Order on UC Farm Policy Reversed

A state Court of Appeal on Friday overturned a far-reaching ruling that would have required the University of California to revise its agricultural research projects to provide greater benefits to small family farmers.

The three-member appeal panel unanimously reversed a finding in November, 1987, by an Alameda County Superior Court judge that the university and other land-grant institutions were required to give such farmers “primary consideration” under a 100-year-old federal statute.

The panel, in an opinion by Appellate Justice Harry W. Low, said there is nothing in the statute or in federal regulations that mandates such a policy.

The ruling could mark the end of a 10-year legal struggle in which a group of small farmers, agricultural workers and consumers challenged UC’s operation of its $116-million-a-year agricultural research program.

Plaintiffs in a suit against the university contended that the program improperly favored large corporate farms, food processors, chemical companies and machinery manufacturers.

The university argued that its research projects were and should be selected solely on the basis of scientific merit and that academic freedom would be violated if the courts intervened to order the UC to redesign its program to favor a particular group.

William G. Hoerger of California Rural Legal Assistance, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the case, said he was “obviously very disappointed” with Friday’s ruling. “The court, in essence, rejected our whole approach,” he said.

Hoerger said a decision will be made early next month on whether to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

University counsel Gary Morrison welcomed the ruling and expressed hope that the long and hard-fought legal struggle had come to a conclusion.

“This constitutes final vindication of the university’s position,” Morrison said. “Some very serious charges had been leveled against the university and the management of its agricultural research program. Now the last issue has been disposed of, and my only regret is that it took so much time and effort on the part of so many people to obtain this result.”

The order that would have required the university to revise the program was issued by Superior Judge Raymond L. Marsh. The judge held that the university, by failing to take into account the needs of small farmers, consumers and farm workers, had violated provisions of the Hatch Act of 1887, which first provided federal funds to land-grant institutions for use in operating agricultural research programs.

Marsh ordered the UC to prepare a new and detailed plan to revise the program and to file progress reports with the court on an annual basis.