The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2018 against the USDA over the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) proposal to withdraw the National Organic Program (NOP) Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) rule.
The notice to withdraw was published in the Dec. 18, 2017 Federal Register. This came after previous proposed rules were published that would have included animal handling practices as a requirement for products to be labeled and marketed as organic. If withdrawn, existing organic livestock and poultry regulations would remain in effect.
In the notice to withdraw, USDA said the OLPP final rule consisted, in large part, of rules clarifying how producers and handlers participating in the NOP must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing. The notice also explains that the proposed withdrawal is because it now believes the Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) doesn’t authorize animal welfare provisions of the OLPP final rule.
In response to that belief, the Federal Register notice reads, “…the agency’s current reading of the statute, given the relevant language and context suggests OFPA’s reference to the additional regulatory standards, ‘for the care’ of organically produced livestock should be limited to health care practices similar to those specified by Congress in the statute, rather than expanded to encompass stand-alone animal welfare concerns.”
In the lawsuit HSUS says the proposed withdrawal and delay in implementation is “tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.” The HSUS claims in the lawsuit that withdrawing the rule would put farmers and ranchers participating in the organic program at a competitive disadvantage.
The animal welfare group explained, “The relief sought would redress HSUS’ and its constituents/members’ injuries by ensuring that the organics label has robust animal welfare requirements, which align with consumer expectations. Such relief will allow consumers to make meaningful food purchasing decisions and to chose humane animal food products.”
Producers seeking an organic label must meet certain criteria which generally require that products need to be free of synthetic chemicals. Animal products have strict guidelines on medications that are allowed to maintain organic status.
HSUS argues that the animal handling provisions of the rule are necessary to “align with consumer expectations.
WLJ asked HSUS’ Rural Affairs Director Scott Beckstead if perhaps an effort should be focused on educating consumers rather than making laws to conform to their perceptions. He responded that the position of HSUS is that consumers care about how their food is produced. “They are buying organic products with the belief that that organic label stands for strong animal welfare practices, and unfortunately, we know that that is not the case and that’s what these proposed rules were going to be addressing.”
He went on to say that when making the rules, and citing a letter to Congress from Sen. Patrick Lehay (D-VT) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), “it was clearly in their minds that animal welfare was absolutely within the purview of the USDA in promulgating these rules; it was not just limited to animal health.”
Pushed again, that consumer perception doesn’t make something fact, Beckstead said, “We know that 83 percent of people who buy organic want to know that their animal products were humanely produced, and so, it would be our position that the industry and the rules that govern that industry should conform to consumer wishes and consumer preferences, especially when you are dealing with such an overwhelming majority of people who are consuming organics.”
Contacted for a reaction, Michelle Muth Person from the public affairs office of USDA-AMS said the agency maintains its policy of not commenting on pending litigation.
Although the rule is directed mostly at poultry and pork production practices, the withdrawal was supported by National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). In comments to USDA, NCBA President Craig Uden noted, “Rather than help the welfare of the animal, this rule would have vilified conventionally raised livestock.”
Uden explained that NCBA believes the proposed rule went far beyond what is needed, required, or statutorily allowed for the NOP. “We believe in a producer’s right to produce organic beef. We believe that consumers deserve a choice if they so desire,” he wrote. “We also want to re-assert that the NOP is a marketing program; not an animal health, welfare, or safety program. The proposed revisions perpetuate certain biases that organic is better than conventional agriculture.”
Citing opposition of the proposed withdrawal, the National Farmers Union (NFU) board of directors approved a resolution on Jan. 17 urging USDA to make the OLPP rule effective immediately. In the resolution the NFU board declared, “Central to the success of the National Organic Program is the integrity of the label.” The resolution continued, “Despite stakeholder demands for consistency, certifiers have inconsistently applied animal husbandry standards across the industry. Consumer confusion threatens the continued success of the program and the significant investment family farmers have made.”
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. At press time no dates had been set to hear the case. — Rae Price, WLJ editor
