Viewing evidence of harm accompanying uses of glyphosate-based herbicides under US legal requirements.

Some epidemiological experts feel there is sufficient proof that glyphosate use adversely affects human health, and glyphosate has been labeled as probably carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Federal law in the United States provides two major options under which health concerns about glyphosate use might be addressed. First, registrations of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) need to be cancelled if the costs are greater that its benefits. Since the cancellation of GBH registrations in the United States would lead to higher maize and soybean prices that would adversely affect food security, further analyses are needed. Second, US law requires consideration of the human dietary risk from pesticide residues, and tolerances of allowable amounts of glyphosate residues allowed to remain in or on food items have been established. Social cost curves depicting three options for regulating GBHs show preferred strategies dependent upon the magnitude of adverse effects on human health and food insecurity. Measures to reduce harm to humans can be identified to ameliorate health damages to allow some uses of GBHs to continue, but only if the evidence supports the conclusion that "no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue."

Cancelling pesticide registrations and revoking tolerances: The case of chlorpyrifos.

Petitions submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have sought to cancel registrations of chlorpyrifos and to revoke chlorpyrifos tolerances in or on food due to adverse health effects on people. Under federal law, tolerances for pesticide chemical residues in or on food must provide with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from a person's aggregate exposure. Petitioners' claims are analyzed under the legal requirements to discern whether the EPA had a rational basis for issuing its 2017 Chlorpyrifos Order denying the requests for cancellation of registrations and revocation of tolerances. The scientific evidence considered by the EPA indicated that existing tolerances do not protect people from unsafe levels of chlorpyrifos. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, tolerances need to be revoked if they do not protect human health. In refusing to recognize that chlorpyrifos tolerances do not comply with federal law, the EPA's 2017 Chlorpyrifos Order appears to be arbitrary and capricious.

Recent government regulations in the United States seek to ensure the effectiveness of antibiotics by limiting their agricultural use.

The development of bacteria resistant to antibiotics is viewed as a medical health threat. Because thousands of people die every year due to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, efforts are underway to reduce antibiotic usage which in turn will reduce the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. In the United States, the use of antibiotics in the production of food animals to enhance animal growth has been identified as contributing to resistance. In 2015, a veterinary feed directive was adopted by the U.S. federal government prohibiting nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics in food animals that should reduce usage. The continued usage of antibiotics by producers for preventing disease may mean the directive is insufficient to reduce nontherapeutic antibiotic administration. This may lead some consumers to seek meat products from animals raised without antibiotics. A governmentally-sponsored labeling program could encourage reduction in antibiotic usage.

Efforts to slacken antibiotic resistance: Labeling meat products from animals raised without antibiotics in the United States.

As bacteria and diseases spread due to climatic change, greater amounts of antibiotics will be used thereby exacerbating the problem of antibiotic resistance. To help slacken the development of resistant bacteria, the medical community is attempting to reduce unnecessary and excessive usage of antibiotics. One of the targets is the use of antibiotics for enhancing animal growth and promoting feed efficiency in the production of food animals. While governments can adopt regulations prohibiting nontherapeutic uses of antibiotics in food animals and strategies to reduce antibiotic usage, another idea is to publicize when antibiotics are used in food animal production by allowing labeled meat products. This paper builds upon existing labeling and marketing efforts in the United States to show how a government can develop a verified antibiotic-free labeling program that would allow consumers to purchase meat products from animals that had never received antibiotics.

Permitting program with best management practices for shale gas wells to safeguard public health.

The development of shale gas resources in the United States has been controversial as governments have been tardy in devising sufficient safeguards to protect both people and the environment. Alleged health and environmental damages suggest that other countries around the world that decide to develop their shale gas resources can learn from these problems and take further actions to prevent situations resulting in the release of harmful pollutants. Looking at U.S. federal regulations governing large animal operations under the permitting provisions of the Clean Water Act, the idea of a permitting program is proposed to respond to the risks of pollution by shale gas development activities. Governments can require permits before allowing the drilling of a new gas well. Each permit would include fluids and air emissions reduction plans containing best management practices to minimize risks and releases of pollutants. The public availability of permits and permit applications, as occurs for water pollution under various U.S. permitting programs, would assist governments in protecting public health. The permitting proposals provide governments a means for providing further assurances that shale gas development projects will not adversely affect people and the environment.

Governmental provisions to manage and eradicate feral swine in areas of the United States.

Feral swine (wild hogs) are one of the most widely distributed free-ranging mammals in the world. In the United States, feral swine serve as game animals for the sport of hunting in some areas, while they are nuisance species at other locations. Increasing feral swine populations creates negative impacts to growing crops, native plant communities, and wildlife. Feral swine can also serve as reservoirs for a number of bacterial and viral diseases that can infect wild animals, livestock, and humans. The US state governments are adopting statutes and regulations to reduce the growth and dispersal of feral swine populations. An analysis of these provisions suggests that while they seek to control feral swine populations, they are unlikely to provide any significant relief from damages to crops and native ecosystems. More localized reduction plans and a national disease control program are suggested to assuage damages being wrought by these invasive animals.

Unfinished business in the regulation of shale gas production in the United States.

With increased drilling for natural gas, toxic chemicals used to fracture wells have been introduced into the environment accompanied by allegations of injuries. This article evaluates laws and regulations governing shale gas production to disclose ideas for offering further protection to people and the environment. The aim of the study is to offer state governments ideas for addressing contractual obligations of drilling operators, discerning health risks, disclosing toxic chemicals, and reporting sufficient information to detect problems and enforce regulations. The discussion suggests opportunities for state regulators to become more supportive of public health through greater oversight of shale gas extraction.

Rationing health protection: a proposal to exempt nuisance dust from US Clean Air Act regulations.

The US House of Representative has passed a bill called the "Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act" (Dust Act) that would exempt most types of particulate matter (PM) in rural areas from the air quality controls of the US Clean Air Act. The Dust Act would markedly change the country's air quality standards. An examination of the proposed provisions shows that they would exempt non-combustion PM pollutants from mining, smelting, petroleum production, and power generation from existing air quality standards. Persons downwind from pollutants generated in rural areas could be exposed to concentrations of carcinogenic heavy metals, asbestos, and benzene known to adversely affect their health and ecological resources. Existing federal air quality standards based on science would be replaced by a flexible standard that rations health protection.

Securing recompense under nuisance law for crop damages from pesticide applications.

In areas where several crops are grown or where organic practices have been adopted, conflicts may arise due to the use of pesticides. Accompanying the use of specialized pesticides for individualized crops are possibilities that spray applications or volatilization will result in airborne pesticide particulates damaging nontarget crops. American jurisprudence provides several major causes of action that may be used to secure recompense for damages to crops from applications of pesticides. However, defenses and limitations for each of these causes of action create impediments that make recovery difficult. An evaluation of nuisance law discloses that defenses often preclude recoveries for damages to nontarget crops from airborne pesticide particulates. Policy makers may want to evaluate the defenses due to their interference with property rights. The defenses may discourage changes in crop production resulting in suboptimal uses of resources.

Reporting air emissions from animal production activities in the United States.

Major releases of airborne ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from the decomposition of animal waste have the American public concerned about the health of persons near farms. Emissions of these hazardous substances are regulated by the US Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Moreover, federal regulatory provisions delineate thresholds for reporting hazardous pollutants being released into the air. In 2008, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a reporting exemption under which all farms were exempted from reporting air emissions under CERCLA and small farms were exempted under EPCRA. The US EPA's exemption poses questions about whether the rule is contrary to congressional mandates. Environmental and industry groups have challenged this exemption in federal circuit court, and the judiciary will need to decide whether the agency had authority to adopt the rule. To accord protection to humans from hazardous airborne emissions from farms producing livestock, state agencies may want to adopt scientifically-justified ambient air quality standards.

Governmental oversight of discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations.

As point sources of pollution in the United States, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting system requirements. Changes to federal regulations in 2003 and a 2005 court decision have increased the governmental oversight of CAFOs. Manure application to fields from "large CAFOs" that results in unpermitted discharges can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of agricultural stormwater discharges was approved so that unpermitted discharges may arise if an owner or operator of a CAFO fails to apply manure correctly. Owners and operators do not, however, have a duty to secure governmental permits in the absence of a discharge. Turning to the federal provisions regarding nutrient management plans, a court found that they were deficient. Moreover, the federal government needs to reconsider requirements that would reduce pathogens from entering surface waters. Although these developments should assist in reducing the impairment of U.S. waters, concern still exists. Greater oversight of nutrient management plans and enhanced enforcement efforts offer opportunities to provide greater assurance that CAFO owners and operators will not allow a discharge of pollutants to enter surface waters.

Regulating manure application discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations in the United States.

In the United States, reducing pollution from agriculture has received attention due to data suggesting that this is the leading source of impairment of many waterbodies. The federal government revised its regulations governing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to enhance governmental oversight over sources of pollution. For the application of manure resulting in pollutant discharges, CAFOs need to implement nutrient management plans. A federal court affirmed the ability of the US federal government to oversee the application of manure from CAFOs that have discharges. Simultaneously, owners and operators of CAFOs who have implemented an appropriate nutrient management plan may forgo securing a permit if their discharges qualify under the agricultural stormwater discharge exemption.

Examining legal rules to protect children from injuries in recreational and sport activities.

Our jurisprudence assigns duties to persons to keep children safe. Under negligence law, a breach of duty causing an accident means the breaching party can be liable for damages inflicted on the injured person. Legislatures are considering new laws that reduce the damages that activity providers will need to pay to injured participants. Under some statutes, injured persons are precluded from maintaining lawsuits. In other cases, injured plaintiffs have a more stringent burden of proving liability. While activity providers may use insurance to pay for accident damages, for some injuries we might hold injured persons responsible. Four suggestions are offered as mechanisms to reduce tort litigation.

New regulations to minimize water impairment from animals rely on management practices.

Water pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) led to revised federal regulations in the United States. The regulations provide for the greater management of potential sources of agricultural contamination and impose additional financial costs on producers. Along with a duty to secure a permit, significant changes address coverage of pollutants, separation of production and land application areas, effluent limitation guidelines, and differentiating agricultural storm water discharges from other discharges. The revised provisions require more producers to secure National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits and mandate that large CAFOs develop technology-based effluent discharge limitations involving best management practices. Medium- and small-sized CAFOs need to adopt technology-based effluent discharge requirements employing best professional judgment. For farms raising animals that are not CAFOs, voluntary management practices may be employed to intercept pollutants before they enter waterbodies. Additional educational efforts promoting the implementation of further management practices that address the agricultural impairment of water resources may be needed.