A news release on Wednesday from U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) stated that, “[Sen. Fischer], a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, today introduced the Real MEAT Act to end deceptive labeling practices for alternative protein products. The bill would clarify the definition of beef for labeling purposes, eliminate consumer confusion resulting from misbranding, and ensure that the federal government is able to enforce the law.

“‘Beef is derived from cattle—period. Under USDA, beef undergoes a rigorous inspection and labeling process, but plant-based protein products that mimic beef and are sometimes labeled as beef are overseen by the FDA instead. These products are not held to the same food safety and labeling standards as beef. Americans deserve to know what’s on their dinner plate. The Real MEAT Act will protect consumers from deceptive marketing practices and bring transparency to the grocery store,’ said Senator Fischer.”

The update noted that, “The [National Cattlemen’s Beef Association] found in a study that 55% of consumers did not understand that ‘plant-based beef’ wasn’t beef at all, but instead an entirely vegan or vegetarian product. This bill would help to clear the confusion by codifying a definition of beef for labeling purposes and allowing the USDA to take action against misbranded products.”

“Click here to read the full text of the Real MEAT Act. To read Senator Fischer’s op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, click here.”

Last week, Reuters writer Barbara Grzincic reported that, “A federal judge in Arkansas has temporarily blocked the state from enforcing a labeling law that bars the use of terms like ‘burgers,’ ‘sausage’ and ‘steak’ on plant-based foods, finding that a vegetarian-food producer is likely to prevail on its claim that the law is an impermissible restraint on its First Amendment rights.

“U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker in Little Rock granted a preliminary injunction on Wednesday in favor of the Tofurky Company, represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the Good Food Institute.”

Recall that several States that have large cattle production industries have recently attempted to curtail the labelling of meat substitutes, click here and here for more details.

Writing earlier this month at The Wall Street Journal Online, Stephanie Yang reported that, “Beyond Meat Inc. and Impossible Foods Inc. are considering China as their next big market for plant-based meat products, but local startups aim to leverage their own knowledge of Chinese tastes to gain an edge over the U.S. companies.

“China is emerging as an attractive market for alternative-meat makers because purchasing power and meat consumption have grown at a rapid clip in the world’s most populous country. In addition, Chinese officials have encouraged meat alternatives amid a deadly swine epidemic that has wiped out as much as half of China’s pig population and pushed up pork, beef and poultry prices.

“Impossible Foods, based in Redwood City, Calif., unveiled its plant-based meat burger in China last month at a Shanghai trade fair attended by President Xi Jinping, while rival Beyond Meat, based in Los Angeles, has made plans to enter China next year.”

The Journal article noted that, “Chinese entrepreneurs aren’t sitting still. China has a tradition of vegetarian meals, and Buddhists in China have been offering their own meat alternatives for centuries. A number of companies are now rushing their own meat substitutes to market, betting they can better cater to Chinese appetites.

“During the traditional Mid-Autumn Festival holiday in September, Beijing-based startup Zhenmeat, founded this past May, received attention by using e-commerce platforms to sell thousands of traditional mooncakes made with a plant-based pork substitute.”

Ms. Yang added that, “Chinese officials have touted the virtues of protein alternatives—warning about an uptick in health issues such as obesity and diabetes—while raising concerns about nutrition and food security.”

A news release today from USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) stated that, “Due to the prolonged and extensive impacts of weather events this year, [USDA] today extended the deadline to December 20 for producers to enroll in the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program for the 2020 calendar year. The deadline had been December 13.  USDA announced is also continuing to accept applications for the Market Facilitation Program through December 20.

“‘2019 has challenged the country’s ag sector – prevented or late planting followed by a delayed harvest has been further complicated by wet and cold weather,’ said Bill Northey, USDA Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. ‘Because some of our producers are still in the field, time to conduct business at the local USDA office is at a premium.  We hope this deadline extension will allow producers the opportunity to participate in these important programs.’

“Authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill and available through USDA’s [FSA], the program offers reasonably priced protection to dairy producers when the difference between the all-milk price and the average feed cost (the margin) falls below a certain dollar amount selected by the producer.”

Today’s update added that, “Administration continues to work on free, fair, and reciprocal trade deals to open more markets to help American farmers compete globally. MFP payments are aimed at assisting farmers suffering from damage due to unjustified trade retaliation by foreign nations.

“For more information, visit the DMC webpage, the MFP webpage or your local USDA service center. To locate your local FSA office, visit farmers.gov/service-locator.”

Reuters News reported last week that, “Germany’s Bayer has agreed with plaintiffs to postpone its next two U.S. lawsuits over the alleged cancer-causing effects of its glyphosate-based weed killers to allow more time for talks on a settlement.

“The company, which is facing 42,700 U.S. plaintiffs, is widely expected to eventually buy itself out of the litigation, with analysts currently estimating the size of a future settlement at $8-$12 billion.

“Bayer agreed with the plaintiff to delay for about six months a case in the California Superior Court for Lake County scheduled for Jan. 15, a company spokesman said in a written statement.”

The Reuters article stated that, “A second case due to begin on Jan. 21 in the California Superior Court for Alameda County would also be postponed until a date yet to be determined.

“Bayer said the postponements would provide more time for it and representatives of the plaintiffs to ‘engage constructively in the mediation process.'”

Associated Press writer John Antczak reported last week that, “The pork industry is challenging the constitutionality of a voter-approved California measure that will prohibit the sale of meat products from hogs born to sows confined in spaces that don’t meet new minimum size requirements.

“A lawsuit filed late Thursday in San Diego federal court by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation targets Proposition 12, which voters overwhelmingly passed a year ago and goes into effect in 2022.

“‘Proposition 12 has thrown a giant wrench into the workings of the interstate market in pork,’ the filing states.”

The AP article noted that, “The measure bans the sale in California of pork and veal from farm animals raised in conditions that don’t meet its standards. It also requires that all eggs sold in the state come from cage-free hens.

“The rules will apply to pork products coming to California from farmers nationwide, not just from in-state farms. The industry lawsuit contends that extraterritorial reach intrudes on authority given to Congress.

“‘Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Proposition 12’s requirements with regard to breeding pigs violate the Commerce Clause and principles of interstate federalism embodied in the U.S. Constitution, and an injunction against the enforcement of Proposition 12’s requirements concerning pork,’ the lawsuit states.”

A news release today from the USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) stated that, “[USDA] reminds insured producers nationwide who currently participate in Federal Crop Insurance and are facing a delay in harvesting their crop to contact their crop insurance agent and file a Notice of Loss (NOL) by December 10 or the applicable end of insurance period in order to request an extension of time to harvest. Once an extension has been approved, an insured producer needs to harvest the crop at the first feasible opportunity.

“‘Farmers are certainly struggling this year because of wet weather conditions,’ said Martin Barbre, Administrator of [RMA]. ‘Producers covered by Federal Crop Insurance that are unable to harvest on time should contact their crop insurance agent as soon as possible to file a notice of loss.’

“Insured producers must file a NOL and request an extension of time to harvest before the end of the insurance period, so that crop insurance claims are settled based on the amount of harvested production. For crops such as corn and soybeans, the end of the insurance period is December 10. For other crops, please contact your crop insurance agent.”

Today’s update added that, “More information on requesting assistance due to delayed harvest is available on RMA’s website. Crop insurance is sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance agents. A list of crop insurance agents is available at all USDA Service Centers and online at the RMA Agent Locator. Learn more about crop insurance and the modern farm safety net at rma.usda.gov.”

A news release today from the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) stated that, “Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced the U.S. Department of Agriculture is opening signup for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) on December 9, 2019. The deadline for agricultural producers to sign up for general CRP is February 28, 2020, while signup for continuous CRP is ongoing.

“Farmers and ranchers who enroll in CRP receive a yearly rental payment for voluntarily establishing long-term, resource-conserving plant species, such as approved grasses or trees (known as ‘covers’) to control soil erosion, improve water quality and develop wildlife habitat on marginally productive agricultural lands.

“‘The Conservation Reserve Program is one of our nation’s largest conservation endeavors and a critical tool to help producers better manage their operations while conserving natural resources,’ Secretary Perdue said. ‘The program marks its 35-year anniversary in 2020, and we’re hoping to see one of our largest signups in many years.'”

The FSA update noted that, “FSA recently posted updated soil rental rates for CRP. County average rates are posted on the CRP Statistics webpage. Soil rental rates are statutorily prorated at 90 percent for continuous signup and 85 percent for general signup. The rental rates will be reviewed annually. Under continuous signup, producers also receive incentives, including a signup incentive payment and a practice incentive payment.”

“To enroll in CRP, contact your local FSA county office or visit fsa.usda.gov/crp.”

Des Moines Register writer Donnelle Eller reported yesterday that, “A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday preventing Iowa officials from enforcing a new law that would make it a crime for whistleblowers or undercover animal welfare activists to take pictures or videos at meatpacking plants and livestock facilities.

“The injunction will remain in place while a lawsuit challenging the state’s so-called ‘ag-gag’ law proceeds.

“The court also denied the state’s attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed.”

“In April, the America Civil Liberties Union of Iowa filed a lawsuit challenging the ag-gag law, arguing it’s unconstitutional, chills free speech and criminalizes a free press,” the Register article said.

Ms. Eller added that, “Iowa lawmakers and agriculture groups say the law is necessary to protect livestock producers from groups that would use false pretenses to harm farm operations.

“The new law is similar to legislation that passed in 2012, which a federal judge ruled in January was unconstitutional. The state is appealing that decision.

“The legal challenges are moving through the courts separately.”