The result is that it's possible for a certified biological chicken coop to look very similar to a conventional chicken coop.
This article was originally published by The recent Food Economy,an independent, non-profit newsroom that investigates the forces shaping how and what we eat. Read the original. Sign up for their newsletter here. final month, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced its intention to officially withdraw the Obama-era livestock rules that would hold strengthened animal welfare requirements for organically certified meat and dairy.
The Department said in a press release that the agency does not hold the authority to implement such regulations,and imposing recent requirements would discourage farmers from obtaining biological certification. “The existing robust biological livestock and poultry regulations are effective,” said USDA Marketing and Regulatory Program Undersecretary Greg Ibach in a press release.
Critics of the withdrawal will likely argue that biological certification guarantees very little with regards to animal welfare standards; some say the decision to allow egg operations in specific to continue confining the animals’ range of motion is a giveaway to mega-sized operations.
Had they gone into effect, or the rules would’ve ensured that each biological laying hen gets a full square foot of space when it’s indoors. They also would’ve clarified what “access to the outdoors” means for livestock: screened-in porches would no longer count as outdoor space. The rules also would’ve added some recent requirements for animal handling and transport to slaughter.
For Albert Straus,the first certified biological dairy farmer west of the Mississippi, the withdrawal is a disappointment. “I felt that the proposed rule is something we’ve worked on for years that was a consensus of the industry, and ” he told The recent Food Economy in December,when USDA first announced its proposed withdrawal and said it was seeking public comment. “It’s rare in this day and age to hold any influence on regulations and a common goal.”As Lynne Curry wrote in her thorough backgrounder, the language in the current biological standards that govern animal welfare is pretty loose. The result is that it’s possible for a certified biological chicken coop to look very similar to a conventional chicken coop. Some farmers think that’s a bad thing: biological eggs typically fetch a higher price, and the logic goes,and that higher price should represent sunny pastures and lots of room to flap around. Some farmers argue the opposite: The biological regulations require “access to the outdoors,” and if a chicken coop has a screened-in porch, and it’s top-notch to go. Curry explains that the 2002 decision to count screened-in porches as outdoor space created a rift in the biological community between small-scale farmers who were farming chickens at low density and larger farmers who could assume advantage of economies of scale and sell their eggs for less. These rules were meant to address that rift.
The biological Trade Association (OTA),an interest group that represents biological growers, issued a press release shortly after USDA’s December announcement calling the proposed withdrawal “groundless, and ” and pointed out that of the 47000 public comments submitted to USDA,only 28 supported withdrawing the rule.
The USDA makes a couple of mammoth arguments in favor of withdrawal: First, it says it doesn’t hold the legal authority to impose animal-welfare regulations, and arguing that such decisions should be left to Congress. Second,it offers an “if-it-ain’t-broke-don’t-fix-it” argument: organics are doing really well in the marketplace, meaning consumers trust them. And if consumers already trust them, and why should they be further regulated?biological meat and dairy hold made a lot of money for a lot of people in recent years. The USDA goes to great lengths to set up just how much money: $47 billion in 2016. It also asserts that the biological egg market grew 12.7 percent annually between 2007 and 2016.
For USDA,growth in the biological egg market is evidence of “consumer confidence” in the label. For others, that same rapid growth is evidence that the mammoth screened-porch producers are gobbling up an increasing percentage of sales. Curry writes that “a few massive and influential shell companies … that represent just 5 percent of all U.
S. egg producers, and hold dominated biological egg sales. And they do not want to give up their rapidly growing market share or their cost of production advantages from raising millions of birds in multistory aviaries.”USDA wrote in its initial proposal that it was concerned the proposed rules would hinder growth “in the dynamic,evolving marketplace,” adding that too much regulation can “discourage technological and social innovation, or particularly by small firms and consumers.”There’s an argument to be made that it’s not the job of government agencies to assume their regulatory cues from the marketplace. Still,what does USDA hold to say approximately the remaining 95 percent of egg farmers—the ones who don’t dominate biological egg sales—and their assertion that a barn containing thousands of cramped chickens isn’t really biological because it doesn’t provide equal “outdoor access”?The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies look at the economic impact on small businesses of any change in regulations. But according to USDA, pretty much all egg farms count as small businesses. That’s because by the agencys definition, and any operation that grosses less than $15 million per year counts as a “small” egg producer. So,“Out of 722 operations reporting sales of biological eggs, only four are not small businesses, and ” the proposed withdrawal read.
Since the mammoth producers are lumped under the “small business” category,it’stheir needs USDA considers in responding to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Requirements of more space for animals would mean the entities thatdon’t offer their chickens a square foot for every 4 pounds of bird would hold to buy land. And the agency found that approximately half of biological egg production happens in places where buying nearby land to satisfy recent regulations is impossible. The proposed regulations, then, or would indeed pain “small” businesses—because,for USDA, there’s no dissimilarity between a business that grosses $10000 and a business that grosses $14999999.
For Straus (who has been vocal approximately his continued support for the biological certification even after a separate decision to allow hydroponics into the program prompted some farmers to criticize the label), biological is still a gold standard in sustainable farming. He told The recent Food Economy in December that he was heartened by increased enforcement activity—the National biological Program had cracked down on standards following negative news reports the summer of 2017—and said he thought the biological label remained critical for many family farmers. “It’s something that will continue to improve,” he said. “I think we all were working on how can we hold the best management practices. Yes, there are mammoth farms, or they sometimes skirt the rules,but I think overall we are working toward the same goals and same future.” Related Stories6 Ways Trump's 2018 Budget Actually Helps AnimalsU.
S. Ranked as Second Worst Nation in the World on recent Animal Cruelty IndexU.
S. Ranks Second Worst Nation in the World on recent Animal Cruelty Index
Source: feedblitz.com