{
  "id": "RS22318",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22318",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 350047,
      "date": "2006-09-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:48:16.192029",
      "title": "Harvey v. Veneman and the National Organic Program: A Legal Analysis",
      "summary": "The First Circuit\u2019s ruling in Harvey v. Veneman brought much attention and uncertainty to the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Organic Program. In the case, Harvey alleged that multiple provisions of the National Organic Program Final Rule (Final Rule) were inconsistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). The First Circuit sided with Harvey on three counts, putting into question the use of synthetics and commercially unavailable organic agricultural products, as well as certain feeding practices for dairy herds converting to organic production. On remand, the district court ordered a two-year time frame for the implementation and enforcement of new rules consistent with the ruling; however, in the FY2006 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 109-97), Congress amended the OFPA to address the holdings of the case. This report describes the OFPA, discusses those holdings where the court determined that a provision of the Final Rule was inconsistent with the OFPA, and analyzes the most recent legislative action as well as new regulations from the USDA. This report will be updated as warranted.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RS22318",
          "sha1": "2353b2f055ce5d9aac2e9ac948d22fa7edb6861f",
          "filename": "files/20060926_RS22318_2353b2f055ce5d9aac2e9ac948d22fa7edb6861f.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22318",
          "sha1": "6021715e81793b439eedb664ef62ace19de56a33",
          "filename": "files/20060926_RS22318_6021715e81793b439eedb664ef62ace19de56a33.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs10111/",
      "id": "RS22318_2005Nov18",
      "date": "2005-11-18",
      "retrieved": "2007-06-20T14:39:55",
      "title": "Harvey v. Veneman and the National Organic Program: A Legal Analysis",
      "summary": "The First Circuit\u2019s ruling in Harvey v. Veneman brought much attention and uncertainty to the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s National Organic Program. In the case, Harvey alleged that multiple provisions of the National Organic Program Final Rule (Final Rule) were inconsistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA). The First Circuit sided with Harvey on three counts, putting into question the use of synthetics and commercially unavailable organic agricultural products, as well as certain feeding practices for dairy herds converting to organic production. On remand, the district court ordered a two-year time frame for the implementation and enforcement of new rules consistent with the ruling; however, in the FY2006 agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 109 97), Congress amended the OFPA to address the holdings of the case. This report describes the OFPA, discusses those holdings where the court determined that a provision of the Final Rule was inconsistent with the OFPA and analyzes the most recent legislative action.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051118_RS22318_f066ce205d347c26ab54393a15792e2aa520d108.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051118_RS22318_f066ce205d347c26ab54393a15792e2aa520d108.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Law",
          "name": "Law"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Organic farming",
          "name": "Organic farming"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Agriculture",
          "name": "Agriculture"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7964/",
      "id": "RS22318 2005-11-08",
      "date": "2005-11-08",
      "retrieved": "2005-12-21T17:07:12",
      "title": "Harvey v. Veneman",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051108_RS22318_074c9eddea77c76e7850914e5653eec2c11a8e00.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051108_RS22318_074c9eddea77c76e7850914e5653eec2c11a8e00.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Law",
          "name": "Law"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Organic farming",
          "name": "Organic farming"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Harvey v. Veneman",
          "name": "Harvey v. Veneman"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Agriculture",
          "name": "Agriculture"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Appropriations"
  ]
}