`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 41
`
`
`GEORGE A. KIMBRELL (Pro Hac Vice)
`AMY VAN SAUN (Pro Hac Vice)
`MEREDITH STEVENSON (CA Bar No. 328712)
`Center for Food Safety
`2009 NE Alberta St., Suite 207
`Portland, Oregon 97211
`T: (971) 271-7372
`Emails: gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`avansaun@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`mstevenson@centerforfoodsafety.org
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE 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.
`
`
`TOM VILSACK, 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. 20-5151-JD
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND
`MEMORANDUM FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT
`
`Date: April 21, 2022
`Time: 10 a.m.
`Courtroom: 11, 19th Floor
`Hon. James Donato
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 41
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 21, 2022, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
`
`heard, Plaintiffs 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, will move this Court for summary judgment on all issues raised in their October 2,
`
`2020 Amended Complaint, Dkt. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 41
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1
`RELEVANT STATUTORY BACKGROUND ............................................................................... 2
`THE NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE ACT. ................... 2
`I.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND .................................................................... 5
`THE PUBLIC’S CALL FOR GE FOOD LABELING. ........................................... 5
`I.
`USDA’S FINAL RULE. .......................................................................................... 8
`II.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 11
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 12
`I.
`THE DISCLOSURE STANDARD RESTRICTS ACCESS TO GE FOOD
`DISCLOSURES IN VIOLATION OF THE DISCLOSURE ACT AND THE
`ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT. .......................................................... 12
`A.
`The Rule’s QR Code Disclosure Option Violates the Plain Language
`of the Disclosure Act and Is Arbitrary and Capricious. ............................. 13
`USDA’s Prohibition of Terms Other Than “Bioengineering” Ignores
`Disclosure Act Commands. ....................................................................... 15
`The Rule’s Exemption for Highly Refined Foods Is Contrary to the
`Disclosure Act Because the Act Requires Disclosure of “Any
`Bioengineered Food.” ................................................................................ 19
`THE DISCLOSURE ACT AND DISCLOSURE STANDARD ARE
`CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM. ....................................................................... 23
`A.
`Under the First Amendment, USDA May Not Prohibit Plaintiffs’
`Truthful, Non-Misleading Commercial Speech. ........................................ 23
`1.
`The Disclosure Standard Restricts Commercial Speech and Is
`Subject to Review Under Central Hudson. ...................................... 24
`The Disclosure Standard Fails Central Hudson Scrutiny. ................ 25
`The Disclosure Standard Is Unconstitutionally Vague. ................. 27
`3.
`The GE Seed Labeling Prohibition Violates the Tenth Amendment. ....... 28
`THIS COURT SHOULD VACATE THE DISCLOSURE STANDARD
`AND SEVER AND DECLARE INVALID THE ACT’S
`UNCONSITUTIONAL PROVISIONS. ............................................................... 29
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 30
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`II.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`III.
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 41
`
`
`
`Federal Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`All. for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.,
`433 U.S. 350 (1977) ...................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Bond v. U.S.,
`564 U.S. 211 (2011) ...................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. U.S. EPA,
`688 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................................................... 30
`
`Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman,
`328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y.,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) ................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Ctr. for Env’t Health v. Vilsack,
`No. 15-cv-01690-JSC, 2016 WL 3383954 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2016) ........................................ 30
`
`Culinary Workers Union, Local 226 v. Del Papa,
`200 F.3d 614 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................... 23
`
`F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ...................................................................................................................... 17
`
`Grayned v. City of Rockford,
`408 U.S. 104 (1972) ...................................................................................................................... 27
`
`Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell,
`102 F. Supp. 3d 583 ...................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project,
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) .......................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Humane Soc’y of U.S. v. Locke,
`626 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 29
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 41
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) ...................................................................................................................... 13
`
`Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez,
`531 U.S. 533 (2001) ...................................................................................................................... 30
`
`LSO, Ltd. v. Stroh,
`205 F.3d1146 (9th Circ. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 23
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ........................................................................................................... 12, 14, 19
`
`Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n,
`138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018)..................................................................................................... 28, 29, 30
`
`New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,
`285 U.S. 262 (1932) ........................................................................................................................ 7
`
`New York v. U.S.,
`505 U.S. 144 (1992) ...................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Organized Vill. of Kake v. USDA,
`795 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 17, 18
`
`Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps,
`475 U.S. 767 (1986) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Pollinator Stewardship Council v. U.S. EPA,
`806 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 30
`
`Printz v. U.S.,
`521 U.S. 898 (1997) ...................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Retail Digit. Network, LLC, v. Appelsmith,
`810 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................... 26
`
`Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co.,
`514 U.S. 476 (1995) ...................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Thunder Studios, Inc. v. Kazal,
`13 F.4th 736 (9th Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................................ 23
`
`U.S. v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc.,
`529 U.S. 803 (2000) ...................................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 41
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,
`425 U.S. 748 (1976) ...................................................................................................................... 23
`
`Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Sup. Ct. of Ohio,
`471 U.S. 626 (1985) ...................................................................................................................... 26
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2) .......................................................................................................................... 12, 29
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B) ........................................................................................................................... 30
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639(1) ............................................................................................................... 4, 9, 16, 25
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639(1)(A) .............................................................................................................. 3, 19, 20
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639a(c)(2) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(a)(2) .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(1) .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(A) .................................................................................................. 3, 19, 25, 30
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(C) ....................................................................................................... 3, 19, 20
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(b)(2)(D) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(c)(4) ............................................................................................................. 4, 13, 14
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639b(d)(4) ........................................................................................................................ 14
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639c(c) ............................................................................................................................. 16
`
`7 U.S.C. § 1639i(b) ....................................................................................................................... passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6524 ................................................................................................................................... 16
`
`21 U.S.C. § 331(a)............................................................................................................................... 25
`
`Federal Meat Inspection Act ................................................................................................................. 4
`
`Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ....................................................................................................... 4, 25
`
`Plain Writing Act of 2010 ................................................................................................................... 16
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 41
`
`
`
`Federal Statutes (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Plant Protection Act ............................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Poultry Products Inspection Act ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`State Statutes
`
`Va. Code Ann. Title 3.2, § 4008 .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`Vt. Stat. Ann. Title 6, § 611 (2015) ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Vt. Stat. Ann. Title 6, § 644 ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`Wash. Admin. Code § 16-302-170 (2010) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ............................................................................................................................ 11
`
`Regulations
`
`7 C.F.R. pt. 340 ................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.1 ....................................................................................................................... 10, 11, 24
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.3(a)(2) ............................................................................................................................ 10
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.5(d) ................................................................................................................................ 25
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.9(a)(3) ............................................................................................................................ 10
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.100(b)............................................................................................................................ 16
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.102 ............................................................................................................... 9, 16, 24, 27
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.106 .................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.108 .................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.116 .......................................................................................................................... 11, 24
`
`7 C.F.R. § 66.118 .......................................................................................................................... 11, 27
`
`Constitutional Provisions
`
`First Amendment .......................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Tenth Amendment ................................................................................................................. 28, 29, 30
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 41
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 19,860, 19,875 (May 4, 2018) ......................................................................................... 8
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 19,862-63 ..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 19,871 .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`83 Fed. Reg. 65,814 (Dec. 21, 2018) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,816 ........................................................................................................................ 19
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,817 ........................................................................................................................ 10
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,827 .................................................................................................................. 10, 24
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,828 .................................................................................................................... 9, 14
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,829 .......................................................................................................................... 9
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,830 ........................................................................................................................ 10
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,834. .................................................................................................... 20, 21, 22, 23
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,836 .................................................................................................................. 10, 20
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,851 .................................................................................................................. 26, 27
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,852 ............................................................................................................. 9, 17, 18
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,856 ........................................................................................................................ 14
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,858 ............................................................................................................. 2, 11, 27
`
`83 Fed. Reg. at 65,870-71 ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`85 Fed. Reg. 40,867 (July 8, 2020) ..................................................................................................... 21
`
`162 Cong. Rec. S4782 .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`162 Cong. Rec. S4783 (daily ed. July 6, 2016) ........................................................................ 3, 20, 26
`
`162 Cong. Rec. S4906 (daily ed. July 7, 2016) ........................................................................ 3, 21, 26
`
`162 Cong. Rec. S4994 (daily ed. July 12, 2016) ...................................................................... 3, 20, 26
`
`A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 174 (2012)................. 13, 16, 19
`
`Executive Order 13563 ....................................................................................................................... 17
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 41
`
`
`
`Other Authorities (Cont’d)
`
`Page(s)
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 114-208, pt. 1 (2015) .............................................................................................. 2, 26
`
`USDA, Frequently Asked Questions: Guidance to Ensure Acceptable Validation of a Refining Process (July
`2, 2020),
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NBFDS_FAQrefiningPro
`cessVal ........................................................................................................................................... 21
`
`
`
`USDA, National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Draft Instructions on
`Testing Methods
`https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NBFDSTestingMethodol
`ogy.pdf ........................................................................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 41
`
`
`
`
`
`AMS
`
`APA
`
`FDA
`
`
`
`
`
`FDCA
`
`FMIA
`
`FSIS
`
`GE
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
`
`Agricultural Marketing Service
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`Food & Drug Administration
`
`Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
`
`Federal Meat Inspection Act
`
`Food Safety and Inspection Service
`
`Genetically Engineered
`
`10
`
`GMO
`
`Genetically Modified Organism
`
`11
`
`PCR
`
`12
`
`PPIA
`
`
`
`
`
`Polymerase Chain Reaction
`
`Poultry Products Inspection Act
`
`13
`
`QR Code
`
`Quick-Response Code
`
`14
`
`USDA
`
`United States Department of Agriculture
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 41
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
` This case is about the public’s right to know what they eat and feed their families, and
`
`about retailers’ rights to provide them that information in a meaningful way. For more than three
`
`decades, advocates, including Plaintiffs, fought for the right to know whether the foods on grocery
`
`market shelves were produced with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. These advocates only
`
`sought the same transparency already required by sixty-four other countries around the world,
`
`including all of the U.S.’s major trading partners. After several states passed GE food labeling laws,
`
`Congress finally enacted the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Act (Disclosure Act or Act)
`
`in 2016, creating a national standard. Defendant United States Department of Agriculture (USDA
`
`or Agency), charged with implementing the Act, issued the final regulations setting out the
`
`National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Disclosure Standard) in December 2018, with
`
`an effective date of next year.1
`
`Unfortunately, USDA’s Disclosure Standard falls far short of fulfilling the promise of
`
`meaningful GE food labeling. Instead, the Disclosure Standard excludes most GE foods from
`
`mandatory disclosure, limits the applicable labeling terminology to the obscure “bioengineered,”
`
`and allows disclosure in a form never before approved in a federal label—electronic Quick
`
`Response (QR) codes—that the Agency itself determined would conceal the disclosures from many
`
`Americans. If that were not enough, the Disclosure Standard forbids retailers from doing better
`
`than the feeble standard USDA set, restricting their constitutional rights to speak clearly and
`
`plainly to their own customers about GE foods using familiar means and terms.
`
`The Disclosure Standard’s lack of transparency not only erases the past efforts of states but
`
`also prevents any future efforts. The Act preempts state laws “directly or indirectly … relating to”
`
`whether a food or seed is bioengineered, replacing them with the rules set by the Act and
`
`Disclosure Standard. 7 U.S.C. § 1639i(b). Since the Disclosure Act contains no GE seed labeling
`
`standards, the Act simply eliminates them. And for GE food labeling, it replaces transparent, on-
`
`
`1 Specifically, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), a subset of USDA, issued the Disclosure
`Standard. Plaintiffs will use USDA or Defendants for clarity throughout.
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`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 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`package labeling of all GE foods with a disclosure standard suffering from so many flaws and
`
`loopholes, it is rendered meaningless.
`
`The Disclosure Standard violates the Disclosure Act, the Administrative Procedure Act
`
`(APA), and the Constitution in multiple respects. First, the Disclosure Standard is contrary to the
`
`text, purpose, structure, and history of the Disclosure Act, rendering it arbitrary and capricious
`
`under the APA. Second, the Disclosure Standard violates regulated entities’ First Amendment
`
`rights to provide disclosure to consumers. Third, the Disclosure Act commandeers regulatory
`
`powers reserved to States through overbroadly prohibiting state laws related to GE seed labeling
`
`without providing any corresponding federal GE seed labeling standards whatsoever. And fourth,
`
`the Disclosure Standard and Act are contrary to the Fifth Amendment because their vague and
`
`contradictory language fails to provide notice to regulated entities and states as to what remains
`
`permissible, allowing for arbitrary enforcement. Plaintiffs ask this Court to grant summary
`
`judgment in their favor, declare the Disclosure Standard invalid, and vacate and remand the rule.
`
`Plaintiffs also ask this Court to sever constitutionally infirm provisions of the Disclosure Act and
`
`15
`
`declare them invalid.
`
`16
`
`RELEVANT STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`17
`
`I.
`
`THE NATIONAL BIOENGINEERED FOOD DISCLOSURE ACT.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Disclosure Act is the first federal law to establish a nationwide system requiring
`
`disclosure of GE foods. The Act’s purpose is to avoid “misinformation and confusion for
`
`consumers,” H.R. Rep. No. 114-208, pt.1, at 11 (2015), by setting a nationwide “bioengineered,”
`
`or GE, food disclosure standard. This mandatory disclosure standard preserves the public’s right to
`
`know what is in their food and how it is produced. Id. at 61 (“Consumers have the right to know
`
`what is in their food and how it is grown.”); see also AR2593312 (USDA stating the Act’s purpose
`
`is consumers’ right to know).
`
`
`2 USDA produced the original Administrative Record with Bates numbering 00000001 to
`00445056. See ECF No. 44. USDA produced additional documents on August 13, 2021, following
`Plaintiffs’ request, numbered 00445085-108. Citations to those documents are preceded by “AR”
`
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 41
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`To achieve this purpose of a mandatory labeling standard, Congress directed USDA to
`
`“establish such requirements and procedures as the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the
`
`standard.” 7 U.S.C. § 1639b(a)(2). Once these broad standards for “any bioengineered food and
`
`any food that may be bioengineered,” Id. § 1639b(a)(1), are established, a food may “bear a
`
`disclosure that the food is bioengineered only in accordance” with the Act’s implementing
`
`regulations. Id. § 1639b(b)(1) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`In passing the Disclosure Act, Congress sought to create a uniform national law, 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1639b(a)(1), “consistent with United States obligations under international agreements.” Id. §
`
`1639c(a). Congress intended for the Disclosure Act to cover at least as broad of a scope as the
`
`existing state labeling laws, 162 Cong. Rec. S4906 (daily ed. July 7, 2016), including specifically for
`
`it to cover highly refined foods. 162 Cong. Rec. S4783 (daily ed. July 6, 2016); see also 162 Cong.
`
`Rec. S4994 (daily ed. July 12, 2016). Congress worried that some state laws would only label some
`
`GE products, not others, resulting in a misleading labeling standard. 162 Cong. Rec. S4782
`
`(explaining inconsistencies in state labeling laws). To ensure a broad scope of disclosure, Congress
`
`broadly defined “bioengineering” as “a food … that contains genetic material that has been
`
`modified through in vitro recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) techniques.” 7 U.S.C.
`
`17
`
`§ 1639(1)(A).
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`The Act further ensures this broad scope by also requiring that USDA establish a process
`
`for “other factors and conditions under which a food is considered a bioengineered food.” Id.
`
`§ 1639b(b)(2)(C). In contrast the Act only limits the disclosure scope in several express ways:
`
`exempting “food served in a restaurant or similar retail establishment” from mandatory disclosure,
`
`id. § 1639b(b)(2)(G)(i); with regards to meat products, prohibiting a food to be “considered a
`
`bioengineered food solely because the animal consumed feed from” a bioengineered source, id. §
`
`
`followed by the corresponding number. The parties will file a Joint Appendix within two weeks
`following the completion of briefing.
`
`CASE NO. 20-5151-JD
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 3:20-cv-05151-JD Document 54 Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 41
`
`
`
`1639b(b)(2)(A), that is, meat from livestock fed GE grains; as well as prohibiting disclosures for
`
`meat from some future GE animals themselves.3 Id. § 1639a(c).
`
`The Act provides three potential disclosure forms: text, symbol, or electronic link. 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1639b(b)(2)(D). But Congress recognized that the unprecedented and controversial electronic
`
`“QR” code labeling might not work, so Congress required further research on its efficacy and
`
`impacts on consumers and retailers, to analyze, among other things, the “potential technological
`
`challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering disclosure
`
`through electronic or digital disclosure methods.” Id. § 1639b(c)(1). And if USDA determined in
`
`the study that “consumers, while shopping, would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering
`
`disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods,” then Congress required that USDA
`
`“shall provide additional and comparable options” for accessing the disclosure. Id. § 1639b(c)(4)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The Disclosure Act uses th