throbber
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

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