Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 1 of 44
`
`No. 21-15883
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`
`CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellants,
`
`
`v.
`
`THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of Agriculture, et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants-Appellees.
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California
`
`
`BRIEF FOR APPELLEES
`
`
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`STEPHANIE M. HINDS
`United States Attorney
`DANIEL TENNY
`DANIEL WINIK
`Attorneys, Appellate Staff
`Civil Division, Room 7245
`U.S. Department of Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20530
`(202) 305-8849 
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 2 of 44
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. ii 
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS ...................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................. 1 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Statutory Background ........................................................................................ 1 
`
`Regulatory Background ..................................................................................... 4 
`
`Procedural History ............................................................................................. 7 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................................................... 10 
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................................. 12 
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 13 
`
`THE AGENCY REASONABLY DENIED THE PETITION TO FORBID ORGANIC
`CERTIFICATION OF HYDROPONIC SYSTEMS ........................................................... 13 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Organic Foods Production Act Does Not Clearly Require
`That Crops Be Grown In Soil To Be Certified Organic ............................ 13 
`
`Plaintiffs’ Non-Statutory Arguments Are Meritless And
`Inapposite .......................................................................................................... 24 
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30 
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`ADDENDUM
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 3 of 44
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`Page(s)
`
`Center for Food Safety v. Perdue,
` 527 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (N.D. Cal. 2021) ....................................................... 9, 10, 21, 23
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
` 467 U.S. 837 (1984) ................................................................................................... 23, 24
`Compassion Over Killing v. FDA,
` 849 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................... 12, 13, 23, 29
`
`Corrigan v. Haaland,
` 12 F.4th 901 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................. 12
`Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development,
` 781 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................. 13, 23
`
`Massachusetts v. EPA,
` 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 12, 23
`National Mining Association v. Mine Safety & Health Administration,
` 599 F.3d 662 (D.C. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................. 13, 23
`NLRB v. SW General, Inc.,
` 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) ........................................................................................................ 20
`Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board,
` 668 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 29
`
`
`Statutes:
`
`Organic Foods Production Act of 1990,
` 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. .......................................................................................................... 1
`7 U.S.C. § 6501 ......................................................................................................... 1, 14
`7 U.S.C. § 6501(2) ......................................................................................................... 21
`7 U.S.C. § 6501(3) ......................................................................................................... 21
`7 U.S.C. § 6502(4) .................................................................................................. 17, 20
`7 U.S.C. § 6503 ......................................................................................................... 1, 15
`7 U.S.C. § 6503(c) ........................................................................................................... 2
`7 U.S.C. § 6504 ......................................................................................................... 2, 28
`7 U.S.C. § 6504(1) .................................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 4 of 44
`
`7 U.S.C. § 6504(2) .................................................................................................... 2, 14
`7 U.S.C. § 6504(3) .......................................................................................... 2, 3, 14, 15
`7 U.S.C. § 6508 ............................................................................................... 2, 9, 14, 22
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(a) .................................................................................................... 2, 14
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(b) .................................................................................................... 2, 22
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(b)-(c) ................................................................................................... 14
`7 U.S.C. § 6508(c) .................................................................................................... 3, 22
`7 U.S.C. § 6512 ...................................................................................... 3, 10, 11, 18, 22
`7 U.S.C. § 6513 .............................................................................................................. 15
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(a) ........................................................................................................... 3
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(b) ............................................................................................ 11, 17, 28
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1) .................................................................................. 3, 11, 16, 19
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(f) ......................................................................................................... 17
`7 U.S.C. § 6513(g) ........................................................................................................... 3
`7 U.S.C. § 6518 ................................................................................................................ 2
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(a) ........................................................................................................... 2
`7 U.S.C. § 6518(b) ........................................................................................................... 2
`7 U.S.C. § 6519 .............................................................................................................. 24
`7 U.S.C. § 6521(a) ........................................................................................................... 4
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ...................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`Regulations:
`
` C.F.R. pt. 205 ................................................................................................................. 4, 15
`7 C.F.R. § 205.2 ...................................................................................................... 5, 15, 25
`7 C.F.R. § 205.102 ............................................................................................................. 26
`7 C.F.R. § 205.200 .................................................................................................. 5, 26, 27
`7 C.F.R. § 205.202 ............................................................................................................. 26
`7 C.F.R. §§ 205.202-.207 ........................................................................................... 26, 27
`7 C.F.R. § 205.203 ........................................................................................................ 5, 26
`7 C.F.R. § 205.205 ............................................................................................................. 26
`7 C.F.R. § 205.207 ............................................................................................................... 5
`7 C.F.R. §§ 205.236-.240 .................................................................................................. 27
`7 C.F.R. § 205.237 ............................................................................................................... 5
`7 C.F.R. § 205.400(a) .......................................................................................................... 5
`7 C.F.R. § 205.400(b) .......................................................................................................... 5
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 5 of 44
`
`Rule:
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`
`Legislative Materials:
`
`135 Cong. Rec. 29,411 (1989) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`S. 1896, 101st Cong. (1989) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`S. Rep. No. 101-357 (1990) ................................................................................ 18, 19, 20, 21
`
`
`Other Authorities:
`
`Oxford English Dictionary Online, https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/9698 (last
`visited Feb. 10, 2022) .......................................................................................................... 27
`
`National Organic Program,
` 62 Fed. Reg. 65,850 (Dec. 16, 1997) ................................................................................. 4
`
`National Organic Program,
` 65 Fed. Reg. 13,512 (Mar. 13, 2000) ................................................................................. 4
`
`National Organic Program,
` 65 Fed. Reg. 80,548 (Dec. 21, 2000) ................................................................................ 4
`
`National Organic Program; Nominations for Task Force Members,
` 80 Fed. Reg. 12,422 (Mar. 9, 2015) .................................................................................. 6
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 6 of 44
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district court
`
`entered final judgment on March 19, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal on May 18,
`
`2021. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (60-day time limit). This Court has appellate juris-
`
`diction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUE
`
`Whether the Department of Agriculture permissibly denied plaintiffs’ petition
`
`to forbid the certification of hydroponic crop production as organic.
`
`PERTINENT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
`
`Pertinent statutory provisions are reproduced in the addendum to this brief.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Statutory Background
`
`Congress enacted the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et
`
`seq., “to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural
`
`products as organically produced products,” “assure consumers that organically pro-
`
`duced products meet a consistent standard,” and “facilitate interstate commerce in …
`
`organically produced” food. Id. § 6501.
`
`The Act establishes the National Organic Program, a component of the Depart-
`
`ment of Agriculture, and charges it with implementing national standards for the certi-
`
`fication of organic production and handling operations. 7 U.S.C. § 6503. The Act also
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 7 of 44
`
`directs the Department to “establish a National Organic Standards Board,” a 15-mem-
`
`ber committee charged with “advis[ing]” on the “implementation” of a national organic
`
`program. Id. § 6518(a). The Board’s members include specified numbers of farmers,
`
`handlers, and individuals with other forms of relevant expertise. Id. § 6518(b). The
`
`Department was required to “consult with” the Board in developing the initial program,
`
`id. § 6503(c), but not to accept any recommendations rendered by the Board, and the
`
`Board’s ongoing recommendations to the Department remain advisory rather than
`
`binding.
`
`The Act sets three requirements for products “[t]o be sold or labeled as … or-
`
`ganically produced.” 7 U.S.C. § 6504. First, they must “have been produced and han-
`
`dled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise provided” under the
`
`Act. Id. § 6504(1). Second, “except as otherwise provided,” they may “not be produced
`
`on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been
`
`applied during the 3 years immediately preceding” harvest. Id. § 6504(2). Third, they
`
`must “be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan.” Id. § 6504(3).
`
`The Act also sets forth three types of “[p]rohibited crop production practices
`
`and materials.” 7 U.S.C. § 6508 (heading). First, in order “[f]or a farm to be certified”
`
`as organic, producers “shall not apply materials to, or engage in practices on, seeds or
`
`seedlings that are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the applicable organic certification
`
`program.” Id. § 6508(a). Second, producers cannot use certain fertilizers or sources of
`
`nitrogen. Id. § 6508(b). Finally, they cannot use “natural poisons … that have long-
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 8 of 44
`
`term effects and persist in the environment,” “plastic mulches” for more than the length
`
`of the growing season, or “transplants that are treated with any synthetic or prohibited
`
`material.” Id. § 6508(c).
`
`As noted above, one requirement for products to be sold or labeled as organic is
`
`that they “be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan,” 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6504(3), which must be reviewed and approved by a “certifying agent” and by any
`
`applicable “State organic certification program,” id. § 6513(a). The Act sets forth re-
`
`quirements for organic plans in § 6513. Aside from a general provision that plans can-
`
`not include “production or handling practices that are inconsistent with” the Act, id.
`
`§ 6513(g), the requirements are specific to a particular type of plan, as identified in the
`
`headings of § 6513’s various subsections—for example, “Crop production farm plan,”
`
`“Livestock plan,” “Handling plan,” or “Management of wild crops.” This case turns
`
`largely on § 6513(b), which governs “[c]rop production farm plan[s],” and in particular
`
`on a part of that provision stating that “[a]n organic plan shall contain provisions de-
`
`signed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the management of the organic content
`
`of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and manuring.” Id. § 6513(b)(1). The
`
`rest of § 6513(b) concerns the application of raw manure to crops.
`
`The Act states that “[i]f a production or handling practice is not prohibited or
`
`otherwise restricted under this chapter, such practice shall be permitted unless it is de-
`
`termined that such practice would be inconsistent with the applicable organic certifica-
`
`tion program.” 7 U.S.C. § 6512.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 9 of 44
`
`B. Regulatory Background
`
`1.
`
`Congress directed the Department to issue regulations to carry out the
`
`Act. 7 U.S.C. § 6521(a). The Department first proposed such regulations in 1997. Na-
`
`tional Organic Program, 62 Fed. Reg. 65,850 (Dec. 16, 1997). As relevant here, the pro-
`
`posed rule repeatedly referred to the creation of a “system of organic farming and
`
`handling.” E.g., id. at 65,864. In 2000, however, the Department issued a new proposed
`
`rule revising the original in several respects, including that it “amended the term, ‘system
`
`of organic farming and handling,’ to ‘system of organic production and handling.’” Na-
`
`tional Organic Program, 65 Fed. Reg. 13,512, 13,521 (Mar. 13, 2000) (emphases added).
`
`The Department explained that the change from “farming” to “production” was meant
`
`“to provide a more encompassing term, which may come to include such diverse activ-
`
`ities as hydroponics, green house production, and harvesting of aquatic animals.” Id.
`
`“Hydroponics” refers to “the production of plants in a soilless medium, whereby all of
`
`the nutrients supplied to the crop are dissolved in water.” ER-153.
`
`Although the final version of the rule eliminated the regulatory definition of
`
`“system of organic production and handling” on the view that it was unnecessary, see
`
`National Organic Program, 65 Fed. Reg. 80,548, 80,549 (Dec. 21, 2000), the regulations
`
`largely continue to use the term “production” or “producer” instead of “farm,” “farm-
`
`ing,” or “farmer.” See generally 7 C.F.R. pt. 205. The regulations define “[o]rganic pro-
`
`duction” as production that is managed “in accordance with the Act and regulations …
`
`to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 10 of 44
`
`practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve
`
`biodiversity.” Id. § 205.2. They set forth various requirements for any “person seeking
`
`to receive or maintain organic certification,” including requirements to “[c]omply with
`
`the Act” and regulations and to “[e]stablish, implement, and update annually an organic
`
`production or handling system plan.” Id. § 205.400(a), (b). The regulations also pre-
`
`scribe standards for different types of production or handling operations, ranging from
`
`soil fertility and crop nutrient management practices, id. § 205.203, to wild-crop har-
`
`vesting, id. § 205.207, to livestock feed, id. § 205.237. Given that range of standards,
`
`not all of which could logically apply to any given operation, the regulations state that
`
`a producer or handler “must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart.” Id.
`
`§ 205.200 (emphasis added). They also state that “[p]roduction practices implemented
`
`in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural resources of the
`
`operation, including soil and water quality.” Id.
`
`2.
`
`As plaintiffs’ brief explains (at 11), members of the advisory National
`
`Organic Standards Board have long engaged in “fierce debate over whether hydroponic
`
`systems meet organic requirements.” In recommendations issued in 1995, the Board
`
`stated that “[h]ydroponic production in soilless media” should “be allowed” “to be la-
`
`beled organically … if all provisions of the [Organic Foods Production Act] have been
`
`met.” ER-173. The “debate” continued, however (Plaintiffs’ Br. 12), and in 2010, the
`
`Board recommended that hydroponics not “be classified as certified organic growing
`
`methods due to their exclusion of … soil-plant ecology[.]” ER-155–156. The Board
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 11 of 44
`
`based that recommendation on the theory that “the exclusion of soil from organic pro-
`
`duction of normally terrestrial, vascular plants violates the intent of the regulations”
`
`implementing the Organic Foods Production Act. ER-156 (emphasis added).
`
`The Department declined, however, to follow that recommendation. In its 2012
`
`Guide for Organic Crop Producers, the Department explained that “crops grown in a hy-
`
`droponic system, rather than soil, can be certified organic.” ER-153.
`
`In 2015, the Department convened “a task force to examine hydroponic and
`
`aquaponic practices and their alignment with the USDA organic regulations and the
`
`Organic Foods Production Act.” National Organic Program; Nominations for Task Force
`
`Members, 80 Fed. Reg. 12,422, 12,422 (Mar. 9, 2015). It explained that although its “or-
`
`ganic regulations do not include specific provisions for organic hydroponic … produc-
`
`tion … , there are certified organic operations observing the crop production require-
`
`ments of the … organic regulations to produce organic crops via hydroponic … grow-
`
`ing methods.” Id. Those operations, the Department explained, “must maintain water
`
`quality and use only approved inputs as fertilizers and pest control practices.” Id.
`
`The task force formed three subcommittees. Plaintiffs describe one subcommit-
`
`tee as having “affirmed” the National Organic Standards Board’s 2010 recommendation
`
`against certification of hydroponically grown crops (Br. 14), but that subcommittee did
`
`not consider the issue on a blank slate. Rather, the subcommittee’s “mission” was “to
`
`honor the intentions and conclusions of the 2010 recommendation as much as possi-
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 12 of 44
`
`ble,” while “offer[ing] clarification of ” the Board’s rationale. ER-97; see ER-93. An-
`
`other subcommittee, less relevant here, addressed “alternative labeling.” ER-93. The
`
`third subcommittee, which sought “to describe ‘organic hydroponic’ production and
`
`discuss the ways in which it aligns” with the Act and regulations (ER-93), concluded
`
`that, although “sterile and inert” hydroponic “systems should not be eligible for organic
`
`certification,” other types of hydroponic systems could be certified (ER-123–124).
`
`In the wake of the task force’s recommendations, the National Organic Stand-
`
`ards Board considered a proposal—consistent with its 2010 recommendation—to state
`
`that any hydroponic container production system “should not be allowed to be certified
`
`organic.” SER-235. But the Board rejected that proposal. SER-236–237.
`
`The Department then reiterated its view that “[c]ertification of hydroponic …
`
`operations is allowed under the … organic regulations, and has been since the National
`
`Organic Program began.” ER-60 (Jan. 25, 2018 bulletin) (emphasis omitted).
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`Procedural History
`
`In January 2019, plaintiff Center for Food Safety submitted to the De-
`
`partment a petition for rulemaking. The petition asked the Department to “[i]ssue reg-
`
`ulations excluding certification of hydroponic agricultural production, implementing
`
`and based on” the 2010 recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board.
`
`ER-39. The petition also asked the Department to “[e]nsure that ecologically integrated
`
`organic production practices are maintained as a requirement for organic certification”
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 13 of 44
`
`and to “[r]evoke any existing organic certifications previously issued to hydroponic op-
`
`erations.” ER-40. The petition sought those actions on the theory that “hydroponic
`
`production systems … violate [the Organic Food Production Act] and its regulations
`
`mandating soil improvement and conservation of biodiversity.” ER-41.
`
`The Department denied the petition. ER-20–23. It explained that, although
`
`“[o]rganic hydroponic systems have been controversial,” the “National Organic Pro-
`
`gram … has consistently allowed for the certification of hydroponics operations” and
`
`that “many operations have obtained certification by meeting the existing requirements
`
`for organic crop production.” ER-20. That is consistent with the statute and regula-
`
`tions, the Department explained, because the provisions that “use the word ‘soil’ and
`
`impose certain requirements to maintain or improve soil quality” do not “require that
`
`all organic production occur in a soil-based environment”; rather, they “are applicable
`
`to production systems that do use soil.” ER-21–22.
`
`The Department also rejected the claim “that regulations pertaining to ‘cycling
`
`of resources,’ the ‘promot[ion] of ecological balance[,]’ and conservation of biodiver-
`
`sity” foreclose the organic certification of hydroponically grown crops. ER-22. The
`
`petition “provides no evidence,” the Department found, “that organic hydroponic sys-
`
`tems hinder cycling of resources, ecological balance, or conservation of biodiversity.”
`
`ER-22. To the contrary, the Department explained, “organic hydroponic systems are
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 14 of 44
`
`biological systems with organic matter that support microbial diversity and nutrient cy-
`
`cling,” that can “preserve natural resources,” and that “can sustain and improve soil and
`
`water quality at the sites they occupy, and reduce runoff and soil erosion.” ER-22.
`
`Although the Department denied the petitioner’s request to prohibit the organic
`
`certification of hydroponic systems, and to revoke existing certifications of such sys-
`
`tems, it “reaffirm[ed] the need for all organic operations, including hydroponic opera-
`
`tions, to demonstrate compliance with the … organic regulations.” ER-22. Among
`
`other things, the Department explained, that means hydroponic production practices
`
`must “maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation.” ER-22.
`
`2.
`
`The Center for Food Safety, along with various organic farms, an associa-
`
`tion of organic farmers, and an organic certifier, brought this Administrative Procedure
`
`Act challenge to the Department’s denial of the rulemaking petition. Plaintiffs based
`
`their assertion of standing largely on allegations that farmers who grow organic crops
`
`in soil are injured by having to compete with those who grow crops hydroponically. See,
`
`e.g., SER-8 ¶ 13; SER-9–10 ¶ 18; SER-14–14 ¶ 35. The district court rejected plaintiffs’
`
`challenge, explaining that the Department “reasonably concluded the applicable statu-
`
`tory scheme does not exclude hydroponics from the organic program.” Center for Food
`
`Safety v. Perdue, 527 F. Supp. 3d 1130, 1134 (N.D. Cal. 2021).
`
`The court explained that the provision of the Organic Foods Production Act
`
`enumerating prohibited crop production practices, 7 U.S.C. § 6508, “must be read con-
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 15 of 44
`
`gruently” with the provision stating that practices “not prohibited or otherwise re-
`
`stricted under” the Act “shall be permitted,” id. § 6512—such that § 6512 “can reason-
`
`ably be interpreted to firm up the boundaries of § 6508 and make it an exhaustive list”
`
`of forbidden practices. 527 F. Supp. 3d at 1142. The court held that the Department’s
`
`“ongoing certification of hydroponic systems that comply with all applicable regula-
`
`tions” was “firmly planted in” the Act, and that plaintiffs cannot overcome the “‘ex-
`
`tremely limited’ and ‘highly deferential’” standard for review of the denial of a rule-
`
`making petition. Id.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The district court’s judgment should be affirmed, because the Department rea-
`
`sonably concluded that the governing statute does not preclude the organic certification
`
`of hydroponic systems for growing crops.
`
`A.
`
`The Organic Foods Production Act sets forth general requirements for
`
`agricultural products to be certified as organic, as well as a list of practices that crop
`
`producers may not employ if they wish to seek organic certification. It is undisputed
`
`that nothing in the statute expressly addresses whether crops grown hydroponically may
`
`be certified as organic. It is also undisputed that, if hydroponic crop producers engage
`
`in any of the expressly prohibited practices, they may not be certified as organic. The
`
`question in this case is whether Congress impliedly forbade the certification of hydro-
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 16 of 44
`
`ponic (i.e., soilless) crop production operations—even those that comply with the ex-
`
`press statutory requirements and prohibitions—by mandating that “[c]rop production
`
`farm plan[s]” include “provisions designed to foster soil fertility,” 7 U.S.C. § 6513(b)(1).
`
`There is no reason to conclude, and certainly no reason the Department was
`
`required to conclude, that Congress forbade the organic certification of an entire cate-
`
`gory of crop production in that roundabout way. Rather, the requirement in question
`
`is naturally read to apply to producers that do use soil in growing crops. That is con-
`
`sistent with the statutory text, since all agree that the requirements for “[c]rop produc-
`
`tion farm plan[s],” 7 U.S.C. § 6513(b), do not apply to all crop production operations.
`
`And any suggestion that Congress meant to forbid the organic certification of hydro-
`
`ponic crop production by not specifically addressing that type of crop production is
`
`foreclosed by Congress’s express provision that any “production or handling practice
`
`… shall be permitted” unless it is “prohibited or otherwise restricted under” the Act or
`
`it “would be inconsistent with the applicable organic certification program.” 7 U.S.C.
`
`§ 6512.
`
`B.1. Plaintiffs suggest that the Department’s denial of the rulemaking petition
`
`should be set aside because it is allegedly inconsistent with the Department’s own reg-
`
`ulations, but any such inconsistency would not be a basis to hold that the Department
`
`was compelled to grant the petition for rulemaking; it would at most be a basis for
`
`plaintiffs to challenge the Department’s supposed misapplication of its regulations in a
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case: 21-15883, 02/14/2022, ID: 12368849, DktEntry: 29, Page 17 of 44
`
`concrete context. In any event, the regulations do not clearly proscribe the organic
`
`certification of hydroponic crop production any more than the statute does.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs also invoke a supposed consensus among experts that hydro-
`
`ponic crop production should not be certified as organic. But no such consensus exists;
`
`to the contrary, the National Organic Standards Board most recently voted against a
`
`proposal to recommend that hydroponic production not be certified as organic. In any
`
`event, the Department cogently explained why it did not regard the policy concerns
`
`identified in plaintiffs’ brief as sufficient to warrant the proposed rulemaking. Plaintiffs
`
`have shown no basis for a court to disturb that judgment.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`This Court “‘review[s] de novo a challenge to a final agency action decided on
`
`summary judgment and pursuant to Section 706’ of the Administrative Procedure Act.”
`
`Corrigan v. Haaland, 12 F.4th 901, 906 (9th Cir. 2021). “‘De novo review of a district
`
`court judgment concerning a decision of an administrative agency means the court
`
`views the case from the same position as the district court,’ and ‘review[s] directly the
`
`agency’s action under’” the applicable standard. Id. (citation omitted).
`
`“When an agency refuses to exercise its discretion to promulgate proposed reg-
`
`ulations, the Court’s review ‘is extremely limited and highly deferential.’” Compassion
`
`Over Killing v. FDA, 849 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
`
`U.S. 497, 527-528 (2007)) (some quota