7 CFR 205.202 - Land requirements

Cite as7 CFR 205.202
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
4 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., Nos. A10–1596
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 1, 2012
    ...trespass by particulate matter, the district court did not err in dismissing respondents' trespass claim as a matter of law. 2. Under 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops are intended to be harvested and sold as organic ......
  • Johnson v. Consumers Coop. Ass'n of Litchfield, A18-0517
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Minnesota
    • March 18, 2019
    ...Oil Co., which held that organic certification could not be suspended based on pesticide drift because the phrase "applied to" in 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) unambiguously refers to the intentional application of prohibited substances by an organic producer. 817 N.W.2d 693, 712 (Minn. 2012). The ......
  • United States v. Townsley, No. C 10-00428 CRB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • August 1, 2012
    ...as listed in § 205.105 [which references the National List] applied to it for at least 3 years prior to harvest of the crop." 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b). In addition, producers of organic agricultural products "must not use . . . any fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contain......
  • Pesticides; experimental use permits, etc.: Monsanto Co. et al.,
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 10, 2005
    • August 10, 2005
    ...of an appropriately segregated organic crop would not adversely impact the farmer's ability to sell the crop as organic. Under 7 CFR 205.202(c) of the NOP final rule, ``any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled or represented as ``organic'' must ha......
3 cases
  • Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., Nos. A10–1596
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • August 1, 2012
    ...trespass by particulate matter, the district court did not err in dismissing respondents' trespass claim as a matter of law. 2. Under 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops are intended to be harvested and sold as organic ......
  • Johnson v. Consumers Coop. Ass'n of Litchfield, A18-0517
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Minnesota
    • March 18, 2019
    ...Oil Co., which held that organic certification could not be suspended based on pesticide drift because the phrase "applied to" in 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b) unambiguously refers to the intentional application of prohibited substances by an organic producer. 817 N.W.2d 693, 712 (Minn. 2012). The ......
  • United States v. Townsley, No. C 10-00428 CRB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • August 1, 2012
    ...as listed in § 205.105 [which references the National List] applied to it for at least 3 years prior to harvest of the crop." 7 C.F.R. § 205.202(b). In addition, producers of organic agricultural products "must not use . . . any fertilizer or composted plant and animal material that contain......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT