Andrea Busfield Bibliography Maker


Regulating Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing: Development, Enforcement, and Outcome of Marketing Rules


  • Shai Mulinari

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Sociology, Lund University
    • Correspondence address: Department of Sociology, Lund University, Sweden Box 114, 221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail:

    Search for more papers by this author


This essay reviews work in sociology and cognate fields regarding pharmaceutical marketing and its regulation. In particular, it considers how this literature contributes to a better understanding of the process of pharmaceuticalization, defined as “the translation or transformation of human conditions, capabilities, and capacities into opportunities for pharmaceutical intervention.” The review addresses two research areas that offer productive avenues of investigations of the marketing-regulatory nexus in the context of pharmaceuticalization. The first concerns the sociopolitical mechanisms underlying development and enforcement of marketing rules. The second considers the impact of rules and enforcement schemes on corporate marketing practices and, consequently, on the shaping of pharmaceutical markets and health.

Introduction: pharmaceuticalization and the marketing-regulatory nexus

This essay reviews work in sociology and cognate fields regarding pharmaceutical marketing and its regulation. Sociologists have studied the sociopolitical relations of pharmaceutical production, development, and consumption since at least the mid 1980s (e.g. Braithwaite 1984; Gabe and Bury 1988). However, interest in pharmaceuticals has grown considerably in recent years, reflecting the pivotal role of pharmaceuticals and their manufacturers in society (see Sismondo 2004; Conrad 2005; Busfield 2006; Williams et al. 2008; Williams et al. 2011; Abraham 2008; Abraham 2010 for a range of useful entry points into this literature). One key concept in this context is pharmaceuticalization, defined by one group of writers as “the translation or transformation of human conditions, capabilities, and capacities into opportunities for pharmaceutical intervention” (Williams et al. 2011, p. 711). Although related to the sociological concept of medicalization (Conrad 1992), pharmaceuticalization is different because it refers not to the expansion of diagnoses or medical jurisdiction but to the shaping of markets for drugs produced and sold by pharmaceutical companies.

In this context, pharmaceutical industry marketing is frequently cited as an important driving force (Brody and Light 2011; Abraham 2010; Davis and Abraham 2011; Dumit 2012; Dukes et al. 2014; Busfield 2015). Pharmaceutical industry marketing ranges from the obvious in the form of advertisements, commercials, and the activities of company sales representatives who visit doctors' offices to the more covert in the form of coordinated marketing campaigns masquerading as educational or scientific activities, such as industry-organized conferences and some clinical studies (Angell 2004). However, while both obvious and covert marketing schemes are popular targets for sociological analyses, the development, enforcement, and outcome of rules—supposedly in place to ensure that promotional information and marketing activities support appropriate use of medicines—remain comparatively less studied. Yet social scientists repeatedly point to the crucial role of the regulatory dimension in shaping drug markets, since rules both formally and practically constrain the conduct of actors—including commercial operations within the industry (Braithwaite 1984; Abraham 1994; Abraham and Lewis 2000; Mossialos et al. 2004; Daemmrich 2004; Dukes 2006; Epstein 2007; Carpenter 2010; Davis and Abraham 2013a; Tobbell 2012, Dukes et al. 2014; Cloatre and Pickersgill 2014).

Against this background, the aim of this paper is to review the literature on the pharmaceutical marketing-regulatory nexus, focusing on two broad areas of research that provide insight into the shaping of pharmaceutical markets: (i) the sociopolitical mechanisms underlying development and enforcement of marketing rules, and (ii) the impact of marketing rules and enforcement schemes on corporate practices and, in this way, their ability to influence the shaping of pharmaceutical markets and health. Put differently, the aim is to show how rules and associated enforcement schemes—or “regulatory regimes” (Hood et al. 2001)—governing drug marketing can effectively be regarded as both dependent and independent variables in scholarly analyses.

I begin by discussing how pharmaceutical companies use a range of marketing practices in an effort to shape markets for their products, which raises questions about the appropriate regulation of such practices. The regulatory dimension is then reviewed by considering regulatory regimes first as dependent and then as independent variables. Since most studies on the pharmaceutical marketing-regulatory nexus known to this author pertain to Western countries, a caveat of this review is its limitation to contexts characterized by a strong “regulatory state” (Majone 1994). That is, contexts with “a panoply of national and international regulatory frameworks, institutions, and mechanisms to correct for various forms of market failure (Rothstein et al. 2006, p. 94),” including health and societal risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs.

Note on terminology

Throughout the text, a distinction is made between advertising, promotion, and marketing. Advertising calls attention to a product in a public medium. Promotion, a more general term, describes activities aimed at increasing sales. In addition to advertising, the latter includes personal contacts with patients or prescribers. Finally, marketing refers to all activities that align products and consumers; it includes promotion but, in the present case, may also involve public relations, as well as conducting and disseminating medical research (Sismondo 2004; Steinman et al. 2006). Throughout, a distinction is also made between laws, regulations, and standards. Laws are rules passed by a legislative body, such as a country's parliament. Based on the interpretation of such laws, regulators—usually governmental bodies—formulate regulations that are the specific requirements that need to be followed. Standards, finally, refer to the rules adopted by any organization, such as voluntary ethical standards approved by a company or industry trade association.

Industry marketing and shaping of pharmaceutical markets

The pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment are likely to argue that the growth in medicines use in recent decades is largely due to the capacity of science to discover pharmaceutical solutions to new or established illnesses. Sociologists have broadly rejected this argument by countering that drug innovations offering significant or major therapeutic advance have actually been declining, including within areas of major health need (e.g. Abraham 2010; Busfield 2010; however see, Davis 2015). This claimed lack of therapeutic advance has been used to justify the examination of causes other than biomedical progress to explain patterns of pharmaceutical production and consumption, including industry marketing, deregulatory state policies aimed at fostering competitive businesses, the ideology of patients as consumers, medicalization, and expectations of doctors and patients (Abraham 2010; Williams et al. 2011; Gabe et al. 2015). Crucially, such causes are understood as interrelated. For example, deregulatory state polices, such as privatization, have assisted in the ideological transformation of patient needs into consumer demands (Fotaki 2011). The ideology of patients as consumers has then been used by the industry and allied political interests to support further deregulatory polices, such as attempts to relax rules governing provision of drug information to patients by the pharmaceutical industry (Mulinari 2013; Davis and Abraham 2013a).

Sociologists have also pointed to the importance of various social actors in these inter-connected processes (Busfield 2010). The literature implicates not only pharmaceutical companies but also the state, regulators, clinicians, patient organizations, the media, and managed care and health insurers for their roles in contributing to pharmaceuticalization (and more rarely de-pharmaceuticalization), albeit to varying degrees (e.g. Elbe et al. 2015; Britten et al. 2015; Hogarth 2015). However, because of its obvious interest in market shaping to bolster sales, the role of industry has come under increasing scrutiny (Abraham 2002; Busfield 2010). Over the years, studies have pointed to the numerous and sometimes malevolent ways through which companies bolster sales, sometimes even in the absence of therapeutic innovation. The list includes—but is not limited to—providing financial support to patient groups that support industry agendas (Jones 2008; Davis and Abraham 2013a) and to professionals acting as so-called “key opinion leaders” within specific medical subfields (Sismondo 2013).

According to pharmaceuticalization scholars, one key way in which pharmaceutical companies shape markets is by hyping product expectations in order to create “communities of hope” to prescribe and consume their drugs (Williams et al. 2011). Promotion is an obvious example since the purpose of pharmaceutical promotion is essentially to influence, through promissory claims, how patients, prescribers, and payers view the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of particular products. Although the exact amount industry spends on promotion remains undisclosed, some data are available for the United States (US), where promotion was estimated at 9% of sales (about $28 billion) in 2010, of which nearly 10% went to Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs (Kornfield et al. 2013). Yet the real figure for total spending on promotion is likely to be significantly higher (Gagnon and Lexchin 2008); the WHO cites about 30% globally (WHO 2014).

Industry representatives assert that promotion, for example advertising, serves to educate patients and doctors about appropriate use of drugs (Francer et al. 2014). However, over the years, industry promotion—especially to patients—has been a recurrent target of criticism because of its alleged undesirable effect on the world-views and behaviors of patients and prescribers (Angell 2004; Fisher and Ronald 2008; Applbaum 2009; Padamsee 2011; Donohue 2006; Conrad and Leiter 2008; Fisher and Ronald 2010; Padamsee 2011; Ebeling 2011; Barker 2011; Brody and Light 2011; Dumit 2012). For example, Dumit (2012) has argued that US companies have used drug advertising and “disease awareness” campaigns to generate a “new notion of illness” that views the body as inherently ill rather than healthy, thereby creating a need for life-long pharmacological intervention—a concept that he claims now drives the continual and untenable growth in drugs, diagnoses, and healthcare costs in this country. Yet, while most of this literature explicitly or implicitly depicts industry promotion as creating or manipulating individual needs, often with negative consequences for patient health, others contend that it “rather seeks to understand the desires of potential consumers, to affiliate those with their products and to link these with the habits needed to use those products” (Rose 2007, p. 702).

However, while promotion may not necessarily create false needs, as Rose (2007) suggests, it may still create false claims and expectations about the ability of drugs to meet those needs, as pointed out by Abraham (2010). Yet as Davis and Abraham (2013a, p. 15) also acknowledge, “few social science studies make any attempt to systematically investigate the validity of marketing claims or to distinguish between scientific information or commercial bias, together with what this means for public health” (see also, Abraham 2008). However, some recent analyses have moved in this direction by pointing to inconsistencies between industry information and marketing claims on the one hand, and the scientific evidence on the other, a situation that could lead to medically inappropriate drug utilization (McHenry 2009; Mulinari 2013; Zetterqvist and Mulinari 2013). Such findings are consistent with the growing body of medical and pharmaceutical policy literature that investigates the veracity of advertising claims in medical journals, concluding that claims are often incomplete, inflated, and sometimes downright misleading (reviewed in Othman et al. 2009; see also Othman et al. 2010). The public health relevance of this literature is heightened by other studies addressing the impact of promotion on medical knowledge and practice, which underscore how misleading claims are likely to have negative repercussions on health by endorsing misuse or overuse of drugs (Spurling et al. 2010; Kesselheim, Darby, Studdert, Glynn, Levin and Avorn. 2011; Larkin et al. 2014; Austad et al. 2014; Becker et al. 2011a).

Particularly, revealing evidence of how marketing biases medical knowledge and practice has emerged from a number of high-profile legal cases in the United States where company employees or former employees from many major global companies have acted as “whistleblowers” to uncover illicit activities (Steinman et al. 2006; Ross et al. 2008; Spielmans 2009; Mello et al. 2009; Spielmans and Parry 2010; Kesselheim, Mello and Studdert 2011; Dukes et al. 2014). A widely publicized case involved British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which in 2012, agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from unlawful drug promotion and failure to report safety data, as well as its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices (US Department of Justice 2012). Among other things, between 1998 and 2003, GSK unlawfully promoted its antidepressant Paxil (also marketed as Seroxat) to treat depression in patients under age 18, despite emerging evidence that antidepressants increase suicide risk among adolescents. Moreover, GSK participated in preparing, publishing, and distributing a misleading medical journal article that misrepresented a clinical trial of Paxil as demonstrating efficacy in the treatment of depression in patients under age 18, when in fact, the study actually failed to do so (McHenry and Jureidini 2008). The GSK case clearly exemplifies the calculated deceit of certain industry marketing strategies. And it exemplifies another critical point made by various critics of pharmaceutical marketing: the increasingly blurred distinction between industry clinical trials and their marketing efforts (Sismondo 2009; McHenry 2009; Applbaum 2009; Spielmans and Parry 2010; Dumit 2012; Healy 2012).

While the evidence that marketing, especially in the US, has repeatedly distorted medical information and research in ways that have put patient health at risk is therefore irrefutable, critics of industry marketing practices have not been immune to challenge. A typical reaction has been to characterize critics as suffering from “denominator neglect,” as discussed by Stossel and Stell (2011), in relation to the alleged dangers of industry bias in academia—i.e. failing to consider that the many cases of proper conduct supposedly dwarf the comparatively few cases that comprise the numerator. On a similar but less critical note, Fisher et al. (2015, p. 3) warned that “pharmaceuticalization literature” could be biased towards a subset of drugs and disorders “because they provide rich examples of the pharmaceutical industry's negative influence on society” while generally ignoring other cases that do not comprise equally good examples of undue industry influence, or—it can also be added—failing to give credit where drugs have clearly addressed previously unmet clinical needs (Kesselheim and Avorn 2013). Sociologists have also been reproached for sometimes depicting the industry as omnipotent controllers of drug markets, where most other stakeholders are either outmaneuvered or even co-opted by industry (Rose 2007). Finally, most of the literature focuses on Western and especially US-centered corporate marketing practices, although there have admittedly been important attempts to widen the analytical scope (e.g. Hara 2003; Ecks 2005; Lakoff 2005; Bell and Figert 2012; Dukes et al. 2014). Such concerns notwithstanding, this literature has contributed to a greater understanding of the range of marketing tactics—some unmistakably fraudulent and medically risky—that operate at various levels to influence the shaping of drug markets.

Development and enforcement of marketing rules: regulatory regimes as dependent variables

The studies of industry marketing reviewed above have often called either for a tightening of rules governing such activities or for more stringent enforcement of already existing rules, in the interest of public health (e.g. Mintzes 2006; Abraham 2008; Goldacre 2012). Such appeals raise questions about the development and enforcement of rules governing marketing activities, as well as their ability to constrain undue industry influence.

Notably, concerning the former, a number of studies have investigated how pharmaceutical companies and trade associations engage in high-level political lobbying and foster networks and alliances with groups both inside and outside the state apparatus to influence the policies, laws, and regulations relevant to pharmaceutical markets (Gosden and Beder 2001; Abraham 2002; Adamini et al. 2011; Ozieranski et al. 2012; Tobbell 2012). For example, in a series of studies, Abraham and colleagues describe how the pharmaceutical industry has collaborated with political advocates of neoliberal policies since the 1980s to successfully shape US and EU regulatory systems to better align with industry interests by reducing regulatory burdens while strengthening a regulatory environment more responsive to commercial priorities (e.g. Abraham and Lewis 2000; Davis and Abraham 2013a). This includes harmonizing regulatory standards for drug testing across geographical regions, making governmental regulatory agencies increasingly dependent on fees from companies, increasing the extent and flexibility of consultation between companies and regulators, lowering the standards for efficacy and safety documentation for an increasing number of “priority” drugs, and reducing time spent by regulators reviewing drug applications.

In contrast to such detailed investigations of regulation of both drug testing and approval processes as “dependent” variables, scholars—at least outside the US—have paid less attention to the sociopolitical mechanisms underlying development and enforcement of marketing rules. This is unfortunate because companies have reason, at least in principle, to support and adhere to marketing rules since they help build trust in the industry and its products among employees and academic collaborators, as well as among regulators, prescribers, payers, and consumers of medicines (Dukes 2006; Francer et al. 2014). Marketing rules and enforcement schemes exist at various levels (international, regional, national) and may pertain to industry interactions with one or more actors (Francer et al. 2014). Thus, there are laws and regulations at the national level (and supranational for the EU) to cover the promotion of drugs; these may be enforced either through legal action or through medicines regulatory bodies. For example, authorities typically forbid companies to encourage drug use outside the medical indications for which the drug was approved. Many countries also ban DTCA of prescription drugs, as well as misleading drug information. Moreover, many medical associations and employers (e.g. hospitals or universities) have professional or employee Codes of Conduct that cover interactions with industry (Shnier et al. 2013; Epstein et al. 2013; Francer et al. 2014). Numerous medical journals have also developed publication policies to ensure transparency regarding financial conflict of interests among authors (International Committee of Medical Journal 2015). Some individual pharmaceutical companies have internal standards, while the global pharmaceutical trade association (the IFPMA), as well as regional and many national trade associations, have Codes of Practice that are supposed to ensure that communication and interaction with researchers, physicians, patients, and payers of medicine support high-quality care (Francer et al. 2014).

In fact, in many countries—such as Australia, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom (UK) and Sweden—marketing activity is primarily governed by such voluntary codes administered by the pharmaceutical industry's own self-regulation systems (Lexchin 1999; Fox et al. 2006; Doran and Löfgren 2013; Zetterqvist and Mulinari 2013; Alves et al. 2014). A recent comparative study analyzing self-regulation in the UK and Sweden suggested that the regulatory regimes in those countries could best be defined as “delegated self-regulation as an integral part of a co-regulatory scheme involving industry and national medicines regulatory authorities” (Zetterqvist et al. 2015, p. 2). That is, the medicines regulatory authorities—e.g. the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)—have delegated a significant part of their defined statutory responsibility to the industry trade groups in order to ensure that marketing practices comply with agreed-upon rules. This arrangement differs from the US—and certain other European countries, like France—where governmental regulatory agencies regulate marketing with little or no formal delegation to self-regulatory bodies (Mello et al. 2009; Korenstein et al. 2011; Mintzes et al. 2013). However, even in countries with formal delegation to industry bodies, governmental regulatory agencies may still retain important functions. For example, since 2005, the MHRA has pre-vetted advertisements targeting health professionals for new products, products with safety concerns, or products with major new medical indications. The UK drug regulatory agency is also tasked with investigating potential breaches of advertising legislation, although it strongly recommends the use of the self-regulatory system for complaints concerning companies that have accepted the industry code (Zetterqvist et al. 2015).

Regulation of pharmaceutical marketing can therefore be characterized as internationally divergent, multilayered and “decentered,” i.e. involving many actors other than the state (Black 2001). This regulatory complexity reflects the fact that marketing regulatory regimes are outcomes of evolving sociopolitical processes, and as such, they are obvious objects for sociological analysis (Doran and Löfgren 2013). For example, as Conrad and Leiter (2008) explain, permissive US regulations pertaining to DTCA began developing in the 1980s and seemed to have been the work of high-level Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, most importantly the FDA Commissioner, who believed patients should have a greater role in choosing treatments (see also, Donohue 2006; Greene and Herzberg, 2010). According to Davis and Abraham (2013a), the FDA Commissioner's view resulted from his marriage of the ideology of consumerism with deregulatory politics, a marriage enabled by the ascendance of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Curiously, the industry did not appear to be enthusiastic about DTCA at first; yet, the FDA subsequently won industry support for deregulatory measures (Davis and Abraham 2013a).

At the same time, however, DTCA of prescription drugs is still banned in most other developed countries, including across the EU, despite pressure from the European industry trade group and aligned “pro-business” interests in the European Commission (Brooks and Geyer 2011; Mulinari 2013). But in the EU, unlike in the US, deregulatory proposals have hitherto encountered successful opposition from a wide range of actors, including industry-independent patient organizations, health professionals, and perhaps most importantly, the European Commission's health and consumer branch and individual EU member states that fear a permissive legal framework would increase drug costs. A take-home message from the industry's failed efforts to legalize DTCA in Europe is that countervailing forces, including state and non-state actors, can sometimes effectively challenge the deregulatory agenda (Mulinari 2013). Such success is consistent with Doran and Löfgren's (2013) suggestion that the pharmaceutical industry has proved less capable of shaping the regulation of marketing than other areas of pharmaceutical policy because drug promotion is relatively more open to debate and activism.

Outcome of marketing rules: regulatory regimes as independent variables

The above discussion considered rules and enforcement schemes as outcomes to be explained, as dependent variables in which, for example, consumerist ideology serves as an independent or explanatory variable. However, in order for regulatory regimes to be relevant when analyzing the shaping of drug markets, it also seems necessary to consider them as “independent” variables, as has successfully been done in other areas of pharmaceutical regulation (Abraham and Davis 2009). That is, it is necessary to explain how rules and their enforcement (or lack thereof) impact corporate practices to influence the pattern of drug consumption and, consequently, health.

Indeed, the notion of marketing regulations as independent variables is central to social science and policy debates on pharmaceuticals. For example, Conrad and Leiter (2008) have accused the FDA's permissive policies regarding DTCA of being at least partly responsible for the alleged medically unjustifiable increase in the use of drugs in the US, although others point to similar trends in comparable countries where DTCA for prescription drugs is banned (Abraham 2010). Concerns about the negative effects of DTCA on health have also been raised in New Zealand, where the practice is also allowed (Hoek and Maubach 2005), although industry representatives assert that such concerns are effectively addressed by the independent pre-vetting of all consumer ads (Sheehy 2014).

There is also debate on the health consequences of the FDA's apparent failure to enforce marketing rules more generally, as demonstrated by the growing number of legal cases showing how companies systematically planned and carried out partially illegal marketing campaigns to effectively increase drug sales (Kesselheim, Mello and Studdert 2011; Lexchin and Kohler, 2011; Landefeld and Steinman 2009). Thus, as was pointed out by the US Government Accountability Office in its investigation of the FDA's oversight of so-called off-label promotion, many deceptive and complex marketing schemes were completely unknown to the FDA before they were investigated by the Department of Justice, many years after the fact, following complaints by company whistleblowers (GAO 2008).

The FDA's failure to detect and regulate illegal industry marketing practices is to some degree offset by comprehensive Department of Justice investigations based on whistleblower complaints, which have resulted in escalating monetary penalties for pharmaceutical companies, as well as major financial rewards for whistleblowers (Kesselheim, Mello and Studdert 2011). However, although the penalties levied in the US may seem massive, they may still be too low to deter illicit marketing, as suggested by the absence of long-term effects on the value of company stocks and the profitability of illicit activities (Kesselheim et al. 2011; Matthews 2013). A further problem is that criminal investigation and prosecution typically take years, during which time illicit marketing schemes may continue uncensored (Davis and Abraham 2013b).

Similarly, there is a longstanding debate on the merits and shortcomings of industry self-regulation with respect to its ability to ensure compliance with marketing rules and, hence, support quality prescribing. According to its proponents, self-regulation should have numerous advantages over conventional state regulation, including speed and flexibility (Francer et al. 2014). Further, because self-regulation is based on Codes of Practice, which are often more far-reaching than legal provisions, this approach may improve industry behavior (Dukes et al. 2014). It has even been suggested that industry may refrain from illicit promotion in Europe—unlike in the US—because the wider involvement of industry in policing marketing in Europe encourages companies to comply with rules and deters illicit conduct (Osborn 2010). In particular, companies may want to comply with voluntary codes to prevent implementation of future or additional state legislation (Francer et al. 2014).

In practice however, critics say self-regulation often fails to live up to its theoretical promise (Lexchin 2003; Lexchin 2012; Doran and Löfgren 2013). Accordingly, studies have documented discrepancies between the ethical standard codified in Codes of Practice and the actual conduct of companies in some countries (House of Commons Health Committee 2005; Arnold and Oakley 2013; Zetterqvist and Mulinari 2013; Alves et al. 2014; Zetterqvist et al. 2015). For example, the 2005 House of Commons Health Select Committee's report on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK expressed concerns about lax oversight over medicines promotion, substantial lags in the self-regulatory system that allow firms to continue running misleading advertisements for extended periods of time, and insufficient sanctions that fail to deter companies from providing unreliable information. More recently, a systematic study of reported marketing violations 2004–2012 found that companies in the UK and Sweden were reprimanded for breaching the industry code on average more than once per week in each country (Zetterqvist et al. 2015). Nearly 20% of the violations in both countries were serious breaches, such as marketing for an unlicensed indication and marketing of prescription drugs to patients, both illegal in the EU.

As argued by Vilhelmsson et al. (2015), the deterrent capacity of regulatory systems depends on a credible threat of detection coupled with efficient and appropriate sanctions following exposure of wrongdoing. Self-regulatory systems rely largely on complaints from company outsiders, particularly competing companies, and, thus, differ from the US scheme for detecting marketing violations, where financial rewards are used to incentivize whistleblowers to help uncover illicit marketing and fraud. Consequently, self-regulatory systems may be severely limited in their ability to uncover complex marketing schemes that are concealed from company outsiders. Regarding the question of appropriate sanctions, Zetterqvist et al. (2015) point out that violating companies in the UK and Sweden pay very low fines that are not intended to be a financial deterrent. Instead fines are designed to recover the cost of processing complaints and administering the self-regulatory system. According to Zetterqvist et al. (2015), such circumstances cast doubts on the ability of the current balance between self-regulation and legislative control with government oversight to sufficiently and adequately safeguard against illicit marketing in those countries.

Conclusions and future directions

Research in recent decades has revealed how the industry exerts a strong influence over pharmaceutical markets, while simultaneously showing how various factors curtail industry power. The internationally divergent and complex marketing regulatory regimes supposedly in place to ensure that companies follow agreed-upon rules are a potentially strong social factor in this respect. Yet, the prevalence and severity of industry misconduct suggests at least partial regulatory failure. Evidence of such regulatory failure comes both from countries where government regulatory agencies directly regulate promotion (e.g. the US) and countries with major delegation of regulatory duties to industry bodies (e.g. the UK). The debate will therefore surely continue on how to achieve corporate compliance and ensure protection from undue industry influence. In particular, critics of pharmaceutical marketing are likely to contend that the examples of regulatory failure and dubious marketing practices are merely the “tip of the iceberg” (e.g. McHenry 2009), while defenders of industry marketing practices will contend that such critics fail to recognize that in most instances companies adhere to the rules and promote medically appropriate use of medicines (e.g. Stossel and Stell 2011).

Such controversies suggest the need to further investigate the regulation of industry marketing. Due to the co-evolving nature of regulatory regimes and corporate marketing strategies, it would also seem imperative to remain vigilant for potentially important developments in this field. This includes novel government, funding agency, journal, and corporate policies that claim to increase transparency regarding industry–physician interactions (Pham-Kanter 2014), financial conflict of interests (Chew et al. 2014), and clinical trials (Groves 2014). In sociology, such studies hold promise for shedding further light on the pharmaceuticalization process by allowing analysts to assess the relevance and relationship of various factors such as consumerism and deregulatory policies, as well as key countervailing forces, for the development and enforcement of marketing rules. But studies of the marketing-regulatory nexus should also increasingly focus on how regulatory regimes constrain (or fail to constrain) marketing tactics and, in this way, influence the shaping of pharmaceutical markets and health outcomes in different countries. Such studies may also serve as the basis for suggestions to reform regulatory arrangements in an effort to improve the quality of medical information and prescribing.


  • Shai Mulinari is a multidisciplinary researcher based at the Department of Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Unit of Social Epidemiology at the Department of Clinical Sciences at Lund University in Sweden. He has also been a Visiting Research Fellow at the Department of Social Science, Health and Medicine, King's College, London. He started his career in the natural sciences and, in 2008, received his Ph.D. in Developmental Biology from Lund University for work on the genetic control of embryonic development. His current research, however, is located at the intersection of sociology, science and technology studies, pharmaceutical policy and public health; he has authored or co-authored papers in many areas, for example, in Sociology of Health & Illness; Social Science & Medicine; Science & Technology Studies; PLoS Medicine; PLoS ONE; European Journal of Public Health; Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine; Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, and Philosophy, Psychiatry & Psychology. A major research interest is in the regulation of the pharmaceutical industry.


Article Information

Format Available

Full text: HTML | PDF

© 2016 The Authors. Sociology Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Request Permissions

Publication History

  • Issue online:
  • Version of record online:
  • Manuscript Accepted:
  • Manuscript Revised:
  • Manuscript Received:


  • Abraham, John.1994. ‘Bias in Science and Medical Knowledge: The Opren Controversy.’ Sociology28: 717–36.
  • Abraham, John.2002. ‘The Pharmaceutical Industry as a Political Player.’ Lancet360: 1498–502.
  • Abraham, John.2008. ‘Sociology of Pharmaceuticals Development and Regulation: A Realist Empirical Research Programme.’ Sociology of Health & Illness30: 869–85.
  • Abraham, John.2010. ‘Pharmaceuticalization of Society in Context: Theoretical, Empirical and Health Dimensions.’ Sociology44: 603–22.
  • Abraham, John and Courtney Davis. 2009. ‘Drug Evaluation and the Permissive Principle: Continuities and Contradictions between Standards and Practices in Antidepressant Regulation.’ Social Studies of Science39: 569–98.
  • Abraham, John and Graham Lewis. 2000. Regulating Medicines in Europe: Competition, Expertise and Public Health. London: Routledge.
  • Adamini, Sandra, Hans Maarse, Esther Versluis and Donald W. Light. 2009. ‘Policy making on data exclusivity in the European Union: From industrial interests to legal realities.’ Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law34: 979–1010.
  • Alves, Teresa L., Auramarina F. Martins De Freitas, Martine E. C. Van Eijk and Aukje K. Mantel-Teeuwisse. 2014. ‘Compliance of Disease Awareness Campaigns in Printed Dutch Media With National and International Regulatory Guidelines.’ PloS One9: e106599.
  • Angell, Marcia.2004. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It. New York: Random House.
  • Applbaum, Kalman.2009. ‘Is Marketing the Enemy of Pharmaceutical Innovation?’ Hastings Center Report39: 13–17.
  • Arnold, Denis G. and James L. Oakley. 2013. ‘The Politics and Strategy of Industry Self-Regulation: The Pharmaceutical Industry's Principles for Ethical Direct-to-Consumer Advertising as a Deceptive Blocking Strategy.’ Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law38: 505–44.
  • Austad, Kirsten E., Jerry Avorn, Jessica M. Franklin, Eric G. Campbell and Aaron S. Kesselheim. 2014. ‘Association of Marketing Interactions With Medical Trainees’ Knowledge About Evidence-Based Prescribing: Results From a National Survey.’ JAMA Internal Medicine174: 1283–90.
  • Barker, Kristin K.2011. ‘Listening to Lyrica: Contested Illnesses and Pharmaceutical Determinism.’ Social Science & Medicine73: 833–42.
  • Becker, Annette, Fatma Dörter, Kirsten Eckhardt, Annika Viniol, Erika Baum, Michael M. Kochen

Agricultural Law Update


Published here are archive issues of the Agricultural Law Update, the monthly newsletter of the American Agricultural Law Association.  The Update features in-depth articles on important developments in agricultural law covering subjects such as farm programs, agricultural labor law, bankruptcy, finance, taxation, farmland protection, congressional activity, international trade, environmental law, and other agricultural topics. In addition, the Update includes shorter articles on agriculture-related announcements and regulations in the Federal Register, state agricultural law developments and agricultural law job announcements.   The issues are fully searchable using the Web site’s Google search field or the Adobe Acrobat search feature for each issue.

In the summer of 2008, the National Agricultural Law Center embarked on the ambitious iniative to digitize older non-electronic issues of the Update (1983 through 1997). Presented here now is the full compilation of Agricultural Law Update issues.

The American Agricultural Law Association (AALA) is the only national professional organization focusing on the legal needs of the agricultural community. Crossing traditional barriers, it offers an independent forum for investigation of innovative and workable solutions to complex agricultural law problems.  You may click on the AALA logo to access the AALA Web site.

The Update is a product of the American Agricultural Law Association and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Agricultural Law Center, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or AALA.


2009 Issues

2008 Issues

2007 Issues

2006 Issues

2005 Issues

2004 Issues

2003 Issues

2002 Issues

2001 Issues

2000 Issues

1999 Issues

1998 Issues

1997 Issues

1996 Issues

1995 Issues

1994 Issues

1993 Issues

1992 Issues

1991 Issues

1990 Issues

1989 Issues

1988 Issues

1987 Issues

1986 Issues

1985 Issues

1984 Issues

1983 Issues

2009 Archive Issues

November and December, 2009

Jury Verdict Against Bayer For Liberty Link Rice Breaks New Ground In Biotech Liability

Thomas Redick & Bryan Endres

The Meaning Of “Excess Farm Losses”

Neil Harl

The Lacey Act – Its Impact On Aquaculture

Elizabeth Springsteen

Emerging Trends In Class Action Lawsuits Against Food Manufacturers

Judy Okenfuss & Julianna Plawecki

No Estate Tax Certainty (Yet)

Kevin Alerding

October, 2009

National Animal Identification System: Potential Legal Implications

Elizabeth Springsteen

Ohio Voters Approve Livestock Care Standards Board: Now What?

Peggy Kirk Hall & Leah F. Finney

How To Review Your Estate Plan: A Step-By-Step Guide

Kevin Alerding

September, 2009

The National Pork Producer’s Council’s Challenge To EPCRA Is Non-Justiciable

L. Paul Goeringer

New North Carolina Law Places Restrictions On Condemnations Of Land Subject To Conservation Easements

Theodore Feitshans

Court Considers Constitutionality Of State’s Right-To-Farm Law

L. Paul Goeringer

August, 2009

Regulatory Update – FTC Seeks Input On Green Marketing Guides

Thomas Redick

July, 2009

Truth In Labeling? New FDA Guidance Does Not Require Labeling Of Foods Derived From Genetically Engineered Animals

Jera Houghtaling

Two Courts Say That LLC And LLP Members Are Not Per Se “Passive” Limited Partners-IRS Scolded For Lack Of Regulations

Roger A. Mceowen


June, 2009

Indemnified, Eventually: Insured Farmers Resort To Litigation To Obtain Proper GRIP Payments

Jeff Todd, Spencer Smith and Jeremiah Buettner

Is A Farmer’s Potential Obligation To USDA Under The Guaranteed Loan Program Subject To A Discharge In Bankruptcy?

Ashley Schweizer

How To Assist Farmers And Ranchers To Negotiate A Wind Lease On Their Property

Cari B. Rincker

Mushroom Coop Loses Antitrust Immunity, District Judge Rules

Marlis Carson

May, 2009

Saving Roundup Ready® Beans For Seed?

Trantham, Mcfarling, and Scruggs

Say “No”

Donald L. Uchtmann

April, 2009

New Public Participation Requirements Under The 2008 CAFO Regulations

Terence J. Centner

Tax Provisions In The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Of 2009

Roger A. Mceowen

March, 2009

Analysis of the Law Concerning the Illinois River Watershed Litigation

Jess M. Kane

Truth In Labeling? New FDA Guidance Does Not Require Labeling Of Foods Derived From Genetically Engineered Animals

Jera Houghtaling

February, 2009

Top Ten Agricultural Law Developments of 2008

Roger A. Mceowen

Domestic Production Activity Deduction For Members Of Cooperatives

Philip E. Harris

January, 2009

What Is Agricultural Law?

Susan Schneider

Casitas Municipal Water District V. United States: A Tidal Wave For Takings And Water Rights?

Jesse Richardson

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2008 Archive Issues

December, 2008

What is Agricultural Law?  Proposing Production Agriculture as the Core

Drew Kershen

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers:  Preparing for the “Next Generation”

Janie Simms Hipp

COOL’s Implications for Livestock Producers

Cari Rincker

November, 2008

New Federal CAFO Regulations

Terence J. Centner

A Twisting Path Toward a National Standard for Sustainable Agriculture

Thomas P. Redick and Shawna Bligh

Recent Federal Farm Regulation

James Dean

October, 2008

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

Neil E. Harl

“Prendre Le Chevre”- When the State “Gets Your Goat”

L. Leon Geyer and Courtney Mitchell

September, 2008

Farm Year to Year Lease – Lease Termination Date Matters

L. Leon Geyer

District Court Finds USDA Violated NEPA in Administering Critical Feed Use Initiative but Allows Limited Use of CRP Acreage

Anne Hazlett

Reinventing the Wheeler:  How the Fifth Circuit Changed the Law on the Packers’ and Stockyards Act by Simply Reading the Statute

Christopher M. Bass

August, 2008

Genetic Fitness:  A Stockman’s Examination of Genetic Liability

A. Blair Dunn

Removal-Fill Permits in Oregon:  Does Your Project Require One?

Cortney D. Duke

July, 2008

Protecting Your Intellectual Property with Litigation Insurance

John Kenney and Jeff Todd

Farm Bill Update:  Congress Passes the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Anne C. Hazlett

Tax Provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub.L.No.110-246 (the 2008 Farm Bill)

Neil E. Harl

June, 2008

Ohio Court of Appeals Clarifies Lack of Local Zoning Authority over Confined Animal Feeding Operations

Peggy Kirk Hall

Right to Confine:  The Current State of the Law of Nuisance Affecting Confined Animal Feeding Operations in Oklahoma

Jess M. Kane

May, 2008

The Trap in Liquidating an S Corporation that was Formerly a C Corporation

Neil E. Harl

Cases, Regulations and Statutes

Robert P. Achenbach, Jr.

April, 2008

Michigan Court Addresses CAFO Permitting Requirements

Terence Centner

2008 Economic Stimulus Act

Philip E. Harris

Farm Estate Valuation in an Era of Rising Land Values

Roger A. McEowen

March, 2008

RMA’s Inconsistent Practices Cost Farmers

Jeff Todd and Spencer Smith

Air Emissions of Hazardous Substances from Animal Wastes on Farms:  EPA Proposes Administative Exemptions for CERCLA/EPCRA Reporting Obligations

John C. Becker

Settlement Funds in Conversion Actions and Proceeds of Converted Collateral Under the Uniform Commercial Code

Anthony Schutz

February, 2008

Surveying the National Environmental Policy Act and the Emerging Issues of Climate Change, Genetic Engineering and Nanotechnology

Joseph Mendelson III

FDA Approves Cloned Meat and Milk for Human Consumption

Amanda M. Thomas

Another Circuit Joins Developing Split on Exhaustion Requirement

Anthony Schutz

January, 2008

Concerns About the Use of Non-Therapeutic Antibiotics in Food Animals

Terence J. Centner

Court Authorizes Eminent Domain for Farmland Protection Purposes

Peggy Kirk Hall

Update on 2008 Farm Bill Development

Anne Hazlett

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2007 Archive Issues

December, 2007

Land Application of Biosolids: Nuisance or Agriculture?

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.

Cash and Share Lease Provisions

Anthony Schutz

November, 2007

Wind Farms: Windfall or Wipeout?

L. Leon Geyer, Jesse J. Richardson, and Sara Breakiron

Synthetic Materials and Organic Foods

Amanda M. Thomas

October, 2007

Mortgage Foreclosure Tax Issues

Roger McEowen

Recent District Court Decision Signals Growing Concensus on Rapanos

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.

September, 2007

Claiming Compensation for Costs and Fees Incurred in Successful USDA Appeals

Roger McEowen

Court Says IRS Position “Subverts Common Sense,” but It’s Their Position and They’re Sticking to It

Roger McEowen

August, 2007

USDA Administrative Appeals – It’s More than Going Through the Motions

Thomas A. Lawler

Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Expanded to Benefit Rural Employers

Erin C. Herbold

Judge Concerned That Alfalfa May Be a Little Rascal—and Other Legal News

Phill Jones

July, 2007

IRS Finally Requires Information Reporting for Commodity Certificate Gains

Neil E. Harl

Implementation of Grazing Rules for Federal Land Frozen

Roger McEowen

Massachusetts v. the Environmental Protection Agency:  Standing to Challenge Lack of Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases

John Becker

Orderly Marketing of Ag Products in Ontario, Canada

Robert A. Wilson

June, 2007

Producer’s Liens Follow the Money in California

Sharlene Roberts-Caudle

Irs Issues Proposed Regulations Concerning Shareholder Loans to S Corporations

Roger E. McEowen

Scope of Cooperative Antitrust Exemption

Roger E. McEowen

Federal Courts Disapprove APHIS Approval Procedures

Phill Jones

May, 2007

IRS Issues Proposed Regulations Providing Guidance on How Post-death Events Impact Taxable Estate Value

Roger E. McEowen

EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Seeking Comments on Potential Revisions to Current Production Regulations Under FIFRA

Keith A. Matthews

Approaches to Zoning That Support and Protect Agriculture

Peggy Kirk Hall

April, 2007

What Farmers Should Know about Employing Migrant and Seasonal Workers

Elizabeth Haws Connally

Employer’s Attempts to Verify Employee’s Right to Work and Title VII

Roman F. Amaguin

Important Rulings to the Grape-Growing Industry

Roger E. McEowen

March, 2007

The 2007 Farm Bill–the Drafting Process and Provisions That Could Affect Your Clients

Phil Fraas

IRS Rules That Some Credit Union Activities Are Taxable

Roger A. McEowen

Practitioner Note on Estate Tax Liens

Anthony Schutz

February, 2007

Nebraska Corporate-farming Ban Unconstitutional: What Does “The Farm” Mean?

Anthony Schutz

Tolerance of Food Contamination in Europe

Andrew R. Apel

January, 2007

Summary of Selected Provisions in the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006

Roger A. McEowen

IRS Notice on Self-employment Tax for CRP Payments

Neil E. Harl

Re: Act 38 of 2005: “A State Solution to Resolving Conflicts That Involve Agriculture, Communities and the Rural Environment”

John C. Becker

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2006 Archive Issues

December, 2006

Goldilocks, the Three Bears and Transfer of Development Rights

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.

Administrative and Legislative Developments in Administrative Law

Harrison M. Pittman

Louisiana’s Catfish Statute and Cajun Statute Held Invalid

Emilie H. Liebovitch

Officer “Responsibly Connected” Under PACA

Amy K. Miller

Private Insurers; Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Not Excused by Common Law Exceptions

Jeffrey A. Peterson

Poultry Contract Does Not Violate PSA and Is Not Fraudulent

Eric Pendergrass

November, 2006

Varying State Approaches to Confidentiality with Premises and Animal Identification Systems

Eric Pendergrass

Ninth Circuit Developments in Agricultural Law

Harrison M. Pittman

Property Designated for Agricultural Use and Home Equity Loans

Amber S. Brady

October, 2006

Farmland Protection

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.

Regulation Through Litigation: CERCLA and CAFOs

Jim D. Bradbury

September, 2006

Conservation Easements: Smart Growth or Sprawl Promotion?

Jesse J. Richardson, Jr.

EPA Offers General Guidance to CAFO Operators Following Waterkeeper v. EPA

John C. Becker

Written Jury Questionnaires: Learn What Your Neighbors Might Not Be Telling You About CAFOs Without Poisoning the Jury Pool During Voir Dire

Vincent J. Holzhall

August, 2006

Biofuels: Policy and Business Organization Issues

Doug O’Brien

Pension Protection Act of 2006

Roger A. McEowen

July, 2006

State Nutrient Management Act Interpreted

John C. Becker

June, 2006

“Muddying the Jurisdictional Waters”: U.S. Supreme Court Splits on Clean Water Act Jurisdiction over Wetlands

Martha L. Noble

May, 2006

The Area of Potential effect Under Regulations Promulgated by the American Council for Historic Preservation

Andrea J. Kirk

Tax Increase Prevention and the Reconciliation Act of 2005

Roger A. McEowen

April, 2006

World Trade Organization and the Commodity Title of the Next Farm Bill

Doug O’Brien

March, 2006

New Medicaid Rules Will Impact Estate Planning for Long-Term Health Care

Roger A. McEowen

Orff v. US: A Weapon Against the Protection of Prior Appropriation Rights

Andrea Kirk

National Raw Milk and Cheese Survey Results

John A. Beers

February, 2006

Are You a Debt Relief Agency? You Might Be Surprised and You Should Be Concerned

Susan A. Schneider

The Dilemma of Isolated Wetlands Since SWANCC

Andrea J. Kirk

State Law Claims Not Preempted by Federal Crop Insurance Act

Robert P. Achenbach

Open Space Easements

Keith D. Hickman

January, 2006

Federal Court Strikes Down Nebraska Corporate Farming Law

Robert A. McEowen and Neil E. Harl

Fifth Circuit on Disaster Payments in Chapter 7

Susan A. Schneider

Federal Courts Rule for Farmers in Two SAA Challenges

Karen Krub

Iowa Enters into Consent Decree with Cargill on Packer Ownership and Grower Rights

Doug O’Brien

2005 Archive Issues

December, 2005

Conservation Reserve Program long-term policy

Martha L. Noble

Conservation easements for agricultural landowners

Roger A. McEowen

More on handling CSP payments

Neil E. Harl

November, 2005

Unresolved issues raised by the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP, also called the ‘Tobacco Buyout’)

Theodore A. Feitshans

September/October 2005

Tobacco quota buyout tax considerations

Guido van der Hoeven

Kelo: Setting the record straight, a proposal for reform

Roger E. McEowen

In defense of Kelo: one lawyer’s take on takings

John H. Brechin

August, 2005

Right to farm issues in Pennsylvania: arriving at Act 38

Phyllia J. Marquitz

Bt10 slips into the stream of commerce

J. David Aiken

Energy Policy Act tax incentives

Neil E. Harl

July, 2005

Market concentration, horizontal consolidation, and vertical integration in hogs and cattle

Harrison M. Pittman

June, 2005

The Nebraska hog wars

J. David Aiken

Regulation of hydrologically-connected ground water in Nebraska

J. David Aiken

Peanut farmers’ claims dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Harrison M. Pittman

May, 2005

Supreme Court rules that beef check-off is government speech; but check-off litigation may not be over

Roger E. McEowen

Trade fight over Canadian hogs

Jeffrey A. Feirick

April, 2005

An Overview of United States Environmental Protection Agency air quality consent agreement for animal feeding operations

David L. Cook, et al.

GAO sees deficiences in efforts to guard agriculture from terrorism

Phillip B.C. Jones

Bankruptcy reform and family farmers

Susan A. Schneider

Recreational use statutes and E. coli contamination

Roger E. McEowen

March, 2005

Supreme Court considers preemption of state law claims under FIFRA

Harrison M. Pittman

Key eminent domain case to be decided by U.S. Supreme Court

Roger A. McEowen

University of Arkansas School of Law launches new specialty journal on food law

February, 2005

National Organic Program final rule challenged as inconsistent with the Organic Foods  Guidance on new domestic production deduction

Neil E. Harl

CAFO water regulations invalidated

Barclay Rogers

Production Act of 1990

Joshua T. Crain

January, 2005

Proposed repeal of the federal estate tax – Is this a good idea for agriculture?

Roger A. McEowen and Neil E. Harl

Action for failure of insevticide to have distinctive odor, color or feel preempted by FIFRA

Joshua T. Crain

2004 Archive Issues

December, 2004

Farmers’ guide to GMO contracts

David Moeller

Top ten agricultural law cases of 2004

Farmer’s Legal Action Group, Inc.

November, 2004

American Jobs Creation Act of 2004: a summary of selected provisions

Neil E. Harl and Roger A. McEowen

“Near miss” for USDA contractors under the Civil False Claims Act

John T. Boese

October, 2004

Tax-exempt financing and agriculture

Scott D. Wegner

New conditional waiver program in California’s Central Coast to regulate waste discharge for irrigated lands

Amy Lowenthal

Reporting income under “ledger” contracts

Neil E. Harl

September, 2004

Determining the proper “cramdown” rate of interest in agricultural bankruptcies post-Till v. SCS Credit Corp.

Harrison M. Pittman

Milk handlers’ and producer’s claims dismissed

Gaby R. Jabbour

Packaging chicken pelts considered secondary agriculture under FLSA

Gaby R. Jabbour

Bank’s security interest in government payments not perfected

Joshua T. Crain

Purchasers acquire title to land by adverse possession

Gaby R. Jabbour

August, 2004

Problem of buyer-power (monopsony) in agricultural markets

Roger A. McEowen

Right to farm law in California

Stephen V. Lopardo

Vermont’s revised right to farm law

Michael O. Duane

Cooperative member not allowed to defer value-added payments

Gaby R. Jabbour

July, 2004

Conservation Security Program Interim Final Rule: a truncated green payments program for FY04 needs future improvements

Martha L. Noble

Exhaustion of administrative remedies as jurisdictional requirement not mandated

Harrison M. Pittman

Meaning of “active business” for purposes of divisive reorganizations

Neil E. Harl

Insurance companies fail to exhaust administrative remedies

Harrison M. Pittman

June, 2004

No deferral where payment received by agent (payments constructively received)

Neil E. Harl

Iowa’s right to farm law declared unconstitutional

Barclay Rogers

Alternatives to right to farm law protection

Jeffrey A. Mollet

Interim phosphorus management policy for nutrient management plans in Pennsylvania

Douglas Beegle et al.

May, 2004

The constitutionality of corporate farming laws in the Eighth Circuit

Harrison M. Pittman

Court issues preliminary injunction enjoining USDA action on mad cow disease

Harrison M. Pittman

Court considers dischargeability of patent infringement judgment

Harrison M. Pittman

April, 2004

Drafting conservation easements for agriculture

Judy Anderson and Jerry Cosgrove

Farm program payments exempt as “public assistance benefits”

Harrison M. Pittman

March, 2004

Ag-environmental law: impact on ag-finance

Drew L. Kershen

Commentary on SARA Title III and its role in air quality litigation involving agriculture

L. E. Lanyon and J. C. Becker

U.S. agricultural lawyers participate in CEDR Congress

Margaret Rosso Grossman

Manufacturers not joint employers with farm labor contractors

Amy Lowenthal

February, 2004

Insurance coverage for agricultural environmental claims

Todd J. Janzen

Judgments for willful seed patent infringement deemed non-dischargeable

Michael H. Pinkerton

Country of origin labeling: update and overview

Phyllis J. Marquitz

Chapter 12 sunsets, caught in political battle

Susan A. Schneider

Arbitration agreement lacks mutuality of obligation

Harrison M. Pittman

Jury verdict in favor of cattle ranchers

Susan A. Schneider

January, 2004

Legal issues in developing a national plan for animal identification

Michael T. Roberts, Harrison M. Pittman

Production contracting called into question: poultry integrator held to be operator of contract grocer facility

Barclay Rogers

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2003 Archive Issues

December, 2003

State legislative activity on GMOs

David R. Moeller

Novel settlement: a new trend?

Raymond T. Reott

D.C. Circuit vacates EPA directive issued in press release

Gaby R. Jabbour

Are you liable for overtime pay?

Jeffrey A. Mollet

Debtor lacked intent to harm lender

John D. Mead

Providing credit – risk or reward?

Jeffrey A. Mollet

Valuation and assessment of farmland property

Jeffrey A. Mollet

November, 2003

Wind energy production – legal issues and related concerns for landowners

Roger A. McEowen

Appropriate jurisdiction for wetlands litigation

Theodore A. (Ted) Feitshans

Producer failed to preserve trust benefits under PACA

John D. Mead

October, 2003

The EU’s traceability and labeling and food and feed proposals for products of transgenic origin

Mark Mansour and Sarah Key

Class action for anti-trust and tort claims relating to transgenic crops

Drew L. Kershen

Farmer building farmworker housing exempted from county housing code

Randal Busby

BAP affirms that party with right of first refusal must receive notice of sale

Gaby R. Jabbour


September, 2003

South Dakota Amendment E ruled unconstitutional – is there a future for legislative involvement in shaping the structure of agriculture?

Rogert A. McEowen and Neil E. Harl

California table grape advertising assessment violates First Amendment

Lynn Cox

Cattle grazing an integral part of swine production

Gaby R. Jabbour

Mushroom waste ruled point source pollution under Clean Water Act

Harrison M. Pittman


August, 2003

Eighth Circuit rules against beef check-off

Anne Hazlett

Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over boll weevil eradication foundation

Gaby R. Jabbour

Debtors not engaged in farming operation at confirmation eligible for Chapter 12

Gaby R. Jabbour

Court affirms tools of trade exemption for wife

Randal Busby


July, 2003

Ecological assets: commodities and programs in the environmental bank and trade system

Steve Melin

Present interests for gift tax purposes

John C. Becker

Retroactive application of right to farm law denied

Sean Brister


June, 2003

Overview of modalities text

William A. Gillon

Montana court halts timber sale until TMDL established

Anne Hazlett

State law and regulations not preempted by Swampbuster

Gaby R. Jabbour

May, 2003

Commodity promotion update: “got milk?”® campaign survives

Anne Hazlett

Decision requiring payments on shared appreciation agreements affirmed

Harrison M. Pittman

Pre-revised Article 9 security agreement not effective

Brandy R. Brown

Pork contractor’s control over feedlot sufficient to deny motion to dismiss

Harrison M. Pittman

April, 2003

Commodity promotion update: district courts resolve challenges to apple, milk advertising checkoff-campaign

Anne Hazlett

State law claims not completely preempted by Federal Crop Insurance Act

Sean Brister

USDA denied right of setoff in Chapter 12 case

Jay Kiiha

March, 2003

Ninth Circuit decision poses new hurdles to pesticide applications

Anne Hazlett

Agricultural storm water discharges

Terence J. Centner

Crop insurers required to exhaust administrative remedies

Patricia Farnese

Fraud found in connection with marketing of hedge-to-arrive contracts in Ohio

David C. Barrett, Jr.

Cash rent not income from farming operation

Sean Brister

February, 2003

District court rules Iowa ban on packer ownership of livestock unconstitutional

Anne Hazlett

Creditor must prove farm equipment delivered to debtor

Brian J. Oakey

Farmer held not liable for irrigation runoff

John D. Mead

January, 2003

Everything you need to know about the Constitution you can learn in agricultural law: federalism and Commerce from amber waves of grain to migrating bald eagles.

John C. Eastman

General description of collateral adequate under Revised Article 9

E. John Edwards, III

PACA reparation award affirmed

E. John Edwards, III

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2002 Archive Issues

December, 2002

Supreme Court tie upholds fines against farmer for plowing wetlands

Anne Hazlett

Congress extends Chapter 12 bankruptcy

Susan A. Schneider

Debt excepted from bankruptcy for farmer making false financial statements

Jay Kiiha

Insurance policy application ruled not part of policy

Brandy L. Brown

November, 2002

Michigan District Court finds pork promotion program unconstitutional

Anne Hazlett

The new farm bill expands the availability of equitable relief for good faith violations of farm program rules

Philip L. Fraas

A tribute to a pioneer: Professor Harold (Hand) W. Hannah

Donald L. Uchtmann

October, 2002

Can farmers save Roundup Ready® beans for seed? McFarling and Trantham cases say “no”

Donald L. Uchtmann

Non-profit organization lacks standing to challenge classification and use of downed animals

Patricia Farnese

Summary judgment motion filed by crop insurance agency denied

Harrison M. Pittman

September, 2002

White House announces plan to further regulate genetically-modified crops

Anne Hazlett

Livestock farmers denied disaster relief

Harrison M. Pittman

It’s October 21st: do you know where your organic clients are regarding the new federal regulations?

Rich Schnell

Property valuation may be reduced by proximity to livestock operation

J. David Aiken

August, 2002

South Dakota judge finds beef promotion program unconstitutional

Anne Hazlett

Tyson Foods, Inc. liable for $891,660.00 in damages

Harrison M. Pittman

Eleventh Circuit rules that rainfall removed by pumping is a “stormwater discharge” under Clean Water Act

Harrison M. Pittman

July, 2002

Appellate court upholds EPA authority to set limits on water pollution from agricultural sources

Anne Hazlett

D.C. Circuit rules USDA violated 1985 Food Security Act and APA procedures in implementation of sugar program

Harrison M. Pittman

Farmer’s conviction for falsifying FSA loan applications and bribery reversed by Fifth Circuit

Harrison M. Pittman

June, 2002

Managing agricultural risks after StarlinkTM: the role of injunctions and contrcts in containing biotech crop risks

Thomas P. Redick and John T. Walsh

Security interest in farm equipment remains perfected despite erroneous termination of financing statement

Harrison M. Pittman

May, 2002

Resolving the future of farm policy: six-year farm bill signed

Anne Hazlett

Ninth circuit rules that factoring agreements do not per se breach PACA trust

Jeffrey A. Feirick

“Business Manager Agreement” between bank and produce dealer found to violate PACA trust

Eduardo Gabriel Arana

April, 2002

Summary of selected provisions of the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002

Philip E. Harris

State place of origin labeling requirements for agricultural products

David P. Clairborne

March, 2002

Notes on the USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

Ada Popescu

New Conservation Reserve Program good faith reliance and excessive rainfall rules

Ada Popescu

Ninth Circuit dismisses suit challenging Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act producer-handler exemption

Harrison M. Pittman

Animal Welfare

Terence J. Centner

February, 2002

FCIC’s Standard Reinsurance Agreement

Scott Fancher

Antibiotics and resistant bacteria

Terence J. Centner

Seventh Circuit stays USDA’s immediate and indefinite suspension of PACA dealer’s license

Monica M. Clark

Battles and skirmishes in the biotech patent arena

Phillip B.C. Jones

January, 2002

Supreme Court holds utility patents may be issued for plants

Anne Hazlett

Fifth Circuit rules USDA without authority to shut down Texas packing plant for salmonella contamination

Anne Hazlett

Forum selection clause in Monsanto technology agreement ruled enforceable

Beth Crocker

Return to the Agricultural Law Update index.

2001 Archive Issues

December, 2001

Attorney fee awards under the Equal Access To Justice Act

Christopher R. Kelley

Fifth Circuit rules Federal Crop Insurance Act does not preempt state law claims against crop insurance agents

Christopher R. Kelley

GAO reviews effect of increased payment limits for 1999 and 2000 marketing assistance loan program payments

Christopher R. Kelley

November, 2001

Cooperatives in the 21st century

James B. Dean and Ryan M. Stern

UCC Revised Article 9: farmers affected by new deposit accounts provisions

David R. Moeller

New York Court of Appeals decides farmworker housing case, reversing lower courts in favor of on-farm housing

John F. Rusnica

October, 2001

House of Representatives passes 10-year farm bill

Anne Hazlett

September, 2001

Using a Limited Liability Company to operate a Pennsylvania family farm business

Jeff Freirick

“Producer-handler” status under milk marketing orders denied to handler who entered into lease agreement with producer

Christopher R. Kelley

GAO questions USDA’s integrated pest management implementation claims

Christopher R. Kelley

Pennsylvania Supreme Court rules on whether mushroom harvesters are argricultural workers

John C. Becker

August, 2001

TMDLs: Are they dead letters?

Barclay Rogers and Anne Hazlett

Shared appreciation litigation update

Susan A. Schneider

History of Chapter 12 bankruptcy: on again, off again

Susan A. Schneider

State GMO restrictions and the dormant commerce clause

David R. Moeller

July, 2001

U.S. farm policy: are new approaches needed?

Dr. M. C. Hallberg

Supreme Court grants landowners further protection against environmental regulation

Anne Hazlett

U.S., Canada face biotech wheat showdown

Tracy Sayler

June, 2001

Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, H.R. 1836: summary of selected provisions

Roger A. McEowen

U.S. Supreme Court strikes down mushroom promotion assessments; fate of other commodity promotion assessments unclear

Philip L. Fraas

“Non-African American farmers” suit dismissed

Christopher R. Kelley

May, 2001

Notes on the Capper-Volstead Act of 1922

Christopher R. Kelley

Eligibility requirements for individuals: FSA direct loan programs

Susan A. Schneider

Court of Federal Claims considers water right “takings” issue

Joseph H. Hobson, Jr.

Farm income, farm program payments

Christopher R. Kelley

April, 2001

Environmental regulation in Ghana

Irene S. Egyir and Theodore A. Feitshans

District Court affirms shared appreciation obligation

Susan A. Schneider

Public nuisance action against sugar cane producers

Christopher R. Kelley

Oklahoma Attorney General issues opinion on poultry production contracts

Christopher R. Kelley

March, 2001

Important biotech cases involve patentability of plants and licensing of technology

Roger A. McEowen

Interpreting statutory grants of immunity from liability – Central Green Co. v. U.S.

John C. Becker

Gene Technology in the land down under

Tracy Sayler

United States Supreme Court rules that Banks for Cooperatives are subject to state income taxation

Christopher R. Kelley

Classifying producers in today’s agricultural economy

John C. Becker

February, 2001

An introduction to federal marketing orders for fruits, vegetables, nuts, and specialty crops

Christopher R. Kelley

The Producer Protection Act – will it protect producers?  A rejoinder

Neil E. Harl and William Heffernan

Second Circuit denied payment of attorney’s fess from PACA trust proceeds

Christopher R. Kelley

New administrative equitable relief authority for USDA conservation contracts

Christopher R. Kelley

January, 2001

The Producer Protection Act – will it protect producers?

Michael Boehlje, et al.

Biotechnology policy in Ireland – an example to Europe?

Shane Morris, et al.

Eighth Circuit reverses tax court on self-employment tax on rental income

Philip E. Harris

The EPA’s proposed regulations for animal feeding operations

Terence J. Centner

2000 Archive Issues

December, 2000

The basics of federal farm program payment limitation and eligibility law

Christopher R. Kelley

District court interprets federal crop insurance arbitration clause

Christopher R. Kelley

November, 2000

New water quality regulations raise questions about EPA influence over agricultural practices

Anne Hazlett and Barclay R. Rogers

County feedlot regulations invalidated

J. David Aiken

Nebraska Supreme Court enforces hedge-to-arrive contracts

J. David Aiken

October, 2000

District Court rules non-point sources are included in listing of impaired waterways, calculation of total maximum daily loads

Anne Hazlett and Barclay R. Rogers

Three GAO reports

Christopher R. Kelley

Pennsylvania’s experiences with conservation easements

Timothy W. Kelsey and Stanford M. Lembeck

September, 2000

The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000: the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Programs and the domestic commodity and other farm programs

Christopher R. Kelley

Purchase of conservation easements program in Pennsylvania, part 1: history and participants’ experience

Timothy W. Kelsey and Stanford M. Lembeck

EPA announces proposed rule changes for animal feeding operations

Scott Fancher

August, 2000

Crop share rental arrangements and sample lease

Paul A. Meints

Denial of payments to cotton exporter upheld

Christopher R. Kelley

Minnesota amends its agricultural contracts statute

Christopher R. Kelley

D.C. Circuit rules meat inspectors must “inspect” meat, not “observe” it

Christopher R. Kelley

July, 2000

The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000: federal crop insurance

Christopher R. Kelley

Federal Circuit affirms dismissal of claims against FGIS

Christopher R. Kelley

June, 2000

New Generation farmer cooperatives

Christopher R. Kelley

Agricultural legal research on the Internet

Jeff Feirick

Nebraska Supreme Court rules in Progress Pig case

J. David Aiken

May, 2000

Regulating foods derived from genetically engineered crops

Donald L. Uchtmann

Supreme Court denies Chevron deference to statutory interpretations in agency opinion letters and similar formats

Christopher R. Kelley

Risks in asking for adequate assurance of performance

David C. Barrett, Jr.

April, 2000

Immigration and Naturalization Service enforcement issues

Jeffrey A. Feirick and Anthony D. Kanagy

Fourth Circuit addresses USDA statutory exhaustion requirement

Christopher R. Kelley

Eighth Circuit denies retroactive effect to “90-day rule”

Christopher R. Kelley

Federal district court upholds “farmed wetland pasture” determination

Christopher R. Kelley

March, 2000

Understanding H-2A

Jeffrey A. Feirick

Liability for damages caused by fire started by defective combine engine

Roger A. McEowen

Ninth Circuit rejects “ability to pay” and Eighth Amendment challenges to marketing order penalties

Christopher R. Kelley

Payment limit effectively removed from marketing assistance loan gains

Christopher R. Kelley

February, 2000

Status of regional dairy compacts

Ken Bailey

Seventh Circuit upholds “Swampbuster’s” application to isolated, intrastate wetlands

Christopher R. Kelley

Farmers misled by FSA appeal letter

Susan A. Schneider

GM product labeling caters food for thought

Phillip B.C. Jones

January, 2000

Cooperative stock and the federal securities acts: defining a “security”

Christopher R. Kelley

Eighth Circuit rules cooperative equities held by inactive members are not “securities”

Christopher R. Kelley

San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review bibliography

Drew L. Kershen

1999 Archive Issues

December, 1999

The legal effects of federal agency pronouncements

Christopher R. Kelley

Eighth Circuit rules on hedge-to-arrive contracts

Christopher R. Kelley

Cotenants claiming by adverse possession

Roger A. McEowen

November, 1999

Notes on the judicial review of federal agency action

Christopher R. Kelley

There’s no free lunch

John D. Copeland

Eighth Circuit denies Bivens claim against FSA agents and employees

Christopher R. Kelley

NFO contracts held unenforceable

Matthew A. LaBuhn

October, 1999

Income averaging for farmers

Philip E. Harris

Milk marketing order reform enjoined

Christopher R. Kelley

Limited liability company dissolution

Roger A. McEowen

September, 1999

Trespassing livestock and murder convictions: could a deficient fence lead to a prison term for a livestock owner?

Roger A. McEowen

Clarifying the Washington State Right to Farm Act

Jeff Feirick

Almond marketing order advertising assessments do not violate First Amendment

Thomas P. Guarino

Condemnation of Agricultural Security Area farmland

Jeff Feirick

August, 1999

Notes on African American farmers

Christopher R. Kelley

Published comments by Glickman on the future of agriculture

Paul A. Meints

Draft Guidance Manual for CAFOs available for public comment

Theodore A. Feitshans

Upholding the New York Right to Farm Law

Jeff Feirick

July, 1999

EPA’s Livestock Strategy in the context of state programs and judicial decisions

Theodore A. Feitshans and Brandon A. King

Federal regulation of AFOs: the meaning of discharge

Terence J. Centner

Federal court finds that CFTC cannot force newsletter publishers to register as commodity trading advisors

David C. Barrett, Jr.

June, 1999

An introduction to agricultural labor law under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Susan A. Schneider

Civil actions under Colorado’s Wage Claim Act

James B. Dean

Ditches and wetlands and Swampbuster: the Eighth Circuit draws distinctions

Christopher R. Kelley

Trade negotiations coming again soon

Philip L. Paarlberg

May, 1999

The Biosafety Protocol and the Cartagena Negotiations

Drew L. Kershen

Federal regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations

Terence J. Centner

“Hot seed” and the “law of the cotton belt”: federal circuit rules on passive third-party transfer or liability under the Plant Variety Protection Act

Christopher R. Kelley

Deferral program for FSA shared appreciation agreements

Susan A. Schneider

April, 1999

Minimum interest rates and installment sales of farmland among family members – what is a fair market rate of interest for gift tax purposes?

Roger A. McEowen

D.C. Circuit rules on District Court jurisdiction over USDA NAD appeals

Christopher R. Kelley

Report on the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

Terence J. Centner

March, 1999

Agricultural environmental management in New York

Ruth A. Moore

Nebraska Supreme Court interprets U.C.C. Article 9-306(2)

Drew L. Kershen

Family limited partnerships – present interest issues

Paul A. Meints

U.S. Appeals Court rules against USDA in Bird Grain case

Randall C. Gordon

A proposal to expand qualification under recreational use statutes

Terence J. Centner

February, 1999

Critical questions about the farm crisis: causes and remedies

Otto Doering and Phil Paarlberg

Clean Water and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

Drew L. Kershen

January, 1999

The agricultural provisions of the 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill

Karen R. Krub

USDA Judicial Officer rules on GIPSA complaint against IBP under the Packers and Stockyards Act

Christopher R. Kelley

North Carolina Supreme Court modifies premises liability

Theodore A. Feitshans

1998 Archive Issues

(Note: A December 1998 issue of the Update was not published.)

November, 1998

Lysine: A Case Study in International Price Fixing

John M. Connor

Farmers’ Legal Rights in USDA Civil Rights Cases Get a Boost With Passage of Federal Legislation

Phillip L. Fraas

CFTC Administrative Law Judge Finds Flex HTA Contracts to be Futures

David Barret

October, 1998

Iowa Supreme Court Upholds Property Rights of Landowners and Invalidates Nuisance Protection Law

Roger A. McEowen and Neil E. Harl

Farm Provisions in Omnibus Spending Bill

Roger A. McEowen

Weber v. Trinity Meadows Raceway

Jared Melton

September, 1998

Farm Service Agency Guaranteed Loan Servicing

Susan A. Schneider and Stephen Carpenter

Milk Marketing Order System Upheld

Christopher R. Kelley

Commission Rates Key to Successful FLC

Steve Sutter

August, 1998

Analysis of Swine Industry Expansion in the U.S.: The Effect of Environmental Regulation

Yin Mo and Charles W. Abdalla

1990 Conservation Reserve Program Self-Employment Taxes

Russell Cunningham

Canadian Court Dismisses Transgenic Animal Patent

Phillip B.C. Jones

July, 1998

How Might an Increase in the Minimum Wage Affect U.S. Farms?

Martin Shields and Jill Findeis

Interpretation of Pennsylvania’s Law Governing Division Fences

Pamela R. Knowlton

Sale of Farm Program Payments

Susan A. Schneider

New Hire Reporting Requirements

Marel A. Raub

June, 1998

Recent developments in estate and tax planning

Roger E. McEowen

Chloroplast transformation: biological containment for transgenes

Pat Traynor

USDA Judicial Officer announces new PACA policies

Christopher R. Kelley

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars action against FCIC

Christopher R. Kelley

May, 1998

FSA Emergency Loans and FSA Disaster Set-Aside

Stephen Carpenter

FSA “stonewalling” of NAD appeal decision condemned

James T. Massey

Government prevails in bankruptcy setoff case

Susan A. Schneider

April, 1998

Beware the bold print: livestock insurance coverage issues

John D. Copeland

Iowa Supreme Court significantly weakens county home rule power in hog confinement case

Roger A. McEowen

Citizen suits: reform needed

John D. Copeland

March, 1998

The SPS Agreement and international organizations

Terence P. Stewart and David S. Johanson

Interaction of civil and criminal penalties for farm program violations

Christopher R. Kelley

February, 1998

State agricultural pesticide disposal programs

Terence J. Centner

Wetlands case granted retrial

Roger E. McEowen

Fifth Circuit upholds USDA Inspector General subpoenas

Christopher R. Kelley

January, 1998

Timber Trespass and Theft

Charles L.E. Wage and John Becker

Forest Service Amendments to Land and Resource Management Plans

Thomas P. Guarino

The Animal Agricultural Reform Act

John D. Copeland

1997 Archive Issues

December, 1997

Pest Infestations and International Trade: The Recent Medfly Experience in Florida

Terence P. Steward and David S. Johanson

Hedge-to-Arrive in Courts-Part III

Donald B. Pedersen

New Tax Law Could Enhance Attractiveness of Conservation Easements

Jesse J. Richandson

November, 1997

Pick-Your-Own Statutes and Their Alteration of Tort Liability

Terence J. Centner

Attorneys’ Fees in NAD Hearings

Karen R. Krub

Heifer Raising Contracts

John Becker et al.

October, 1997

Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997

Philip E. Harris

Coop’s Challenge to Corporate Farming Restrictions Fails

Allen H. Olson

New FSA Offset Regulations

Susan A. Schneider

Federal Jurisdiction Over Actions Against FCIC-Reinsured Insurance Companies

Christopher R. Kelley

September, 1997

Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts in the Courts-Part II

Donald B. Pedersen

Cooperative Tax Decision Suggests Re-Assessment

James R. Baarda

Constraints on PCA Challenge to State Taxation

James R. Baarda

A Fresh Approach to Putting New Farmers on the Land

Neil D. Hamilton

August, 1997

Uncommon Law: The Legal Doctrine of the Far Right

Scott D. Wegner

Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts in the Courts-Part I

Donald B. Pedersen

Res Ipsa in Livestock Trespass Cases

Roger A. McEowen

July, 1997

Treatment of Equine Related Sales Under Statutory and Common Law Implied Warranties

Jared Melton

Clean Water Act § 404 “Incidental Fallback” Rule Invalidated

Christopher R. Kelley

Plants Pay a Price in Fitness for Herbicide Resistance

Jim Westwood

June, 1997

“Frosting on the Cake”: Why Production Flexibility Contract Payments?

Christopher R. Kelley

Prejudgment Interest Ordered in Long-Disputed Farm Program Case

Susan A. Schneider

Wetland Easements Challenged in North Dakota: United States vs. Johansen

Christopher R. Kelley

May, 1997

Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry of the United States Senate, February 26, 1997

Prof. Neil E. Harl

Estate Planning: Odds and Ends on Life Insurance

Paul A. Meints

USDA Scolded for Failure to Meet Deadline for Ruling on Administrative Cases

Alexander J. Pires, Jr.

Tax-Exempt Financing–First-Time Farmers

Scott D. Wegner

April, 1997

Property Rights: Competing Visions in Rural America*

Drew L. Kershen

Administrative Mandamus and Mineral Rights

Thomas P. Guarino

Jailing Oprah Won’t Sell More Beef: Proposed Agricultural Defamation Law Threatens Civil Debate

Neil D. Hamilton

March, 1997

Valuation Issues Continue to Predominate in Estate and Gift Tax Cases-Opportunities for Estate Planners

Roger E. McEowen

An Overview of Illinois Drainage Law

Thomas F. Hartzell

When Does Ten Percent Mean Ten Percent?

Susan A. Schneider

NGFA Formally Petitions CFTC to Lift Ban on Ag Trade Options

David C. Barrett

February, 1997

Federal Farm Products Rule-Developments

Donald B. Pedersen

Deferred Payment Contracts and Alternative Minimum Tax relief

Roger McEowen

Lien Stripping Allowed in Chapter 12

Susan A. Schneider

Statute of Limitations Defense Applied to FSA Loans

Susan A. Schneider

January, 1997

Farm Estate Planning Issues, Trends, and Concerns Involved With Special Use Valuation

Paul A. Meints

Changes in USDA Offsets

Gary D. Condra

Restrictive Local Ordinances and Sound Agricultural Practice Opinions

Ruth A. Moore

1996 Archive Issues

December, 1996

Minnesota’s Anti-Corporate Farm Statute: The Legislature’s Recent Attempt to Empower Livestock Farmers

Richard F. Prim

Tax Questions Surrounding Deferred Payment Contracts

David C. Barrett

November, 1996

Farm Continuation Planning: Drafting Ideas and Alternatives

Paul A. Meints

Production Flexibility Contracts: Winstar Doctrine to Apply?

Phillip L. Fraas

1994 USDA Reorganization Act in the Courts

Christopher R. Kelley

October, 1996

Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts in Chapter 12 Bankruptcy

Susan A. Schneider

Seventh Circuit Vacates Animal Welfare Act: Order Based on an Invalid Rule

Christopher R. Kelley

Equine for Slaughter Transportation Bill Passed Despite Controversy

Teena G. Gunter

September, 1996

Research Facilities and Dealers Under the Animal Welfare Act

Christopher R. Kelley

Leaseback/Buyback Provisions

Susan A. Schneider

Relief from Vermont’s rbST Statute

Terence J. Centner and Kyle W. Lathrop

August, 1996

Wetlands Provisions in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Darren McBeth

Federal Government Liable of Contractual Obligations

David Barrett

Forced Marketing Contributions Violate First Amendment

Thomas P. Guarino

July, 1996

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

Wayne Watkinson and John Sheeley

CERCLA “Arranger” Liability of Landowners Who Contract for Pesticide Spraying Services

Martha L. Noble

Montana Arbitration Law Preempted by Federal Arbitration Act

David C. Barrett, Jr.

June, 1996

CFTC Issues “Hedge-to-Arrive” Contract Policy and Guidance Statements

Christopher R. Kelley

Federal Farm Products Rule Amended

Drew L. Kershen

Tenth Circuit Setoff Decision Withdrawn

Susan A. Schneider

May, 1996

Marketing Agricultural Commodities Through Use of Hedge-to-Arrive Contracts May Violate CFTC Rules

Roger A. McEowen

“Live-Haul” Poultry Crews Are Subject to NLRA Protection

Susan A. Schneider

Crop Insurance Proceeds Held to be Exempt in Bankruptcy

Susan A. Schneider

April, 1996

The Packers and Stockyards Act: An Overview

Christopher R. Kelley

Humans Contract Mad Cow Disease?

Scott D. Wegner

“Moving” Cattle Ain’t What It Used to Be

Christopher R. Kelley

March, 1996

Proposals for Property Rights Reform

John C. Becker

Farm Credit System Reform Act Signed Into Law

Susan A. Schneider

Tax Court Holds that Income from Lease of Farm Land to Operating Entity is Self-Employment Income

Lonnie Beard

Denial of Dairy Termination Program Benefits Upheld

Christopher R. Kelley

February, 1996

Environmental Policy and the 1995 Farm Bill

Michael R. Dicks

Agricultural Law on the Internet

Susan A. Schneider

NRCS, FSA, and USDA NAD Adopt New Appeal rules

Christopher R. Kelley

January, 1996

Call for White House Conference on Rural America for Plan for Entry of the Rural and Municipal Communities into the Twenty-First Century

J. Patrick Wheeler

Alar Revisited

Thomas P. Guarino

Commodities Regulation

Kyle W. Lathrop

Tenth Circuit Allows Minority Interest Discount in Conjunction with a Special Use Valuation Election

Roger A. McEowen

1995 Archive Issues

December, 1995

Persistent Implementation Problems Under USDA NAD

Christopher R. Kelley and Susan A. Schneider

Agriculture Exemption Upheld: Hog Operation Not Subject to County Zoning

Neil D. Hamilton

State Law Claims for Defective Vaccines Preempted by Federal Law

Christopher R. Kelley

November, 1995

Emerging Issues in U.S. Agricultural Law and Food Policy

Prof. Neil D. Hamilton

OIG’s Effort to Conduct Payment Limitation Audits Ruled Unlawful

Alan R. Malasky and William E. Penn

October, 1995

Importation of Animal Embryos and Animal Semen under NAFTA and GATT

Professor J.W. Looney

Kansas Succeeds in Water Claim Against Colorado

Van Z. Hampton

Government Agencies Lack Mutuality for Purposes of Setoff

Susan A. Schneider

When is a Pig Pork??

Susan A. Schneider

September, 1995

The Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program

Susan A. Schneider

Generation Skipping Tax

Roger A. McEowen

0 Thoughts to “Andrea Busfield Bibliography Maker

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *