On November 6, 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, which establishes minimum space requirements for confined egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal. Under Proposition 12, no California business is permitted sell eggs, pork, or veal that come from animals confined in ways not meeting the new requirements. Thus, these requirements will apply to facilities, wherever located, that are producing products for sale in California. Previously, in 2008, California voters passed Proposition 2, which mandated that confined egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal must be able to "turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs." Proposition 12, however, is distinct in that the confinement restrictions impose a minimum number of square feet. By 2020, Proposition 12 will require 43 square feet of floor space for calves and 1 foot of space for egg-laying hens. In 2022, breeding pigs and their offspring must have at least 24 square feet of floor space per breeding pig. Proposition 12 also differs from Proposition 2 by imposing requirements on out-of-state producers. Since January 1, 2015, the requirements of Proposition 2 have applied to out-of-state egg producers through the passage of Assembly Bill 1437. Out-of-state pork and veal producers, however, have not been subjected to the requirements of Proposition 2.

On November 16, 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a press release regarding the oversight of livestock and poultry cell lines used to develop cell-cultured food products. Prior to the issuance of this joint statement, a Joint Public Meeting was held on October 23 and 24, 2018, to address the "potential hazards, oversight considerations, and labeling" concerns posed by this technology. These cell-cultured products are created by adding nutrients in vitro to animal cells which grow into animal muscle tissue. According to the press release, moving forward, the two agencies will jointly oversee the production of cell-cultured food products derived from livestock and poultry. Accordingly, FDA will oversee cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation. USDA will begin its oversight at the time of cell harvest and will oversee the production and labeling of subsequent food products. The technical details of the regulatory framework are still being refined. USDA has stated that the agencies already have statutory authority to regulate cell-cultured food products from livestock and poultry, and therefore, new legislation will not be necessary. Public comment on this topic has been extended and will be accepted through December 26, 2018.

On November 6, 2018, Colorado voters rejected Proposition 112 which would have increased the setback distance between new oil and gas development projects and certain types of buildings and land uses. Proposition 112, originally identified as Ballot Initiative 97, was submitted to the Colorado Department of State by Designated Representatives Anne Lee Foster and Suzanne Spiegel from the environmental group, Colorado Rising. Advocates for the initiative collected a total of 172,834 signatures in support of the petition. Under the requirements of Proposition 112, new oil and gas wells would have been required to be operated with a minimum setback distance of 2,500 feet from occupied buildings, such as homes, schools and hospitals, as well as "vulnerable" areas. Vulnerable areas were defined in the proposition to include playgrounds, permanent sport fields, amphitheaters, public parks, public open space, drinking water sources, irrigation canals, reservoirs, lakes, rivers, perennial or intermittent streams, and creeks. These proposed setback requirements would not have applied to oil and gas development located on federal lands. According to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, application of the proposed set-back requirements would have removed 94% of non-federal lands within Colorado"s five largest oil and gas producing counties from further oil and gas development. Approximately 55% of voters voted against the initiative while 44% voted in favor.

On November 5, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana granted the motion of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) to expand its beef checkoff program lawsuit beyond Montana to include 13 additional states (R-CALF USA v. Perdue 4:16-cv-00041). At issue is whether the federal Beef Checkoff Program in Montana violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by permitting the Montana Beef Council (MBC) to use a portion of federal beef checkoff funds for promotional campaigns. According to R-CALF USA, this action improperly forces Montana beef producers to fund private speech with which they disagree. On April 9, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the district court preventing MBC from using checkoff funds (R-CALF USA v. Perdue, No. 17-35669). Under the district court"s latest ruling, however, the preliminary injunction in Montana is not extended to the other states, which include Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Instead, R-CALF USA is permitted to proceed in its original case seeking a permanent injunction against the national checkoff program. According to R-CALF USA, "[i]f successful, the permanent injunction would likely cover cattle producers in each of the new states."

Professor Ross Pifer, CASL Director
Sean High, Staff Attorney
Jacqueline Schweichler, Staff Attorney
Chloe Marie, Research Fellow
Deanna Smith, Research Assistant

The Center for Agricultural and Shale Law provides interested individuals with relevant and timely agricultural and shale law updates through various media sources. These sources include:

Agricultural Law Weekly Review
Published every Thursday, the Penn State Agricultural Law Blog presents the Agricultural Law Weekly Review, which provides an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to Pennsylvania agriculture.

Shale Law Weekly Review
Published every Monday, the Penn State Shale Law Blog presents the Shale Law Weekly Review which provides an update of recent, local, state, national, and international legal developments relevant to shale gas.

HotLinks
Published daily on our Twitter account, our AgLaw and ShaleLaw HotLinks provide daily updates on relevant agricultural and shale legal developments. To keep current with these updates, follow us @AgShaleLaw.

CASL Ledger
Published every Friday on our Facebook page, the Friday Recap presents all our research, publications, and presentations from the week.

Agricultural Law and Shale Law Library Guides
Our Library Guides provide in depth information on a large variety of topics in the agricultural and shale law fields. To learn more about these topics or to research one these subjects, check out our website.

Agricultural Law Brief
Published monthly, the Agricultural Law Brief addresses the major legal developments from the past month. Archived versions of the Agricultural Law Brief are available on our website. To subscribe, visit here.

The Center for Agricultural and Shale Law conducts research and disseminates information on agricultural and shale law topics. Through its programs, the Center serves a wide variety of stakeholders including agricultural producers, landowners and royalty owners, business professionals, judges, attorneys, legislators, government officials, community groups, and the general public. Center programs are funded in part by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and supported by a multi-year grant from the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (an entity within the Agricultural Research Service).

The Center for Agricultural and Shale Law is one of four members of the National Agricultural and Food Law Consortium which includes The National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas, The National Sea Grant Law Center at the University of Mississippi School of Law, and The Agricultural and Resource Program at the Ohio State University. Consortium members collaborate to provide objective agricultural law and food law information on national issues such as land-based food, fiber, and energy production systems as well as seafood and marine-based production via aquaculture.

This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

To subscribe to the Penn State Agricultural Law Brief, please visit us here.