USAgNet discussed industry groups request for new beef labeling requirements.

The Houston Chronicle reported on a provision in the 2018 Farm Bill that would remove certain rules on EPA pesticide review.

The Western Producer discussed farmer reaction to potential trade war with China and proposed subsidies.

The Press-Enterprise reported on six California bills aimed at reducing plastic waste.

Bloomberg discussed the impact of Chinese sorghum tariff on Kansas agriculture.

 

Agriculture.com discussed ag group efforts ahead of White House meetings on biofuels.

The Kansas City Star reported on potential meetings between ag state representatives and the White House on Chinese tariffs.

Farms.com discussed the impact of the loss of foreign born agriculture workers.

Bloomberg reported on the use of blockchain technology to trace food.

GeekWire discussed Walmart’s delivery partnership with Postmates.

 

Coffee sellers in the State of California will now be required to provide cancer warnings on their coffee products. On March 28, 2018, a California State Court issued a Statement of Decision in a Proposition 65 (Prop 65) case that found that Starbucks and other retailers failed to prove that a chemical found in coffee poses no significant harm. Council for Education and Research on Toxics v. Starbucks Corporation, No. BC435759 (L.A. Super. Ct. Mar. 28, 2018).

Under California’s Prop 65, cancer warnings are required to appear on a wide range of products. In 2010, a nonprofit sued over 90 coffee sellers alleging that the companies failed to warn consumers regarding the presence of acrylamide in their coffee in violation of Prop 65. Acrylamide is listed as a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and reproductive toxicity and, consequently, products containing it are required to carry a warning. The chemical is created in certain plant-based foods during cooking, baking, frying, or roasting at high temperatures. Because acrylamide is also created during the cooking process for other foods, including potato chips, bread, french fries and roasted nuts, many of these products are arguably required to carry cancer warnings in California.

The court in the Starbucks case still has to rule on penalties the coffee sellers could face, but the decision exposes the defendants to significant fines: civil penalties of up to $2,500 per person exposed each day over eight years.

Contact us if you need help determining whether your products – coffee or otherwise – are covered by Prop 65, if you want assistance designing a Prop 65-compliant warning label for your products, or if you need legal counsel to address a Prop 65 60-day notice you’ve received.

The Financial Buzz discussed a report on food waste in North America.

Food Dive reported on a new app designed to monitor and cut food waste.

AlterNet discussed consolidation in U.S. agriculture.

The National Law Review discussed potential California regulations on food packaging.

Food Dive reported on dairy identity standard requirements in new spending bill.

 

USAgNet discussed PepsiCo Foundation efforts to combat student hunger.

The Minnesota Star Tribune discussed expansion of Walmart grocery delivery.

Food Safety News reported on FDA findings on the cross-Atlantic shellfish trade.

Ag Update discussed the status of the farm bill.

The Des Moines Register reported on USDA withdrawal of animal welfare rule.

 

Manufacturers, processors and formulators of ag chemicals should take note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s January 25 change to its “once in always in” policy will allow facilities that have historically been regulated as “major sources” of hazardous air pollutants to be reclassified as “area” sources if they have reduced their potential to emit to below major source thresholds. Read our Emerging Energy Insights blog post here covering the topic.

Forbes reported on the tension between the meat and plant-based industries.

Beverage Daily discussed Michelob launch of organic grain beer.

CNN reported on Sam’s Club entry into grocery delivery market.

Financial Buzz discussed collaboration between conservationists and agriculture industry on monarch habitats.

The Guardian reported on an EU assessment of the dangers of pesticides to bee populations.

 

Since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, there has been extensive debate over which waters may be regulated as waters of the United States under the act. Yesterday, Bob Wilkinson explained how this issue came to a head in a recent 9th Circuit opinion and how, in response, EPA is requesting comments on whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow with a direct hydrologic connection to the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. This is important to you because farmers, manufacturers, and anyone who conducts activities that release pollutants to groundwater will be affected by whether and how EPA clarifies its position regarding whether these discharges are subject to regulation. Our Environmental team blogged about this topic yesterday, please read more here.