-
Wine Jobs
Assistant Manager
Assistant Cider Maker
Viticulture and Enology...
-
Wine Country Real Estates
Winery in Canada For Sale
-
Wine Barrels & Equipment
75 Gallon Stainless Steel...
Wanted surplus/ excess tin...
Winery Liquidation Auction...
-
Grapes & Bulk Wines
2022 Chardonnay
2023 Pinot Noir
2022 Pinot Noir
-
Supplies & Chemicals
Planting supplies
Stagg Jr. Bourbon - Batch 12
-
Wine Services
Wine
Sullivan Rutherford Estate
Clark Ferrea Winery
-
World Marketplace
Canned Beer
Wine from Indonesia
Rare Opportunity - Own your...
- Wine Jobs UK
- DCS Farms LLC
- ENOPROEKT LTD
- Liquor Stars
- Stone Hill Wine Co Inc
California Table Wine Could Be Banished In Arkansas
Mar 30, 2015
(SWTimes) - Protection of conventional agriculture methods in Arkansas could come at the price of a glass of California wine if a new bill from a Bentonville state representative is passed by the Senate this week.
House members voted 57-19 on Thursday to approve HB 1934 by Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, “to prohibit wine from being imported into Arkansas if it is produced in a state that imposes standards on agricultural products that impose a substantial burden on Arkansas’ agricultural industry.”
Despite Arkansas not being a heavy “table egg” exporter to California, the proposal was largely in response to California’s 2015 “egg law” which went into effect Jan. 1 and calls for more space for laying hens.
Although every state in the union produces wine, most wines imported into Arkansas are from California, and no other state has imposed such restrictive regulations on agricultural products.
Originally signed in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ruling was originally created “to protect California consumers from the deleterious, health, safety, and welfare effects of the sale and consumption of eggs derived from egg-laying hens that are exposed to significant stress that may result in increased exposure to disease pathogens including salmonella” according to J. Andrew Hirth, deputy general counsel for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. Hirth authored an appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Poultry Federation reported in early March that egg producers in six states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, are taking California to the 9th Circuit court of appeals stating California’s “egg law” is based on “bogus” science.
“The main thing we wanted to accomplish is to put some sunlight on the concern on the issue that we have with California trying to impose their laws and statutes on other states that do business with them,” Douglas said Friday in Little Rock. “That is not a good principle of free commerce and interstate trade. We don’t want to start any trade wars here, but that’s what we’re trying to avoid. (We want) to let California know that there’s a lot of people not happy about their policies right now.”
California’s law has driven egg prices up more than 500 percent.
Egg markets in California and across the U.S. have been impacted since Jan. 1, the Poultry Federation report noted, stating a shortage of eggs legally available for retail and restaurant sales in California is forcing consumers there to pay some of “the highest prices ever paid.” Restaurant and food service eggs, which are sold in boxes containing 15 dozen eggs, used to go for about $8.50 a year ago and they are now fetching $53, the report states.
According to both the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and the Poultry Federation for Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, egg production for Arkansas was over 3 billion eggs in 2013 and valued at almost $480 million. And Arkansas was 10th in the nation in egg production in 2013. However, no differentiation was made on the number of “table,” or “shell” eggs for humans and hatchery eggs meant for reproduction.
Cal-Maine Foods, which claims to be “the largest producers and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the United States,” has several table egg-laying operations in Arkansas. Alan Andrews of Cal-Maine in Jackson, Miss., said “not many” of the eggs “are going to California.”
Gladys Horiuchi, director of media relations with the California Wine Institute in San Francisco, opted to make “no comment” Friday because the Arkansas bill has not been approved by the Senate and wording in the proposal allows for the director of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture to determine whether a state is imposing a “substantial burden” on the Arkansas agriculture industry.
“We’re more interested in getting California to reconsider their position on enforcing their laws and their regulations on other states,” Douglas explained. “That’s the main intent. We don’t want to cut off anybody’s wine supply. We just want California to realize that what they’re doing can cause repercussions.”
The wine-ban bill is set to go before the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Monday. If the bill gets out of committee it could be on the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.
On the House floor Friday, Douglas said “Enjoy your California wines this weekend, while you still can.” The comment received a laugh from legislators.
While Fort Smith’s state Rep. Justin Boyd voted against the bill earlier this week, Alma’s state Rep. Charlotte V. Douglas voted “aye.” Fort Smith’s state Reps. Mat Pitsch and George McGill abstained.
“My gut reaction was, ‘The first thing I would do is open a liquor store across the border in Oklahoma,’” Boyd said Friday. “They would end up collecting the tax instead of my hometown of Fort Smith. It didn’t make sense to do that.”
Bruce Holland, former state senator and now director of the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission, commented that Arkansas egg growers have safe and healthy practices.
Protection of conventional agriculture methods in Arkansas could come at the price of a glass of California wine if a new bill from a Bentonville state representative is passed by the Senate this week.
House members voted 57-19 on Thursday to approve HB 1934 by Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, “to prohibit wine from being imported into Arkansas if it is produced in a state that imposes standards on agricultural products that impose a substantial burden on Arkansas’ agricultural industry.”
Despite Arkansas not being a heavy “table egg” exporter to California, the proposal was largely in response to California’s 2015 “egg law” which went into effect Jan. 1 and calls for more space for laying hens.
Although every state in the union produces wine, most wines imported into Arkansas are from California, and no other state has imposed such restrictive regulations on agricultural products.
Originally signed in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ruling was originally created “to protect California consumers from the deleterious, health, safety, and welfare effects of the sale and consumption of eggs derived from egg-laying hens that are exposed to significant stress that may result in increased exposure to disease pathogens including salmonella” according to J. Andrew Hirth, deputy general counsel for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. Hirth authored an appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Poultry Federation reported in early March that egg producers in six states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, are taking California to the 9th Circuit court of appeals stating California’s “egg law” is based on “bogus” science.
“The main thing we wanted to accomplish is to put some sunlight on the concern on the issue that we have with California trying to impose their laws and statutes on other states that do business with them,” Douglas said Friday in Little Rock. “That is not a good principle of free commerce and interstate trade. We don’t want to start any trade wars here, but that’s what we’re trying to avoid. (We want) to let California know that there’s a lot of people not happy about their policies right now.”
California’s law has driven egg prices up more than 500 percent.
Egg markets in California and across the U.S. have been impacted since Jan. 1, the Poultry Federation report noted, stating a shortage of eggs legally available for retail and restaurant sales in California is forcing consumers there to pay some of “the highest prices ever paid.” Restaurant and food service eggs, which are sold in boxes containing 15 dozen eggs, used to go for about $8.50 a year ago and they are now fetching $53, the report states.
According to both the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and the Poultry Federation for Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, egg production for Arkansas was over 3 billion eggs in 2013 and valued at almost $480 million. And Arkansas was 10th in the nation in egg production in 2013. However, no differentiation was made on the number of “table,” or “shell” eggs for humans and hatchery eggs meant for reproduction.
Cal-Maine Foods, which claims to be “the largest producers and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the United States,” has several table egg-laying operations in Arkansas. Alan Andrews of Cal-Maine in Jackson, Miss., said “not many” of the eggs “are going to California.”
Gladys Horiuchi, director of media relations with the California Wine Institute in San Francisco, opted to make “no comment” Friday because the Arkansas bill has not been approved by the Senate and wording in the proposal allows for the director of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture to determine whether a state is imposing a “substantial burden” on the Arkansas agriculture industry.
“We’re more interested in getting California to reconsider their position on enforcing their laws and their regulations on other states,” Douglas explained. “That’s the main intent. We don’t want to cut off anybody’s wine supply. We just want California to realize that what they’re doing can cause repercussions.”
The wine-ban bill is set to go before the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Monday. If the bill gets out of committee it could be on the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.
On the House floor Friday, Douglas said “Enjoy your California wines this weekend, while you still can.” The comment received a laugh from legislators.
While Fort Smith’s state Rep. Justin Boyd voted against the bill earlier this week, Alma’s state Rep. Charlotte V. Douglas voted “aye.” Fort Smith’s state Reps. Mat Pitsch and George McGill abstained.
“My gut reaction was, ‘The first thing I would do is open a liquor store across the border in Oklahoma,’” Boyd said Friday. “They would end up collecting the tax instead of my hometown of Fort Smith. It didn’t make sense to do that.”
Bruce Holland, former state senator and now director of the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission, commented that Arkansas egg growers have safe and healthy practices.
- See more at: http://swtimes.com/business/california-table-wine-could-be-banished-arkansas#sthash.861SpOn6.dpufProtection of conventional agriculture methods in Arkansas could come at the price of a glass of California wine if a new bill from a Bentonville state representative is passed by the Senate this week.
House members voted 57-19 on Thursday to approve HB 1934 by Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, “to prohibit wine from being imported into Arkansas if it is produced in a state that imposes standards on agricultural products that impose a substantial burden on Arkansas’ agricultural industry.”
Despite Arkansas not being a heavy “table egg” exporter to California, the proposal was largely in response to California’s 2015 “egg law” which went into effect Jan. 1 and calls for more space for laying hens.
Although every state in the union produces wine, most wines imported into Arkansas are from California, and no other state has imposed such restrictive regulations on agricultural products.
Originally signed in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ruling was originally created “to protect California consumers from the deleterious, health, safety, and welfare effects of the sale and consumption of eggs derived from egg-laying hens that are exposed to significant stress that may result in increased exposure to disease pathogens including salmonella” according to J. Andrew Hirth, deputy general counsel for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. Hirth authored an appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Poultry Federation reported in early March that egg producers in six states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, are taking California to the 9th Circuit court of appeals stating California’s “egg law” is based on “bogus” science.
“The main thing we wanted to accomplish is to put some sunlight on the concern on the issue that we have with California trying to impose their laws and statutes on other states that do business with them,” Douglas said Friday in Little Rock. “That is not a good principle of free commerce and interstate trade. We don’t want to start any trade wars here, but that’s what we’re trying to avoid. (We want) to let California know that there’s a lot of people not happy about their policies right now.”
California’s law has driven egg prices up more than 500 percent.
Egg markets in California and across the U.S. have been impacted since Jan. 1, the Poultry Federation report noted, stating a shortage of eggs legally available for retail and restaurant sales in California is forcing consumers there to pay some of “the highest prices ever paid.” Restaurant and food service eggs, which are sold in boxes containing 15 dozen eggs, used to go for about $8.50 a year ago and they are now fetching $53, the report states.
According to both the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and the Poultry Federation for Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, egg production for Arkansas was over 3 billion eggs in 2013 and valued at almost $480 million. And Arkansas was 10th in the nation in egg production in 2013. However, no differentiation was made on the number of “table,” or “shell” eggs for humans and hatchery eggs meant for reproduction.
Cal-Maine Foods, which claims to be “the largest producers and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the United States,” has several table egg-laying operations in Arkansas. Alan Andrews of Cal-Maine in Jackson, Miss., said “not many” of the eggs “are going to California.”
Gladys Horiuchi, director of media relations with the California Wine Institute in San Francisco, opted to make “no comment” Friday because the Arkansas bill has not been approved by the Senate and wording in the proposal allows for the director of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture to determine whether a state is imposing a “substantial burden” on the Arkansas agriculture industry.
“We’re more interested in getting California to reconsider their position on enforcing their laws and their regulations on other states,” Douglas explained. “That’s the main intent. We don’t want to cut off anybody’s wine supply. We just want California to realize that what they’re doing can cause repercussions.”
The wine-ban bill is set to go before the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Monday. If the bill gets out of committee it could be on the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.
On the House floor Friday, Douglas said “Enjoy your California wines this weekend, while you still can.” The comment received a laugh from legislators.
While Fort Smith’s state Rep. Justin Boyd voted against the bill earlier this week, Alma’s state Rep. Charlotte V. Douglas voted “aye.” Fort Smith’s state Reps. Mat Pitsch and George McGill abstained.
“My gut reaction was, ‘The first thing I would do is open a liquor store across the border in Oklahoma,’” Boyd said Friday. “They would end up collecting the tax instead of my hometown of Fort Smith. It didn’t make sense to do that.”
Bruce Holland, former state senator and now director of the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission, commented that Arkansas egg growers have safe and healthy practices.
- See more at: http://swtimes.com/business/california-table-wine-could-be-banished-arkansas#sthash.861SpOn6.dpufProtection of conventional agriculture methods in Arkansas could come at the price of a glass of California wine if a new bill from a Bentonville state representative is passed by the Senate this week.
House members voted 57-19 on Thursday to approve HB 1934 by Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, “to prohibit wine from being imported into Arkansas if it is produced in a state that imposes standards on agricultural products that impose a substantial burden on Arkansas’ agricultural industry.”
Despite Arkansas not being a heavy “table egg” exporter to California, the proposal was largely in response to California’s 2015 “egg law” which went into effect Jan. 1 and calls for more space for laying hens.
Although every state in the union produces wine, most wines imported into Arkansas are from California, and no other state has imposed such restrictive regulations on agricultural products.
Originally signed in 2008 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ruling was originally created “to protect California consumers from the deleterious, health, safety, and welfare effects of the sale and consumption of eggs derived from egg-laying hens that are exposed to significant stress that may result in increased exposure to disease pathogens including salmonella” according to J. Andrew Hirth, deputy general counsel for Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster. Hirth authored an appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The Poultry Federation reported in early March that egg producers in six states, including Oklahoma and Missouri, are taking California to the 9th Circuit court of appeals stating California’s “egg law” is based on “bogus” science.
“The main thing we wanted to accomplish is to put some sunlight on the concern on the issue that we have with California trying to impose their laws and statutes on other states that do business with them,” Douglas said Friday in Little Rock. “That is not a good principle of free commerce and interstate trade. We don’t want to start any trade wars here, but that’s what we’re trying to avoid. (We want) to let California know that there’s a lot of people not happy about their policies right now.”
California’s law has driven egg prices up more than 500 percent.
Egg markets in California and across the U.S. have been impacted since Jan. 1, the Poultry Federation report noted, stating a shortage of eggs legally available for retail and restaurant sales in California is forcing consumers there to pay some of “the highest prices ever paid.” Restaurant and food service eggs, which are sold in boxes containing 15 dozen eggs, used to go for about $8.50 a year ago and they are now fetching $53, the report states.
According to both the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture and the Poultry Federation for Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, egg production for Arkansas was over 3 billion eggs in 2013 and valued at almost $480 million. And Arkansas was 10th in the nation in egg production in 2013. However, no differentiation was made on the number of “table,” or “shell” eggs for humans and hatchery eggs meant for reproduction.
Cal-Maine Foods, which claims to be “the largest producers and distributor of fresh shell eggs in the United States,” has several table egg-laying operations in Arkansas. Alan Andrews of Cal-Maine in Jackson, Miss., said “not many” of the eggs “are going to California.”
Gladys Horiuchi, director of media relations with the California Wine Institute in San Francisco, opted to make “no comment” Friday because the Arkansas bill has not been approved by the Senate and wording in the proposal allows for the director of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture to determine whether a state is imposing a “substantial burden” on the Arkansas agriculture industry.
“We’re more interested in getting California to reconsider their position on enforcing their laws and their regulations on other states,” Douglas explained. “That’s the main intent. We don’t want to cut off anybody’s wine supply. We just want California to realize that what they’re doing can cause repercussions.”
The wine-ban bill is set to go before the Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee on Monday. If the bill gets out of committee it could be on the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.
On the House floor Friday, Douglas said “Enjoy your California wines this weekend, while you still can.” The comment received a laugh from legislators.
While Fort Smith’s state Rep. Justin Boyd voted against the bill earlier this week, Alma’s state Rep. Charlotte V. Douglas voted “aye.” Fort Smith’s state Reps. Mat Pitsch and George McGill abstained.
“My gut reaction was, ‘The first thing I would do is open a liquor store across the border in Oklahoma,’” Boyd said Friday. “They would end up collecting the tax instead of my hometown of Fort Smith. It didn’t make sense to do that.”
Bruce Holland, former state senator and now director of the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission, commented that Arkansas egg growers have safe and healthy practices.
- See more at: http://swtimes.com/business/california-table-wine-could-be-banished-arkansas#sthash.861SpOn6.dpufComments: