Ohio Liberty Council

This coming Wednesday, February 17th at 9:30 AM in Room 313 of the Ohio State House there will be a 4th hearing for HR 414, the implementing legislation of the Livestock Care Standards Board.  The topic of this hearing is “Issue 2 Implementation Language”.

Two weeks ago, the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard statements from proponents and opponents.  We were present at the hearing along with dozens and dozens of other concerned individuals.  There were several concerned farmers present that testified in opposition to various aspects of the proposed legislation and yet not a single farmer was there to support this bill. Gongwer News Service summarized the hearing with the following article.

Volume #79, Report #22 –Wednesday, February 3, 2010 ISSUE 2 LEGISLATION SPURS FAMILY FARMS VERSUS AGRIBUSINESS DEBATE IN HOUSE PANEL

Members of a House panel overseeing a bill designed to implement Issue 2 found themselves in the midst of a legislative food fight Wednesday as opponents lined up to criticize language outlining the operations of the new Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. Contention between family and specialty farmers and agribusiness operations played out in the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee as numerous witnesses expressed a variety of concerns about potential impacts of fees and the board’s regulations impact on their farms. Proponents have said the measure would ensure a safe, local food supply and equal treatment by the board for both large-scale and smaller farm operations. The administration has argued that a proposed fee increase on animal feed was necessary for quick implementation of the livestock standards program. Testifying as an interested party, Carol Goland, executive director of the Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association, expressed concern that the board might set standards that are at odds with the extensive federal regulations that govern organic farms. She asked members to add an exemption for organic farms from the board’s animal care standards because the rigorous National Organic Program regulations already address livestock care conditions and health care. “Maybe the board will determine that prior to sale, all livestock must be de-wormed with a parasiticide. That would be a violation of the organic standards, which allows the use of synthetic parasiticides only in health care emergencies, and even then there is only one such parasiticide approved for use in organic production,” she said. “Perhaps the board will determine that for their own welfare, birds should be de-toed. This is expressly prohibited by the National Organic Program standards,” she said. “Organic producers need protection from the very real possibility that Ohio will enact standards that conflict with the National Organic Program standards.” Ms. Goland also asked for an exemption from additional fees related to the board, explaining organic farmers already bear higher costs due to increased environmental and animal care standards. “These good stewards should not be subject to a duplicatory regulatory program and additional fees for the enforcement of livestock care standards, which do not and should not apply to them.” The witness also expressed concern that any livestock standards board inspectors investigating complaints will be unfamiliar with organic livestock practices and noted animal welfare complaints are already investigated by a certifying agency. Rep. Carlton Weddington (D-Columbus) asked if having a representative of organic farmers on the board would address her concerns. Ms. Goland said it could help slightly, but would still prefer an exemption. Rep. James Zehringer (R-Ft. Recovery) said he believed the board should have a member with expertise with organic production and that animal care standards should not exceed federal regulations. However, it should be the board’s decision as to whether or not organic farmer should be exempt from their jurisdiction, he added. Ms. Goland said her concern was over whether the board’s regulations would conflict with federal standards, not exceed them. Joe Logan of the Ohio Environmental Council, expressed similar concerns about the language’s impact on organic farms, and said the bill fails to ensure compliance with any of the board’s livestock care standards. In response to a question from Rep. Weddington, Ms. Goland said there were about 1,000 certified organic farm operations in Ohio. Mr. Logan said many other farmers follow organic practices, but don’t complete the certification process due to costs. A. David Hutchins, owner of Mill Creek Farms in Mansfield, expressed concern about the proposed fee increase on animal feed, saying it would compound financial problems for independent farms, many of which are already going out of business. “We were told there would be no fee increase,” he said about the Issue 2 campaign. The proposed fee increase is an unfair burden on family farms because large-scale operations usually produce their own animal feed and “therefore they won’t pay this tax.” Further, the ambiguous language could exempt large corporate livestock operations from the board’s regulations because they generally sell their product out of state to large retail chains. John Sproat, of the League of Humane Voters, criticized the legislation’s complaint-driven inspection regimen and said mandatory inspections were the only way to ensure a safe food supply. Animal abuse in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) may never be discovered since the only way problems would be reported is through self-reporting or whistle-blower complaints from employees, he said. “It’s a loose system, it can’t be enforced that way. You don’t know if the animals are getting excellent care.” Rep. Zehringer said the measure wouldn’t interfere with existing Department of Agriculture inspections of CAFOs. Mr. Sproat said ODA inspections don’t focus on animal care standards, adding, “Excellence in animal care. That’s what I want to see and that’s what the voters voted for.” Bob Baker, senior manager, farm animal welfare, for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said his group is supportive of standards that assure humane treatment for farm animals. Among other things, he said the bill should include standards regarding food, water, care, safe and healthy environments and veterinary care. He said the bill should also address the treatment of animals that are enduring pain and suffering. Gary Cox, a Columbus attorney, also focused on Issue 2, which he said was a “bill of goods.” He said the plan didn’t assure that Ohioans would have safe and local food, arguing that large-scale providers regularly send their animals out of state for processing. He said lawmakers should be clear about their intent with the bill to help courts with future interpretations. He also urged members to specifically exclude dogs and cats as livestock and said exemptions should be included for organic farmers. Mr. Cox also called on the members to specifically make the board subject to sunshine, public records and Chapter 119 proceedings, and impose a “duty” on the director of agriculture to inspect operations. Rep. Zehringer said many small farm operation incorporate due to tax benefits, adding “We all love to see the image of the family farm the way it was in the 40s and 50s, but its just not that way any more.” William Donaldson of Killbuck raised concerns that the board could open farms to unreasonable searches by government officials. He said that authority appears to circumvent citizens’ ability to operate in private. He also said he suspects the Humane Society of the United States would support the bill, suggesting that it lets the organization enforce its agenda at the expense of farmers. Trevor Stover, a Lexington cattle producer, raised concerns about the scope of Issue 2, saying Ohio voters were “ambushed” by a “campaign of fear and deception.” Mr. Stover said backers of the effort convinced Ohioans that the issue was meant to protect family farmers, but said he opposed the plan. He also raised concerns that the board’s financial burden is placed heavily on livestock producers.

Rep. Zehringer said he wishes the state didn’t have to take such actions, but said it is necessary because “out of state activist groups” are trying to get involved in the operations of Ohio farms.