Lawmakers keep up the pressure on USDA on organic rule
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3, 2016 - USDA is in the process of
finalizing a rule to amend animal welfare standards in organic agriculture, and
they received a fresh to-do list last week from a pair of Capitol Hill letters.
The rule is currently under review by USDA’s Agricultural
Marketing Service after an extended public comment period expired in mid-July.
The rule as
written would impose new welfare regulations on organic producers, perhaps
none more notable than the fresh language calling for more outdoor access for
organic poultry.
Although the comment period has closed, AMS received letters
from members of both the Senate and the House last week sounding off on the
proposed rule.
One letter
was sent by a bipartisan group of 13 senators led by Ag Committee chair Pat
Roberts, R-Kan., and Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, the panel’s ranking Democrat.
The group had a dozen questions focusing on impact to producers, consumers, and
the health and safety of the animals, specifically in the poultry sector. The
senators say AMS’ proposal “raises significant concerns” about the impact on
producers and “could have a detrimental impact to both animal health and
safety.”
The concerns raised by the senators are not new, but this is
the first time that they were accompanied with a set of pointed questions about
the benefits of the new rules. “How many new producers will join the industry?”
they asked, seeking more information on an AMS claim that more producers will
join the organic egg market as a result of the new standards. Other questions:
How will AMS educate consumers about the new standards? Did AMS consider
alternative methods to improve animal welfare that might not increase bird
mortality?
Another letter from
Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., dealt with a largely ignored repercussion of the new
standards: their possible impact on both the conventional and organic beef
industry. Most of the uproar around the proposed rule has centered around the
poultry industry, with little attention paid to possible effects on organic
beef and pork producers.
“If implemented, this rule would establish welfare standards
that would mislead consumers by supporting standards that are neither based in
science nor necessary for animal well-being,” Collins wrote. “Unfortunately,
the proposed rule relies on marketing techniques instead of sound science at
the expense of both the cattle industry and consumers.”
Collins’ letter strikes a similar tone to comments
submitted by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. In its comments, NCBA
touched on a number of issues, but honed in on the perception problem that
could be created if the proposed rule were to bring production standards into a
marketing program.
“NCBA is concerned that USDA condones the notion that
organic production should be viewed as a better production method,” NCBA
President Tracy Brunner said in his organization’s comments. “While USDA may
not have gone into this rulemaking with that intent, we all know that
perception is reality, and this rule gives the perception that conventional
food production does not have the same commitment to animal welfare or
quality.”
Like other sectors, the cattle industry would be hit by
requirements such as seasonally appropriate ventilation during transport and
prohibitions against slaughtering sick or injured animals. There’s also
language barring tail docking of cattle and mandating that any physical
alterations – think dehorning, in the case of cattle – must be done “at a
reasonably young age.”
AMS is currently in the process of reviewing the almost 6,700
comments that were submitted on the proposed rule. A spokesman for the agency
told Agri-Pulse in an email last week
that the agency has no timeline for the release of a final rule.
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com