throbber
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 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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket