Farm Groups Ask Court to Dismiss Farm Emissions Reporting Rule Case  |  NPPC Weighs in on FSIS Guidelines on Label Claims  |  NPPC, Others File Brief in Case Over ‘Forever Chemicals’ Rule  |  NPPC’s Stevermer, Staff Participate in NAFB ‘Trade Talk’

Farm Groups Ask Court to Dismiss Farm Emissions Reporting Rule Case

What happened: NPPC, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association on Tuesday joined the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking a broad interpretation of the requirements for reporting emissions from animal waste.

Animal and environmental activist groups sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a section of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) that exempts livestock and poultry farmers from reporting routine air emissions from animal waste. EPCRA requires certain entities to notify state and local authorities, including first responders, about accidental spills and releases of hazardous materials and chemicals.

The law initially exempted livestock and poultry farmers from reporting, but a 2017 court decision rejected the exemption. In 2018, Congress approved the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act, which reinstated the exclusion. Activist groups challenged EPA’s regulation implementing the FARM Act.

NPPC’s Take: NPPC and the other agricultural organizations cited EPA’s reasoning for exempting agriculture from the reporting requirements: Farm emissions might exceed thresholds that would trigger responses under EPCRA, but such responses would be “unnecessary, impractical and unlikely.” Agitating a manure pit, for example, could result in the release of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide in amounts that exceed reportable levels, but the gases would dissipate quickly, so no response would be warranted.

Why it matters: If livestock producers were subject to EPCRA reporting, they would be required to estimate the emissions of certain gases. However, EPA has yet to finalize reliable, scientifically sound estimating methodologies that accurately represent the air emissions from animal manure at modern livestock farms. Additionally, farmers could be subject to liabilities resulting from differing interpretations of the information called for in the emissions reports, exposing them to potential civil penalties or litigation.

NPPC Weighs in on FSIS Guidelines on Label Claims

What happened: NPPC submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) on the agency’s draft guidelines on meat label claims related to raising animals and protecting the environment.

NPPC pointed out that many pork producers participate in premium programs that require them to meet standards or undertake activities to qualify for certification, including the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Plus program. Under that Pork Checkoff-sponsored program, producers and their employees receive training on various aspects of production, including food safety, animal welfare, worker safety, animal housing, and environmental stewardship. PQA Plus has site-auditing and certification components.

The FSIS guidelines, said NPPC, should clarify how multi-faceted third-party certifications, such as PQA Plus-certified farms, are addressed. Currently, the guidelines cover only the information for individual categories of label claims, such as animal welfare, that producers must provide to substantiate claims.

NPPC also wants clarity, including standards, in the guidelines related to environmental claims. Producers need to understand what standards must be met and the supporting data label applicants need to qualify for such claims. The organization also suggested FSIS revise those guidelines to address sustainability claims “outside” of production, such as those related to packaging and conservation efforts.

On “no antibiotics ever” label claims, NPPC praised FSIS for taking a voluntary approach to antibiotic residue sampling and recommended the guidelines explain what the agency requires for an acceptable sampling program.

Why it matters: The pork industry is committed to producing a safe, wholesome, and nutritious protein product for consumers in the United States and globally and wants to ensure its label claims are accurate. NPPC recommended the FSIS guidelines clarify the acceptance of programs that already are verified, such as PQA Plus, as well as how certain label claims will be evaluated for their veracity.

NPPC, Others File Brief in Case Over ‘Forever Chemicals’ Rule

What happened: NPPC joined a coalition of other industrial trade association groups in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in a case involving so-called forever chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

PFAS chemicals, used for decades in many industrial, commercial, and consumer products, have been found to cause serious health problems, including cancer, from prolonged exposure at high levels. Such chemicals also are pervasive and persistent – they don’t break down – in the environment and human bodies.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in May issued a final regulation for PFAS chemicals, designating them as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which has a “strict liability” provision – CERCLA offenders are liable regardless of intent. Although it looked at the costs and benefits of its rule, EPA said it could not consider costs when designating hazardous substances.

NPPC and the other organizations asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is hearing the case U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et. al., v. EPA, to remand the rule to EPA so it can “properly account for costs to passive receivers.” The groups argue that in promulgating the PFAS rule EPA abandoned the “Polluter Pays” principle of CERCLA and that the agency “avoided its obligation to quantify litigation expenses and cleanup liability by labeling them as ‘indirect’ costs.”

Why it matters: EPA used a flawed economic analysis to make its designation of PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under CERCLA, exposing farmers – not the actual polluters – to “a deluge of litigation and potentially boundless cleanup costs” despite being “passive receivers” of PFAS chemicals.

Farmers who apply biosolids from wastewater facilities on their land, for example, could be held liable for cleanup costs of PFAS chemicals from polluters who discharged to waterways.

NPPC’s Stevermer, Staff Participate in NAFB ‘Trade Talk’

What happened: NPPC President and Minnesota producer Lori Stevermer and several NPPC staff Thursday participated in the National Association of Farm Broadcasting’s (NAFB) national convention in Kansas City, MO, where they took part in NAFB’s “Trade Talk.” Stevermer also participated in a panel discussion on environmental issues.

Joining Stevermer were NPPC CEO Bryan Humphreys; Maria Zieba, vice president of government affairs; Chase Adams, assistant vice president of domestic policy; and Dr. Ashley Johnson, director of food policy.

Among the topics they discussed in 44 radio interviews were:

• Fixing California’s Proposition 12, which bans the sale in that state of pork from hogs born to sows raised in housing that does not meet California’s arbitrary and unscientific standards.
• Passing as soon as possible a new Farm Bill that includes programs to prevent and prepare for foreign animal diseases, promote U.S. agricultural exports, codify USDA’s National Detector Dog Training Center, which trains canines used at U.S. ports of entry to detect agricultural contraband, and reauthorize the federal Feral Swine Eradication Program.
• Addressing the farm labor shortage through reform of the H-2A and TN visas to make them more useful to animal agriculture. H-2A visas only allow temporary, seasonal farm workers into the country; TN visas allow certain professionals, including animal breeders and veterinarians, but have been routinely denied.
• Negotiating comprehensive trade agreements that eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to U.S. pork.

Why it matters: NAFB’s “Trade Talk” connects agriculture broadcasters and agricultural industry leaders to discuss key issues and topics affecting U.S. farmers. Farm broadcasters are a trusted source, provide an invaluable service, and are a vital tool for communicating with the agricultural community, telling the story of the who, what, when, where, and how of America’s food, feed, fiber, and fuel system.