Livestock Groups Concerned with Proposed Organic Livestock Rule

Randall Weiseman Beef, Cattle, Livestock, Pork, Poultry

USDA’s proposed organic livestock rule, “Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices” is of real concern for many in the livestock industry, and thus various organizations have come out against it.

The National Chicken Council (NCC) recommends revising or clarifying several key aspects of the proposed rule to enhance bird health, protect food safety, and maintain a viable organic program. An NCC spokesperson said the proposal “imposes unreasonable costs and requirements of doubtful benefit on organic farmers, and undermines ongoing international efforts to develop poultry welfare standards.”

The National Pork Producers Council wants its members to voice their opinions on the USDA’s new organic animal welfare standards. NPPC says the standards won’t change the concept of organic food and agriculture, but they could be broadened to include regular livestock production methods.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has asked the Ag Department to withdraw the rule. NCBA President Tracy Brunner told USDA that voluntary agency marketing programs are not the place to codify animal production practices.

From the National Chicken Council:

Washington, D.C. – July 14, 2016 – The National Chicken Council (NCC) recommends revising or clarifying several key aspects of the proposed rule from the National Organic Program (NOP), announced in April, to enhance bird health, protect food safety, and maintain a viable organic program.

“NCC is concerned that the proposed rule imposes unreasonable costs and requirements of doubtful benefit on organic farmers, presents grave risks to animal health… and undermines ongoing international efforts to develop poultry welfare standards,” said Ashley Peterson, Ph.D., NCC Senior Vice President of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, in comments submitted yesterday to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The proposed standards are assumed to increase the mortality rates for laying hens and broiler chickens from 5 to 8 percent, a 60 percent increase. Mortality rates are a key indicator of animal welfare and flock health, yet the proposed changes would increase mortality, significantly decreasing bird welfare and farmer economic viability.

The proposed standards are also in direct opposition to Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recommendations for biosecurity. In light of the recent, devastating outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), it is vital farmers retain the ability to make timely preventive measures to protect their flocks. Under the current proposed rule, a “documented occurrence of a disease in the region or relevant migratory pathway must be present before outdoor access can be restricted,” with unclear definitions of what constitutes a region or documented occurrence.

Dr. Peterson also noted the proposal drastically underestimates, or neglects to estimate, the cost of the requirements and the impact of those costs. “NOP does not include the cost of an avian illness outbreak, the likelihood and magnitude of which is materially increased through the proposed outdoor access requirement.” In other words, avian illness outbreaks like the 2015 HPAI outbreak will be more likely to occur, and the effects will be more likely to be greater, under the proposal. The direct economic consequences of the 2015 HPAI outbreak were estimated to be approximately $3.3 billion, far overshadowing the anticipated maximum benefit of $62.6 million per year in the proposed rule.

The full comments can be accessed by clicking here.