As part of the PetFood Industry Webinar Series, HB Partners Ryann Glenn and Emily Lyons will be hosting a free webinar about managing FSMA (Food Safety Modernization Act) requirements and pet food product recalls on January 20, 2022.

This presentation will provide an update on how domestic and foreign pet food manufacturers are managing

The meat processing sector has been in the crosshairs of the federal government over that last several years due to increased consumer prices for meat products and complaints from farmers and ranchers. These complaints have rallied the Biden Administration to review and consider addressing these issues which are perceived to be caused by consolidation among meatpackers. Specifically, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on January 3, 2022 their shared principles and commitments to use the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act) and federal competition laws to address complaints regarding alleged anti-competitive behavior within the meatpacking industry. This announcement is in response to  President Biden’s July 9, 2021 Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, particularly in the meat and poultry processing sector, as well as USDA’s announcement in July 2021 to begin work to strengthen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act).
Continue Reading DOJ and USDA Agree to Work Together on Enforcement of Meat and Poultry Processing Sector

About a year ago, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) proposed to amend the short form warning rules for Proposition 65.  Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn Californians about exposure to certain chemicals through “clear and reasonable” warnings.  There are currently two forms of “safe harbor” warnings, one of which is the short

In case you missed it while preparing for your Turkey dinner, on November 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court decided 9-0 that the Equitable Apportionment Doctrine, which had prior to this decision been held to apply only to surface waters, now also applies to interstate aquifers i.e., underground waters.  Mississippi v. Tennessee, et al. [1]
Continue Reading Water Law Update: The Equitable Apportionment Doctrine: It’s not Just for Rivers and Streams Anymore

We have previously blogged about ag-gag laws in general and the Iowa law in particular, the last post about Iowa being on January 3, 2020.  Animal rights groups such a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) conduct undercover investigations of farm and ranch properties to uncover incidents of animal abuse.  They often gain access to the property by subterfuge, such as applying for employment without disclosing their true motive.
Continue Reading Iowa Ag Gag Law Update

On June 12, 2020, we blogged about the so-called ag gag law enacted by the Arkansas legislature.  Animal rights organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) often conduct undercover investigations of farms and ranches to uncover abusive practices and publicize them to the world.  A typical method for undercover investigation is to seek employment under false pretenses, then secretly film possible abuses.
Continue Reading Arkansas Ag Gag Update

In December 2020, the US Congress voted to pass, and the President signed, the long-awaited Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act (“CMBTRA”), making permanent the reduction in the federal excise tax (“FET”) rate paid by distillers.

The CMBTRA was originally signed into law on January 1, 2018 as a two-year tax break for producers,

On December 29, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in a Federal Register notice the 2021 fee schedule for its Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program.  That user fee program was an addition made in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and authorized FDA to assess and collect user fees from qualifying manufacturers of OTC monograph drugs and submitters of OTC monograph order requests.

These user fees concern over-the-counter (OTC) monograph drugs, which are nonprescription drugs without an approved new drug application which are governed by the provisions of section 505G of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355h).  Under the new fee schedule, FDA will assess a fee for certain facilities registered with FDA and for the submission of an OTC monograph order request (OMOR).  An OMOR is an industry request for an administrative order to add, remove, or change an OTC drug monograph, which is submitted under section 505G(b)(5) of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355h(b)(5)).

The announcement took some by surprise, particularly those in the craft distilling industry that shifted production to FDA regulated hand sanitizers, a type of OTC monograph drug, during the COVID-19 public health emergency.  By December 31, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) took action over FDA’s fee schedule.  In a post on Twitter, the HHS Chief of Staff, citing the small businesses who stepped up to provide hand sanitizer in the face of the pandemic, announced that HHS had “directed FDA to cease enforcement of these arbitrary, surprise user fees.”  HHS Office of Public Affairs (Dec. 31, 2020), at https://twitter.com/SpoxHHS/status/1344782160084037639.
Continue Reading Holiday Confusion for the Over-the-Counter Drug Industry: FDA Announces OTC Fee Schedule That HHS Quickly Withdraws

California egg law - carton of eggsOn October 19, 2019, and December 4, 2019, we blogged about the North American Meat Institute’s challenge to California Proposition 12.  Proposition 12 prohibits the sale in California of pork or veal derived from animals confined in conditions that do not comply with the strict California standards.  It builds on the previous ban on the sale of eggs discussed in Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017) (the foie gras case), about which we blogged on May 29, 2018.

As we reported on December 4, 2019, the District Court denied NAMI’s motion for preliminary injunction.  On October 15, 2020, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a short, per curiam opinion.

The Ninth Circuit panel held that NAMI had presented no evidence that the purpose of the statute was to discriminate against out-of-state businesses.  It also held that Proposition 12 does not have a discriminatory effect because “it treats in-state meat producers the same as out-of-state producers.”
Continue Reading Update on California Proposition 12