The justices voted 5-4 to uphold a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation seeking to invalidate the law, but they were divided in their reasons for doing so.

The industry had argued that the measure violated a U.S. Constitution provision called the Commerce Clause that courts have interpreted as empowering the federal government – not states – to regulate interstate commerce.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” wrote conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the court’s main opinion.

The measure, approved by voters as a 2018 ballot initiative called Proposition 12, bars sales in California of pork, veal and eggs from animals whose confinement failed to meet certain minimum space requirements.

The law mandates pig confinement spaces large enough to enable the animals to turn around, lie down, stand up and extend their limbs.

The pork industry groups argued that the law violated the Constitution by forcing farmers in other states to change their practices in order to sell pork in California, a lucrative market. The Canadian Pork Council signed onto an amicus argument filed last June in support of the U.S. pork groups.

Kitty Block, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, praised the ruling.

“We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around. It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this commonsense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California,” said Block, whose group intervened in the case to defend Proposition 12.

Scott Hays, president of the National Pork Producers Council and a Missouri pork producer, voiced disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision.

“Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” Hays said.

Seaboard Corp., the third-biggest U.S. pig producer, is prepared to supply California customers with “limited supplies of compliant pork” starting on July 1, company spokesperson David Eaheart said.

The company, which runs Seaboard Foods, converted a portion of its farms and plant operations to meet California’s requirements before the Supreme Court’s decision, Eaheart said.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a partial dissent that was joined by fellow conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The four said they would have allowed the challengers to the California law to pursue their claim in the lower courts.

“In my view, petitioners plausibly allege a substantial burden against interstate commerce,” Roberts wrote.

California farms collectively are only a small part of the US$26 billion-a-year U.S. pork industry. The size of cages used at U.S. pig farms is humane and necessary for animal safety, according to the industry, which asserts that California’s law gives the state unwarranted influence over the pork sector.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration sided with the pork producers in the case, saying that states cannot ban products that pose no threat to public health or safety due to philosophical objections.

Proposition 12 set the required space for breeding pigs, or sows, at 24 square feet. The current industry standard is between 14 and 20 square feet, according to a 2021 report from Dutch banking and financial services company Rabobank.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judge’s decision to throw out the pork industry challenge.

— Reporting for Reuters by Nate Raymond in Boston and Andrew Chung in New York; additional reporting John Kruzel in Washington and Tom Polansek in Chicago.

The post U.S. Supreme Court upholds California’s pig confinement law appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The justices turned away a Bayer appeal and left in place a lower court decision that upheld $25 million in damages awarded to California resident Edwin Hardeman, a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the pharmaceutical and chemical giant’s glyphosate-based products (all figures US$).

The Supreme Court’s action dealt a blow to Bayer as the company maneuvers to limit its legal liability in thousands of cases. The justices have a second Bayer petition pending on a related issue that they could act upon in the coming weeks.

Bayer’s shares were down 2.9 per cent on the news, eliminating gains over the previous two trading sessions.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration in May urged the court not to hear the Bayer appeal, reversing the government’s position previously taken under former President Donald Trump.

Bayer has lost three trials in which Roundup users have been awarded tens of millions of dollars in each, while also winning four trials. Bayer had pinned hopes for relief on the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which has a reputation for being pro-business.

Bayer said it “respectfully disagrees” with the court’s decision and that the company is “fully prepared to manage the litigation risk associated with potential future claims in the U.S.”

On Friday, a federal appeals court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take a fresh look at whether the active ingredient glyphosate poses unreasonable risks to humans and the environment.

The San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with several environmental, farm worker and food safety advocacy groups that the EPA did not adequately consider whether glyphosate causes cancer and threatens endangered species.

Bayer has asked the Supreme Court to review the verdict in Hardeman’s case, which was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in May 2021. Hardeman had regularly used Roundup for 26 years at his home in northern California before being diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Bayer said in its March annual report that it had resolved about 107,000 cases out of about 138,000 cases overall.

Bayer, which also makes aspirin, Yasmin birth-control pills and the stroke prevention drug Xarelto among other products, has argued that the cancer claims over Roundup and glyphosate go against sound science and product clearance from the EPA.

The agency has upheld guidance that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and not a risk to public health when used as indicated on the label.

Bayer has said it should not be penalized for marketing a product deemed safe by the EPA and on which the agency would not allow a cancer warning to be printed.

The lawsuits against Bayer have said the company should have warned customers of the alleged cancer risk.

Roundup-related lawsuits have dogged Bayer since it acquired the brand as part of its $63 billion purchase of agricultural seeds and pesticides maker Monsanto in 2018.

Bayer struck a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs in June 2020 but failed to win court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases.

In July 2021, Bayer took an additional litigation provision of $4.5 billion in case of an unfavourable ruling by the Supreme Court or in case the justices declined to consider its appeal.

The provision came on top of $11.6 billion it previously set aside for settlements and litigation over the matter.

Bayer plans to replace glyphosate in weedkillers for the U.S. residential market for non-professional gardeners with other active ingredients.

— Lawrence Hurley is Reuters’ U.S. Supreme Court correspondent in Washington, D.C.; additional reporting by Ludwig Burger.

The post U.S. Supreme Court rejects Bayer bid to toss Roundup suits appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

A group of people in Quebec siphoned off maple syrup worth over $18 million from a reservoir and replaced it with water, before authorities discovered the robbery in 2012, in what has been dubbed the “great Canadian maple syrup heist.”

Richard Vallieres, who was among the 16 people arrested by police, was found guilty of fraud, trafficking and theft and sentenced to eight years in prison and fined over $9 million by the Quebec Superior Court.

Vallieres had successfully appealed that ruling, getting his fine lowered to about $1 million — the amount Vallieres says he profited from the robbery.

However, Canada’s Chief Supreme Court Justice Richard Wagner said that a court cannot limit the amount of a fine to the profit made by an offender and gave Vallieres 10 years to pay the fine or serve six years in prison.

Julie Giroux, the lawyer representing Vallieres, said her client was disappointed by the court’s decision to restore the initial amount imposed by the first judge and the gravity of having to bear such a substantial fine.

While the value of the stolen amber condiment was much higher, Vallieres sold the syrup for only $10 million, he told the Quebec Superior Court during his trial.

Canada is the largest exporter of maple products, and Quebec holds the world’s only strategic reserve of the sweet topping. Last year, maple syrup producers started releasing more than half of the reserve to ease a syrup squeeze as the pandemic boosted demand as more people started eating at home.

— Reporting for Reuters by Ismail Shakil in Bangalore; additional reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal.

The post Top court affirms hefty fine for man behind Quebec maple syrup heist appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Bayer in August filed a petition with the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court decision that upheld $25 million in damages awarded to California resident Edwin Hardeman, a Roundup user who blamed his cancer on the German pharmaceutical and chemical giant’s glyphosate-based products (all figures US$).

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take up the matter is being closely watched as Bayer maneuvers to limit its legal liability in thousands of cases. U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar in the coming months is due to file a brief expressing the administration’s views.

Bayer said in a statement that it is encouraged by the court’s announcement, which often indicates the justices are interested in hearing a case.

The U.S. government “has consistently found that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic, and has stated that a cancer warning would be false and misleading and misbrand the product,” Bayer’s statement said.

Bayer has lost three appeals against verdicts that sided with users of Roundup, awarding them tens of millions of dollars each. Bayer has pinned hopes for relief on the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which has a reputation for being pro-business.

Bayer asked the Supreme Court to review the verdict in Hardeman’s case, which was upheld by the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May. Hardeman had regularly used Roundup for 26 years at his home in northern California before being diagnosed with a form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

There are more than 25,000 related claims that Bayer has not settled yet.

Bayer, which also makes aspirin, Yasmin birth-control pills and the stroke prevention drug Xarelto among other products, has argued that the cancer claims over Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate go against sound science and product clearance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA has upheld guidance that glyphosate is not carcinogenic and not a risk to public health when used as indicated on the label.

Bayer has said it should not be penalized for marketing a product deemed safe by the EPA and on which the agency would not allow a cancer warning to be printed.

The lawsuits against Bayer have said the company should have warned customers of the alleged cancer risk. Bayer wants the Supreme Court to find that the EPA label approval under a federal law called the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act preempts the “failure to warn” claims brought under state law.

Roundup-related lawsuits have dogged Bayer since it acquired the brand as part of its $63 billion purchase of agricultural seeds and pesticides maker Monsanto in 2018.

Bayer struck a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs in June 2020 but failed to win court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases. That settlement deal applied only to U.S. cases and not to those in Canada, where Bayer said at the time it’s “not contemplating a settlement.”

In July, Bayer took an additional litigation provision of $4.5 billion in case of an unfavourable ruling by the Supreme Court or in case the justices declined to consider its petition. This leaves “significant upside” if the Supreme Court rules in its favour, according to Bayer.

The provision came on top of $11.6 billion it previously set aside for settlements and litigation over the matter.

Bayer plans to replace glyphosate in weedkillers for the U.S. residential market for non-professional gardeners with other active ingredients.

It will continue to sell the herbicide to farmers, who rely on it heavily and whose role in the litigation has been described as negligible by Bayer.

As of late October, Bayer had reached settlements in about 98,000 cases out of about 125,000 cases overall.

A California jury last week found that Roundup did not cause a woman’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

— Reporting for Reuters by Lawrence Hurley and Ludwig Burger; additional reporting by Tom Hals.

The post Supreme Court asks U.S. government for views on Roundup case appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Bayer last week lost a third appeal against verdicts that sided with users of glyphosate-based Roundup, awarding them tens of millions of dollars each, leaving the drugs and pesticides group to pin hopes for relief on the United States’ top court.

Bayer on Monday asked the Supreme Court to review one such verdict by the federal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found in favour of California resident and Roundup user Edwin Hardeman, it said in a statement.

The maker of aspirin, Yasmin birth-control pills and stroke prevention drug Xarelto has repeatedly argued that the cancer claims over Roundup go against sound science and product clearance from the federal environmental regulator.

“The Ninth Circuit’s errors mean that a company can be severely punished for marketing a product without a cancer warning when the near-universal scientific and regulatory consensus is that the product does not cause cancer, and the responsible federal agency has forbidden such a warning,” the company said.

Roundup-related lawsuits have dogged the company since it acquired the brand as part of its $63 billion purchase of agricultural seeds and pesticides maker Monsanto in 2018 (all figures US$).

Bayer struck a settlement deal in principle with plaintiffs last year but failed to win court approval for a separate agreement on how to handle future cases, as it intended to keep the product on the market.

Last month, it took an additional litigation provision of $4.5 billion to cover any unfavourable ruling by the Supreme Court. That came on top of $11.6 billion it previously set aside for settlements and litigation over the matter.

Among other measures to contain the legal onslaught, Bayer plans to replace glyphosate in weedkillers for the U.S. residential market with other active ingredients.

It will, however, continue to sell the herbicide to farmers, who rely on it heavily, and whose role in the litigation has been described as negligible by Bayer.

— Reporting for Reuters by Ludwig Burger.

The post Bayer takes battle over Roundup cancer claims to U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The justices overturned a lower court decision that had faulted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for giving refineries in Wyoming, Utah and Oklahoma extensions on waivers from renewable fuel standard (RFS) requirements under a law called the Clean Air Act even though the companies’ prior exemptions had expired.

The extensions at issue were given to units of HollyFrontier Corp and CVR Energy.

The 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, compared these extensions to ones granted in everyday life such as to a student wanting more time to complete a term paper even though the deadline has passed or a business contract whose term had expired.

“It is entirely natural — and consistent with ordinary usage — to seek an ‘extension’ of time even after some time lapse,” Gorsuch said.

In a dissent, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, faulted the ruling’s interpretation of the word “extend.” The “EPA cannot ‘extend’ an exemption that a refinery no longer has,” Barrett wrote.

President Joe Biden’s administration has been considering ways to provide relief to U.S. oil refiners from biofuel blending mandates.

The case reflected a long-running dispute between the oil and corn industries. The legal battle focused on changes made in 2005 and 2007 to the Clean Air Act to require biofuel quotas in U.S. gasoline and diesel products — intended to reduce dependence on foreign oil and support fossil fuel alternatives.

Under the program, refiners must blend billions of gallons of biofuels such as ethanol into their fuel or buy compliance credits, known as RINs, from those that do.

U.S. renewable fuel credits fell on the news, trading at $1.55 each, down from $1.65 each on Thursday (all figures US$). U.S. gasoline and diesel futures plunged about three per cent immediately following the news, but later eased losses.

States backing the refineries included Wyoming. Those backing biofuels included Iowa. Both sides cited economic threats to their rural economies posed by the litigation.

HollyFrontier Corp said in a statement, “We are pleased that our longstanding arguments were today validated by the Supreme Court.” HollyFrontier urged the EPA to “immediately take action to make the RFS a workable program for U.S. refiners and consumers.”

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers president Chet Thompson said the renewable fuel standard “is hurting consumers and jeopardizing the viability of refineries across the country, as well as the jobs and communities they support.”

Biofuel and corn producer groups that challenged the waivers, including the Renewable Fuels Association and the National Corn Growers Association, said in a statement they were “extremely disappointed in this unfortunate decision from the Supreme Court.”

Noting that because the lower court had faulted the EPA’s decision on other grounds as well, the groups said they were optimistic that Biden’s administration and the EPA would “take a far more judicious and responsible approach to the refinery exemption program than their predecessors did.”

Renewable fuel groups said that an increase in waivers during former president Donald Trump’s administration had undercut the demand for their products by billions of dollars.

Small refineries were exempt until 2011 to account for any “disproportionate economic hardship” they would endure by complying with volume requirements for ethanol and other biofuels. But the EPA was allowed to extend those exemptions for certain periods.

At issue in the case was whether the EPA impermissibly exempted units of HollyFrontier and CVR in 2017 and 2018 when they had not received continuous prior extensions of an initial exemption.

The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year found that the EPA had exceeded its authority “because there was nothing for the agency to ‘extend.'”

— Reporting for Reuters by Andrew Chung in New York; additional reporting by Stephanie Kelly.

The post U.S. Supreme Court backs refineries in biofuel waiver dispute appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

For more than a month, tens of thousands of farmers have camped on the outskirts of New Delhi, the capital, to protest against reform measures that they say benefit large private buyers and harm growers.

Chief Justice Sharad Bobde told a hearing the Supreme Court would set up a panel to hear the farmers’ grievances.

“We have the power to make a committee and the committee can give us the report,” he said, ordering the stay for an undisclosed period on the laws passed in September.

“We will protect farmers.”

There were no immediate further details.

Farm leaders said their demand for a full repeal of the laws remained unchanged.

“We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its positive response,” said Rakesh Tikait, president of one of the largest farmers unions, Bharti Kisan Union.

“The protests will continue until demands are met.”

India says the laws aim to modernize an antiquated farming system, bedevilled by wastage and bottlenecks in the supply chain.

But farm leaders say the reforms are an attempt to erode a longstanding mechanism that ensures farmers a minimum support price for their crops.

The government has said there was no question of dropping the reforms and eight rounds of talks have failed to find common ground. The two sides are set to meet again on Friday.

— Reporting for Reuters by Suchitra Mohanty and Manoj Kumar; writing by Alasdair Pal.

The post India’s top court orders stay on farm laws that riled growers appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The decision came after appeals by refining companies that argued the 10th Circuit Court’s decision last year had improperly deprived them of a method to avoid financial hardship granted by Congress.

Under the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend billions of gallons of corn-based ethanol and other biofuels into their fuel or buy credits from those that do — a law meant to help farmers and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But small facilities under financial stress can also seek waivers from the obligation, and the Trump administration has dramatically ramped up the number of such exemptions granted to the industry — angering biofuel producers that claim the waivers undercut demand for their products.

After a challenge from biofuel industry groups, the 10th Circuit ruled last January that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can only grant the so-called Small Refinery Exemptions to facilities that have received them continuously each year since 2010. That decision cast doubt over the entire waiver program, since most of the refineries securing waivers in recent years have not secured them continuously.

“We are disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case but will continue to vigorously pursue a resolution to the damage that small refinery exemptions do to the biodiesel industry,” said Kurt Kovarik, spokesman for the National Biodiesel Board.

The Fueling American Jobs Coalition, which advocates on behalf of refiners, cheered the Supreme Court’s decision, saying the review comes at an “urgent time” for refiners battered by the economic downturn.

The court is expected to hear the case in April, and a ruling could take several months.

— Reporting for Reuters by Stephanie Kelly; writing by Richard Valdmanis.

The post U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear biofuel waiver case appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a leftist critic of Mexico’s longstanding drug war, has since last year signaled his openness to the decriminalization of marijuana as part of a broader shift on security policy.

Sen. Ricardo Monreal, the leader of Lopez Obrador’s MORENA party in the upper chamber of Congress, said in an interview late on Monday that a vote on the proposal will take place later this week or next week.

“The end of the prohibitionist policy is good for the country,” he said, adding that the bill would regulate personal use and sale of marijuana as well as research into the plant. It also contemplates creation of cooperatives that would grow marijuana plus a new regulatory agency.

If approved by the Senate, the proposal would then proceed to the lower house for a vote.

MORENA and its allies hold majorities in both chambers.

Late last year, the Supreme Court said lawmakers have until Oct. 24 to legalize marijuana, after the high court ruled in several cases that the prohibition of the recreational use of the drug violates the constitution.

Under Mexican law, if the Supreme Court issues the same decision five times, the rulings set a precedent and the court can then order the establishment of a regulatory framework as well as further legal action.

While the leader of MORENA in the lower house, Mario Delgado, has proposed that the government tightly administer a future marijuana market, Monreal was noncommittal.

“There are some (proposals) that would establish a type of state-run monopoly… but we want to leave it more open,” he said.

The 59-year-old lawyer also left open the possibility that the legislation could be put on hold if a public referendum on legalizing marijuana sought by Lopez Obrador were to be authorized first.

“We will know in the next few days if we’re able to build a (legislative) consensus or if we wait for the referendum,” said Monreal.

The legislative leader emphasized that “many companies” have approached him and expressed their interest in the proposal, following similar initiatives in several U.S. states, including California, as well as Canada.

— Reporting for Reuters by Diego Ore; writing by David Alire Garcia.

The post Mexican Senate set to pass bill to legalize marijuana in next few days appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The 5-2 ruling means that the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), which had appealed the earlier court decisions, can order the cleanup of inactive wells even when their owners have filed for bankruptcy protection.

“Bankruptcy is not a license to ignore rules,” the court said in a written decision.

Alberta had 3,127 “orphan wells” — wells requiring cleanup that had no financially responsible owner — as of late January, according to the Orphan Well Association, which is funded by levies paid by Canadian oil producers.

The ruling reduces the cleanup burden on the association, which is overseen by the regulator, but may raise the perceived risk of investing in the Canadian oil industry.

Investors may now avoid companies with higher risk of abandonment liability, such as Cardinal Energy, Bonavista Energy and Obsidian Energy, analysts at Raymond James said in a note.

The Canadian oil industry has been dogged in recent years by pipeline constraints that have reduced prices and a reputation for environmentally damaging production methods, factors that have driven some investors away.

In 2016, an Alberta judge ruled that proceeds from asset sales of insolvent producer Redwater Energy should go first to secured creditors, rather than toward cleanup. The decision was upheld by the provincial’s appeal court.

At the time of Redwater’s bankruptcy, it owned 84 wells, most of which were inactive, and owed $5.1 million to its bank, ATB Financial.

The receiver and trustee in the Redwater proceedings, Grant Thornton, could not be immediately reached for comment.

The AER, in a statement Thursday, said it’s “now working to understand the full implications of the… decision and what it means for the AER and Albertans” and expects its review to take “several weeks.”

The regulator said it can now “align our plans with the court ruling as we continue to build a new liability management framework,” adding it’s “steadfast in our belief that the public should not be on the hook for the closure and reclamation costs of insolvent licencees.”

Alberta farmers who host well sites on their land have been among those waiting for the Supreme Court ruling.

Daryl Bennett, a farmer and director of the Alberta Surface Rights Federation, told Alberta Farmer in April that if the Supreme Court were to uphold lower court rulings in the Redwater case, a flood of abandoned wells would follow.

— Reporting for Reuters by Dale Smith in Ottawa and Rod Nickel in Winnipeg. Includes files from Glacier FarmMedia Network staff.

The post Bankrupt oil firms must clean up inactive wells, Supreme Court rules appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.