Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`BRIDGET S. MCCABE, SBN 272545
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
`Telephone:
`310.820.8800
`Facsimile:
`310.820.8859
`Email:
`bmccabe@bakerlaw.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors
`UNITED STATES BEET SUGAR
`ASSOCIATION and AMERICAN
`SUGARBEET GROWERS ASSOCIATION
`
`EMILY T. KUWAHARA, SBN 252411
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2201
`Telephone:
`213.443.5556
`Facsimile:
`213.622.2690
`Email:
`ekuwahara@crowell.com
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor
`AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`NATURAL GROCERS, CITIZENS FOR
`GMO LABELING, LABEL GMOS, RURAL
`VERMONT, GOOD EARTH NATURAL
`FOODS, PUGET CONSUMERS CO-OP,
`NATIONAL ORGANIC COALITION, AND
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SONNY PERDUE, Secretary of the United
`States Department of Agriculture; BRUCE
`SUMMERS, Administrator of the Agricultural
`Marketing Service; and the UNITED STATES
`DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No.: 3:20-cv-05151-JD
`Hon. James Donato
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS
`UNITED STATES BEET SUGAR
`ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN
`SUGARBEET GROWERS
`ASSOCIATION, AND AMERICAN
`FARM BUREAU FEDERATION TO
`INTERVENE
`
`[Filed Concurrently with Proposed Answer;
`Declaration of John McCreedy; Declaration
`of Daniel Younggren; Declaration of
`Andrew Walmsley; and [Proposed] Order]
`
`Hearing
`Date:
`January 7, 2021
`10:00 a.m.
`Time:
`Courtroom 11
`Place:
`Action Filed: July 27, 2020
`FAC Filed: October 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`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
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 7, 2021, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`
`
`
`
`the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 11 of the above-captioned court, located at San Francisco
`
`Courthouse, 19th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Proposed
`
`Intervenors the United States Beet Sugar Association, the American Sugarbeet Growers
`
`Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation (collectively, the proposed “Agricultural
`
`Intervenors”) will, and hereby do, move this Court pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure for an order permitting them to intervene as defendants in this action.
`
`
`
`The Agricultural Intervenors move to intervene as defendants under Rule 24 to protect
`
`their interests in the 2019 United States Department of Agriculture final rule that the Plaintiffs
`
`seek to vacate: the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 65,814 et seq.
`
`(Dec. 21, 2018); 7 C.F.R. § 66 et seq. (2019) (“Final Rule”). Intervention is proper because the
`
`Agricultural Intervenors meet the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a),
`
`given that: (1) the motion is timely; (2) the Agricultural Intervenors have an interest in upholding
`
`the Final Rule; (3) if Plaintiffs obtain the relief they seek, the Agricultural Intervenors’ ability to
`
`protect that interest would be impaired; and (4) the current parties to the litigation do not
`
`represent the interests of the Agricultural Intervenors. Alternatively, the Agricultural Intervenors
`
`meet the standard for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) because they have defenses
`
`predicated on questions of fact and law common to the main action.
`
`This Motion is based on this Notice and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and
`
`Authorities set forth below, the Declarations of John McCreedy, Daniel Younggren, and Andrew
`
`Walmsley, all documents and exhibits referenced therein and concurrently filed and served
`
`herewith, the pleadings and records on file in this action, and all other evidence and argument that
`
`the Court may properly consider prior to issuing a ruling hereon. The defenses of the Agricultural
`
`Intervenors are set forth in the accompanying Proposed Answer of the Agricultural Intervenors,
`
`which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`The Agricultural Intervenors notified Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants of their intent
`
`to intervene in this matter. Counsel for Plaintiffs stated that they will file a response to this
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`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
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`motion, the form and manner of which will be determined after they review this Motion. Federal
`
`Defendants stated as follows: “Defendants oppose the putative Intervenor-Defendants’ motion to
`
`intervene as of right because their desire to defend the federal laws at issue in this case is an
`
`interest that is already represented adequately by the federal government. Defendants take no
`
`position on the motion for permissive intervention, and for that reason, Defendants do not
`
`anticipate filing an opposition to the motion absent direction from the Court to do so.”
`
`
`
`Dated: November 16, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`By:
`
`
`/s/ Bridget S. McCabe
`BRIDGET S. MCCABE
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors
`UNITED STATES BEET SUGAR ASSOCIATION
`and AMERICAN SUGARBEET GROWERS
`ASSOCIATION
`
`
`
`Dated: November 16, 2020
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`
`/s/ Emily T. Kuwahara
`EMILY T. KUWAHARA
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor
`AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
`
`
`L.R. 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION
`
`I, Bridget S. McCabe, attest that the other signatory listed, Emily T. Kuwahara, on whose
`
`behalf the filing is submitted, concurs in the filing’s contents and has authorized the filing.
`
`/s/ Bridget S. McCabe
`BRIDGET S. MCCABE
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`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
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`RELEVANT FACTS .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`THE DISCLOSURE ACT AND AMS’S RULEMAKING.................................... 2
`
`PLAINTIFFS INITIATED THIS ACTION TO INVALIDATE THE RULE........ 5
`
`THE SUGARBEET INDUSTRY ........................................................................... 6
`
`THE FARM BUREAU ......................................................................................... 11
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 12
`
`A.
`
`THE AGRICULTURAL INTERVENORS ARE ENTITLED TO INTERVENE
`AS OF RIGHT ...................................................................................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Agricultural Intervenors’ Motion is Timely ................................... 13
`
`The Agricultural Intervenors Have a Significant Protectable Interest in
`Upholding the Final Rule ....................................................................... 14
`
`The Disposition of this Action May Impair or Impede the Agricultural
`Intervenors’ Ability to Protect Their Interest ......................................... 17
`
`Agricultural Intervenors Are Not Adequately Represented by the
`Existing Parties ...................................................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`THE AGRICULTURAL INTERVENORS MAY INTERVENE
`PERMISSIVELY .................................................................................................. 23
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`19
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Allied Concrete & Supply Co. v. Baker,
`904 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................... 19, 21, 22
`
`Am. Horse Prot. Ass’n v. Veneman,
`200 F.R.D. 153 (D.D.C. 2001) .......................................................................................... 18, 19
`
`California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States,
`450 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Californians For Safe & Competitive Dump Truck Transp. v. Mendonca,
`152 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Citizens for Balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass'n,
`647 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 13, 14, 16, 17
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife,
`No. C 11-05108 JSW, 2012 WL 13049186 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2012) ..................... 19, 20, 21
`
`Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service,
`66 F.3d 1493, 1499 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................ 21
`
`Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Geithner,
`644 F.3d 836 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Friends of Del Norte v. California Dep't of Transportation,
`No. 3:18-CV-00129-JD,
`2020 WL 4349811 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2020) ................................................. 12, 13, 14, 16, 22
`
`Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton,
`322 F.3d 728, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................................ 19
`
`Idaho Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Babbitt,
`58 F.3d 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) ................................................................................................... 13
`
`Natural Resource Defense Council v. EPA,
`99 F.R.D. 607, 609 (D.D.C. 1983) ......................................................................................... 21
`
`Nw. Forest Res. Council v. Glickman,
`82 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................... 14, 22, 23
`
`Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. Watt,
`713 F.2d 525, 528 (9th Cir. 1983) .......................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg,
`268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................... 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
`
`Town of Chester, N.Y. v. Laroe Estates, Inc.,
`137 S. Ct. 1645 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 16
`
`Trbovich v. United Mine
`Workers, 404 U.S. 528 n. 10 (1972) ................................................................................. 18, 19
`
`United States v. City of Los Angeles, Cal,
`288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 23
`
`Vivid Entm’t, LLC v. Fielding,
`774 F.3d 566 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 16
`
`Wilderness Soc'y v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) ................................................................................. 12
`
`11
`
`Statutes
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(a)(1) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ...................................................................................................................... 1, 17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) .................................................................................................................. 2, 12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b) ........................................................................................................... 2, 20, 24
`
`Local Rule 7-4(a)(3) ........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.1 ...................................................................................................................... 1, 4, 15
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.102 ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.104 ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.106 ............................................................................................................................ 5
`
`21 C.F.R. § 184.1854 ...................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Agricultural Marketing Service, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
`Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 19,860 (May 4, 2018) .................................................................... 3, 16
`
`Agricultural Marketing Service, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure
`Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 65,814 et seq. (Dec. 21, 2018) ............................................... 1, 4, 5, 15
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Report to the President of the United States from the
`Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity (Oct. 2017), available at
`https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/rural-prosperity-report.pd .................... 11
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`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
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Beet Sugar
`
`Association (“Beet Sugar Association”), the American Sugarbeet Growers Association (“ASGA”)
`
`(together, the proposed “Sugarbeet Intervenors”), and the American Farm Bureau Federation
`
`(“Farm Bureau”) (collectively, the proposed “Agricultural Intervenors”) move to intervene as
`
`defendants in the above-captioned matter to protect their interest in the 2019 United States
`
`Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) final rule that the Plaintiffs seek to vacate: the National
`
`Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (“Final Rule”), 83 Fed. Reg. 65,814 et seq. (Dec. 21,
`
`2018); 7 C.F.R. § 66 et seq. (2019). Through the 2016 Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act (“the
`
`Act”), Congress instructed USDA to promulgate a rule that sets out disclosure requirements to
`
`indicate whether a food product contains genetic plant material that has been modified through in
`
`vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques.
`
`Among other things, and on the basis of both its interpretation of the Act and a
`
`comprehensive record of scientific and technical studies, USDA determined in the Final Rule that
`
`certain refined foods are not required to carry a bioengineered (“BE”) food disclosure when there
`
`is no detectable modified genetic material in the end food product even if certain crops used in the
`
`refining process were themselves bioengineered. Plaintiffs now want to strike this and other
`
`aspects of the Final Rule.
`
`The Agricultural Intervenors have a major stake in the matter. For their part, the
`
`Sugarbeet Intervenors grow sugarbeets, a crop they process into refined sugar and which is sold
`
`for use either in foods and beverages or as refined table sugar. All the sugarbeet crop grown in
`
`the U.S. is bioengineered. Nevertheless, the refined sugar contains no trace of the bioengineered
`
`genetic material—it is identical on a molecular level to refined sugar produced from conventional
`
`sugarbeets and conventional or organic sugar cane. In 2018, the Sugarbeet Intervenors
`
`participated vigorously in USDA’s rulemaking process and submitted lengthy comments,
`
`requesting USDA not to mandate that refined sugar be labeled as a BE food because it contains
`
`no bioengineered genetic material. Not requiring a BE disclosure on refined sugar is both
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`consistent with the 2016 Act and important economically to the sugarbeet industry, inasmuch as
`
`surveys and empirical evidence show that a BE label carries a stigma with consumers that would
`
`materially diminish the economic viability of the market for beet sugar.
`
`The Farm Bureau also has a significant interest in the outcome of this case. The Farm
`
`Bureau is comprised of over 6 million member families who, similar to the Sugarbeet Intervenors,
`
`grow bioengineered crops. Those crops are then made into refined products which do not contain
`
`bioengineered genetic material. The Farm Bureau participated in the USDA’s rulemaking process
`
`and submitted lengthy comments encouraging USDA to adopt a definition of “BE Food” that
`
`excludes refined food products from the USDA’s disclosure requirements. The USDA concluded
`
`based on a voluminous administrative record that “BE Food” should not be defined to include
`
`refined products if they do not contain detectable modified genetic material.
`
`Now, over a year and a half later, Plaintiffs ask this Court to vacate the Final Rule. If
`
`Plaintiffs succeed, the Agricultural Intervenors will suffer financial harm in the form of decreased
`
`demand and prices for their products, a reversal of numerous environmental benefits, and other
`
`harms. Accordingly, they have a right to join the litigation as Intervenor-Defendants.
`
`16
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7-4(a)(3), Agricultural Intervenors submit the following statement
`
`of issues to be decided with their Motion:
`
`1.
`
`Whether pursuant to Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Agricultural Intervenors are entitled to intervene (as of right) as defendants in the above-
`
`captioned matter to protect their interests in the Final Rule.
`
`2.
`
`In the alternative, whether pursuant to Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Agricultural Intervenors are entitled to intervene (permissively) as defendants in
`
`the above-captioned matter to protect their interests in the Final Rule.
`
`25
`
`III. RELEVANT FACTS
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`A.
`
`The Disclosure Act and AMS’s Rulemaking
`
`Congress passed the Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act in 2016 to “establish a national
`
`mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard with respect to any bioengineered food and
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`any food that may be bioengineered” within two years after the Act was in place. 7 U.S.C. §
`
`1639b(a)(1).
`
`USDA issued a proposed rule soliciting comments on May 4, 2018, to require certain
`
`regulated entities to publicly disclose whether foods were bioengineered. See Agricultural
`
`Marketing Service, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard, 83 Fed. Reg. 19,860 (May
`
`4, 2018) (“Proposed Rule”). On July 3, 2018, the Sugarbeet Intervenors and their respective
`
`members submitted comments in response to the Proposed Rule (“Beet Industry Comments”).
`
`See Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of John McCreedy (“McCreedy Decl.”). The Beet Industry
`
`Comments advocated for USDA (1) to exclude highly refined ingredients, and in particular
`
`refined sugar, from the scope of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard; (2) to
`
`reject a voluntary labeling program that would be misleading to the consumer because it fails to
`
`explain that while a product may be derived from a bioengineered crop, the food itself is not
`
`bioengineered; and (3) to adopt a rule that allows intentional use of bioengineered ingredients up
`
`to 5 percent of the weight of the finished product. Id. In 34 pages, the Beet Industry Comments
`
`detailed in considerable detail the industry’s position on the how the Final Rule should account
`
`for refined sugar processed from bioengineered sugarbeets. Id. The Comments supported that
`
`position with citations to studies, reports, lab analyses and other scientific sources. Id.
`
`The Farm Bureau submitted comments of its own on the Proposed Rule on July 2, 2018.
`
`See Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrew Walmsley (“Walmsley Decl.”). Among other things,
`
`the Farm Bureau advocated for the USDA to adopt a definition of “Bioengineered Food” that
`
`does not include refined ingredients, such as refined sugar, and to thereby exclude refined food
`
`products from the USDA’s labeling requirements. The Farm Bureau explained—and remains
`
`concerned—that an overly broad definition of “Bioengineered Food” that includes refined
`
`ingredients would not only exceed the authority Congress granted USDA in the Bioengineered
`
`Food Disclosure Act to define “Bioengineered Food” but would in fact be economically
`
`detrimental to farmers in the United States. Walmsley Decl. ¶¶ 11-14. This is because the BE
`
`label has a demonstrated stigmatizing effect on foods derived from bioengineering and has
`
`prejudiced consumers against those foods, which leads to fewer sales and lower prices of BE food
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`and, in turn, diminished demand by the food manufacturers and sellers for bioengineered crops.
`
`Id. ¶ 11.
`
`The Farm Bureau’s comments also objected to USDA’s proposed list of Bioengineered
`
`Foods on the grounds that it would create a presumption that foods derived from certain crops
`
`contain genetic material that have been modified. And for foods that would be subject to the BE
`
`disclosure requirement, the Farm Bureau urged the USDA to allow, by rule, the responsible
`
`manufacturer or seller to convey important information about any bioengineered food or food
`
`ingredient by way of a quick response (QR) code or electronic means, instead of necessarily
`
`placing a label or symbol directly on the package. Id. In this way, the regulated entity could
`
`convey more complete context for the food or ingredient to more completely educate the
`
`consumer and help mitigate the stigmatization that comes from a more limited label or symbol on
`
`12
`
`the package.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`On December 21, 2018, USDA issued its final rule, which adopted much of what the
`
`Agricultural Intervenors advocated for. The rule provides, in pertinent part, that refined products,
`
`including sugar derived from bioengineered sugarbeets, need not comply with the disclosure
`
`requirement when there is no trace of modified genetic material in the refined products. The rule
`
`states, inter alia, that: “For refined foods that are derived from bioengineered crops, no disclosure
`
`is required if the food does not contain detectable modified genetic material.” Final Rule, 83 Fed.
`
`Reg. at 65,816. Under the Act, “Bioengineered Food” means “food that contains genetic material
`
`that has been modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) techniques.”
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.1 (2019). Responding to comments, USDA concluded in the Final Rule that “based
`
`on the available scientific evidence, refined beet and cane sugar, high fructose corn syrup…and
`
`various other refined ingredients are unlikely to require BE[, i.e., bioengineered] food disclosure
`
`because the conditions of processing serve effectively to degrade or eliminate the DNA that was
`
`initially present in the raw agricultural commodity.” 83 Fed. Reg. at 65,834.
`
`The Final Rule also allows for several options to disclose to the consumer the BE
`
`information required by the national standard, not all of which require an on-label disclosure.
`
`While the Final Rule permits an on-label text disclosure or the use of a BE symbol adopted by the
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`agency, see 7 C.F.R. §§ 66.102, 66.104 (2019), it also allows the regulated entities to make the
`
`disclosure through other means, such as a QR code or digital watermark technology that allows
`
`the user to scan the code (with a smart phone) and call up the information, provided the product
`
`label includes the statement: “Scan here for more food information” or equivalent language. 83
`
`Fed. Reg. at 65,827-28; 7 C.F.R. § 66.106 (2019). To address concerns that information provided
`
`by means of a QR code or other technology would be inaccessible to certain consumers, the Final
`
`Rule required regulated entities to include a telephone number on a product’s label which a
`
`consumer can call to access additional information about the product’s attributes. Id. at 65,824; 7
`
`C.F.R. § 66.106(a)(2).
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs Initiated this Action to Invalidate the Rule
`
`Over a year and a half after the Final Rule took effect, Plaintiffs sued to invalidate it.
`
`Plaintiffs are a group of organizations that, among other things, advocate for labeling food with a
`
`bioengineered label. Plaintiffs are Center for Food Safety, Natural Grocers, Citizens for GMO
`
`Labeling, Label GMOs, Rural Vermont, Good Earth Natural Foods, National Organic Coalition
`
`and Puget Consumers Co-op (“Plaintiffs”). See First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 15-34. On
`
`July 27, 2020, Plaintiffs lodged this lawsuit against the USDA, Sonny Purdue, Bruce Summers,
`
`Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service (collectively, “Federal Defendants”), asking
`
`the Court to invalidate the Final Rule. ECF No. 1.
`
`Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on October 2, 2020, ECF No. 19, asserting
`
`six causes of action against Federal Defendants (three violations of the Administrative Procedures
`
`Act and three violations of the U.S. Constitution): (1) Electronic and Digital Disclosures
`
`(Violation of the Disclosure Act and the APA) (FAC ¶¶ 132-203); (2) Limitations on Allowed
`
`On-Package Disclosure Language (Violation of Disclosure Act and APA) (FAC ¶¶ 204-269); (3)
`
`Exclusion of “Highly Refined” GE Foods (Violation of the Disclosure Act and APA) (FAC ¶¶
`
`270-315); (4) Prohibition on Speech (Violation of the First Amendment) (FAC, ¶¶ 316-359); (5)
`
`Commandeering (Violation of the Tenth Amendment) (FAC, ¶¶ 360-390); and (6) Void for
`
`Vagueness (In the Alternative Violation of the Fifth Amendment) (FAC, ¶¶ 391-401). Each
`
`cause of action seeks to strike down the Final Rule.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INTERVENORS TO INTERVENE
`
`CASE NO.: 3:20-CV-05151-JD
`
`LOS ANGELES
`
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`
`BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 26 Filed 11/16/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`With respect to the treatment of refined ingredients, including sugar, Plaintiffs aver in the
`
`Final Rule that USDA’s decision to exclude “the vast majority of GE [(genetically engineered)]
`
`foods from any disclosure was contrary to the plain text, the agency’s own prior interpretation of
`
`it, and is arbitrary and capricious under the APA.” FAC ¶ 273. Plaintiffs complain about the
`
`USDA’s decision that if a food does not contain detectable modified genetic material, it is not a
`
`genetically engineered food and does not require disclosure. FAC ¶ 274. Plaintiffs claim that
`
`USDA acted “contrary to law” in looking only to the final end food product to determine whether
`
`any genetically engineered material is present. FAC ¶ 278. Ultimately, Plaintiffs ask that the
`
`Court “adjudge and declare that USDA’s final rule decision to completely exclude all
`
`bioengineered foods that are highly refined from any disclosure is contrary to the Disclosure Act,
`
`not authorized by the Act, and constitutes a violation of the Act and the APA.” FAC at “Relief
`
`Requested,” subpart c.
`
`Federal Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint on this date, November 16,
`
`2020. ECF No. 25. The Court ordered Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants to submit a joint status
`
`report by November 23, 2020 proposing a schedule for further proceedings. ECF No. 22. The
`
`Court has issued one order which granted a stipulation to extend the time to answer Plaintiffs’
`
`First Amended Complaint and vacated initial case-related deadlines, ECF No. 22, but there has
`
`been no scheduling of briefing and no orders on substantive issues issued.
`
`C.
`
`The Sugarbeet Industry
`
`Over half of the sugar produced in the United States is derived from the sugarbeet—a
`
`leafy plant with a root that contains a high concentration of sucrose. Declaration of Daniel
`
`Younggren (“Younggren Decl.”) ¶ 2. Unlike red beets, which are typically eaten whole,
`
`sugarbeets are not themselves consumed; the refined sugar that results from the processing stage
`
`is the only consumable food. Id. Modern sugarbeets date back to the middle of the 18th century,
`
`when European scientists discovered processing methods for extracting sugar from beets. Id.
`
`Sugarbeet processing facilities were first developed in the United States in the late 1800’s with
`
`many factories throughout the country. By 2005 there were 23 highly efficient sugarbeet
`
`processors across the U.S. Id.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION OF PROPOSED INT