Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
U.S. soybean, cotton, and corn farmers have rapidly adopted genetically engineered (GE) varieties of these crops since their commercialization in the mid-1990s. Over the last decade, GE varieties in the United States have increased from 3.6 million acres to 165 million acres in 2010. Worldwide, 29 countries planted GE crops on approximately 366 million acres in 2010. GE varieties now dominate soybean, cotton, and corn production in the United States, and they continue to expand rapidly in other countries.
Ongoing concerns include the impacts of GE crops on food safety and the environment (e.g., herbicide resistance), the question of whether GE foods should be labeled, and their potential contamination of conventionally raised and organic plants. Underlying these issues is the question of whether U.S. regulation and oversight of biotechnology are adequate, particularly as newer applications (e.g., biopharmaceuticals, stacked GE traits in single organisms) emerge that did not exist when the current regulatory regime was established. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently considering approval of the first GE animal for human consumption, a salmon genetically engineered to grow larger than conventional salmon.
Regulatory noncompliance incidents most pointedly raise concerns about the adequacy of existing U.S. regulatory structures. About 16 major events have occurred since 1995, according to USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). A recurring concern has been the adequacy of APHIS’s environmental assessments (EAs) for deregulating GE plants. In 2006, a U.S. district court held that USDA’s EA for a variety of GE alfalfa was inadequate for issuing a finding of no significant impact (FONSI); the court vacated APHIS’s decision to deregulate GE alfalfa and ordered APHIS to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS). The court subsequently enjoined further planting until the EIS was completed. In July 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the federal court’s decision to enjoin planting. The final EIS was published in December 2010, and in February 2011 Secretary Vilsack fully deregulated GE alfalfa. A suit has been filed claiming that this deregulation decision violated the National Environmental Policy Act. A similar case involves APHIS’s decision in 2005 to deregulate GE sugar beets on the basis of its EA. That decision was also challenged, and the federal court vacated the deregulation of the GE sugar beets and ordered APHIS to complete an EIS. In July 2010, the federal court declined to enjoin GE sugar beet planting. In February 2011, APHIS announced that the agency would partially deregulate GE sugar beet root crop, but not sugar beet seed crop production.
In October 2008, APHIS announced the first revision of its biotechnology regulations since their promulgation in 1987. Proposed changes include a multi-tiered permitting system, new risk categorizations for assessing environmental releases of GE organisms, regulation of GE plants that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, and new standards for low-level presence of regulated GE products. A final rule on the proposed changes has not yet been published. Other recent issuances include FDA’s January 2009 final guidance on regulation of GE animals and products. In a ruling in January 2008, FDA published its final guidance on the safety of meat and milk from cloned animals.
Legislative activity in the 111th Congress included the reintroduction of two bills (H.R. 5578 and H.R. 5579). Two bills have been introduced in the 112th Congress: (H.R. 521/S. 230) to prevent FDA from approving GE salmon, and H.R. 307, the Seed Availability and Competition Act. A provision in the FY2012 House Agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 2112) would prohibit the approval of GE salmon.
Date of Report: June 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 44
Order Number: RL32809
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman, a class action discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and black farmers. The suit claimed that the agency had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997. The deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. As of November 2010, 15,642 (69%) of the 22,721 eligible class members had final adjudications approved.
Many voiced concern over the structure of the settlement agreement, the large number of applicants who filed late, and reported deficiencies in representation by class counsel. A provision in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. A maximum of $100 million in mandatory spending was made available for payment of these claims, and the multiple claims that were subsequently filed were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II).
On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. However, because only $100 million was made available in the 2008 farm bill, the Pigford II settlement was contingent upon congressional approval of an additional $1.15 billion in funding. After a series of failed attempts to appropriate funds for the settlement agreement, the Senate passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation by unanimous consent on November 19, 2010. The Senate bill was then passed by the House on November 30 and signed by the President on December 8 (P.L. 111-291).
Like the original Pigford case, the Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement process and higher payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process. A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants’ farms will remain in place until after claimants have gone through the claims process. On May 13, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The actual process for adjudicating the individual claims has not been finalized, and it is unclear when payments to successful claimants will be made. No payments will be made until all the merits of all claims have been heard.
This report highlights some of the events that led up to the original Pigford class action suit and the subsequent Pigford II settlement. The report also outlines the structure of both the original consent decree in Pigford and the settlement agreement in Pigford II. In addition, the report discusses the number of claims reviewed, denied, and awarded under Pigford, as well as some of the issues raised by various parties under both lawsuits.
Date of Report: June 14, 2011
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20430
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
The March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami in Japan caused widespread devastation that affected many of the country’s agricultural and fishery areas. The nuclear crisis that followed at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant, and the subsequent detection of radioactive contamination of food produced near the disabled facility, further raised fears about the safety of Japan’s food production systems and its future food exports. Most reports acknowledge that Japan’s current production and supply shortages, along with rising food safety concerns and possible longer-term radiation threats to its food production, could limit Japan’s food exports while possibly increasing its need for food imports in the future. It is still not clear what effect, if any, Japan’s current food supply and demand situation will have on world farm commodity markets and food prices.
Following initial reports about possible radioactive contamination of foods, many countries increased their surveillance of food imports from Japan. In addition to the United States, others imposing heightened surveillance measures include the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and most Asian nations, such as China and Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, and Thailand, among others. Import restrictions vary by country but broadly cover milk and milk products, vegetables and fruit, and seafood and meat from those prefectures with a perceived risk of contamination, specifically Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma. Several international organizations, including the various organizations of the United Nations, are closely monitoring global concerns about the safety of foods produced in Japan.
The Japanese government has taken steps to monitor and restrict, if necessary, the distribution of contaminated foods. Testing has been conducted nearly daily to detect possible radioactive contaminants on a wide range of plant and animal products, including fish, and also tap water in some of the coastal prefectures as well as in southern prefectures near the disabled Fukushima facility. In March 2011, Japan’s government made a series of announcements restricting the distribution and consumption of certain vegetables harvested in Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, and Gunma prefectures, and fresh raw milk produced in Fukushima prefecture. In April 2011, there were additional announcements regarding possible contaminated fish products, and also an announcement restricting spinach and leafy greens from Chiba prefecture.
In the United States, the two principal agencies that regulate U.S. food imports—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—have taken steps to address these concerns. Following Japan’s announcement that some foods had been contaminated by radiation, FDA issued “Import Alert 99-33” for milk, vegetables, and certain fish species (sand lance) produced or manufactured in selected Japanese prefectures. Both FDA and USDA have announced that they are taking extra steps to better track U.S. food imports from Japan, working in conjunction with existing border inspectors at the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Other U.S. agencies are also addressing concerns about whether radiation from Japan might affect food production in the United States or in U.S. territories in the Pacific. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is continuously monitoring the nation’s air and is regularly monitoring drinking water, milk, and precipitation for environmental radiation. To date, the results of EPA’s sampling and monitoring have shown detected radiation below levels that are a public-health concern.
Date of Report: May 18, 2011
Number of Pages: 18
Order Number: R41766
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development
Jody Feder
Legislative Attorney
On April 14, 1999, Judge Paul L. Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia approved a settlement agreement and consent decree in Pigford v. Glickman, a class action discrimination suit between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and black farmers. The suit claimed that the agency had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race and failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints from 1983 to 1997. The deadline for submitting a claim as a class member was September 12, 2000. As of November 2010, 15,642 (69%) of the 22,721 eligible class members had final adjudications approved.
Many voiced concern over the structure of the settlement agreement, the large number of applicants who filed late, and reported deficiencies in representation by class counsel. A provision in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. A maximum of $100 million in mandatory spending was made available for payment of these claims, and the multiple claims that were subsequently filed were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II).
On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. However, because only $100 million was made available in the 2008 farm bill, the Pigford II settlement was contingent upon congressional approval of an additional $1.15 billion in funding. After a series of failed attempts to appropriate funds for the settlement agreement, the Senate passed the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (H.R. 4783) to provide the $1.15 billion appropriation by unanimous consent on November 19, 2010. The Senate bill was then passed by the House on November 30 and signed by the President on December 8 (P.L. 111-291).
Like the original Pigford case, the Pigford II settlement provides both a fast-track settlement process and higher payments to potential claimants who go through a more rigorous review and documentation process. A moratorium on foreclosures of most claimants’ farms will remain in place until after claimants have gone through the claims process. The process for adjudicating the individual claims has not been finalized, and it is unclear when payments to successful claimants will be made.
This report highlights some of the events that led up to the original Pigford class action suit and the subsequent Pigford II settlement. The report also outlines the structure of both the original consent decree in Pigford and the settlement agreement in Pigford II. In addition, the report discusses the number of claims reviewed, denied, and awarded under Pigford, as well as some of the issues raised by various parties under both lawsuits. It will be updated periodically.
Date of Report: May 8, 2011
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20430
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Melissa D. Ho
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Charles E. Hanrahan
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy
The United States currently addresses issues related to global hunger and food security through two primary types of approaches: (1) agricultural development and (2) emergency and humanitarian food aid and assistance. Agricultural development activities, such as the Administration’s Feed the Future initiative and some emergency food assistance programs, are administered primarily by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) using existing authorities provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. Funding is provided through the annual Department of State and Foreign Operations appropriation bill. In addition, funding for some multilateral efforts, such as the World Bank Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) Trust Fund, is provided through annual appropriations to the Treasury Department. U.S. international food aid programs are administered by USAID and USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), as authorized by the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246), and are funded through annual Agriculture appropriation bills.
For FY2010, the Administration allocated about $1.31 billion to its Feed the Future (FtF) initiative, which included $1.17 billion for bilateral agricultural development programming, $75 million for nutrition-related activities carried out in collaboration with global health initiatives, and $67 million allocated to the World Bank GAFSP. Separately, in FY2010, about $1.84 billion was allocated to Title II activities under the Food for Peace program, $209.5 million for the McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program, and $300 million from the International Disaster Assistance account at USAID for other emergency food assistance activities including safety net programs, cash vouchers, and local and regional procurement.
The FY2011 congressional budget justification for the Department of State and Foreign Operations was the first instance in which the Administration requested funds specifically to implement FtF. The Administration’s FY2011 budget request included $1.84 billion for FtFrelated activities, which was more than a 40% increase in the FY2010 allocation, primarily due to a $408 million request for the World Bank GAFSP Trust Fund. On April 14, 2011, Congress passed a continuing resolution to provide government-wide funding through the end of FY2011 (P.L. 112-10). The FY2011 CR provided allocations only to primary USAID budget accounts, several of which, such as Development Assistance, the Economic Support Fund, and the Global Health and Child Survival accounts at USAID, received decreases in funding relative to FY2010 levels. At the same time, the final FY2011 CR did not include specific allocations from USAID budget accounts for food security-related activities, so the implications of the FY2011 budgetlevel changes on the funding and programming for the Feed the Future initiative remain uncertain. The final FY2011 CR also included $1.5 billion for Title II Food for Peace food aid programs and $199.5 million for the McGovern Dole Food for Education program.
The Administration’s FY2012 request includes $1.56 billion for the FtF initiative, about $250 million, or 19% more than the amount allocated in FY2010. This includes $1.1 billion in bilateral agricultural development assistance, $150 million for nutrition-related activities, and a U.S. contribution of $308 million to the World Bank GAFSP. Separately, for FY2012, the Administration is also requesting $1.690 billion for Food for Peace Title II emergency and nonemergency food aid, $200.5 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program, and $300 million of International Disaster Assistance for emergency food security-related activities.
Date of Report: April 28, 2011
Number of Pages: 11
Order Number: R41812
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
