Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
National Organic Program

Organic Program Final Rule Challenged
as Inconsistent with Organic Foods Production Act

Jennifer Fiser
Research Associate

Summary

In Harvey v. Veneman, 297 F.Supp. 2d 334 (D. Me. 2004), the United States District Court for the District of Maine affirmed the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge regarding counts one through eight of Harvey's lawsuit, and rejected the recommended decision with regard to count nine. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all counts. Id.

Background

Plaintiff Arthur Harvey was an organic farmer, handler, certifier, and consumer. Harvey v. Veneman, No. Civ. 02-216-P-H, 2003 WL 22327171 (D. Me. Oct. 10, 2003). Harvey brought a lawsuit challenging the consistency of the National Organic Program (NOP) and the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522. Id. The United States Magistrate Judge recommended that summary judgment be granted in favor of Secretary Veneman on counts one through eight, and that count nine be remamded for further rulemaking. Id. In count nine, Harvey alleged that the Secretary failed to implement 7 U.S.C. section 6513(f)(4), which addresses organic plans for the harvesting of wild crops. Id. Harvey claimed that 6513(f) was an intentional effort by Congress to prevent rotation of wild crops out of and back into organic status. 2003 WL 22327171, at *23.

Analysis and Holding

The court agreed with the determination of the Magistrate Judge and granted summary judgment in favor of Secretary Veneman on counts one through eight. 297 F.Supp. 2d 334, at 335. The court rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to remand count nine, granting summary judgment in favor of Secretary Veneman on count nine as well. Id. at 335.

Regarding count nine, the court noted that the provision of the OFPA stated that an organic plan developed for the harvesting of wild crops must provide that prohibited substances will not be applied by the producer. Id. The court stated that the regulation that Harvey claimed was in violation of the OPFA provisions, 7 C.F.R. section 205.207, addresses standards for wild crop harvesting rather than organic plans. Id. The court also found that section 205.201 adequately implements the requirements of the OFPA by requiring organic plans to contain assurances that prohibited substances will not be applied to organic products. Id.

The case was decided on January 7, 2004; this summary was posted September 27, 2007.