View Rule

This action establishes additional practice standards for organic livestock and poultry production. The rule amends the USDA organic regulations related to: livestock and poultry living conditions (for example, outdoor access, housing environment, and stocking densities); animal health care (for example, physical alterations, administering medical treatment, and euthanasia); animal transport; and slaughter.

Statement of Need:

The Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards (OLPS) rule is needed to clarify the USDA organic standards for livestock and poultry living conditions and health practices. The current regulations for livestock production provide general requirements but some of these provisions are ambiguous and have led to inconsistent divergent practices, particularly in the organic poultry sector. This rule responds to nine recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board and findings from a USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) report. (See USDA, Office of the Inspector General. March 2010. Audit Report 01601-03-Hy, Oversight of the National Organic Program. Available at: http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsams.htm.) This rule includes provisions to support the expression of natural behaviors and the welfare of organic livestock and poultry.

Summary of the Legal Basis:

OLPS is authorized by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. 65016524. OFPA authorizes the USDA to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard and to facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processed food that is organically produced.

Alternatives:

AMS considered several alternatives and presents these in the rule. AMS presents two compliance date alternatives in the rule that would affect the costs and benefits of the rule. Additionally, AMS discusses alternatives to specific policies included in the rule, including alternative indoor and outdoor space requirements, and non-regulatory alternatives, including consumer education or no rule.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:

AMS assumes no costs or benefits are accumulated for clarifying and codifying existing practices.  However, AMS does expect costs and benefits to occur for organic broiler production through increased indoor space and for organic broilers and in egg production through increased outdoor access for layers. 

AMS estimates that the discounted costs for layer operations would range between $3.6 million and $8.4 million annually. To monetize the benefits of this rule, AMS used research that measured consumers' willingness-to-pay for outdoor access at a premium of between $0.16 and $0.25 per dozen eggs, controlling for other factors, including the organic label. Based on this, AMS estimates the annually discounted benefits falling between $11.6 million to $27.1 million.

AMS estimates that the total annual discounted costs for broiler compliance would be between $5.7 million and $6.3 million. The benefits for broilers are calculated using a willingness-to-pay at a premium of $0.34/lb. With this willingness-to-pay, the annual discounted benefits range between $97 million and $107 million.

Qualitatively, AMS also anticipates the rule will establish a clear standard protecting the value of the USDA organic seal to consumers, provide a consistent, level playing field for organic livestock producers, and facilitate enforcement of organic livestock and poultry standards.

Risks:

This rule is similar to the rule published on January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7042). That rule was subsequently withdrawn and never became effective. The USDA continues to face two legal challenges related to the withdrawal of that rule.  USDA argued in its withdrawal of the rule that USDA had no authority under the Organic Foods Production Act to promulgate the rule, so there is legal risk in reversing direction and publishing a similar rule. 

Publishing a new proposed rule indicated that the USDA is taking new steps to advance the regulations. This has been viewed favorably by some, although others would prefer reinstating the January 2017 rule without the associated steps required to finalize a new rule.