Updated March 13, 2018
USDA’s Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Regulations
On January 19, 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) published a final rule regarding Organic Livestock
Summary of 2017 OLPP Final Rule Provisions
and Poultry Practices (OLPP). The Obama Administration
USDA’s NOP regulation broadly addressed care and production
rule amended National Organic Program (NOP) regulations
practices, transport, slaughter, and living conditions for organic
for USDA-certified organic livestock and poultry practices.
livestock and poultry. Accordingly, the 2017 OLPP final rule:
It addressed four broad areas of organic livestock and
1. Clarified how producers/handlers participating in the NOP
poultry practices: living conditions, animal health care,
must treat livestock and poultry to ensure their well-being.
transport, and slaughter. While some in Congress and in the
organic foods industry generally supported these new
2. Clarified when and how certain physical alterations may be
requirements, others in Congress and in the poultry industry
performed on organic livestock and poultry to minimize
opposed the rule, especially its animal welfare provisions.
stress. Prohibited some forms of physical alterations.
3. Set maximum indoor and outdoor stocking densities for
On February 9, USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service
organic chickens, which would vary depending on the type of
(AMS) announced a delay in the effective date of the final
production and stage of life.
rule, which was followed by a series of additional
extensions effectively delaying implementation of the rule.
4. Defined outdoor space and required that outdoor spaces for
This action provided the Trump Administration time to
organic poultry include soil and vegetation.
review the rule and decide whether to proceed with the
5. Added new requirements for transporting organic livestock
rulemaking begun under the Obama Administration.
and poultry to sale or slaughter.
Effective May 13, 2018, USDA announced in the Federal
6. Clarified the application of USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Register that it was withdrawing the OLPP rule based on its
Service (FSIS) requirements regarding the handling of
assessment that the “OLPP final rule would exceed
livestock and poultry slaughtered at certified organic
USDA’s statutory authority” and also its revised assessment
livestock and poultry establishments. Also provided for the
of the OLPP rule’s costs and benefits.
enforcement of USDA organic regulations based on FSIS
inspection findings.
USDA’s National Organic Program
7. Established indoor space requirements for chickens.
NOP is a voluntary organic certification program
Provided that AMS could propose space requirements for
administered by USDA for producers and handlers of
other avian species in the future in addition to required
agricultural products who use certain approved organic
other indoor requirements (e.g., exit doors, ammonia levels,
methods codified in regulation under USDA’s oversight.
lighting).
Organic production refers to a production system that is
Source: 72 Federal Register 7042, January 19, 2017.
managed in accordance with the Organic Foods Production
Act (OFPA) and USDA regulations intended to “respond to
site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological,
U.S. Organic Livestock and Poultry Production
and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources,
Foods certified by USDA as organic account for a small but
promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity” (7
growing share of the U.S. agricultural industry. Retail sales
C.F.R. 205). Producers, processors, and handlers who wish
of organic foods in the United States totaled nearly $40
to market their products as organic must follow production
billion in 2015 (not including non-food products), or about
practices spelled out in regulation. USDA-approved organic
5% of total food sales. There are roughly 14,000 certified or
standards address the methods, practices, and substances
exempt organic farms in the United States (2014 data).
used in producing and handling crops, livestock, and
(Exempt farms have less than $5,000 in gross annual sales.)
processed agricultural products. They also describe the
Organic livestock and poultry products account for about
types of approved methods farmers and ranchers may use to
3% of total organic retail food sales. At the time of the
grow crops and raise farm animals and the types of
original rulemaking, USDA reported that organic egg sales
materials used in production. These standards must be
totaled $514 million, or about 10% of all U.S. retail sales
verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent before
(organic and nonorganic). Organic poultry meat sales
products can legally be labeled “USDA Organic.”
totaled $453 million, or less than 1% of U.S. retail broiler
Under the program, the National Organic Standards Board
meat sales. There were 1,065 organic and exempt egg
(NOSB) is a 15-member advisory board that makes
laying operations and 309 organic broiler farms. Precise
recommendations to USDA on a range of organic
data were not available for organic beef and pork meats but
production issues as authorized under OFPA. NOSB thus
likely comprised a much smaller share of total organic and
assists in the development and maintenance of organic
total market sales. There were 748 certified and exempt
standards and regulations. However, USDA retains primary
organic beef farms and 239 organic hog farms (2014 data).
responsibility for setting regulatory standards as well as for
compliance, enforcement, and auditor accreditation.
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

USDA’s Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Regulations
U.S. Organic Egg and Poultry Production
justified its decision claiming “the costs of the OLPP final
USDA published its proposed OLPP rule regarding organic
rule outweigh potential benefits” and that implementation
livestock and poultry practices in April 2016. After
would result in a reduction in the number of organic egg
considering public comments, USDA published final
producers, thus hurting consumers, among other claims.
regulations in January 2017. The final NOP regulation
broadly addressed care and production practices, transport,
Support/Opposition to NOP Regulation
slaughter, and living conditions for organic livestock and
USDA received nearly 6,700 comments on its proposed
poultry (see text box). Amended requirements covered
rule. The organic foods industry generally supported
definitions (7 C.F.R. 205.2), livestock health care practice
USDA’s rulemaking—in some cases referring to the
standards (205.238), livestock and avian living conditions
changes as a “clarification” rather than a new regulation.
(205.239, 205.241), and transport and slaughter (205.242).
Some Members of Congress likewise supported USDA’s
The OLPP rule’s care and production provisions addressed
proposal and pushed for the regulations to be finalized,
according to some press reports. Many in the industry
medical treatments, animal health care, and euthanasia. The
viewed these changes as “essential” to maintain the
rule clarified that hormones are not allowed in organic
integrity and value of the organic seal/label to consumers.
production and that forced molting is not permitted. Certain
USDA under the Obama Administration further claimed
physical animal alterations were prohibited, including, for
that the amended requirements are needed to “ensure
example, debeaking of birds and docking of cow’s tails
consumer confidence ... by promoting consistency across
(with limited exception for certain physical alterations). For
the organic industry.” However, some in the industry
poultry, the rule covered organic avian (bird or poultry)
claimed that the requirements are not restrictive enough and
species, including (but not limited to) chickens, turkeys,
would erode consumer confidence in the organic seal.
geese, quail, pheasant, and other species that are raised for
organic eggs, organic meat, or other product. The rule also
Much of the disagreement over the rulemaking centered on
covered humane handling requirements for transporting and
the rule’s animal outdoor access requirements. At the time,
slaughtering animals, and prohibits certain practices.
USDA claimed that consumers value outdoor access for
organic animals. The 2017 rulemaking docket details
The final OLPP rule addressed animal living conditions
NOP’s long-standing emphasis on animal welfare issues,
including indoor minimum space requirements for animal
to “
including outdoor access for organic livestock and poultry,
accommodate the wellbeing and natural behaviors” of
dating back to the early 2000s. A previous 2010 rule
the animals, requiring, for example, that they be able to lie
similarly amended NOP regulations and required access to
down, turn around, stand up, and fully stretch. It also
pasture for organic dairy and ruminant livestock (7 C.F.R.
covered indoor air ammonia levels, natural light, indoor
205.239). Those regulations were also controversial and
stocking densities, access to scratching areas and perching
opposed by some in the U.S. dairy industry. Those NOP
space for birds, and specific housing requirements for hogs,
changes now require that organic ruminant animals graze
piglets, dairy calves, and birds. The rule also addressed
pasture for at least 120 days per year. USDA’s docket on
outdoor living requirements, such as soil content and
2016 proposal further highlights NOSB recommendations
vegetative cover, year-round access to the outdoors, and
regarding outdoor access for organic animals.
access to pasture during the grazing season. It further
addressed the need for shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh
Others in Congress strongly opposed the OLPP rule. In
air, direct sunlight, and clean water for drinking. For
May and June 2016, several Members of Congress sent
poultry, the rule specified the need for materials for dust
letters to USDA criticizing USDA’s proposed rule. In
bathing and outdoor stocking densities to provide adequate
addition, House report language on the FY2017 agriculture
space “to escape aggressive behaviors” and to
appropriations bill (H.Rept. 114-531) specifically addressed
accommodate the species’ stage of life. The final OLPP rule
the proposal, expressing concerns “about the potential
did allow for temporary confinement of birds indoors when
disruption to existing organic producers and their supply
soil and water quality could put animals at risk.
chains, as well as ensuring that animal health is fully
protected” and directing USDA to conduct a “thorough
The final OLPP rule clarified that “porches and lean-to type
assessment on the costs of compliance and alternatives” for
structures that are not enclosed (e.g., with a roof, but with
existing producers. Much opposition was directed at
screens removed), and which allow birds to freely access
changes in the NOP egg standards, especially elimination of
other outdoor areas, can be counted as outdoor space” (7
poultry porches. Those opposed to the changes cited
C.F.R. 205.241(c)(7)). Enclosed porches would no longer
biosecurity and avian disease concerns by potentially
be considered to provide outdoor space in organic poultry
exposing animals to soil-borne parasites, wild birds and
production, consistent with NOSB recommendations.
rodents, and increased predation. Some claimed producers
At the time of the original rulemaking, USDA estimated the
were already complying with third-party animal welfare
cost to poultry producers at $8.2 million to $31.0 million
standards, such as the Animal Welfare Approved and
annually. Similar cost estimates to livestock producers were
Certified Humane standards, which they claim are
not available, with the exception of costs associated with
equivalent to or stricter than the amended requirements.
the rule’s paperwork burden, estimated at $3.9 million
Many expressed concerns about the rule’s overall cost.
annually for all organic livestock and poultry farms. The
Trump Administration’s Federal Register notice
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
announcing its plans to withdraw the OLPP rule, in part,
IF10622

https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

USDA’s Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Regulations



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10622 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED

---