November, 22 2010, 10:37am EDT
Conventional Cattle on Factory Dairies Producing "Organic" Milk
Illegal Practice Damaging Family Farmers and Defrauding Consumers
CORNUCOPIA, WI
A Wisconsin-based farm policy research group, The Cornucopia Institute,
announced this week that it is filing a formal legal complaint in an attempt to
immediately halt the USDA from allowing factory farms producing
"organic" milk from bringing conventional dairy cattle onto their farms.
Cornucopia claims the practice, which places family-scale farmers at a
competitive disadvantage, is explicitly prohibited in the federal regulations
governing the organic industry.
Conventional replacement dairy calves, typically bought at auctions,
likely receive antibiotics, toxic insecticides and parasiticides as well as
conventional feed during their first year of life before being
"converted" to organics-all practices strictly prohibited in
organic production.
"Real organic farmers don't buy replacement heifers," said
Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia
Institute. "Real organic farmers sell [surplus] heifers."
Demonstrably lower levels of stress, superior health and improved
vitality of the cows separates authentic organic dairy farms from factory farms
masquerading as organic, according to the farm policy research group.
"In the factory farm model, the animals are pushed for such high
production that, just like in the conventional confinement model, after as few
as 1 to 2 years they are so sick, or they are not healthy enough to breed, that
they are slaughtered," Kastel clarified. "Organic cows are
generally so healthy, and live such long lives, that many of the baby calves
born can be sold to other farmers, creating an alternative revenue stream for
organic farmers."
"We have very healthy
young stock,"
said Dave Minar, an organic dairy farmer from New Prague, Minnesota. A
calf on Minar's farm stays with its mother for 6-8 weeks after its birth.
The calves also become acclimated to the milking parlor (as its mother comes in
to be milked every day) and "they are building antibodies when
nursing," Minar added.
Reportedly, because of the illegal practice of bringing conventional
heifers onto organic farms, many organic producers cannot receive a premium
when selling their surplus certified organic calves and heifers.
Policy experts ask the question as to how federal bureaucrats, starting
during the Bush administration, could have possibly blessed a practice that is
explicitly banned in the USDA federal organic standards.
Former USDA National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) Chairman Jim
Riddle, currently with the University of Minnesota, states, "To allow the
continuous introduction of conventional heifers onto organic farms is contrary
to a holistic, systems-based approach; plus, it allows animals that may have
been given antibiotics or hormones, fed genetically engineered feed, or
consumed slaughter by-products [to be brought onto organic farms]."
All the practices referenced by Riddle are banned in the organic standards.
The current federal livestock standards (SS205.236
Origin of Livestock) state: "Once an entire, distinct herd has been
converted to organic production, all dairy animals shall be under organic
management from the last third of gestation." Meaning, before the
calf is even born, it must be managed organically.
New York farmer Kathie Arnold, a recognized leader in the organic dairy
community, made her feelings clear, "Now that a tough pasture rule is in
place, the next very important and needed piece of organic dairy standards work
is the realm of dairy replacement animals, in order to have a fair and
equitable standard that is the same for all farms."
For years, the USDA allowed giant organic factory dairies, milking as
many as 10,000 cows, to confine their animals in huge feedlots and buildings
instead of providing them "access to pasture" as required by federal
law. Sparked by Cornucopia's legal complaints against Aurora Dairy,
Dean Foods and others operating phony "organic" feedlot dairies, a
movement began to close loopholes and clarify pasture requirements for feed and
grazing. The USDA's release of strict new pasture rules this past
February counts as a major victory for organic family farms and consumers.
But bringing in yearling heifers and "converting them to
organic," by managing them organically (organic feed and no banned drugs)
during the second year of their life has become standard operating practice at some
of the same large industrial dairies.
"Another highly-objectionable facet of the illegal laundering of
conventional calves is they are likely fed 'milk replacer' instead of fresh
organic milk," noted Kastel.
Feeding milk replacer instead of milk further pads the bottom line of
the giant factory dairies. Rather than feed fresh organic milk to their
calves, they instead sell that milk to dairy processors. Milk replacer
might also contain risky materials tied to bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) that are also explicitly banned in organic production and produces cows
with weaker immune systems, more susceptible to disease.
Cornucopia's latest formal legal complaint, in defense of
family-scale farmers, spotlights the Natural Prairie Dairy in Dalhart, Texas.
The dairy, milking over 7000 cows in two barns, is thought to be the largest
certified organic dairy in the United
States.
"They are likely selling well over $1 million worth of milk a
year, at wholesale farmgate pricing, that would otherwise be legally required
to be fed to their calves," Kastel affirmed. "This illegal and
unfair competition has to be stopped immediately."
Just as they delayed the enforcement requiring pasture, and precluding
the feedlot confinement of organic dairy cows, the USDA has claimed they need
new rulemaking in order to close loopholes allowing conventional cattle to be
brought onto organic operations.
Although it appears that the new administration at the USDA recognizes
the impropriety of the current practice, their proposed solution has also been
to develop new tighter regulations. Many industry observers are concerned
that the rulemaking process could take another two years, or longer, until
tighter regulations go into effect.
"The market for organic milk is tightening right now, in late
2010. If major industrial producers are able to continue to bring in
conventional cattle, they will force down prices paid to family farmers,
endangering their livelihoods," Kastel said. "That's why the timing
of this enforcement, by the USDA, is so critical."
Cornucopia contends that protecting
consumer confidence in organics is possibly the most important reason to take
action on these abuses, which undermine the credibility of the organic label.
"One of the reasons that almost every
member-owned natural foods cooperative in the nation no longer sells Horizon
dairy products [owned by the dairy giant Dean Foods] is they were allowing the
same troubling practice of bringing in conventional cattle," said Natasha
Gill, of the Marquette Food Cooperative in Michigan.
"When they spend extra on organic
milk, consumers feel they are supporting both humane animal husbandry and
economic fairness for the farmers who produce their food. These illegal
practices have to stop now," Gill added
MORE:
The Cornucopia Institute has published a
comprehensive report on organic dairy, including a scorecard rating over 120
brands of organic dairy products (milk, cheese, butter, ice cream etc.).
It is designed to empower consumers and wholesale buyers so that they can make
good purchasing decisions, rewarding the true organic farming heroes in the
marketplace: www.cornucopia.org
A copy of the formal legal complaint filed
by The Cornucopia Institute can be found at: https://www.cornucopia.org/USDA/NaturalPrairieComplaint.pdf
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
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
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular