San Jose Mercury News Op-Ed: "Organic sellout: USDA guts organic rules to protect mega-farms."

[proverbialwisdom]

http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_24467674/organic-sellout-usda-guts-organic-rules-protect-mega?source=rss

Organic sellout: USDA guts organic rules to protect mega-farms
By Bruce Friedrich

Special to the Mercury News

POSTED: 11/06/2013 10:00:00 AM PST
UPDATED: 11/06/2013 03:07:26 PM PST

When most Americans think about organic meat or eggs, they picture animals on small farms, allowed to root in the soil, feel sun on their backs, and engage in their species-specific desires. What they don't picture is tens of thousands of hens crammed into massive sheds with no access to soil and extremely limited outdoor access.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Agriculture just stamped its seal of approval on the latter scenario by refusing to implement its own advisory board's animal welfare standards, which would have created a level playing field for hundreds of small organic farms by requiring animal welfare improvements from the five massive "organic" egg farms that provide the worst hen welfare.

The USDA's decision doesn't just violate our moral intuitions and the expectations of organic consumers; it also violates the department's legal mandate in at least two distinct ways.

First, USDA is required by law to establish organic guidelines that "meet a consistent standard." USDA's Office of the Inspector General has twice found that animal welfare standards were applied inconsistently.

Second and more critically, it has failed to follow animal welfare recommendations of the National Organic Standards Board, which was set up to recommend "detailed regulations ... to guide the implementation of the standards for livestock products." After USDA's inspector general found it was violating its legal mandate by ignoring its own advisory board in another context, the USDA pledged to work diligently to review and implement board recommendations. But the board stated unanimously that the current lack of regulations in these areas has "restricted the welfare of animals to a considerable degree" and noted that its recommendations were just a "first step" that would "not provide for a comprehensive review in favor of animal welfare."

It will come as a shock to most organic consumers that there are not already legal requirements in these essential areas. The USDA is charged with developing standards, yet it announced without meaningful explanation that it will make no progress on any of it. The announcement was brief, citing only an "economic impact analysis" done by a third-party consulting firm and "other urgent priorities."

The economic report considers only the poultry guidelines, which have been sitting on a shelf for 11 years, and indicates that implementing the board's recommendations would involve no cost at all for the 504 small farms that are already in compliance with them and significant increases for only the five "organic" farms (not five percent--five farms) that are cramming together more than 100,000 hens.

These five "organic" mega-farms would simply have to allow the animals to have access to soil and sunlight and reduce stocking densities. It should have gone without saying that if these five out of more than 500 farms can't meet the standards recommended by the board, they should be legally barred from using the organic seal.

Instead, USDA is allowing the worst producers to stamp "organic" on their products. It is encouraging a race to the animal welfare bottom by removing any incentive for better animal treatment.

USDA is also telling "organic" farmers and consumers that it doesn't care about animal space allowances, bedding and environmental concerns, environmental enrichment, pain relief for mutilations -- or the enforcement of any of it.

And it's doing all that in violation of its legal mandate.

Something stinks in the organic hen house. It's the hen house regulators.

Bruce Friedrich is senior advocacy director for Farm Sanctuary, a national farm animal protection organization. He wrote this for this newspaper.

[Efilroft Sul]

1. Good info like this shouldn't be allowed to sink.

[liberalla]

2. Kick for exposure

edit:

fore?

[Luminous Animal]

3. Kick!

[Sentath]

4. Hasn't USDA Organic always been .. greenwash?

Oh, and I see that they've hollowed out the Tilth orgs too

I know, I know, 11 year old news.

How are Oregon Tilth's Standards Different than the USDA organic Standards?
Prior to 2002, organic certifiers each had their own standards that they used when certifying organic produce and products. The standards were similar, but they were each different and were owned by the certifier. In 2002 the USDA National Organic Program took effect, and the NOP Final Rule became the one standard used for certifying organic products in the US. Since that time, when you pick up a product labeled organic you know that it was certified to the same standard as all other organic products, regardless of who certified it.

http://tilth.org/certification/frequently-asked-questions/consumer-faqs

[proverbialwisdom]

9. Too broad a brush there? I hope so, U.S. organic food sales were $28 billion in 2012 and growing.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/11/growth-patterns-u-s-organic-industry/

Growth Patterns in the U.S. Organic Industry

November 5th, 2013
USDA
Catherine Greene

U.S. consumer demand for organically produced goods has grown continuously since USDA established national standards for organic production and processing in 2002. And, while Americans economized on their food purchases during the 2007-09 recession, including purchases of organic products, growth in demand for organic products rebounded quickly following the recession. Industry analysts estimate that U.S. organic food sales were $28 billion in 2012 (over 4 percent of total at-home food sales), up 11 percent from 2011.

<>

This article is drawn from Organic Production, by Catherine Greene, USDA, Economic Research Service, October 2013.

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/10/busting-organic-expensive-myth/

Busting the “Organic Is Expensive” Myth
Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013
By Charlotte Vallaeys

The Cost of Organic Food Is Worth It and—Surprise—It’s Not Always Higher

“Organic food is too expensive.” It’s a complaint we, as organic farmers and advocates, hear all too often. And we’ve practiced and often repeated our defense of organic food’s higher price tag: it’s worth every extra penny in terms of a long-term investment in our health and in protecting the environment.

When people complain of the high price of organic foods, farmer Joel Salatin likes to respond: “Have you priced cancer lately?”

<>

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/10/organic-liberal-conservative-yes/

Is Organic Liberal or Conservative? — Yes!
Tuesday, October 15th, 2013
By Mark A. Kastel

Although some of the conservative think tanks and their agribusiness patrons might want to paint organic food as “elitist” — and even a “socialist” plot — the facts tell a different story. The organic movement is truly non-partisan.

The organic farming movement was initially fueled by a loving collaboration between family farmers dedicated to producing food in consort with nature, shunning toxic agrichemicals and genetic engineering, and a growing subset of committed consumers who want the very best nutrition and safest possible food for their families.

As the organic “community” blossomed and grew into the $30+ billion industry that it is today, a number of conservative think tanks, many with direct funding from Monsanto, DuPont and other interests in agrichemicals and biotechnology, challenged the propriety, and even the safety, of organic food.

For over a decade, the Hudson Institute’s father-and-son team of Dennis and Alex Avery kept up a constant barrage. Hudson listed many agribusiness funders as their donors during these attacks.

Last year some researchers at Stanford University published a study suggesting that organic wasn’t worth the premium price. Their findings contradicted studies by the USDA, Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), and countless university researchers, internationally, who have found measurable benefits from eating organic rather than conventional foods.

At the time, Stanford (the home of the Hoover Institution, also with a history of attacking organics) firmly stated that the study was funded “internally” rather than by agricultural or biotechnology interests. What they didn’t tell the world was that their internal funders included — you guessed it — agricultural and biotechnology interests.

<>

Organic consumers are just as likely to be a loving Republican soccer mom from Westchester County as a caring Democratic parent in Park Slope, Brooklyn. Although The Cornucopia Institute’s prime constituency is family-scale organic farmers, at least 30% of our members are urban-allies. When you examine the zip codes across urban and suburban America it is clear that they represent a highly diverse cross-section of the citizenry.

Another healthy subset of Cornucopia’s members come from Amish and Mennonite communities. These folks are anything but wild-eyed radicals. And I can tell you from talking with many of our farmer-members that they hold a diverse set of political opinions from all persuasions, including a strong faction of libertarians supporting access to fresh, raw (unpasteurized) milk.

Furthermore, although the modern American organic farming movement was founded by a mix of career agriculturalists and educated back to the land hippies, the growth of the industry has changed that demographic mix. Today, most of the commercial-scale farms are run by multi-generation owners who switched to organics to protect their land and families from exposure to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and because it afforded a better quality of life.

Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz popularized the Nixon era’s message to farmers: “Get big or get out.” For over two decades organics has offered a third option for operating a family farm. It’s been good for families and rural communities.

<>

Thanks for your very informative link. Consumers certainly are at a disadvantage relative to insiders in understanding the complexities here.
"Organic Watergate," who knew? See http://www.cornucopia.org//?s=greenwashing&x=0&y=0 ,particularly, http://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/OrganicWatergateWhitePaper.pdf .

[Trailrider1951]

5. Kick! Looks like the only way to be sure a food is truly organic

is to raise it yourself, or know your farmer.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Urgent Cornucopia Institute ACTION ALERT, Organic Consumers Association (OCA) vetted.

Please see: http://www.cornucopia.org/fda-online-comment/

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/11/action-alert-proxy-heres-way-amplify-voice-defense-safest-farmsfood/

ACTION ALERT: Proxy or Not, Here’s a Way to Amplify Your Voice in Defense of our Safest Farms/Food

November 8th, 2013
[center]FDA Food Safety Comment Deadline is Nov. 15

Your Electronic Voice Can Help Save the Family Farms
Producing Our Nation’s Best Food[/center]

You can make a difference! It’s the 11th hour. Please comment directly on the FDA’s food safety web page to help save our nation’s organic/local produce farmers from potential ruin! The FDA’s proposed food safety rules threaten to ensnare many of the country’s safest farmers in a tangle of expensive, misdirected regulations that may force many of our best farmers out of business.

Even if you sent in a signed proxy letter to Cornucopia for us to hand deliver to the FDA, you can add more comments on the FDA’s food safety web page.

There are two open dockets (farm production and processing). Please submit your electronic comments to the FDA in these federal government webpages — to the Produce Rule and to the Preventive Controls Rule (this is important because these issues affect both rules). Then click on the “Comment Now” button on the upper right side of the regulations.gov web page.

For help with talking points and full background information, click here. You can cut and paste the talking points but just a few personal lines, or a paragraph or two, will add a lot of weight in making your input “original.”

Please share this action alert with your friends and family via Facebook, Twitter or other social media that you use.

Better food safety oversight of factory farms and giant agribusinesses is needed — and appropriate — but it appears that the FDA and corporate lobbyists are using these food safety proposals to simultaneously crush the organic and local farming movements. Together we can defend those farmers producing local, fresh, safe and nutritionally superior food.

It is critical for the good food community to come together right now. We know you enjoy the bounty of nutritious, healthful food produced by our nation’s best farmers. Please help protect family-scale farmers and maintain this alternative in the marketplace.

MORE (link from NPR, below): http://www.cornucopia.org/photo-gallery/?album=2&gallery=20
"36,000 aviary system; 60,000 bird henhouse; tens of thousands bird henhouse..." - all "organic" and I'm assuming associated with one of the 5 mentioned in the OP. No wonder it's illegal in some states to photograph factory farms.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/24/205230655/the-fda-doesnt-want-chickens-to-explore-the-great-outdoors

The FDA Doesn't Want Chickens To Explore The Great Outdoors
by DAN CHARLES
July 25, 201311:59 AM

Organic egg farmers are divided in their reaction to a new FDA proposal that's intended to reduce the risk of salmonella infection among free-roaming chickens. They even disagree about what the document, called "Guidance for Industry," actually requires.

On the face of it, the document seems to demand that egg producers keep their chickens strictly separate from any wildlife. That's because studies show that wildlife and their droppings often carry salmonella bacteria. For that reason, the FDA issued rules back in 2009 ordering farms to keep all mice, rats and wild birds out of chicken houses. The rules now apply to all farms with more than 3,000 laying hens.

That puts organic producers in a bind because the rules for organic production require egg-laying chickens to have "access to the outdoors" whenever the weather allows it. Inevitably, those chickens will encounter wild birds or mice.

So what's an organic producer supposed to do? The FDA guidance proposes a number of answers: Fences to exclude cats and other animals, traps or bait to control mice and voles, and roofing or netting to keep out wild birds. Egg producers also could confine their chickens inside during times when migratory birds insist on entering grazing areas.

How onerous is this requirement? The Cornucopia Institute, which has been campaigning to keep organic farming true to its alternative roots, called the draft regulations a plot by the FDA and the USDA to "eliminate true organic production," with chickens grazing on pastures.

<>

The Organic Standards Board recently considered a proposal, backed by the Cornucopia Institute, that would have required organic egg producers to provide at least 5 square feet of outdoor space per hen. The institute has put together a rogue's gallery of organic henhouses that offer chickens only limited access to the outdoors.

Large-scale organic producers, however, succeeded in defeating the proposal, arguing that it would have driven some of them out of the organic side of the egg business.

Got there from here.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27955.cfm

FDA/USDA Collude to Eliminate True Organic Egg Production
The Cornucopia Institute, July 23, 2013
Straight to the Source

...If organic farmers and consumers interested in protecting the integrity of the organic label, and possibly the country’s safest agricultural producers, are not already Cornucopia members, they can either join by visiting the organization’s website (for full access to electronic and print publications) or sign up for Cornucopia’s free electronic newsletter: www.cornucopia.org. Either way they will be notified when Cornucopia’s action alert and briefing materials become available.

[proverbialwisdom]

7. Informative comment or maybe spin (since the 'big 5' are big on indoors), either way just plain sad.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/07/24/205230655/the-fda-doesnt-want-chickens-to-explore-the-great-outdoors

MacMc Science Geek • 4 months ago ?

Not quite the Big Ag conspiracy that you think it is. The Salmonella Prevention Rule came about as a National Food Safety Initiative around 1997, during the Clinton presidency. The actual regulations did not take effect until 2009. The regulation was based on the assumption that all large producers kept hens inside, in cages and all did business the same way, which was pretty much close to the truth for the time period of the research. The regulation required strict monitoring and control of rodents, wild animals, and flies that could come in contact with the hens. In the meantime, a large organic boom happened. When the FDA started notifying the country's egg producers about the new regulations a number of organic producers spoke up and said "These regulations don't make sense". The FDA said "Why?". The organic producers said, "We throw the doors open and let our hens go outside". The FDA said "Huh? Why would you do that?" The organic producers said, "Because it is a USDA regulation for organic production". The FDA said, "We're going to have to check on this and get back to you". Now a few years later this is their proposal for Salmonella Prevention in organic (or otherwise outdoor) production systems.

[proverbialwisdom]

8. This.

The NYT had something similar recently, can't find it.

http://www.localharvest.org/pastured-eggs.jsp

Pastured Eggs

Grass-fed/pastured hens are raised on pasture, as opposed to being kept in confinement and fed primarily grains. Eggs from pastured hens contain up to 20 times more healthy omega-3 fatty acids than those their less fortunate cousins, factory hens.

Pastured hens' diets are naturally complemented with bugs, earthworms, and other such critters that give their eggs a huge nutritious oomph. Although not necessarilly organic, pastured hens are usually much healthier and happier than their space-restricted and antibiotic-pumped industrial cousins.

Pasturing is the traditional method of raising egg-laying hens and other poultry. It is ecologically sustainable, humane, and produces the tastiest, most nutritious eggs.

Pastured eggs also have 10 percent less fat, 40 percent more vitamin A, and 34 percent less cholesterol than eggs obtained from factory farms.

Funny how this issue hasn't played out in the NYT, as far as I can tell.

More: http://www.cornucopia.org/organic-egg-scorecard/

[Scuba]

10. Make a few modest improvements on social issues while implementing corporate policy on financial ...

... issues and you can claim to be a liberal Democrat. See how that works?