Instant Racing Now Before Kentucky Supreme Court

By: Ted Walter, Staff Member

In October 2011,

KJEANRL

 staff member Taryn Deveau first blogged about Kentucky Downs being the first racetrack in Kentucky to offer instant racing.[1] That post also included the Franklin Circuit Court's ruling that "instant racing is within the Commission's regulatory authority so long as it involves pari-mutuel wagering on horse races."[2] Furthermore, that same post made it clear that the opponents of instant racing, The Family Foundation of Kentucky, were going to appeal.[3] Then, in September 2012,

KJEANRL

 staff member Matt Hassen blogged that the Kentucky Court of Appeals had remanded the case to the Franklin Circuit Court in order to allow discovery for the Family Foundation, discovery which had been denied before.[4] "Because of the lack of evidentiary support for its decision, the appellate court found review of the circuit court's decision impossible and ordered further proceedings in order to determine such factual issues as the precise manner in which wagers are pooled and how the odds are calculated for instant race wagering."[5]

Now, the Kentucky Supreme Court has agreed to review the Court of Appeals ruling.[6] There is a lot of money at stake pending the outcome. Through September 2012, "almost $169 million had been wagered using instant racing machines in Kentucky."[7] And through the end of 2012, the combined handle of instant racing in Kentucky since its inception is $228.2 million.[8] Apparently due to the success, it was recently reported that the Keeneland Association has intentions of bringing instant racing to the Lexington and Corbin areas.[9] According to the article, Keeneland is interested in teaming with Full House Resorts to buy harness track Thunder Ridge and move it near Corbin.[10] The track would be for Quarter Horses "with top-level purses boosted by multibreed simulcasting and instant racing."[11] Additionally, "[i]f the legislation passes, or if the court case is decided in the racetrack's favor, Keeneland anticipates announcing plans for a Lexington instant racing facility in conjunction with the Red Mile."[12]

Instant Racing is not only a Kentucky issue. Recently the horse racing and breeding industry has been making a push for instant racing in Oregon.[13] In April 2012, the Nebraska Governor vetoed a bill that would have allowed instant racing at Nebraska racetracks.[14] In December 2012, the Michigan legislature passed a bill allowing instant racing and sent the bill to the Michigan Governor for his signature.[15] Arkansas first allowed instant racing in 2000 and makes "in excess of $100 per machine per day."[16]

With state budgets and pensions facing deficits and with little money to fix them, some are viewing instant racing as a large source of taxable income. "Expanding instant racing to more Kentucky horse racetracks should provide additional tax money to help fund the state's ailing pension system," according to House Speaker Greg Stumbo in a recent

Lexington Herald-Leader

 article.[17] In that same article, it was report that "[o]f the $247 million wagered on instant racing in Kentucky, $226.7 million was returned to the public." Should the courts come down against instant racing in Kentucky, it seems hard to believe the legislature will still say no.

___________________

[1] Taryn Deveau,

Instant Racing: A Possible Trifecta for Kentucky

, 

Ky. J. Eq. Ag. & Nat'l. Res. L. Blog

 (Oct. 21, 2011),

 http://www.kjeanrl.com/2011/10/instant-racing-possible-trifecta-for.html.

[2]

Id.

[3]

Id.

[4] Matt Hassen,

Update on Instant Racing

, 

Ky. J. Eq. Ag. & Nat'l. Res. L. Blog

 (Sept. 27, 2012),

 http://www.kjeanrl.com/2012/09/update-on-instant-racing.html.

[5]

Id.

[6] Jack Brammer,

Kentucky Supreme Court agrees to review instant racing appeal

, 

Lexington Herald-Leader

 (Jan. 11, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/11/2472531/kentucky-supreme-court-agrees.html.

[7]

Id.

[8] Tom LaMarra,

KY Historical Race Wagering Now at $228

, 

BloodHorse.com

 (Jan. 24, 2013), http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/75770/ky-historical-race-wagering-now-at-228m.

[9] Janet Patton,

Exclusive: Keeneland aims to build prime Quarter Horse racetrack near Corbin

, 

Lexington Herald-Leader

 (Feb. 14, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/02/14/2517437/exclusive-keeneland-to-build-prime.html.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12]

Id.

[13] Tom LaMarra,

Portland Meadows Seeking Historical Racing

, 

BloodHorse.com

 (Feb. 15, 2013), http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76238/portland-meadows-seeking-historical-racing.

[14]

Nebraska governor vetoes Instant Racing bill

, 

ThoroughbredTimes.com 

(April 10, 2012), http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2012/04/10/nebraska-governor-vetoes-instant-racing-bill.aspx.

[15] BloodHorse Staff,

Michigan Instant Racing Bill Goes to Governor

, 

BloodHorse.com

 (Dec. 15, 2012), http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/75055/michigan-instant-racing-bill-goes-to-governor.

[16] Associated Press,

Kentucky Downs Says Instant Racing Play Good

, 

BloodHorse.com

 (Sept. 9, 2011), http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/75055/michigan-instant-racing-bill-goes-to-governor.

[16] Associated Press,

Kentucky Downs Says Instant Racing Play Good

, 

BloodHorse.com

 (Sept. 9, 2011), http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/64927/kentucky-downs-says-instant-racing-play-good.

[17] Beth Musgrave and Jack Brammer,

Stumbo says expansion of instant racing could help fix pension system

, 

Lexington Herald-Leader

 (Feb. 15, 2013), http://www.kentucky/com/2013/02/15/2518425/stumbo-says-expansion-of-instant.html.

UPDATE: D.C. Circuit Continues to Adjudicate E15 Case, Hurting Domestic Industries and Consumers

By: Tyler Brewer, Staff Member

My post last October concerned how the D.C. Circuit refused to adjudicate a suit where the EPA illegally authorized E15 (15% ethanol, 85% gasoline) into our domestic fuel supply (

click for link

).[1] The decision by the D.C. Circuit to dismiss the case for lack of standing led Petitioners to appeal. Unfortunately, on January 15, 2013, the D.C. Circuit in

Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA

 denied petitions for a rehearing en banc.[2]

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Kavanaugh reiterated the fundamental flaws in denying the rehearing. Particularly, he discusses how the holding handed down last August "is problematic not only because of the erroneous standing law that it creates, but also because it is outcome-determinative in a case with significant economic ramifications for the American food and petroleum industries, as well as for American consumers who will ultimately bear some of the costs."[3] Judge Kavanaugh frames the decision as outcome-determinative because the "EPA will lose if [the case] reach[es] the merits."[4] This argument is quite persuasive when considering the E15 partial waivers' effects on the national economy, both at the industrial and consumer levels.[5]

The D.C. Circuit's denial for rehearing sparked initiative in U.S. Senators Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and David Vitter (R-La.) to repeal the E15 partial waivers via legislation.[6] Yet, the most promising path to reign in the EPA's exercise of power is the Supreme Court. The Petitioners in

Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n

 have until April 15, 2013 (ninety days from being denied a rehearing) to seek the Supreme Court's review.[7] According to one of the Petitioners, there is anticipation for at least one of the groups affiliated with the suit to file by April 15.[8]

Until the E15 is repealed through legislation or struck down by the courts, we are at the mercy of the EPA and the ramifications E15 will have on our economy. While this may seem like an over-exaggerated statement, merely consider one of the many effects E15 imposes; many automotive manufacturers will void your vehicle's warranty if E15 is used.[9]

_____________________

[1] Tyler Brewer,

EPA Approved E15 Gasoline Does More Harm Than Good

,

Ky. J. Eq. Ag. & Nat'l Res. L. 

(Oct. 16, 2012, 8:50 PM), http://www.kjeanrl.com/2012/10/epa-approved-e15-gasoline-does-more.html.

[2] Grocery Mfrs. Ass'n v. EPA, No. 10-1380, 2013 WL 163744, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2013).

[3]

Id.

 at *3 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted).

[4]

Id.

at *3 (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

[5] 

See

 Brewer,

supra

 note 1.

[6]

Wicker, Vitter to Introduce Bill to Roll Back Ethanol Requirement for Gasoline

, 

www.wicker.senate.gov

 (Feb. 14, 2013), http://www.wicker.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=daf97f2b-c16c-053c-f435-581ca633c2fb.

[7] Reagan Haynes, 

Push to Stop E15 Could Head to Supreme Court

, 

Trade Only Today

 (February 11, 2013), http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/home/523811-push-to-stop-e15-could-head-to-supreme-court.

[8]

Id.

[9] Gary Strauss, 

AAA Warns E15 Could Cause Car Damage

, 

USA Today

 (Nov. 30, 2012, 11:40 AM), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/30/aaa-e15-gas-harm-cars/1735793/.

The Aftermath of California's Proposition 37 and Overview of New State Proposals for Labeling Mandates on Genetically Modified Foods

By: Jocelyn Arlinghaus, Staff Member

Last November, we discussed the controversial debate surrounding proposed legislation that would mandate the labeling of food products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs are produced using genetic engineering which manipulates DNA or distributes it between different organisms.[1] Through this process, crops such as corn and soybeans that are used to produce many of the food products at issue are implanted with herbicide-resistant genes so that the weeds die after the crops are sprayed and the modified crops survive.[2] Although many popular processed foods such as soy milk, cereals, and packaged food contain genetically modified ingredients, the Food and Drug Administration decided not to require labeling on genetically modified foods.[3] This decision has sparked battles in state legislatures across the nation with as many as 37 states considering passing legislation that would require products containing GMOs to be labeled.[4]

California responded with Proposition 37 which sought to require labeling on animal or plant based food products made using genetically altered material and prohibited labeling such food as "natural," subject to several exceptions.[5] Supporters argued that requiring genetically engineered foods to be labeled gives consumers essential information to make informed choices about the products they purchase.[6] Opponents argued that there is no proof that genetically modified foods pose any health risks and imposing labeling requirements on perfectly safe products is a waste of time and resources.[7] Ultimately, Proposition 37 was defeated after large corporations spent $40 million on a barrage of TV and radio ads claiming that food labels would raise grocery prices and harm the farming industry.[8] While these harsh opposition tactics led to the demise of Proposition 37, they also propelled the issue into a national debate and alienated customers of large food companies.[9] Instead of putting an end to the demand for labeling in state legislatures, the debate over Proposition 37 has sparked a ballot initiative in Washington State and proposals in several other states including Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico, and Missouri, as well as consumer boycotts of several organic product lines made by major food companies.[10]

The next stop on the road to GMO food labeling requirements is Washington State where Initiative 522 will be considered before the state legislature this spring.[11] I-522 would require food and seeds produced through genetic engineering and sold in Washington to be labeled - with the exception of restaurant entrees, medical meals, alcohol, meat and dairy.[12] This would affect common products found on grocery shelves, such as cereal and snacks, which are often made from genetically engineered crops.[13] Aware of the outcome of Proposition 37 in California, proponents of I-522 have taken a much different approach in lobbying for the bill.[14] They argue that the failure to mandate labels will have a devastating impact on the international trade market of Washington's fish, apple, and wheat industries as foreign nations that require labeling will be much more wary of whole food compared to processed goods.[15] If the Washington legislature does not pass I-522 into law, it may send it to the ballot where it is predicted to stand a much greater chance of passing than California's Proposition 37.[16] Analysts draw distinctions between the demographics in the respective states, pointing to lower campaign costs, greater support from farmers and rural communities, and more progressive voters in Washington as compared to California, all of which work in favor of I-522.[17]

While supporters of labeling requirements in Washington anticipate a positive outcome, lobbyists in New Mexico have little to celebrate. Introduced as early as January, S.B. 18 would have required all genetically modified food products offered for sale in the state to be labeled.[18] Unlike I-522 in Washington, the bill contained no exception for food offered for sale in restaurants, which opponents argued would have a devastating impact on the restaurant industry in the state.[19] Ultimately, S.B. 18 was rejected due to a procedural issue.[20] The New Mexico Environment Department stated that such severe labeling requirements would make it impossible for many food manufacturers around the world to distribute their products to New Mexico and would place New Mexico food manufacturers at a disadvantage in distributing their products outside of the state.[21] Further, the N.M.E.D. added that the legislation may confuse consumers as it did not mandate adding any health or safety information to the products.[22]

The debate surrounding labeling requirements for genetically engineered food products is far from over. The state legislatures in Vermont and Connecticut are also considering labeling laws while a senator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would mandate the labeling of genetically modified meat and fish.[23] Meanwhile, companies such as Wal-Mart, ConAgra, and PepsiCo have abandoned their rigorous tactics in challenging these state bills and are discussing the possibility of lobbying for a national labeling program.[24] While having the largest food companies in the country lobbying for a federal labeling program may sound like a step in the right direction for GMO labeling mandates, skeptics worry that these companies are looking for federal action on GMO labeling in order to pre-empt state laws.[25] This would halt movement toward the most effective labeling requirements possible.

_______________________

[1] Daniel Imhoff & Michael R. Dimock,

The case for Prop. 37

, 

Los Angeles Times

 (Oct. 11, 2012), http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-imhoff-prop-37-gmo-labeling-20121011,0,7997497.story.

[2]

Id.

[3] Victoria Cavaliere,

California voters reject measure labeling genetically engineered food; supporters vow to fight on

, 

Daily News America

 (Nov. 7, 2012, 4:01 PM), http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/california-voters-reject-food-labeling-measure-article-1.1198269.

[4] Gregory B. Hladky,

Connecticut Food Activists Skeptical of Wal-Mart's Apparent Switch on GMO Labeling

, 

CT.com

(Feb. 12, 2013, 1:56 PM), http://www.ct.com/blog/wtxx-connecticut-food-activists-skeptical-of-walmarts-apparent-switch-on-gmo-labeling-20130212,0,4261354.story.

[5]

California 37, Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food (2012)

,

BallotPedia 

(Feb. 18, 2013), http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)#cite_note-0.

[6] Imhoff & Dimock,

supra

 note 1.

[7] Alexandra Le Tellier,

Prop. 37: A better idea than labeling GMOs

, 

Los Angeles Times

(Oct. 31, 2012, 11:59 AM), http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-prop-37-a-better-idea-than-labeling-gmos-20121030,0,4916751.story.

[8] Ronnie Cummins,

6 Reasons GMO Labeling Will Pass in Washington State

, 

AlterNet

(Jan. 03, 2013), http://www.alternet.org/food/6-reasons-gmo-labeling-will-pass-washington-state.

[9] Stephanie Strom,

Genetic Changes to Food May Get Uniform Labeling

, 

The New York Times

(Jan. 31, 2013), http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html?pagewanted=1&ref=geneticallymodifiedfood.

[10]

Id.

[11] Melissa Allison,

Initiative to require labels on GMO foods debated

, 

The Seattle Times

(Feb. 14, 2013, 7:08 PM), http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020361650_gmolabelingxml.html.

[12]

Editorial: Be skeptical of Initiative 522 on GMO labeling

, 

The Seattle Times

(Feb. 17, 2013, 4:00 PM), http://seattletimes.com/html/editorials/2020369489_edit522gmoxml.html.

[13]

Id.

[14] Strom,

supra

 note 9.

[15]

Id.

[16] Cummins,

supra

 note 8.

[17]

Id.

[18] Keith Nunes,

New Mexico legislature blocks bioengineering labeling bill

, 

Food Business News

(Feb. 01, 2013), http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Regulatory_News/2013/02/New_Mexico_legislature_blocks.aspx?ID={359B738A-B6DE-4597-9226-E603A323E2B1}&cck=1.

[19]

Id.

[20]

Id.

[21]

Id.

[22]

Id.

[23] Strom,

supra

note 9. 

[24]

Id.

[25] Hladky,

supra

 note 4.

Horse: The Other Red Meat

By: Jeremy Maynard, Staff Member

Congress recently allowed a five year ban on horse meat inspection to expire, allowing Americans to explore their culinary creativities with a new medium - horse meat.[1] For the uninitiated, horse meat can be described as a slightly gamey, sweet red meat with a flavor between beef and venison.[2]

But who could eat friendly old Mister Ed? A dish consisting of raw horse meat is known as Basashi in Japan,[3] and a similar dish is popular in Italy.[4] Americans even ate horse meat in the 1940s.[5] Historically, starving troops in Napoleon's grand army ate horse in times of hardship.[6] Horse meat may have made its way to your plate; a well-known burger chain's reputation has taken a hit after admitting that some of its burgers in the U.K. and Ireland contained horse meat.[7] Additionally, Irish food safety officials found that beef from Poland contained up to 75% horse meat.[8] Grocery stores in Sweden have pulled Findus Lasagne from their shelves for containing 60 to 100% horse meat.[9] Findus stated that it does not believe horse meat is a food safety issue.[10] However, the source of the horse meat in the above cases is unknown.[11]

The American romantic notion of horses as human companions or pets[12] has overshadowed the real issue. When horse meat is consumed, human health should be top priority. Before the expiration of the inspection ban, horse meat was unregulated because it was obtained in secret. The meat may contain dangerous deworming medicines, antibiotics such as chloramphenicols and nitroimidazoles, and growth hormones that threaten human health.[13] This is especially true when the source of the horse meat is an American horse farm because these horses are raised for sport instead of consumption.

During the inspection ban, horse meat would fetch up to $40 per pound on the black market, incentivizing owners to butcher low-potential horses or thieves to slaughter horses at night for their flesh.[14] Now that inspecting horse meat is legal, the price will drop due to increased supply. The price decrease will also reduce the incentive to steal horse meat.

Regulation of horse meat is necessary to keep consumers safe, and current federal regulations grant authority for horse meat inspection for human consumption.[15] Unfortunately, the necessary federal funding for inspection has been rescinded.[16] With federal funding, food companies would have a legal supply chain for consumer-safe horse meat. As the taboo against horse meat weakens, demand for legal, safe horse meat would create a market for raising, distributing, and selling food horses. Although thoroughbreds may not be the palatable breed of choice, demand for horse meat may even bolster the sluggish horse industry.

______________________

[1] Justin Juozapavicius,

Horse Meat Inspection Ban Lifted in the U.S.

, 

Huffington Post 

(Nov. 30, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/horse-meat-consumption-us_n_1120623.html.

[2]

What Horse Meat Tastes Like

, 

Huffington Post 

(Dec. 1, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/horse-meat_n_1123315.html.

[3]

Basashi (Raw Horse Meat)

, 

Japan for the Uninvited, 

http://www.japanfortheuninvited.com/articles/basashi.html

.

[4]

What Horse Meat Tastes Like

,

supra

 note 2.

[5] Juozapavicius,

supra

 note 1.

[6]

A History of Consuming Horse Meat

, 

Ban on Slaughterhouses in the United States, 

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~napar20s/classweb/worldpolitics/Historyof.html (last visited Feb. 10, 2013).

[7] 

Findus Frozen Beef Lasagne Found To Contain Up To 100 Percent Horse Meat

, 

Huffington Post 

(Feb. 8, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/08/findus-lasagne-horsemeat_n_2646284.html?ref=topbar.

[8] 

Shawn Pogatchnik,

Horse Meat Found in 75 Percent of 'Beef' Imported to Ireland: Government

, 

Huffington Post

(Feb. 4, 2013)

,

 http://huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/horsemeat-ireland-75-percent-polish-beef-ireland_n_2618501.html#slide=more266839.  

[9]

Findus Frozen Beef Lasagne Found To Contain Up To 100 Percent Horse Meat

,

supra

 note 7.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12] Juozapavicius,

Horse Meat Inspection Ban Lifted in the U.S.

,

supra

 note 1.

[13] Suzanne Bush,

EU Bans Drug Tainted Horse Meat

, 

Pennsylvania Equestrian 

(Oct. 2009)

, 

http://www.pennsylvaniaequestrian.com/news/EU-ban-1009.php. 

[14] 

Kim Segal and John Zarrella,

Horses Being Killed in South Florida - For Their Meat?

, 

CNN 

(Aug. 10, 2009), http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-10/justice/horses.slaughtered_1_horse-meat-south-florida-society-geronimo?_s=PM:CRIME.

[15] 

See

9 C.F.R. § 355.2;

See also

9 C.F.R. § 327.21. 

[16] 

Pat Raia,

Amendment Strips USDA Horsemeat Inspection Funding

, 

The Horse 

(June 20, 2012), http://www.thehorse.com/articles/29298/amendment-strips-usda-horsemeat-inspection-funding.

Student Comment: The Revival of the Eastern Oyster and the Regulations that Hinder Restoration Efforts 
by Collier Marsh, Editor in Chief

States deal with many difficult problems for which there are no clear solutions. They often enact regulations to solve these problems, but sometimes the regulations actually hinder their efforts. Two problems of interest, the struggling economy and the deteriorating environment, are often the subject of extensive government regulation. Meanwhile, the eastern oyster has the potential to redress both of these problems. As a valuable commodity, the oyster can boost the economy of coastal regions, and as a filter feeder, the oyster cleans water, benefitting the surrounding environment. The oyster has declined in recent years but aquaculture is a promising method to revive it. States, aware of the oyster aquaculture industry's promise, have implemented different regulatory scheme with varying degrees of success. This note will compare the successful regulatory regime of Virginia with the inefficient regime of Maryland. This note argues that although Maryland has made some recent changes to its oyster aquaculture regulations, these changes will not fix the system. This note then suggests additional changes Maryland can implement to effectively stimulate the oyster industry.

Continue Reading

---

Tier 3 Gasoline: Is it worth it?

By: Shannon Lawson, Staff Member

On January 29th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget its proposed rule for Tier 3 gasoline and motor vehicle standards.[1] If approved, the Tier 3 rule would go into effect in 2017 and require stricter motor vehicle and gasoline standards in hopes of reducing tailpipe emissions and their impact on air quality and health.[2] In turn, motor fuel producers and motor vehicle manufacturers would have to lower their products' sulfur and vapor pressure levels.[3]

Under the existing Tier 2 standard, which was finalized in February 2000, the EPA limited the sulfur content of gasoline to 30 parts per million (ppm) beginning with model year 2004.[4] The proposed Tier 3 rule is expected to set the sulfur limit to 10 ppm.[5] A decrease in the sulfur content of gasoline reduces the emission of sulfur dioxide or sulfate particulate matter into the air.[6] It also increases the effectiveness of emissions control technologies which help reduce the level of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, and nitrogen oxide released into the air.[7]

Undoubtedly, Tier 3 gasoline will come at a cost. It is estimated Tier 3 gasoline will cost U.S. refiners as much as $10-17 billion in up-front capital costs and another $5-13 billion in annual operating expenses.[8] Even though many U.S. refiners have already invested in desulfurization technology,[9] some refineries will not be able to meet these financial commitments and may be forced to close.[10] Moreover, the cost of complying with T3 gasoline may outweigh the benefits. It has been argued that existing Tier 2 standards have already achieved the EPA's goal for vehicle emissions and Tier 3 gasoline does not add any significant benefits to the environment.[11]

In addition, Tier 3 gasoline will also cost consumers more at the pump. Although the EPA estimates that Tier 3 standards will only raise gas prices one cent per gallon, the American Petroleum Institute estimates gas prices will raise prices six to nine cents per gallon.[12] Regardless of which is correct, the price of gas would increase. Economists have also predicted Tier 3 gasoline will lead to price increases for other consumer goods as well such as utilities and groceries.[13]

So is it worth it? Should U.S. drivers potentially have to pay an additional nine cents per gallon on already insanely high gas prices? As of February 2013, the U.S. national average for a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.497.[14] Who knows how high gas prices will be four years from now in 2017 when the proposed Tier 3 standards are expected to go into effect.

While Tier 3 gasoline may only cost the average U.S. driver an additional $51.30 a year,[15] we must also take into account the effect it would have on the price of other consumer goods. Besides, the existing Tier 2 standards have yielded significant improvements according to the EPA's own goals and would continue to do so even without tightening the standards.[16] If Tier 3 gasoline does not drastically change the impact of vehicle emissions on the environment, then perhaps it is not worth it.

_____________________

[1] Jessica Coomes & Andrew Childers,

White House Begins Review of EPA Proposed Tier 3 Gasoline, Motor Vehicle Standards

, 

Daily Env't Report

 (BNA), Jan. 31, 2013, at A-6.

[2]

Id.

See also Cleaner Gasoline and Vehicles Survey January 2013

, 

American Lung Association

, http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/cleaner-gasoline-and-vehicles-survey-jan-2013.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2013). 

[3]

See

 Nick Snow,

Watching Government: Tier 3 Battle Shapes Up

, 

110 Oil & Gas J. 1,

 Jan. 2, 2012,

available at

 http://www.ogj/com/articles/print/vol-110/issue-1/general-interest-watching-government-tier-3-battle.html.

[4]

See

Daily Env’t Report. 

See also Emissions Standards Reference Guide

, EPA, http://www. epa.gov/rfa/tier3.html (last visited Feb. 2, 2013).

[5]

Id.

See also

Arthur Marin, NESCAUM, Benefits & Costs of Tier 3 Low Sulfur Gasoline Program, Presentation at the CT Deep SIPRAC Meeting (Jan. 12, 2012), http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/air/siprac/2012/tier_3_low_sulfur_gasoline_ct_siprac_11212.pdf (last visited Feb. 2, 2013).

[6]

See

 K.O. Blumberg et al., Low-Sulfur Gasoline & Diesel: The Key to Lower Vehicle Emissions, Presentation at the Int'l Council on Clean Transp. (2003) http://www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/pdf/publowsulfurpaper.pdf.

[7]

Id.

[8]

Watching Government

,

supra

 note 3, at 1.

[9] Benefits & Costs of Tier 3 Low Sulfur Gasoline Program,

supra

 note 5, at 18.

[10]

Watching Government

,

supra

 note 3, at 1.

[11]

See

 Robert Murphy,

Tier 3 Regulations

, 

Inst. Energy Research,

 (June 14, 2012) http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/06/14/tier-3-regulations/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2013). 

[12]

See

Daily Env’t Report,

supra

 note 1.

[13] Memo from Andrew Baumann & Chloe Mullins, Greenburg Quinlan Rosner, to American Lung Association,

Voters Support Stricter Gasoline & Vehicle Standards

at 5, http://www.lung.org/healthy-air/outdoor/resources/cleaner-gasoline-and-vehicles-survey-jan-2013.html.

[14]

AAA's Daily Fuel Gauge Report

, AAA, http://www.fuelgaugereport.aaa.com/ (last updated Feb. 2, 2013, 3:04 AM).

[15] On average, U.S. drivers drive approximately 12,000 miles a year. The average gasoline vehicle on the road toady has a fuel economy of about 21 mpg. Therefore, the average U.S. vehicle consumes approximately 570 gallons a year (12,000 gal. / 21 mpg = 570 gallons a year). Taking the 570 gallons consumed each year multiplied by the $.09 in additional per gallon cost of Tier 3 gasoline equals $51.30.

See Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle

, EPA, 2 (Dec. 2011), http://www.epa/gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f11041.pdf.

[16] Robert Murphy,

Tier 3 Regulations

,

supra

 note 11. 

The Current Debate Concerning Obesity and Crop Subsidies: Why Farmers Should be Concerned

By: Rebekah McKinney, Staff Member

It has become almost impossible to watch the morning news or catch up on current events without being confronted with America's losing battle against obesity. Current efforts to battle the epidemic were announced by First Lady Michelle Obama, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, and U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin in 2010 in the "Healthy Fit America" plan.[1] While this plan promotes grassroots efforts to improve availability of supermarkets, recreational facilities, and limiting unhealthy food advertisements, some believe altering the current crop subsidies would address the root of the problem.[2]

Progressive organization

Think Progress

 discussed the findings of the California Public Interest Research Group (CALIPRIG) which reported that current crop subsidies contribute to driving down the prices of ingredients used in "junk food."[3] The organization opined that this was "particularly alarming" in light of the growing prevalence of obesity and such subsidies especially affect the poor due to the relatively inexpensive cost of unhealthy food.[4]

However, others claim farm subsidies have negligible effects on food prices and, consequently, America dietary choices. In an article examining the contribution of farm subsidies to the American obesity rate, Dr. Julian M. Alston, Professor of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics at the University of California at Davis and previous Chief Economist in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs in Australia, identified three elements which must be true for subsidies to have an impact on American dietary choices: farm subsidies must have resulted in cheap and abundant commodities used in junk food, the abundance of farm commodities must result in cost savings for the food industry which are passed on to the consumer, and food consumption must have changed significantly in response to the price differential.[5] Dr. Alston illustrates that a simplistic view of the American crop subsidy program may lead to overly simplistic conclusions concerning the relationship between subsidies and obesity. For example, the effects of price-depressing subsidies are often contained or reversed by policies such as restricted acreage and production.[6] He concluded that altering current subsidy programs would have only a modest effect on the cost of production and prices and the overall effect on food prices would be small due to the declining and already small influence of farm commodity prices on food.[7]

With the failure of the House of Representatives to pass a comprehensive farm bill in 2012, coupled with the increasing prevalence of obesity in America, farmers should pay special attention not only to future farm bill discussions but also to the current obesity discourse. American Farmland Trust President Jon Scholl described this failure as leaving "U.S. farmers less secure" and placing important programs in "limbo."[8] This failure coupled with the recent spotlight on how subsidies may contribute to the obesity crisis will surely be of great importance to farmers in the months to come.

________________________

[1] Press Release, Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary, and Surgeon General Join First Lady to Announce Plans to Combat Overweight and Obesity and Support Healthy Lifestyles (Jan. 28, 2008), http://www.HHS.gov/News/Press/2010pres/01/20100128c.html.

[2]

Id.

[3] Zach Beauchamp,

Farm Bill Contributing to America's Obesity Crisis

, 

Think Progress

 (July 26, 2012), http://ThinkProgress.org/Health/2012/07/26/589041/Crop-Subsidies-Obesity/;

see

 California Public Interest Research Group,

Applies to Twinkies

, 

CALIPIRG

(Sept. 21, 2011), http://www.CALIPIRG.org/Reports/Cap/Apples-Twinkies.

[4]

Id.

[5] Julian M. Alston,

Farm Subsidies and Obesity in the United States: National Evidence and International Comparisons

,

33 Food Policy 470, 472

 (2008).

See

 University of California at Davis,

Julian Alston: Biographical Sketch

, 

Agricultural and Resource Economics

 (last visited Jan.30, 2013), http://AgEcon.UCDavis.edu/People/Faculty/Julian-Alston/Biographical-Sketch/.

[6]

Id.

 at 472.

[7]

Id.

 at 473.

[8] Press Release, American Farmland Trust, Press American Farmland Trust Calls Extension of Old Farm Bill a Missed Opportunity (Dec. 31, 2012), http://www.FarmLand.org/News/PressReleases/2012/FarmBillMissedOppl.asp.

Why You May Pay More For Your Smartphone in Coming Years: Principles of Market Demand and Scarcity Impact On Rare Earth Metals

By: Ally Logsdon, Staff Member

Rare earth metals are fundamental ingredients in the technology that supports cell phones, laptops, iPads, wind turbines, televisions, hybrid cars, solar cells,[1] batteries,[2] and other electronics. The term "rare earth metals" refers to the 17 rare-earth chemical elements including Erbium, Lanthanum, Europium, and Neodymium.[3] Many features on electronics would not exist or function without the use of rare earth metals in the product design. For example, the color screen, glass polishing, phone circuitry, speakers, and vibration units all rely on the rare earth metals to serve their purpose.[4]

Although rare earth metals are not as "rare" as their name suggests, the excavating process is quite expensive because the elements are not dispersed in the earth's surface in economically viable quantities.[5] China has historically maintained a monopoly on the rare earth metals market,[6] but as over-excavating depletes the country's mineral reserves, other nations such as Jamaica and Japan are endeavoring to determine whether elements can be extracted from their soil.[7] China currently produces 90% of the world supply of rare earth metals.[8] Many countries neglect their own reserves of the minerals because of the environmental and ecological dangers of the mining process and the resulting toxic by-products.[9] For example, the United States imports 92% of its rare earth metal supply from China.[10] Over the past 13 years, China's monopoly on the market has led to increased prices as the country imposed trade limits and controlled the global supply of the minerals.[11]

Environmental concerns plague the rare earth metals market because of the ecologically dangerous mining process and lax regulations in the field.[12] The process results in the creation of toxic by-products called "tailings" which are dumped into "rare-earth lakes."[13] The lake water then seeps into the ground and makes its way to the Chinese water supplies.[14] Many farmers, residents, and miners in China report dying crops, lost teeth and hair,[15] and higher occurrences of lung and pancreatic cancer.[16] China maintains that the restrictions it placed on trade is due to growing environmental concerns and not economic greed.[17]

As China continues to tighten its grip on its rare earth metals reserve, the rest of the world is looking elsewhere for the resources. On February 4, 2013, Jamaica broke ground on a pilot project to determine whether extraction of the minerals from red mud is a viable alternative to reliance of Chinese exports.[18] While Jamaica and other countries are tapping into their own resources, some suggest an out-of-this-world location to consider exploring for rare earth metals: the Moon.[19] NASA has already determined that concentrations of rare earth minerals exist on the moon and has begun developing proposals for future excavation pending Congressional support.[20]

Consumers and investors should keep a watchful eye on the success of the efforts of Jamaica and other countries to wane the worldwide reliance on China's mineral reserves, as electronic product prices will likely be affected by the rare earth metal market continuously in the future.

______________________

[1] Renee Cho,

Rare Earth Metals: Will We Have Enough?

, 

Columbia.edu

(Sept. 19, 2012), http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2012/09/19/rare-earth-metals-will-we-have-enough/.

[2]

Rare Earth Metals

, 

FSA.gov

 (Nov. 26, 2011), http://www.fsa.gov.uk/consumerinformation/scamsandswindles/investment_scams/rare-earth-metals.

[3] Maggie Koerth-Baker,

Four Rare Earth Elements That Will Only Get More Important

, 

PopularMechanics.com

, http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/news/important-rare-earth-elements#slide-1 (last visited Feb. 6, 2013).

[4] Jay Greene,

Digging for Rare Earths: The Mines Where iPhones are Born

, 

CNET.com

 (Sept. 26, 2012), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=digging-for-rare-earths-the-mines-w-2012-09.

[5] Elliot Brennan,

The Next Oil?: Rare Earth Metals

, 

TheDiplomat.com

 (Jan.10, 2013), http://thediplomat.com/2013/01/10/the-new-prize-china-and-indias-rare-earth-scramble/.

[6] Brad Plumer,

China's Grip On The World's Rare Earth Market May Be Slipping

, 

WashingtonPost.com

 (Oct. 19, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/10/19/chinas-chokehold-over-rare-earth-metals-is-slipping/.

[7] David McFadden,

Jamaica Breaks Ground On Pilot Project To Possibly Extract Rare Earth Elements from Red Mud

, 

FoxNews.com

 (Feb. 4, 2013), http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/04/jamaica-breaks-ground-on-pilot-project-to-possibly-extract-rare-earth-elements/.

[8] Greene,

supra

 note 4.

[9] Russell McLendon,

What Are Rare Earth Metals?

,

MNN.com

 (June 22, 2011), http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/what-are-rare-earth-metals.

[10]

Id.

[11]

Id.

[12] Greene,

supra

 note 4.

[13] McLendon,

supra

 note 9.

[14] Greene,

supra

 note 4.

[15] McLendon,

supra

 note 9.

[16] Greene,

supra

note 4.

[17] McLendon,

supra

 note 9.

[18] McFadden,

supra

 note 7. 

[19] Leonard David,

Is Mining Rare Minerals On The Moon Vital to National Security?

, 

NASA.gov, 

http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/is-mining-rare-minerals-on-the-moon-vital-to-national-security/ (last visited Feb. 6, 2013).

[20]

Id.

Support Growing for a Revival of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky

By: Steven Middleton, Staff Member

Over the past year, Kentucky Commissioner of Agriculture Jamie Comer and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul have expressed support for reviving the Kentucky hemp industry, and the two have committed to work to legalize hemp in Kentucky while seeking to obtain federal permission to grow hemp.[1] Currently, a bill allowing Kentucky farmers to grow hemp is awaiting a hearing before the Agricultural Committee in the Kentucky Senate.[2] Bringing hemp back will be a two step process, as the Kentucky General Assembly will first need to legalize the cultivation of hemp, and then the federal government will need to issue a permit giving Kentucky permission to grow hemp.[3] Such permits are subject to extensive regulation by the DEA.[4] The issue will ultimately be decided by weighing the two main consequences of industrial hemp, which are providing additional farming and manufacturing jobs in Kentucky and the difficulties law enforcements will face in distinguishing hemp from its more notorious cousin: marijuana.

Kentucky was once the center of hemp production in the United States.[5] Now, it is time for Kentucky to assume this position again. Hemp can be used for clothing fibers, paper, cosmetics, and other products.[6] While there is uncertainty about how many jobs would result from hemp production, it is clear that with high unemployment rates, government should move out of the way and allow the private market to create as many jobs as possible, even if it is only a handful. Despite these benefits, hemp has met opposition from law enforcement agencies.[7] Hemp and marijuana come from the same species of plant but are different genetically, and are distinguished by their levels of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).[8] This has led the Chief of the Kentucky State Police to argue that since it is very difficult to differentiate between hemp and marijuana when they are being grown, it would make law enforcement's task in distinguishing the two nearly impossible, especially when being observed from a helicopter.[9]

While it seems clear that there would be difficulties in regulating hemp and keeping it separate from marijuana, the economic benefits of industrial hemp have to win out in this tough economy. Law enforcement will simply have to adjust. The Kentucky General Assembly should allow for a revival of a crop that Kentucky used to be proud of, and Congress should strongly consider making it easier for states to cultivate hemp in a responsible way.

______________________

[1] Jack Brammer,

Rand Paul Joins State Ag Chief in Calling for Legalizing Industrial Hemp

, 

Lexington Herald-Leader 

(Aug. 23, 2012), http://www.kentucky/com/2012/08/23/2308435/rand-paul-joins-state-ag-commissioner.html#storylink=misearch.

[2] Janet Patton,

Hemp Bill to Get Hearing but Might be Blocked from Vote,

Lexington Herald-Leader 

(Jan. 25, 2013), http://www.kentucky.com/2013/01/25/2490166/hemp-bill-to-get-hearing-but-might.html.

[3] Gregory A. Hall,

Effort to Legalize Industrial Hemp Gains New Life in Kentucky

, 

Louisville Courier-Journal 

(Jan. 23, 2013), http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013301220075&nclick_check=1.

[4]

Industrial Hemp Legal Issues

, 

University of Kentucky College of Agriculture 

(Sept. 2012), www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCorps/introsheets/hemp.pdf.

[5]

Id.

[6]

Id.

[7] Bruce Schreiner,

KSP Chief Opposed to Industrial Hemp

, 

Lexington Herald-Leader 

(Dec. 8, 2012), http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/08/2436130/ksp-chief-opposed-to-industrial.html#storylink=misearch.

[8]

Industrial Hemp Legal Issue, supra

 note 4.

[9] Schreiner,

supra

 note 7.