Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 1 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`SYLVIA SHIH-YAU WU (CA Bar No. 273549)
`MEREDITH STEVENSON (CA Bar No. 328712)
`Center for Food Safety
`303 Sacramento Street, 2nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Phone: (415) 826-2770
`Emails: swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
` mstevenson@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SONNY PERDUE, et al.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-1537-RS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Date: January 21, 2021
`Courtroom: 3 – 17th Floor
`Hon. Richard Seeborg
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 2 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 21, 2021, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
`
`heard, Plaintiffs Center for Food Safety, Swanton Berry Farms, Inc., Full Belly Farm, Inc., Durst
`
`Organic Growers, Inc., Terra Firma Farms, Inc., Jacobs Farm/Del Cabo, Inc., Long Wind
`
`Farm, Inc., OneCert, Inc., and Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, will move this
`
`Court for summary judgment on all issues raised in their March 3, 2020 Complaint, ECF No. 1.
`
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-2 and 56-1, Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court to grant
`
`summary judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor on all claims alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, on the grounds
`
`that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a
`
`matter of law. USDA’s June 6, 2019 letter denying a rulemaking petition which requested USDA
`
`to conduct rulemaking to exclude organic certification of hydroponic agricultural production
`
`systems under the Oganic Foods Production Act (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6523, violates the
`
`plain language of OFPA’s purpose, its statutory and regulatory provisions, and is arbitrary and
`
`capricious, and contrary to law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
`
`§ 706(2). This Motion is based upon the pleadings and administrative record on file in this case, the
`
`concurrently-filed Motion to Complete or Supplement the Administrative Record and supporting
`
`papers therewith, the points and authorities herein, and the declarations submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 3 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... iv
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
`
`RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .......................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Organic Foods Production Act. ......................................................................... 2
`
`The National Organic Program Regulations. ........................................................... 4
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................... 6
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The Incompatibility of Hydroponic Systems With the Principles of
`Organic Farming. ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`USDA’s Failure to Prohibit Organic Certification of Hydroponic
`Systems. ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`III.
`
`The Rulemaking Petition. ....................................................................................... 11
`
`IV. USDA’s Petition Denial. ......................................................................................... 12
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 14
`
`I.
`
`USDA’s Petition Denial Violates OFPA’s Statutory Mandate That
`Organic Crop Producers Foster Soil Fertility. ........................................................ 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`USDA’s Exemption for Hydroponic Systems Is Contrary to
`the Plain Language of OFPA’s Statutory Provisions
`Concerning Organic Crop Production. ..................................................... 15
`
`OFPA’s Overall Statutory Scheme Demonstrates
`Congressional Intent That Organic Crop Production Must
`Foster Soil Fertility. ..................................................................................... 17
`
`The Legislative History Shows That the Soil Fertility
`Requirement Is Mandatory. ........................................................................ 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 4 of 39
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`USDA’s Petition Denial Is Contrary to the OFPA Regulations. ........................... 20
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Organic Crop Producers “Must” Maintain or Improve Soil
`Quality. ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`The Regulatory Context and History Show That OFPA’s
`Soil Fertility and Crop Rotation Regulations Are
`Mandatory. .................................................................................................. 22
`
`III. USDA’s Determination That Hydroponic Operations Satisfy
`OFPA’s Ecological and Conservation Regulations Is Arbitrary and
`Capricious. .............................................................................................................. 23
`
`IV. USDA’s Petition Denial Perpetuates Inconsistent Organic
`Standards, in Violation of OFPA. .......................................................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`The Court Should Vacate USDA’s Petition Denial. .............................................. 28
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 5 of 39
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`
`
`Altera Corp. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
`926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 15
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Comm’r,
`934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 20
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Brower v. Evans,
`257 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.,
`464 U.S. 89 (1983) ..................................................................................................................... 14
`
`Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 30
`
`Cal. Organic Fertilizers, Inc. v. True Organic Products, Inc.,
`No. 1:19-cv-0296 AWI EG, 2019 WL 5422919 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2019) ............................... 22
`
`Camp v. Pitts,
`411 U.S. 138 (1973) ................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ....................................................................................................... 14, 15, 20
`
`Chicago v. Envt’l. Def. Fund,
`511 U.S. 328 (1994) ................................................................................................................... 18
`
`Ctr. for Envtl. Health v. Vilsack,
`No. 15-cv-01690-JSC, 2016 WL 3383954 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ................................. 29, 30
`
`Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack,
`734 F. Supp. 2d 948 (N.D. Cal. 2010) ....................................................................................... 29
`
`FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) ............................................................................................................. 14, 19
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 6 of 39
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Harvey v. Veneman,
`396 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`Humane Soc’y v. Locke,
`626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................... 29
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) ..................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt,
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`Int’l Ctr. For Tech. Assessment v. Johanns,
`473 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................................... 29
`
`Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States,
`136 S. Ct. 1969 (2016) ............................................................................................................... 16
`
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) ................................................................................................... 14, 20, 23
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`415 F.3d 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 13
`
`Mont v. United States,
`139 S. Ct. 1826 (2019) ............................................................................................................... 15
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ................................................................................................... 13, 14, 24, 25
`
`Perrin v. United States,
`444 U.S. 37 (1979) ..................................................................................................................... 16
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 29, 30
`
`PPG Indus. v. United States,
`52 F.3d 363 ................................................................................................................................ 29
`
`Safe Air for Everyone v. EPA,
`488 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`Se. Alaska Conserv. Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
`486 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2007) ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`Sec’y of Labor v. Seward Ship’s Drydock, Inc.,
`937 F.3d 1301 (9th Cir. 2019) ................................................................................................... 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 7 of 39
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Surface Mining Regulation Litig.,
`627 F.2d 1346 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`United Cook Inlet Drift Ass’n v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv.,
`837 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 17
`
`United States v. Carter,
`421 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................... 16, 21
`
`Weight Watchers Int’l. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n,
`47 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................... 13
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 553(e) .............................................................................................................................. 13
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706 .................................................................................................................................. 14
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) .................................................................................................................. 13, 28
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6501 .......................................................................................................................... 25, 26
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6501(1)-(2) .................................................................................................................. 3, 28
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6503(a) .......................................................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6503(d) ............................................................................................................................. 4
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6504 .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6504(3) ..................................................................................................................... 15, 17
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6506(2) ............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6507 ................................................................................................................................ 17
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1) ................................................................................................................. passim
`
`7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6524 ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Federal Regulations
`
`7 C.F.R. pt. 205 .......................................................................................................................... 22, 24
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.2 ................................................................................................................. 1, 5, 23, 24
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.200 ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203 ................................................................................................................. 5, 20, 21
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 8 of 39
`
`
`
`Federal Regulations (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203(a) ....................................................................................................................... 22
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203(c)(1) ................................................................................................................... 22
`
`7 C.F.R. 205.290(a) .......................................................................................................................... 22
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) .......................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Albert Howard, The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture 35 (Univ. Press of
`Kentucky 2006) (1945) ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`65 Fed. Reg. 13,512, 13,532 (Mar. 13, 2000) .................................................................................... 5
`
`65 Fed. Reg. 80,548, 80,559 (Dec. 21, 2000)..................................................................................... 4
`
`65 Fed. Reg. 80,563, 80,563 (Dec. 21, 2000)................................................................................... 24
`
`Fertility, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/fertility (last visited Sept. 15, 2020) .................................................... 16
`
`Foster, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foster
`(last visited Sept. 15, 2020) ......................................................................................................... 16
`
`Nat’l Organic Program, USDA, NOP 5020, Guidance, Natural Resources and
`Biodiversity Conservation (last revised Aug. 31,
`2018),https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%205020%2
`0Biodiversity%20Guidance%20Rev01%20%28Final%29.pdf ................................................. 24
`
`Must, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/must .......................... 21
`
`S. Hrg. No. 111-1027 (Sept. 15, 2010), available at
`https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/111_1027.pdf ....................................... 19
`
`S. Rep. No. 101-357 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656 ................................................... 2
`
`Soil, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soil (last
`visited Sept. 15, 2020) ................................................................................................................ 16
`
`USDA, Report on Organic Agriculture 9 (1980), available at
`https://pubs.nal.usda.gov/sites/pubs.nal.usda.gov/files/Report%20and%20Re
`commendations%20on%20Organic%20Agriculture_0.pdf ..................................................... 20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 9 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture, Sir Albert Howard, regarded by many
`
`as the “father” of what we know today as organic farming, stated: “[a]ll the great agricultural
`
`systems which have survived have made it their business never to deplete the earth of its fertility
`
`without at the same time beginning the process of restoration.”1 This belief, that agricultural
`
`systems should sustain and enhance the health of the soil, became the core principle of organic
`
`farming, a principle that was embedded into the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7
`
`U.S.C. §§ 6501-6524, which established federal production standards that govern foods certified
`
`and sold as organic throughout this nation.
`
`Recognizing the centrality of soil in organic farming, Congress prescribed in OFPA that all
`
`organic crop producers “shall” contain in their production plan “provisions designed to foster soil
`
`fertility.” 7 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1). USDA’s regulations implementing OFPA (the OFPA Regulations
`
`or Regulations) embody the same principle; they require that organic producers “must” implement
`
`“soil fertility,” “crop nutrient,” and “crop rotation” practices to “maintain or improve” the health
`
`of the farm’s soil. 7 C.F.R. §§ 205.200; 205.203; 205.205. The Regulations also command that
`
`organic operations “must” engage in farming practices to strengthen the natural resources,
`
`ecological balance, and biodiversity of the operation. See id. §§ 205.2; 205.200; 205.203; 205.205.
`
`This case concerns the failure of Defendant United States Department of Agriculture
`
`(USDA or the Agency) to abide by these mandatory production standards of OFPA. USDA
`
`violated OFPA when it issued a letter (the Petition Denial) denying a rulemaking petition (the
`
`Petition) which requested USDA to conduct rulemaking to prohibit organic certification of
`
`hydroponic systems, which are container production systems that grow crops without any soil. In
`
`denying the Petition, USDA unlawfully exempted soil-less hydroponic operations from OFPA’s
`
`soil fertility provisions, even though OFPA plainly requires all organic crop producers to engage in
`
`soil management. USDA also erroneously concluded that hydroponic operations’ generalized
`
`1 Albert Howard, The Soil and Health: A Study of Organic Agriculture 35 (Univ. Press of Kentucky
`2006) (1945).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 10 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`environmental benefits alone qualify them for organic certification, even though the OFPA
`
`Regulations call for all producers to conserve natural resources and biodiversity onsite. As a result
`
`of the Petition Denial, hydroponically produced products are able to obtain organic certification—
`
`and enjoy the price premium that often comes with the Organic label—without having to comply
`
`with OFPA’s required practice standards. In so doing, USDA’s double standard frustrates the
`
`purpose of OFPA to create an uniform organic production program.
`
`Plaintiffs include many of the nation’s oldest certified organic farms, certifiers, and organic
`
`farming and consumer interest assocations. Plaintiffs and their members’ economic, reputational,
`
`and vocational interests are injured by USDA’s refusal to prohibit organic certification of
`
`hydroponic operations.2 Plaintiffs seek summary judgment that USDA’s Petition Denial is
`
`arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law, in violation of OFPA and the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (APA). For the reasons stated below, the Court should grant summary judgment for
`
`Plaintiffs and vacate the Petition Denial.
`
`RELEVANT STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`THE ORGANIC FOODS PRODUCTION ACT.
`
`OFPA created a national organic program (the National Organic Program) to address the
`
`“lack of consistent standards for production” of organic foods. See S. Rep. No. 101-357 (1990),
`
`reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656, 4943; 7 U.S.C. § 6503(a) (establishing the National Organic
`
`Program). Congress proclaimed that “it is time for national standards for organic production so
`
`that farmers know the rules, so that consumers are sure to get what they pay for, and so that
`
`national and international trade in organic foods may prosper.” 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4943; Id.
`
`
`2 Plaintiffs have standing. The individual organic farm and certifier Plaintiffs have suffered
`economic, reputational, and vocational injuries as a result of USDA’s Petition Denial. See
`Chapman Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Durst Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Jacobs Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Muller Decl. ¶¶ 5-11; Underhill
`Decl. ¶¶ 6-9; Cochran Decl. ¶¶ 4-8; Welsch Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Similarly, members of the organizational
`Plaintiffs have experienced injury to their agricultural and consumer interests due to the Petition
`Denial. See Alexander Decl. ¶¶ 7-12; Hanson Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; Gray Decl. ¶¶ 2-6; Lawson Decl., 6-7.
`See Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 342-43 (1977); see also Harvey v.
`Veneman, 396 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2005) (injury to consumer interests from inconsistent orgnaic
`standards sufficient to confer standing under OFPA).
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 11 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(noting that varying standards amongst different organic certification programs has “create[d]
`
`havoc for the industry”); 7 U.S.C. § 6501(1)-(2) (purpose of OFPA include: “establish national
`
`standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced
`
`products” and “assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard”).
`
`OFPA and the National Organic Program it established created the Organic label seen on foods
`
`sold in supermarkets and grocery stores today. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4946 (“This legislation
`
`establishes a USDA ‘organically produced’ label—a USDA seal of approval for organic products.”)
`
`As Congress explained, the Organic label represents a set of production standards that
`
`adhere to the sustainable principles embedded in organic farming. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4946
`
`(“Organic food is food produced using sustainable production methods that rely primarily on
`
`natural materials. The ‘organically produced’ label authorized under this bill therefore pertains to
`
`the production methods used to produce the food rather than to the content of the food.”) (emphasis
`
`added). Congress outlined in OFPA three baseline production standards that foods must satisfy to
`
`be labeled and sold as organic. See 7 U.S.C. § 6504. These standards require that an organically
`
`produced agricultural product be produced: (1) “without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as
`
`otherwise provided [by the Act]”; (2) on land where synthetic chemicals have not been applied in
`
`the previous three years; and (3) in compliance with an organic production plan.” Id. § 6504
`
`(1)-(3). Congress emphasized that the last of the three standards, the requirement that an organic
`
`producer complies with the terms of an organic production plan, “is a key element” necessary to
`
`“ensure that the ‘organically produced’ label indeed signifies that the product has been produced
`
`in accordance with the requirements of this title.” 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4946; id. (“But defining
`
`organically grown food based on production materials and a three-year transition period alone is
`
`not sufficient. Organically grown food is produced using farming and handling systems that
`
`include site-specific farm plans.”) Accordingly, OFPA requires each organic producer to develop
`
`and follow an “organic plan” for organic agricultural production. 7 U.S.C. § 6506(2); id. § 6513(a).
`
`Congress recognized from OFPA’s inception that the essence of organic crop production is
`
`active soil management to build soil fertility. Congress stated that “[a] crop production farm plan
`
`must detail the procedures that the farmer will follow in order to foster soil fertility [and] provide
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 12 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for crop rotations . . . .” 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4946; id. (explaining that organic crop production
`
`standards “reflect[] the extent of knowledge and consensus on appropriate organic crop production
`
`methods and materials.”). Congress made fostering soil fertility a necessary condition for organic
`
`crop production, listing it as the first requirement of any organic crop production plan. See 7
`
`U.S.C. § 6513 (b)(1) (“Soil Fertility. – An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster
`
`soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper
`
`tillage, crop rotation and manuring.”).
`
`
`
`OFPA’s production standards were written with input from the organic farming
`
`community, and based on preexisting standards from state organic programs. Administrative
`
`Record (AR) at 452 (“The writing of [OFPA] was a grassroots effort.”); 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4945
`
`(OFPA “reflected the advice” of the “organic industry, as well as consumer and environmental
`
`advocacy organizations.”). OFPA tasked USDA with promulgating regulations for the National
`
`Organic Program, and to implement the Program through state and private certifiers charged with
`
`ensuring that organic producers adhered to its production standards. See 7 U.S.C. § 6503(a), (d);
`
`id. § 6514(a). The structure of bill thus reflects congressional recognition of the National Organic
`
`Program as a “partnership between [the] government and private organizations in standard setting
`
`and certification.” 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4945. A critical example of this partnership is OFPA’s
`
`National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a fifteen-member board composed of representatives
`
`from the organic community. Id. § 6518(b). OFPA tasked the NOSB with “assist[ing] in the
`
`development of standards for substances to be used in organic production” and “advis[ing] [the
`
`USDA] on any other aspects of the implementation of [OFPA].” id. § 6518(a). USDA is required
`
`to consult with the NOSB in developing standards for the Natioal Organic Program. Id. § 6503(c).
`II.
`
`THE NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM REGULATIONS.
`
`USDA recognized the importance of soil fertility and working with natural resources in its
`
`OFPA Regulations. In the Federal Register notice3 announcing the final Regulations, USDA
`
`stated that “[a] producer of an organic crop must manage soil fertility, including tillage and
`
`cultivation practices, in a manner that maintains or improves the physical, chemical, and biological
`
`
`3 65 Fed. Reg. 80,548, 80,559 (Dec. 21, 2000).
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:20-CV-1537-RS
`PLS.’ MOT. SUMM. J.
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-01537-RS Document 22 Filed 09/16/20 Page 13 of 39
`
`
`
`
`
`
`condition of the soil and minimizes soil erosion.” USDA explained that a crop producer “is
`
`required to implement a crop rotation” to address the needs of its farm operation to “maintain or
`
`improve soil organic matter content,” “manage deficient or excess plant nutrients,” and “control
`
`erosion.” Id. at 80,560. USDA repeated this emphasis on active soil management and crop
`
`rotation throughout the rulemaking process. See 65 Fed. Reg. 13,512, 13,532 (Mar. 13, 2000)
`
`(proposing regulations).4
`
`The Regulations also emulate the importance of self-sustainability in organic food
`
`production systems. The Regulations define “organic production” as “[a] production system that is
`
`managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific
`
`conditions by integrating cultural, biolog