Search

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ractopamine hydrochloride and zilpaterol hydrochloride in animal feeds, usage of those compounds has been a topic of worldwide debate. Ractopamine and zilpaterol are β-adrenergic agonists used as veterinary drugs to increase weight gain in certain animals raised for food. The Joint FAO/ WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established maximum residue limits for ractopamine, which were adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). No maximum residue limits for zilpaterol have been adopted by JECFA, and new reports of animal mobility issues confront the use of this feed additive. However, many countries disagree with theCodex standards and are restricting or banning meat products containing ß agonists. The bans by major importers of U.S. meat products have prompted some to advocate that the United States use the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body. This paper looks at the developments to provide a fuller accounting of what the issues may mean to U.S. firms selling meat products containing residues of β agonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Institutions of higher learning are adopting distance education courses to make it easier for students to obtain certificates, minors and degrees. A key aspect in the success of distance education programs revolves around how well the programs engage students during their learning. Developing an online program presents choices in determining appropriate learning strategies in course delivery and student engagement. This reflection discusses organizing a multi-institution distance education certificate program and choices for incorporating student engagement into the courses of an online agricultural and environmental law certificate program. Institutions and instructors may need to expend greater efforts to engage students in activities that will enhance their distance learning courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many owners and operators of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) need to secure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits from the federal or state permitting authority. Because of the expense and inconvenience of permit applications, farm groups have challenged revisions to the federal CAFO Rule as well as state regulations claiming selected provisions exceeded the authority of the permitting agency. In 2011, 2 courts responded with decisions that clarify federal and state permitting regulations. Another goal of agricultural groups is to change the regulatory authority of the state from an environmental agency to a department of agriculture. These developments suggest that by altering the permitting authority, CAFO owners and operators may alleviate some of the burdens of the permitting process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In an effort to save regulatory resources, the US Environmental Protection Agency and individual states have interpreted the Clean Water Act in a manner that authorizes discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations without the review of nutrient management plans. Environmental groups have objected to the abbreviated regulatory procedures, and courts have ruled that permitting agencies must review substantive documentation of effluent limitations contained in nutrient management plans. Proposed new federal regulations prescribing the requirement of a meaningful review of appropriate documentation by the permitting agency respond to the judicial mandates. To facilitate regulatory approval, regulators might use a state certification program to achieve the obligatory meaningful review. Independent certifiers would ensure that an operation's land application of manure meets federal water quality requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]