Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 1 of 170
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-15883
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, SWANTON BERRY FARMS, INC., FULL
`BELLY FARM, INC., DURST ORGANIC GROWERS, INC., JACOBS FARM
`DEL CABO, INC., LONG WIND FARM, INC., ONECERT, INC., MAINE
`ORGANIC FARMERS AND GARDERNERS ASSOCIATION,
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS J. VILSACK, et al.,
`
`Defendants-Appellees,
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court, Northern District of California
`Case No. 20-cv-01537 (Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg)
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS’
`OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY
`George A. Kimbrell
`Sylvia Shih-Yau Wu
`Meredith Stevenson
`303 Sacramento Street, 2nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`T: (415) 826-2770
`gkimbrell@centerforfoodsafety.org
`swu@centerforfoodsafety.org
`mstevenson@centerforfoodsafety.org
`Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 2 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, Center for Food
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Safety, Swanton Berry Farms, Inc.; Full Belly Farm, Inc.; Durst Organic Growers,
`
`Inc.; Jacobs Farm Del Cabo, Inc.; Long Wind Farm, Inc.; OneCert, Inc.; and Maine
`
`Organic Farmers and Gardners Association certify that they have no parent
`
`corporations and that no publicly held corporation owns more than ten percent of
`
`the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 3 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................. x
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ........................................................................... 5
`ISSUES PRESENTED ................................................................................................ 5
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................... 6
`
`I. HYDROPONIC SYSTEMS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH
`ORGANIC FARMING PRINCIPLES. ................................................. 6
`
`A. USDA Ignored Growing Concerns Over Inconsistencies
`in Organic Production. .............................................................. 11
`
`B. As Calls for Action from the NOSB, Consumers, Farmers,
`and Certifiers Increased, USDA Took None. ............................ 15
`
`II. APPELLANT CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY SOUGHT
`ACTION ON HYDROPONICS. ........................................................ 17
`
`A. Appellants Submitted a Petition Urging USDA To Follow
`the NOSB’s Recommendations. ................................................ 17
`
`B. USDA Denied the Petition Based on Its Position That
`Hydroponic Crop Producers Are Exempt from OFPA’s
`Crop Producer Soil Requirements. ............................................ 19
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT RULED IN USDA’S FAVOR. ................. 20
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 22
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ...................................................................................... 23
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 26
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 4 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE DISTRICT COURT RUBBERSTAMPED USDA’S
`PETITION DENIAL. .......................................................................... 26
`
`II. OFPA’S PLAIN TEXT AND STATUTORY SCHEME
`UNAMBIGUOUSLY REQUIRE SOIL-BENEFICIAL CROP
`PRODUCTION. ................................................................................. 32
`
`A. OFPA’s Omission of Hydroponic Production Does Not
`Allow the Court to Automatically Proceed to Step Two. ........... 33
`B. OFPA’s Plain Language Supports Reversal. ............................... 36
`
`C. The District Court’s Arguments in Support of USDA’s
`Reasoning Ignore Statutory Context. ........................................ 39
`
`1.
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6512 Does Not Allow USDA to Violate
`the Plain Language of 7 U.S.C. § 6513. .......................... 39
`
`2. OFPA Requires the Same Production Standard for
`All Cultivated Crops, Separate from Wild
`Harvested Crops. ............................................................. 44
`
`D. The District Court Failed to Give Effect to Legislative
`History, USDA’s Interpretation of OFPA, and USDA’s
`Experts’ Opinions in Ascertaining Legislative Intent. ............... 48
`
`1.
`
`Legislative History Supports Appellants’
`Interpretation. ................................................................. 48
`
`2. USDA’s Regulations and Expert Opinions Support
`Appellants. ...................................................................... 50
`
`III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED GIVING “EXTREME
`DEFERENCE” TO USDA’S UNREASONABLE
`INTERPRETATION OF OFPA AND ITS REGULATIONS. ............ 55
`
`A. The District Court Erred in Deferring to USDA’s
`Unreasonable Interpretation of OFPA. ..................................... 55
`
`B.
`
`The District Court Erred in Deferring to USDA’s
`Unreasonable Interpretation of Its Regulations. ....................... 58
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 63
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 5 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`Adams v. U.S. Forest Serv.,
`671 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 31
`
`Aid Ass’n for Lutherans v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
`321 F.3d 1166 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ........................................................................... 34
`
`Altera Crop. & Subsidiaries v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue,
`926 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................. 48
`
`Am. Rivers v. F.E.R.C.,
`201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir.1999) .............................................................................. 24
`
`Amalgamated Sugar Co. LLC v. Vilsack,
`563 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 31
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Comm’r,
`934 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2019) ............................................................................... 58
`
`Bear Lake Watch, Inc. v. F.E.R.C.,
`324 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 24
`
`Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia,
`140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020) ............................................................................. 26, 27, 63
`
`Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Rels. Auth.,
`464 U.S. 89 (1983) ............................................................................................... 25
`
`Chamber of Com. of U.S. v. NLRB,
`721 F.3d 152 (4th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 34
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ........................................................................................ passim
`
`Compassion Over Killing v. FDA,
`849 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2017) ......................................................................... 25, 31
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 6 of 170
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain,
`503 U.S. 249 (1992) ....................................................................................... 27, 37
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Norton,
`254 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................................... 37
`
`Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions,
`137 S. Ct. 1562 (2017) ......................................................................................... 36
`
`F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
`556 U.S. 502 (2009) ............................................................................................. 57
`
`FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) ................................................................................. 24, 28, 35
`
`Fl. Dep’t of Revenue v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc.,
`554 U.S. 33 (2008) ............................................................................................... 45
`
`Gulf Fisherman’s Ass’n v. NMFS,
`968 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2020) ......................................................................... 33, 35
`
`Gundy v. U.S.,
`139 S. Ct. 2116 (2019) ......................................................................................... 46
`
`Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson,
`525 U.S. 432 (1999) ............................................................................................. 24
`
`Kisor v. Wilkie,
`139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019) .................................................................................. passim
`
`La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC,
`476 U.S. 355 (1986) ............................................................................................. 34
`
`Lamie v. U.S. Tr.,
`540 U.S. 526 (2004) ............................................................................................. 27
`
`Latino Issues Forum v. EPA,
`558 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2009) ............................................................................... 31
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 7 of 170
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
`549 U.S. 497 (2007) ........................................................................... 22, 24, 30, 31
`
`Mines v. Sullivan,
`981 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................. 58
`
`Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. EPA,
`666 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 56
`
`Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. FCC,
`309 F.3d 796 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................. 34
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) ............................................................................................... 25
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA,
`779 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 31
`
`Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,
`567 U.S. 519 (2012) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`Nat’l Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Fed. Energy Regul. Comm’n,
`6 F.4th 1044 (9th Cir. 2021) ................................................................................ 25
`
`Oliver v. Keller,
`289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 23
`
`Sierra Club v. EPA,
`311 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 34
`
`Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,
`323 U.S. 134 (1944) ................................................................................. 24, 28, 57
`
`U.S. v. Mead,
`533 U.S. 218 (2001) ............................................................................................. 28
`
`U.S. v. Windsor,
`570 U.S. 744 (2013) ............................................................................................. 26
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 8 of 170
`
`
`
`Federal Cases (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA,
`134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) ......................................................................................... 33
`
`Valeant Pharms. Int’l v. Sebelius,
`2009 WL 10674128 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2009) .................................................. 31
`
`In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig.,
`715 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................... 40
`
`Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, Inc.,
`531 U.S. 457 (2001) ............................................................................................. 34
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702 ............................................................................................................. 5
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) ............................................................................................. 24, 25
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) ............................................................................................ 22, 31
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6501(2) ..................................................................................................... 44
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6502(4) ............................................................................................... 38, 50
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6504 ......................................................................................... 8, 38, 42, 47
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6506(a)(2) ................................................................................................. 38
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6507 ......................................................................................................... 37
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508 .................................................................................................... passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(a) ..................................................................................................... 42
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(b) ..................................................................................................... 56
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(c) ..................................................................................................... 56
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6509(d) ..................................................................................................... 41
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6512 .................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 9 of 170
`
`
`
`Federal Statutes (Cont’d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6513 .................................................................................................... passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(b) ................................................................................................ passim
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(c) ..................................................................................................... 49
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(f).................................................................................... 41, 42, 46, 47
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(a) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(b) ..................................................................................................... 11
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1346 ......................................................................................................... 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) ........................................................................................ 5
`
`Regulations
`
`7 C.F.R. § 200.00 ...................................................................................................... 32
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.2 ........................................................................................................ 46
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.102 .......................................................................................... 9, 52, 59
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.200 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203 ............................................................................................... passim
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.205 .............................................................................. 9, 32, 52, 59, 61
`
`7 C.F.R. § 205.206(b) ................................................................................................ 61
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 10 of 170
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Bryan Endres, An Evolutionary Approach to Agricultural Biotechnology:
`Litigation Challenges to the Regulatory and Common Law Regimes for
`Genetically Engineered Plants, 4 Ne. U.L.J. 59 (2012) ............................................... 6
`
`A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
`167-69 (2012) ................................................................................................... passim
`
`Heather H. Scholar, Federal Farm Policies Hit, Reading Eagle (Oct. 23, 1973),
`https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19731023&id=iQ9
`XAAAAIBAJ&pg=2654,2153427&hl=en; ............................................................ 6
`
`Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
`(Macmillan 1872) .................................................................................................. 42
`
`Melanie J. Wender, Goodbye Family Farms and Hello Agribusiness: The
`Story of How Agricultural Policy Is Destroying the Family Farm and the
`Environment, 22 Vill. Env’t L.J. 141, 148 (2011) .................................................... 7
`
`National Organic Program; Final Rule,
`65 Fed. Reg. 80548 (Dec. 21, 2000) ..................................................................... 12
`
`S. Rep. No. 101-357 (1990) reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656 ........... 8, 9, 48, 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 11 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APA
`
`NOP
`
`NOSB
`
`OFPA
`
`USDA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
`
`Administrative Procedure Act
`
`National Organic Program
`
`National Organic Standards Board
`
`Organic Foods Production Act
`
`United States Department of Agriculture
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 12 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is about dirt, also known as soil. It is about why soil matters in
`
`environmentally beneficial farming. It is about whether consumers get what they pay
`
`for when they spend extra for food products they think are grown in a way that
`
`benefits the soil. And it is about whether farmers who farm with integrity will be
`
`undercut by others growing the exact same fruit or vegetable but who do not have to
`
`play by the same rules.
`
`Legally, this appeal involves a specialized regime (federal organic farming
`
`regulation) but presents familiar administrative law and statutory interpretation
`
`questions: when and how statutes are unambiguous on a particular question; and
`
`when, if, and how agencies should be entitled to any deference.
`
`Specifically, this appeal asks whether the district court erred in deferring to
`
`the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s denial of Appellants’
`
`rulemaking petition requesting prohibition on organic certification of hydroponic
`
`systems. The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA)’s language is plain and
`
`mandatory: organic crop producers “shall . . . foster soil fertility, primarily through
`
`the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop
`
`rotation, and manuring.” 7 U.S.C. § 6513(b). In contrast, hydroponic production
`
`systems operate in indoor warehouses, using prepared mineral nutrient solutions,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 13 of 170
`
`
`
`not soil, ER-268; ER-237, and more generally “without the need for any biology.”
`
`
`
`
`
`ER-240. Thus, as one might imagine, and by Appellee USDA’s own admissions,
`
`hydroponic systems simply cannot “foster soil fertility.” ER-21-69.
`
`Appellant Center for Food Safety filed a rulemaking petition (the Petition) on
`
`this issue in January 2019 following decades of USDA inaction, inaction that had
`
`allowed “organic” hydroponic producers to undersell organic soil-based farmers in
`
`the marketplace. Only soil-based organic tomato farmers were required to take the
`
`extra care, time, and money to produce soil benefits from their operations; indoor,
`
`warehouse-based “organic” tomato farmers who do none of this were nonetheless
`
`still certified. The Petition asked that USDA prohibit hydroponic systems to level
`
`the organic playing field for crop producers and provide the consistency Congress
`
`intended in organic standards.
`
`But in response, USDA denied the Petition in full (the Petition Denial). ER-
`
`129-32. Instead of addressing how hydroponic systems might “foster soil fertility” as
`
`required, USDA created, for the first time, an extra-statutory exemption for
`
`hydroponic production. Under this exemption, USDA claimed OFPA’s mandatory
`
`statutory soil management practices only selectively apply to some organic crop
`
`farmers, namely those “that do use soil,” without citing any statutory basis. ER-38.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 14 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Appellants—including several of the nation’s oldest and most
`
`decorated organic farms, organic certifiers, and organic nonprofits—filed this
`
`challenge to USDA’s Petition Denial in district court. Appellants’ arguments
`
`focused on: OFPA’s plain text and its implementing rules, which unambiguously
`
`mandate soil-based production practices for all organic crop producers; the
`
`overarching statutory scheme and purpose; OFPA’s legislative history; and the
`
`opinions of the congressionally created expert body, all of which supported that
`
`hydroponic systems, whatever their other merit, are simply not organic farming. But
`
`on cross-motions for summary judgment the district court nonetheless agreed with
`
`USDA.
`
`The district court made three errors requiring reversal. First, it improperly
`
`delegated to USDA the court’s first-order duty to interpret OFPA’s mandatory soil
`
`provisions and say what the law is. The Supreme Court’s instruction is well
`
`established (and increasing) that before raising the white flag of deference to an
`
`agency’s interpretation, courts have a duty to exhaust all statutory construction tools.
`
`There was none of that here. After recounting the positions of the parties, the
`
`court’s own application and analysis was basically a little over a paragraph. Indeed,
`
`the district court failed to make the necessary determination that the statute was
`
`ambiguous as applied to the question of hydroponic operations before deferring. It
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 15 of 170
`
`
`
`held only that USDA “reasonably defend[ed]” its interpretation of the text. ER-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Second, the lower court assumed that, just because OFPA does not say the
`
`word “hydroponics” that there was no way the statutory scheme could be clear on its
`
`face that hydroponic production is not organic farming. ER-18. Again, the Supreme
`
`Court, this Court, and other courts have repeatedly instructed otherwise: a statutory
`
`scheme can be clear and unambiguous on a question that is not spelled out in its
`
`text expressly. To hold otherwise would allow agencies to expand their jurisdiction
`
`in an ultra vires fashion to cover every possible situation that Congress did not
`
`specifically mention. Instead, courts have a duty to examine the text, entire statutory
`
`scheme and purpose, and apply the canons of construction to the question. The
`
`answer can and often is clear, as here, without express text prohibiting the activity.
`
`The district court erred in assuming otherwise.
`
`Third and in the alternative, even if OFPA was ambiguous on the question,
`
`the district court erred in deferring to USDA’s unreasonable interpretation of OFPA
`
`and its own regulations in a manner contrary to statute, legislative history, and
`
`expert opinion.
`
`Accordingly, Appellants ask this Court to reverse the district court, hold that
`
`OFPA is unambiguous as applied to the question of hydroponic production, vacate
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 16 of 170
`
`
`
`the USDA’s Petition Denial, and remand to the agency to conduct further
`
`
`
`
`
`proceedings consistent with this Court’s decision.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`This appeal follows the district court’s final judgment issued March 19, 2021.
`
`Appellants timely filed their notice of appeal on May 19, 2021. 28 U.S.C. §
`
`2107(b)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(ii).
`
`The district court had jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
`
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1346. This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1291.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`1. Did the district court err in upholding USDA’s interpretation as reasonable
`without first analyzing if the statute is clear as to whether hydroponic crop
`farming can be organic farming, where the statute and rules repeatedly
`emphasize the vital nature of holistic, soil-beneficial practices to organic crop
`farming, and where soil-less, isolated hydroponic operations provide no soil
`benefits?
`
`2. Did the district court err in assuming that a statute was necessarily ambiguous
`because its text did not expressly prohibit an activity, and that it could then
`automatically skip to whether an agency’s interpretation was reasonable and
`deserved deference?
`
`3. Did the district court err in holding reasonable USDA’s interpretation that
`the mandatory soil-based provisions of OFPA and its implementing rules only
`apply to production systems that use soil, and that hydroponic crop
`production is properly exempted from those requirements, where that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 17 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`conclusion is belied by the statute, its implementing regulations, and the
`Congressionally-charged expert body’s opinions?
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`HYDROPONIC SYSTEMS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH ORGANIC
`FARMING PRINCIPLES.
`
`Dirt. Soil. Earth. Soil is and always has been the sin qua non of organic crop
`
`farming, stretching back to the birth of the organic farming movement in the 1960s.
`
`ER-209. The second half of the twentieth century brought the so-called “Green
`
`Revolution,” which promoted many new chemical inputs in farming, including
`
`synthetic fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides, as well as mechanization and other
`
`technological changes. ER-206-7. Its start coincided with World War II, when a
`
`litany of new chemicals were developed as poisons intended for chemical warfare.
`
`After the war ended, the chemical manufacturing industry needed a new purpose for
`
`these chemicals and ultimately found one in our food system. Government policies
`
`subsidized broad-scale commodity crops for animal feed, and farmers were
`
`encouraged to “get big or get out.”1 Propped up by this heavy reliance on pesticides
`
`
`1 Heather H. Scholar, Federal Farm Policies Hit, Reading Eagle (Oct. 23, 1973),
`https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19731023&id=iQ9XAAAAIB
`AJ&pg=2654,2153427&hl=en; see also A. Bryan Endres, An Evolutionary Approach to
`Agricultural Biotechnology: Litigation Challenges to the Regulatory and Common Law
`Regimes for Genetically Engineered Plants, 4 Ne. U.L.J. 59 (2012).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 18 of 170
`
`
`
`and fertilizers, farms grew larger and more specialized, with steadily expanding
`
`
`
`
`
`monocultures displacing farm animals, which were consigned to confined animal
`
`feeding operations.2
`
`This industrial system of farming caused dramatic harm to the environment
`
`and specifically to the soil. And the organic movement was part of the
`
`environmental movement’s backlash, indeed, central to its origin story: At the same
`
`time that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring awakened the public to the harms of then-
`
`new agricultural pesticides like DDT and started the environmental movement,
`
`more and more people began to demand a different, sustainable form of farming:
`
`organic farming. ER-206. Organic farming adhered to soil-based principles as a
`
`counter to the industrial agricultural paradigm. Id. Early organic farmers believed
`
`that “[h]ealthy plants, animals, and humans result from balanced, biologically active
`
`soil,” and that the goal of organic farming is to “[f]eed the soil, not the plant.” ER-
`
`218. These founding principles led to a consensus in the following decades among
`
`organic producers that a core principle of organic farming is the “sound
`
`management of soil biology and ecology.” ER-187. As such, organic farmers decades
`
`
`2 Melanie J. Wender, Goodbye Family Farms and Hello Agribusiness: The Story of
`How Agricultural Policy Is Destroying the Family Farm and the Environment, 22 Vill. Env’t
`L.J. 141, 148 (2011).
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 19 of 170
`
`
`
`ago and still today use practices such as integrated farming, crop rotation, cover
`
`
`
`
`
`crops, and compost application to build soil fertility and disrupt pest cycles. ER-188.
`
`Accordingly, OFPA, the first-ever federal organic law, established production
`
`standards that adhere to the sustainable, soil-based principles embedded in organic
`
`farming. S. Rep. No. 101-357, at 291 (1990) reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4656,
`
`4946 (“The ‘organically produced’ label authorized under this bill therefore pertains
`
`to the production methods used to produce the food rather than to the content of
`
`the food.”). Congress outlined three baseline production standards that foods must
`
`satisfy to be labeled and sold as organic. 7 U.S.C. § 6504. Production must be done:
`
`(1) “without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided [by the
`
`Act]”; (2) on land where synthetic chemicals have not been applied in the previous
`
`three years; and (3) in compliance with an organic production plan. Id. § 6504 (1)-
`
`(3). The last of these, the organic production plan, “is a key element” necessary to
`
`“ensure that the ‘organically produced’ label indeed signifies that the product has
`
`been produced in accordance with the requirements of this title.” 1990
`
`U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4946; id. (“But defining organically grown food based on
`
`production materials and a three-year transition period alone is not sufficient.
`
`Organically grown food is produced using farming and handling systems that
`
`include site-specific farm plans.”).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 10/01/2021, ID: 12245665, DktEntry: 17, Page 20 of 170
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Organic production plans for crops require soil. In passing OFPA, Congress
`
`avoided “reinvent[ing] the wheel” by mandating soil-based requirements based on
`
`the organic community’s consensus input. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4945; id. at 4946
`
`(“[A] crop production farm plan must detail the procedures that the farmer will
`
`follow in order to foster soil fertility, provide for crop rotations, and prohibit certain
`
`manuring practices inappropriate to the crop being raised and the land in use.”).
`
`Indeed, the primacy of soil was one of the things Congress was surest about, as
`
`shown by the great detail given: OFPA has “[m]ore detailed” crop farming standards
`
`“than for livestock production” due to the “extent of knowledge and consensus on
`
`appropriate organic crop production methods” Congress gleaned from the organic
`
`community. 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4952 (emphasis added).
`
`In turn, USDA’s implementing regulations mention soil fifty times.
`
`Consistent with OFPA, the regulations require organic crop producers to meet
`
`OFPA’s soil fertility requirements through cover cropping, 7 C.F.R. § 205.203(b),
`
`crop rotation, id. § 205.205, and managing plant and animal materials. Id. §
`
`205.203(c). Compliance with these sections is mandatory for “any agricultural
`
`product” to be labeled organic. 7 C.F.R. § 205.102 (emphasis added) (mandating
`
`compliance with §§ 205.2