Many proclaimed the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule dead back in December. But the final hour actually came on Friday, Jan. 18.
At 11:59 p.m., ET, the comments closed on the proposed withdrawal of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices final rule (OLPP rule) that outlines welfare and handling standards for organic livestock. By that time, over 78,500 people had commented and almost all of them opposed to the rule’s withdrawal.
The rule focused heavily on poultry housing and treatment, but some provisions were related to cattle and sheep. For instance, the rule would have prohibited wattling, tail docking, and face-branding of organic cattle, and would have prohibited overly short tail docking in organic sheep. The proposed rule also would have required organic livestock to be provided bedding in transport trailers and limited shipping to 12 hours without being fed and watered.
Many of the items that would have been included for organic cattle in the OLPP rule already exist in the Beef Quality Assurance industry standards.
A brief history
The OLPP rule began as a proposed rule back in April 2016. On Jan. 17, 2017, in the final days of the Obama administration, the OLPP final rule was published in the Federal Register. It was set to go into effect on March 20, 2017.
However, on President Donald Trump’s first day in office—Jan. 20, 2017—he issued his “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” memorandum, which directed federal agencies to halt implementation of recently finalized rules and actions. The OLPP rule’s implementation was delayed until May 19, 2017 as a result.
On May 10, 2017, the OLPP rule’s implementation date was pushed back again to Nov. 14, 2017. An additional proposal was issued the same day, which presented four different options related to the OLPP rule’s future: Implement it on Nov. 14, 2017; suspend it indefinitely; delay it further; withdraw the rule.
Over 47,000 comments were submitted in response to this proposal. Comments were overwhelmingly in support of implementation.
On Nov. 14, 2017, the OLPP rule’s implementation date was again delayed, this time to May 14, 2018.
On Dec. 14, 2017, the USDA announced its intention to withdraw the OLPP rule entirely. It was published in the Federal Register four days later, triggering the 30-day comment period that recently ended.
Reasons for withdrawal
The USDA’s stated reason for withdrawing the OLPP rule was that it did not have the authority to make it in the first place.
“The basis for the proposed withdrawal of the OLPP final rule is USDA’s current interpretation of [Organic Foods Production Act of 1990],” read the withdrawal proposal.
“The OLPP final rule consisted, in large part, of rules clarifying how producers and handlers participating in the National Organic Program must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their wellbeing. AMS is proposing to withdraw the OLPP final rule because it now believes the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) does not authorize the animal welfare provisions of the OLPP final rule.
“Rather, the agency’s current reading of the statute, given the relevant language and context, suggests OFPA’s reference to 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.”
“The OLPP final rule is a broadly prescriptive animal welfare regulation,” the USDA wrote in summary. “But nothing in [OFPA] authorizes the broadly prescriptive, stand-alone animal welfare regulations contained in the OLPP final rule.”
A pair of the drafters of the OFPA disagree with the USDA’s interpretation, however.
In their submitted comments, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR-04) argued that the USDA is not limited from creating welfare standards.
“We feel strongly that the rule is consistent with recommendations provided by USDA’s Office of Inspector General, and nine separate recommendations from the [National Organic Standards Board]. It will align regulatory language and congressional intent to enable producers and consumers to readily discern the required practices for organic poultry production and to differentiate the products in the marketplace. This is as Congress intended when it enacted OFPA and established the [National Organic Standards Board].”
The USDA also noted that the organic industry has grown under the previous set of regulations. It additionally projected economic harm to organic producers if forced to abide by more stringent regulations. Effectively, a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” argument.
“…[T]here has been significant growth in the organic market under the existing regulatory regime. This suggests that the present regulatory regime is meeting statutory objectives of reassuring consumers of organic integrity…”
Reactions to withdrawal
Most of the respondents to the proposal to withdraw the OLPP rule did not agree with the USDA. Many argued that by withdrawing the OLPP rule, USDA risked eroding consumer confidence in the Organic label.
“Central to the success of the [organic] program is integrity in the label,” wrote the National Farmer’s Union in response to the proposed withdrawal. “Consumer confusion threatens the continued success of the program and the significant investment family farmers have made.”
“Consumers trust that the Organic seal stands for a meaningful difference in production practices,” asserted the Organic Trade Association (OTA) in its official response to the withdrawal proposal. The OTA pointed out the overwhelmingly supportive comments received on the May 10, 2017 four options proposal.
“It is against this overwhelming public input that USDA ignores growing consumer demands for food transparency,” OTA went on. “It makes no sense that the Trump administration would pursue actions that could damage a marketplace that is giving American farmers a profitable alternative, creating jobs, and improving the economies of our rural areas.”
WLJ surveyed 700 of the published comments to the withdrawal proposal that closed Jan. 18, 2018. The surveyed comments were overwhelmingly opposed to withdrawing the OLPP rule. Only six comments in support of the withdrawal were found in the surveyed portion.
However, a single form letter made up over 53 percent of the comments in the surveyed portion. This form letter called the withdrawal proposal a “baseless move to weaken the USDA Organic seal” and described it as “an assault on organic farmers, businesses, and consumers everywhere.”
Other, less common form letter comments opposed to the rule’s withdrawal made up a considerable volume of the other comments. Themes of outrage and support for humane handling of livestock were widely present.
Though form-letter comments predominated, there were some unique comments in the surveyed portion. Many of the unique comments opposed to the withdrawal showed extreme confusion over the issue at hand, however. Unique commenters were often under the impression the whole organic program was being withdrawn, pre-existing organic animal welfare standards were being removed, and/or that general animal welfare laws across the country were being rolled back.
The few comments in support of the OLPP rule’s withdrawal came from self-identified organic farmers and some livestock industry groups. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council were among those that submitted comments in support of withdrawal. — Kerry Halladay, WLJ editor
