With the publication of the proposed Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards Rule to be issued under the National Organic Program, the USDA-AMS is attempting to clarify inconsistencies in housing and production practices for livestock and poultry that have existed since passage of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) despite the issue of regulations dating from December 2000 onwards.

With respect to egg production, the key issues of contention have been the extent of outside access and specifically whether enclosed covered porches are regarded as providing equivalence. Other issues include rearing of pullets, stocking densities for floor and aviary systems and latitude in interpretation of rules by various certifying agencies credentialed by AMS.

At the outset, it is recognized that the rules developed and issued by the AMS to comply with the OFPA have integrated concepts of welfare with organic status. In its essentials the term “Organic” relates specifically to feeding non-GMO ingredients and eliminating the use of pesticides and drugs in production. Welfare aspects were incorporated into the conceptual foundation to establish an organic program for the U.S. There was evidently a convergence between the altruistic intentions of AMS staff and the desire by aspirant and existing egg producers, many of whom were small-scale family farmers, to maintain a level of differentiation and exclusivity from intensive production to justify high selling prices and margins.

Development of rules under which certified production occurs is guided by the National Organics Standards Board, the composition of which has been dominated by producers and has been lacking in scientific and technical expertise. Accordingly, many of the existing rules and their interpretation of what constitutes acceptable compliance with the standards of organic production has been captive to subjective interpretation. This has resulted in inequities and in some cases, selective engagement of certifying agencies. A March 2010 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the USDA highlighted inequities in providing outside access by flocks. This is evidenced by disputes over the validity of certifying enclosed porches, the subject of prolonged appeals and litigation from 2002 through 2007 (Massachusetts Independent Certification Inc. v Johanns)

The AMS is naturally concerned over consumer perceptions and the integrity of the USDA Organic seal.  Accepting housing and production practices that in the perception of AMS administrators deviate from inadequately-defined principles of what constitutes “organic” production have motivated successive cycles of rulemaking with the intent of narrower interpretation and stricter compliance.

Consumer acceptance of organic eggs is less a function of a multiplicity and rigor of rules than it is simply shelf price.  It is a matter of record that from January 2012 to the present, growth in organic production has lagged non-organic, cage-free production. Certified organic hens now represent approximately 18 percent of the pre-HPAI non-caged flock of 105 million hens. It is also accepted that a proportion of organic eggs are down-classified to cage-free during periods of decreased demand.

The emergence of non-USDA certification programs for pasture-raised eggs confirms that there is a limited demand for eggs with this desired welfare attribute selling at $7 to $9 per dozen. The potential market comprises an affluent demographic supporting less than one percent of national production.

The proposed Rule will explicitly disallow the use of enclosed covered porches as equivalent to outside access. This stipulation would effectively disqualify almost half of current organic egg production if immediately implemented.  The proposed Rule will allow noncompliant existing operations a specified period to either come into compliance or cease producing under the Certified Organic program. Existing production units certified within three years of the implementation of the Rule will have to comply with outdoor space requirements within either five or fifteen years according to the option determined. This provision, irrespective of duration avoids the potential market disruption arising from an immediate reduction in the availability of organic eggs. The delay if adopted does however question the integrity of the program or alternatively suggests that the proposed outside access requirements are unnecessary.

There is no scientific or health-related reason why genetically modified ingredients should not be fed to livestock.  None of the DNA of GMO corn or soybeans is passed to eggs, although the imposition of the non-GMO rule doubles the cost of feed.  Requirements relating to pesticides and drugs are justified in the context of organic certification.  Given the differential in price between organic and cage-free production, there is an incentive to deviate from prescribed practices.  Certification relies on audits that effectively comprise a review of documentation and physical inspection of facilities and flocks.  There is no analytical component to confirm the absence of pesticides or drugs. Cases of fraud that have been disclosed in the supply of domestic organic ingredients suggests that the AMS Certified Organic System may, in fact, be based on good intentions and rely on a paper trail of questionable value.  The organic status of imported ingredients and products are, at best, suspect and should be realistically evaluated by administrators of the program.

The five or fifteen-year grandfathering of inline aviary complexes with enclosed porches indicates a tacit acceptance that outside access on the soil is functionally unnecessary.  The AMS recognizes that summary disqualification of these facilities would reduce the availability of organic eggs.  Producers who comply with an immediate requirement for approximately two square foot of outside access per hen would raise their prices and consumers would be confronted with $7 per dozen eggs, sharply reducing demand. It is presumed that with eventual attainment of equilibrium between supply and demand, Certified Organic after the Rule would settle at below $6 per dozen.  The immediate response of the owners of highly efficient in-line complexes with porches would be to create a new category of product. This would involve certified non-GMO-feed, absence of pesticides and antibiotics and humanely managed flocks allowed adequate space. A registered logo based on defined standards and third-party auditing would then compete with a product that would sell below $4 per dozen, effectively diluting the market acceptability of eggs with the AMS Certified Organic seal.

The proposed changes in management and housing designated in the proposed rule are included in a companion article in this edition.  The USDA-AMS has scheduled a virtual listening session on August 19th over a two-hour period to receive comments regarding the proposal.  Irrespective of responses, the proposed amendments are certain to be imposed. This is notwithstanding the lack of scientific and financial justification. The proposed Rule represents a combination of altruistic concepts and perceptions of welfare coupled with a measure of producer self-interest, all inherent to the evolution of the Organic Foods Production Act of 2000.