Rule
filed under
Energy
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/ethanol-and-biodiesel/2037-2/
In 2002, Missouri enacted two incentive programs that will promote in-state, cooperatively-owned biofuels production. Targeted at increasing homegrown production of ethanol and biodiesel, the five year incentive programs provide grants to producers that are at least fifty-one percent owned by agricultural producers actively engaged in agricultural production for commercial purposes in the state. Ethanol incentives include a payment of 20 cents per gallon for the first 12.5 million gallons and 5 cents per gallon for the next 12.5 million gallons. Biodiesel incentives are 30 cents per gallon for up to 15 million gallons of production. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
Energy
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/ethanol-and-biodiesel/2036-2/
In March 2002, Minnesota enacted the nation’s first biodiesel mandate that would require nearly all diesel fuel sold in the state contain at least 2 percent biodiesel by 2005 (earlier if certain conditions are met). Biodiesel is a fuel additive derived from animal fats or plant oil, typically soybeans. Proponents of the biodiesel requirement argue it would be a boon for the state’s farmers and improve the state’s use of alternative fuels. The new law isn’t perfect but a good model for other state’s to work from. The law could be strengthened by adding a provision to require the mandate to be met through biodiesel production from farmer-owned cooperatives. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/genetically-modified-organisms/2033-2/
In 2005 Alaska enacted legislation that requires the labeling of all products containing genetically engineered fish and shell fish. Senate bill 25, which introduced the legislation states that all genetically engineered fish will be "conspicuously labeled to identify the fish or fish product as a genetically modified fish or fish product," whether packaged or unpackaged. The law is intended to protect the state’s fishing industry. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2030-2/
The Montana Country-of-Origin Labeling Act passed in 2005, folowing two previous unsuccessful attempts to pass such a bill. It requires meat sold in Montana to be clearly labeled with its country of origin beginning in September 2006. It also allows Montana farmers and ranchers to label their products "Made in Montana". Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2029-2/
Effective July 1, 2002, Mississippi State Senate Bill 2367 will go into effect mandating "Country of Origin" labeling on beef products sold in retail stores. The labeling will provide three distinctions for labeling retail beef products: "American," "Imported," and "Blend." The American labeling specifically identifies beef from the United States. The labeling will only affect retail grocers and not food service sectors. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2028-2/
The original Maine country-of-origin law passed in 1989 and required labeling of fresh produce "in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of Maine citizens from the dangers of pesticides used or applied in a manner or at a rate disallowed in the United States". Changes to the law in 1999 now requires country-of-origin labeling of all foreign produce packed in the state. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2027-2/
The Idaho labeling statute requires all foreign meat, poultry, eggs and butter to be marked with the country of origin. While the law has been on the books since 1965, it is currently not enforced by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. They cite a shortage of state funds and interstate commerce concerns. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2026-2/
Florida Statutes
TITLE XXXIII – Regulation Of Trade, Commerce, Investments, And Solicitations
Chapter 504 Specialized Agricultural Product Labeling
Part I: Produce
Part II: Organic Farming And Food
Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/place-of-origin-labeling/2025-2/
On May 13, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, more commonly known as the 2002 Farm Bill. The new law required country of origin labeling (COOL) for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. Continue reading
Rule
filed under
General
| Written by
admin
|
| Updated on
Nov 21, 2008
The content that follows was originally published on the Institute for Local Self-Reliance website at http://www.ilsr.org/rule/corporate-ownership-limitations/2023-2/
Kansas law allows counties to vote on whether to oppose corporate farming and many have done so. Over 20 counties have voted to keep corporate hog farms out of their county and more county votes are occurring all the time. However, Murphy Farms, despite its multistate ownership of nearly 300,000 sows claims to not be a corporate farm. A lawsuit is being prepared to challenge Murphy’s claim. Continue reading
