December, 03 2008, 11:48am EDT
Last Minute Rulemaking by Bush USDA Threatens Organic Farmers
Consumers and Farmers Join Together to Promote Organic Integrity
CORNUCOPIA, Wisconsin
Many media outlets, from the New York Times to the blogosphere, have
tracked what has been dubbed the "corporate takeover" of organic
farming. One of the hottest controversies in this rapidly growing $20 billion
industry has been giant factory farms milking thousands of cows each in
feedlots and masquerading as organic. Some of these industrial dairies are
controlled by the nation's largest agribusinesses.
Since the organic community first appealed to the USDA for
better clarification and enforcement of regulations requiring organic dairy
producers to graze their cattle, nearly 9 years ago, the number of giant industrial
dairy operations, with as many as 10,000 cows, has grown from two to
approximately 15. After years of delay, the USDA has finally responded with a new
proposed rule that they said would crack down on abuses.
"The birds have come home to roost," said Mark
Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute. The
Wisconsin-based farm policy research group estimates there are 35,000 to 45,000
cows on giant CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) operating in the
United States producing as much as 40% of the nation's organic milk supply.
"These CAFOs are producing so much milk that they have depressed
pricing and profit margins for organic family farmers, and now some are being
forced out of business by this distressing situation," Kastel said. "Organics
was supposed to be the antidote to family farmers being forced off the
land."
The Cornucopia Institute has filed formal legal complaints
with the USDA aimed at compelling the agency to enforce organic livestock and
management rules. These actions have led to the shut down or penalizing of
some of what they call "organic scofflaws." But many in the industry
criticized the agency for failing to fully investigate many other alleged
violations on giant farms, including several that supply milk to the nation's
largest dairy processor, Dallas-based Dean Foods.
The new USDA rule proposal and its analysis total 26 pages,
as published in the Federal Register. The draft rule complies with organic
community requests to close specific loopholes being exploited by factory farms
confining their cattle. But it also represents the broadest rewrite of federal
organic regulations in the $20 billion industry's relatively short history.
Some farm advocates believe that the new rules, if enacted,
would put out of business the majority of organic livestock
farmers-including hundreds who are operating ethically.
"At first we were delighted that the USDA had stopped
their delaying tactics and finally published a rule cracking down on the large
factory farms that have been 'scamming' organic consumers and
placing ethical family farmers at a competitive disadvantage," stated Bill
Welch, former member of the National Organic Standards Board and an Iowa
livestock producer. "Many in the industry have spent the past weeks
carefully examining this dense document, and it has become painfully clear that
it would not only crack down on certain factory farm abuses, but it's
also so restrictive that it would likely put the majority of family farmers producing
organic milk and meat out of business.
"It's inexcusable," noted Ronnie
Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association, "that the USDA would
allow, as part of this rule, that conventional cattle can be brought onto
organic farms, and milked, on a continuous basis."
In response to the USDA's sweeping livestock/pasture
proposal, a consortium of organizations representing organic family farmers has
crafted an "alternative" rule proposal. Led by FOOD Farmers, with
support from The Cornucopia Institute, organic certifiers, and other policy
experts, the revisions they have drafted would carry out what is said to be the
will of the organic community, farmers and consumers.
"You don't have to take the word of The Cornucopia
Institute alone that the Department has 'Katrina-ed' the organic
industry," Kastel stated. "The USDA rule proposal is just the
latest salvo in this fight," added Kastel. He noted that audits by the
American National standard Institute (ANSI) and the Inspector General's office
were both highly critical of the USDA's execution of its Congressional mandate
to oversee the organic industry.
The community's alternative proposal, which is now
being circulated among organic farmers and consumer groups, would require that
all organic dairy, sheep, goat, and beef producers graze their animals for the
entire grazing season and sets a minimum percentage of feed from pasture.
A growing body of scientific literature illustrates the
nutritional superiority of milk and meat from organic animals that are grazed
on fresh grass, including higher levels of antioxidants and beneficial fats,
like omega-3 fatty acids, that protect against cancer and heart disease.
"The good news continues to be that the vast majority
of all organic dairy brands available in the marketplace
use milk produced by family farmers," observed Cummins. "These farmers
truly uphold the high expectations that their customers have," Cummins
said.
The Cornucopia Institute just updated their path-breaking research
study of the organic dairy sector. The group's scorecard (found at www.cornucopia.org), reveals that 85% of
the nation's 110 organic dairy brands are meeting the letter and spirit of current
organic federal law. "Out of 1800 organic dairy farms in this country,
the very few factory farms are a bad aberration, although they are producing
huge quantities of milk," explained Cornucopia's Kastel.
Because of the broad scope of the USDA's proposed rule
making, Cornucopia, the Organic Consumers Association, and some the largest
organic certifiers and other groups representing farmers and consumers are formally
asking the USDA to extend the public comment period for an additional 30 days
to January 23, 2009.
- 30 -
MORE:
New, major policies proposed by the USDA
livestock/pasture rule (never reviewed or recommended by the National Organic
Standards Board) include:
- Eliminating
the fattening of beef cattle on grain, in feedlots, for the last few
months of their lives. Although many might view this proposal as
meritorious it would radically change the industry and could force some
operators out of business. Full analysis and discussion by the
organic community is vitally necessary.
- Requiring
animals to be outside year-round, without exemptions for extreme weather
conditions, would put the lives and well-being of livestock at risk and
economically injure farmers.
- Setting
aside part of a farmer's land in a "sacrifice" pasture for when
weather conditions make grazing unsuitable. This might be a
provision that some current operators cannot meet and might violate
certain state and federal environmental standards. This may have positive
application, but its overall impacts have never been fully analyzed.
- Classifying
bees and fish as livestock will likely garner positive and negative
response from that industry sector depending on its perceived present and
future regulatory impact.
- The
USDA draft rule ignores the NOSB recommendation to eliminate the
"continual transition" of conventional cattle, brought onto
organic dairy operations. The industry has universally agreed that
all animals brought onto a farm, after its initial transition to organics,
must be managed organically from the last third of gestation.
Animals raised for meat already have to meet this higher standard.
Many industry experts feel that the USDA has misinterpreted the law, for
years, allowing giant factory farms to "burn out" their cattle
and prematurely sending them to slaughter, then replace them with cheap
conventional cattle on an ongoing basis. This new rulemaking
proposes that the Department's "misinterpretations" become
institutionalized as law.
"This 26-page document put forth by
the USDA may so muddy the water that we could be facing years of additional
delays until the widely agreed-upon provisions for dairy are enacted,"
said Kastel.
Certain industry players, including the
dairy giant Dean Foods and Aurora Dairy, the nation's largest private-label
producer of organic milk (Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, Safeway, etc.) have based
their business model on exploiting the trust of the organic consumer and
violating both the spirit and letter of the organic law (full documentation
available).
The USDA's proposed pasture rule,
along with the "alternative" proposal endorsed by organic farmers and
consumers, can be viewed at:
https://www.cornucopia.org/usda-proposed-organic-pasture-livestock-rule/
The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit farm policy research group, is dedicated to the fight for economic justice for the family-scale farming community. Their Organic Integrity Project acts as a corporate and governmental watchdog assuring that no compromises to the credibility of organic farming methods and the food it produces are made in the pursuit of profit.
LATEST NEWS
As Flood Deaths Rise, Texas Officials Blast Faulty Forecast by DOGE-Gutted National Weather Service
"Experts warned for months that drastic and sudden cuts at the National Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability and endanger lives during the storm season," said one critic.
Jul 05, 2025
As catastrophic flooding left scores of people dead and missing in Texas Hill Country and President Donald Trump celebrated signing legislation that will eviscerate every aspect of federal efforts to address the climate emergency, officials in the Lone Star State blasted the National Weather Service—one of many agencies gutted by the Department of Government Efficiency—for issuing faulty forecasts that some observers blamed for the flood's high death toll.
The Associated Press reported Saturday that flooding caused by a powerful storm killed at least 27 people, with dozens more—including as many as 25 girls from a summer camp along the Guadalupe River in Kerr County—missing after fast-moving floodwaters rose 26 feet (8 meters) in less than an hour before dawn on Friday, sweeping away people and pets along with homes, vehicles, farm and wild animals, and property.
"Everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
"The camp was completely destroyed," Elinor Lester, 13, one of hundreds of campers at Camp Mystic, told the AP. "A helicopter landed and started taking people away. It was really scary."
Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha said during a press conference in Kerrville late Friday that 24 people were confirmed dead, including children. Other officials said that 240 people had been rescued.
Although the National Weather Service on Thursday issued a broad flood watch for the area, Texas Division of Emergency Management Chief Nim Kidd—noting that the NWS predicted 3-6 inches of rain for the Concho Valley and 4-8 inches for the Hill Country—told reporters during a press conference earlier Friday that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts."
After media reports & experts warned for months that drastic & sudden cuts at the Nat Weather Service by Trump could impair their forecasting ability & endanger lives during the storm season, TX officials blame an inaccurate forecast by NWS for the deadly results of the flood.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) July 5, 2025 at 3:19 AM
"Listen, everybody got the forecast from the National Weather Service," Kidd reiterated. "You all got it; you're all in media. You got that forecast. It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw."
Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice also said during the press conference that the storm "dumped more rain than what was forecasted" into two forks of the Guadalupe River.
Kerr County judge Rob Kelly told CBS News: "We had no reason to believe that this was gonna be anything like what's happened here. None whatsoever."
Since January, the NWS—a branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—has reduced its workforce by nearly 600 people as a direct result of staffing cuts ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, as part of Trump's mission to eviscerate numerous federal agencies.
This policy is in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government that calls for "dismantling" NOAA. Trump has also called for the elimination of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, arguing that states should shoulder most of the burden of extreme weather preparation and response. Shutting down FEMA would require an act of Congress.
Many of the fired NWS staffers were specialized climate scientists and weather forecasters. At the time of the firings, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, was among those who warned of the cuts' deadly consequences.
"People nationwide depend on NOAA for free, accurate forecasts, severe weather alerts, and emergency information," Huffman said. "Purging the government of scientists, experts, and career civil servants and slashing fundamental programs will cost lives."
Writing for the Texas Observer, Henry D. Jacoby—co-director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change—warned that "crucial data gathering systems are at risk."
"Federal ability to warn the public is being degraded," he added, "and it is a public service no state can replace."
On Friday, Trump put presidential pen to congressional Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a $4 trillion tax and spending package that effectively erases the landmark climate and clean energy provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act signed by then-President Joe Biden in 2022.
As Inside Climate News noted of the new law:
It stomps out incentives for purchasing electric vehicles and efficient appliances. It phases out tax credits for wind and solar energy. It opens up federal land and water for oil and gas drilling and increases its profitability, while creating new federal support for coal. It ends the historic investment in poor and minority communities that bear a disproportionate pollution burden—money that the Trump administration was already refusing to spend. It wipes out any spending on greening the federal government.
Furthermore, as MeidasNews editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski noted Saturday, "rural areas hit hardest by catastrophic storms are the same areas now in danger of losing their hospitals after Trump's Medicaid cuts just passed" as part of the budget reconciliation package.
At least one congressional Republican is ready to take action in the face of increasing extreme weather events. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who once attributed California wildfires to Jewish-controlled space lasers—announced Saturday that she is "introducing a bill that prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity."
"It will be a felony offense," she explained. "We must end the dangerous and deadly practice of weather modification and geoengineering."
Keep ReadingShow Less
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular