed endangered and threatened (i.e., listed) species, earlier in the process for pesticide registration review and other Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) actions. According to EPA, these early protections will help EPA comply with the ESA, thus reducing its legal vulnerability, providing farmers with more predictable access to pesticides, and simplifying the ESA-FIFRA process that, left unchanged, creates both significant litigation risk and a workload far exceeding what EPA has the resources to handle.

EPA states this update is a follow-up to EPA’s April 2022 ESA Workplan that addresses the complexity of meeting its ESA obligations for thousands of FIFRA actions annually. The ESA Workplan prioritizes certain FIFRA actions for ESA compliance, outlines how EPA will pursue early mitigation for listed species under FIFRA, and describes directions for expediting and simplifying the current pesticide consultation process.

As part of registering new pesticides or reevaluating pesticides during registration review, EPA has a responsibility under the ESA to ensure certain pesticide registrations do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify their designated critical habitats. EPA states that it has seen in the past few decades an increase in litigation due to EPA’s failure to meet its ESA obligations when taking FIFRA actions. Over the next six years, existing court-enforceable deadlines will require EPA to complete ESA reviews for 18 pesticides — the most EPA estimates it can handle during this period based on its current capacity and processes. Ongoing litigation and settlement discussions for other lawsuits cover dozens of additional pesticides and will likely fill the EPA’s ESA workload well beyond 2030. According to EPA, if its ESA efforts continue at this pace, a future court may decide to curtail drastically pesticide use until EPA meets its obligations. EPA believes this situation would be unsustainable and legally tenuous and provide inadequate protection for listed species and create regulatory uncertainty for farmers and other pesticide users.

The Workplan Update is EPA’s first update to the ESA Workplan and covers four main goals:

Describes EPA’s overall approach to mitigating ecological risks in registration review, which includes prioritization of registration review cases based on opportunities to reduce a pesticide’s risk to human health or the environment.
Proposes a menu of FIFRA Interim Ecological Mitigation measures that EPA will draw from for many future conventional and biological pesticide registration and registration review actions to protect nontarget species. For each FIFRA action, EPA will consider this menu and propose, based on the risks and benefits of the particular pesticide, which specific measures to include on the pesticide label.
Proposes label language to expand the use of online endangered species protection bulletins to implement geographically specific mitigation measures for individual listed species. These measures are designed to focus protections only in specific needed areas, thus minimizing impacts to agriculture. Where needed, EPA may develop these measures to complement the generic FIFRA ecological mitigation described above.
Describes current and future programmatic initiatives with other federal agencies to prioritize mitigation for listed species that are particularly vulnerable to pesticides and to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the ESA-FIFRA process.

The first strategy described in EPA’s ESA Workplan is to “meet ESA obligations for FIFRA actions.” EPA states as part of its work to execute this strategy, it has identified a menu of Interim Ecological Mitigation measures it will use as a starting point to address pesticide risks to nontarget species during registration and registration review.

The menu of Interim Ecological Mitigation will include measures to reduce pesticide spray drift and pesticide runoff and will be considered as part of EPA’s upcoming proposed interim registration review decisions. While EPA intends for this set of Interim Ecological Mitigation measures to apply widely to many pesticides, EPA will consider the menu of options for any given pesticide depending on the level of risk that it poses to species and the exposure route.

EPA anticipates that this approach will more efficiently establish protections for nontarget species, including listed species, and standardize the protections across similar pesticides, in contrast to identifying mitigation measures pesticide by pesticide or species by species, as EPA has typically done in the past.

EPA states it will also work with registrants to add language on pesticide incident reporting, advisory language to protect insect pollinators, and language to most outdoor-use pesticide labels that directs users to reference Bulletins Live! Two, a website where pesticide users can find endangered species protection bulletins. These bulletins describe geographically specific use limitations to protect threatened and endangered species and their designated critical habitat.

EPA expects that once consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service is completed for any given outdoor-use pesticide, endangered species protection bulletins may be necessary for at least one listed species.

EPA also expects that working with registrants proactively to add the reference to Bulletins Live! Two to pesticide labels in advance of consultation will ultimately save EPA, state partners, and registrants time and resources by minimizing the number of amendments to labels.

The ESA Workplan Update also describes initiatives that, according to EPA, will help it and other federal agencies improve approaches to mitigation under the ESA and improve the interagency consultation process outlined in the ESA Workplan. These initiatives include EPA’s work to identify ESA mitigation measures for pilot species, incorporate early ESA mitigation measures for groups of pesticides (e.g., herbicides), and develop region-specific ESA mitigations.

Comments on the proposed set of interim mitigation measures and the proposed revisions to label language included in the Workplan Update appendix are due on or before January 30, 2023. Comments can be submitted at EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0908.

Commentary

This next phase of the ESA Workplan provides more detail about how EPA plans to impose various mitigation measures to meet its ESA obligations when registering a pesticide. The most favorable view of what EPA has presented is that it continues the march toward ESA compliance, which is long overdue, and provides more detail about the kinds of mitigation approaches it will place on pesticide labels to meet ESA requirements. The less favorable view here is that EPA has outlined a number of “off the shelf” mitigation options (buffers to reduce pesticide drift and water runoff), and EPA might impose such conditions in many instances where more careful analysis of usage data and site- or use-specific considerations might lessen the areas where such mitigation measures are needed.

EPA has stated previously as part of its earlier Workplan document, issued in April 2022, that using the present approaches EPA would complete only 5 percent of the ESA required reviews in about 18 years — implying that the current approach would take about 360 years to complete. This next iteration of the Workplan, describing “early mitigation” strategies, is designed to reduce this unacceptable timeframe (360 years), but is likely to lead to fears among some stakeholders that in a “rush” to complete this work, EPA will make overly conservative label restrictions and reduce availability of the pesticide without increased species protections. Such concerns raise immediate ancillary concerns about stakeholder involvement in decision-making, compliance with what might be complicated label requirements, and enforcement of what is already typically a long list of label requirements for many current products. An example of such issues: one mitigation option example discussed is “do not use when rain is expected in the next 48 hours” — which could raise issues concerning what or how compliance might be proven or enforced.

Again, to be sure, this next document about how EPA plans to make significant progress in meeting its ESA obligations continues the effort to convince courts that it is meeting its ESA obligations. As such, it represents a large step forward where in the past EPA was left with little progress or plans to present in court as part of litigation over ESA compliance. As it continues to reveal its plans and options, however, stakeholders will need to follow closely and consider the possible impacts of the Workplan and the resulting label proposals to follow.

For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

USDA Focused on Accurate “Made in the USA” Beef Labeling

In response to industry concerns for mislabeled beef products, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilack recently said that the “Product of the USA” label on meat products should undergo a full-scale review. Vilack maintains that he is “committed to ensuring that the ‘Product of USA’ label reflects what a plain understanding of those terms means to U.S. consumers.” In March, we reported that the Tenth Circuit dismissed lawsuits based on meat producer’s use of allegedly deceptive and misleading “Product of the USA” labels on their beef products that did not originate from cattle born and raised in the United States.
The issue of country-of-origin beef labeling (“COOL”) continues to be a source of debate. Earlier this week, the FTC finalized a rule that is intended to tighten the use of the Made in the USA standard. The FTC said that this update would benefit small businesses who lack the resources to defend their products from foreign imitators. However, the FTC rule does not require USDA action. In response, the beef industry is demanding Congress to act swiftly.
R-CALF, a group of USA-based cattle ranchers, has been pushing hard for reforms on COOL. On September 22, R-CALF released a poll that shows staggering support for mandatory COOL legislation by the American public. R-CALF reports that 86 percent of American voters support the American Beef Labeling Act that reinstates mandatory country of origin labeling for beef, and 90 percent of voters are concerned that foreign importers of beef can legally put a “Product of USA” sticker on a package containing beef that was born, raised, and harvested outside the United States.
Currently, Congress is working through prospective beef labeling legislation that would require USDA oversight of COOL. The American Beef Labeling Act (S.2716) is a bipartisan bill that was introduced in the Senate in 2021; however, the bill has languished without action in the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee. In March 2022, a bipartisan companion bill was introduced in the U.S. House (H.R.7291), which has also seen little to no progress in the House Agriculture Committee. Keller and Heckman will continue to monitor these legislative developments and USDA action.

For more Food and Drug Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Agriculture

Missouri Cannabis Regulators Show Me a Well-Considered Clarification of Earlier Rule Essentially Banning Hemp Products

Like this:

A Study in THC-O: Unpacking the Recent Anderson Case

Like this: