‘Organic’ Label Doesn’t Mean a Holiday Ham Was From a Happy Pig
By Michael Haedicke
This holiday season, Americans will buy some 20 million turkeys and 300 million pounds of ham.
Some of these turkeys and hams will be certified organic, reflecting the common belief that organically raised animals live happier, more natural lives.
The reality, though, is more complicated.
Government regulations for organic farming contain few specific protections for pigs, poultry, egg-laying hens and other animals raised for human consumption. So conditions on organic farms may not actually be all that different from those at traditional livestock operations.
The organic food industry has grown enormously in the U.S. in recent decades.
Organic farming began as a radical cause in the 1970s embraced by a small group of farmers in California and a handful of other states. These pioneers sought to grow food naturally, rather than assert their dominance over the earth. As such, they eschewed synthetic pesticides and fertilizers.
Animal ethics were part of these farmers' vision, too. Rather than thinking of livestock only as producers of meat, milk and eggs, many organic farmers viewed animals as equal partners in a farm ecosystem that perform important functions like fertilizing soil and controlling pests.
Organic is now mainstream. Organic food sales in 2018 totaled nearly US$48 billion, up from $8.5 billion in 2002. Two-thirds of shoppers have tried organic products.
But organic agriculture has struggled to maintain its early commitment to animal welfare.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture under President Obama announced a new rule that enhanced animal welfare requirements for organic farms. Among other things, it set strict rules for outdoor access and prohibited what USDA called "physical alterations" of animals – what animal rights advocates call "mutilations."
In mainstream agriculture, pigs' tails are often amputated, or "docked," so that they will not be bitten off by other pigs. Chickens have portions of their beaks removed to prevent them from pecking one another.
But the agency scrapped the new rule two years later, in 2018, before it could take effect.
Dismayed animal welfare advocates and organic farmers blamed resistance from big agriculture and the Trump administration's goal of eliminating regulations for the policy change.
There's some truth to these assertions. But my research on the history of organic food finds that politics isn't the only reason organic farms aren't required to treat animals more humanely.
USDA Misses the Mark
The Organic Foods Production Act – the only law governing organic farming in the United States – simply doesn't authorize federal regulators to protect animals raised "organically."
Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act in 1990, directing the USDA to write national organic farming regulations.
Like many early organic farmers, the USDA's new rules focused on the integrity of agricultural materials. Fertilizers and pesticides from natural sources were allowed, while synthetic ones were mostly prohibited. In other words, the USDA defined "organic" to mean the lack of unnatural inputs.
When it came to more complicated questions about how livestock should be treated, though, the rules were vague. The law that came down from Congress offered the USDA little guidance on regulating organic animal welfare.
On conventional farms, animals are often raised in confined barns or cages, never seeing sunlight or breathing fresh air. The USDA's organic regulations, which went into effect in 2002, required "access to pasture" for cows and "access to exercise areas, fresh air, and direct sunlight" for poultry.
What this meant in practice remained open to interpretation. Some dairy farms grazed cows for just a few months, relegating them to dirt yards for the rest of the year. Large egg operations provided hens with small, concrete-floored porches.
Defending the Animals
To improve how animals are treated on large-scale organic farms, animal welfare advocates have worked creatively within the USDA's limited regulatory scope.
Because organic regulations define allowed versus prohibited materials, activists have sought to extend the prohibition on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to materials used in organic animal agriculture. Some have lobbied federal regulators to prohibit the synthetic protein methionine – a food supplement for birds raised in confinement – in organic farming.
If farmers cannot use methionine, their thinking goes, industrial-style organic chicken farms will no longer be viable. Farmers would have to raise chickens in smaller, outdoor operations. The birds would benefit.
Activists have also pressured ethically minded consumers to demand better living conditions for animals.
An animal rights watchdog group called the Cornucopia Institute in 2014 released aerial photos of large organic farms in the U.S. The images showed gigantic buildings and barren yards in which dairy cows and egg-laying chickens spent their days – not the bucolic conditions that many consumers envision when they buy organic.
"Shoppers who passionately support the ideas and values represented by the organic label understandably feel betrayed," the Cornucopia Institute press release noted.
The USDA defends its decision to withdraw the Obama-era organic animal welfare standards that would have enhanced outdoor access and prohibited tail docking and beak trimming.
According to public statements by the agency, it lacks authority under the 1990 Organic Foods Production Act to implement such expansive rules.
My research confirms this. Congress gave the USDA a mandate to regulate synthetic inputs, not complex farming practices. There is very little in the 1990 federal organics law about animal welfare.
The Trump administration's decision to kill protections for organically grown animals is now in court, following a lawsuit against the USDA filed by the Organic Trade Association.
For concerned consumers, that means that serving an ethical holiday dinner requires some research.
Pigs and turkeys on some organic farms may well live their lives very differently from their conventionally raised cousins. But an "organic" label does not guarantee this.
Michael Haedicke is an associate professor of sociology at Drake University.Disclosure statement: Michael Haedicke does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his academic appointment.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- USDA Plans to Side With 'Fake Organic' Egg Producers, Ditch ... ›
- Angering Organic Farmers and Advocates, Trump's USDA Kills ... ›
- Organic Meat Is Bad for the Environment, Study Shows - EcoWatch ›
A tornado tore through a city north of Birmingham, Alabama, Monday night, killing one person and injuring at least 30.
- Tornadoes and Climate Change: What Does the Science Say ... ›
- Tornadoes Hit Unusually Wide Swaths of U.S., Alarming Climate ... ›
- 23 Dead as Tornado Pummels Lee County, AL in Further Sign ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By David Konisky
On his first day in office President Joe Biden started signing executive orders to reverse Trump administration policies. One sweeping directive calls for stronger action to protect public health and the environment and hold polluters accountable, including those who "disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities."
Michael S. Regan, President Biden's nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, grew up near a coal-burning power plant in North Carolina and has pledged to "enact an environmental justice framework that empowers people in all communities." NCDEQ
- Report Urges Biden to Reverse Trump's Environmental Rollbacks ›
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- Biden Faces Pressure to Tackle 'Unfunded' Toxic Waste Sites ... ›
By Katherine Kornei
Clear-cutting a forest is relatively easy—just pick a tree and start chopping. But there are benefits to more sophisticated forest management. One technique—which involves repeatedly harvesting smaller trees every 30 or so years but leaving an upper story of larger trees for longer periods (60, 90, or 120 years)—ensures a steady supply of both firewood and construction timber.
A Pattern in the Rings<p>The <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/coppice-standards-0" target="_blank">coppice-with-standards</a> management practice produces a two-story forest, said <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernhard_Muigg" target="_blank">Bernhard Muigg</a>, a dendrochronologist at the University of Freiburg in Germany. "You have an upper story of single trees that are allowed to grow for several understory generations."</p><p>That arrangement imprints a characteristic tree ring pattern in a forest's upper story trees (the "standards"): thick rings indicative of heavy growth, which show up at regular intervals as the surrounding smaller trees are cut down. "The trees are growing faster," said Muigg. "You can really see it with your naked eye."</p><p>Muigg and his collaborators characterized that <a href="https://ltrr.arizona.edu/about/treerings" target="_blank">dendrochronological pattern</a> in 161 oak trees growing in central Germany, one of the few remaining sites in Europe with actively managed coppice-with-standards forests. They found up to nine cycles of heavy growth in the trees, the oldest of which was planted in 1761. The researchers then turned to a historical data set — more than 2,000 oak <a href="https://eos.org/articles/podcast-discovering-europes-history-through-its-timbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">timbers from buildings and archaeological sites</a> in Germany and France dating from between 300 and 2015 — to look for a similar pattern.</p>
A Gap of 500 Years<p>The team found wood with the characteristic coppice-with-standards tree ring pattern dating to as early as the 6th century. That was a surprise, Muigg and his colleagues concluded, because the first mention of this forest management practice in historical documents occurred only roughly 500 years later, in the 13th century.</p><p>It's probable that forest management practices were not well documented prior to the High Middle Ages (1000–1250), the researchers suggested. "Forests are mainly mentioned in the context of royal hunting interests or donations," said Muigg. Dendrochronological studies are particularly important because they can reveal information not captured by a sparse historical record, he added.</p><p>These results were <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78933-8" target="_blank">published in December in <em>Scientific Reports</em></a>.</p><p>"It's nice to see the longevity and the history of coppice-with-standards," said <a href="https://www.teagasc.ie/contact/staff-directory/s/ian-short/" target="_blank">Ian Short</a>, a forestry researcher at Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority in Ireland, not involved in the research. This technique is valuable because it promotes conservation and habitat biodiversity, Short said. "In the next 10 or 20 years, I think we'll see more coppice-with-standards coming back into production."</p><p>In the future, Muigg and his collaborators hope to analyze a larger sample of historic timbers to trace how the coppice-with-standards practice spread throughout Europe. It will be interesting to understand where this technique originated and how it propagated, said Muigg, and there are plenty of old pieces of wood waiting to be analyzed. "There [are] tons of dendrochronological data."</p><p><em><a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Katherine Kornei</a> is a freelance science journalist covering Earth and space science. Her bylines frequently appear in Eos, Science, and The New York Times. Katherine holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California, Los Angeles.</em></p><p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://eos.org/articles/tree-rings-reveal-how-ancient-forests-were-managed" target="_blank">Eos</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Earth's ice is melting 57 percent faster than in the 1990s and the world has lost more than 28 trillion tons of ice since 1994, research published Monday in The Cryosphere shows.
By Jewel Fraser
Noreen Nunez lives in a middle-class neighborhood that rises up a hillside in Trinidad's Tunapuna-Piarco region.