View All Opportunities

The locations for the Hearing Officer vacancies are listed as:

1. Denver, CO
   B. Dallas, TX
   C. Boise, ID
   D. Salt Lake City, UT
   E. North Dakota -(Please be advised that if you are interested in working in North Dakota, applicants will have the flexibility to work/live anywhere in the state.)

View All Opportunities

Vermont Law School has a distinguished record of preparing students to serve their clients and the public interest.  As the nation’s leading environmental law and policy program (US News & World Report), we seek to fill the following position:

Transactional Clinical Staff Attorney

This newly created position will work as a lawyer and teacher spearheading the Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) work with students, the CAFS LLM Fellow, and other faculty to develop legal tools and resources to support sustainable food systems.  Responsibilities include researching and writing novel legal tools; translating those tools for broad use (through social media, web resources, and in-person trainings); outreach to local, regional and national organizations to create strategic partnerships to amplify our progressive work; and developing funding sources, including grant writing, in collaboration with the Director and Associate Director of CAFS and other staff.  Teaching responsibilities include supervising students on projects & collaborating/assisting the other CAFS faculty in teaching and evaluation.  Requires min 2-3 yrs relevant legal practice exp, demonstrated commitment to sustainable food & agriculture, excellent analytical, research & writing skills, and interest in mentoring students.  This is a one year position, with additional years dependent upon future funding.

For more information on these and other positions, please visit our website at www.vermontlaw.edu under Employment Opportunities.

Send a resume and cover letter with salary requirements to Human Resources, Vermont Law School, P.O. Box 96, South Royalton, VT 05068 or to jobs@vermontlaw.edu.

Vermont Law School is an equal opportunity employer committed to diversity in our workforce.

LL.M. Program in Agricultural & Food Law, Teaching Assistantship Program,  position announcement

Each year, the LL.M. Program in Agricultural & Food Law receives applications from many qualified candidates, including those from outside of the United States. While most of next year’s class is in place, we are still accepting applications for the final remaining spots, and we will still have two openings in our Teaching Assistantship Program.

While some of our LL.M. candidates are recent law graduates, each class also includes practicing attorneys and law professors. We welcome these talented and experienced lawyers to our Program.

For each of the last several years, we have offered a special Teaching Assistantship opportunity in connection with admission to the LL.M. Program.  Experienced attorneys who are admitted to the LL.M. Program can apply for an adjunct teaching position at the law school, and if accepted, receive a full tuition waiver for all of their LL.M. coursework in exchange for teaching one course (2 credits) per semester.  In addition, the attorney receives a small stipend of $3,000 per semester and receives graduate assistantship benefits through the University of Arkansas.

Anyone interested in this unique opportunity should apply to the LL.M. Program in Agricultural & Food Law and indicate in your cover letter or email that you are interested in teaching.  This year, we have a particular need for attorneys with practical legal writing skills who could teach an Upper Level Legal Writing course involving pre-trial documents.  This course has already been developed and approved as a law school course, with a recommended book and exercises provided.

LL.M. Application information can be found on our website, How to Apply.  For additional questions call Sarah Hiatt at (479) 575-3706 or email Susan Schneider at sas.susan@gmail.com.

Editor’s Note: Angela Juneau has written a lengthy article to be published in the Rutgers Law Journal. The conclusion of this article is reprinted here with permission. Anyone wishing to read the complete text can email Angela at angela.juneau@gmail.com or wait for the forthcoming appearance in the Rutgers Law Journal.

Conclusion

Without intervention, budget-conscious shoppers will continue to be influenced by the federal Farm Bill’s subsidy program to purchase foods that are the most harmful to their health and the health of their families. This is evidenced by how corn and soy are processed and used to cheaply sweeten and fatten junk foods and by a number of studies that show the major influence price has on consumers. The federal Farm Bill also threatens the vast network of small New Jersey fruit farms that are critical to the state’s economy by primarily supporting but five limited commodities—none of which are in the top five commodities produced by New Jersey—and by giving the country’s biggest farms the money to grow even larger and to acquire small farms, like the ones so vital to this state.

Federal subsidies have outlived their usefulness in today’s agricultural economy. Instead of waiting for Congress to enact permanent, and not just short-lived, change, this Note suggests that the state combat the inequities and problems that arise in New Jersey as a result of federal farm subsidies. Two changes would be particularly helpful.

First, the state should limit the size of corporate farms to no more than five shareholders to protect New Jersey’s small farms. Such a limit would be an excellent complement to the Farmland Preservation program and would prevent New Jersey’s small farms not only from being purchased by developers but also from being absorbed by large agribusinesses.

Second, the state should enact an excise tax on the amount of processed corn and soy in foods sold within the state. By making it an excise tax, consumers will see junk food at a more realistic price and can make the decision about what food to buy based on something more than price alone. The system will be easier to administer than a general tax on foods deemed “junk foods” and the money the state makes on the tax can be given to low-income families in the form of fruit and vegetable vouchers. In addition to the general benefit of improving residents’ health, such a program would save the state a great deal of money in terms of tax dollars spent on obesity and diet-related diseases. Furthermore, consumers who changed their behavior as a result would save a great deal of money themselves in health care costs. There would certainly be a backlash of criticism by consumers who understandably do not want to be subject to more taxation. Importantly, however, only people who elect to buy foods with processed corn and soy will be subject to the tax, as opposed to the current federal subsidy program whereby all taxpayers are forced to contribute to subsidy payments, regardless of their personal food choices. Regardless of consumer criticism, such a response is outweighed by the ever-increasing obesity epidemic in our country.

An Indiana farmer has learned the hard way that patent law prevents him from “copying” Monsanto’s patented seed.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously the farmer was not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine when he purchased commodity seed from a local grain elevator that he knew had the Monsanto Roundup Ready patented technology.  He planted the seed, harvested the crop, and saved some seed for planting of next year’s crop.  His conduct allowed him to bypass the need to buy the seed directly from Monsanto pursuant to a technology agreement (which bars saving the seed for replanting).  Monsanto sued the farmer for patent infringement for planting the progeny of protected seed. The federal trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Monsanto, and the farmer sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court granted review on October 5, 2012.

Monsanto developed technology for Roundup Ready soybeans and obtained patents protecting the company’s technology in 1996. Since 1996, Monsanto has marketed and sold Roundup Ready soybean seeds under its own licensing, and all growers are subject to a standard limited-use license known as the Monsanto Technology Agreement (MTA). Under the MTA, the grower agrees to use the seed containing the gene for the planting of a commercial crop for only a single season, to not supply any of the seed to any other person for planting, and to not save any crop produced from the seed for replanting. The MTA, however, does not prohibit the grower from selling the seed to a cooperative or elevator. In such situations, the grower is not required to secure a promise from the grain elevator not to sell the seeds for planting. However, problems arise when the grain elevator sells the grain for replanting.

Here, the defendant purchased seed containing the Roundup Ready trait and executed an MTA.  The MTA provided him with a limited license to plant the seeds for a single crop.  Beginning in 1999, the defendant also purchased commodity soybean seed from a local grain elevator for a late-season planting or “second-crop” planting. He purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the higher price for the Roundup Ready seed. The farmer saved the seed from the second-crop planting for additional second-crop replanting in subsequent years. Monsanto investigated the defendant’s activities and sued the farmer for patent infringement based on the saving of seed.  The farmer claimed “patent exhaustion” as a defense.  The federal trial court in Indiana ordered the defendant to pay $84,456 to Monsanto for infringement.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that Monsanto’s patent rights are exhausted with respect to the Roundup Ready soybean seeds present in grain elevators as “undifferentiated commodity.” According to the defendant, the sales of second generation seeds by growers to grain elevators and then from grain elevators to purchasers are authorized by the tech agreement and are “exhausting” sales. The defendant urged the court to adopt a “robust” exhaustion doctrine that encompasses the progeny of seeds and other self-replicating biotechnologies.

The appellate court refused to adopt the defendant’s view and held the licensed growers’ sales of second-generation seeds to grain elevators as commodity seeds did not exhaust Monsanto’s patent rights and a grower’s sale of harvested soybeans to a grain elevator is not an authorized sale when it results in those soybeans being planted. Here, patent exhaustion did not bar Monsanto’s infringement action. By planting the commodity seeds containing the Roundup Ready technology, the defendant created a “newly infringing article” in violation of the tech agreement. Farmers, like the defendant, cannot replicate the patented technology by planting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic material.

On further review by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously affirmed.  The Court noted that under the patent exhaustion doctrine, the initial authorized sale of an article that is patented terminates all patent rights to that particular article and gives the buyer and any subsequent owner the right to do whatever they want with the article.  But, the Court noted, the doctrine only applies to the item sold.  A buyer can’t make “copies” of the patented item.  Thus, when the farmer planted and harvested the seeds he bought from the grain elevator that contained Monsanto’s technology, he made additional “copies” of Monsanto’s patented product.  That conduct is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.  To hold as the farmer desired, the Court reasoned, would eliminate the patenting benefit achieved by Monsanto for its products developed as a result of extensive investment into research and development of crop technology for the benefit of farmers and the public.  Establishing a “per se” rule that exhausts all patent claims upon the first sale would not foster the development and sale of patented products and would erode the incentive that patent law provides to develop new technology and products.  The Court found it important that Monsanto’s patent at issue was a utility patent and not a patent derived from the Plant Patent Act or the Plant Variety Protection Act (which would not receive as lock-tight patent protection).  Further, any exemption for the copying of seed technology would need to come from the Congress rather than the Court (as the Congress has done with respect to the copying of computer software).  Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 3519 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2013), aff’g., sub nom., Monsanto Co. v. Bowman, 657 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Job Title:Assistant General Counsel, Natural Resources and Environment Division, USDA

Members can access details of these jobs in the Member Resources area, under Jobs,  after logging in.

Administrative Law

Ballard, A Practitioner’s Guide to the Litigation of Federally Reinsured Crop Insurance Claims, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 531-564 (2013).

Janzen & Schneider, Agricultural Task Force Releases Report on Regulatory Structures, 52 Res Gestae 42-43 4 (2009).

Nemane, Food and Agricultural Security Stategy and It’s Implementation under the Public Health Security and BioTerroism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 317-345 (2012).

Alien Land Ownership (Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land)

Note, Reforming Alien Agricultural Landownership Restrictions in Corporate Farming Law States: A Constitutional and Policy View from Iowa, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 709-753 (2013).

Biotechnology

Note, Monsanto v. Geertson Farms: Congressional Intent, Judicial Infidelity, and the National Environmental Policy Act (Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743, 2010),  37 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 319-345 (2012).

Energy Issues

Comment, Refueling Biofuel Legislation: Incorporating Social Sustainability Principles to Protect Land Rights, 30 Wis. Int’l. L. J. 401-427 (2012).

Slating & Kesan, Making Regulatory Innovation Keep Pace with Technological Innovation, 2011 Wis. L. Rev. 1109-1179.

Environmental Issues

Breggin, Myers & Wilensky, It’s Time To Put a Price Tag on the Environmental Impacts of Commodity Crop Agriculture, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Anal. 10130-10137 (2013).

Keske, Anaerobic Digestion Technology: How Agricultural Producers and the Environment Might Profit from Nuisance Lawsuits, 52 Nat. Resources J. 315-336 (2012).

Farm Labor

Aliens

Hishaw, Mississippi Is Burning Georgia’s Peaches because Alabama Is No Longer a Sweet Home: A Legislative Analysis of Southern Discomfort Regarding Illegal Immigration, 58 S.D. L. Rev. 30-64 (2013).

Martin, Immigration and Farm Labor: What Next?, 27(1) Choices 1-5  1^st Q. 2012.

General & Social Welfare

Alexander, Explaining Peripheral Labor: A Poultry Industry Case Study, 33 Berkeley J. Employment & Lab. L. 353-399 (2012).

Evans, Winning Workers’ Compensation for Farmworkers Through Civil Rights Litigation, 46 Clearinghouse Rev. 461-464 (2013).

Farm Policy and Legislative Analysis

Domestic

Billings, The Homestead Act, the Pacific Railroad Act and Morrill Act, 39 N. Ky. L. Rev. 699-736 (2012).

Gilles, The Legal History of Vermont Butter, 38 Vt. B. J. & Legal Dig. 8-14 (2013).

Food and Drug Law

Comment, Nurturing the Seeds of Food Justice: Unearthing the Impact of Institutionalized Racism on Access to Healthy Food in Urban African-American Communities, 15 Scholar 97-138 (2012).

Goldberg, Administering Real Food: How the Eat-Food Movement Should -and Should Not- Approach Government Regulation, 39 Ecology L. Q. 773-829 (2012).

Hunger & Food Security Issues

Student Article, Letting Farmers Be Farmers: Economic Solutions to Subsistence Looting, 23 DePaul  J. Art, Tech.  & Intell. Prop. L. 111-153 (2012).

International Trade

Kerr & Hobbs, Consumers, Cows and Carousels: Why the Dispute over Beef Hormones Is Far More Important than its Commercial Value in N. Perdikis and R Read, The Wto And The Regulation Of International Trade 191-214 (E. Elgar Pub., 2005).

Note, Sin Embargo: The Cuban Agricultural Revolution and What It Means for the United States, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 683-707 (2013).

Land Reform

Dalton, Rights for the Landless: Comparing Approaches to Historical Injustice in Brazil and South Africa, 44 Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 171-198 (2012).

Note, A Step in the Wrong Direction: Increasing Restrictions on Foreign Rural Land Acquisition in Brazil, 35 Fordham Int’l L. J. 1743-1779 (2012).

Student Note, Securing Land Tenure & Agricultural Development in the Guinea Savannah: A Ghanaian Case Study, 9 S.C. J. Int’l L. & Bus. 131-159 (2012).

Livestock and Packers & Stockyards

Eckley & McEowen, Pink Slime and the Legal History of Food Disparagement, 27(4) Choices 1-5  4^th Q. 2012.

Note, The Agricultural Iron Curtain: Ag Gag Legislation and the Threat to Free Speech, Food Safety, and Animal Welfare, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 645-681 (2013).

Note, Shooting the Messenger: A Common-Sense Analysis of State “Ag-Gag” Legislation under the First Amendment, 45 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1129-1176 (2012).

Parsons, Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Reflections on the Beef Checkoff Litigation, 57 S.D. L. Rev. 427-442 (2012).

Marketing Boards, Marketing Orders, Marketing Promotion, & Marketing Quotas

Olexa et al., Cash, Crops, Chemicals, and Cosmetics: A Mid-Green Eco-Labeling Approach, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 223-256 (2012).

Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture

Dagne, Place-Based Intellectual Property Strategies for Traditional and Local Agricultural Products: Acting Locally to Participate Globally in a Rights-Based Approach, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 565-595 (2013).

Morgan, The AquAdvantage Salmon: Who Owns Escaped Genetically Modified Animals?, 17 Ocean Coastal L. J. 127-161 (2011).

Note, Patenting Life: TRIPS Article 27 & Bolivia’s Proposal to Ban the Patenting of All Life Forms, 24 Geo. Int’l  Envtl. L. Rev. 245-265 (2012).

Pesticides, Herbicides, Insecticides, Fungicides, Fertilizers

Leiterman, Could You Repeat that Please? Forty-five Years of Pesticide Experiments on People, 19 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl.  L. & Pol’y 195-225 (2013).

Rural Development

Condra, Food Sovereignty in the United States: Supporting Local and Regional Food Systems, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 281-316 (2012).

Note, Bridging the Gap: Farm Transition Challenges Facing Elder Farmers and the Need for a Nationwide Farm-On Program, 20 Elder L. J. 485-520 (2013).

Note, The Intersection between Urban Agriculture and Form-Based Zoning: A Return to Traditional Planning Techniques, 19 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 83-125 (2013).

Peters, Disappearing Bees and the Explosion of Urban Agriculture Inspire Urbanites to Keep Honeybees: Why City Leaders Should Care and What They Should Do About It, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 597-644 (2013).

Schindler, Of Backyard Chickens and Front Yard Gardens: The Conflict Between Local Governments and Locavores, 87 Tul. L. Rev. 231-296 (2012).

Slabinski, From Wasteland to Oasis: How Pennsylvania Can Appropriate Vacant Urban Land into Functional Urban Space via Urban Farming, 22 Widener L. J. 253-287 (2012).

Sustainable & Organic Farming

Comment, Empowering Local and Sustainable Food: Does the Food Safety Modernization Act’s Tester-Hagan Amendment Remove Enough Barriers? 9 J. L. Econ. & Pol’y 145-167 (2012).

Trade Regulation/Antitrust

Carson & Frederick, Antitrust Challenges Facing Farmers and their Cooperatives, 80 Rural Coop. 22-27 (1-2013).

Note, Monsanto and the Quasi-Per Se Illegal Rule for Bundled Discounts, 37 Vt. L. Rev. 203-237 (2012).

Veterinary Law

Comment, Regulating through Rules: Suggested Changes in the Federal Regulation of Veterinary Compounding, 13 Hous. J. Health L. & Pol’y 129-161 (2012).

Water Rights:  Agriculturally related

Davis & Pappas, Escaping the Sporhase Maze: Protecting State Waters within the Commerce Clause, 73 La. L. Rev. 175-218 (2012).

Griffin, Engaging Irrigation Organizations in Water Reallocation, 52 Nat. Resources J. 277-313 (2012).

Paddock, A Survey of Statutes Governing Appropriation of Water Rights in Eleven Western States, 49 Rocky Mtn.  Min. L. Found. 295-342 (2012).

Schempp, At the Confluence of the Clean Water Act and Prior Appropriation: The Challenge and Ways Forward, 43 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Analysis 10138-10168 (2013).

Stevens, California’s Groundwater: A Legally Neglected Resource, 19 Hastings W.-Nw. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 3-37 (2013).

LISTING

Iowa State University 2013 Summer Seminar in Traverse City, MI: Farm Income Tax, Estate and Business Planning

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/summer2013michigan.html

Cosponsored by Michigan Society of CPAs

June 13-14, 2013

The Hagerty Center at Northwester Michigan College

715 East Front St.

Traverse City, MI

Ohio Agricultural Law Symposium

http://agnr.osu.edu/anr-programs/agricultural-and-resource-law-program/2013-ohio-ag-law-symposium

Cosponsored by OSU Extension Agricultural and Resource Law Program and Ohio State Bar Association

June 23-24

Cherry Valley Lodge, Newark, OH

Iowa State University 2013 Summer Seminar in Santa Fe, NM: Farm Income Tax, Estate, and Business Planning

http://www.calt.iastate.edu/summer2013newmexico.html

June 27-28, 2013

The Bishop Lodge Ranch Resort and Spa

1297 Bishop’s Lodge Rd.

Santa Fe, NM

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

August 28-29, 2013,  Quality Inn & Conference Center, Ames, IA

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

September 9-10, 2013,  Honey Creek Resort, Moravia, IA

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

September 16-17, 2013,  Courtyard Marriott, Moorhead, MN

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

September 19-20, 2013,  Ramkota Hotel, Sioux Falls, SD

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Mountain State Land Use Academy Leadership Conference

October 9-10, 2013, The Charleston Marriott Town Center, Charleston, WV

http://landuse.law.wvu.edu/mountain-state-land-use-academy

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

October 10-11, 2013, Holiday Inn, Council Bluffs, IA

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

October 10-11, 2013,  Holiday Inn, Rock Island, IL

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

November 7-8, 2013,  Hilton Garden Inn, Indianapolis, IN

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

November 14-15, 2013,  Parke Hotel, Bloomington, IL

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Agricultural Tax Seminars – Neil Harl, Farm Income Tax & Farm Estate and Business Planning 

http://www.agrilawpress.com/seminars/

November 18-19, 2013,  Clarion Inn, Mason City, IA

Contact: Robert Achenbach

Administrative Law

Ballard, Crop Insurance Arbitration: What Is Arbitration, When Is It Required, and How Does It Work, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 10-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Note, First Americans and the Federal Government: Tribal Consultation, Agriculture, and a New Government-to-Government Relationship at the Start of the Twenty-First Century, 17 Drake J. Agric. l. 473-509 (2012).

Rumley, Crop Insurance for Edamame, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Steinzor, The Age of Greed and the Sabotage of Regulation, 47 Wake Forest L. Rev. 503-536 (2012).

Agribusiness Corporations

Note, Follow the Money: Insulating Agribusiness through Lobbying and Suppression of Individual Free Speech, 6 Pittsburgh J. Envtl. L. & Pub. Healtlh L. 213-237 (2012).

Animals — Animal Rights

Anderson, The Origins and Efficacy of Private Enforcement of Animal Cruelty Law in Britain, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 263-310 (2012).

Cassuto & Saville, Hot, Crowded, and Legal: A Look at Industrial Agriculture in the United States and Brazil,  18 Animal L. 185-205 (2012).

Leahy, Large-Scale Farmed Animal Abuse and Neglect: Law and Its Enforcement, 4 J. Animal L. & Ethics 63-132 (2011).

Pearson, Horse Slaughter: A Conflict of Ethics, Economics & Welfare, 4 J. Animal L. & Ethics 205-241 (2011).

Student Article. Ag-gag: The Unconstitutionality of Laws Restricting Undercover Investigations on Farms, 42 Envtl. L. Rep. News & Anal. 10960-10977 (2010).

Wechsler, Blood on the Hands of the Federal Government: Affirmative Steps that Promote Animal Cruelty, 4 J. Animal L. & Ethics 183-204 (2011).

Biotechnology

Conko, Is There a Future for Generic Biotech Crops? Issue Analysis No. 7 pp. 22, Competitive Enterprise Institute  9-2012, http://www.cei.org

Hermitte et al., Legal Issues, an Overview on Co-Existence Policies: Technological Pluralism, Confidence Economy, Transnational Supply Chains in Y. Bertheau (ed.), Genetically Modified And Non-Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains:  Co-Existence And Traceability 415-431 (2013).

Lee-Muramoto, Reforming the “Uncoordinated” Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 311-367 (2012).

Noiville, The Judge’s Role Concerning Science in Precautionary Measures: A Shift from Guide to Arbitrator in Y. Bertheau (ed.), Genetically Modified And Non-Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains:  Co-Existence And Traceability 433-457 (2013).

Yu & Wang,  Agro-GMO Biosafety Legislation in China: Current Situation, Challenges, and Solutions, 13 Vt. J. Envtl. L. 865-883 (2012).

Energy Issues

Endres, Clearing the Air: The Meta-Standard Approach to Ensuring Biofuels Environmental and Social Sustainability, 28 Va. Envtl.  L. J. 73-120 (2010).

Ferrell & Rumley, Wind Energy Leasing Handbook – Workbook, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 11-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Environmental Issues

Gathii & Hirakawa, Curtailing Ecosystem Exportation: Ecosystem Services as a Basis to Reconsider Export-Driven Agriculture in Economies Highly Dependent on Agricultural Exports, 30 Va. Envtl. L. J. 1-27 (2012).

Note,  A Case for Cooperation between the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of Agriculture in Order to Achieve Federal Environmental Quality Goals  (National Pork Producers’ Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738, 2011), 19 J. Envtl. Sustainability L. 123-150 (2012).

Note, Striking the Proper Balance between the Carrot and the Stick: Approaches to Animal Feeding Operation Regulation, 2012 U. Ill. L. Rev. 923-968

Farm Labor

          Aliens

Martin, Agriculture and Migration after Arizona, 16 ARE Update 6-8  2012, http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/articles/V16N1_2.pdf.

          General & Social Welfare

Simmons, A Brief Survey of Important Legal Issues for Agricultural Employers, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 395-447 (2012).

Farm Policy and Legislative Analysis

          Domestic

Jones, Put a Cork in It: The Use of H.R. 1161 to End Direct Wine Shipping throughout the States Once and for All, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 113-143 (2012).

Kammer, Cornography: Perverse Incentives and the United States Corn Subsidy, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 1-63 (2012).

Krueger, The Farm Bill as a Resource for Strengthening Food Systems, 46 Clearinghouse Rev. 218-225 (2012).

Farmer-Processor Bargaining — Production Contracts

Rumley, Agricultural Contracting, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Food and Drug Law

Cain, Salads, Safety and Speech under a National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement, 67 Food Drug L. J. 311-336 (2012).

California Environmental Law & Policy Center, California’s Proposition 37: A Legal & Policy Analysis 42 pp.  10-2012, http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/centers/enviromental/

Farnese, Canadian Food Law Update, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 171-180 (2012).

Handel, Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods: A Constitutional Analysis of California’s Proposition 37, Culinaria No. 1 pp. 26 (2012).

Keane, Can a Consumer’s Right to Know Survive the WTO?: The Case of Food Labeling, 16 Transnat. L. & Contemp.  Prob. 291-332 (2006).

Majster, European Food Law Update: A Special Look at the Focus on Nutrition and Consumer Information, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 181-189 (2012).

Remarks: 2011 The National Food Policy Conference, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 191-221 (2012).

Corbo, Reforming U.S. Food Safety Policy: A Consumer Advocacy Perspective, 193-197

Heshmat, Obstacles to Dieting Behavior, 199-201

Pingree, The Local Food Movement: From Maine to Washington, D.C., 203-212

Waxman, The Costs and Impacts of Rising Food Prices among Low-Income Households, 213-221

Rumley, Food Safety and Specialty Crops, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Rumley, Food Labeling for Specialty Crop Producers, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Rumley & Rumley, Non-GMO Labeling, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Seideman & Rainery, 3^rd Party Food Safety Audits, National Agricultural Law Publications 9-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Sexton, Does Local Production Come at the Expense of Food Safety?, 16 ARE Update 9-11  2012, http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/articles/V16N1_3.pdf

Student Article, Catastrophe Lurks in South America: Tainted Food and International Commerce in the Andean Community of Nations, 39 Syracuse J. Int’l. L. & Comm. 411-439 (2012).

Student Essay, “Natural” Modifications: the FDA’s Need to Promulgate an Official Definition of “Natural” that Includes Genetically Modified Organisms, 80 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1504-1526 (2012).

Tai, The Rise of U.S. Food Sustainability Litigation, 85 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1069-1135  (2012).

Fruits & Vegetables — Perishable Agricultural Commodities

Pittman, Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Factsheet, National Agricultural Law Center Publications, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Hunger & Food Security Issues

Kang, Recognizing the Link Among Climate Change, Food, and Poverty, 46 Clearinghouse Rev. 289-293 (2012).

Lambert, Global Food Security: In Our National Interest, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 99-112 (2012).

Webb & Allen, Southern Progress: Antihunger and Food Justice Movements in Arkansas and Mississippi 46 Clearlinghouse Rev. 226-234 (2012).

International Trade

Kershen, California’s Proposition 37 and the WTO Agreements, 16 ARE Update 1-5  2012, http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/articles/V16N1_1.pdf

Kershen, Would State-Mandated Labels For Biotech Foods Violate World Trade Agreements?, Working Paper Series Number 181 pp. 26, Wash. Legal Found. (9-2012), http://www.wlf.org

Smyth, Kerr & Phillips, Recent Trends in the Scientific Basis of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Trade Rules and Their Potential Impact on Investment, 12 J. World Investment & Trade 1, 5-26 (2011).

Smyth, Phillips & Kerr, Global Governance Quandaries Regarding Transformative Technologies for Bioproducts, Crops, and Foods, 43 J. World Trade 1299-1323 (2009).

Leases, Landlord-Tenant

Cox, The Landowner’s Guide to Sustainable Farm Leasing pp.53  8-2010 (Leopold Center, Iowa State).

Note, Corn Flakes Aren’t just for Kellogg’s: A Look at Corn Stover and its Effect on Leasing in the Landlord-Tenant Farmer Relationship, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 511-530 (2012).

Patents and Other Intellectual Property Rights in Agriculture

Clarke, Smoke and Mirrors: Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive Marks and the TTAB’s Erroneous Reliance on the Heightened Goods-Place Association, 22 Fed. Circuit B. J. 177-202 (2012).

Comment, Man vs. Nature: Should the Offspring of Transgenic Animals be Patentable Subject Matter?, 37 U. Dayton L. Rev. 257-278 (2012).

Finston, The Role of Intellectual Property in Development of Golden Rice, 1(2) J. Pub. Interest Intell. Prop. 1-7 2012, http://www.piipajournal.org/issue/archive

Gubarev, Misappropriation and Patenting of Traditional Ethnobotanical Knowledge and Genetic Resources, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 65-98 (2012).

Heald & Chapman, Veggie Tales: Pernicious Myths about Patents, Innovation, and Crop Diversity in the Twentieth Century, 2012 U. Ill. L. Rev. 1051-1102.

Marden & Godfrey, Intellectual Property and Sharing Regimes in Agricultural Genomics: Finding the Right Balance for Innovation, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 369-393 (2012).

Matthews, Increasing Revenue in Developing Nations through Intellectual Property Rights: Why a Diversified Approach to Intellectual Property Protection with a Focus on Geographical Indications Is the Best Method,  7 Buffalo Intell. Prop. L. J. 201-223 (2010).

Pesticides, Herbicides, Insecticides, Fungicides, Fertilizers

Rumley, Approval of Pesticides, National Agricultural Law Publications, 9-2012 http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Public Lands

Note, This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land: Allowing Third Party Standing to Address Environmental Harms on the Federal Public Lands, 39 Ecol. L. Q. 507-533 (2012).

Student Article, Are Federal Livestock Grazing Permittees an Endangered Species? The Future of Public Lands Grazing in Montana under the Endangered Species Act, 33 Pub. Land & Res. L. Rev. 143-174 (2012).

Rural Development

Book Review, Cows v Capitalists: Visions of a Post-Carbon Economy – Simon Fairlie, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, 8 J. Food L. & Pol’y 145-169 (2012).

Comment, Pressing Washington’s Wine Industry into the Twenty-First Century: Rethinking What It Means to be a Winery, 87 Wash. L. Rev. 851-882 (2012).

Davidson, My Aging Minority Rural Grandparents: Disparities in the Health and Health Care of the Rural Elderly Minority Population and the Need for Culturally Competent Health Care Providers, 21 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y  L. 57-78 (2012).

Tarr, Cunningham & Rumley, Mississippi Direct Farm Business Guide, National Agricultural Law Center Publications 11-2012, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org

Sustainable & Organic Farming

Galey & Endres, Locating the Boundaries of Sustainable Agriculture, 17 NEXUS 3-34 (2012).

Galluzzi et al., Keeping Germplasm Flowing, 1(2) J. Pub. Interest Intell. Prop. 1-13  2012, http://www.piipajournal.org/issue/archive

Taxation

Note, Iowa’s Property Tax System and the Agricultural Tie: Effect on Local Government Revenue Generation, 17 Drake J. Agric. L. 449-472 (2012).

Torts and Insurance

Koch, Liability and Redress Options for Damage Caused by GMOs in Y. Bertheau (ed.), Genetically Modified And Non-Genetically Modified Food Supply Chains:  Co-Existence And Traceability 405-413 (2013).

Trade Regulation/Antitrust

Lim, Rebooting the Bean, 3 ABA Antitrust Section Agriculture Food Committee Newsletter 2-13 (Fall 2012).

Uniform Commercial Code

          Article Seven (Documents of Title)

Schutz, Documents of Title, 67 Bus. L. 1293-1298 (2012).