Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Delaney Lives! Reports of Delaney's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

Editors' Summary: When Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), many in the press announced that this law effectively repealed the Delaney Clause, which they claimed had banned all traces of cancer-causing pesticides in processed foods. This Article analyzes what the FQPA actually did. It begins by describing the history of the Delaney Clause. The clause appears in three statutes, most famously in the food-additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

An Agreement Between EPA and Pesticide Manufacturers to Mitigate the Risks of Chlorpyrifos

On June 7, 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached an agreement with the basic manufacturers of chlorpyrifos to reduce potential risks from exposure to residues from pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos. More commonly known by the trade names Dursban and Lorsban, chlorpyrifos is the most commonly used pesticide in and around homes in the United States.

Natural Resource Damages Causation, Fault, and the Baseline Concept: A Quandary in Environmental Decisionmaking

Editors' Summary: CERCLA and the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) create causes of action for damages to natural resources—for damages "resulting from" a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, in the case of CERCLA, and for damages that "result from" a discharge or threatened discharge of oil in the case of the OPA. Thus, natural resource damages actions under these acts require a causal link between the release or discharge and the natural resource damage at issue.

Use of Human Subjects Data for Regulating Chemical Exposures

On December 14, 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a press release establishing an "interim" human testing policy for pesticides that suspended EPA's long-established policy of using human testing data to establish pesticide tolerances or to determine other human health-protective limits on chemical exposures. The policy was restricted to the results of studies using human subjects sponsored by private companies (so-called third-party studies).

Earth Island Inst. v. Christopher

The court holds unconstitutional the requirement in §609(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Appropriations Act of 1990 that the executive branch initiate discussions with foreign nations to develop treaties to protect sea turtles, and holds that the Co...

Midwater Trawlers Coop. v. Department of Commerce

The court affirms in part and reverses in part a district court decision upholding National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations providing a Native American tribe an allocation of the Pacific whiting fishery. In the 1850s, Washington State entered into several treaties known as the Stevens Tr...

White v. United States

The Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that dismissed plaintiffs’ pre-enforcement challenge to the anti-animal-fighting provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing. The court held that none of plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were sufficient t...

Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns

A district court held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) failed to take a hard look at its decision to deregulate alfalfa genetically engineered to resist the herbicide glyphosate—the active ingredient in "RoundUp." Substantial questions exist as to whether the deregulatio...

Seattle Audubon Soc'y v. Sutherland

A district court granted in part and denied in part environmental groups' motion to preliminarily enjoin all logging of suitable spotted owl habitat on private lands in owl circles outside of spotted owl special emphasis areas throughout the state of Washington. The court granted the groups' request...

General Elec. Co. v. Joiner

The Court holds that abuse of discretion is the proper standard by which to review a district court's decision to admit or exclude scientific evidence. The Court first holds that the court of appeals applied an overly stringent review of the exclusion of the plaintiff's experts' testimony, thereby f...