Chews Wise

Have Your Say: Organic Grazing Rule Comment Due Dec. 23

By Samuel Fromartz

If you've finished your holiday shopping and want to get your activist juices flowing, consider this for a minute: a crucial deadline is coming on Tuesday for comment on regulations for grazing organic livestock.

Grazing? Regulations? Before you click away, consider that organic dairy farmers have been fighting for at least 8 years to get a regulation in place that insures products like organic milk, remain organic. And that is important for a lot of people who drink organic milk -- the best-selling product in the organic market.

Here's the gist. We think of organic animals out on pasture, munching grass on an organic farm. But in the past, organic regulations required only that cows have "access to pasture" which was less than the words suggest. Some big operations flouted the rules, keeping their cows confined rather than out munching good, fresh grass. Access was a gate that was sometimes open, but mostly closed.

OK -- so after years of fighting, regulation writing, comment periods in which dairy farmers descended on Washington and asked for tougher regulations, the USDA's National Organic Program actually came up with one.

Parts of it are quite good, requiring at least 120 days on pasture and 30% nutrition from fresh grass. Farmers applauded. I called it a "big win for organic integrity" in a couple of media interviews.

I still view it that way -- but it needs some basic changes, ones which if they aren't made will actually have the effect of knocking the majority of organic livestock farmers out of the business.

How so?

Well, first off, the proposed regulation would require that cows be outside all year long. The common practice of putting them in a barn or a livestock pen in the winter when no grass is growing has been written off in favor of keeping them on land called "sacrificial pasture" during the non-grazing season.

That means that when the ground is frozen or covered in snow, the animals will be corralled onto a piece of pasture that is then sacrificed. The word is well chosen because the ground will be trodden, manure will accumulate and a good section of pasture will be lost probably for good due to soil compaction.

In rainy regions, like northern California or the Pacific Northwest, the situation may well be worse. Cows will be kept in muddy fields, causing manure runoff into streams, and potentially endangering the health and welfare of the animals.

"There's no recognition of regional or climate variations," Albert Straus, the owner of Straus Organic Dairy in Marin County, California, said. "If this goes through, there is a good chance we will no longer be organic."

He noted that keeping the animals out on pasture year-round contradicts state environmental regulations meant to prevent manure run-off during the winter rainy season.

In the northeast, the sentiment is much the same.  "Very few farmers use something like sacrificial pasture during the non-grazing season because they just don't have the land base, or the right soil type," said Ed Maltby, executive director the Northeast Organic Dairy Farmers Alliance, who was a vocal proponent for a new pasture regulation.

Instead, in places like Vermont and Maine, many organic dairy farmers bring their animals into barns for the coldest winter months, or keep them in barn yards where manure can be removed and fresh hay bedding provided. Then, when the grass is growing again in the spring, the cows are put out in fields.

In short, while many proponents were overjoyed that the USDA finally acted on getting a new pasture regulation, "it was way too perscriptive," said Jim Riddle, a longtime trainer of organic certifiers who served as chairman on the National Organic Standards Board that recommended new pasture regulations.

"To require an animal to graze during the grazing season does not require the level of detail in this proposed rule," he said.

There are many other issues with the regulation, but I will mention just one more -- a requirement that does away with grain finishing of organic livestock. Now, although I'm a proponent of grass-fed beef, a requirement that limits does away with grain finishing of organic beef animals would quash the organic meat market. (It does so by requiring 30% nutritional intake from pasture during the finishing period as well.) 

The result would be to block a lot of farmers from raising organic livestock and further shift the market to overseas producers in Australia and Uruguay who export organic meat to the U.S. market. (Yes, even with the growth and awareness of local foods).

Why do some U.S. organic farmers finish their animals on grain? Because they want to receive the premium they get with a "choice" USDA label, which requires the fat marbling that comes with grain finishing. They can avoid that if they raise grass fed animals and sell them direct to the public, but as much as I applaud that nascent movement, it is a minute portion of the market. Many Americans still want marbled beef, even if they are looking for the organic label.

"If the regulation stands, a lot of livestock farmers tell me they're going to get out of organic," said Dave Carter, another former NOSB chairman and executive director of the American Bison Association.

But it isn't just an economic issue. Riddle said that animals can be raised responsibly and organically and still be finished 120 days on grain. "An organic animal finished on grain is significantly different than a conventional animal finished on a CAFO," he said, because of organic requirements that ban antibiotics, hormones, and ensure environmental and humane animal treatment.

The National Organic Coalition came up with a compromise that allows grain finishing for 120 days but also requires the animals have access to pasture. At first glance, this imperfect compromise makes sense.

The main point -- the new regulation is a good one: it requires that animals graze. But it should be rewritten to be less prescriptive, so that farmers can actually meet its requirements and it achieves its broader goal; that is, getting animals out on grass but also protectng their health and the environment during the non-grazing season.

A number of organizations have the means for commenting to the USDA (with proposed language). Here are a few:

- Northeast Organic Dairy Farmers Alliance
- National Organic Coalition
- Organic Farming Reseach Foundation
- Organic Consumers Association
- Cornucopia Institute

But remember, comment is due Tuesday, so read this and act.

Image link: NODPA

Organic Pasture Rule, Part II

There was an early sense of relief at the USDA's newly proposed organic pasture rule, but the devil, as they say, is in the details. I've been hearing questions about the rule and its mandates that fall outside the much-debated 120-day, 30% forage minimum. I haven't digested the criticism or concern yet, so if you have, post a comment. I hope to write on this further as the issues gel.
- Samuel Fromartz

RFK Jr at EPA?

(Note: fixed headline... thanks for pointing out Barbara...)

Politico is reporting that "President-elect Barack Obama is strongly considering Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Environmental Protection Agency, a Cabinet post, Democratic officials told Politico."

Even David Roberts over at Grist.org was taken aback because of Kennedy's activist history, but, hey, maybe that's what the EPA needs. Last time I heard JFK Jr a couple of years back he was suing factory farm pork producers in North Carolina, just one in the long list of actions he's taken.
- Samuel Fromartz

Organic Pasture Rule Gets Media Ink

Bloomberg's Cindy Skrzycki had a good explanatory column on the organic pasture rule in the Washington Post, noting my "big win" comment she first read here. But she quoted others who questioned the USDA's motives, like Ronnie Cummins over at the Organic Consumers Association. The USDA has lost credibility in the past on decisions in the organic sector, so it will be interesting to see if this attempt to close the grazing loophole will restore its stature at all.

I also wonder if presidential politics played a role at all in the timing of the decision -- that is, in trying to get the rule through before a new administration comes in. The Bush administration is actually quite busy weakening regulations across the board so this might be that rare, under-the-radar instance of an actual tightening, reflecting a broad industry and consumer consensus. Still, they might have wanted to get it done before the new guys arrived and started meddling again ... just a guess.
- Samuel Fromartz

Organic Animals Must Graze, USDA Rules

Resolving a longstanding dispute, the USDA published a proposed pasture regulation that sets new grazing requirements for organic livestock and bans confined feedlots from the industry.

Dairy farmers had been pushing for this rule for at least three years, though variations had been proposed since at least 2000. According to the USDA's document on the regulation, published in the Federal Register, more than 85,000 people sent in letters in support of a stricter pasture requirement (pdf).

Advocates say the USDA actually got the new pasture regulation right. In a press release from the National Organic Coalition, Kathie Arnold, a New York State organic dairy farmer, said: “This draft rule provides specific language needed for enforcement of one of the central tenets of organically produced livestock—that organic livestock spend a considerable part of their lives in their natural pasture habitat and receive a significant portion of their food from fresh, green, growing pasture.”

Previously, the USDA required organic livestock to have "access to pasture," a term that was so loosely interpreted that  several prominent organic CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) arose in the industry, housing thousands of cows with little or no grazing on pasture. The pasture loophole undermined the purpose and intent of organic livestock agriculture.

Now, "Dry lots and feedlots are prohibited," the proposed regulation says.

Animals must graze throughout the growing season, which in some regions may be for the entire year. The bare minimum nationally would be 120 days. In the document, the USDA explains:

In the United States, growing seasons range from 121 days to 365 days, depending on location. By using the growing season as the minimum time period for grazing, the regulations ensure that ruminants raised in areas with longer grazing periods are not denied the opportunity to graze for more than the minimum of 120 days.

In addition 30% of a cow's nutritional needs must be met by pasture, which means they must be eating fresh grass.

If this rule is adopted, as expected, after the 60 day comment period, it will undo the disturbing rise of organic CAFOs and require that organic livestock graze on pasture, as consumers and farmers overwhelmingly expect.

In short, the regulation looks like a big win for organic integrity.

- Samuel Fromartz

Time To Boot HFCS out of Organic

In my mind, the words organic and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) are oxymorons. How could you have such a product? Well, among most of those I talk to in the organic world, you can't.

A recent comment by the FDA seems to seal the matter further, since the agency deemed the substance "non-natural." Why is that an important distinction in the world of organic foods? Because unnatural food ingredients cannot be organic. Indeed, so called "synthetic" food ingredients cannot be used in organic food production unless they are specifically given an exemption on a regulatory list, and then, they cannot account for more than 5 percent of the ingredients in an organic product.

So what's the status of organic HFCS? Well a Santa Cruz-based company (and OTA member) sells an organic version of HFCS, which is produced by an Austrian ingredient company. Now organic HFCS may actually be allowed under EC rules, but given the "non-natural" distinction at the FDA, at the very least, it should not be allowed under US organic rules without an exemption. And I'd love to see the response to that application!

Surf & Turf: The Good, Bad and Ugly

By now, you've probably heard about or seen the video released by the Humane Society depicting the unspeakably grotesque, not to mention, illegal, inhumane treatment of animals at a slaughterhouse in California. Workers rammed the animals with a fork lift and stun guns to try and get downer cows to stand up and qualify for a meat inspection so they could be slaughtered. This meat was destined for school lunch programs.

This video was shot by an employee working undercover with the humane organization and was so shocking it elicited a comment from the USDA Secretary. Even in the wake of Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, continual scandals about e. coli in meat, repeated embargoes on US meat exports because of inadequate inspections, this type of thing occurs. The USDA is asleep at the wheel - or worse, has put on blinders to avoid the obvious.

Lest we get direly pessimistic, there was faintly encouraging news on the fish front, where more retailers are moving towards certified sustainable fisheries. The Marine Stewardship Council is the recognized certifier in this field. The Economist reports that:

Rupert Howes, the MSC’s chief executive, says that while it took seven years for the first 500 MSC-labelled products to appear, the next 500 took only another nine months.

Today there are 1,123 products with an MSC label around the world. Although consumer recognition remains low today, many wholesale buyers recognise the label, and demand for sustainably sourced fish is growing fast.

Wal-Mart has taken a major step, with one-quarter of its seafood counter now MSC certified (and prompting a mea culpa from one friend of mine). If you include fish Wal-Mart sells that are on the way to certification, that moves up to 50-60 percent. Globally, MSC certified stocks represent only 7 percent of the fish supply, but they are fast increasing -- and more importantly, putting increasing pressure on retailers to move in this direction.

With the USDA losing credibility, might a private regime similar to MSC's have more credibility in the meat market and with consumers? Will private certification schemes fill the humane vacuum? Or will we rely on assurances from the USDA that it will get things right?

- Samuel Fromartz

Pennsylvania Does About-Face on Milk Labeling

Under pressure from consumer groups, dairy associations and farmers, Pennsylvania did a 180-degree turn Thursday and decided not to limit milk labeling standards. (See our previous story for an in-depth look at this issue).

The decision means that farmers and processors can continue to state on milk labels that they do not use synthetic growth hormones - rBST or rBGH - a label that many consumers seek out. The state had sought to limit those statements beginning in February.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

The ban was to take effect Feb. 1, to the dismay of consumer activists and many smaller dairies who choose not to inject their cows with hormones. But the move was superseded by new standards issued today, after a review by the office of Gov. Rendell.

Rendell ordered the agency to review the policy after consumer outcry, his spokesman said

"The governor's position was relatively simple: he wanted the labels to be accurate and informative," said Rendell's press secretary Chuck Ardo.

"It's basically a complete back-down," said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the nonprofit group Consumers Union, which had opposed the ban.

Given the firestorm over this issue, expect to see similar "absence" claims once cloned animals and their progeny hit the food supply: "This milk produced without clones and without rBGH".

- Samuel Fromartz

Cloning a Post, Cloning a Post, Cloning...

For those interested in the flood of news and analysis on the cloning decision by the FDA, check out the Ethicurean's "issue watch" round up of articles, blogs and press releases on the subject. (I've cloned their bovine graphic at left). Once again, the blog is proving itself as the must-eat salad bar for food-related news and opinion.

Now my 2 cents:

For now, it appears, mainstream food companies are being very cautious about the cloning technology, now wanting to upset or get ahead of consumers. But it will be interesting to see what happens as more progeny of clones appear. Will they enter into the food supply in a stealth manner, like genetically modified crops? Business Week pointed out that Monsanto targeted industrial crops for GMOs so that consumers would be one-step removed from them: they appear largely as components in food ingredients (as animal feed, high fructose corn syrup, and soy derived products such as vegetables oils and lecithin) or now as ethanol. So pehaps the first cloned products will be industrial dried milk products used in processed foods. When the public is aware of GMOS, they tend to get queasy -- hence the dramatic rise in demand for milk from cows that have not been treated with genetically modified growth hormones.

While GMOs took over the US commodity corn and soybean market, they are still highly controversial overseas. Given the extreme difficulty US beef exports have had overseas in places like South Korea and Japan, due to concerns about the USDA's inadequate inspection regime and mad cow disease, cloning won't help this market. (Asia has shifted largely to Australian sources). The US is creating a high-tech food supply that the rest of the world would rather do without. And don't be fooled that this technology is about feeding the world: it is extremely expensive and creates intellectual property for the owners behind it. What it does not do is create the means for food-scarce people to feed themselves.

So what's the alternative? Organic, since the cloned animals are (and progeny will likely be) banned from organic methods under USDA regulations, according to this National Organic Program memo (pdf) and Q&A (pdf) on the subject.

- Samuel Fromartz

USDA Gives Update on Organic Pasture Rule

A new organic pasture regulation has been fully reviewed by the USDA, bringing it one-step closer to completion, Barbara Robinson, deputy administrator for the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP), said Wednesday.

In an update at the National Organic Standards Board meeting underway in Arlington, Virginia, Robinson said the the NOP is working on the supplemental language to the regulation, dealing with the economic impact of the regulation, compliance with the paperwork reduction act, and impact on small producers. "We're going to get this done shortly and then it goes over the OMB (Office of Management and Budget)," she said.

USDA expects to run into some issues with OMB, which has viewed every organic regulation except for materials as a "major rule" that needs extra vetting. That means OMB will likely take another 60 days for review, in which time Congress will also get to look at it. Robinson said she plans to visit with OMB when USDA first sends over the regulation for review to impress the importance of it.

The upshot seems to be that the regulation won't be out of OMB until late first-quarter, which presumably is when it will first be published for comment.

A wide coalition of organic dairy farmers is pushing for a requirement that ruminants receive at least 30 percent of their nutritional needs from fresh grass during the growing season, but not less than 120 days.   Currently, the organic regulations only require "access to pasture," which meant a cow might rarely get a blade of fresh grass and live out its productive life on feedlots. A clear pasture regulation would end that practice, though it is unknown what the final rule will actually say.

Organic dairy farmers have been pushing for a change in this regulation since at least 2000, and the new rule change language has been under review at the USDA since 2005.