USDA Lawsuits: As an Overview

Fresno, CA – Wolves And Other Vicious Pets

The USDA, or United States Department of Agriculture, is one of the many bodies that regulate the growing and handling of food in the US. In doing this, they are attempting to protect the public’s health. While some farmers are approved to sell food to people with special dietary needs (notably children, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities), others are not so approved. This can mean trouble for anyone who purchases food from such stores. While there are several ways to handle such lawsuits, the easiest for a plaintiff to win is by entering into a settlement contract.

Under the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), the agency sets a standard of organic production standards that all farms must adhere to.

For those producers who are found to be in violation of these requirements, fines can be issued. For example, if a farmer has used pesticides or other chemicals that have not been registered for use on his or her farm, or if the pesticides have been used in excess, he or she will be punished. If the farmer sells the food to you, even if it was found to be not conventionally organic, you may be able to sue the store for negligence. Some plaintiffs’ attorneys note, however, that even if the case was ruled in their favor in federal court, the farmer’s no-fault status may prevent other USDA-approved farmers from being granted the same benefits.

Other cases have been decided on different grounds.

In a case stemming from a dispute between growers of organic alfalfa and a local dairy cooperative, the defendants were found to have exceeded their allowed amounts of alfalfa and were subsequently barred from selling the product in the area. An appeals court found the no-fault ruling to be invalidated because it applied only to circumstances where the farmer had applied for and received an NOP certification for an organic production site; there is no such requirement for no-fault cases outside of the NOP. The plaintiffs, therefore, are now required to come up with additional evidence of the harm caused by the defendants’ failure to meet the required standards.

Another aspect of USDA lawsuits involves the trapping and killing of predators such as coyotes and bobcats in a bid to control the population of these animals.

Coyotes pose a risk to farmers and property by decimating the food supply as they feed on chickens and other farm animals; on the other hand, coyotes tend to be more of a nuisance, particularly when they bite children or pets. Both common cats and coyotes can be killed using either poison or traps.

As a result of the rise in frivolous claims and the growing emphasis on mandatory litigation in reference to the issues raised by such cases, many states have become stricter in recent years.

The New York Times has reported that a number of states are now holding wolf hunting contests, awarding trophies to those hunters with the most kills. The “wolf hunting championship” is a growing trend in many states, with many of the states encouraging citizens to file frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to hasten the process of wolf killing. In some instances, plaintiffs are being encouraged to file frivolous claims in order to force states to expedite the wolf killing season.

The lack of scientific research in recent years has also played a role in the rise of frivolous lawsuits, causing agencies to become less willing to consider regulating the activities of coyotes or other dangerous predators.

The result has been a situation where farmers have been left with only a few legal methods available to reduce the numbers of coyotes. This leaves the field up to individual citizens to decide how best to manage the situation. However, even when pursuing an environmentally responsible solution through the use of non-lethal traps, farmers will often have success in reducing the population of these animals through cleverly placed traps or repellents. Therefore, efforts by the government to implement wolf trapping and killing programs while simultaneously encouraging citizens to file frivolous lawsuits regarding supposed violations of the rights of hunters must be balanced with realistic efforts to save the environment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *