For the third time this year, the Agriculture Department is holding up a regulation that would give livestock on organic farms more elbow room than is common at conventional operations, and this time, it says, it may rewrite the rule, which already is a decade in the making. “We will see the department in court and are confident that we will prevail on this important issue for the organic sector,” said the Organic Trade Association, which sued USDA two months ago for unlawful delay of the animal welfare regulation.
In a notice today in the Federal Register, the USDA says it will delay to May 14, 2018, the organic livestock regulation that was issued just before President Trump took office and originally was to take effect March 20. “This delay will provide additional time,” said the Agricultural Marketing Service, to settle questions about whether the rule is “tethered” to the statue that created the National Organic Program, and if it is cost-effective. The agency said it would seek public comment and “that rule may be delayed, suspended or withdrawn after the agency has completed review of comments in response to a notice of proposed rulemaking that will present these issues.”
House Agriculture chairman Michael Conaway, a longtime opponent of the rule, said, “I am hopeful the Trump administration’s commitment to regulatory reform will result in the continued roll-back of burdensome regulations like this one.” The National Pork Producers Council, a trade group for conventional agriculture, called for USDA to rescind the rule and said the 1990 law that created the organic program covered only the feed and medication of livestock.
Advocates of organic farming and humane treatment of animals cried foul at the delay. “A clear attempt to let industrial agriculture interests usurp the legitimacy of the organic label,” said the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association. The Humane Society of the United States said, “This series of deferrals is nothing but a sop to big agricultural interests threatened by the notion that ‘organic’ products will be perceived as superior to conventionally produced animal products.”
More than 47,000 comments were filed after the AMS delayed the livestock rule in May and suggested four options, ranging from implementing the rule as it stood to withdrawal of it. More than 40,000 of the comments called for implementation of the rule, while only one supported further delay. The agency said it discovered “a material error” in the calculation of the costs and benefits of the regulation, along with doubts about the statutory authority for it, while reviewing the latest round of comments.
“Any steps by USDA to unwind the changes to federal organic regulations are being taken against a backdrop of nearly universal support among the organic community, animal welfare advocates and consumers for the rules that USDA has now rejected,” said the Organic Trade Association. The USDA is due to respond in court to the OTA lawsuit in mid-November. The trade group said it “anticipated a further ‘walk back’ by the Trump Administration of 14 years of work to improve and clarify organic animal agriculture regulations.”
Livestock groups and their allies in Congress have alternated between ridiculing the organic livestock rule and trying to scrap it. The rule would require farmers to provide outdoor access for their livestock on all but the hottest or coldest days. It also would effectively end the practice of confining egg-laying hens in small “battery” cages and require group housing of swine. Large-scale conventional farms use battery cages and so-called sow crates that restrict the movement of sows in the name of efficiency and labor savings.
Organic food accounts for more than 5 percent of U.S. food sales and is a fast-growing sector in the grocery industry. As the industry has grown and expanded its range of products, relations with conventional agriculture have become increasingly fractious.