February, 15 2017, 09:00am EDT
Fighting Among Corporate Organic Factions Places Organic Animal Welfare in Limbo / Trump Administration to Decide the Fate
Dueling Corporate Interests Wait to See What the New Trump/Perdue Administration Will Do with the Pending Updates to Organic Animal Welfare Standards
CORNUCOPIA, WI.
One of the pending regulations released in the final days of the Obama administration, and put on hold by the Trump White House, was an already controversial rule that pits legitimate family-scale organic farmers against the operators of "factory farms" that had already been accused of violating existing organic animal welfare standards. A newly released analysis by a prominent organic industry watchdog, The Cornucopia Institute, explains what is at stake and why economically powerful forces in organics are squawking, principally, over new space requirements proposed for chickens.
The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Rule was published in the Federal Register on January 19, 2017, and amends current organic livestock and poultry production requirements. The new rule adds provisions for livestock handling, avian living conditions, and transport for slaughter, and expands and clarifies existing requirements covering livestock care and production practices. It includes mandates for the care of cattle, hogs, and poultry.
"The new rulemaking was in response to a more than decade-long controversy about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or factory farms, confining as many as two million laying hens on a single 'farm' without the legally mandated access to the outdoors," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst at The Cornucopia Institute. "This rule neither solves the problem nor makes any faction in the industry happy," Kastel added.
Farmers who produce eggs or raise chickens for meat, and abide by the requirements for outdoor access, or go even further and rotate their animals on high quality pasture, felt betrayed by weak recommendations to the USDA that came out of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), a congressionally mandated USDA advisory panel. At the time, the recommendations were shepherded through by the employee of one of the major organic egg producers, Organic Valley.
The NOSB recommendations, which were incorporated into the pending rule, call for approximately 2 ft2 per bird outdoors. In addition, although cages remain banned, multi-level "aviary systems" are allowed, and they are not required to provide more than approximately 1 ft2 per bird indoors. For comparison, Organic Valley requires 5 ft2 per bird of outdoor access for their farmers producing eggs, and European Union organic regulations require 43 ft2 per bird.
"Our analysis indicates that the inadequacy of these rules puts them in direct conflict with existing regulatory language that requires farmers to establish and maintain year-round livestock living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of the animals," said Marie Burcham, a Cornucopia researcher and an attorney with training in environmental and animal law.
For poultry, to avoid undue stress that can cause aggressive behavior and injuries to flock mates, birds need adequate space to engage in "foraging behavior." This includes scratching and pecking at the ground for seeds, invertebrates, grass, and weeds.
"When deprived access to adequate, high-quality outdoor space, birds can become aggressive, which leads confinement-based egg producers to trim the animals' beaks. This practice makes it more difficult for birds to forage, and isn't needed on pasture-based farms. Unfortunately, it's still viewed as necessary and allowed under the new regulations," said Burcham.
The USDA announced last Wednesday that the new rule would be delayed for 60 days, until May 19.
Industrial egg lobby groups are happy to see this rule tabled. The conventional egg industry, which has invested in "organic" confinement egg production, is calling on the USDA to rescind the rule for good.
"After making campaign contributions to key members of Congress, and lobbying for the rule's demise, there is a chance these big-industry groups will get their wish. With the extensive new requirements for poultry, including laying hens, conventional egg producers who dip their toe into 'organic' agriculture will find it more costly to operate," Burcham added.
The controversy came to a head after the USDA failed to enforce regulations requiring 'all organic livestock to have access to the outdoors. The agency was allowing major egg producers a loophole by recognizing small porches with concrete floors and ceilings as satisfying the required "outdoor" space.
"In most instances, even if a court would accept that an enclosed structure was 'outdoors,' these minute porches typically only hold 1-3% of the birds," said Cornucopia's Kastel. "Thus, 97% of the birds are being illegally confined and the USDA has refused to take action. Their failure to do so is economically injuring the majority of law-abiding and ethical organic farmers."
While the largest conventional egg industry players are fighting the new rule because it will disallow porches, more moderate-sized operators who typically keep around 20,000 birds to a building and the Organic Trade Association are delighted and pushing for implementation.
"Two square feet of space, without adequate doors, and accompanying regulations that would actually encourage the birds to go outside, will do nothing to change current industry practices that result in the confinement of the vast majority of organic chickens," stated Burcham. "The proposal for 2 ft2 outdoors and 1-1.5 ft2 indoors, depending on the building design, will encourage business as usual for moderate-sized operations while seriously disrupting their factory farm competitors."
Due to lack of enforcement by the USDA, Cornucopia has produced research reports and associated brand scorecards, including one for organic eggs. The scorecards help eaters identify farms and companies that are adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the law. Many of the identified operations go well beyond the regulations.
"Whether this rule is implemented or not, we will not be changing our practices at World's Best Eggs," said Cameron Molberg, an organic egg producer from Elgin, Texas who has earned one of the top ratings on Cornucopia's organic egg scorecard. World's Best Eggs rotationally pastures 30,000 chickens in multiple mobile coops that are frequently moved to fresh grass.
"We are already selling a product that is produced to standards far above what is currently required or proposed by the USDA," Molberg added. "But if these rules go into effect, and/or the USDA continues to fail to enforce the organic law, the real losers are the consumers who are hungry for authenticity and a better egg."
MORE:
For a detailed analysis and notes on the complete new rule, including the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service's responses to public comments, please visit Cornucopia's Organic Livestock notes and analysis document. This white paper includes a legal analysis of the inconsistencies found throughout the new rule, especially in relation to animal wellbeing.
An additional source of quotes critiquing the pending organic animal husbandry rule can be found at Cornucopia.org.
Texas farmer Cameron Molberg is a former board member of the Texas Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association and was one of the country's top rated egg farmers, on The Cornucopia Institute's scorecard, prior to his election to serve on the nonprofit's board of directors.
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
Judge Slaps Down RFK Jr's Likely 'Unlawful' Mass Layoffs at HHS
"We're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires," said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong.
Jul 01, 2025
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked planned mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services while declaring that the firings were likely unlawful.
Judge Melissa DuBose of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Trump administration exceeded its legal authority when it moved to lay off thousands of HHS employees on the grounds that such large-scale firings would leave the agency unable to fulfill its legislatively mandated duties that can only be altered by an act of Congress.
"The executive branch is vested with the power and is imbued with the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws which govern the governance structure of our country," wrote DuBose. "The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress."
DuBose further noted that courts have the power to "set aside" actions taken by federal agencies that are "unlawful," and she argued that the actions taken by HHS under the leadership of Trump-appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely flouted the law.
The judge granted a preliminary injunction against the agency and blocked it from carrying out its planned reduction in staffing that it first announced this past March 27. HHS has until July 11 to file a status report affirming compliance with the court's order.
The lawsuit was originally filed by the attorneys general of 19 states plus the District of Columbia, who alleged that the layoffs violated the United States Constitution's separation of powers doctrine, as well as the Constitution's appropriations clause and the Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits agencies from taking "arbitrary and capricious" actions.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong took a victory lap in the wake of the ruling but cautioned that there was still a long fight ahead to save HHS.
President Donald Trump and Kennedy "are playing dangerous games with the health and safety of American families, and we just stopped them," he said. "Today's order means vital programs and services—including those supporting Head Start, disease monitoring at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and Medicaid eligibility, and others—will remain accessible. This is still the beginning of a long fight ahead, but we're not going to let Trump and RFK Jr. dismantle our nation's health systems to promote conspiracy theories and tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Know It's a Terrible Bill': Murkowski Helps GOP Gut Safety Net After 'Bribe' Shields Her State
Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the deciding vote to pass Republicans' massive social safety net cuts through the Senate. She said she didn't like the bill, but voted for it anyway after getting Alaska exempted from some of its worst harms.
Jul 01, 2025
By the thinnest possible margin, the U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a budget that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history while giving trillions of dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
The deciding vote was Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who admitted she didn't like the bill. However, she voted for it regardless after securing relief for her home state from some of its most draconian cuts.
But in an interview immediately afterward, she acknowledged that the rest of the country, where millions are on track to lose their healthcare coverage and food assistance, would not be so lucky.
"Do I like this bill? No," Murkowski told a reporter for MSNBC. "I try to take care of Alaska's interests. I know that in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill. I don't like that."
The 887-page bill includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions.
In recent days, Murkowski—a self-described "Medicaid moderate"—expressed hesitation about signing onto a list of such devastating cuts, calling the vote "agonizing". To get her on board, her Republican colleagues were willing to give her state some shelter from the coming storm.
As David Dayen explained in The American Prospect, Murkowski was able to secure a waiver that exempts Alaska from the newly implemented cost-sharing requirement that will force states to spend more of their budgets on SNAP.
In The New Republic, Robert McCoy described it as a "bribe."
Initially, Republicans attempted to simply write in a carve-out for Alaska and Hawaii. But after this was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian, they tried again with a measure that exempted the 10 states with the highest error rates.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called it "the most absurd example of the hypocrisy of the Republican bill."
"They have now proposed delaying SNAP cuts FOR TWO YEARS ONLY FOR STATES with the highest error rates just to bury their help for Alaska," she said.
Murkowski also got a tax break for Alaskan fishing villages inserted into the bill. She attempted to have Alaska exempted from some Medicaid cuts as well, but the parliamentarian killed the measure.
"Did I get everything that I wanted? Absolutely not," she told reporters outside the Senate chamber.
However, as Dayen wrote, "Murkowski decided that she could live with a bill that takes food and medicine from vulnerable people to fund tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy, as long as it didn't take quite as much food away from Alaskans."
Murkowski showed herself to be well aware of the harms the bill will cause. After voting to pass the bill, she said, "My hope is that the House is gonna look at this and recognize that we're not there yet."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called Murkowski's bargain "selfish," "cruel," and "expensive."
"Voting for the bill because [of] a carve-out for your state is open acknowledgement that people will get kicked off healthcare and will have to go to much more expensive emergency rooms," Jayapal wrote. "Clear you know it's a terrible bill for everyone."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Break It Down': Mamdani Gives His Perspective on Historic NYC Win
Zohran Mamdani solidified his win in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor with the release of ranked choice voting results.
Jul 01, 2025
Last week, democratic socialist and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani stunned in an upset victory over disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary—sparking broader conversations about the future of the party and sending shockwaves through the American political system.
One week later, on Tuesday, Mamdani both solidified his win thanks to the release of the election's ranked choice voting results and unveiled a new video highlighting factors that in his view were key to his campaign's success. Mamdani credits his relentless focus on affordability and a commitment to reaching all New York City voters, including those who have previously voted for U.S. President Donald Trump, are inconsistent primary voters, or who speak languages besides English.
The goal, in Mamdani's words, was nothing short of rebuilding "a coalition that had frayed over years of disappointment and neglect, to win people back to a Democratic Party that puts working people first."
On Tuesday, New York City's Board of Elections announced the ranked-choice voting results from the June 24 primary, underscoring Mamdani's decisive victory. Mamdani secured 56% of the vote compared to Cuomo's 44%. All other candidates' votes were reallocated to Mamdani and Cuomo in the third round of voting. All told, some 545,000 New Yorkers ranked Mamdani on their ballots.
In the video, Mamdani touted some of his impressive margins, including his ability to win over districts that had gone for Trump in the last election, noting the inroads that Trump made in New York City in 2024. According to an analysis from Gothamist, Mamdani won 30% of primary election districts Trump carried in the general election last year.
Mamdani said his campaign achieved this by visiting areas that went for Trump, "not to lecture, but to listen."
He also said that his campaign knew it could turn out less consistent primary voters if "they saw themselves in our policies."
"We ran a campaign that tried to talk to every New Yorker, whether I could speak their languages or just tried to... and the coalition that came out on Tuesday, reflected the mosaic of these five boroughs," Mamdani said.
As part of the focus on connecting with voters, Mamdani put out campaign videos with him speaking in languages like Hindi and Spanish.
On Election Day, Mamdani led in areas with majority Asian, white, and Hispanic voters, while Cuomo led in areas with majority Black voters. "We narrowed Andrew Cuomo once sizable lead with Black voters, outright winning young Black New Yorkers in neighborhoods like Harlem and Flatbush," he said.
Mamdani also highlighted that he trounced Cuomo despite the super political action committee money supporting the former governor.
"We rewrote the rule book by, get this, talking to New Yorkers," he said. "Politics in this city won't ever be the same, and it's all thanks to you. The next chapter begins today New York."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular