First, the Trump administration delayed the so-called GIPSA rule on fair play in livestock marketing. Now, it is issuing a similar six-month delay of a regulation setting nationwide animal welfare standards for organic livestock and asking if it should kill the rule, re-write it or let it take effect. The actions raise questions about the future of a proposed organic checkoff program. All three initiatives were among the final Obama-era acts at USDA.
The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service said on its website that it delayed the organic livestock until Nov. 14 “to allow time for further consideration by USDA.” It was the second delay for the rule since President Trump took office. “This is a blatant example of the DC machine evading a transparent democratic process,” said the Organic Trade Association.
Organic food accounts for 5 percent of U.S. grocery sales, chiefly fruit, vegetables and dairy, and is the fastest growing segment of food sales. Organic food sales neared $40 billion in 2015, according to an industry survey. Updated figures will be released later this month.
The largest farm groups representing the conventional livestock industry opposed the organic livestock rule as well as the GIPSA rule, named for the agency that wrote it, the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration. Small ranchers, however, had been supportive of the GIPSA rule and saw it as a way to restore parity with large meatpacking companies.
When it issued the organic livestock rule on Jan. 18, the USDA said it would set a consistent standard nationwide for production of organic livestock and treatment of food-bearing animals. Organic farmers would be required to provide outdoor access for their animals during all but the hottest or coldest days. The rule would effectively end the practice of confining egg-laying hens in small “battery” cages and it would require group housing of swine.
Senate Agriculture chairman Pat Roberts applauded the delay “of the disastrous rule,” which he said would boost grocery prices for organic food and drive up organic farmers’ costs to raise livestock. Animal health will be put at risk by the requirement for daily access to pastures and barn yards, he said. The U.S. law governing organic food production, however, mandates pasture for livestock.
“The agency does not need to solicit additional public comments on a rule that was consumer-driven and took 14 years to finalize,” said Rep. Chellie Pingree, Maine Democrat. She said nationwide standards on livestock would buttress public belief in the integrity of organic products.
Conventional agriculture has adopted practices such as sow “crates” that restrict the movement of sows in the name of assuring safety of piglets and battery cages to reduce labor costs to feed hens and handle the eggs they lay. But the livestock industry has come under increased pressure from animal welfare advocates to end those practices and a number of state laws and referendums have outlawed them.
The GIPSA rule would make it easier for livestock producers, especially growers who feed broiler chickens under contract, to prove unfair treatment at the hands of meat processors. The rule says producers need only prove they were treated unfairly; at present, they have to show the entire industry was harmed. The largest livestock groups say the regulation would up-end the current marketing system, which includes agreements that pay a bonus for meeting specific goals such as cattle with high-grading meat, and invite lawsuits by producers jealous because a neighbor got a better deal. But smaller independent producers who contract with large meatpacking companies argued the rule would level the playing field in the livestock marketplace.
In late April, the USDA delayed implementation of the GIPSA rule for six months, to Oct. 19, and asked the same questions as it did on organic livestock: Should if withdraw the rule, delay it again, suspend it indefinitely or let it take effect?
Also in the final days of the Obama administration, the USDA, after a year-and-a-half of internal review, asked for public comments on the OTA proposal for a producer-funded checkoff program to pay for research and promotion of organic products. The comment period was extended to April 19 as part of the incoming Trump administration freeze on new federal regulations.
After review of the thousands of comments, the next step for a successful proposal would be for USDA to publish a final version of the proposal and to then hold a referendum on it. The OTA says the checkoff would raise $30 million a year to help U.S. producers meet burgeoning demand for organic goods. There is opposition within the fractious organic industry, where some say a checkoff will help large producers more than small operators and will sap their earnings without raising enough money to benefit all sectors of organic production.
If approved, the checkoff would be the first based on a mode of production rather than a product. Nearly two dozen checkoff programs operate under USDA supervision, ranging from the well-known cotton and beef checkoffs to smaller-scale initiatives for raspberries, honey and popcorn.
To read a draft of the Federal Register notice setting a 30-day comment period on four options on the organic livestock rule, from withdrawal to letting it take effect, click here.