What comes to mind when you think of livestock being “naturally raised?” Maybe cows at pasture? Perhaps pigs foraging? Healthy rangeland? The absence of industrial feedlots in the animal’s life? You may have heard that the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service issued a voluntary standard for the label “naturally raised”, which can apply to meat and livestock products. The federal agency has given three standards for meat products displaying the label: livestock used for meat production have been raised without growth promotants and without antibiotics, except for ionophores used as coccidiostats for parasite control, and have not been fed animal by-products.

Most Grass-fed and Organic beef producers work very hard to raise their animals without growth hormones or antibiotics, and most certainly without animal bi-product feed. Those producers who are committed to sustainable agriculture, as an ethical principle and practice, and go many steps further to give their cows time to graze on pasture, to walk, to forage, and to be in under the natural light of the sky. Many go further to manage their land with rotational grazing, they keep the manure in barns to a minimum, and go the extra mile to keep the water sources of their operation clean. Unfortunately, none of these practices are recognized by this recently voluntary standard for “naturally raised”, which is now in a comment period until March 23rd.

Is this fair to farmers who are able to see their animals through a considerate production process, who go the extra mile to raise their animals on pasture in the most natural and environmentally responsible way possible?

Would a consumer be confused upon seeing two products at the grocery store, one promoting the label “Naturally Raised” and one promoting the label “Grass-fed”? Would one assume then that they were not mutually exclusive, or that Grass-fed was not naturally raised beef?

In their defense, the AMS stated the following:

“AMS has determined that these three core criteria best represent the current industry consensus of naturally raised claims existing in the marketplace and that broadening the focus of the proposed standard would limit the usefulness of the claim to a very small segment of producers, would render it unlikely to be used, and would be of little value in facilitating the marketing of agricultural products.”

The idea that the government should not include other standards for this vaguely named label because it would be “of little value in facilitating marketing of agricultural products” is absurd. What about the value of making labels that give a clear to message to consumers? Or is it more important that a broad range of producers and suppliers are able to benefit from the “naturally raised” quaifier, regardless of the environmental or humane nature of their practices?

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition strongly opposes the rule: “We urge President Obama and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack to immediately revoke this last ditch favor for agribusiness from the outgoing Administration,” said Ferd Hoefner, NSAC Policy Director. “Our farmers want new USDA label claim standards to promote more sustainable livestock production alternatives, but not a misleading and ultimately unhelpful ‘naturally raised’ claim.”

“The new label claim standard fails to satisfy the principles of transparency, clarity, and specificity to which AMS has committed in the past,” continued Vanderpol. “AMS should revoke ‘naturally raised’ and return to its original goal of issuing standards for discrete claims for no antibiotics, no added hormones, and free-range or pasture-raised.”

At this point, the rule is not effective until information collection provisions pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are finished. The USDA chief, Vilsack, also has the power to revoke the standard claim.

The AMS is reviewing comments from citizens submitted until March 23rd. Comments can be submitted electronically over the internet at:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0146

You can also fax comments to: 202-720-1112

All comments must reference Docket No. AMS-LS-07-0131

Ethicurian.com offers some talking points for those interested in making comments to the USDA addressing this matter.


See this link to look at the official release from the Federal Register