For Immediate Release
George Kimbrell; 971-271-7372; email@example.com
Defenders of Organic Integrity Win Victory for Transparency and Open Government
Organic producers and stakeholders gain access to documentation of Trump decision to withdraw animal welfare standards for organic livestock
San Francisco, CA - Today, the Federal District Court in San Francisco agreed with organic farmers, consumers, and animal welfare advocates that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) cannot hide communications and documents that led up to the controversial decision by the Trump administration to withdraw the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule (OLPP), which would have required animal welfare standards on farms producing organic meat.
“As the Trump Administration’s policy of hiding documents from public view is contrary to law and good government, we are thrilled that the Court blocked this attempt to keep Americans in the dark about USDA’s unlawful withdrawal of hard-won animal care standards backing organic meat, dairy, and eggs,” said George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety (CFS) legal director and counsel in the case. “We will use this victory to continue to protect the public’s right to transparency in government and a meaningful organic label.”
10 years in the making, the "Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices" rule was sought by organic producers and stakeholders to provide much-needed detail in the standards for organic livestock care, especially outdoor access for egg-laying hens and poultry. A coalition of organic stakeholders — including the National Organic Coalition of organic farmers and retailers — challenged the withdrawal of these standards as arbitrary and contrary to federal law, but USDA withheld “a voluminous number of documents” from the record. In its order, the Court held that agencies cannot hide their internal documents leading up to a decision, because these are part of the universe of materials the agency considered. USDA’s internal documents may reveal why the agency took a 180-degree turn from nearly three decades of organic policy and withdrew a rule wanted by the vast majority of the organic community.
“To ensure the integrity of the Certified Organic label, USDA must work transparently with organic stakeholders — including farmers, consumer advocacy groups, and other members of the organic industry — not keep its decision-making behind closed doors,” said Abby Youngblood, executive director at the National Organic Coalition. “The OLPP standards were a much-needed improvement to animal welfare in organic standards and had the support of thousands in the organic community; USDA’s withdrawal of that rule, as well as the lack of transparency surrounding its withdrawal, flies in the face of organic integrity.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Never Miss a Beat.
Get our best delivered to your inbox.
Judge Seeborg of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California said in the order that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a “broad definition” of the whole record, upon which the court evaluates agency decisions and whether they are lawful based on the evidence in the record. The order follows a long line of courts in the Northern District of California requiring agencies to provide the court, as well as citizens challenging agency decisions, with internal documents. As an alternative, agencies and citizens were given the option to affirmatively assert and explain why specific items are privileged and may be withheld. To ensure that those voices calling for USDA to implement the livestock standards are not lost, the Court also required USDA to include the 47,000 public comments it received in response to its first notice that it might withdraw the OLPP.
Consumers of organic products expect that animals raised for organic meat, dairy, and eggs were treated humanely and were able to engage in natural behaviors in their upbringing. Those expectations were not consistently being met before the OLPP, mostly due to a few large egg producers cutting corners and raising hens in confinement with no real outdoor access, which presented a major disadvantage to the majority of the producers of organic products, most of whom raise animals humanely.
Represented by CFS legal counsel, the plaintiffs are Center for Food Safety, Center for Environmental Health, Cultivate Oregon, International Center for Technology Assessment, the National Organic Coalition, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.
Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.
Please select a donation method:
Center for Food Safety is a national, non-profit, membership organization founded in 1997 to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. CFS maintains offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, California and Portland, Oregon, and has more than 300,000 members across the country.