Register Now! Educational programming for January:

Jan. 21, AgWorks: Wage and Hour Laws—Requirements and Exemptions

Jan. 23, Understanding the Basics of Pennsylvania’s Seasonal Farm Labor Law (Atty CLE)

Jan. 27, Quarterly Dairy Legal Webinar: Standards of Identity—Regulations & Current Issues (Atty CLE)

Agribusiness: Eleventh Circuit Finds Corporate Transparency Act is Constitutional 🌾
On December 16, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion finding constitutional the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires certain corporate entities to report “beneficial ownership” to the Treasury Department, and reversing the district court’s March 2024 decision. Nat’l Small Bus. United v. U.S. Dep’t Treasury, No. 24-10736. (N.D. Ala., No. 5:22-cv-01448). While the district court had determined that “the connection between incorporation and criminal activity is far too attenuated to justify the CTA,” the circuit court disagreed, stating, “[W]e believe the CTA’s text establishes that it does not regulate the act of incorporation, [but] [i]nstead . . . regulates entities after they have been incorporated.” The court further stated, “The statute in no way affects how businesses incorporate. It does not alter any relevant state law. It addresses only what entities must do after they are registered to do business—provide beneficial owner information to the Treasury Secretary.” The court added, “That both plaintiffs are clearly economically active and failed to provide evidence of a non-commercial entity regulated by the CTA is strong evidence that the statute regulates commerce.” Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the CTA violates the Fourth Amendment “because it permits suspicionless searches for general law enforcement purposes.” The court instead determined that law imposes “uniform reporting requirements,” which have been upheld by the Supreme Court, and that the “information it requires is ‘sufficiently described and limited in nature.’” Although the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a final rule in March 2025 exempting U.S. companies from the reporting requirement, the parties and the court agreed that the “rulemaking d[id] not render this case moot.” See also ALWR—Apr. 8, 2025, “FinCEN Publishes Interim Final Rule Limiting BOI Reporting Requirement to Foreign Companies” and ALWR—Mar. 18, 2024, “Federal District Court Finds Corporate Transparency Act Unconstitutional, United States Appeals to Eleventh Circuit.”

Dairy Policy: Federal Court Dismisses Complaint Alleging Pennsylvania Milk Dealer Bonds Unconstitutional
On November 19, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum and order dismissing with prejudice a complaint filed by New Jersey-based Biazzo Dairy alleging that Pennsylvania’s milk dealer bonding requirements violate the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Interstate Commerce Clause. Biazzo Dairy Products, Inc. v. The Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board, No. 1:25-cv-00506. Biazzo claimed that the law “place[s] an impermissible burden on the plaintiff and a detriment to the public in terms of higher prices to offset the costs of the bonds.” The court held that “Biazzo’s amended complaint fails to state a cognizable dormant Commerce Clause claim,” stating, “The specific question is whether the law burdens interstate commerce by placing differing burdens on in-state and out-of-state firms, not whether compliance with the law economically harms a specific out-of-state firm.” The court continued, “Biazzo’s amended complaint neither explains how its status as an out-of-state firm impacts the burden the bond requirement places upon it nor how the bond requirement favors Pennsylvania milk dealers in effect. Biazzo only alleges that the bond requirement burdens it and the public by forcing it [to] post the bond or participate in the security fund, incur higher operating costs, and then pass that increased cost onto consumers by raising its prices. If anything, that is a burden on commerce generally, but not interstate commerce.” On December 17, 2025, Biazzo filed a notice of appeal.

Food Policy: Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Against West Virginia Food Dye Law
On December 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia issued a memorandum opinion granting a preliminary injunction against West Virginia’s H.B. 2354, which prohibits the sale of “adulterated food” defined as “contain[ing] any added substance or ingredients which are poisonous or injurious to the health, including [any of nine listed color additives].” Int’l Assoc. Color Manufacturers v. Singh, No. 2:25-cv-00588. The court held that the law is unconstitutionally vague, stating that “[t]he term ‘poisonous and injurious’ is undefined, and although that alone is not sufficient to render a statutory provision vague . . . the inclusion of the named color additives generates uncertainty as to the status of other color additives.” The court further reasoned that “it was clear that substances, such as arsenic, that are poisons and harmful to health would be deemed as such . . . [but] the inclusion of a list of FDA-approved color additives muddies the water and creates confusion as to what substances now constitute ‘poisonous and injurious.’” Additionally, the court noted that because the law “does not provide criteria to guide any determination as it pertains to additional color additives,” which “could be included without any notice for why or how they are being deemed ‘poisonous and injurious,’” that “makers of food additives cannot predict what substances may be considered ‘poisonous and injurious’ when such a slim explanation exists for the named color additives.” Accordingly, the court stated, the law “leaves the door open for arbitrary enforcement.” However, the court noted that “[g]uidance, therefore, is key to solving [the law’s] vagueness issue” and stated, “If West Virginia wants to prohibit color additives as ‘poisonous and injurious,’ then it must provide clear guidance for determining what substances are ‘poisonous and injurious.’” See also ALWR—Oct. 21, 2025, “Color Additive Group Files Complaint Against West Virginia Law Prohibiting Food Dyes” and ALWR—Apr. 1, 2025, “West Virginia Passes Law Prohibiting Food Dyes in School Meals, In-State Sales.”  

Food Labeling: Food Trade Groups Seek Preliminary Injunction of Texas ‘Healthy Living’ Labeling Law
On December 12, 2025, several food industry trade groups filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas a motion for preliminary injunction against Texas S.B. 25 “to promote healthy living,” which requires foods containing certain ingredients to bear a warning label stating that it “is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.” American Beverage Assoc. v. Paxton, No. 6:25-cv-00566. The motion follows the groups’ December 5 complaint, which claims that the law “fails every prong of the First Amendment compelled commercial speech test,” stating, “it’s misleading, it doesn’t concern a substantial governmental interest, it doesn’t directly advance a substantial governmental interest, and it’s more extensive than necessary to serve any substantial governmental interest.” The motion for preliminary injunction argues that the plaintiff trade groups are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, noting that “the government has no interest in compelling false and misleading speech—and any legitimate interest is particularly weak here, where federal law permits all ingredients used in plaintiffs’ members products.” On December 29, the Texas Attorney General filed the state’s response, stating, “The appropriate federal analog which regulates food additives, 21 U.S.C. § 348, does not have a provision like 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a) which expressly preempts state regulation” and arguing, among other things, that “[i]t follows that, where states could theoretically regulate or outright prohibit ingredients, a state must also have the lesser power to simply require their labeling.” See also ALWR—July 22, 2025, “Texas Passes Bill to ‘Promote Healthy Living,’ Require Warning Labels for 44 Ingredients” and ALWR—Oct. 21, 2025, “Texas Publishes Rules Implementing ‘Healthy Living’ Law Warning Label Requirement.”

Food Policy: San Francisco City Attorney Files Complaint Against Food Companies Alleging Unfair Competition, Nuisance for ‘Ultra-Processed Foods’
On December 2, 2025, San Francisco’s City Attorney filed in the Superior Court of California for San Francisco a complaint against several large food companies alleging that the companies violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance law because they “(1) intentionally engineered ‘ultra-processed foods’ [UPF] to deceive the body to crave and consume what it otherwise would not; (2) failed to include any warnings regarding the health consequences of UPF in connection with their sale, despite being fully aware of these adverse health consequences, (3) made fraudulent statements by advertising these UPF as natural or healthy,  and (4) targeted these harmful products to children.” People of the State of California v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., No. CGC-25-631189 (docket search). Also announced by the San Francisco attorney general, the complaint names several prominent food companies: Kraft Heinz Company, Mondelez International, Post Holdings, The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, General Mills, Nestle USA, Kellogg, Mars Incorporated, and ConAgra Brands. In addition to civil penalties and “costs to abate the public nuisance” allegedly created by the defendant companies, the complaint seeks a “statewide order enjoining Defendants from further deceptive marketing and requiring them to take affirmative action to ameliorate the effects of their prior false marketing.” See also Stone, Emily. “California Defines Ultra-processed Foods.” Southern Ag Today. December 12, 2025.

Nutrition Programs: USDA Approves More SNAP Restriction Waivers, Eighteen States Now with Waivers
On December 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) approved SNAP Food Restriction Waivers for six additional states, totaling eighteen states with waivers, which “restrict the purchase of non-nutritious items like soda and candy” within their respective Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP). New states with SNAP waivers are

  • Hawaii (Target implementation 8/01/26; “Restricts purchase of soft drinks”)
  • Missouri (Target implementation 10/01/26; “Restricts purchase of candy, prepared desserts, and certain unhealthy beverages”)
  • North Dakota (Target implementation 9/1/26; “Restricts purchase of soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy”)
  • South Carolina (Target implementation 8/31/26; “Restricts purchase of candy, energy drinks, soft drinks, and sweetened beverages”)
  • Tennessee (Target implementation 7/31/26; “Restricts purchase of processed foods and beverages such as soda, energy drinks, and candy”)
  • Virginia (Target implementation 4/1/26; “Restricts purchase of “sweetened beverages”)

See also ALWR—Aug. 12, 2025, “USDA Approves SNAP Food Restriction Waivers for Six Additional States”

Biotechnology: Ninth Circuit Reverses ‘Highly Refined’ Bioengineered Foods Exemption, Remands QR Code Labeling Rule
On October 31, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the lower court’s decision that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) can use the term “bioengineered” as opposed to “genetically modified” or “GMO” but reversed the lower court’s order upholding a regulation “generally excluding highly refined foods from the definition of the phrase ‘bioengineered foods.’” Natural Grocers v. Brooke Rollins, No. 22-16770. Additionally, the circuit court found that the district court abused its discretion by declining to vacate regulations allowing companies to use QR codes and text messages to disclose bioengineered information despite the district court’s determination that those regulations were invalid. The court remanded the regulations back to the district court for additional consideration. See also ALWR—Sept. 23, 2022, “Federal Court Remands Text Message Option for Bioengineered Disclosure Regulation” and the Center’s Bioengineered Food Disclosure Issue Tracker.

Water Quality: Federal Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Poultry Companies for Illinois River Watershed Pollution, Companies Appeal
On December 19, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma issued a judgment imposing a permanent injunction against several poultry companies—including Tyson, Cal-Maine, Cobb-Vantress, Cargill, George’s, Peterson Farms, and Simmons—to remedy damage to the Illinois River Watershed (IRW) caused by poultry waste land application from the companies’ growers that the companies “knew or should have known no later than the late 1990s . . . was a primary source of the excess phosphorus in the waters of the IRW.” State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 4:05-cv-00329. The court stated, “Once on notice, the defendants had a duty to abate the nuisance and put a stop to the trespass, neither of which they have done.” Previously, in January 2023, the court issued a Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law finding in favor of Oklahoma on its claims of statutory public nuisance, federal common law nuisance, trespass, and state clean water law violations by the companies and, in June 2025, issued an opinion concluding that the state had “satisfied its burden to show that conditions ha[d] not materially changed in the [IRW] following trial.” The judgment issues both “prohibitory injunctive relief in restricting land application of poultry waste, as well as mandatory injunctive relief to remediate damage, monitor the watershed, and enforce the injunction.” The judgment appoints a master, to be paid by the companies, to oversee the companies’ activities “for at least thirty years” because, the court noted, “remediation of the IRW will take decades.” On December 29, 2025, the defendant poultry companies filed individual notices of appeal and a joint motion for stay of the judgment pending appeal. According to an email chain exhibit attachment, the defendants requested the state’s agreement for the stay “to prevent serious disruption to agriculture pending appeal,” stating that “[u]nder the judgment, impacted farmers and ranchers cannot apply litter without prior testing and approval,” which will take time to implement and create a “profound disruption to the fertilizer application process . . . during spring planting season, harming farmers and ranchers in both Oklahoma and Arkansas.” Although the state opposed a stay of the judgement, it agreed to waive the bond requirements for the monetary parts of the judgment. See also ALWR—Jan. 30, 2023, “Judge Finds in Favor of Oklahoma in Illinois River Watershed Poultry Litter Case.”

Water Quality: United States, PA DEP Announce $1.15 Million Settlement with Hanover Foods
On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania a notice of settlement and proposed consent decree with the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association and Hanover Foods Corporation “to address more than 600 violations of” Hanover’s “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit at its wastewater treatment facility since 2016.” Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Assoc. v. Hanover Foods Corp., No. 1:21-cv-01600. Also announced by PADEP and DOJ, the consent decree will require Hanover “to pay civil penalties of $575,000 to DOJ and $575,000 to DEP.” Additionally, “Hanover Foods will install new equipment and take other measures to prevent violations of its NPDES permit limits for certain nutrients and for temperature” including “installation of a permanent boiler to maintain proper temperatures during the treatment process, install[ation] [of] a Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Sensor to continuously monitor the amount of TSS in the discharge, and implement[ation] [of] spare-parts programs to prevent prolonged equipment stoppages.”

Environmental Credit Trading: North Dakota Appellate Court Finds State’s Carbon Storage Law Allows Unconstitutional Taking
On December 2, 2025, the North Dakota District Court for the Northeast Judicial District issued an opinion and order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff landowners and finding unconstitutional North Dakota’s carbon dioxide underground storage law, which allows the state commission to “require that the pore space owned by nonconsenting owners be included in a storage facility . . . subject to geologic storage” and provides for title transfer to the state of “the stored carbon dioxide transfers, without payment of any compensation.” Northwest Landowners Assoc., et. al v. State of North Dakota, et. al, No. 05-2023-CV-00065. The court found that the law “provides for a government-authorized physical invasion of property constituting a taking” without “just” compensation in violation of the North Dakota Constitution. The court stated, “Under the CO2 Storage statute, storage operators could inject millions of metric tons of CO2 into pore space, store it for an undetermined amount of time, and eventually title of the carbon and the storage facility transfers to the State . . . . In more generalized terms, a landowner’s constitutionally protected pore space property interest is subject to a private company’s physical invasion authorized by the State . . . for an undetermined number of years—which could span decades, and then that landowner’s constitutionally protected pore space property interest is permanently titled to the State . . . once the carbon capture project is completed.” See also materials from Understanding the Basics of Pennsylvania’s Carbon Sequestration Law.

Food Labeling: Tyson Will End ‘Climate Smart’ Emissions Claims in Settlement Agreement
On November 17, 2025, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Tyson Foods, Inc. filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia a stipulation voluntarily dismissing with prejudice a complaint claiming that Tyson’s advertising claims to “achieve ‘net-zero’ climate emissions by 2050” and marketing of “climate-smart” beef are false and misleading because the company “has no plan to achieve these goals and is taking no meaningful steps to do so.” Environmental Working Group vs. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024-CAB-005935. According to a November 12 settlement agreement published by EWG, for five years from the agreement, Tyson will “neither make new nor repeat old Emissions Claims” or “old Climate Smart Beef Claims” and will “not market, sell, or promote in the United States [its] ‘Brazen Beef’ product line or any beef product described as ‘climate smart’ or ‘climate friendly,’” “unless and until an expert mutually agreed upon by the Parties . . . verifies that each such claim(s) has been substantiated and is valid.” Additionally, within 40 days of the agreement, “Tyson shall suspend publishing and remove all published Emissions Claims and Climate Smart Beef Claims from any location or platform within Tyson’s possession, custody, or control.” In February 2025, the court issued an order denying Tyson’s motion to dismiss the case, finding that EWG had stated a plausible claim for misrepresentation. See also ALWR—Nov. 18, 2025, “JBS, New York Attorney General Enter Into $1.1 Million Agreement to Settle ‘Net Zero’ Claims.”

Agribusiness: Tyson, JBS File WARN Notices Announcing Plant Closures in Nebraska, California
On November 21, 2025, Tyson Foods, Inc. filed a notice with the Nebraska Department of Labor pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act stating that the company will close its Lexington, Nebraska beef facility, affecting 3,212 employees. Also announced by Tyson, the company states that it will “convert its Amarillo, Texas, beef facility to a single, full-capacity shift” and increase production across its other beef facilities. Also, on December 3, 2025, JBS Foods filed a WARN notice with the California Employment Development Department stating that the company will close its Swift Beef facility in Riverside County on February 2, 2026, affecting 374 employees.

 

___________________________________________________

Understanding Agricultural Law Series. A free monthly webinar series for agricultural and rural business advisors. One hour of substantive CLE credit available for Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys at no charge. All events on Fridays, noon–1 pm (ET). Upcoming:

Jan. 23, 2026, Understanding the Basics of Pennsylvania’s Seasonal Farm Labor Law

Feb. 27, 2026, Understanding the Basics of the USDA National Appeals Division

Mar. 27, 2026, Understanding the Basics of Right to Farm Laws

Apr. 24, 2026, Understanding the Basics of the Renewable Fuel Standard

May 22, 2026, Understanding the Basics of the PA Preferred Program

Jun 26, 2026, Understanding the Basics of Agricultural Vehicle Regulation

July 24, 2026, Understanding the Basics of International Agricultural Trade & Tariffs

Quarterly Dairy Legal Webinar Series. A free quarterly webinar series covering dairy industry legal and regulatory developments with an in-depth focus topic. One hour of substantive CLE credit available for Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys at no charge. All events on Tuesdays, noon–1 pm (ET). Upcoming:

Jan. 27, 2026, 4th Quarter 2025: Dairy Product Standards of Identity—Regulations and Current Issues

Apr. 14, 2026, 1st Quarter 2026 Quarterly Dairy Legal Webinar

Jul 14, 2026, 2nd Quarter 2026 Quarterly Dairy Legal Webinar

Oct. 13, 2026, 3rd Quarter 2026 Quarterly Dairy Legal Webinar

AgWorks: Connecting Agricultural Businesses to Workforce Services and Training. From 2025 to 2027, the Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law and Penn State Extension will collaborate with farms and agriculture-related businesses to strengthen the workforce system. AgWorks will provide 100 registered small- to medium-sized Pennsylvania farms and agribusinesses with no-cost training and consultation to ensure business sustainability. As part of the AgWorks program, the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law will provide legal consulting and present 20+ employment law programs.

Upcoming AgWorks webinars and workshops:

Jan. 21, 2026, AgWorks: Wage and Hour Laws—Requirements and Exemptions

Feb. 24, 2026, AgWorks: Wage and Hour Laws—Calculation and Enforcement

Subscribe to the Pennsylvania Farm Employers’ Listserv (PFEL): an email networking and resource-sharing group exclusively about human resources information for agricultural operations.

Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Legal Services Plan: “A new member-benefit program involving law firms that specialize in legal areas commonly utilized by farmers.”

Resources of Interest:

Iowa St. Univ. Ctr. Agric. Law & Tax’n, Proposed Regulations Explain New Deduction for Personal Car Loan Interest, Kristine A. Tidgren (Jan. 2, 2026)

Univ. of Ill. Farm Policy News, USDA Farmer Bridge Assistance Rates Favor Rice, Cotton, Ryan Hanrahan (Jan. 2, 2026)

Univ. of Ill. Farm Policy News, FCC Foreign Drone Ban Could Impact US Farmers, Ryan Hanrahan (Dec. 29, 2025)

Univ. of Ill. Farm Policy News, Experts, Lawmakers Split on 2026 Farm Bill Likelihood, Ryan Hanrahan (Dec. 22, 2025)

STATE ACTIONS—EXECUTIVE & LEGISLATIVE

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE PRESS RELEASES

None.

PENNSYLVANIA EXECUTIVE AGENCIES (Pa. Bulletin Vol. 55, No. 52 and Vol. 56, No. 1—Dec. 27 2025 & Jan. 3, 2026):         

Department of Agriculture

55 Pa.B. 8764 Notice: “Pennsylvania Peach and Nectarine Research Board; Grant Solicitation and Application Procedures”

Department of Environmental Protection

56 Pa.B. 83 Notice: “Mining and Reclamation Advisory Board Reclamation Committee Meeting”

56 Pa.B. 83 Notice: “Updates to PennEnviroScreen”

55 Pa.B. 8817 Notice: “Availability of Technical Guidance”

55 Pa.B. 8818 Notice: “Board and Committee Meeting Schedules for 2026”

55 Pa.B. 8821 Notice: “Conditional State Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for the United States Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits”

55 Pa.B. 8823 Notice: “Notice of Projects under the Environmental Good Samaritan Act”

55 Pa.B. 8823 Notice: “Permit Application and Annual Administration Fee Schedules for Noncoal Mining Operations”

55 Pa.B. 8756 Proposed Rulemaking: “Water Quality Standards—Triennial Review; Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”

PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE

None.

FEDERAL ACTIONS—EXECUTIVE & LEGISLATIVE

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PRESS RELEASES

EPA Announces Intent to Regulate Dozens of Uses of Five Phthalate Chemicals to Protect Workers and Environment (Dec. 31, 2025)

EPA Announces Intent to Regulate Nearly One Dozen 1,3-Butadiene Uses to Protect American Workers (Dec. 31, 2025)

EPA and Army Wrap Up Public Listening Sessions on Proposed Definition of WOTUS (Dec. 22, 2025)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) PRESS RELEASES

USDA Strengthens National Security and Protects Taxpayers by Standardizing Grant and Cooperative Agreement Requirements (Dec. 31, 2025)

USDA Announces Commodity Payment Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program (Dec. 31, 2025)

Secretary Rollins Announces New Priorities for Research and Development in 2026 (Dec. 30, 2025)

USDA Advances Farm Security Action Plan to Protect U.S. Farmland and Federal Programs from Foreign Adversaries (Dec. 30, 2025)

USDA AGENCY PRESS RELEASES

Agricultural Marketing Service

USDA Solicits Nominations for Members of the USDA Grain Inspection Advisory Committee (Dec. 31, 2025)

USDA Extends Enforcement Deadline for Hemp to be Tested by DEA-Registered Laboratories (Dec. 23, 2025)

USDA Updates Dairy Program Grading Branch Plant Survey Manual (Dec. 22, 2025)

Farm Service Agency

USDA Announces January 2026 Lending Rates for Agricultural Producers (Jan. 2, 2026)

USDA Announces No Actions Under Feedstock Flexibility Program (Dec. 31, 2025)

USDA Announces 2026 Wool and Mohair Marketing Assistance Loan Rates (Dec. 31, 2025)

USDA Announces Commodity Payment Rates for Farmer Bridge Assistance Program (Dec. 31, 2025)

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Residue Repeat Violators List (Jan. 2, 2026)

Egg Product Sampling Data (Jan. 2, 2026)

Raw Pork Products Sampling (Jan. 2, 2026)

Salmonella Verification Testing: December 01, 2024 through November 29, 2025 (Jan. 2, 2026)

National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) Cecal Sampling (Jan. 2, 2026)

Raw Beef Sampling (Jan. 2, 2026)

Raw Poultry Sampling (Jan. 2, 2026)

Ready-to-Eat (RTE) Product & Risk-based Listeria monocytogenes Sampling (Jan. 2, 2026)

Foreign Agricultural Service

Export Sales to South Korea (Jan. 2, 2026)

Export Sales to China and Unknown Destinations (Dec. 30, 2025)

USDA Accepting Applications for Agribusiness Trade Mission to the Philippines (Dec. 29, 2025)

Export Sales to Egypt (Dec. 29, 2025)

USDA Announces Agribusiness Trade Missions for 2026 (Dec. 23, 2025)

Export Sales to China (Dec. 22, 2025)

National Agricultural Statistics Service

United States hog inventory up 1% (Dec. 23, 2025)

December Quarterly Hogs and Pigs (Dec. 23, 2025)

USDA NASS reschedules reports due to December 24 & 26 government closure (Dec. 22, 2025)

National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Extension programs at 1890 Land-grant Universities (LGUs) are enhancing food security and community resilience (Dec. 29, 2025)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

USDA Announces January 15 National Batching Deadline for Major NRCS Conservation Programs (Dec. 30, 2025)

Public Invited to Attend Pennsylvania State Technical Committee Meeting January 22, 2026 (Dec. 23, 22025)

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCIES (Federal Register: Dec. 22, 2025—Jan. 2, 2026):

Agriculture Department

90 FR 61116 Notice: “Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request [National Institute of Food and Agriculture: NIFA Proposal Review Process]” (Dec. 30, 2025)

90 FR 60581 Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking: “Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act: Revisions to Reporting Requirements” (Dec. 29, 2025)

Agricultural Marketing Service

90 FR 61261 Direct final rule: “Cotton Board Rules and Regulations: Adjusting Supplemental Assessment on Imports (2025 Amendments)” (Dec. 31, 2025)

90 FR 61114 Notice to solicit nominees: “Solicitation of Nominations for Members of the USDA Grain Inspection Advisory Committee” (Dec. 30, 2025)

Environmental Protection Agency

91 FR 143 Notice: “Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC): Notice of Charter Renewal and Request for Member Nominations” (Jan. 2, 2026)

90 FR 61355 Correction: “Regulation of Fuels, Fuel Additives, and Regulated Blendstocks” (Dec. 31, 2025)

90 FR 61144 Notice: “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Pesticide Data Call-Ins (Renewal)” (Dec. 30, 2025)

90 FR 61145 Notice: “Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Grain Elevators (Renewal)” (Dec. 30, 2025)

Farm Service Agency

90 FR 61363 Notice; request for comments: “Information Collection Request; Organic Certification Cost Share Program” (Dec. 31, 2025)

90 FR 61362 Notice: “Application Fast Track Pilot Program-Extension” (Dec. 31, 2025)

Food and Drug Administration

90 FR 60701 Notice of availability: “Authorization of Emergency Use for Two Animal Drugs for the Treatment of New World Screwworm; Availability” (Dec. 29, 2025)

Food Safety and Inspection Service

90 FR 60606 Notice and request for comments: “Notice of Request to Renew an Approved Information Collection: New Swine Inspection System” (Dec. 29, 2025)

90 FR 59786 Notice and request for comments: “Notice of Request to Renew an Approved Information Collection: Permit to Transport Undenatured Inedible Meat Products” (Dec. 22, 2025)

90 FR 59788 Notice and request for comments: “Notice of Request to Renew an Approved Information Collection: Permit to Obtain Specimens of Condemned or Other Inedible Materials from Official Establishments” (Dec. 22, 2025)

Foreign Agricultural Service

90 FR 59786 Notice; correction: “Notice of Request for Information for Refined Sugar; Correction” (Dec. 22, 2025)

90 FR 59789 Notice of product coverage and trigger levels for safeguard measures provided for in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture: “WTO Agricultural Quantity-Based Safeguard Trigger Levels” (Dec. 22, 2025)

U.S. HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

H.R.187 “MAPWaters Act of 2025” Signed by President (Dec. 26, 2025)

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY 

None.

U.S. HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE—UPCOMING HEARINGS

None.

U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY—UPCOMING HEARINGS  

None.

 

Contributors:
Audry Thompson—Staff Attorney
Christina Fraser—Research Assistant
Riley Amdor—Research Assistant