VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

July 13, 2016

Dr. Paul Lewis

Director, Standards Division

National Organic Program

Agricultural Marketing Service

United States Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 20250–0268

Re: Docket No. AMS–NOP–15–0012, NOP–15–06PR, Regulatory Information No.

0581-AD44; National Organic Program, Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices,

Proposed Rule

Dear Dr. Lewis:

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on

the proposed livestock and poultry practices rule under the National Organic Program.

NPPC conducts public-policy outreach on behalf of its 43 affiliated state pork association

members. American pork producers appreciate the ongoing role of USDA’s Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) in supporting our industry, and it is in this spirit that we

request a careful re-evaluation of this proposal.

NPPC opposes the proposed Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule. The Organic

Food Production Act of 1990 limited its scope for consideration of livestock as organic to

feeding and medication practices. NPPC urges AMS and the National Organic Standards

Board to honor this mandate and not expand the National Organic Program with

requirements and standards that are not germane to its intent. We offer the following

comments to support this position:

1. Animal handling practices are not a defining characteristic of organic

agriculture and are not germane to the National Organic Program as

authorized by Congress.

The National Organic Program was established by Act of Congress to ensure

consistency and legitimacy in applying organic production claims to food product

labels. Deliberation of the Organic Food Production Act was framed by the

commonly understood concept of organic agriculture: the production of food

without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics, genetically modified

organisms, or growth hormones.

Congress laid the groundwork for organic livestock products by setting

parameters around how animals could be fed and when and what types of

medications could be provided. Congress did provide that the National Organic

Standards Board could recommend additional provisions to the Secretary of

Agriculture if necessary, but these should be germane to the Act. As the Act is

limited in scope solely to organic production, it must follow that any regulation

enacted pursuant to it must be narrowly confined to specific practices that

differentiate organic from any other method of agricultural production.

Attention to animal welfare – either generally or through specific adherence to

any or all of the practices in the proposed rule – is not in any way unique to

organic production. As indicated in the documents accompanying the proposed

rule, there are many animal welfare certifying and labeling programs that are

available to both organic and conventional producers. Adoption of these specified

practices by organic producers will in no way differentiate them from non-organic

producers also utilizing them; they do not in any substantive way make the

resulting products more “organic” as the term is commonly understood in the

agricultural community.

Furthermore, the USDA must acknowledge that animal welfare has never been

incorporated into any definition or explanation of organic agriculture that has

been widely disseminated under its aegis since the inception of the National

Organic Program. In April 1995, the National Organic Standards Board defined

organic agriculture as “an ecological production management system that

promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity.

It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that

restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.” It also defined organic as “a

labeling term that denotes products produced under the authority of the Organic

Foods Production Act. The principal guidelines for organic production are to use

materials and practices that enhance the ecological balance of natural systems and

that integrate the parts of the farming system into an ecological whole.”

This framework for consideration of what is organic agriculture was codified

under the National Organic Program. 7 CFR Part 205, Subpart A defines

“organic production” as “A production system that is managed in accordance with

the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by

integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of

resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”

The USDA elaborated on this concept of organic agriculture as an ecologically

focused, input-based production system in its 2006 Sustainable Agriculture

Research and Education Bulletin, Transitioning to Organic Production. It states:

“Organic farming entails: Use of cover crops, green manures, animal manures and

crop rotations to fertilize the soil, maximize biological activity and maintain long-

term soil health … Use of biological control, crop rotations and other techniques

to manage weeds, insects and diseases … An emphasis on biodiversity of the

agricultural system and the surrounding environment … Using rotational grazing

and mixed forage pastures for livestock operations and alternative health care for

animal wellbeing … Reduction of external and off-farm inputs and elimination of

synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and other materials, such as hormones and

antibiotics … A focus on renewable resources, soil and water conservation, and

management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological balance.”

In 2007, the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension

Service in its publication Organic Agriculture Overview indicates “Organic

production is not simply the avoidance of conventional chemical inputs, nor is it

the substitution of natural inputs for synthetic ones. Organic farmers apply

techniques first used thousands of years ago, such as crop rotations and the use of

composted animal manures and green manure crops, in ways that are

economically sustainable in today’s world. In organic production, overall system

health is emphasized, and the interaction of management practices is the primary

concern. Organic producers implement a wide range of strategies to develop and

maintain biological diversity and replenish soil fertility.”

Not one of these publications highlights, or indeed even mentions, consideration

of animal welfare as a defining characteristic of organic agriculture. Given the

mandate provided by Congress in the Organic Food Production Act and the

USDA’s own history of characterizing organic agriculture as a production system

focused on biological diversity and soil fertility, NPPC strongly questions the

justification for this proposed rule; there is no evidence provided that it is

necessary to maintain the integrity of the organic label as it was authorized.

Certainly, as the USDA indicates in its justification, there is a sub-set of organic

producers who would like a simple label claim for their animal welfare

preferences. This desire is not unique to organic producers and does not make

consideration of animal welfare the exclusive, defining purview of organic

producers. NPPC, in conjunction with several other organizations, has submitted

additional comment pertaining specifically to the legal authority of the Secretary

to promulgate this rule under the Organic Food Production Act.

2. The proposed livestock practices will be costly (if even practicable) to

implement for current organic producers and serve as a barrier to new

producers entering organic production, without making the resulting

products substantively more organic.

The proposed standards, several of which run counter to best management

practices to protect animal health and the environment, may actually have the

effect of depressing organic production. AMS highlights this by indicating that

up to 90 percent of current organic aviaries could exit the program. This estimate

is reasonable, given the prohibitive costs of retrofitting existing facilities to meet

the new requirements. Current organic producers have understandably designed

and even located their enterprises around existing organic standards. AMS

assumptions that organic producers will readily be able to acquire additional land

– and that such land will not be subject to environmental regulations precluding

its use for livestock – are not substantiated and do not seem to account for

geographic variability in organic production sites.

AMS has also limited its consideration of the impacts and costs of this proposal in

submitted supporting documents to the poultry sector; impacts on the livestock

sector are dismissed by an unsubstantiated claim that they will be minimal. NPPC

is concerned that this may not in fact be the case. In particular, AMS should give

careful consideration to the effect that this proposal may have in discouraging

new entry into organic livestock production. Looking specifically at pork, the

proposed standards, particularly the outdoor access to “soil” requirement, would

make it exceedingly difficult for existing pork producers to transition to organic

production.

The standards will increase the cost of organic livestock products without making

them more “organic” by any standard definition. Rather than expanding organic

livestock production, the standards could reduce the number of organic producers.

It should also be noted that this proposed rule, given its rigid insistence on

outdoor access to enclosures that are at least half “soil” with few and narrow

exceptions, may also place organic producers in a position that runs counter to the

established ecological and soil health focus of organic agriculture, not to mention

a myriad of other federal, state, and local mandates concerning environmental

protection and land use.

The very origin of the organic movement’s preference for outdoor management of

livestock relates to utilizing carefully managed grazing ruminants to manage

pasture growth and improve soil fertility, not because it promotes animal welfare.

Indeed, ruminants such as cattle and sheep can be utilized effectively in this way.

But this is not uniformly true of all livestock species. The USDA need only look

to the extensive and costly activities of its Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service’s Wildlife Services in attempting to control feral pig populations for

examples of the ecological damage that free-ranging pigs can cause. It is possible

to house large groups of pigs outdoors, but given their rooting and foraging

behavior, it cannot be claimed that such an activity favors biodiversity within any

such enclosure. Mandating extensive enclosures for pigs, on tenuous animal

welfare grounds, under the National Organic Program can reasonably be viewed

as antithetical to its very rationale.

3. Consumer misconception about the intent of the National Organic Program

and the meaning of its label is not a valid rationale for expanding the

program to encompass animal welfare.

AMS largely rests its justification for this proposal on maintaining consumer

confidence in the organic label. It states, “AMS is proposing this rulemaking to

maintain consumer confidence in the high standards represented by the USDA

organic seal.” AMS offers compelling evidence that a subset of organic

consumers believe that the organic label either does or should indicate adherence

to animal welfare standards. NPPC does not dispute this. However, it is less

clear as to the uniformity of this subset’s perceptions of what these animal welfare

standards should encompass. Given that animal welfare has not historically been

a fundamental tenet of the National Organic Program, this lack of cohesion is

understandable.

In essence, it appears that the National Organic Standards Board and AMS seek to

have these “high standards” interpreted not as pertaining strictly to organic

production but more generally to deliver on multiple expectations of a subset of

consumers: products that are organic, produced according to certain animal

welfare protocols, and so forth (it is not unreasonable to postulate additional areas

of concern not solely limited to organic production such as traceability,

sustainability, or locally produced that could also be of interest to consumers).

The inclusion of animal welfare requirements into the National Organic Program

is fundamentally no different than requiring that all farmers wear bib overalls or

paint their barns red in deference to public sentiment. NPPC is certainly not

trying to diminish the importance of animal welfare in making this comparison.

Rather, we wish to point out that the USDA must take an active role in

communicating the purpose and limits of its programs to consumers, not simply

change them to accommodate misconceptions or desires that do not relate to their

authorized intent.

AMS goes on to say that “Consumers are increasingly interested in the treatment

of animals raised for food, as evidenced by the proliferation of animal welfare

certification labeling claims. This proposed rule would ensure that organic

producers are equally competitive in this market and would alleviate the need to

pursue additional certification to communicate the use of strict animal welfare

practices to consumers. The existing animal welfare certification programs have

varying requirements, even within individual programs, creating a range of

standards in the marketplace.”

NPPC contends that this proposal does not seek to ensure that organic producers

are equally competitive but rather that they be given a competitive advantage.

There are many animal welfare certification programs because livestock and

poultry production is diverse, certifying organizations have different priorities,

and scientific understanding of animal welfare and its promotion is constantly

evolving. Despite this, these programs all have clearly stated requirements that

must be achieved for their label to be applied. This information is available to

consumers of both organic and non-organic products bearing these labels. These

programs also give organic producers flexibility in choosing the program that best

fits their production needs. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the majority

of these programs also have requirements that are more extensive than those in

this proposed rule. Conflating the organic label with animal welfare certification

actually would subject organic producers, when it comes to animal welfare, to

fewer standards and less inspection and verification. It would indeed be easier for

them to apply an “animal welfare” label under an expanded National Organic

Program than under existing animal welfare certification programs.

AMS states that “AMS believes that many livestock and poultry producers would

prefer to use the organic label to convey information about their practices to

consumers.” This statement as written is not limited to organic livestock and

poultry producers. If this was the intent, NPPC strongly disagrees with this

assumption. If the statement is meant to reflect the sentiment of organic

producers, it still bears validation. Even if true, it does not constitute a valid

rationale for the proposed rule. The National Organic Standards Board can

certainly reflect the desires of organic producers to the Secretary of Agriculture,

but the USDA cannot fundamentally alter the National Organic Program without

a clear mandate from Congress. Animal welfare is not fundamental to organic

production simply because consumers are misinformed about or have non-

germane expectations for an organic label and because organic producers want

one label to cover multiple purposes. Animal welfare is a common interest of all

livestock producers, most of whom do not wish to pursue organic certification.

The organic label may in fact have less value to some consumers if it is clear to

them that it is not an animal welfare certification; this does not authorize or

condone expansion of the organic program to areas outside its mandate.

4. Animal welfare is complex and dynamic; decisions about animal care need to

be science based and carefully considered by each producer.

As indicated above, there are good reasons for the diversity of animal welfare

certification programs in the marketplace. Animal welfare is a critical topic of

importance to all livestock producers. Significant investments in animal care and

behavior research have been, and continue to be, made by the public and private

sectors. Our understanding of animal well-being and the methods by which it can

be enhanced continue to evolve. Producers across the livestock sectors are

constantly applying this research to their production systems; certification

programs are reviewed and modified in response to new information. A sound

scientific basis is critical to ensuring that animal welfare initiatives truly enhance

animal well-being rather than solely conform to public perceptions about what

“good” welfare is.

Animal welfare is complex and multifactorial. The proposed rule considers

certain practices to promote animal welfare without offering sound scientific

support or considering their relationship to overall animal well-being, either at the

individual animal or population level. The insistence on outdoor access in all but

a few narrow circumstances offers a good example. In reference to pigs, there is

no scientific support for the perception that outdoor access in and of itself

enhances animal welfare. The implied rationale for this requirement, that it

promotes natural behaviors, is neither inherent nor limited to outdoor housing. A

full range of pig behaviors, if desired, can be accommodated in indoor housing at

varying degrees of ease; they can similarly be compromised in outdoor systems

not managed with their expression in mind.

NPPC also encourages AMS to avoid the perception that all natural behaviors are

“good” or should be facilitated. Pigs are domesticated animals, and any system,

regardless of how extensive it is, will require management to avoid the expression

of negative yet natural behaviors such as aggression, competition for resources,

and indiscriminate reproduction. This is fundamental to good animal husbandry.

We cannot apply a standard to livestock that we do not apply to companion

animals or indeed even ourselves. A dog owner encouraging or even allowing his

or her pet to freely express all natural behaviors would be deemed negligent; our

social compact as reflected in our legal system does not allow for people to freely

express all “natural” behaviors at all times.

The proposed rule highlights the inherent challenges in trying to codify strict

animal welfare standards based solely on expression of behavior. It mandates

group housing for swine to facilitate social behaviors but offers an exception for

boars because of their propensity to display aggressive behavior. Aggressive

behavior is neither limited to nor always displayed by boars. Similarly, requiring

“multiple” instances of aggression before pigs other than boars that either display

or are subject to aggressive behavior can be individually is also questionable.

Producer flexibility is critical to making real-word, context- and animal-specific

animal housing decisions. The same can also be said for practices such as tail

docking and teeth clipping (which can offer potential long-term animal welfare

benefits) and provision of rooting material. The strict requirement for

demonstrable harm to have occurred before these practices are allowed or can be

withheld does not promote animal welfare if, based on their knowledge and

experience, producers have good reason to act otherwise.

Effective animal welfare programs need to be outcome-based and adaptable.

Industry-supported certification programs have a demonstrated commitment to

this principle. The National Pork Board’s Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Plus

program offers a prime example. Pork producers, through the National Pork

Board, make considerable investments each year in animal welfare research that

targets identified, real-world concerns. This research, in diverse areas such as

pain mitigation, euthanasia, and space requirements to name a few, is actively

reviewed by a robust committee process to inform the PQA Plus program. Based

on this information flow, the PQA Plus program is routinely updated to remain

current with best management practices. Furthermore, PQA Plus is designed to

measure specific animal welfare outcomes in diverse production systems and

environments. PQA Plus, like other well-designed animal welfare certification

programs, is dynamic and responsive to our continually evolving understanding of

animal welfare and its relationship to other important production considerations

such as animal health and food safety. The proposed rule, on the other hand,

would create a rigid and inflexible program without measurable outcomes.

It should also be noted that the World Animal Health Organization (or OIE, of

which the United States is a member) sets international animal welfare standards

and has not yet issued a chapter on pigs. It is premature to put any welfare

practices for pigs into the Code of Federal Regulations since they may conflict

with the international standards now under development.

5. The proposed livestock and poultry practices present significant challenges

to the maintenance and promotion of public and animal health.

Animal welfare must be evaluated and managed in a broad context. Specific and

rigid requirements in the proposed rule such as outdoor access, provision of

bedding and facilitation of rooting behavior can be in conflict with best

management practices to prevent significant swine diseases that pose a threat to

animal and human health. Producers must keep disease management a priority in

making production decisions; disease is a condition that has significant welfare

implications in addition to food safety and economic ramifications.

Pseudorabies offers a prime example. Pseudorabies is a viral disease that can

cause intense suffering and high mortality in affected pigs, depending on their life

stage; there is no specific treatment for acutely ill animals. The USDA, in

cooperation with state animal health agencies and the U.S. pork industry, made a

significant and costly effort to eliminate pseudorabies from the commercial swine

herd. All 50 states are now considered pseudorabies free in commercial swine.

Keeping pigs outdoors facilitates exposure to feral pigs, which are known to

harbor the pseudorabies virus. There would be significant international trade

ramifications if pseudorabies were reintroduced to farmed pigs; foreign

governments may not recognize a distinction between organic and commercial

swine if pseudorabies were diagnosed in an organic herd, thereby jeopardizing

U.S. pork exports.

Trichinellosis provides an example of a public health threat posed by the proposed

rule. People can get trichinellosis by eating raw or undercooked meat from

animals infected with the trichinae parasite. Symptoms of trichinellosis range

from nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain to muscle pain, fever, and weakness,

depending on the stage and severity of infection. Trichinae has been largely

eliminated from the U.S. commercial swine herd. Outdoor production –

specifically allowing pigs to forage and root in soil – is the major route of

introduction for the trichinae parasite to pigs. Increased cases of trichinae in

organic pork would lead to consumer trust problems for all pork products and to

distrust of U.S. pork from foreign trading partners, in addition to public health

ramifications.

These are but two swine-specific examples of the animal and public health

implications of this proposed rule. They are significant, and the effects would not

be limited solely to organic products. There are other critical animal and public

health concerns that are not limited to swine, such as the real challenges that this

rule would place on control of avian influenza, which could have profound and

costly consequences. AMS does not appear to have fully considered or addressed

these animal and public health consequences in proposing this rule; this is a very

troubling oversight.

In summary, NPPC strongly requests AMS reconsider the proposed Organic Livestock

and Poultry Practices rule. Animal welfare is not germane under the Organic Foods

Production Act, and, therefore, AMS does not have clear authority to promulgate such a

rule. It will have a negative effect on the cost and availability of organic livestock and

poultry products to consumers and cannot be justified by claims that it will clarify public

expectations concerning the organic label or address an unfair competitive disadvantage

facing organic producers. The proposed standards are not science based and present real

challenges to protecting animal and public health. These concerns are not offset by

making the resultant products any more “organic” under any definition of the term put

forward by the USDA.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact

NPPC staff should you have any questions or require further clarification on our position.

Sincerely,

John Weber

President