Cornucopia’s Take: For over seven years, organic farmers and advocates have worked to improve organic animal welfare. While Cornucopia thought the proposal was weak, it was still withdrawn by the USDA in response to concerns raised by the giant confinement egg production operations. And the withdrawal raises huge questions about the future of organic regulations – regulations that were sought by the organic community with the establishment of the organic program. Hydroponic production has similarly been allowed in organic agriculture, although it does not meet the organic standards for soil improvement. Low animal welfare standards and hydroponic produce production are used by Big Organic to cash in on the organic label while keeping costs, and quality, low. Cornucopia’s scorecards can help you find real organics.
Analysis: Should ‘USDA Organic’ animals be treated more humanely? The Trump administration just said no.
The Chicago Tribune
by Peter Whoriskey
 |
The Trump administration ruled on Friday that livestock deemed “USDA Organic” need not be treated any more humanely than the animals in conventional farming.
The decision reverses years of policy at the USDA, which, through the “USDA Organic” label, dictates what may be sold as “organic” food in the U.S.
For years, the USDA had been developing organic requirements guaranteeing animals minimums of space, light and access to the outside. Many consumers expect that products bearing the “USDA Organic” label comes from a farm with higher animal welfare standards.
But with the new administration, the USDA has changed tack, arguing that the 1990 law creating the “USDA Organic” label does not allow “broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations.” In effect, the new approach suggests that “organic” farmers need not treat their animals any better than conventional ones do.
This decision “is going to be destructive to the whole organic field,” said Jesse Laflamme, co-owner and chief executive at Pete and Gerry’s Organics, an egg company that requires farmers to meet higher standards. “What’s so upsetting is that there is such a gap between what organic consumers expect and what these factory farms are producing.”
The immediate cause of the USDA’s shift on animal welfare was a proposed rule, more than seven years in gestation, that would have required “organic” egg farms to give hens at least a square foot of space inside as well as access to the outdoors. The rule would have prohibited the large scale “organic” egg farms that The Post wrote about in July, in which the birds were kept in barns containing 180,000, at a density of three per square foot of floor space, and never allowed to set foot outside.
Consumers pay more for organic eggs, and they expect that those eggs are produced more humanely than conventional eggs. Indeed, according to a March survey by Consumer Reports, more than 80 percent of consumers who regularly buy organic products believe it is important that organic eggs come from chickens that are allowed outside.
But the USDA withdrew the proposed rule for poultry, arguing that it could discourage the development of new practices within organic farming.
In a statement, the USDA officials said they were concerned that the proposed rule “may hamper market-driven innovation and evolution and impose unnecessary regulatory burdens.”
Nevertheless, the ruling is expected to be broadly unpopular, and it drew immediate backlash from organic farmers, animal rights advocates, the Organic Trade Association and consumer groups.
The proposed rule had drawn 47,000 comments and of those, only 28 supported withdrawing the rule, according to the Organic Trade Association.
Advocates for the rule blamed the outsized influence of large “factory farms” for USDA’s decision to withdraw it. Those farms, they argue, use the “USDA Organic” label to fetch higher prices for their products, but without conforming to consumer expectations for organic practices.
“The current administration is doing a tremendous service for the conventional agribusiness interests that has invested in giant livestock factories,” said Mark Kastel, of the Cornucopia Institute, which has long sought stricter standards and stricter enforcement from the USDA. The administration “is throwing out 25 years of precedent in terms of developing organic regulations and enforcing them.”
Kastel and others blamed those large nominally “USDA Organic” farms for fooling consumers regarding animal welfare at their facilities.
“They are trying to trick the public and sell their products at a premium under a deficient organic label,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “They want the profit that comes from the halo effect of the organic label but they don’t want to adhere to common sense animal welfare standards. I don’t think consumers think that organically raised animals are living in a giant confinement shed.”
