October 15, 2024

Terry Shistar – Beyond Pesticides (Misc)

Hi, my name is Terry Shistar, and I’m on the board of directors of Beyond Pesticides. Please feel free to ask me or Jay about our written comments.

What does “Beyond Pesticides” mean? We hope it means “Organic.” We’re focused on 3 intertwined existential crises in which pesticides play a role: climate change, human illness, and biodiversity decline.

Organic practices can and should play a major role in addressing all of these. Organic can mitigate climate change; OFPA provides a framework for eliminating toxic chemicals in organic production and processing, and protecting biodiversity is central to the definition of organic production in the regulations. But some challenges remain before organic can be the answer.

Organic production can mitigate climate change only if it is soil-based, because soil-building practices help sequester carbon in the soil. The NOSB must take a strong stance against certifying hydroponic and container systems that do not build soil biology.

Although the NOSB does a good job of keeping toxic active ingredients out of organic production, so-called “inert ingredients” make up the largest part of formulations, and pose greater risks.

The material subcommittee has proposed 2 alternatives, one of which would address this problem — and the other would not. The NOSB should recommend only option one, which meets the requirements of OFPA, and not forward the recommendation for option 2 to NOP. Option 2 relies on EPA’s decision that residues in food do not pose a risk, and ignores risks to farm workers and the environment.

Another way that toxic chemicals can enter organic food, and by which organic processing fails to promote the health and environmental precepts of organic, is the allowance of the nonorganic ingredients through listing on 606. There’s no reason that organic production cannot meet the needs for these ingredients, if processors are not allowed to use cheaper non-organic ingredients.

Besides removing potential toxic exposure to consumers, elimination of these non-organic ingredients would avoid supporting chemical-intensive agriculture. The NOSB should also work towards elimination of toxic chemicals such as plastics, PFOS, and bisphenols in food packaging.

The NOSB and NOP have made strides towards protecting biodiversity in material reviews and policies, but still need to address implementation of the policy to eliminate the incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic production, implementing the marine materials policy, and phasing out the use of plastics. Thank you.


Nate: Related to Ethelene: in BP written comments you oppose the listing. Related to its potential to replace clove oil – we hear from growers clove oil is an irritant and not effective and they would prefer the synthetic. How do we balance those concerns?

Terry: Our law presents us with a preference for natural materials, and asks to show that synthetics meet certain criteria before they are used. If we think a natural material is bad, we should list it on 602 – eliminate it from use in organic. That’s the way I view that balancing.

Amy: Question about fraud; it’s complex, and a multi-faceted strategy is needed. What more can we do to move the needle and uphold integrity in light of age of technology?

Terry: Can’t speak on that much. BP is part of NOC and they could probably give a much better response.

Amy: Will save question for NOC.

Mark Kastel – OrganicEye (General)

My name is Mark Kastel. I am the executive director of Organic Eye. We’re a farm policy research group based in Lafar, Wisconsin. We act as an organic industry watchdog.

Why should organics be any different than any other regulatory scheme in Washington? When we lobbied for OFPA, the answer was “because we said so.”

Is this board an enabler? Members suffer from Stockholm syndrome. Are participants in this virtual room just bit players in the organic regulatory theater? You tell me.

Have we betrayed the true owners of the organic label? Up to 20,000 animals on organic dairy farms, milked 3 or 4 times a day, with stocking densities as high as 10 or 20 cows per acre — in the desert.

Forget about “feed the soil, not the plant” — the original mantra of the organic nutrient-dense farming movement. You can grow it in Canada, or in Holland, hydroponically — in countries where it’s illegal to be labeled organic — and then ship them here. Profit before principle. Profit before the law governing organics.

We have the NOP looking the other way, as they audit certifiers which are accepting millions of dollars from corporate agribusinesses in donations and sponsorships, over and above the certification fees. We have literally boat loads of imports coming in from countries with endemic levels of commercial fraud, and past fraud in organics — coming from farms without organic certification or annual inspection. We leave that up to the internal control systems, and to the for-profit certifiers, and their for-profit agribusinesses, to work out the details. What could go wrong?

Try: a half percent, or one percent, of US farmland managed organically in the US. No matter the growth of the industry — meteoric growth — that’s stuck, never budges. Hundreds of organic family farmers have gone out of business while the USDA spends tens of millions of dollars to recruit more farmers. Without market enforcement, they don’t have a future.

Questions? Ask me about whether we should approve a material at sunset that the World Health Organization considers a carcinogen: celery powder. The American Cancer Society says no.

Testing. All imports should be tested, period. The costs are inconsequential; the risks are unquestioned.

Risk-based oversight. Organic Eye has proposed doing away with annual inspections when operations earn that. Inspect every 5 years, by seasoned agriculturalists and forensic accountants. That would free up resources for aggressive residue testing and spot inspections.

Synthetic compounds in compost. Give me a break. We all know that some plants are very good at uptaking the compounds from the soil and incorporating them into their tissues.

What do you want to eat? What do you want your family to eat? What do you think organic means?

Thank you very much.


Amy: You mentioned risk-based certification. What do you think unintended consequences would be, to shift to a risk-based system?

Mark: Well, I hope there are consequences, intended or unintended, because this current system amounts to busy work. We treat everybody the same.

When I was certified, I probably could have earned a bye, if we had a system that was focused on true risk; based on performance, based on record keeping, based on inspections, based on the type of crops and the history of fraud…

I’m saying all imports should be tested. One ship represents the annual output of — they were estimating, 40 to 50 average US farms. Think about what it costs to certify 40 or 50 average farms — and then think about the value of that cargo, and the added costs to test it. So, you know, in our recommendation; instead of having a labor shortage, and recruiting young people without experience in production agriculture or forensic accounting: if we concentrated our resources into less periodic inspections, we would have a lot more available for skilled practitioners to do unannounced inspections and an abundance of testing.

And because you’ve seen the major frauds, you’ve seen the Washington Post, you’ve seen the work Organic Eye does — none of that has come out of annual inspections. And so we’re doing a lot of busy work. We’re spending literal millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and money coming from organic operators. And we’re not getting the job done. So let’s look at alternatives.

Lauren Pope – OEFFA (General)

Hello, my name is Lauren Pope and I’m a certification and policy specialist with OEFFA. We certify about 1100 organic farmers and food processors in a 12-state region.

OEFFA supports the effort to deter fraud and keep the organic label meaningful. We approve of the aim of risk-based certification to reduce the burdens on small farmers and their certifiers, but are concerned that this could widen discrepancies between certifiers, and burden small operations further.

As noted in the discussion document, “risk” and other associated terms are not defined in the regulations. If certifiers are focusing on risk in different ways, this could lead to people seeking out certifiers they think will be the most permissive.

As for smaller operations: While paperwork and yearly inspections take time and effort, these are not just tools for fraud prevention, with no other benefits. These are important check-ins to make sure small issues do not become bigger and costlier to correct.

While certifiers, like all members of the public, have the opportunity to comment on proposed rules, we have the responsibility to implement the rules.

This is made more difficult when a rule has changed from when it was proposed to when it is published. For that reason, even at the risk of lengthening the regulatory process, we suggest that certifiers be allowed to comment on any rule where the language has changed from the proposed rule to the final rule. This is not to allow certifiers to influence the process, but to have certifiers give feedback on ways the regulatory language could be improved. Certifiers have on-the-ground experience that is currently not being effectively used.

And finally, when speaking of the need for certifier input into the creation of NOP regulations, I’d like to touch on the topic of hydroponics. The lack of standards, and the lack of consensus on whether hydroponics belong in organic production, has led to inconsistency among certifiers. This inconsistency is reflected in the products labeled “organic” that consumers have access to.

On a personal level, my mother was born in western New York and grew up picking raspberries that grew wild around her house. She now lives in New Mexico, and when she wants berries, she has to go to the grocery store. Over the last few years, she’s found some organic berries for sale to not be very flavorful. When she mentioned that to me, I wondered if they were hydroponically grown. My mother had no idea that was allowed. She’s stopped buying organic berries, because she just doesn’t know what she’ll get.

While the board has requested that growers provide information on whether their sales are affected by hydroponic producers, we are missing crucial detail on how consumers would act if they have the transparency needed for an informed decision — and no information on how consumers like my mother may have become disappointed and disincentivized to buy organic.

Thank you.


Nate Powell-Palm: Does your mother not buy any berries?

Lauren: Yeah, she’s completely given up on berries.

Kyla Smith: Thanks for your comments on risk-based oversight. In your comments here today and in OEFFA’s written comments, I feel like you recognized the balance that certifiers are facing, in staffing and resources — as well as how to apply this risk-based approach, and some of the unintended consequences. Do you have any thoughts about how we can strike that balance?

Lauren: Yeah, I mean it’s definitely hard. And again, I do worry that one of the unintended consequences might be that smaller farmers who don’t keep their paperwork as well will appear riskier than, say, a large operation that might be hiding fraud under a lot of well-done paperwork. As for solutions: it’s hard to say. I don’t know that I have anything on top of my head, but it’s definitely something we would hope that the NOP would work with certifiers on, since we do have these experiences and do have these ideas.

Jay Feldman – Beyond Pesticides (General)

Members of the NOSB, thank you for your service. I am Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

The NOSB was established to protect and enhance the integrity of the organic label. Integrity is operationalized in continuous improvement, which is key to the sunset process for synthetic materials on the National List of allowed and prohibited substances, and through your oversight of the USDA’s National Organic Program. It is in this spirit that we offer our extensive written comments.

We look to organic to lead the shift away from petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers with urgency, to confront the existential health, biodiversity, and climate crises of the day.

We don’t want cancer in our families, or the long list of pesticide-induced illnesses associated with chemicals used in chemical-intensive agriculture — chemicals that end up in our air, water, soil, and food. However, this shift will only happen if we, as an organic community and as an organic marketplace, move quickly and forcefully to differentiate organic from all the destructive agricultural practices that contribute to the existential crises.

It was not hard to predict that PFAS would end up contaminating farmland. Same for DDT. Contaminated biosolid fertilizer is a cheap waste product. But the externalities of clean up and remediation — if that is even possible — are certainly not cheap. Neither is the treatment of resulting illnesses, and environmental disasters. We had the foresight to prohibit biosolids in organic production.

Of course, the problem extends beyond biosolids to compost. We urge the NOSB to reopen the work plan item on contaminated inputs that is currently on hold, after the issuance of the 2014 document on this issue (when I was on the NOSB) — but first, we must not further weaken the standards or exacerbate the problem.

As important as compost is to organic, only synthetic materials that are specifically added to the national list should be allowed in compost. More persistent contaminants in compost feed stocks will certainly be found. The petition from BPI should be denied.

Thank you, crop subcommittee, for recommending against and rejecting some arbitrary de minimis or negligible risk assumptions from getting into the Organic Foods Production Act. With the same thinking, organic must lead on eliminating plastics.

Plastic research continues to raise alarms about the hazards associated with the use of plastic, including microplastic particles that are distributed in alarming amounts throughout the environment, and taken up by organisms including humans. Make elimination of plastic in organic a research priority, and move quickly to action.

Additionally, we must push harder to replace non-organic ingredients more broadly used under the proposal to delist dried organic orange pulp, which is available in organic form, and organic seed starts must become a priority given their limited availability.

Thank you again for your service.


Mindee: In the nuances of proposing new definitions for the regulations, we added the to the compost definition; where it used to say “plant and animal material,” we added the nuance of “…or a synthetic feedstock that is on the National List.” And I was wondering if you had any perspective on whether adding that adds protection to the NOSP process for considering synthetics, or if you had another perspective on that addition.

Jay: It is a difficult question. The problem, of course, is: we’re faced with the reality of synthetics being encompassed, right? Even in food-based compost. So the question is, if we’re talking of a feedstock that we know of, and we know it’s synthetic, we should certainly be evaluating if it has to be in there. I mean my preference — of course, I think, most people’s preferences, those eaters of organic — would prefer that we not have any synthetics in organic.

That is the default assumption. But given the realities that we’re faced with, I think we have to set up a process to evaluate any synthetics that we know are being added to feedstocks, so that we can protect the public. And, as was said by many of you, we have to maintain our transparency with the public; that’s our credibility, that’s the way we maintain the market and build the market.

Ed Maltby – Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (Livestock (LS))
[This commentor provided their comments in full to Cornucopia.]

My name is Ed Maltby, Executive director of NODPA and longtime livestock farmer. Thank you to the NOSB Board members for their time and service to the organic community.

Most organic dairy producers will welcome the addition of Meloxicam to the basket of products they can use, especially its reputation for providing longer lasting pain relief at times of stress for livestock and the ease of application. NODPA joins with Organic Farmers Association, National Organic Coalition, Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance and other producers in urging the board to support the use of Meloxicam, annotated only for the dehorning or disbudding of bovine calves under one year, and recommend the Board send the broader uses of meloxicam back to the Livestock Subcommittee and request a Technical Review to inform decision-making regarding potential uses for other livestock, including poultry.

The petition and the NOSB Livestock Subcommittee Review stated that the petition was submitted by “certified organic livestock producers and supporters.” While the petitioner’s companies do represent large volumes of organic milk sold in the US, the petition does not represent the views of all organic dairy producers and other livestock producers. Most producers do not support the process the Livestock Sub-committee used to reach their recommendation of approving a new drug for all organic livestock that is not approved by the FDA.

The petition and Subcommittee review focused on Meloxicam as it applies to bovines rather than all livestock, and we have the following concerns with the Subcommittee decision to do an internal review rather than an independent Technical Review (TR):

1. An independent TR ensures the integrity of the NOSB process and verifies what is presented in a petition and the subcommittee review.

2. An independent TR provides a reference for all NOSB members, community members, reporters and concerned consumers on recommendations made.

3. A TR allows future Boards to understand the rationale behind the recommendation.

4. A TR provides an independent scientific assessment that will be used during the process of rule writing and review by different departments within the USDA and other agencies, especially the USDA Office of the General Council. An internal review by a FACA committee, which NOSB is, has little standing within the process.

5. The Subcommittee review has no mention of the qualifications of the committee members who completed the internal technical review, no printout of the internal TR, or any detailed notes in the Subcommittee minutes to show the discussion on the veracity of the review.

6. The lack of an independent TR can be used against the recommendation in any lawsuit.

I refer the Board to our written comments and I can answer any questions you may have.

With organic dairy production, it is important to have another form of treatment for pain mitigation that is long lasting and easy to administer to supplement the use of aspirin and Banamine. There are many requirements under the NOP regulations on animal welfare and many production practices that provide a holistic solution that is longer lasting and more effective than drugs.

For example, the LS reports being unable to find any information about one of the precursors of meloxicam. Concerning its review of meloxicam manufacture, it says, “We cannot confirm that this information precisely describes the precursor and manufacturing process for any specific manufacturer of this generic drug.” Given this lack of information, we do not believe that the statement, “Environmental impact review of the National Library of Medicine, including the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) revealed no generated environmental impact concerns from the manufacturing process, nor have any of the references noted in this petition suggested any such concerns,” can be taken as a finding of no environmental impact, as required by OFPA.

Other statements relating to impacts of use on humans and the environment are similarly unconvincing.

On human health: “Meloxicam is an approved drug for human use. It is available by prescription and not available over the counter. Meloxicam should be taken according to the recommendation of a patient’s physician.” This does not consider persistence in the treated animal or the sensitivity of consumers. It is making a judgment concerning possible exposure to uninformed consumers based on FDA’s approval of the drug by prescription.

On the environment: “There are no known effects on soil organisms, crops, or livestock.” “There are no reported adverse impacts on biodiversity. Meloxicam is an approved drug for humans and dogs. Meloxicam is a drug allowed for use in other livestock species in the US according to FDA regulations established under Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA).” We would expect more specific findings in a TR, and when the TR authors state that something is “not known” or “not reported,” we would have access to the references supporting those judgments.


Nate Powell-Palm: Could you please paint a picture for me, for how you think organic does as far as animal welfare. Do you feel like we are a standard that puts animal welfare first? Do you feel like we’re a standard that could claim to consumers that we are animal welfare forward?

Ed: Yeah, I think the organic certification process views animal welfare holistically. We don’t view animal welfare just on what drugs can be consumed, and what can’t. But we look at it from a point of view of natural behavior; we look at it from the point of view of building immunity within a herd. That can have a holistic approach to animal welfare, and maintaining it. And by that, we, I think, achieve a very high level — not quite “the gold standard” — of animal welfare. It is third-party certified, which very few other companies get that extent of legal support that organic does.

Nate Powell-Palm: I appreciate where you’re going. I don’t think paperwork could really be said to help an annual that’s in acute pain. So as a livestock producer, I’m wondering if you could speak to how we can have calves not have every tool in the toolbox to prevent pain during dehorning. Or as a livestock producer, I’m sure you can appreciate a cow that has a severe injury that is experiencing a lot of pain to be given all the resources we have. I’m really glad someone doesn’t say to me that “there’s a holistic program” if I break my arm, that everyone is looking at it “holistically” — I would like to have the tools to fix my arm! So could you say just a little bit more about how you think about managing that we have living creatures who are in our care and service, and we should be doing everything we can to take care of them? How do we balance that against your sort of holistic, paper based, attributes?

Ed: I would dispute that it’s “paper-based.” You’ve got the practitioner, who is the farmer and you’ve got the relationship with the animals. And under the organic regulations, if an animal reaches a stage where it’s in intense distress, it must be treated with whatever drug is available. And if that causes its certification to lapse, then that is necessary — that is required. And our recommendation is that, in fact, this should be immediately used for available for dehorning.

To me, personally, speaking personally, having dehorned many calves — to me, it is a somewhat barbaric process, and whatever can be done to mitigate any pain, I think, should be applied immediately. We do have some drugs that are used right now. And there are many more herds now that are moving towards polled livestock, with the increase in the availability of quality semen.

From the point of view of introducing a new drug into organic certification, what we’re saying is: let’s do the process right. Let’s have a TR. If the TR does come back — with all the available evidence that can apply to all livestock — (and my experience is with quite a number of different species, but I would never think of myself as somebody who can comment on all livestock) — then that gives us the support, to be able to go back to consumers and say, look: we’ve done this right. We’re bringing this drug in to assist in the process of animal welfare. And we’ve gone through the whole process and had it approved, independently.

Amy: I wanted to switch gears just briefly and ask you about 2 sunset materials that we’re reviewing in livestock: moxidectin and fenbendazole. There was a question by a commenter that says clarity is necessary for the definition of “emergency use,” because both of those substances are approved for emergency use. From a producer standpoint, is that clear, or do we need further clarification?

Ed: I think that’s a problem that we’ve been debating for many years, and come up with different ideas. Definitely, we need more definition around “emergency use.” And again, the emergency use is one time only. It’s not a blanket approval for use at any time you may wish. So, if there is a problem within a herd or a flock or whatever, then use fenbendazole as an emergency use — but then go back, and re-examine the system that causes you to have to use it.

Bruce Kaser – Organic Hazelnut farm operation (General)

Thank you. My name is Bruce Kazer. I’m an organic hazelnut farmer out in Oregon.

Many of you know that our farm is involved in litigation that seeks to have grower group certificates declared illegal. It’s now likely the litigation is going to last for years, until all the issues are resolved.

In general terms, grower groups involve licensing the use of the USDA organic seal to foreign agribusinesses that aggregate crops from large numbers of uncertified farms.

In court filings, USDA attorneys have admitted that these farms are not certified because it would be “absurd or impossibly burdensome” for a certifier to inspect them — and those are the USDA’s words, they’re not mine.

Let me give you an example. There’s a privately owned Netherlands company that operates one grower group in Ghana, and another in the Ivory Coast, Africa, both certified by Ecocert. Ecocert indicates that these 2 groups together consist of an aggregated 503,000 acres. That’s about 786 square miles. And the USDA Integrity Database falsely calls it all certified — certified acreage. Even though, as I just mentioned, the USDA’s attorneys call that absurd, which I happen to agree with.

This is not organic certification of small farmers. It is organic certification by default, or by something along the lines of desktop audit — for a large aggregator, that may or may not be providing any extra benefit to small farmers, and who, by the way, are held captive to this very different kind of system.

The websites all show happy smiling faces, but who knows what is actually true? And meanwhile, the NOP — in fact, those on some of the screens here today — falsely tell members of the public that “every farm is inspected” when that is simply not true.

This creates quite a liability problem. Annual farm inspection by an accredited certifier is a necessary legal requirement for farm certification. And, independently, you can’t use the organic seal unless product comes from a certified farm. That’s what our statutes have clearly said for a long time.

So for a trademark attorney, it becomes obvious that issuing crop certificates directly to aggregators raises issues that include liability for illegal labeling. The potential liability exposure is managed by the profits of those who do it.


Brian Caldwell: Difficult topic. Everybody would like to see organic certification for small scale producers across the world to be possible for them to do. Would a risk-based approach, with some kind of random inspections of aggregated farms, be an alternative that would be acceptable?

Bruce: To me, the words “risk-based approach,” they’re slang for “not doing farm inspections.” I think what’s important is that you have to be honest with the public. You know, tell the public that, “oh, we’re not inspecting farmers, because we can’t do it.”

So we’ve got this risk-based approach mechanism, which means a certifier decides, well, should we go look at farms or not? Or should internal inspectors go look at farms or not? What we have now is a system that requires no farm inspections at all. We have a regulation that doesn’t even require internal inspectors of a so-called “internal control system” to go and visit farms. So I see a lot of problems with “risk-based management.”

Ellie Hudson – Accredited Certifiers Association (General)

Ellie Hudson, Executive Director of the Accredited Certifiers Association, also known as ACA. We are a nonprofit educational organization, and our membership includes 64 certification agencies that are accredited by USDA. Our mission is to ensure consistent interpretation of the USDA organic regulations through collaboration and education.

Hello board members. Thank you for the opportunity to share comments today regarding risk-based certification and organic seed use. ACA colleagues will be offering comment on additional topics later this week and next.

We applaud the certification accreditation and compliance subcommittee for taking on the critical topic of risk-based certification. Certifiers have a long track record of adapting to changing needs in increasing complexity. Even so, we believe it is risky and unsustainable to continue responding to growth and changing needs by adding ever more complexity.

To avoid potentially collapsing under the weight of the system, we as a community must embrace a risk-based approach to certification. This will be most effective if it is implemented thoughtfully and consistently across certifiers. It can also facilitate the redistribution of resources proportionally towards areas of high risk. This gives us an even better chance to deter fraud and advance all facets of organic integrity.

ACA is all in on supporting the thoughtful development of a risk-based approach. We are already underway in forming a working group dedicated to this topic. The working group will develop tools to support a risk-based approach to certification and compliance verifications toward removing fraud and contamination from organic supply chains.

Certifiers and inspectors will vigorously and systematically discuss and analyze the risk-based approach, and share findings and conclusions with the organic community in a best practice document, and potentially other tools.

We are also in the process of updating the existing ACA best practice for risk assessment and follow-up, which was written in November, 2019.

We are at your service to contribute to advancing this discussion. Accompanied by Occam and his glorious Razor, we are fully expecting the implementation of risk-based certification practices to be meaningful steps toward our vision: a world where the USDA organic label is always trusted and valued.

Shifting for a brief comment on use of organic seed: Certifiers are interested in this topic, as it impacts what must be included in an organic system plan, and how certifiers and inspectors interpret the commercial availability requirement. We are very interested in the work being done across the organic sector on this. We intend to bring our perspective to work being done by the seed trade and others.

ACA will be participating in a discussion on this topic next week in a meeting hosted by the National Organic Coalition. We appreciate the NOSB’s work on these topics, and look forward to future collaboration and dialogue.


Brian Caldwell: Last question to about group certification and whether risk management could make it more fraud proof? Is this feasible or any obvious problems?

Ellie: Appreciate the grace – behind the scenes we are interested in exploring this.

Amy: Appreciate learning about the tools on best practice, etc. Risk based cert: do you perceive any tension between risk-based certification and certifier requirements for accreditation?

Ellie: I think shining a light on that is probably the first step. And I think, very generally, we’ve engaged in some discussions with our colleagues at NOP on this. That’s not really up to the ACA or up to certifiers, but I think that we need to be really transparent about that and not run from it. So I don’t have a lot of specifics to offer in that, but I think that it’s an area where it deserves a lot of attention.

Amy: Written comment from certifier: when trying to identify risk, NOP has template for complaints. Sometimes folks don’t have the information and ability to submit a full complaint. Suggested expanding the complaint portal so that it was easier to submit tips and concerns that are less detailed than a full complaint.

Ellie: Sort of first time heard of that. ACA works closely with NOP and a lot of priorities are aligned but not always in lock step. We do other things as well. We want to take it up but not in three year strategic plan.

Amy: Nimbleness of reacting could be improved and so where is mechanism to capture the qualitative problems to act a little quicker.

Ellie: We think this is one of our super powers: to be nimble… we are not a certifying agency, but we provide value in lots of ways. We can work more nimbly than some of our members.

Kyla Smith: What do you hope gets included in risk-based certification?

Ellie: Ask Marnie Karlin. Focused on keeping an open mind. We need to continue to gather information and defining risk of what. Risk based – what risks in different areas. That’s going to be key. Don’t want to make a glossary because that could backfire. Keeping an open mind at this time.

Zach Cahill – Cahill Organic Dairy (General)

My name is Zach Cahill, and I am a second-generation organic dairy farmer in Ferndale, California.

I’m a policy committee board member with the Organic Farmers Association, as well as a current board president of the Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance. From an organic dairy farmers’ perspective, there are a few topics that I would like to focus on this morning.

First, I would like to speak about the experiences that the organic dairy industry has had with the rollout of SOE.

While the efforts to curb fraud in the livestock sector are needed and appreciated, I speak for many dairy farmers when I say that it has been a frustrating process to deal with this past year.

For an example, I was told that my previous year’s inspection was once considered satisfactory. I later received an email that I still have outstanding follow-ups, and I needed to provide lists that were not available with the livestock tracking software that I and many others currently use. The lists would have been simple to create if they were asked for in advance, or quickly after my inspection. Backtracking was extremely burdensome and time consuming for all.

I was also asked for dam ID and birthdays on organic animals that I’d purchased over five years ago, from operations that are no longer in operation. After my certifier agreed that the information wasn’t asked for back when I purchased them, they informed me that moving forward, I will need that information, which is perfectly fine. My point is that what we develop, we need to make sure that it’s a forward-looking program, and understand that producers need to be clearly informed of what changes are coming so that we can adapt appropriately.

I would also like to take time to address pasture rule enforcement, specifically for DMI calculations for cows and milk, because because of the potential for falsifying cow numbers on how the DMI is calculated.

Currently, the producer reports how many animals they have in each class, during different times of the year, grazing and non-grazing. They can also choose how they calculate pasture intake during those times. The producer can also choose to provide the weights of those animals, or the pounds of milk that they produce.

Because both the number of animals and the weights of those animals can be falsified, I suggest in moving forward that the DMI calculation can only be derived from a predetermined number from the USDA that factors the pounds and produced into a drive-matter-demand figure, so that the DMI can be backtracked to monthly milk statements and feed logs.

The final topic that I would like to address is the Milwaukee camera petition. I’d encourage the NOSB to add maloxicam to the list of approved livestock materials only for use in bovine animals under one year of age, to assist in pain mitigation while dehorning and disbudding. While a comprehensive technical review would be beneficial for future NOSB members, the dairy community would welcome this addition to our toolbox as deemed appropriate. We need to take better steps toward pain mitigation for better animal welfare, and this is a great step in the right direction.

Thank you for letting me speak on some of the issues the organic dairy industry is facing today.


Kim: can you expand on pain management tools using for steers for meat production and for dairy cow?

Zach: When we dishorn or disbud our calves, we use lidocaine, and then give them banamine as well. So the lidocaine is a local numbing agent, and then the banamine helps with overall pain.

Kim: Are you castrating?

Zach: No, no, we don’t keep any of the bull calves.

Kim: Most don’t stay in reproduction.

Zach: Right, yeah, a guy comes up into our neck of the woods, and then he takes all the bull calves of the beef-and-dairy crosses, and then administers those to different calf branches over different parts of the state.

Nate: Your suggesting meloxicam only be used for disbudding and your suggested annotation? What concern would your annotation prevent?

Zach: So we don’t want any of the residual to be in the milk or supply. And dry cows go to slaughter, you know, only one time in their life. There’s really not many circumstances where we would need the use for meloxicam in older animals. They give birth naturally… if they had a real odd health event, then, you know, there might be a time that’s appropriate to administer that. But that would be mastered by a vet anyway. But no, for us it’s primarily just for the calves when dehorning and disbudding.

Kyla: I have a question. So you had talked about some of the record keeping requirements, and particularly how that was impacting you all in the dairy community, as a result of SOE; I’m curious if that was specifically presented as an SOE requirement, the particulars of the keeping of dam IDs and things like that. Like just curious about the linking of those 2 things. The specifics and the SOE.

Zach: Yeah. Yeah, so when my certifier asked me for these backdated lists, they said, well, with with the rollout of SOE, that now means that the list that you provided us is not satisfactory. And we need that list as of January 1st of last year. And so my question was, well, if it was satisfactory then — why don’t we just do this next year? And you can ask me for the updated list next year, instead of going back and trying to — you know, “cover our tracks” would not be the right term, but — to backdate documents that were not requested originally.

It was very hard for us to go back with our software. If we would have known moving forward, or what all of our herd list was as of today, that’s easy, you know, we do that all the time; but it doesn’t allow us to go back to previous days and make those lists. So we had to go back in all of our handwritten records and match them up with everything. I think at the end of the day, it was the certifiers who got their hand forced to ask for additional information. Our inspection already happened.

Rachel Meyers – Organic Inspector
[This commenter provided their comments in full.]

My name is Rachel Myers. I have been involved in organic farming and certification for over 20 years. I have worked on organic produce and dairy farms. I have also conducted thousands of inspections, done file reviews and worked in quality systems management for certifier accreditation.

Three minutes does not give me the time to include everything I would like to say, but the comments submitted by IOIA and ACA do an excellent job of providing more detail and I would like to voice my support and agreement with their written comments.

I want to commend Congress for requiring updates to the standards that protects the reputation of organic and the farmers and handlers that work so hard to do things right, to the USDA for formally introducing risk based certification into the regulations, and to Kyla Smith and the NOSB for bringing risk-based certification to the forefront of discussion. I can tell you from someone who has sat at hundreds of kitchen tables and conference rooms that the industry absolutely needs Risk based certification and we need it now. While compliance to all of the organic regulations is obviously critical, we need to be sound and sensible in our approach. The administrative burden is crushing many small, low risk operations and I am afraid it will contribute, along with record low pricing, to many operations leaving the program if there is not change now.

Risk based certification is largely based on the need for increased efficiency and capacity for both human capital within the regulatory community and administrative capacity on organic farms. We are lucky to have so many brilliant and passionate minds in this industry. and I want to strongly support an ACA working group. We need to bring together key stakeholders to find workable solutions while maintaining the integrity consumers rely on. A working group allows for the agility and timeliness that we need.

Other key solutions I would like to encourage:

– Exploration of Risk based certification that encompasses more than just supply chain audits.

– A matrix for inspections and compliance priority. Some areas of the food industry consider deviations as majors or minors. What are the highest priorities in the organic industry and do we structure forms and inspections in a way that verifies all regulations while focusing well human capital where we need it and keeping certification affordable.

– The adaption and implementation of technology, such as dynamic electronic OSPs, OCR technology and AI. These are powerful tools that will provide incredible assistance in verification of compliance and creating easy maps to collecting the right type of information from each risk level. TOPP money may be a useful way of enabling low tech and no tech operations to complete OSPs and/or some forms online.

– The option of a universal base OSP that allows for certifier customization, while providing forms that have a stamp of approval from the NOP. This will free up valuable time for experienced quality personal to focus on other tasks, make accreditation audits easier, and allow for better and more consistent training within the industry. It will also make it easier for TOPP money to create programs that provide assistance to farmers who have questions about completing or updating their OSP.

I will end with another very sincere thank you for the opportunity to discuss this issue! The industry needs this.

Harold Austin

Morning, my name’s Harold Austin. I’m a former member of the NOSB, and current chair of the Northwest Horticultural Council Science Advisory Committee and their organic subcommittee. I also serve on the governing council for CORA, the Coalition for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, based here in Washington state.

First, let me thank each of you, especially those members that of the NOSB that are about to sunset off the board. My personal thanks to each of you for the time and the energy that you have given on behalf of what organic stakeholders across our country. I’ve been in your shoes. I know what it takes. And I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you’ve done for our organic community.

Here in the Pacific Northwest, we’re about 60% done with apple harvest, and with any luck, and the weather holding out, we should be done somewhere around the week of the 11th of November. So, still a little bit busy here in the Northwest.

I’d like to refer you to my written comments that I’ve already submitted, along with those submitted by the Northwest Horticultural Council, and also those submitted for the very first time by the CORA group.

For handling, I support the continued relisting for activated charcoal, paracetic acid, and hydrogen peroxide. These 3 listings are still very important for our organic handling processes here in the Northwest for crops.

Because of the continued importance of these materials, I continue to support the relisting of hydrogen peroxide, ammonium soaps, potassium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, horticultural oils, and the pheromones. These materials are still used in our companies’ organic apples, pears, cherries, wine grapes, and blueberry production.

I would also like to voice my support, and stress the importance for us, that the petition for adding pear ester to the national list has to our tree fruit industry, both here in the Northwest and wherever apples and pears are grown in this great nation of ours.

This is one of the inert ingredients used by Trécé company in the production of their pheromones, and their mating disruption lures, and stuff that we’ve used for multiple decades with no known harm to human health or the environment that we’re aware of.

Mating disruption is our primary building block for our control process for codling moth and the two forms of [?] that we fight here in the northwest. I don’t know where we’d be, if we didn’t have this as a part of our control process.

I also must give my support, as I stated in my written comments, for the motion to remove the DL-methionine annotation, and for its continued re-listing on the national list for livestock production. This is a very good example of the NOSB process at work, and while it did not accomplish everything that it was meant to — in fact, it was a full-on outright disaster — but at least it shows how the process is intended to be applied; in the search for viable solutions, middle-of-the-road agreements or alternatives must be considered. But this case, the attempt at finding a viable solution caused irreconcilable harm to the flocks. And now it’s time for you to fix our problem and our mistake. Thank you.


Nate Lewis: About methionine – do you think the removal of the annotation will disincentivize seeking out natural alternatives?

Harold: I don’t think so. I think if we look at the materials that are currently listed, those that have had non-organic sources as well as organic, I think we’ve got a very resilient group of stakeholders in our organic community; and when there’s a viable organic solution that’s available for them, our stakeholders are gonna take and go that direction. But until we get to that point, we really need to take and keep this one listed and available for the livestock producers until they can come up with a solution. We thought by putting the annotation on it would help move us that direction. But the damage that this was causing to the birds and the flocks and stuff, and then not being able to put the right amount in feed at the right time, was really detrimental to those livestock producers, and it’s time to correct that mistake that we made, and put a little trust and faith in these producers. When there’s something that’s viable and a good safe alternative for them and their flocks, they’ll switch.

Nate Lewis: pheromone v. kyromone. Should we list kyromone as a general class? Are there other ones than pear esters?

Harold: I don’t know the answer to that question. If there is additional need for a general listing? I don’t know. Maybe some of the certifiers, OMRI, or ISDA would have a better idea.

Nate Lewis: As tree fruit grower, anything considered kyromone not allowed to use?

Harold: Yes pear ester is the primary focus at this time.

Kate Mendenhall – Organic Farmers Association (General)
[This commenter provided their comments in full to Cornucopia.]

Thank you, NOSB members, for the opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Kate Mendenhall, I am the Executive Director of the Organic Farmers Association.

OFA was created by farmers, for farmers. Without domestic organic farmers, we do not have an organic market. Farmer viability and domestic fair market expansion that works to build competition and uplift communities is essential to the organic program.

I appreciate the NOSB Discussion Documents on Residue Testing, Risk-based Certification, and Consistency in Organic Seed Use, action on these areas is urgently needed.

As you know, and I appreciate the work that Amy and Nate have done on this topic, organic grain farmers are really suffering with record low grain prices, and an influx of imported questionable organic grain. Organic dairy farmers continue to undergo hardship without an adequate safety net and are stymied by continued market consolidation, and produce farmers are feeling increasing market heat from new organic hydroponic production-sold with the same label but not the same soil.

OFA agrees that residue testing on high-risk product loads has merit. Especially when these loads are coming from other countries where NOP oversight is not as stringent. We need to ensure that domestic producers are competing in an equitable market, under uniform standards. Residue testing helps protect organic integrity in these cases, but should not become the norm as organic is a production-based system and should remain so.

While Dr. Tucker has repeatedly assured the organic community that SOE is not intended to impact low-risk small to medium sized farmers, that is not what is happening on the ground. We believe the NOP and their accreditation managers need to have a more active role in defining and explaining proper & intended implementation of risk-assessment procedures needed to help stop fraud prevention without disproportionately burdening small farmers. NOP must issue clear guidance on how risk assessment will be done, how to define or determine low-risk and high-risk, and shift the larger part of the oversight to higher-risk operations. Certification protocols for low-risk operations should be re-evaluated as the past 5 years have opened accessible technologies that can greatly reduce small farm paperwork burden.

Another issue that makes the previously mentioned solutions even more urgent, is that for the second time in the last two years, organic grain farmers have received clawback letters after another grain buyer declared bankruptcy. From the information we have, which is about half of the farmers affected, more than $5.5 million has been clawed back from farmers in seven Midwest states. OFA is working to support these farmers in the short term, and to organize for a policy solution in the long-term. It will take a group effort to prevent this injustice in the future.

I urge you to keep organic farmer stakeholders at the forefront of your thinking as you make decisions at the NOSB meeting that have real impacts in their day-to-day operations. We have to move the organic market forward sustainably and continue to do right by the farmers that built the movement. It will take bold moves from NOP, rapid rulemaking efforts, and commitment from certification agencies to implement increased scrutiny on high-risk operations while still preserving accessible organic certification.

Thank you again, for your time and your service.


Amy Bruch: Comment about every farm operation deserves a safety net and pointing to dairy. Is there any immediate actions we can collectively focus in on to build reprieve for domestic producers?

Kate: Depends on definition of immediate. Safety nets would be improved by crop insurance in Farm Bill and also there is new data that would provide risk management agency in times of market stress. Another market issue is bankruptcy clawback letters. Farmers losing half of income. Policy solution for that and looking at bankruptcy code to exclude farmers and ranchers. Number of things, but looking at those type of safety nets and better solutions would make a different in short term.

Kyla: What’s your ideal risk-based certification?

Kate: It has to be sustainable for certifiers too. More guidance from NOP so certifiers feel secure. Starting a farmer working group to dive into this. Things to think about as looking at risk in certification. Certification agency resources where most needed to protect integrity. For low risk operations, maybe they do a Zoom inspection every other year. This year my inspection will happen when animals aren’t on field. Type of records and scrutiny based on farm’s market – might not be relevant for small farms.

Rebekah Weber – CCOF (General)

Hi, everyone. Thank you, NOSB, for the opportunity to comment. My name is Rebekah Weber, and I’m the policy director at California Certified Organic Farmers, CCOF.

And my comment is — actually quite timely, after that discussion with Kate — around what can we be doing now, in this moment, to support the organic community. I’m really focusing today on the Farm Bill. And while I understand this isn’t a direct topic that NOSB is discussing, it is particularly timely in this moment. And there are threats and opportunities that come with it.

I want to call attention to the fact that we don’t have a Farm Bill currently. And without one, there are crucial farmer backbone programs, like cost share, that are in jeopardy.

But there’s also a big opportunity, this time around, and that is to make permanent the unprecedented 300 million dollars the USDA has invested in organic agriculture.

We do not want that investment in organic market development, organic technical assistance, and organic mentorship, to be a one-off.

CCOF really appreciates the leadership of many on this call for pushing to codify these programs in the farm bill.

And whether Congress acts during the lame duck session after the election or next year, I look forward to connecting next week in Portland to continue to strategize with everyone within the organic community on how we can leverage our strengths and advance organic agriculture in the farm bill.

Thank you so much.

[Break]

Harry Rice – Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s (GOED) (Handling (HS))

Thank you. My name is Harry Rice and I’m with the Global Organization for EPA and DHA Omega-3s, or GOED for short; it represents the worldwide industry for EPA and DHA, the primary long chain Omega 3 fatty acids found in fish oil. Our membership of 200-plus members and partners is built on a quality standard unparalleled in the market. Our mission is to increase consumption of EPA and DHA, and to ensure that our members produce quality products that consumers can trust.

While GOED’s written comments address both fish oil and nutrient vitamins and minerals, as part of the 2026 sunset review, at the present time, I will limit my comments to fish oil.

As we’ve done since 2015, GOED supports the inclusion of fish oil in the 7 CFR 205.606 (non-organically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in products labeled as organic), because the NOP does not have production standards for aquaculture, fish, and thus fish oil, cannot be commercially available as organic.

Since organic fish oil does not exist, consumers who prefer organic products should have access to those products made with non-organically produced fish oil.

During previous sunset reviews, sustainability has been the most contentious issue regarding the inclusion of fish oil on the national list. We are disappointed that the NOP chose not to act upon NOSB’s 2021 recommendation to modify the fish oil annotation.

GOEN and its member companies who supply the category support sustainable fishing practices, and we viewed a modification to the fish oil annotation as an acceptable solution to address sustainability concerns and to ensure that fish oil is compatible with organic practices.

In the NOSB’s October 24th proposals and discussion documents, the handling subcommittee asked stakeholders if the NOSB should prioritize completing a recommendation for wild seafood standards pursuant to the OFPA. My answer was, and remains, yes — but in the interim, GOED encourages the NOSB to vote no to remove fish oil from the national list, so that fish oil can continue to be used in products labeled as organic.

You may recall from my written comments that, because I was unable to find the Canadian annotation for fish oil used in aquaculture, I was unable to answer the question to stakeholders about whether or not the NOSB should updating the 2021 recommendation to align the fish oil annotation with the Canadian annotation. I would be happy to answer that question if you could read me the Canadian annotation.

In conclusion, GOED encourages the NOSB to vote no to remove fish oil from the national list. By voting no, fish oil will remain on the national list for another 5 years. And just in closing, in the future, please feel free to contact GOED with any questions related to fish oil or any other EPA or DHA-rich product. As always, thank you for your time.


Nate Lewis: Do you have a sense how much fish oil is from wild caught vs. Farmed fish?

Harry: The oil? I don’t think any of the oil used in organic products is used from farmed fish.

Tess Barr – Bright Pharma Caps, Inc. (Handling (HS))

Hello, my name’s Tess Barr, and I’m the president and co-founder of Bright Pharma Caps. I’d like to recognize and thank the National Organic Standards Board for allowing us a voice in these proceedings.

I don’t think I need to educate you on Pullulan, but this information is available on our website, at www.brightpharmacaps.com, in great detail. But allow me to provide you some history on Bright Pharma Caps. In 2006 we released for sale a patented Pullulan 2 piece hard shell capsule.

Pullulan has been widely used for food ingredient in Japan since the 1940s. It has some unique benefits for a capsule: they’re very durable; they run well in manufacturing, and protect ingredients, unlike capsules made with other ingredients. But this capsule, like other Pullulan capsules on the market, could only use the claim “made with organic.” So in 2013, after several years of research and constructing our dedicated organic facilities and equipment, we released the world’s first organic certified capsule, again, made with Pullulan.

A legal dispute removed these capsules from the market in 2015. At this time, we built a facility and developed the production of our own organic Pullulan to make organic capsules, to ensure our quality control and supply of the necessary material to make these organic capsules. In 2020, as agreed, we returned to the United States market. This started rapid growth for our company, as we are still the only option to get the USDA seal on an encapsulated product. Because of this growth and our belief in this capsule, we built a second manufacturing plant to produce organic Pullulan. This last year our sales grew 40%. We expect that to continue. Our current manufacturing capacity is 5 billion capsules, and our future manufacturing capacity is as much as 14 billion.

As still the only manufacturer of organic certified capsules, we have real concerns with organic equivalency granted to the ES/EU allowing products using the chemical-based HPMC capsules the use of the USDA organic seal. We believe this is unfair to us and the US marketplace, and it is also misleading to the consumer.

And I’d like to thank you for your time and again for letting us have a voice in these proceedings.


Kim: This was not on my radar until the spring when it had it’s first round of Sunset review. Can you give us more information on your capacity and where you are based?

Tess: Currently we are 5 million capsules and expected growth at 14 billion. Based in China. 6 buildings on site. Provide housing in dorms for employees. During covid, we were able to quarantine employees. We also have our own water treatment plant facilities. We give water back to farmers. On supply line ship to 4 different ports, 35 containers on water right now. We’ve had continued growth. Getting new customers. Things running smoothly. Marketing out of china over 15 years. Our only issue is if some one puts additional tariffs on.

Alison: Interesting development for this materials. Do you think you can supply the entire organic market’s demand right now? If we pulled the annotation off right now, would it give you a monopoly or would it allow others to compete with you?

Tess and Patrick Barr: We welcome competition. We’ve tried to help people. We’ve always had the belief that if you build a McDonald’s across from a Wendy’s, they both do better. We built 2 plants, and think we can offer enough for everybody. What’s being used in non-organic, we can offer in organic. To go non-organic doesn’t save you that much money. Open to more sales and can handle whatever is out there and open to competition.

Ryan Klassen – Row crop farmer (Crops (CS))

My name is Ryan Klassen. I’m an organic row crop farmer from Minnesota.

I grew up on a conventional farm, left for college, and spent the better part of a decade working for a logistics and material handling company. I returned to the farm, and it’s now an organic operation. And I’m a problem solver through those experiences.

So if everyone has a pen, paper, pencil, please write down “the 4 C’s”, in case you haven’t heard of them — and that’s the 4 C’s: Condition, Cause, Correction, and Confirmation. And I’ll say it again: Condition, Cause, Correction, Confirmation. Why the 4 C’s, you might ask?

I grow corn, soybeans, wheat, and oats. And in my 10 year career on the farm as an organic farmer now, I can tell you that it has been a roller coaster, as far as marketing, and being able to do what I do, and make it almost turn-key-go for both the farmer, the buyer, and the consumer or the end user.

A year ago I got a phone call, it said, “Buckle up, it’s gonna be a rough ride,” from one of my buyers. And — a year ago — the prices are now lower, a year ago and today, than they’ve ever been in my 10 year career. Meaning it’s not sustainable, the path that it’s on right now. It is full of fraud. So everybody was like, “SOE is gonna fix this. So just wait for SOE to roll out.”

Absolutely, SOE has been out for 6 months now. The prices are worse now than they were 6 months ago, and they’re even worse than they were a year ago.

What is going on, and how are we gonna fix this? There’s fraud everywhere in the supply chain.

Why is the USDA, with the TOPP program, throwing millions of dollars at transitioning more acreage, and getting more producers on board, in a marketplace that’s full of fraud? And full of grain? It’s not a recipe for success. How are we gonna fix this? That’s my question.


Amy: You mentioned you are a problem solver – where should we target to mitigate some of what you are experiencing?

Ryan: Can we get NOP to get some transparency on SOE? I remember Deputy Administrator being proud of SOE. This is going to solve some of fraud, but there are no names, amounts. And she did say new information brings new problems. USDA has AMS service and we know assigned values. You can do the math backwards and not available to you and I. There is no transparency in what’s going on. Info hidden or delayed and it should be live.

Kim: First question: crop rotation… do you use other crops in your rotation or can you describe what other corps you are doing?

Ryan: Spent a decade in Minneapolis. Farm to table – everybody loves local part of it. Every part of organic industry is going through growing pains. If one person has a problem, there are effects up and down stream. I’ve taken rye and gone to a bakery and couldn’t get paid, because the bakery is going through insolvency. I’ve taken sunflowers, and that person couldn’t pay on time. Everyone is trying to get ahead while digging a deeper hold. Only one domestic pea buyer in the states, and a record of not paying farmers. So between peas and sunflower, rye and buckwheat – specialty crops are high risk, and no safety net. I can’t continue, so had to go soybeans and corn.

Kim: That leads into my second question. A lot of the specialty org ingredients the market says it wants but does not appreciate. With prices and discovery, can you speak to the spreads of organic to conventional over the last 2 years? Maybe a better question: have you seen any of your buyers or elevators, or when you are mapping your cost structure – am I going to keep the farm organic? Do you see a tightening or widening between those two? Like between corn and soy comparing conventional and organic?

Ryan: A little out of my territory. Conventional model is broken. You can buy and sell corn on paper. When I first got into this 10 or 2 years ago, we always 2 to 2.5 times as conventional. We are not longer 2.5 or 2 and now at 1.7 or 8 for corn.

Emily Musgrave – Driscoll’s Inc. (Crops (CS);Materials (MS))

Good afternoon. My name is Emily Musgrave. I’m the organic regulatory manager at Driscoll’s. As always, I would like to thank the NOSB for their tremendous commitment by serving on the board.

My comments focus on the continued allowance of various crop materials, as well as two discussion documents, and the proposal on compost production.

Additionally, I’m a voluntary member of the International Fresh Produce Association’s Organics Committee, and Driscoll’s supports the comments made by IFPA.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of hydrogen peroxide for use in organic production as both an algae, disinfectant, and sanitizer as well as plant disease control. Hydrogen peroxide is widely used by Driscoll’s growers for cleaning irrigation lines.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of horticultural oils for use in organic production as they are a critical tool for the organic industry as a whole.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of pheromones as an approved material on the national organic list as a tool for insect management. Pheromones are the primary way organic growers control many different species.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of ferric phosphate in organic production. Many growers use ferric phosphate, as slug and snail damage is prevalent across all four berry types, and in my garden as well.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of potassium bicarbonate in organic production. Potassium bicarbonate is used as a folder fungicide to control powdering. They’ll do this across all four berry types, but extremely important in strawberries.

Driscoll’s supports the continued listing of magnesium sulfate as an improved material on the National organic list. Magnesium fertilization is critical to plant health across all berry types.

We also support the new definition and practice standards for compostables, but believe there needs to be more progress, and Driscoll’s also appreciates and recognizes the importance of the discussion document of residue testing for a global supply chain, as consumer trust and the integrity of organic products is critical to the continued success of the organic industry.

We look forward to providing further comments on this subject at the Spring 25 meetings. Just also like to thank the board for their work and the discussion document on risk-based certification.

The industry absolutely needs risk-based certification. Risk-based certification will increase efficiency and capacity for organic operations, organic certification bodies, and the organic community.

Driscoll’s respectfully request we receive the materials for the meeting further in advance of the public comment. I know the board is extremely busy trying to get through all the materials and get them out to the community members. But if there’s any way to get us the materials earlier before the meetings, that would be greatly appreciated.

Driscoll’s thanks to National Organic Standards Board for the opportunity to comment and their commitment to protecting the integrity of the program.

Rusty Olson – River Valley Organics Inc (Misc)

Rusty Olsen, I farm in North Central, Iowa, near Garner, Iowa. And we farm organic as well as conventional, about 50/50. We farm about 1450 acres total, and we’re half organic, half conventional; and got into organics around 2016-2017, started working on this, and it’s been a great experience.

Much like Ryan — I think him and I spoke before actually — much like Ryan was saying, starting out, the risk versus reward factor was definitely a lot stronger a few years ago than it is now, with the degrading grain markets and everything that’s going on with the imports and the lack of integrity in the industry, from with the imported grain coming in.

Well, my frustration is: when you look at the numbers of international production versus domestic, and then you look at their acres, and then you look at the amount of bushels we’re bringing in — the numbers, they just don’t match. And I wish I could run my operation that way! We don’t do that. I guess we have a little more pride and integrity in what we do. So that’s where I get frustrated.

But the topics I’d really like to talk about, the issues — I know it’s been brought up. I was actually a victim of the clawback, with the global processing here recently, like several others. I’ve been involved with the Iowa farm bureau for 22 years; I served on county board and several state committees. I worked at a lot of grassroots level, helping develop policy for agriculture and farmers in the state of Iowa as well as the United States, and currently serve as a Board director for the state Iowa corn board. And we get to work with a lot of legislative activities, and developing policy for farmers, though Iowa corn; it’s been a great experience. Recently discovered the OFA for organics — great group, I really enjoy getting involved in that as much as I possibly can — but once again, let me get back to the clawback thing, with all these different organizations I’ve worked through.

When I got that letter about the the bushels that I delivered, it was paid for, and they were trying to take my money back, my first thought was: this is theft. This is actual — this should be absolutely illegal!

And then, you know, I start talking to attorneys: “Well, this is just law, this is bankruptcy law. We can’t do anything about it. This is just standard business.”

There has to be a way to develop policy to make this so they can’t — I mean this was grain that we produced, and delivered, and was paid for, and the grain is no longer in our possession.

And for them to come back and try to take that money back — it should absolutely be a crime. There has to be a way to make exclusions, you know, indemnity; the funds have run out, and they can’t cover these these bills that they would like to, but they can’t. And I, fortunately, fell under the 30-day normal course of business, and I got excluded from that completely. I really hope that we can work toward taking care of this; and there has to be a way to develop policy for this.


Amy Bruch: Rusty, thanks for your time – apologize for the reasons you are here. When Ryan spoke he talked about the tightening of the market – you mentioned risks. Can you talk about the strength of additional buyers? This is the 2nd bankruptcy of Midwest buyers mentioned here.

Rusty: Have that concern. Get to communicate with a lot of organic farmers. Started a Facebook page and everyone talks about security of markets and integrity of grain. It’s very concerning and almost want to ask for a balance sheet. Have 30 days when sell. Need to enforce grain merchant laws and get very concerned about ability of companies. Are they going to actually pay us? Major concern in a smaller market. Tight margins and lower prices. Feel like doing right thing staying organic. Got a lot of bills to pay. To stay organic, business has to be profitable.

Hubert Karreman – Reverence Farms (Livestock (LS))

Alright, good evening board. It’s nice to be at NOSB meeting again, even in this way. I was on the board in 2005, 2010. And I was chair of Livestock Committee, from 2000 — I don’t know — 7 to 10. We had the grazing wars. We had the aquaculture issue, some big ones.

Anyway, I’m here today to talk with you about meloxicam, pain reliever for livestock. I’ve heard there’s some folks that want to have a technical review for meloxicam, and it’s actually, honestly, not needed; because the FDA has already reviewed, evaluated, and approved meloxicam; it has a new drug approval, number 20-938.

There’s actually precedent for not doing a technical review on a drug. For instance, when fenbendazole was being evaluated by NOSB, we evaluated all the same documents that FDA did and we voted to allow it, to be acceptable to the NOP. And, if you did a technical review on meloxicam, there’s actually nothing new that would be shown.

And also I do believe that, once all these 7 essential criteria for material review […] with OFPA are fulfilled, then the NOSB has done its job in a material review.

As far as the annotation, I think if you have simply double the withholding time, that’s all that’s needed. There’s precedent for that as well under butorfanol, xylazine, tolasolin, and flunixin. They were all recommended by the NOSB to the NOP, and then as regulations require, the NOP must confer with the FDA. W th any drugs in the United States, the FDA has final say. The FDA had their say: they said what the withholdings would be for those 4 drugs I just mentioned. And then the USDA through the NOP, said, “basically, we’re gonna double it for organic production.” And so I would let the FDA and the USDA talk, you know, legal terms, hopefully, once meloxicam is recommended.

A pain relief drug like meloxicam is not like a food coloring item, being considered for 605 or 606. Pain relief, and relieving pain and suffering, is an ethical issue. Both farmers and veterinarians want to provide pain relief as needed, and not be hobbled — as they already are in life-threatening illnesses, due to the prohibition on antibiotics.

I can imagine that, with organic customers: they pay lots of money to have their pets worked on by a veterinarian; I imagine that they would completely expect that a farmer would give their livestock animals the same treatment, in regards at least to pain relief. After all, animal welfare is the second highest priority of organic customers. To inhibit veterinarians from using FDA approved pain relievers won’t play well with the organic customers. Inhibiting the use of proven pain relievers really does come close to the complete prohibition of using antibiotics.

So in closing, please: recommend meloxicam to be allowed, for organic livestock on 7 CFR 205.603, please.


Allison: My experience with FDA oversight of animal drugs is in antibiotics realm, where they are really falling down. Why are you so confident in their review of this particular drug?

Hubert: I’m as confident as I could be in review of any drug. IT would be thorough and full. If I want to get a drug approved at FDA level, it would take millions of dollars. Companies that submit for approval, they are raked over the coals and whether you or I agree in methodology, what I think happens, in antibiotics, it is how those drugs are how used in conventional industry – FDA approval has flaws, bur rakes things over the coals. The fenbendazole papers were very detailed. I might not love FDA, but USDA has to play with the FDA.

Nate: Thanks for highlighting the ethics that come into this material. We dont often hear from veterinary community. I am grateful that the FDA exists and we have a strong process for drug overview.

Kyla: My understanding that the alternative that is currently listed and most likely used is flunixin.

Hubert: Flunixin and Buto phenol, and aspirin, and lidocaine. What it comes down to is the length of duration of action. Let’s say we’re talking about disbudding – I know that’s the reason for getting this on the list – but it should not be limited to disbudding. The nice thing about Meloxicam is you can use it every-other day. Most guys who milk guys, if they do not have to give something every 6 hours as with the other drugs, that would be a great benefit. Also, Flunixin is more for internal pain. Meloxicam is used for humans – arthritis – so for disbudding, that would be more of this use.

Kyla: Several comments around limiting use by species, age, and use. Getting the sense from some comments that meloxicam is the preferred or better drug to use here because of what you are describing. I want more information about how those two drugs compare (Flunixin versus meloxicam) if flunixin is the most comparable material.

Hubert: Mainly for duration of action, and I wouldn’t limit it to one species – there are organic pigs and sheep. It is more of an osteoarthritic type thing. When I amputated a toe off a yearling bull recently, I used the organic approved meds, and then I gave it flunixin while it was waking up, and then I used meloxicam. I’m a dairy farmer. I need to go about the farm. I wanted to keep an eye on that bull, but I couldn’t really give it something every 6 hours. Duration of action is the reason for meloxicam as compared to flunixin.

Kyla: You havent seen any negative impact on other species?

Hubert: I haven’t used it in pigs. I have probably used it in a few sheep. I have not, no.

Abby Youngblood – National Organic Coalition (CACS;General)
(This commenter provided their full comments.)

Good afternoon. My name is Abby Youngblood, and I am the executive director at the National Organic Coalition.

I’m going to comment today on four topics: organic seed, residue testing, NOSB support staff, and methionine.

I want to start by thanking the CACS for taking up organic seed usage as a work agenda item. This issue will not be solved quickly – it is a topic that may take several iterations to determine the best path forward. Having the NOSB facilitate this public discussion is definitely helpful. I also want to invite the NOSB and members of the public to the NOC Pre-NOSB meeting, held on Monday, Oct. 21 in Portland. The meeting will highlight the challenges around organic seed and will include a panel discussion with seed producers, breeders, distributors, and policy experts. The full-day meeting will also include a farm bill update, a farmer panel, and more. You can register to participate on the National Organic Coalition website events page.

Next, I want to comment on residue testing. NOC supports residue testing in processed products. There are several considerations we want to flag:

– Organic certification is a practice-based standard. Testing is used to ensure that practices are being properly followed.
– We need to talk about who will bear the cost of the testing.
– Isolated testing at the handler level is not highly effective, particularly for multi-ingredient processed products.
– The NOSB should consider the experience of the EU and specifically, the process that is used by the EU Organic Farming Information System.
– We need consistent implementation of protocols by certifiers and clear guidance within the NOP Handbook.

Next, I’d like to comment on NOSB support staff. NOC requests that, going forward, the NOSB should indicate for each NOSB meeting what activities and information has been provided by NOSB support staff. We request that the NOSB put a clear process in place to make it easier for NOSB members to make use of this support. The NOP should not be a gatekeeper and documents produced by NOSB support staff should be delivered directly to NOSB members. We’d like the Policy Development Subcommittee to work on these issues.

On methionine, NOC opposes the proposal to remove methionine use limits.

Finally, as you know, our coalition is deeply engaged in the Farm Bill process. We will be educating Members of Congress and USDA leaders about organic after the election, and we have a specific request for the NOSB related to the Organic Certification Cost Share Program, which is now at risk. We commented on these topics as part of our ‘big picture’ comments to the NOSB and I am happy to answer questions.

Thank you NOSB members for your service and for this opportunity to comment.


Nate Lewis: Question about methionine annotation change. Your written comments noted that there wasn’t enough time to discuss and vote on that change. We draw from NOC’s comments as we evaluate things – it’s a valuable roadmap for us – as we try to get the annotation change right. What do we do to ensure no one is surprised by changes?

Abby: We are appreciative of the Board looking for these opportunities to make annotation changes that have been lingering out there. I would love to hear Steve Ela’s thoughts on this, as well. I think our members rely a lot on subcommittee notes for things that are going to be dealt with in the next meeting, so having something in those notes can be helpful. Of if the Board knows that something is going to come up, perhaps mentioning it at the previous meeting is helpful. I know that the Board does try to do this, but I know that subcommittee notes take a while to get posted, so there’s that.

Nate Lewis: We are trying to get it right. So we should work together as a community. I would love for it to be clearer how to access the Subcommittee notes.

Amy Bruch: Terry mentioned to ask NOC. Doing a full court press. A lot community is working on to increase enforcement. In community, do we have effort on technology solutions – AI, new focus for innovation, how can we leverage technology to get after concerns?

Abby: First, I will say that based on the ongoing problem, and we heard about it today, on fraudulent organic feed-grade imports, we want to see the NOP double down on testing. There is a bill out of Nebraska that we are supporting, and that will be introduced soon. I think that kind of touches on your question, because I can see some ways that we could really be honing on risk using the testing data, but also using some other new data that is available to us through SOE, for example, being able to flag high risk countries, or import certificates that are invalid. I think we have a real opportunity to do that. I think we need to keep going in the direction we have been doing. We have doubled the resources for the NOP since 2018, and we need to continue to make sure that the staffing is there to do the accreditation of certifiers, do the enforcement actions, and make sure the resources are there to see where the fraud is, because it is moving around. Right now, we have a lapsed farm bill, a lapsed farm bill extension, and that’s so important because that is holding up funding for SOE to be implemented properly.

Kyla Smith: Saw in written comments about EU as a model. Talked to some folks in certifier community and it was on my radar. Do you know any cliff notes versions of highlights of what they are doing?

Abby: I can’t get that to you right now, but we do have that expertise within our coalition membership, and I’d love to follow-up with you to connect you with some individuals who are really familiar with this. I will follow-up with you on that, Kyla.

Kyla Smith: To get it on the record, what do you want the Board to do for cost share; what’s the ask?

Abby: We are asking the Board to elevate this issue with USDA leaders. We want to make sure USDA is going to Congress and saying, “This is a problem.” We’d like to see leaders within AMS making the point that we’re in trouble. If we do not get that funding for Cost Share, that’s going to have a huge impact, especially in 2025, for producers that we know cost is a barrier. That might really affect who can move forward with certification if we do not get the funding in place.

Bryce Irlbeck – Farmer (CACS)

Good afternoon. My name is Bryce. I spoken a few times in the past. But I’m an organic producer, and also in a business that helps farmers through the certification process, and I’ve really come today to talk about one topic that’s come up in our farming operation. And that is the topic of testing and certification process. And the disparity that has been shown between by-the-day data of US testing, versus testing abroad.

With the new rules implemented in the SOE, I can see that testing has increased the United States — as it should be, and that’s a good thing. And I was wondering, as we are being tested a lot, on surprise visits — we work with a lot of farmers — did a few surprise visits every year, and the testing was being done, which I thought was great. And there’s a few things that, at the end of this, I’ll go through; the testing that could be better.

So I pulled from the United States and I wanted to see what was being done abroad. So I pulled from the government, a FOIA request, of where testing was being done abroad, and it came up — a hundred percent — that no testing, no surprise visits (in the data I pulled) were being conducted abroad. A hundred percent of them were being conducted in the United States.

So the next question I asked was — we’re allowing millions of bushels to come in as unvetted grain, per the USDA standards. And I started asking certifiers, why were we not doing surprise inspections abroad? And one of the quotes, I quote back to you, is: we can’t do it abroad; it’s much too expensive, when we can complete them in the United States for the 5%.

So we are doing an economics-based, and not a risk-based, certification program. And we will be digging into that over the next few months, to see if there are any certifiers actually doing abroad surprise inspections in their inspection process.

So. That was one of the things I wanna talk about and I’m continuing to pull the data to figure out if we are doing that. And if we aren’t, we should let the consumer know that we’re not falling into organic standards set by the US government for their own rules.

And I urge you; one of the asks is to push the organic rules here and abroad, and understand that there are no repercussions for cheating abroad as there are in the United States. So we need these standards. There’s no going to prison in any of these other countries if they are cheating.

So the only thing we have is that pull, the rules that we have in the United States. So we should do this through modern testing. We test on our farm. They come out and test and that’s great. I like it. There’s effective tests that we could be doing across the whole globe — and without creating a huge burden, just using a little common sense.

One of the things that simple is: we ship corn down to from Iowa to Arizona. We have a trouble with bugs. And the 14 hours it takes to get down to Arizona, we have to put in refrigeration, to get it to tortilla plants and get it on there — how are we getting across the ocean without using any type of bug control? Millions of bushels going through humid climate zones that I’d think will foster bugs, how are we doing that? And so I’m asking that we just enforce the rules that are there. Doing that across the board, and globally.


Kim: Can you expand more on bugs that are railed or trucked from destination markets? Can you expand on what testing procedures you are referencing?

Bryce: Simple fumigants. There’s no way these ships are crossing the ocean without fumigants. We cannot use them in our bin. We are cleaning corn in the summer months monthly. I think that’s an easy one to test for. One single test, just for fumigants.

Kyla Smith: You pulled data from certifiers and was it domestic certifiers that certify internationally or what is the certifier data pool you looked at?

Bryce: It’s certifiers that certify domestic and abroad. The government allowed access on who they did surprise inspections on, and that was 100% domestic growers in the data poll. None abroad.

Kyla Smith: But you didn’t request data about certifiers who certify only internationally but to the NOP standard.

Bryce: Obviously, I cannot get certification of someone who’s not in the database.

Kyla: If they are accredited by the NOP…

Bryce: I haven’t tried that yet. I just did certifiers that are certified to the USDA.

Justin Raikes – farmer (CACS)

I’m Justin Raikes, based in Ashland, Nebraska; a row crop farmer. We’ve been organic now for about 5 years. We’re primarily grains. We do some forage production, we do some food-grade stuff as well, and we have been seed production in the past as well.

A couple of comments; one, there’s been a lot of good discussion on the state of the market. And I would agree with everything I’ve heard so far. I further would second Bryce’s comments on risk-based testing, and the two common areas I have for today:

One, in support of risk-based testing. I think that from a from a producer standpoint, we really need to prioritize the areas of greatest impact for potential fraud. In my mind, those are sales. Meaning revenue receipts. Whether it’s from a producer like us, or, you know, somebody’s further up the value chain.

And two would be: prohibited inputs.

Those are the 2 easiest ones in my mind. I don’t feel like, personally, that our certifiers necessarily prioritize those areas, just in our own experience

I would say the thing that we’re always concerned about is certifiers getting overly zealous on issues that are not really core of certification. For example, I’ve wasted a bunch of time going back and forth with certifiers in the past on approved substances.

In this case, micronutrient usage, they didn’t like exactly how I was doing it, even though what I was doing was completely legitimate.

You know, versus mass balances and sales and those sorts of things. So. I would say I would second Bryce’s comment.

I think that. You know, I’m sure from their perspective, the economics. Favor them doing what is easy for them to pick on, rather than what we should probably be prioritizing.

I would fully support efforts to remedy that problem. I will point out as well that many of us are already required to test for prohibited substances.

I know this year on the food grade side, we have a huge new battery of prohibited substance tests, where everything we ship has got to be confirmed absent for all of all of the very long list of prohibited substances before we even make shipments.

So it’s something that’s already happening. And I think for a lot of us, it’s the expected standard.

The bottom line is that we need to have testing and enforcement match up with risk. Like I said, primarily on sales and prohibited inputs.

Secondary, I’ll speak too quickly because we do have some seed production experience. I know that there’s a discussion.

Going on about increasing the organic seed requirements or efforts to, let’s say, improve organic seed adoption. You know, that’s not something I’m opposed to. Again, I have some experience in it. We’ve produced a number of self pollinated seed crops, food grade and otherwise.

The timing on that, though, really could not be worse, from a market standpoint. We can’t have dysfunctional markets and increase requirements on producers.

The net effect of that is going to be: more people are going to leave this program. And all the discussion, all the effort to try to encourage transition, new transitional acres, and bring people in — are a waste of time. If the markets don’t work, then people are not going to stick it out.

So, I think it’s really just an argument in favor of the enforcement shift that we’re talking about here in a lot of different ways. Thanks.


Kim Huseman: Organic seed and your planning for your crops. Most specifically about row crops, but can you help me understand when you determine your crop rotation plan and how weather and other external factors might alter those plans and seed availability?

Justin: We have plans that start with A, B, and C, and sometimes end all of the way into X, Y, Z. Sometimes it can be the day of planting where we make an adjustment. We try to be sensitive to market conditions. Where possible, we try to set this far in advance, particularly on the food-grade side. Working with some of the bigger seed companies, it takes more time to track down some specific seeds to get it in a non-GMO, UT format. I think we could talk more about this, but the bottom line is that there are more variables, not less. What you don’t want to necessarily do, especially in the market environment that we’re in now, is get stuck with something that doesn’t work for you.

Having been on the seed production side, the name of the game is inventory. If you have inventory that doesn’t sell, then you’re screwed. That’s the #1 killer on that side of the house. If soybeans are dropping, and you have a lot of seed beans, then you’re going to have a problem.

We got flooded twice this year, so our plan A changed 4 or 5 times.

Amy Bruch: Testing for food grade crops – could you say who is paying?

Justin: Good question. We were informed by our primary counter-party on the food-grade side this year about a substantial uptick in testing requirements given to them by their certifier. I haven’t even talked to them yet about who is paying for it, but I expect it’s me. It’s not something we’re necessarily thrilled about. I think there is a full battery of pesticides, fungicides, and on down that we have to verify an absence of – a comprehensive battery. That’s new this year. I’m not opposed to it; would love to not have to pay for it; but think it’s a step in the right direction.

Kyla: Part of my question too – clarified whether the testing was buyer-driven.

Dan Langager – Northwest Horticultural Council (Crops (CS); Handling (HS); General)

Hello, NOSB members. My name is Dan, and I manage organic policy at the Northwest Horticultural Council. The NHC represents the growers, packers, and shippers of apples, pears, and sweet cherries grown in the Pacific Northwest, and they produce the majority of our country’s organic pome fruit.

Please refer to our extensive written comments for the Pacific Northwest Tree Food Industries feedback on this year’s sunset materials, as well as the inert ingredients proposal and the pear ester petition.

For the sunset materials I want to underscore the importance of pheromones, horticultural oils, hydrogen peroxide, potassium bicarbonate, magnesium sulfate, and paracetic acid in tree fruit production and packet.

In particular, pheromones are really essential to tree fruit production to help control pests that often pose a significant threat, such as codling moth and [?].

Pheromone based mating disruption is now the foundation of apple and pear integrated pest management programs, enabling growers to make fewer pesticide applications than would otherwise be necessary.

And therefore we strongly support the petition to allow the semiochemical pear ester on the national list.

Synthesized pear ester is structurally identical to naturally occurring pear ester, which is Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS. It dissipates and degrades rapidly, has low toxicity to humans and natural pest enemies, and provides the capability to lure and trap both male and female codling moth.

Pear ester aligns with the principles and goals of organics by decreasing the insecticides sprays needed. These tools allow growers to pinpoint hotspots of codling moth populations, and then deploy measures only when and where most needed.

With pear ester disruption, tree fruit growers can often treat as little as 10% of an orchard and achieve good control of codling moth. The pear ester based products within this petition are considered by many tree fruit growers to be the most effective codling moth monitoring and mating disruption products on the market today, and we support its addition to the national list.

On the inert ingredients issue, the Pacific Northwest tree fruit industry supports option 2, the EPA list with restrictions on prohibitions. Of the 2 options, option 2 provides a more efficient, effective, and scientifically sound process for reviewing inert ingredients over option one.

Option 2 would maintain NOSB control of National List criteria that inert substances must meet, including consistency with the organic principles, while still recognizing the scientific expertise and regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.

But with either option, inert ingredients allowed in pheromone type pesticides like the pacifermine dispensers must continue to be allowed in organic production.

I want to give a big thank you to all the board members, as well as the NOP staff, for all of your continuous hard work, and thanks for this opportunity to provide input from organic tree fruit growers and packers to the NOSB.


Nate Lewis: Regarding pear esters, are you aware of other kairomones that are in use, or want to be in use? It is just pear esters, or are there others that we should be thinking about?

Dan: I’m not aware of any others, but I can do some more digging and get back to you.

Abbie Corse – General public / Organic Valley farmer (Livestock (LS))

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me. Abbie Corse, I co-own a small organic dairy in Vermont; I’m here on behalf of crop cooperative Organic Valley in support of adding meloxicam to the national list.

We have a small organic grass-based dairy, and we are currently — and have been for about 8 years — working on shifting our genetics to polled genetics largely.

I’m sure you’ve heard a number of reasons and rationale behind what that takes; I mean, like I said, we’re in year 8; we have about, I’d say, 80% of our calves are born polled at this point, but for the calves that are not, it is starting to feel really important that there be another quick, easy, accessible, cost-effective option that is available for helping with the stress and pain that comes with that process of disbudding the calves. I think I am starting to hear a lot more, both from the consumer side and then from other livestock farmers that have potentially considered shifting to organic farming but are concerned about some of those more “hairy” areas of animal welfare, and where the line is being drawn: what is taking good care of the animal and what is not; what is causing unneeded stress or pain and what is not.

And so I think that adding something like this to the list could help in addressing some of those concerns that some livestock and dairy farmers have, in regards to shifting to organic and that transition period.

The other thing is that a lot of the other options have to do with injections, and of course there are a lot of us that are in fairly rural and remote locations. And if you’re not at a comfort level with giving injections — and of course, that comes with more risk to the animal — I think having an option like this, in places where there are a number of us that are facing increasing challenges, to have that access to care, to have this on the shelf as an accessible method of pain management for our animals seems a really crucial component at this point.

And that’s actually all I have to say. Unless anybody has any questions; I know you guys are about to break.


Nate Lewis: Could you tell the Board and the public what “polled” means?

Abbie: The “horned” genetics are primarily dominant in most dairy animals in this country. The “polled” genetic is a recessive one, and we are trying to bring that back. It means that animals are born without horns. We have not focused on this in the industry, but for those of us that are trying to make that transition, it’s about a 10+ year process, and you have to be very careful with your genetics.

Kim: Takes me back to college days. To Expand on genetics and the cattle industry. While you are looking at the polled genetics, do you take into account other genetic factors like birth weight, production components, etc. Or are you only honing in on polled genetics?

Abbie: No, we are trying to solve for a number of factors with the genetics. We are searching for A2/A2, production, but high components – fat & protein, good feet, longevity, etc. There is a whole range. There are realities in choosing to try for a polled herd – there is a sacrifice to that. You may sacrifice other components. You are definitely walking a line in trying to get the best genetics with all of the various challenges.

Kim: I pulled a lot of heifers in my day so thank you for your efforts.

Kyla Smith: The most comparable medicine is flunixin and asking about comparison about that material and this material. Why is this the quote “preferred” material by producers and the dairy community. Heard length of action and also heard about the form, pill v. shot. Is this the preferred material and if so, why? Anything more than length of action and form?

Abbie: I think, as is the case with any of these things, we are trying to narrow it down to the item that has the best possible outcome for all things. My understanding of flunixin is that it’s injectable and pour on – injections come with their own risk/benefit analysis, and the pour on, there is some potential for absorption by the people that are applying it. My understanding is that a bottle of 100 is about $15, and with the rising cost of everything, having a cost-effective method that is so easy to administer is a gift. On our farm, we utilize as little as possible, for those times when you do need something, it’s nice to have something like this. I do appreciate the fact that it helps with pain relief for a longer period of time. My understanding, too, is that for the calves, the flavor is that they take it quite easily and it’s not a fight, and I think we can all appreciate that.

Ehsan Toosi – True Organic Products, Inc. (CACS)

Good afternoon, everyone. Pleased to be here. My name is Ehsan Toosi, and I’m director of research and development at True Organic Products.

First, I would like to appreciate you, the members of the board, for your commitment, but also for giving me the opportunity to comment. My comment is actually a follow up of our former submissions earlier this year. And I have a couple of slides.

Our request is to expand the residue testing beyond pesticides by including nutrient inputs, particularly nitrogen. It’s because we believe there is a lack of authenticity testing for the most part. It penalizes and harms our domestic organic growers.

A few highlights of the background of this issue: We know organic fraud can occur at the farm, but also during the supply chain. Certification is essential, but is at the same time inadequate to ensure authenticity of organic crops. There is currently no established methodology for validating authenticity. Fraud is more likely to happen in case of imported products, especially from countries or regions where there is poor transparency, jurisdiction, and farming or processing technology — and also where routine inspection by certifiers is more difficult.

Our focus is nitrogen testing at this stage, because of limited sources of nitrogen in organic cropping, and also difficulty of nitrogen management in organic farming, but also because of ease of nitrogen adulteration with synthetic nitrogen sources. Also, because nitrogen authenticity methodology is fairly developed.

We’ve communicated with commercial labs about this direction, and the feedback we’ve received is that they like to see some level of mandation prior to investing too much on developing authenticity methodology and packages. True Organic has been building relationships with different stakeholders; we’ve been working with academia, the University of Wisconsin and UC Davis, and we submitted actually two proposals this year, to USDA and CDFA, requesting funding to invest in this issue and also develop methodology. We’ve started working with AOAC international, towards forming a technical committee for authenticity methodology. (Again, our focus would be nitrogen at this stage.) And we are working with Eurofins, which is a global commercial lab. But also with UC Davis […] lab, in developing authenticity methodology.

And we are trying to bring other stakeholders, including CDFA on board to join this joint effort, and our hope is to add an additional layer of trust and confidence of consumers.

Thank you.


Brian Caldwell: Confused about testing for nitrogen. Testing for different isotopes?

Ehsan: I think when it comes to nitrogen, there are some basic tests that are easy. But I also think that the most powerful tool that we have identifies synthetic sources of nitrogen.

Nate Lewis: Stumbling blocks we encounter in testing inputs is material manufacturers are not overseen by certifiers and NOP per se. When we test inputs under our current system the impact is felt by the growers. How can we put burden on input manufacturers who feel impact of fraudulent activities instead of growers who unwittingly use products.

Ehsan: There are two different aspects of that – the input itself, where a farmer may unknowingly use it. Because we are in the industry, new focus a lot on that. I would say that is an easier thing, especially when it comes to nitrogen. But when the input goes through the biological loop, it becomes more difficult — not in terms of measurement, but in terms of interpreting the result. When it comes to fertilizer, it’s much more easy to cut it somewhere: this resembles synthetics, this resembles biowaste. But we have to push these two directions, together.

Amy Bruch: I think you’ve highlighted an important vulnerability on this nitrogen testing. We’ve talked a lot about activity that can or cannot be detected on blended fertilizer – what is the confidence level that we can get to for nitrogen testing?

Ehsan: Are we talking about input or the crop? The crop – the best tool is isotope of nitrogen and bunch of literature from European countries. Sample is there and give you a number. The level of confidence sometimes the values of N-15 is so low that the crop is basically fertilized with synthetic nitrogen. In some cases, either processed food contaminated and percentage of nitrogen comes form synthetic. Interpretation is sometimes crop dependent. For most crops can cut it somewhere – has been done for sunflowers. If gray area, then warrants further investigation.

Amy Bruch: It sounds like there could be a line of demarcation on intentional fraud with single-source nitrogen products.

Ehsan: We submitted with UC Davis professor, food chemistry background, she’s working on identifying compounds available in organic crops but not in synthetic and that can go parallel to stabilizer technique.

[Break]

Adrienne Shelton – Enza Zaden | Vitalis Organic Seeds (CACS;Materials (MS))

My name is Adrienne Shelton, and I’m the R&D Manager for Organics at Enza Zaden and Vitalis Organic Seeds. Vitalis is the organic brand of Enza Zaden, a vegetable breeding company based in the Netherlands.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and for your many hours of hard work and supporting the organic community. Today I would like to provide comments on organic seed usage, induced mutagenesis, and the use of CO2 in greenhouse production.

As an organic community, there are strong consensus that organic seeds should be the foundation of organic production. As both product and input, organic seed extends organic climate benefits, from farm to seed, to farm to table.

Organic seed is an issue of integrity, and we risk consumer confidence in the USDA label by allowing large quantities of conventional, untreated seed in organic production. But the devil is in the details.

We know that we need to level the playing field so that producers have realistic targets for organic seed usage. We need a system that does not require certifiers to become experts on subtle differences between varieties. And we need clear market signals in order to stimulate investment from the seed industry. So how do we achieve this?

At its core, we need a system that allows for ongoing input from the 3 main stakeholders: producers, certifiers, and seed suppliers. If we think of these stakeholders as a three-legged stool, the stool is currently very wobbly, and will certainly not support growth in organic seed usage.

Fortunately, there are models in Europe that we can look to, where collectively the EU has set a goal of 100% organic seed use by the end of 2036. While the EU model has its own challenges and is not fully transferable, the EU has taken definitive action in a way that we have not yet in the US. We can learn from EU successes and mistakes to chart our own path forward with a multifaceted approach that is realistic and achievable. What this model looks like is not totally clear yet, but for sure it must include some basic tenets:

– A filter to narrow down the crop segments that are subject to stronger seed use requirements.

– A mechanism for input from all stakeholders when determining the boundaries of these filters.

– And a real-time seed availability database, uploaded by suppliers and managed by a third party, to ensure neutrality and confidence.

We need time to gather stakeholders in point to develop this strategy, and ask the board and the NOP to continue to put a spotlight on this topic in subsequent meetings so that we can achieve this together.

Regarding IM, we believe this technique should continue to be allowed per policy movement of 13-81. The most effective way to keep untraceable genetic techniques out of organic production is to first strengthen organic seed usage, and then develop an organic seed code of ethics.

Finally — I think I’m going to run out of time to tell you about our new greenhouse.

[~NOSB Kimberly Huseman] – I’m just gonna open the floor back up to let you finish your statement on greenhouses.

Thanks, Kimberly. I was just gonna say that: finally, we recently built a new greenhouse in Holland for in-soil organic seed production. The greenhouse is a model of sustainability with a fully circular system that includes capturing CO2 from the heat source, and feeding it to the plants to increase seed quality and yields. Without this mechanism, the CO2 would become a pollutant in the atmosphere.


Nate Lewis: Curious about what your thoughts are on in terms of bringing handlers into the equation on requiring organic seeds. We have a lot of organic processors and frozen vegetables, and that processor might be the one that determines what seeds they want growers to use. What do you think of that piece of the organic supply chain?

Adrienne: Good question and I am not an expert, it does seem like handler piece could be a. In the end it comes down to handler recognizing what the requirements are for the grower and the producer. Key players coming forward to say, hey this is what we need. We need the seed in organic form. Here’s where we need to put our efforts to increase seed supply and what’s doable from grower and certifier perspective.

Amy Bruch: One of the comments I saw in written comments, and I believe you just said it as well, “Currently growers choosing organic seed for philosophical reasons are at a competitive disadvantage…” Could you unpack that a bit more?

Adrienne: Because the loopholes for not using organic seed are so large, it isn’t that challenging for producer to argue why they are choosing a conventional option. In the end, it comes down to grower seeking organic seeds b/c it isn’t that challenging not to use organic seeds. Within the more competitive markets, where margins are thin, maybe strong push from wholesaler to get price lower, then every penny counts. If we add organic seed as input they are at disadvantage to wholesale producer who can make legal argument about why not using organic seed.

Amy Bruch: Could you shed some light on the EU. You mentioned their goals for 2026 hitting 100% organic seed. I know that they source globally and are looking for imports to supplement some of their needs. How is EU handling some of the developing nations that do not have access to organic seeds – how are they are handling that in their mandates?

Adrienne: 2036 just to clarify not 2026. Right now, within EU system and within each country, each country can put crop segments on Annex, particular crop segment or planting time, that is on category 1 of annex, means have to use organic seed. Those rules only apply to growers in that country. Any product imported with organic label is not held to that organic seed standard.

Allison Johnson: Thanks for your comments. You mentioned the organic seed database. Who should hold that – where would it live – who would maintain it?

Adrienne: I know this is a tricky topic, because that is the big question – who manages it? I think that having it be something that is not housed within the seed industry is important to maintain a level of neutrality and confidence. It is ultimately going to be a critical tool for all stakeholders. Where it is housed is an important part of the discussion. In the EU, it is managed by the governments in each country. To me, that is the most neutral ground, but I know that presents real challenges with what we are able to do within the USDA. Would it be some sort of nonprofit entity? To me, that’s something we still need to figure out, and figure out how we set it up in a way that has the seed company keep this information up-to-date, but then it’s managed by someone else. I just don’t know yet.

Brian Caldwell: Thanks for your comments. Two questions: first, interested in your CO2 comments. If synthetic CO2 is not allowed for organic, would the CO2 produced by your eating system have to be vented into the atmosphere?

Adrienne: if it wasn’t allowed, I presume. Yep – would have to be vented out.

Brian Caldwell: If I was an organic grower and I wanted to grow a seed crop, how could I ensure it wasn’t gene edited? For example, an organic vegetable grower who wants to grow kale for seed? Especially when starting with a conventional organic source?

Adrienne: That, to me, is at the heart of the challenge of the discussion around excluded methods, and especially EM that are not traceable. Right now, you could go into a supermarket and get a vegetable and run an analysis to see if it is produced with excluded methods. But that’s not the case anymore with all of the new methods. Now you are reliant on the person that developed that seed to tell you, and that’s the real challenge. Right now, we are in a position where there are a lot of seeds being grown by suppliers on organic farms and requiring them to say if they are using seeds that were originally grown with excluded methods. If we were to strengthen the organic seed requirement, then those suppliers could come into it saying that they are going to make sure that any varieties they are providing are not produced with EMs. It’s like a code of ethics. Right now, the person you’re talking about would have to go to the original supplier and ask, and maybe they would tell them or maybe they wouldn’t, and maybe the original supplier knows, and maybe they don’t. It can be very challenging, especially for EMs that you cannot detect – for example, induced mutagenesis.

Franklin Quarcoo: Public comment about inducement mutagenesis that should not be classified as excluded method. Radiation used is typically higher than what is normal. If something normal radiation and have higher than usual radiation, if argument is that could occur normally, is that a slippery slope.

Adrienne: Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that is the reason that we should allow induced mutagenesis, but I think for sure making determinations about techniques based on whether or not they are feasible or possible in nature is a slippery slope. We continue to learn about amazing things that happen in nature that we did not think were possible. Yes, for sure, I think that when we are talking specifically about induced mutagenesis, the radiation or chemicals that would be used, si that something that would likely happen where a plant population would be exposed to that. But, to me, there are a lot of things that are possible in nature that are quite outstanding, so maybe you still end up in a place where that’s not where you wanted to go with an argument. To me, the reason to allow induced mutagenesis is that it is clearly stated in policy memo 13.1, it is clearly something that has been around for 100s of years and is allowed. It is something that is deeply embedded in seed breeding.

Logan Petrey: Want to go back to the CO2 comment. Could you walk through or explain the process of heating, capturing, all of that and how exactly you grab onto the CO2 so we can shorten this discussion.

Adrienne: Not my area of expertise. The way that our greenhouse is set up we have large tanks where we store water, and we use the water to heat the greenhouse with metal rails that go through greenhouse. We heat up the water during the day bc that’s when the plants can most efficiently use CO2. At night when the plants don’t need CO2 but do need heat then we run the hot water through the greenhouse. The CO2 is a byproduct of heating the tanks.

Jerry: As you are putting CO2 into the greenhouse from exhaust of heating process, do you have a target of what CO2 level should be vis-a-vis ambient?

Adrienne: That I would have to ask the greenhouse team about that. This is definitely not my area of expertise. I can try to find that out for you.

Rhodes Yepsen – BPI (Crops (CS))

Hi; Rhodes Yepsen with the Biodegradable Products Institute.

First, I would like to extend my sincere appreciation for you as individuals. For the daunting task of reviewing thousands of comments, each meeting cycle on a diverse set of topics that must then be resolved into policies. So thank you for that service.

At the heart of organic food production is harnessing microbiological activity for soil health to grow better food and support nature’s systems. This delicious and nutritious organic food is often packaged, or served with packaging, and we believe that supporting the use of compostable packaging allows our organic policy to extend and connect the microbiological activity from the farm to the table. Compostable packaging helps transform society’s food waste into a resource for healthier soil, with more and more studies highlighting the importance of compost, and how the carbon actually is getting stored in the pores and even attaches to minerals to bind carbon in the soil.

I want to say for the record, the BPI requested and supported the NOSB consultation from the outset of our petition, and in no way have we tried to obfuscate NOSB’s processes. I’ve traveled to each meeting since filing the petition to present and engage in the public comment process and to answer questions.

We believe our proposal supports a key goal of the OFPA to align and cooperate with state climate and human health initiatives. OFPA was passed to harmonize different organic rules in many states, and their regulation needs to be updated to harmonize with states once again. At this stage, what we’re asking is for the NOSB to please be mindful of how it phrases its recommendation at the fall meeting, so that we can avoid a protracted disagreement. For more than a year BPI has shared its legal analysis that compost is not subject to National List procedures under OFPA.

We asked that NOSB consider rephrasing its recommendation so that it’s not a new proposed final rule, and instead is posed as a comment on BPI’s existing proposed final rule. What this would do is allow USDA to proceed with publishing in the Federal Register and get necessary legal guidance from the Office of General Counsel, which we believe supports what both BPI and NOSB are asking for. If NOSB instead continues to list its recommendation as a new separate proposed rule, we believe this will cause a long and drawn-out process to reconcile the two, which wouldn’t help either of us.

While a subtle shift, where the NOSB submits a recommendation as a comment on BPI’s rule as we originally hoped for, we believe this would advance our common goals using an open and vibrant rulemaking process which gives the urgency we need based on the timelines in California’s law. This is the best method of assessing the compliance of an organic policy within OFPA.

Publishing the petition as a proposed final rule will let all the organic legal and technical experts weigh in. The petition is seeking nothing more than this process.

As always, I welcome your questions and look forward to seeing you in Portland, Oregon next week.


Mindee: Appreciate the work the compostable packaging industry is doing. About how long does it take for a manufacturer take to achieve a BPI certified product?

Rhodes: Good question. Fairly long range and depends on variety of factors. Sometimes it can take 2 years.

Mindee: If BPI runs into a problem wherein a manufacturer changes how they are making their packaging, how do you deal with those and issue non-compliances?

Rhodes: We require every certification to get re-certified every 3 years – send in additional samples and tests and comparing to original samples. Rules about when new tests needed. For non-compliance, we give warnings or de-list and if seems to be intentional we have barred companies from reentering certification process.

Mindee: It sounds like it’s a lot of testing to determine eligibility…

Rhodes: Yes, it is. There are a variety of tests for the ASTM standards, and ones that stand out are heavy metals, PFAS testing, things like that.

Allison: I know that BPI has been a leader in many ways on this. I think you referred to a proposed rule. I’m not aware of a proposed rule – can you clarify?

Rhodes: The BPI petition to USDA last year is a proposed rule. After consultation with NOSB is for the USDA to publish it in the Federal Register. What we’ve seen in the proposal for the Fall meeting is a proposal for a different rule for a definition change to the definition change for compost. It could look like two competing proposed rules for the USDA to resolve.

Allison: When you use the term “proposed rule,” you are talking about BPIs proposal?

Rhodes: And the Crops Subcommittee proposed rule…

Allison: Sorry – lawyer here – only USDA can propose a rule change.

Rhodes: Right, sorry.

Amy Bruch: Written comment that said compostables break differently in industrial versus authentic mom and pop operations? Is there a difference with industrial?

Rhodes: I would say that compost is a controlled biological process, and we try to use good terminology to make distinctions between types of composting. Industrial down to a back-yard pile – you can find similar conditions or very different ones. One of the biggest factors is whether you have sufficient mass to reach and maintain temperatures. The short answer is not really; we see consistent results in all sizes. In terms of those backyard piles that may not reach thermophilic temperatures, that may require a different test, which may apply to smaller operations.

Amy: will see if can get access to lab data and see if it can be reconciled. Big proponent of testing. You mentioned bio-degradation in the soil, is there a ratio of compostables that is better or rule of thumb if they are combining compostables into compost piles.

Rhodes: Not that we’re aware of. I can give you a reference to some studies showing how things break down in commercial scale facilities. In terms of what % is too much, we have started to look at that. A few years ago we worked with a group of composters to evaluate what happens if you displaced 15-30% of a compost pile with compostable packaging. The study found that there was no noticeable impact, even at that 30% level. We’ve never seen a facility using that 30% level.

Connie Karr – ACA

Hey, good afternoon members of the National Organic Standard Board. My name is Connie Carr and I am working with the accredited Certifiers Association and alongside many organic certifiers.

I’m here to provide a quick update from the certifiers’ perspective on the implementation of the strengthening organic enforcement, or SOE, and to explain why adopting risk-based certification is crucial for the future of organic certification.

First off, let me say that implementing SOE has been — to put it lightly — a real challenge. Certifiers have been stretched thin, managing an expanded oversight of new entities such as brokers, traders, and storage facilities, many of which had no previous certification and were exempt. And while the SOE rules are essential to maintaining the integrity of the organic label, the increased responsibilities from NOP import certificates to supply chain audits and more, have made it tough to keep up with the sheer volume of work.

Think of it like watering a garden during a drought. We’re doing our best, but there’s a lot of ground to cover. Certifiers are working within a rapidly growing sector; more operations, more complexity, and frankly more challenges, as they work to uphold the standards. Certifiers are feeling the strain. They’ve invested in new technology. They’ve trained staff and they tried to adapt quickly to ensure compliance. But at this pace, we risk burning out the very people responsible for protecting the organic label. I mean, if I had a nickel for every new report we had to do with a certifier, new files or new new things we had to do, I’d be able to start my own organic farm.

And that’s why I’m here to support the adoption of risk-based certification. This system would allow certifiers to focus on the high-risk operations: those that post the greatest threat of fraud. While reducing the unnecessary oversight on lower risk operations. It’s not about cutting corners; it’s about using our resources wisely. After all, not every carrot in the bunch is rotten. But we have to keep our eye on the ones that might be.

We’ve seen similar approaches work successfully in other regulatory systems, such as customs agencies, that prioritize high-risk imports, allowing some of the lower-risk shipments to move more efficiently. Risk-based certification would do the same for organic, helping us scale our efforts as the markets grow. As the organic industry expands both domestically and internationally, risk-based certification is key to making sure the system scales effectively while preserving the very values that make organic special.

We’re not asking to reinvent the organic wheel. We just want to keep it rolling smoothly without turning it into an overgrown compost heap. Adopting risk-based certification will allow us to maintain strong enforcement, sustain the growth of the industry, and ensure that certifiers can continue to serve effectively. Thank you for your time. Let’s continue growing this movement.

And maybe a little less paperwork. Thank you.


Kyla: What does this look like for us? What’s the 3 top things that would be beneficial to low, medium risk operations and certifiers?

Connie: If ongoing compliance year after year, maybe they have remote audits. Lower risk operations and using technology to see what’s being done.

Kathie Arnold – Twin Oaks Dairy, LLC. (General)

I’m Kathie Arnold, and I farm at Twin Oaks Dairy LLC in New York with my son.

We have 160 dairy cows, a hundred young stock, and over 800 acres of certified pasture, hay, and crop land. I appreciate being able to provide comments on the possibility of meloxicam being approved for use in organic livestock and poultry.

I started farming on this farm in 1980 with my late husband and his late brother. We began shipping organic milk in 1998, prior to the NOP’s existence.

I was and am thankful that a strict materials list was first instituted, and that the NOSB and NOP have been stringent as materials have been added.

In order to maintain or organic consumer and farmer confidence, it is imperative that new materials added to the National List continue going through an impeccable review process.

I am opposed to the blanket addition of meloxicam to the list, because it has not had a technical review. The petition did not address meloxicam’s use in non-bovine livestock and poultry, and left other questions unanswered as well. To add maloxicam to the national list for use in all livestock and poultry at this point is jumping the gun, and throwing to the wind the stated NOSB process of a technical review for each new material — especially given that meloxicam is not FDA approved for use in livestock and poultry, given meloxicam can cause side effects in humans, and given that there are no clear dosage and withholding times for different livestock species, body weights, and stage of production. I urge the NOSB to recommend adding maloxicam to the list at this time only if it has an annotation that it can solely be used on bovine calves less than one year of age, for use during dehorning and disbudding.

My family and I have successfully practiced organic dairy for 26 years. Waiting another year or two, until meloxicam has been through a proper technical review, is not a hardship.

Thank you.

Noah Wendt – Organic Farmer, member of Organic Farmers Association (OFA) (General)

Thank you to all the members of the National Organic Standards Board for hearing farmer and ag related professional voices at your meetings, whether virtually or in person. My name is Noel Wendt; I’m a member of the Organic Farmers Association on the OFA crop insurance and OSB working groups, and on the Iowa Organic Association Board of Directors and also a [top] mentor. Since 2015 our farm has transitioned 1,750 of our 2,800 acres to organic production.

Our passion for caring for the land and providing a safe food supply continues to be the driving force. In addition to the farm, I have my own crop insurance agency.

Both as an organic farmer and as a crop insurance agent. I really appreciate the work that NOSB has done on crop insurance over the past few years. I support the proposal. And want to speak on 3 related topics regarding crop insurance for organic producers.

Number one, we need for more education with the AIP to help support the agents that are selling organic crop insurance policies. I sell crop insurance to several organic farmers, and the AIP that we use is not well versed in all the rules that pertain to organic crop insurance. It’d be great if we could have the RMA have a specialist that that is able to help out the AIPs with some of these questions.

As an agent, I often have to do the research with some of these questions, and then tell the AIP how this should work.

Number two, allowing transitional APH to be included in the organic APH. The RMA has done a great job increasing T yields in the last 3 years to help farmers realize a higher APH for transition and are organic certified yield lines. One thing that would help producers be able to include the transition APH in the organic APH to help the organic APH. It takes a long time to build up these APHs with the diverse crop rotation that we have.

Number 3, continue to enhance to the whole farm revenue product. 2024 was my first year taking out whole farm revenue. I have a diverse crop rotation: corn, soybeans, field peas, sunflowers, buckwheat, and hard red winter wheat. Only the corn and soybeans are insurable under normal crop insurance policy. To have a robust whole farm revenue policy is important to me.

I think the basic structure of whole farm revenue is good. Something might be to make it organic specific, where just organic crops are insured. Or potentially even make it specific to noninsurable crops.

Also a higher commission for agents that are selling whole farm revenue, for the amount of time that they have involved. And a potentially allowing the insured to insure up to 100% or more of their expected income.

Thanks for your time and your service today.


Amy Bruch: The challenges you highlighted here for organic crop insurance are something we need to elevate. Have you been impacted by – on the topic of the crop rotation and building your T-yeilds – have you allowed for the lack of crop insurance to influence your crop insurance?

Noah: We still believed that having the diverse rotation. When you go through times when prices are so tough.

Paul Biagiotti – General Public (Livestock (LS))

Good afternoon. My name is Paul Biagiotti. I’m a dairy veteranarian currently based in Northeast Pennsylvania. I’m employed by Danon North America, but the comments I make today are mine alone.

I practiced on organic and conventional herds for over 36 years; based on my experience on organic dairy farms, I’ve authored a book titled Practical Organic Dairy Farming, published in 2016 by [Hordes Durham in books.]

At my graduation from Tuss Veterinary School, we recited the Veterinarians’ Oath. It states, in part: “Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.”

If anything and livestock husbandry has changed in the decades following my graduation, it has been an increasing emphasis and attention given to overall animal welfare, and especially the prevention and relief of animal pain and suffering.

But some things have not changed. While poll dairy bulls (those animals that pass on the dominant gene for lack of horn production to their progeny) are slowly becoming more available, most dairy and beef calves are currently born without the poll gene. For safety reasons, that of both the cattle themselves and their human caregivers, calves must be disbudded to avoid horn development. Removing horn buds remains one of the most painful episodes in a dairy calf’s life.

Horn buds are obliterated using thermal cautery with a hot iron, the heat being created either by electricity or gas. Horns with advanced development may be surgically removed. Regardless of method, the brief procedure is painful not only while it is carried out, but also for days afterwards as the the wound heals.

Pain from the procedure itself is relieved by application of a nerve block using lidocaine, a local anesthetic already on the NOP list. But lidocaine’s effect lasts only about an hour and a half. Research clearly demonstrates that pain and discomfort persist for several days after disbudding.

It is here that additional analgesics are most needed in the organic medical toolbox. Adult cattle as well suffer from both acute and chronic painful conditions. Lameness is a major welfare focus on modern dairies.

Meloxicam’s ease of use, economy, and long activity make it quite suitable as a therapy for lame cows. Mastitis and pneumonia are two other common afflictions of dairy cattle.

Cows with either illness benefit from the fever and pain relief provided by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as meloxicam.

I therefore fully support that meloxicam can be added to the national list of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic live stock production.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Kim Huseman: As I was speaking to other dairy producers, some of the well being on dairy herd side is on mama cows, and baby calves were sent to some other living arrangement like a calf dairy. You have to have pregnancy, birth, heifers, and bull calves. Bull calves get processed in meat industry. Castrate these calves to get best meat product. What are concerns with castration? Is there a use of meloxicam and concern with that procedure?

Dr. Paul: I belong to the Am Assoc of Bovine Practitioners, which has clear guidelines on pain control. We strongly advocate for a nerve block for immediate pain relief, and then something for the lingering pain. As a profession, we recommend this procedure is done as early as possible, just like dehorning. There is some sexed semen use – allowed in organic production – but right now bull cows are bringing hundreds of dollars.

Nate Powell-Palm: Are we really talking about farmers pain or the oath that vets made to defend those animals in our care? The value of this material is for the animal.

Dr. Paul: We also have to deal with the owners, but I am mainly concerned about the patient.

Kyla Smith: Closest alternative is flunixin? That is comparable to meloxicam? As a drug, they are pretty similar except for the form is a little different and length of action time. What else are the differences?

Dr. Paul: As Dr. Karreman mentioned, Banamine is not very effective for musculoskeletal pain (osteoarthritis), as may be brought on by dehorning. Flunixin meglumine – the injectable form, if not given intravenously, can cause massive side effects. There is not oral – by mouth – form of flunixin, that I’m aware of. The pour on is more expensive. We have used Meloxicam for years on our own farm – it is dirt cheap, oral, easy to give, has a long duration of action, and no side effects that I’m aware of. Flunixin, the pour on especially, according to the label can be a strong ocular irritant and can cause issues. On dairies, the kids are often the ones that take care of the calves, so that’s concerning.

Kyla Smith: I think where I’m coming from is that flunixin is not restricted by species or use. We’ve had some commenters who want us to restrict Meloxicam, but we have a material that is very similar…am I thinking about this correctly?

Dr. Paul: Both are prescription. Both non-steroidal. Good research on meloxicam’s pharmacology.

Alice Runde – National Organic Coalition (General)

Thank you. My name is Alice Runde. I’m the operations director at the National Organic Coalition.

First, NOC applauds the NOSB for looking at risk-based certification. We know this will take considerable time and effort, but we see big issues with a one-size-fits-all certification, especially as the SOE rule is implemented. We also know that as we adopt risk-based practices, we don’t want to let things fall through the cracks.

We need uniformity among certifiers as to how any risk-based approach is applied. We must avoid discrepancies that could lead to certifier shopping and that could allow fraudulent products to enter organic systems. Whatever system is developed must be put into enforceable rules. Otherwise, there is always a chance of differing sets of standards, due to varying interpretations.

A sound and sensible approach to organic certification may also allow some small-scale diversified operations for whom organic certification has not been accessible, due to many barriers of certification itself, to enter certification. We encourage the NOSB to consider an equity lens when discussing risk-based certification.

Secondly, we encourage the NOSB to consider the equity impact of any decision the board makes.

In our written comments, we offer a detailed explanation of why it is crucial for the board to prioritize racial equity work and we offer suggestions on what that what that work could be. We encourage the NOSP to add racial equity training to the new member onboarding process and as a standing work agenda item for discussion of how racial equity can be integrated in all of the NOSP work.

Third, on plastics. There’s an increasing recognition of the ubiquity of microplastics in our world. They are present in everything: food, soil, human bodies. The discussion of plastic use in organic production and handling is critical but nuanced. Plastics are useful for organic production. However, organics should also be out in front of the movement to reduce plastic use, and environmental contamination caused by that use. NOC encourages the NOP to initiate discussion on setting priorities for reducing plastic use in organic production and handling.

In picking the low hanging fruit first, it might be useful to break the discussion into 2 parts: Plastic use in production, and plastic use in packaging.

And then within those 2 systems, start the process by identifying which plastic uses are essential and which are optional, encouraging reuse when appropriate and research into alternatives and their commercial by availability. In the spirit of continuous improvement, organics should lead the way in finding alternatives that are viable and available.

And finally, NOC appreciates the in-person oral comments in Milwaukee and applauds the board for making the space for that to happen again in Portland. Public comments encourage additional community involvement in board meetings and increases the public awareness of NOSB deliberations.

Having both virtual and in-person options gives them multiple paths for public participation in the future of organics. We recognize the time constraint for a meeting agenda and would also encourage the board to make time for more people to be heard in person when possible. NOC urges the board to make similar in-person public comment sessions a routine part of the agenda for future board meetings. Thank you.


Nate Lewis: I appreciate the roadmap on plastics. I think it is something that the Board as a whole is grappling with. I think we mainly focus on plastic in crop production, but should be also be looking at baling twine and silage wrap. From my understanding, that is a much higher use of plastic than greenhouse use or produce farms.

Alice: Not the expert on plastic use, but will circle back with team.

Nate Powell-Palm: Could you consider with me for a minute, with the open slots we do have for comments – they fill up with the same old actors. Is there a way we can hold these for farmers instead of the lobbyist groups?

Alice: I think that’s a great comment. I would like to point out that NOC has only one spot in the in-person comments because we agree that those slots should be open to locals.

Nate Powell-Palm: Do you have suggestions for setting up a system for farmers only?

Alice: Will think about that a little more. Someone could filter registration and reserve slots for farmers.

David Gould – IFOAM Seeds Platform (CACS; Crops; Materials)

Thanks NOSB for hearing my comments. In terms of affiliations, I have a bunch; I’m only going to name 2 of them today, because I have 2 comments. My second comment will be with my affiliation as the secretary of the IFOAM seeds platform.

My 1st affiliation is just me as a person who’s worked in the organic sector for the past thirty-plus years inspecting, training, multiple certifiers and about 50 different countries. And I want to talk about grower group certification. And because I know there’s been a lot of discussion about it; there’s been a lawsuit, there’s been an amicus brief. And I am a very strong proponent of group certification.

I think it’s a great way to include more farmers, get more product moving, really cause some transformation for people who can’t afford an individual certification.

But the concerns, I would say, that have been raised are not completely unfounded. In my experience in about 5 different continents doing this, I often find that certification happens a little too soon and that there more improvements that are needed.

And this is just in terms of integrity. There are a lot of discussions that I think are conflating an issue of price competition with integrity of the certification. And we really need to keep those separate.

The NOSB and the NOP can talk about the integrity of the certification. Really what’s needed is a separate accreditation category. It’s a completely extra set of skills that the inspector needs to have, in order to not only assess farm performance, but the management system for it.

And this has been done. The IOS has done it for organic accreditation under the IFOAM program. It’s not a huge extra bureaucratic burden, but it would bring a lot more attention and rigor and regularity to to how how well these kinds of certifications are done.

My second point is about excluded methods and the disruptive massive wave of new gene-edited varieties that are on the horizon or they are coming.

Generally what I would say is these are very inadequately regulated and and we need to bring some more pressure by the NOSB onto the USDA at large to support the integrity of the organic program, to protect the organic sector from contamination by these varieties, from the lack of transparency and the lack of ability to actually test for them.

I was actually going to give these comments in person next week, but I’ve got to go do a witness assessment as an organic inspector. So Michelle was kind enough to give me this slot and I wanted to actually put this document that I just put into the chat into your hands physically; it is the risk protocol for new genetic technologies that the IFOAM seeds platform has published; it’s basic good sense. It’s about six-plus pages of the kinds of questions that should be asked to governments when they’re regulating these kinds of organisms.

And so I encourage you to read that, and I’ll be there next week, at least some of it, to maybe answer some questions.

In my last few seconds what I’d say is in order to get more organic seed we need more interdependence across the thing and that means probably somehow regulating it so that the downstream actors have to actually demand organic seed.

Thanks for hearing my comments.


Brian Caldwell: We have been wrestling with the issue of gene-edited crops and difficult to determine crops whether they are GM or not. Do you see places – perhaps in EU – of lists of approved or not allowed varieties? Is that something that is happening, or people envision happening?

David: enormous task b/c not well regulated. A lot of things in development. We have tried to start tracking. There is a GMO tracker page. Also tracking with own list through own intelligence gathering. Going to take a collective group effort because not consistent governmental ways of monitoring.

Allison Johnson: You said that the demand side is going to be key in nudging the organic seed market. Do you have recommendations on how we can ensure that there is a lot of engagement around organic seed?

David: My only experience around what is happening to the … If you have these downstream companies pulling on the chain, they have a stake in it, and they have to have some responsibility enforced upon them, just like farmers. Most of my experience with seed companies is, “Show us the money, and we’ll give you the seed.” There’s not enough incentive for seed companies to actually produce the seed. What you are getting now is a whole new set of breeders who can only make money through these genetically modified methods, but we can offer an alternative.

Amy: Thanks for your time here today. Mentioning grower groups – wondering if you could touch on internal control system, and how do we prevent conflicts of interest? Especially with the self-auditing in these grower groups.

David: Conflict of interest is inherent in the whole system – we pay someone to certify us. Certifiers want to get these customers in, so they don’t want to make it too hard for them. When you look at an internal control system, they are doing what the certifier is doing, but they’re doing it for 400 or 500 guys. If I’m an inspector and I have a few days set aside to inspect this grower group, you have to really be able to assess the control system, what they are actually checking on, and what are they doing to remove the product from the stream of commerce. Do they have a proper disciplinary system, and can that be audited by the inspector? If you run into a grower group that tells you that they don’t have any problems, that’s also a red flag. I may do a few inspections myself, but really what I do is watch the grower group manager do it and see what they are doing – are they really covering the whole thing. I don’t think it’s rocket science – it’s just a different area of insight and attention that has to be paid to it. I think we could also consider this in terms of sample size or how much time gets spent, or maybe have more than one inspector there. There are other areas where it is rare that you’d get one auditor. Certifying these large operations is a big deal, and it should be a big deal.

Amy Bruch: Is there any risk to producers in grower groups for limited marketing outlets? Any concerns there?

David: There could be, but if it’s well-run, there shouldn’t be. It also depends on what they have to sell. Also, it’s a control issue. If they are selling to too many places, then they might not be able to control it. Some of these, they can sell to a nonorganic outlet, but you have to know how much is being produced so that you can actually do a mass balance on it. In terms of the fairness of it, that should be addressed.

Andy Boone – CROPP/ Organic Valley/ OMC (Handling (HS))

Hello, my name is Andy Boone and I work as a certification specialist at Crop Cooperative. We appreciate the work the NOSP and the NOP do to support the organic agriculture. Thank you for your opportunity to speak.

CROPP supports the work the NOP has done to create the organic integrity database, also known as OID. At CROPP, we are using this resource in our farm certification development to update certificates and in our farmer database. This is helpful because we do not have to reach out to certifiers or our farms for an update certificate.

For our processing facilities, we use OID certificates to update issue dates on our master product list and for non-branded bulk products. We use OID certificates for organic value branded products or private labels. We combine the OID certificate with an addendum from the certifier. It’s made managing organic certificates easier. But with the need to get the addendum from the certifier, it has not increased our efficiency.

CROPP has gratitude and appreciation for the OID, and hopes to see real time certificate updates on the database. This enables more accurate routing of our milk pickup. One hours count having to wait for an updated organic certificate can cause financial loss for the farmer and the milk buyer. We would like to see the NOP invest more resources for improving the performance of the organic integrity database. We have had instances when a certificate could not be retrieved because the database was not functioning properly.

Another example is consistent issue date updating. In some cases, the issue date updates when the document is downloaded, not the date the certifier issued the certificate. An issue date that is constantly updating devalues the issue date itself. At CROPP we are managing over 1,600 farms and 100 co-manufacturers. These farms and businesses are certified by 30 different certifiers. And many of our producers are in the [playing] community, which creates challenges in timeliness that the OID can help resolve by providing real-time updates when certification decisions occur.

We believe the creation of the organic integrity database has been a significant improvement for the NOP and certified organic operations for management of organic certification. CROPP would like to see the organic integrity database continue to advance to better serve the immediate needs and requirements of organic certification.

I wanted to thank the NOP and the organic industry for the time to speak. I’m happy to address any questions. Thank you.

Nicole Dehne – Vermont Organic Farmers LLC (General)
[This commenter provided their comments in full to Cornucopia.]

My name is Nicole Dehne, I’m the director for Vermont Organic Farmers –the certification agency owned by NOFA-VT representing close to 730 organic producers in the state of Vermont. I would like to thank the NOSB and NOP for all of your hard work.

I’d like to comment today on the Risk-based Certification Discussion document. VOF is very supportive of the NOSB’s efforts to consider what it means to develop a risk based assessment of certified operations and also very supportive of moving away from the idea that organic certification needs to be a “one size fits all” approach.

The subcommittee was looking for specific feedback from certifiers regarding what resources are needed to help us implement these concepts. So here are my suggestions:

I am in favor of developing definitions for terms like risk-based oversight, risk management and risk vulnerability. Having more clarity around these definitions will help inform the industry on how to uniformly apply these concepts. However, It is critical to allow individual certifiers to create our own risk criteria that reflect the specific vulnerabilities inherent with the producers we certify. Creating definitions that are broad but outlining the objectives of the work will be the most helpful at this part of the process.

In addition, in order for a certifier to successfully adopt a risk based oversight approach, it will be critical to train NOP auditors to similarly allow and adjust for certification policies that work with low risk producers. Investing in resources to train NOP auditors will be required to ensure that certifiers do not get written up for developing these risk based approaches.

Finally, organic education should also be an important tool when discussing how to address risk. We will get better compliance, if producers are following the regulations because they believe in the value of those organic practices. The Transition to Organic Partnership Program is a great example of the USDA supporting this type of education. The farmer to farmer mentorship programs across the US are helping to educate farmers and processors about the benefits of organic practices and helping farmers to achieve them. For us, this funding has helped support a new position to assist producers in successful adoption of organic practices and organic certification.

The vast majority of our farmers in Vermont wholeheartedly believe in organic farming practices. Whether certification existed or not, they would be using organic practices on their farms and in their processing facilities. However, many of them struggle with keeping up with the record requirements we demand of them. Ironically we could lose these growers despite their alignment with the practices. We commend the NOSB for pushing this agenda item and for continuing this important work.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.


Mindee: In your written comment, expressed cautious support for compost proposal. We suggested adding plant and animal material and anything on National List. It seems you saw a liability to opening that door and help me understand nuance.

Nicole: For us, the logic was that right now, the only synthetic that is listed is newspaper. We were wary of whether or not this would be interpreted as an open door for synthetic ingredients. We know there is a process set out for reviewing those synthetic ingredients, but that was just me being cautious.

Heather Spalding – Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) (General)

Good afternoon. My name is Heather Spalding; I’m Deputy Director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, MOFGA.

We’re a broad-based community of stakeholders working to transform our food system by supporting farmers, empowering people to feed their communities and advocating for an organic future. We certify 543 organic farms and processing operations, and we have more than 15,000 members. We’re also a member of the National Organic Coalition.

I just wanted to touch on 4 topics: Compost feedstocks, plastics, so-called inerts, and standards for greenhouse container and hydroponic production.

– On compost feed stocks, we appreciate the proposal and we believe that compost feed stocks should only be plant and or animal products. We appreciate your delineating updates for time and temperature requirements and separating them from the discussion about compost feedstocks. We would not support any further additions of synthetic materials as organic feedstocks. I do understand what you’re trying to do, and open to more discussion about that, but we definitely are concerned about many of the synthetics that could be contaminating our compost, particularly PFOS.

– Regarding the extent and impact of plastic use in organic production, we shouldn’t throw up our hands and accept it as a fact of modern living or an inevitability in future organic production. Though plastic is ubiquitous in most organic production and handling, we must work quickly to find safer and truly sustainable materials that don’t rely on fossil fuels or industrial chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment. The widespread contamination of farmland from PFAS is an acknowledged and serious problem in US agriculture, and it underscores the importance of taking a precautionary approach to materials that we introduce into the environment. We must not allow plastics to proliferate and further contaminate our precious and finite agricultural soils the way that PFAS has.

– Regarding inert ingredients, in the inorganic pesticide products proposal we strongly support option one which would list individually each inert ingredient allowed for use in organic pesticide formulations on the National List. This would ensure fulfillment of the criteria for evaluating both the environmental and human health impacts of synthetic substances and the necessity to organic production. Requiring transparency and listing inerts will encourage manufacturers to choose inerts that pose less harm to human health and the environment. And again, we’re very concerned about the prevalence of PFOS generally in the pesticides industry and the likelihood of PFOS lurking in materials approved for organic production.

– And finally, regarding standards for greenhouse container and hydroponic production, we oppose allowing soilless systems for organic crops other than seedling sprouts and micro greens.

Thank you.


Jerry: Simple question: what is it you’re objecting to in the hydroponics-container question? I have a hard time figuring out if you are isolating greenhouses and not wishing for greenhouses as part of your comment.

Heather: We oppose allowing the soilless systems for organic crops other than seedlings, sprouts, and microgreens. We want to ensure a level playing field for all producers. I think that’s a comment we have shared multiple times.

Jerry: Are you isolating greenhouses, or are greenhouses part of the mix that you do not support?

Heather: No, it’s the soil-less aspect.

Jerry: How do you justify the exceptions that you made? How did that come about? How can one be permitted?

Heather: I will have to give you a clearer answer in writing. I can’t answer that.

Brian Caldwell: I know that Maine has been on the front line with inadvertent contaminants with PFAS and sludge. How can we think about inputs to organic compost that come from conventional production that may be contaminated? How do we allow that?

Heather: I think we generally need to look at all feedstocks and I know what you’re saying there are plant and animal that are approved that could be contaminated. Opening up to synthetics that are not fully tested. NOSB looking at where some synthetic materials on list may be considered. As you said, Maine is at the forefront trying to address PFAS contamination. We strive for zero waste at Common Ground Fair. We tested compost and determined elevated levels of PFAS and it was compostable dinnerware. We took the dinnerware out of the system and didn’t allow it to go into compost. Compost came back non-detect. Lets not continually allow more synthetic products unless we know they are free of contaminants such as PFAS. Need precautionary approach. We need to find out more about what is going into feedstocks from plant and animal materials. I don’t have definitive answer on how to address it. Our farmers have limited fertility options compared to conventional. We recognize they need compost and animal manure.

Brian Caldwell: We are struggling with these same issues that you are struggling with in Maine. Thank you for your comment.

Amy Bruch: PFAS – starting to become aware remediation measures in water. Is there anything about innovation to remedy contaminated soil?

Heather: No solutions yet for the soil. Research being done on cover crops and uptake and to put bio char into the soil. It is impractical to think you can clean up the soils dramatically at this point. Our logic s that we have to turn off the tap. Not irrigate or fertilize with water that has been contaminated or sludge or materials with PFAS.

October 17, 2024

Adam Seitz – QAI (Handling (HS); Materials (MS); General)

Good morning and afternoon; Adam Seitz, here. I serve as a senior technical reviewer and policy specialist for Quality Assurance International, an NSF international company, and the leading provider of organic certification services worldwide.

Thank you, OSPN and NOP, as always, for your efforts and the opportunity to comment. You all took on a lot of hard topics this go around and I’m going to do my best to comment on a few, but please see our written comments on additional topics.

I’m compelled to comment on at least one material — so much easier than defining “risk” — nutrient vitamins and minerals. QAI supports the concept of retaining the current listing, with the subcommittee’s noted explicit option to exclude materials by annotation, should the need arise. This is a good solution to the backstory on the current listing.

On to “Risk.” I’ll start by saying certifiers have always implemented risk-based certification, in one form or another, in deciding what inspector to send to an operation, what reviewer to assign, inspection report format, or what questions to include, and the like. Certifiers like QAI have been continuously learning, formalizing, and improving our risk-based certification practices.

I checked our document control system this morning to see when we implemented our original formal risk assessment matrix (or RAM), and it looks to be around 2017 or so. This matrix has evolved since then, to capture our overall assigned operation risk, audit complexity, and label review risk.

We use these risk levels as a factor in selecting operations for additional inspections, unannounced inspections, residue sampling, and sometimes depth of review. We even implement risk based approaches in reviewing inputs. A cool feature of our risk assessment practices is that we don’t just rely on the output that our risk assessment matrix spits out; we rely on the expertise of our certification staff. We validate the assessments continuously, and have the ability to override the risk scores if needed.

I don’t click the magic “certified” button for any new or renewal clients that come my way, without reviewing their RAM and making sure it jives with the inspection report and the points of our incredibly competent team of reviewers.

Let’s say an operation put together a minimal, barely-passing organic fraud prevention plan, given the scope of their operations; or just barely put together an acceptable corrective action for identified non-compliances. Well, we may just override our RAM’s output, and qualify the operation as high risk. Just one example of how we apply risk on the fly.

A key in this discussion is that risk-based certification is needed. And it needs to continuously evolve. Certifiers can think critically about creative ways to implement risk-based certification practices. And we need to feel supported by the NOP in doing so. It’s a complex ecosystem though, and I’m honestly not certain what that support should look like.

I mean, the NOP putting out detailed defining criteria for certifiers to apply, and implementing risk-based certification, sounds great — but it also puts a playbook in the hands of potential fraudulent operations.

On the other hand, certifiers operating independently creates discrepancies in the certification process that can be exploited.

It can also disrupt certified operations if we need to make a 180 turn from something we’ve implemented, because we learn our stance is not acceptable during accreditation audits. And I want to put out a quick plug for the ACA as a good vehicle too.


Allison Johnson: Do you know if you have clients using materials under listing that fall into a grey area? DHA and things like that?

Adam: I don’t think it’s particularly grey given interim instruction. QAI try to be conservative with what we permit, used for fortification. We don’t necessarily allow what we qualify as an “accessory nutrient” for every type. We do allow a lot of them, not all of them. We try to implement and enforce what the NOSB recommendations are. Market surveillance is the best way to keep tabs – look at grocery shelves.

Dilip Nandwani: Simple questions: some vitamins come from genetically modified or excluded methods. Do you know any testing available to identify the ingredients or sources from prohibited methods?

Adam: I can’t speak to the tests on the market now. Something I like to use is looking at patents online to see how things are produced, especially for things that are trademarked or where there is clearly one product on the market. We test those statements sometimes, but not sure about availability or reliability of tests.

Nate Lewis: L-malic acid: You agree classification decision that fermentation – does classification decision set precedent may not be aware of related to classification or excluded methods?

Adam: it might set a precedent? In my opinion in a good direction. A lot to be resolved in classification system. A comment we submitted before: suggested a means to test. Ask what are the synthetic inputs used for? Or is it a direct action – enzyme acting directly on the media to produce this substance? Not aware of any media on this.

Kyla Smith: Curious because most of comment talked about doing extra things for high risk operations. Do you do lesser things for lower risk operations? What could this look like?

Adam: In practice, I don’t think we do really reduce our baseline expectations on what operations need to demonstrate to us. We do things that make obvious sense. A virtual broker, we don’t make inspectors respond to sanitation requests. There is opportunity in how we interpret 204.205(a) for how inspections look. I look at OFPA once every 2 months to peruse what could be an interpretation of something. OFPA requires yearly inspection onsite, it does not say what that on-site inspection must cover. The regulations go into more detail, but it does not say how we verify everything on-site. We don’t just accept attestation that everything is compliant. There may be some ways we can truncate inspections for low-risk operations. Maybe with goal to focus on certain things during inspections so they don’t have to check every single box. In some cases it may make sense to reduce inspection times.

Harriet Behar – Organic Farmers Association (OFA) (General)

I am Harriet Behar with the Organic Farmers Association, and a former NOSB member.

Organic farmers depend on strong clear standards to protect organic integrity, resulting in fair competition and a meaningful label in the marketplace.

Compost: The definition of compost should not be expanded to include synthetics, even if they are on the National List. We have learned from the conventional use of biosolids that — even after transitioning the land to organic — PFAS can continue to persist. The negative impacts of nano and microplastics in our foods, soil and water is just now being understood. There is no shortage of high quality compost made from plant and animal materials. Compost should not include synthetics, due to long-term negative consequences.

Methionine: We recognize the importance of DL-methionine for organic poultry, until the marketplace provides a natural source of this amino acid. DL-methionine helps to lessen the production of ammonia indoors when there are high concentrations of birds. Since the indoor and outdoor stocking rates and outdoor access rules from OLPS will not be fully effective until January, 2029, we feel it is premature to change the current methionine annotation, which at this point helps to lessen high concentrations of birds indoors.

Seed: The threat of gene-edited seed creeping into use on organic land is real, and one way to prevent this is to increase the use of organic seed. Price is not the main reason farmers choose seed varieties. Organic seed breeders include characteristics geared to organic production systems. The NOP and NOSB should increase their focus on organic seed use through encouraging on-farm trialing to determine equivalent varieties between organic and nonorganic seeds. Setting up a live database to aid organic farmers in choosing organic seeds as well. The US may want to follow the EU model of requiring some varieties, but we are not there yet.

Meloxicam: There needs to be a TR to have a broad allowance, as currently proposed. The fact that residues can be found in milk or meat, and that there are human sensitivities to meloxicam, shows the need for a TR to then build a clear annotation for each species and age of animal. Since this is an off-label use, there is concern that various veterinarians would recommend different withdrawal times, resulting in inconsistent use.

Inerts. Option one is the only viable path for inerts. Relying on outside agencies to determine the allowed materials in organic is problematic, and does not meet the OFPA. Inerts are not all benign and should be individually reviewed.


Nate Lewis: Question about compost comments. You would not support continued use of synthetic paper? Want to be clear about what you or OFA support on that front.

Harriet: Over time, we have seen, during sunsets, that newspaper has become more and more problematic; the fact that there’s more and more polymers in newspaper. So we do not support newspaper to remain as a compost feedstock. We just really feel that we don’t know all the long-term impacts, but we do have some knowledge that the more and more polymers that are put into the soil, the harder it is to remove them, and to prevent them from getting into our food and water.

Allison Johnson: Meloxicam: Lack of TR, and PPM doesn’t require a TR, can you say more about what we might discover if we do a TR?

Harriet: I think that there’s a significant issue with the residues in milk and meat, that was brought up in the petition that it has been found. And if you look more into the human health impact, which a TR would cover, there are people who are sensitive to meloxicam — I don’t know at what levels — but organic farmers are very concerned that we are giving our consumers a product that could possibly harm them. And as we know, a lot of people who buy organic food are chemically sensitive, allergic to many different things, immune compromised. We just feel like this keeping it to under 12 months of age for dairy calves is the best place right now.

If we want to expand it to more animals — in my research online, I found that even postpartum dairy cows have higher concentrations of meloxicam in their milk than those that are more like mid-lactation. So — as far as withdrawal times, for allowing the product to be put into the organic stream — I think there’s a lot more nuances there that is not covered by the current annotation.

Allison Johnson: Do you think residue testing that is done on milk and meat would catch or slip through?

Harriet: Well, I’m a little bit concerned, too, that leaving it up to the veterinarian to discuss the withdrawal times is problematic, because this is off-label use — there isn’t any specific guidance to them. I mean, yes, 5 days here, 8 days there. But I would like to see it in the organic regulations, so if someone doesn’t follow the withdrawal time, that it’s actually, then, a non-compliance to the organic reg. And I think being clear to the producers what those withdrawal times might be is important.

And again, we shouldn’t be leaving the organic rules for a material left to another agency; we should have it clear in our regulations, so producers and everyone understands what the withdrawal time would be for all the different species.

And I looked online, and spent quite a bit of time in Europe and Australia and New Zealand — I mean, it’s used all over, and it’s different in different places. So that’s why I think the TR could bring that in, because they can see a lot more scientific — you know, I don’t have a million subscriptions that they do, to be able to actually see a lot of the detailed information on this.

Amy Bruch: Question about on-farm trials of seed. How do we optimize the information exchange between seed varieties and trials without putting economic burden on farmers? I would have to have a separate bin and economic impact of buffers. To set aside acres for onsite trials seems like another economic burden.

Harriet: First, we are not expecting on-farm trial to be like a university trial. Organic Seed Alliance has a excellent sheet – you can buy one bag and look at how well it germinated for example. And characteristics you see can be recorded. We are trying to get farmers to see on their own farms what is going on. As an organic inspector, when farmers bought organic seed they found they were really good varieties and went 100% to the organic seed. Organic farmers don’t just decide to buy seed on price, they look at characteristics. There are a lot of ways to get the info out there. But the risk of getting GMO seed into organic is getting more over time. We need to support organic seed producers and getting a way to help farmers choose those seeds.

Amy Bruch: Mentioned production of organic seed. OFA has crop insurance working group. Insurance on production of organic seed – are you familiar with challenges of producers producing organic seed and less coverage available?

Harriet: I am an organic inspectors – visited many farms growing organic seed. There are challenges. You can sell your crop as livestock feed but you lost your premium to sell high quality seeds. That is on our list for talking to RMA. IT wouldn’t only be for row-crop varieties. When we talk about seed we are also talking about tree fruit and brambles. They are cloning fruit trees – a lot going on with genetic engineering – in Europe they plan on using organic seed entirely by 2030. We don’t have that pressure on our production but we have that pressure eon the outside with genetic modification pushing us.

Nate Powell-Palm: Meloxicam: Why have you not raised same concerns about flunixin.

Harriet: There are more issues with sensitivity with meloxicam from what ive seen. I spoke with a neighbor working in V hospital, meloxicam was one of the least given because of all the side effects. With a TR we would have more information.

Nate Powell-Palm: What info would TR tell us? Are you aware of animal medical drug clarification act? License is on the line for vet. They are going to concerned about withdrawal period. My question – do we value science of only looks to tinctures? We are not stopping here after voting on meloxicam. Will then have FDA weighing in heavily. Vets spend decades going to school and why are we not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Harriet: What would be the withdrawal times. I am aware of AMDUCA. The veterinarian is not the one letting the milk into the tank. We want to have science but we want to have transparency and clarity in the rule. I think we need that information in the regulations. I want to see it in the annotation, the annotation should be based on the TR. Like the postpartum residues being higher. I am fine expanding the use of meloxicam when it’s clear due to the sensitivities. That’s OFA’s position too: fine with meloxicam, just don’t think it’s clear enough right now to protect organic integrity.

Jennifer Walker – Chief Animal Welfare Officer – Kinder Ground (non-profit) (Livestock (LS))

Thank you so much. Good afternoon. Thanks so much for letting me weigh in here. My name’s Dr. Jennifer Walker; I’m the co-founder and chief animal welfare officer of Kinder Ground; this is a “fund for good,” and we grant funds to the farming community to improve the welfare of farm animals. I’m a vertinarian by trade; I was a dairy vet before returning to school for a PhD in epidemiology. Prior to Kinder Ground, I spent the last 15 years managing milk quality and food safety and animal welfare for milk processors, including Horizon Organic. I think you’ve already heard compelling, and I think astute, testimony specific to the veterinary perspective from Dr. Karreman and Dr. Biagiatti on meloxicam. So I’d like to give my input from the perspective of a milk buyer and processor, and my relationship and work with marketers and legal and all that goes in milk processing, as it relates to some other questions and concerns I’ve heard so far.

So, with the concern of “why now?” and “can it wait for a different process?” I’ll argue that, simply put, consumers expect it and, quite frankly, the law demands it. I don’t think it can wait. While we may be willing and happy to carry on the work, the reality is that, every day we don’t get this sorted out, there will be cattle that will have to endure more pain than they should.

It has to be noted that part of organic’s consumer appeal is the belief that organic animals have better welfare. I wouldn’t want folks to risk that intention being questioned. So consumers expect us to get this right. And, I think at least from my experience, the potential legal exposure of any company today accused of “greenwashing” or “humane-washing” really demands that you get ahead of it — because there’s certain folks that are trying to leverage that avenue when claims are made, and again, I think it’s a key part of the organic principles.

Residues; what about residues? Can we trust the data? I think others on this call can attest, if they know me, to my militant and uncompromising position when it comes to quality and food safety. We have rules. We have data on Meloxicam and we can trust it. Whether we can trust the folks who use it — there’s no difference for meloxicam than it is for any other drug, including aspirin, including banamine. We can certainly trust the data more than we have; and I’ll let the next speaker address that, he’s far more qualified than I am on the pharmacology. But everybody should be aware that, as of this week, the FDA has made it very clear that aspirin is actually simply not legal to use in cattle. So that’s a big change: as of this week, aspirin is a no-go.

Why not all livestock? While I would love it to be the case, this goes back to the data. We simply don’t have the data to inform the practice in other species. Yes, it should be done, and I hope when we get there, you’ll be able to add that on there, but it really shouldn’t hold up the prevention of treatment in species for which we have solid data to inform safe and effective use.


Nate Powell-Palm: Could you speak about how animal welfare and claims organic can make and how meloxicam plays into it and if we have sufficient tool box? Can we say we put animal welfare first?

Jennifer: I think it’s a good question. From two perspectives. From marketing lens. I think it is the ethos of organic we provide great care. I have yet to meet a farmer who does not care about their cows. Whether conventional or organic it’s essential that farmers are trying their best. The limited tool box is our struggle. Farmers are in a unique position – raising animals for food. We have a duty to protect the welfare of animals but we also have to protect public health. Walking the line. Toolbox is limited. We have lots of information on meloxicam. It works better than banamine and is less traumatic to the calf than banamine. We have this tool ready to go and yet we still are using the old screw driver. The consumer expectation is heightened because of the ethos around it. From the animal-ag abolitionist side of things, they are training future lawyers to target the claim of “we provide the best care”… what does that mean? The new best care standard is requiring pain medication.

Kim Huseman: Appreciate lens speaking from. From a milk standard perspective, my background of feeding livestock and testing feed for things such as aflatoxin and sensitivity – can you tell me, if a product does test positive what happens to that milk?

Jennifer: It depends where in the process the milk is tested. Within milk versus meat, we have tests that are “rapid tests” which are limited to certain drugs, mostly antibiotics. We don’t have a rapid test for banamine. You can’t test for aspirin. It’s not an industry standard. If a farmer knows an animal was treated with something specific it can be tested for specifically, and the milk will be dumped. If it gets to the facility and tests positive then that’s where the state gets involved. State wants to make sure that milk is not re-directed. It has to be traced. Once we ring that bell we have to do what the state says.

Kim Huseman: There’s revenue lost in that environment so teeth throughout the supply chain?

Jennifer: Yes for sure. It depends on the farmer sometimes. If farmers calls ahead we often give them one freebie because they were transparent.

Michael Kleinhenz – Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine (Livestock (LS))

Hello; my name is Dr. Mike Kleinhenz. I am a clinical associate professor at Texas A&M University in Canyon, Texas. I am a dairy health veterinarian, and also a board-certified clinical pharmacologist, with expertise in pain management and analgesic drugs in food animals.

I’m here today to express my support for adding meloxicam to the national synthetic list, for livestock. If approved, this would improve the toolbox available to organic producers for pain mitigation in their animals.

Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and cattle has a COX2 selectivity to it, so that means it’s more gastro-protective and things like that in our food animal species, compared to things like banamine, we know is more COX1, which leads to things like ulcers, and abomasum kidney diseases, and things like that.

Meloxicam has been shown over and over again, in controlled clinical trials as well as on-farm with thousands of conventional animals getting it on a daily basis, to be pretty safe at the doses that are routinely used, and put into literature and use on-farm and in my own practice.

We can say that meloxicam does provide analgesia for about 72 hours in younger calves, and up to 24 hours on our older animals; there’s some age-related pharmacokinetics that are there, with younger animals having a longer duration of effect with just one dose.

Additionally, there are FDA and USDA approved methods for detection of maloxicam in meat and milk, similar to what we have for flunixone. We do not have that for aspirin, for meat or milk — a way to detect that, in any of those products. Those require a special research-type level.

It’s an easy-to-use medication, so people want to give it. It’s not hard to restrain those animals; they readily will take meloxicam tablets. If we ever get an injectable approved, it’s pretty easy to give. I’ve used the products out of Canada myself, as well.

The other two products we have on the list — aspirin and flunixone, they are currently on the organic list — in my opinion, they do not provide the level of analgesia that meloxicam can provide. Well, flunixone maybe gets there, but it’s only for about 12 hours in calves, and under 12 hours for our older animals. Where our work in aspirin shows it does not have any effect — at very, very high doses.

It also has a prolonged withhold time in milk — in those cattle, up to about 5 days, based on some work we did recently a couple of years ago.

Aspirin, additionally: FDA just came out this week and said, “don’t use it.” It’s not a drug. And so that puts it, you guys, organic: down to one drug they have available in their toolbox. And an addition of meloxicam would be very, very welcome.


Nate Powell-Palm: Higher level question. In our community serious about scientific method and oath vets take. With AMDUCA, do you think you, your students, any vet in America, wouldn’t take the recommendation to not have any residues in milk and meat?

Michael: I do not believe that. Way withdrawals developed, developed with human safety at pinnacle. 1 in 1000 chance would entered into the market. Small chance would get to a point where its zero. We know how meloxicam enters meat and milk.

Allison: Helping understand meloxicam. Struggling to understand that we are talking about an off-label use of meloxicam and with aspirin it is being pulled off and not used anymore?

Michael: Aspirin is very old drug and when FDA put regulations of animal drugs back in early 90s they declared aspirin to be generally regarded as safe and didn’t have appropriate data for grandfathered label. Because Meloxicam is produced in FDA facility and by FDA view, we can use extra-label drug use for animals. FDA does not view aspirin as a drug. Even human aspirin is not viewed as drug but as a safe compound. Aspirin is associated with Reye’s syndrome. That’s why aspirin can’t be used in extra label manner. Meloxicam is a drug.

Amy Bruch: On the withdrawal periods. Do they vary with different meat-producing animals? We’ve heard from other commentors that we need to get more granular with different species?

Michael: There would be species specific. WE know withholds that are needed for cattle are much longer than for sheep or goats. Metabolize differently – for sheep, it’s 15 days. For cattle, it’s 30 days. Our lab is looking at goats for meat withdrawal and think it will be around 20 day mark. Very species specific because metabolize drugs differently. You have to be granular in terms of species dealing with.

Kim: Coming from beef capitol area of the world, I can imagine not only dairy but beef cattle aspect – we’ve spoken a lot about dairy. Do you feel like 2x the FDA withdrawal period… does that blanket cover the species?

Michael: Current recommendation for cattle, I use and data I have got from original person who looked at this – 28 days. If double, would more than deplete amount in system. With half life – 28 days, and wanted to get 99.9999 out of it, we need an additional 5 half lives. Ways drugs leave system is a linear curve. FSIS 10 ppb, so roughly 10 drops of water in Olympic size swimming pool. FDA actively looking for it in meat products and some in milk.

Kristopher Klokkenga – organic farmer (CACS)

Thank you very much. My name is Kris Klokkenga. I’m a farmer in Illinois; my family and I farm about 1400 acres of row crop organics: organic corn, soybeans, white corn popcorn, and alfalfa. In the past, I worked for Archer Daniels Midland company, in the oil seed processing industry, in the United States; in 2008, I was asked to go and transfer to Ghana, West Africa, and run a crush facility there, crushing shea nuts.

I wanted to speak with you today about the testing of organic cargoes coming back into the United States that are imported from abroad. I understand that, from what I read, that crops from Ghana and Togo are having some more stringent testing put on them, and I’m happy to see that. I’m glad that those things are coming about.

The last time I was in Ghana was 8 years ago and so, obviously, things could have changed by then, but I did want to speak to you about this idea of “organic by default.” Maybe you would think that, if you go to a developing country, that there wouldn’t be the accessibility to fertilizers and to chemicals, but there is. There’s a chemical shop in every town that farmers can have access to. And so I am concerned, when you come from a place like Ghana or Togo that, it’s possible, very possible that the beans that are coming from there, or getting transferred there, may not be organic. As a farmer, I want the playing field to be level, be even. I’m not looking for more stringent testing; I’m just asking for equal testing to be taken. As we look at the rules that we have to follow here in the US, that those would apply.

Also, the people that are bringing in products from abroad. There’s a risk-based certification happening right now and — I would just challenge you to prioritize that, if there are some high-risk places to go to — that we focus on that, as an industry, and just have consistency in the certification practices.

My experience in Ghana is this: I don’t see that the country — what I saw, I don’t believe that the country can produce vessel-size quantities, to be able to be shipped to the United States. I’ve been in Togo; they had a thriving cotton seed industry, and soybeans have taken over there. However, again, I don’t — when you look at infrastructure, and how hard it is for us to move things here in the United States, it’s even more hard for them to do that there. It’s also hard to run a monoculture in a developing country.

I thank you for your time.


Amy Bruch: Also had farming operations in Lake Volta and Ghana area. Could you speak to production challenges that occurred on your farm there compared to Midwest?

Kristopher: Production challenges – number one is getting seed in. Being able to import foreign seed is challenging. We didn’t use GMO corn, but we had attacks from pests and you have to use chemicals to address that.

Kim Huseman: Question around production of soybean meal. Majority of African imports in form of meal. What chemicals were you using to extract oil from the bean when you were in Ghana?

Kristopher: industry wide in USA and Ghana, we used chemical extraction. Cake would still contain about 15% oil after crushing. Broadly speaking hexane is the most effective and economical in chemical extraction. We had to use acetone in one extraction so we did use that. But hexane is the primary solvent used for soybean extraction worldwide.

Aaron Zimmerman – organic farmer (CACS)
My name is Aaron Zimmerman; our farming operation is Zimmerman’s Incorporated, Northeast Nebraska. We’re a grain/forage farming operation that grows yellow and white corn, soybeans, alfalfa, peas, buckwheat, barley, and wheat; all feed and food grade, depending on access to market.

The majority of our rotation is corn, soybeans, peas, buckwheat, double-crop, with the main share going to corn and beans. We would love to grow more, but basically the limiting factor is access to markets.

Bottom line: around here in the Midwest, it’s corn and soybeans. If you want to find other markets, you’ll be shipping long distances, which is usually cost-prohibitive. While I don’t have a solution for this, I just wanted to bring it up as an area of concern.

And there’s a willingness to grow different drops. My main concern today that I wanna talk about — to kinda echo what Kris was just talking about — is, this goes back to imports and making sure that they adhere to the same quality and purity standards that we American farmers do.

You know, currently our cost of production is above what we can sell corn for. It’s been that way for some time. It seems like there’s no light at the end of the tunnel. Last check we were at $6 a bushel, from our farm. I’m not proposing tariffs or anything like that — I just want an even playing field so we can have a fair fight. Organics are incredibly difficult to grow. And so again, there has to be a premium to justify the practice. I always have said we’re never gonna go back to conventional, but I will say, at some point, something will have to give.

And if I’m thinking it, I guarantee other producers are as well. I just would hate to imagine a future where the majority, if not all, of the grain supply in the United States is sourced from outside countries because the local producers have been choked out.

That’s really my only comment for today. I can answer questions if you’ve got any.


Amy Bruch: You mentioned cost of production. Can you highlight some of innovations you’ve implemented to get more out of cost per acre? Can you highlight advancements?

Aaron: It’s a lot of little things. We do a lot of testing, soil testing, root sampling so we don’t over-apply anything. They say if you are not filling all your kernels out to the tip you are not maximizing. We have sandy soils so we use drop-down nozzles to lessen the evaporation.

Amy: Can you touch on no till operation in terms of beans and rye?

Aaron: we do something unique with soybeans. I can’t call it no-till but I call it “minimum till” using rye as a companion crop planted simultaneously with soy. We do have to till to chop up corn remnants. It creates a swamp of soy-rye that chokes out weeds. The rye gets lazy in July and the soy can kill off the rye. It works really well and saves a lot fo tillage.

Amy Bruch: Just found out this is an insurable practice.

Aaron: we worked to get that insurance practice approved. Multi-year process.

Nate Powell-Palm: First, could you share average corn and soybean yields are on organic ground?

Aaron: Average yield: variable, high end 240. Typically that follows alfalfa crop. 180 is average. 50-60 bushels of corn.

Nate Powell-Palm: Would you say if market were to recover and you could get a price making money out, would you be interested in adding acres?

Aaron: absolutely, that goes without saying. It’s ugly now. We are making a little money on soybeans. The best money maker is yellow peas followed by buckwheat. But that’s another flaky market.

Allison: You’re the second farmer this meeting wanting to bring in greater diversity because of the markets. I’m curious if can speak to anything that stands out about corn and soy and key pieces missing for other crops like to bring in?

Aaron: Corn and soy markets: fighting gravity. Powers that be. Entire ecosystem is based on feeding corn and soy to livestock. I have heard some cow producers feeding peas which is neat. I go to food grade market on peas. But pea market can be brutal. I wish I had more clever advice on what to do. Livestock is the key in the puzzle.

Valerie Mckinney – Trece, Inc. (Crops (Pear ester))
Hello, my name is Valerie McKinney. I’m with Trécé, Incorporated.

I would like to express my support to add pear ester as a crop pesticide material to the national list of allowed or prohibited substances, as a synthetic substance for use in monitoring, mating disruption, and control products.

As we all know, codling moth is a significant pest in pome fruit, walnuts, and other crops. We’ve developed monitoring lures, mating disruption, and control products, based off a chemical known as pear ester.

Pear ester is a naturally occuring chemical that you smell from Bartlett pears; pear ester is currently not on the list, due to the fact that it is a kairomone and not a pheromone. Kairomones are chemical signals produced by plants or other organisms that are detected by a different species, often insects.

We have incorporated this chemical into most of our codling moth products. For monitoring, we have it in our lures mainly because you can still detect codling moth flights in an orchard under mating disruption.

The importance of being able to track codling moth flights allows growers to apply pesticides at proper timings; it makes it extremely difficult to time a pesticide spray without proper monitoring.

Our monitoring lures have the pear ester either loaded into a septa or PVC, and they never come in contact with the crop; they are always housed in traps.

Our mating disruption products also have pear ester; this is because it’s been discovered that this caramel disrupts female codling moth. (Our mating disruption products allow for both male and female calling moth to be disrupted.) It should be noted that our mating disruption products are housed in a solid, passive dispenser system; pear ester diffuses from the solid dispenser as a gas.

We also have a flowable control product for codling moth and codling moth larvae, known as Cidetrak DA Mec; this product allows for the confusion of female codling moth and larvae. It has been proven that the female codling moth will lay her eggs 40% farther from the fruit or nut. This makes it much more difficult for the larvae to find the fruit or nut, causing it to be exposed longer to the pesticide. The pear ester odor also confuses the larvae, causing it to wander and even eat tricomes from the leaves; again, the larvae is exposed to the pesticide longer, increasing the chance of mortality.

The amount used for our flowable is 0.41 fluid ounces per acre. To give you an example, if a grower was to use a 500 gallon sprayer for one acre, or even 3 acres, this would only still equal the 0 point 4 1 fluid ounces per acre. With such a small amount in a recommended use pattern, it is not expected to pose an environmental risk.

The normal orchard background for pear ester was found to be 3.712 grams per acre per month. Our 6 products registered with EPA at their maximum rate do not reach the normal background for pear ester, except for one, which even then is only 4.0 grams per acre per month, and it’s normally not used at the maximum rate; it’s normally used at what we call a moderate rate. Even at its maximum rate, it only releases 0.288 grams per acre per month additionally.

Pear ester is an approved additive listed by the US Food and Drug Administration on everything added in the food United States list; it is currently being used in foods and in cosmetics. We feel that pear ester is a necessary and valuable tool for organic growers in codling moth management.

I will be at the in-person meeting if anyone has any additional questions. And I’d like to thank you for your time and consideration.


Nate Lewis: Does Trece make any other kairomone products besides pear ester? Are there others we should be thinking out as we look at this petition?

Valerie: There actually are. Acetic acid, there’s others. We can currently purchase them naturally. With DA, there’s not really a natural source and economically very expensive

Michael Huber – International Food Additives Council (IFAC) (Handling (HS)
My name is Michael Huber, and I serve as the vice chair for the board of directors at the International Food Additives Council, which is a global association representing manufacturers and end-users of food ingredients.

Today, my comments pertain to our petition to amend the potassium phosphate listing, by removing the “made with organic” annotation. We fully respect the board’s duty to safeguard human health by ensuring harmful substances are not allowed in organic production.

With that in mind, IFAC firmly stands behind our petition, because it’s supported by robust scientific evidence and regulatory frameworks that affirm the safe use of potassium phosphate in all foods, including organic.

While we recognize that there are some peer-reviewed studies that raise some general health concerns about phosphate intake, it’s essential that the board differentiates between broad health concerns and actual scientific evidence confirming safety-regulated levels. The subcommittee also noted that diapotassium phosphate is the only potassium phosphate designated as GRAS, which is not correct. There are other potassium phosphates that have also been affirmed as GRAS, as early as 1975.

Moreover, regulatory authorities like the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and the Codex have all consistently confirmed their safety.

In 2019, EFSA established an acceptable daily intake of 2.8 grams of phosphorus for an average adult, encompassing both natural phosphorus and added phosphorus. This level is deemed safe across all population groups.

Here in the United States, the FDA data from the [[Enhaines]] study shows that the average phosphorus consumption is about 1,300 milligrams per day, which is well below the ADI EFSA established, and the tolerable upper limit of 4,000 milligrams. Furthermore, the alternatives, listed in appendix A, they’re not functionally equivalent to potassium phosphate.

Food formulators are highly specialized, and potassium phosphates provide critical functions that other substances can’t replicate on their own, and in fact often have a synergistic effect with phosphates.

Removing that annotation would allow manufacturers more flexibility, which they need, while supporting the growth and interpreter of the organic food sector.

In conclusion, the conference of safety evaluations by multiple regulatory bodies confirmed that potassium phosphate is safe for use in food.

Its presence on list already reflects the board’s recognition of this. We’re simply asking to remove the limiting annotations to enable organic food manufacturers to use potassium phosphate in products that otherwise would fully qualify for the organic label. We urge the board to base its decision on sound evidence and not speculation, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Jim Clark – Clark Specialty Grains (CACS)
Greetings everyone. Good afternoon from Central Nebraska. My name is Jim Clark, Jim Clark Farms, Clark Specialty Grains; third-generation farmer. Went away from farming alone at the turn of the century, and built what we’ve referred to as Clark Specialty Grains, which is primarily a corn cleaning facility. We offer contracts to about 50 corn growers each year.

My concern, and why I’m speaking with you today, is: about 10 years ago when I started going to international trade conferences, I became very concerned in the — arrogance, if you will, the lack of concern — for American rules. In other words, the level playing field is not certainly there. I’d be approached by supply companies and I would tell them of the core needs that I perhaps needed. And it was obvious that, right away, it was not an organic product. I would be approached and simply told, “Whatever you need, we can deliver whatever paperwork you need.” And so I’m very, very concerned that this has been going on for quite some time.

I applaud you guys for more scrutiny with the American organic corn farmer, and adding various testing in. I just want to see this being done as the boats are coming in — because if you combine all the growers that I have, and the bushels that they produce; one boat coming into the United States, to any of our ports, is an equal amount of grain. So I just plead with you, please, let’s have scrutiny in testing from all aspects, everywhere, just so our American farmers have an equal chance.

I can always tell when from our tear product, so when we clean off — if you’ve ever eaten an organic corn chip, it’s highly likely that some of that corn came from us. So we’re cleaning off larger and smaller kernels, wrong color kernels, they’re undesirable, and we sell that off as a tear product. Primarily, where I’m located, it works best for me to sell my tear product to the West Coast.

I can always tell when there’s a line of boats coming into the United States — whenever the dollar is strong — whenever, all of a sudden, there’s production costs that are such that it makes it appealing for, I’ll say, people that maybe aren’t following the rules, those parts’ boats start hitting our ports.

I just implore you, please, please. Let’s make this a fair field. I’m worried about the American farmer, specifically the organic farmer that’s knocking out, doing the best that they can, and just simply not being able to compete with “rule followers” that aren’t taking care of what they should be. I’m very, very concerned about what is coming into the United States. I’d be happy to address any questions that you might have on my experience.

In addition, I do an awful lot of work with seed and hybridization so I can address any of those comments.


Amy: You mentioned you were responsible for some of the corn that goes into organic corn chips. What varieties are available for organic white and blue corn?

Jim: In my industry, in preparing corn that’s going to become ultimately a corn chip, you have to have hybridization, if you will, that is: a very hard dense endosperm, very high test weight. And it has to have certain milling qualities. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of hybrids that meet this that are organically grown, and they’re certainly not in blue corn.

I provide blue corn seed and pink corn seed to our contracted growers. We rely on white corn and seed corn to come from my approved hybrid list, of hybrids that would qualify to make these milling qualities. We gotta rely on our traditional seed corn companies, and again, each year, we’re testing approximately 20 to 25 different hybrids, to see what potential new hybrids can go on that approved hybrid list.

Unfortunately, in the organic seed world, there’s not a lot; the chip industry is not a ginormous industry, as compared to the feed industry. So you you don’t have an awful lot of hybrids being geared towards that human consumption markets. That’s probably one of the biggest problems that we see: there’s just not a lot of organic yellow or white seed that would fit, in the milling properties.

Kim: Does your cleaning facility mostly toward feed or feed grade?

Jim: 100 percent human consumption. Only feed would be tear product. We don’t handle feed quality.

Leslie Touzeau – Organic Policy Manager for Quality Certification Services (QCS) (General)
Good afternoon. My name is Leslie Touzeau; I am the organic policy manager for Quality Certification Services. Thank you to the board for your tireless work and the opportunity to comment. My comments represent QCS’ perspective as an experienced certifier that oversees a diverse array of organic operations certified to multiple organic standards. Please see our written comments on additional topics, but today I would like to use my time to comment on — you guessed it — risk-based approaches to certification.

With the implementation of SOE, the organic industry now has robust mechanisms in place to ensure adequate oversight and prevent organic fraud.

In recent months, we have heard the NOP encourage certifiers to take a risk-based approach to implementing and enforcing the new rule. Yet the regulations lack guidance on how to do so. In comparison, the EU regulations require organic certifiers to assess the risks of certified operations and take a risk-based approach to oversight and inspections. The EU regulations also list specific elements that should be considered part of a risk assessment, to ensure a consistent approach by all certifiers.

QCS currently uses a risk assessment rubric for all certified operations regardless of standard. Our assessment incorporates the EU requirements, and elements of best practices. We find our assessment useful for identifying high-risk operations and determining which operations should undergo unannounced inspections and sampling.

QCS applaud the excellent work of the ACA to develop risk assessment tools for certifiers and organize a working group to further explore this topic.

We believe that some consensus surrounding risk-based approaches can be realized through certifier collaboration, and we feel that any change at the regulatory level should be broad and general in scope, to allow certifiers the autonomy to evaluate the specific risk considerations of their operations, and not perpetuate the “one-size-fits-all” model. Ultimately, however, we are all beholden to the regulations, and guidance from the NOP on how to reduce the certification burden for low-risk operations would assuage certifier concerns of accreditation on compliance.

Suggestions for guidance include providing basic universal criteria for assessing operational risk, allowing for remote inspections of low-risk operations that do not physically handle organic products, and setting parameters for limited-scope inspections that target specific aspects of an operation’s organic system plan. Finally, findings from the National Organic Coalition and the Organic Farmers Association indicate the NOP requirements and certification process are significant barriers to entry for marginalized farmers and farmers of color.

As the regulations expand and oversight grows in complexity and cost, we must ensure that systems designed to promote organic integrity do not unintentionally prevent marginalized and often small-scale producers from participating in the organic system. We want organic agriculture to be the norm, and that requires exploring ways to make the certification process more equitable and accessible for all producers. QCS looks forward to continuing this conversation with the NOSB and certifier community.


Nate Powell-Palm: When we think about risk-based systems and the community you are drawing drom – mostly the ACA. Do we have the right people in the room? Do we have forensic experts, the folks who are actuaries, who can say with math where the risk is? If we don’t have them in the room how can we include them? This is somewhat out of the wheelhouse of folks involved in certification?

Leslie: Want to say I respect ACA’s work and we have really bright minds who have been working on this issue for a while. Whether or not we have the people in the room who can make decisions about high risk operations, looking at how to evaluate low risk operations is what we are advocating for. Simple supply chains, lower gross annual sales, they have the burden of complex certification and additional requirements from SOE, they are feeling the crush. Think we do have the right people in the room.

Amy: Clarifying question: low-risk operation is one that does not handle product, correct?

Leslie: What I think I said was low risk operation that do not physically handle organic product. Operation that doesn’t physically handle is not necessarily low risk. Lots of variables in determining risk. Low riskoperation that are not physically handling organic products – what can we do to ease the burden is a part of larger conversation about risk-based approaches.

Amy: From farmer POV, some of the risk arises from brokers and importers. Just want to get calibrated to the idea whether you would consider them low risk or high risk?

Leslie: Low risk and not handling organic products can be two different things.

Kyla Smith: Wondering what we can learn from EU?

Leslie: EU is more explicit in their regulations about what organic operations should do to assess own risk and what certifiers can do. When looking at high risk operations, criteria based on EU regulations. Things – type, size, complexity, location, types of products. EU has list of high risk products. EU is a good place to look. EU and NOP regulations are not the same.

Kyla: I am hearing there are more prescriptive – we love to hear they are prescriptive and not prescriptive in certification. What’s the frequency you get updated on the commodity information?

Leslie: Believe they update annually and requirements for additional controls. Some commodities are added some are taken off the list based on their assessment of market and risk.

Dana Perls – Friends of the Earth, U.S. (Materials (MS))
My name is Dana Perls. I’m the Senior Food and Technology Manager with Friends of the Earth US. And thank you so much for this opportunity to share some comments to the NOSB, and I’ll be speaking specifically to the materials subcommittee on excluded methods.

The NOSB has done some really amazing work over the years to clarify, update, and strengthen the excluded methods, particularly as it relates to genetic engineering. I want to encourage the NOSB to continue to track, and exclude, particularly, gene-edited techniques from organic, in accordance to the NOSB’s already accepted definitions of biotechnology and genetic engineering.

And the NOSB should also address techniques such as induced mutagenesis, which is different from gene editing. Plants or seeds intentionally exposed to radiation and toxic chemicals for induced mutagenesis should not be allowed in organic.

Plants and seed genomes may mutate naturally over time, from exposure to natural environmental factors, but this process is very distinct from intentional use of chemicals and radiation to alter a plant’s genome. So I want to encourage the NOSB to not allow new plant or seed varietals altered using induced mutagenesis into organic.

And it’s important for the NOSB to be very specific that induced mutagenesis is an excluded method, and that this technique is distinct from genetic engineering technologies such as gene-edited, so it’s not covered under that bucket.

And the second thing that I’ll say, quickly, I’d like to veer off the agenda for a moment, to talk about organic seeds: Organic seeds are not currently an agenda item, but it’s important to address the use of gene-edited seeds in organic and the NOP, and NOSB really need to determine if a seed has been gene-edited, in order to track this — because they aren’t labeled under the secure rule at the USDA. Farmers will are gonna have to ask the seed vendor directly, and the NOP should be doing market research about what gene-edited seeds are being sold, and what crops are on the FDA’s list of biotechnology consultations.

That’s a way to find out what what might be on the market. So I appreciate the opportunity to share about these emerging technologies that will impact organic integrity. That’s all from me.


Dilip: What can you tell us about inducement mutagenesis and how varieties using it be handled? Should varieties be allowed?

Dana: Submitted public comments and can add more resources. Don’t think new varietals using intentional mutagenesis should be allowed in organic. One option, not ideal, but perhaps is to grandfather in those things already certified in like Ruby Red Grapefruit. The other possibility is if no organic alternative then possibly that could be a compromise. Forced alteration of genome – addressing intentional alteration and different than cross breeding or exposed to natural mutagenesis. I can send more materials that would go more in depth.

Mindee: I think I heard you say that the NOP should be consulting FDA list. Does that cover beyond seed? Curious to hear your perspective beyond seed – biotech is proliferating in other places.

Dana: Field of genetic engineering and synthetic biology is exploding especially with combination of AI. Number of reports Friends of the Earth has been working on. Genetically engineered mosquito is up for commercialization. Worried about gene-silencing spray; risk to anything it touches. Worried about genetically engineered soil microbes. Things that raise concerns of spreading without control. Also concerned about new GMO wheat. Concerned other countries will not purchase US-grown wheat because of fear of contamination. Not to mention the huge amounts of glyphosate already being used on wheat. We’ve been doing literature reviews about the consensus on concerns and there is a lot fo concern internationally. I can share some of the lit reviews FotE has partners on.

Mindee: Is the biotechnology consultation in the FDA going to house all of that technology?

Dana: It’s a mix. The genetically engineered insects with mix of USDA and EPA. The gene silencing will be with the EPA. Annoying but the application depends on whether they consider it a bio-engineered bio-pesticide or is it specifically for agriculture, like a bio-pesticide or? The application really depends on the application. The EPA is probably better than the USDA. I can share information on both of these agencies.

Nate Lewis: Is the concern about the use of the chemicals and radiation themselves, or is the concern about the type of mutations that those techniques cause?

Dana: I think it’s both. I don’t think you can separate them out at this point. You might have been able to at one point, but not anymore. I do not think that the heavy chemical use and radiation is consistent with organic. People do not want the use of heavy chemicals. On the other side, it has changed. All of these technologies are changing in the way they are being used. I think it’s a both/and. The impact is to change/mutate the genes. I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions, which makes the topic complicated. But without the NOSB getting into the minute details, I think that these just shouldn’t be allowed in organic. I would love to talk more about this and can share more deep information, as well.

Franklin: Does it make a difference what the mutagen is? Whether it’s chemical or radiation? Is there is a distinction or is your perspective different?

Dana: Again concern is more that chemical is a concern and then the forced mutations. Concerns having about genetic engineering and use of chemical pesticides that go along with it whether editing or engineering. Unintentional consequences. Different parts of genome are impacted. Both problem of irradiation and chemical use is problem, but certainly heavy chemical use. Idea of forced mutation of genome is far from organic. Mutation of genes not just what seen in past with engineering . Getting to all sort of new realms. Seeing ripple effects and detrimental impacts. Will look different as we see newer techniques with the same problematic impacts. Answer is yes irradiation and chemical use should not be allowed in organic.

Liz Bawden – Bawden Farms (General)

My name is Liz Bawden. I’m from Bawden Farms in Hammond, New York, and I want to thank you all for the opportunity to speak with you today.

My family’s dairy farm has been certified organic for 24 years. We milk around 80 cows, and crop about a thousand acres of pasture and hay land. We’re certified with Nova New York. I’m past president of NODPA, the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, and a past member of the board of directors for An Open Door. I’m a current member of OFA, the organic farmers association. And I’d like to today offer my support for the adoption of meloxicam for use in young cattle less than a year in age.

I know that you all are very aware of how involved organic livestock farmers are in their animals’ care and how seriously we work to provide them with the highest levels of animal welfare. Meloxicam would provide us with the ability to perform a dehorning or disbudding procedure on young calves with much better pain management than what’s available to us now.

And I know my vet is totally on board with this. He knows that it’s significantly easier to administer, and he knows that it’s pain relief lasts longer, far longer than the lidocaine we use now.

The same is true for the homeopathic arnica and hypericum, which we also use to reduce pain and swelling. And while some firms use aspirin, we don’t use it for dehorning, as it doesn’t provide much pain relief that mild, and discourages the quick clotting in a wound. So the addition of meloxicam to the National List would be a welcome addition to our toolbox for calf care on organic farms.

At this time, I do agree with others who would limit its use to calves under one year of age. I am concerned that the available information is insufficient to ensure that sensitive consumers would not be exposed to traces of meloxicam in organic milk or meat from treated animals. There’s a suggestion that a technical review is needed to establish the appropriate doses and withdrawals for a variety of livestock species, and classes of animals, and I would agree with that.

I want to thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion today, and thank you for your work on the NOSB, and your commitment to organic food and agriculture.


Nate Powell-Palm: Thank you for making the food we all eat. On the toolbox: when you think about pain mitigation tools, you know pain does not stop at one yar and disbudding is only one thing that causes pain. What is in the toolbox for older animals.

Liz: There’s not a lot. Aspirin, Flunixin/Banamine, which is more difficult to administer because it has to go in an IV.

Nate Powell-Palm: Would you say that it makes sense to expand meloxicam across all ages of cattle knowing that it will be under the supervision of your vet? Just for those instances where a cow has a horrific birth or twists an ankle?

Liz: I think would like to have more tools, but we need to be cautious because we are setting a precedent. We need a serious review by people with more experience because there is going to be the next drug and next drug. I don’t want to go backwards and lose consumers trust doing a bad job reviewing these things. Another year and half and two years before animals milk in milk shed for under one year old calves.

Nate: Are you aware that the process does not end with our vote in the NOSB; there is a whole rulemaking process afterwards where there will be a bunch of experts weighing in. Was that made clear for you?

Liz: Vaguely, yes. I think it’s so important that we go really cautiously in allowing new drugs.

Nate: Absolutely, and that will be done.

Alison: Is the one-year mark – what is the rationale for drawing the line there? I share your caution. Is the one-year mark appealing because of when the milk would be going into the marketplace? Or is that the time when the uses are most prevalent? Could use more granularity.

Liz: We have talked with other farmers about this. The use for disbudding/dehorning is useful. Different farms dehorn at different ages. At our farm, we try to do it at 2 weeks, but if I said under 1 month, that might not be enough. I think that saying under a year, that covers it. Of course, if a cow breaks a leg at one year and a day, I’m not sure what we do then – it’s kind of splitting hairs. But I think we came up with 1 year because it covers the needs for dehorning.

Daniel Giacomini – General Public/Organic Consultant/Previous NOSB (Livestock (LS))
Thank you, I’m Dan Giacomini; I’ve been consulting in organic since the 1990s; I’m a former member of the NOSB, serving as board chairman in 2010.

First, I urge the NOP and the NOSB to review the petition template process. The current process is biased in favor of the manufacturer, and this is a mistake. Adding substances to the National List should be biased to the producers and operations needing the substance, not the manufacturer wanting to sell something.

I support the listing of meloxicam as an oral pain relief medication on the National List. Meloxicam is a substance that needs to be added now. The board should not let arguments of recommendation process issues block animal welfare and alleviating pain and animal suffering. There’s not a requirement for a TR, and every question in the TR was addressed in the petition. I’m not aware of any major questions on the accuracy of the data in the petition, only that a TR was not completed. A TR would delay listing this material on the National List, and delay the pain relief its listing would allow.

Often when the NOP publishes a rule change regarding livestock, and particularly dairy cattle, they state that one of the reasons that the rule change is needed is because of the consumer gateway nature of milk and dairy products. Often new organic consumers start with milk. Well, I hate this justification. If it is going to be used, then give the same those same producers the tools they need to carry that burden.

Please do not take away the entire fence limiting synthetic methionine in organic poultry production.

It is possible the fence was placed too close and needs to be relaxed a bit, but let’s not forget DL-methionine is a relatively new introduction to poultry nutrition.

Adding synthetic methionine to poultry diets allowed for production practices that were not possible before. These two factors increased production. And I’m not saying that the industry could survive going back to 1960’s level of production, but comparisons of organic production parameters to conventional practices is not a major factor within the intent of organic livestock production rulemaking.

As an animal nutritionist, I doubt a TR would find the answers you should be looking for in altering this annotation fence that’s currently in place. However, the historic record of the Methionine Task Force, from which the language of the annotation came from, does exist. Please go back and review the transcripts and documents of this industry group, and conversations it had with the NOSB at that time.

It is unfortunate that OFPA forces an omnivore species to consume a vegetarian diet, and it does seem time to move back the fence that the current synthetic methionine listing has. But please review moving it back rather than allowing an unlimited usage of this product. Thank you.


Kimberly Huseman: When you talk about the fence, where is methionine “just right”?

Dan: I don’t know. The research that would find that line is not being done, because it’s no a major factor i the use of DL-methionine. When I was on the NOSB we reviewed it 5 times in 3 years. We worked with methionine task force. They wanted to change what fence looked like every time – I was on the NOSB when this fence was put up. It was within the parameters of what task force would work. If its too tight for animal welfare reasons, ammonia, knuckle issues… its worth looking at and changing that. If we were going to have an allowance on that. It’s a shame we can’t bring in some meat products to eliminate the problem. OFPA was formulated with mainly ruminants in mind – hate opening a box to congress, but it’s not well-written for non-ruminant species.

Nate Powell-Palm: This is first I’ve heard someone heard there is motivation to overfeed methionine?

Dan: I did not mean to say that anyone would try to overfeed methionine, but I do not think that anyone can deny that the providers and manufacturers of methionine would love to see the feeding of that maximized.

Nate Powell-Palm: How about not wanting to spend money unnecessarily?

Dan: Most likely. A lot of times poultry feeds tend to be manufactured as full feeds by a manufacturer and the producer does not always have a lot of control over how it is exactly being formulated.

Nate Powell-Palm: Totally. But consumers are always going to say, “If I can get it cheaper somewhere else, I’m going to.” And if you are trying to oversell methionine, then people are going to choose the less expensive option, correct?

Dan: That is true, as long as there are at least two options.

Kylie Mausser – Organic Consumer (CACS)
My name is Kylie Mauser, and I am calling in as a consumer. I live in Iowa and I home school my 4 kids. Therefore I make at least 3 meals a day. And as they get older, I’m making even more, so it’s important for me to feed my family organically as much as possible. (I especially try to buy the “dirty dozen.”) So organicics are important to me because I want to keep them healthy and limit the amount of chemicals that we ingest on a daily basis.

It’s hard enough with the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the body products we put on our skin. My husband also has an autoimmune disease, and I suspect that he actually partially got it because of the food that we eat.

I’m historically and personally a very trusting person, and tend to believe whatever I hear. However, the older I get, the more kids I have had, and then the wiser I’ve become, I realize that things aren’t always what they seem.

I would like to say I would support better and more widely-spread testing on organics, both in the foreign market and in the US, in order to hold people accountable. I just think that would be wise, and it would give my family and friends peace of mind in knowing that we’re getting what we paid for, and also what’s listed on the label is accurate and honest.

And I want to thank you all for all that you do for this country, and for all the time that you invest, because it’s such an important mission.


Amy Bruch: As the farmer, thank you for consumers like yourself for supporting us.

Brian Caldwell: Thank you for sharing your consumer voice.

Rafaella Mazza – Rumin8 (CACS)

I’m Rafa, I’m representing myself; I’m an agronomist from Brazil actually, and I moved to the US a few years ago to get my degree at Harvard Business School. And I’ve always worked in the sector, and thank you, Amy, for inviting me to share my experience.

So would love to give some color to what I’ve experienced as an agronomist in Brazil working with regenerative organic row crops between 2018 and 2020, and also visiting a lot of Midwest farms in the same period here in the US to understand the differences. I feel like that can inform ways of measuring and monitoring for imported grains into the US.

So I think, you know, the main differences would really be how the unit economics of farming differ between the two countries. Weed control is very different; pest control is very different; the weather, for sure, not having, you know, a winter season, changes everything again — back to the insects and diseases cycle. The access to equipment for organic farming is very different. And most agriculture is rain fed and not irrigated; I think that’s a big difference.

I feel like countries like Brazil (and that’s where my experience has been) have such a great opportunity to learn from the US where, from my experience again, organic farmers are way ahead — in terms of years of experience, access to technology, and how developed the community is.

So you know, even though you could think that maybe labor is cheaper, weed control by hand is just, like, really low tech, really really hard — you kind of destroy the whole row crop. So I think all these points go back to the importance of working with the right partners in the right way, monitoring for your production to make sure it’s organic.

So yeah, thank you for the space to share my my background here.


Nate Powell-Palm: I think I was understanding what you were saying about “low tech,” but could you expand a bit more on this? I think that some people think that developing countries are organic by default.

Rafaella: I would never say that a low-tech small producer for own food, I wouldn’t say that’s organic. If you try to check all certification boxes, I believe you would find this does not match organic requirement. Pressure from pests and diseases – almost harder to manage if low tech.

Amy Bruch: Our program is global and great to have international voices. Thank you for contrasting organic production. Can you discuss the delta and yield from your operations versus surrounding conventional operations?

Rafaella: We definitely took a hit in the first few years, and I feel like it took us a while to learn how to do it. You are still very much dependent on the season. For biological pest control, we would have our own farm where we could develop these biological pest solutions, but if you miss even one day, you are ruined. You will lose so much. There were plots where we could get the same yields as conventional farms, but that was because we were doing a really good job, had the best partners, and we were really on top of it. For an organic farm to be at the same level as a conventional neighbor, they are doing two to three times more work and spending more money, but it is possible. I would never say that someone who is non-tech and not using any of the conventional products can be more or as productive as organic producers; that’s just not possible. I saw how hard we had to work.

Jason Johnson – Stonyfield Organic (Livestock (LS))
Jason Johnson, Associate Director for the Organic Farm Program at Stonyfield Organic. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I’m gonna focus today my comments on the petition to add meloxicam to the National List.

I have 30 years of experience in the dairy industry as a dairy farm manager, farm owner, and managing Stonyfield’s direct milk supply. Stonyfield was founded in 1983 with the goals of helping family farms survive, and protecting the environment, and today we’re the country’s leading organic yogurt producer. We know that consumers count on the organic label to ensure that products were grown, processed, and handled in a way that they can trust, and we appreciate the critical role this board plays in upholding the integrity of the organic standard.

In my capacity at Stonyfield, I’m a certified FARM farm evaluator, as in conduct animal welfare evaluations and audits on approximately 25 to 30 dairy farm operations a year. In addition, I’m certified as a master in the internationally recognized CowSignals program, and animal welfare has always been a high priority issue for our consumers. Over the past several decades, we have also seen an increased focus on animal welfare across the entire dairy industry.

Our parent company, Lactalis, has adopted animal welfare standards that include a requirement for the use of two forms of pain mitigation for disbudding calves between 4 and 8 weeks of age. Organic producers do not have a good option for long-term acting pain control in disbudding. My firsthand observation is that lidocaine is a great short-term option, during the procedure itself, but as soon as the effects wear off, calves begin to exhibit behaviors associated with pain such as headshaking, nose pressing, increased agitation.

Organic standards need to be updated to ensure that the organic dairy farmers have the tools they need to uphold animal welfare in line with evolving dairy industry and consumer expectations. Most importantly, we need to do what is right for the animals. It is clear that the current pain management tools in organic are inadequate for mitigating pain. But we have the ability to alleviate this by adding meloxicam to the toolbox.

As a party to the petition, I know that we made every effort to provide a thorough review of meloxicam. In this process, we did not discover any information that would raise concerns about safety of meloxicam. We’re confident that the substance is compatible with organic systems. The NOSBs discussion document does indicate that an increased withdrawal period is needed, and we agreed that this would help increase confidence in the use of the substance in organic systems. Similar to how USDA handles withdrawal periods for other substances, we suggest that USDA should double the withdrawal period recommended by the appropriate regulatory body, which in this case is most likely AMDUCA.

Overall, we believe that animal welfare on organic dairy operations would be greatly improved by the addition of meloxicam. Thank you.


Nate Powell-Palm: What other animal welfare certs do you prescribe to? Do you use Validus?

Jason: We do not require Validus for our direct-supply producers. We require the F.A.R.M. program, and then our parent company have our own animal welfare program.

Nate Powell-Palm: In toolbox now, are they sufficient to meet animal welfare requirements for farm or internal program?

Jason: F.A.R.M. requires 1 form of pain medication, so you could say that meets that requirement, but we know that it is very short acting and does not meet the need. As stated, our parent company requires 2 forms, and we really do not have that available. You may have heard that some people use aspirin, but it’s not effective.

Nate Powell-Palm: You are a well-known food company. What is your concern, or do you have a concern, about residue? Or do you feel AMDUCA is sufficient?

Jason: No we don’t have a concern because if we follow process in place, there is no concern. The suggestion of doubling is consistent, but no matter what it is going to go back to veterinary consulting established by AMDUCA.

Mike Dill – Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition (OPWC) (CACS; Crops (CS))
Good morning, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Mike Dill and I’m representing the Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition, or 7 certified organic businesses that distribute fresh organic produce to eaters across the country. With regard to risk-based certification and residue testing, I’d like to emphasize a few points from our written comments.

One, OPWC suggests that future consideration of these 2 topics be done in tandem and considered with combined proposals.

Two, we encourage CACS to look at the systems used in food safety certification. For example, it’s customary for buyers to require a food suppliers’ food safety certificate, inspection report, and corrective actions report, as a condition of sale. Providing transparency about non-compliances and corrective actions clearly provides a level of supply chain transparency not seen in the organic supply chain. Food safety does this all the time.

Three, consult FDA on how they conduct their testing and food safety surveillance programs. They’ve been doing it for a while, and the organic community doesn’t necessarily need to reinvent the wheel here.

Four, NOP could hire specialists who have scientific training in sample selection and testing protocols to provide advice on unusual sampling and testing situations. A handbook cannot cover all situations, and I’ll share an example: The NOP handbook suggests one pound as the recommended sample size for grain. Yet when I worked as an inspector, I was assigned to sample a grain elevator in the Midwest. A USDA grain specialist advised me to use a sampling method which resulted in hundreds of individual sample bags, totalling 280 pounds. For the NLP handbook to suggest a one-pound sample as being representative of a five-story tall grain silo is neither accurate nor based on any recognized sampling method.

And five, we’d like to see a system that does not place the responsibility and liability associated with testing on the inspectors. We’d rather see inspectors focus on observational risks and compliance concerns while they’re on site.

Regarding the compost proposal, we agree that synthetic feedstock should be reviewed and listed on the national list. However, OPWC urges the board to send this proposal back to subcommittee to discuss the following issues:

First, is the elimination of the C-to-N ratio from the definition based on organic principles, or is this simply made to align with regulations by agencies outside of NOP?

Second, what impacts might arise from limiting compost production to aerobic conditions?

Third, we cannot afford to risk compost being deemed noncompliant for use on organic farms due to procedural oversights, and it would be extremely unfortunate if, for example, the 750,000 annual pounds of organic culls out of our operation were allowed on conventional farms and not organic farms because of produce stickers.

And finally, before making recommendation, we urge the development of a plan for rolling out this new definition, exploring associated changes to other sections of the regulation, […] a process for reviewing the petition, and petitioning current incidental synthetics and compost such as produce stickers. Thank you.


Nate Powell-Palm: If inspectors aren’t supposed to do the testing, who should?

Mike: I think we should look to another agency, whether it is within USDA… We could use inspectors, but having done it myself, I know that there are a lot of distractions that come with testing. As in my scenario, I was there for 8 hours doing testing. Plus, you have to worry about getting your samples to UPS by the end of the business day before you fly out, and all of this other stuff. If I look at what FDA is doing with their food safety folks, they have people going out in the field and doing this stuff. For example, this one time they came and tested several farms with cilantro because it was deemed high risk. They weren’t there to do anything else but that sampling. It was efficient. It didn’t affect our basis. I just want us to look to the food safety industry to see how they are handling these things.

Nate Powell-Palm: On behalf of inspectors everywhere, I want to say thank you for highlighting this.

Amy Bruch: Appreciate ideas about bench marking best practices from other industries. You mentioned you support testing as a tool and emphasis on verification through review of practices. How can we be confident that we are verifying and reconciling records and not just checking box that documents are shown to us.

Mike: One, I would say, and I keep hearing this – risk-based, residue testing all needs to be discussed as one topic. When I hear say that maybe we should just do remote audits. I’ve been on the other side of a remote audit, and honestly, it was kind of a joke. We were walking through a huge warehouse, I’m controlling the camera, and I can show you exactly what I want you to see. We are becoming more robotic and just want to get that form filled out. I think that a lot of inspectors do not feel empowered, or they feel intimidated to ask for the records that they really want to see. It’s true, you cannot rely on the operator to open their binder and only see what they want you to see. That’s why we are advocating for not putting more on inspectors, because it keeps you from focusing on what you are there to do. Inspectors really need to dig into looking at the things they are there to look at. Having done 100s of inspections in the past, I tried to take charge, ask questions, and if something doesn’t seem right, go down that path. That’s why one of the suggestions we made is that an inspection report should have a risk evaluation score where that inspector should be the one telling the inspector how the felt. I think we really need to leverage the inspectors for those kind of activities, determining risk, and auditing what is happening in that inspection. When I started inspecting, most of the reports were narrative, and you learned a lot more than the current checkbox reports that we’re using.

Brian Caldwell: Appreciate detailed written comments. Anaerobic compost: are you using compost with this method?

Mike: I cannot tell you what our growers are using. We put this in our comments because we are fearful that there is a potential that some compost might not be allowed if we do that. I would have to look at our comments again. I know that there are some composting methods, like vermicomposting or composting in vessels, that may not be allowed because they are considered anaerobic. We just want to make sure that we’ve done our homework and ensure that we do not limit the type of composting that is allowed.

Erin Silva – University of Wisconsin-Madison (Materials (MS))
Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Erin Silva. I’m a professor of organic agriculture at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. And I’m joining you this afternoon to provide some comments related to re-listing conventional celery powder as an ingredient for cured meat products.

I’ve been working on the evaluation of organic curing powders for the past 6 or 7 years now, funded throughout that time period from USDA or organic research and extension initiative grants.

This funding was able to bring in a diverse team of horticulturalists: myself and a researcher professor from the University of Florida, agricultural economists, as well as food scientists and meat scientists. So we’ve been able to conduct a variety of experiments related to more of a system-based evaluation of organic curing powder, and is the industry in a position to transition from conventional celery powder, curing powders to organic curing powders.

We have found a lot of promising results through this research. A big part of the research was to do field production evaluation, both in Wisconsin, on heavier soils, as well as in Florida, on irrigated sandy soils.

Throughout this research, we’ve developed and refined some fertility recommendations, finding that to produce a product that has high nitrate levels reaching industry specs, we do indeed have to apply more nitrogen than would be for a shelf or a fresh market crop. But, those levels are not in such an excessive range that it should be a concern for environmental reasons.

We still have some challenges related to refining recommendations related to harvest. In storage, depending on timing of harvest and processing destinations, this is one of the variables that we still need more research on to be able to create a consistent product.

We did find a really promising results in terms of quality. In several cases, organic curing powders had a higher quality product from a consumer testing perspective. And we did find positive results in terms of food safety, again, finding in one case organic products actually at a higher level of decreasing pathogens than conventional powders.

So whereas it does look like, at some point, the industry can move in the direction of requiring organic powders, there still is more research to be done to ensure that we have a consistent supply of organic powders that meet industry specs and are consistent with respect to their nitrite levels.

So again, I think we have promising results that organic curing powders can result in a higher quality product, and one that would meet consumer expectations, but we’re not quite ready to move in that direction at this point.


Brian Caldwell: Nitrogen levels: what kinds of inputs for nitrogen are you using and what levels on the fields?

Erin: We have used a variety of sources – in cover crops, composted poultry meal, and feather meal. Trying to look at more sustainable methods of applying that nitrogen. We are finding that we have to apply levels closer to 150 lbs/acre versus the fresh market that might be more like 120 lbs/acre. We do have to use more fertilizer than what is used for a fresh-market crop.

Brian: I would have thought it was more.

Logan Petrey: In any of your research and looking at the analysis of celery, do you ever look at vitamin C levels and antioxidants as things that combat nitrates in the body?

Erin: We haven’t. I wasn’t aware of that. Interesting point. Didn’t evaluate that component.

Logan Petrey: I was just thinking that if it did, that might be an argument that celery powder is better to help fight against the negatives of nitrates.

Matthew Borbonus – Self employed Organic Dairy farmer shipping Milk to Horizon Organic (Livestock (LS))
Matthew Borbonus; I have an organic dairy farm in Western PA. Was just calling in to try to have meloxicam allowed for use, particularly in disbudding and dehorning calves.

I’m getting to the point where I’m keeping more of my males instead of culling them, and trying to raise them up for organic beef. And it would be pretty helpful to have meloxicam as an additional tool, instead of just relying on the lidocaine, and some short-time use of aspirin and banamine.


Nate Powell-Palm: For your steers, could you speak a bit to if you have historically used any pain management in castration, and if you think that meloxicam would be a useful tool to aid in pain management for castration?

Matthew: Typically band within week old and do not use pain management for that, but for disbudding I burn them off and that does bother them.

Curtiss Newell – Organic Grassfed Dairy Farmer (Livestock (LS))
My name is Curtiss Newell; I’m an organic grass-fed dairy farmer residing in Wisconsin.

I have been an organic farmer for 19 years, starting the fall of 2005. I would like to speak on behalf of using meloxicam as an effective pain medication in my organic dairy operation.

As a livestock owner and caretaker, it is in my best interest — and more importantly, the animals’ best interest — to mitigate pain and discomfort during necessary procedures such as dehorning or disbudding young calves.

I currently use Lidocane before the procedure, to do the nerves in the horn bud area, before disbudding, and follow this up with pour-on banamine for longer-term pain control. If allowed to use meloxicam, I would no longer feel the need for pour-on banamine for this procedure.

I would be secure in the dosage. I would not have to worry about other calves licking off the banamine, or the banamine not getting through to the skin. I do have the opportunity to use aspirin, but I do not use it for this procedure. I do not feel it gives the same longer-lasting pain effects of the banamine. And it would take a back seat to meloxicam.

I have priced meloxicam and found it to be very inexpensive, and while this is never a reason to approve a product for organic use, it would be nice to be able to use an inexpensive product which has great effectiveness on pain management.

The Meloxicam pills are about the same size as human aspirin pills. It will be easy to administer with a small pulling tube. I would give this to the cows before the lidocaine, and as the lidocaine effect wears off, the maloxicam effect would take over.

I have thought I might also use this product during the case of calf scours, as I am told this can be very painful to calves. But I would have to consult my vet to get their approval before doing so.

I take the welfare of my animals very seriously. When I walk into the barns or out to the field, I take great pleasure and satisfaction when my cows walk up to me and do not run away from me; they have learned to trust us, and that they will be treated well. This starts the day they’re born into this world. And it’s why pain management is so important. It’s my responsibility to alleviate my animals’ sufferings wherever I can.

I believe meloxicam would be a great tool in my arsenal for pain management. And I’m advocating for its approval. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.


Kimberly Huseman: What size herd do you have in your grassfed program?

Curtiss: Milking 200 cows with about 105 heifers. Little over 300 animals.

Kimberly Huseman: Do you anticipate that you would use meloxicam on all of your animals, or what kind of percentage of animals do you anticipate you would use it on in your herd?

Curtiss: don’t anticipate using it on larger animals. Not to say i wouldn’t. Been told 2-4 pills for young calves.

Kimberly Huseman: What percentage of your calves do you have to disbud?

Curtiss: We do a little polled breeding. Probably 90% or more of heifer calves being disbudded.

Nate Powell-Palm: It sounds like you are really considering how to manage all pain. It sounds like there are instances outside of disbudding that this would be useful for. It sounds like you have a lot of trust in your vet and their ability to prescribe the use of meloxicam; is that correct?

Curtiss: That is correct.

Scott Stoller – Organic Valley, board of directors (Materials (MS))
I am Scott Stiller. I’m from Ohio and I am on the board of Organic Valley. I’m an organic dairy farmer here in Northeast Ohio. I also am calling about meloxicam.

And it’s interesting, as I listen to some of the other presenters; I guess I’d come out from a different view. So I hope I hope my view is valuable

I grew up conventional, and I used a lot of conventional treatments, and when I transitioned to organic, I realized that those treatments were a lot of band aids — and it was often for my management error.

So when I first went organic, I had a lot of stuff where I wanted something to replace what I used to use. I don’t do that anymore. And to give you a little history: in 2001, my wife and I and we have 8 children transitioned to organic.

And now the thought process is “prevent it through management” instead of “treat it.” But I run into an issue here with dehorning calves. We have a lot of consumers come through and visit the farm every year. And normally I’m — I don’t wanna say proud of what I do, but I am. I’m happy to show them what I’m doing. But the dehorning is one that — we just don’t show that, disbudding. We just don’t show that. And partly because I’m (connection interrupted)

(after resuming) I have about 300 cows, and we, as farmers, don’t want our consumer to see that. It’s worth it to do it, because the pain to the animal would be worse if we didn’t. I’ve looked into poll genetics, and they’re behind on the health trades. So we breed all select semen and then Angus, on our best genetics, and because the poll genetics are behind, we still have horned animals.

Basically what I’m what I’m asking is — especially because my children help me dehorn, and the pour-on banamine I feel is a danger — I would like to see meloxicam on the list as a safer alternative, for my family and for the calves.

A couple of questions you asked before. Do I think I’d use it on other animals? I hadn’t thought that far. I didn’t really have a need. So my main concern is the small calves. And when my children and I, my children and grandchildren, feed the calves, I don’t really like that pour-on banamine on that calf, when the children are working with them an hour later. So I’d like to avoid that if I could, and meloxicam looks like a good alternative for me. Seems to be safe, lasts a lot longer; easy to administer, and I appreciate consideration for it on the list. Thank you.


Allison Johnson: Would allowing meloxicam encourage other practices that are negative? My worry in allowing new material allows proliferation of a practice that might be harmful for organic?

Scott: When I was transitioning, it probably would have been. It didn’t take me long to realize that it’s a completely different mindset in the organic world. Now, as the generations come on behind me, they don’t even think in anything but organic terms. I do not think it would be long-term if someone did make that mistake.

Nate Powell-Palm: As you’re thinking about the applicability and how one deploys the medicine, do you feel like this is getting farmers a better tool not applied through injection? Have heard this is easier to use.

Scott: Ease of application definitely is a thing, especially when it involves needles or injections, because you have to have older people there. My children do a lot of the disbudding – they are capable – but when needles are involved, it becomes a lot more challenging. As a dairy farmer who lost a hand, me and needles don’t do well. It would be a great help to me.

Erika Rohr Luke – Regulatory Affairs for ProFarm Group Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment in advance of this 2024 fall meeting of the National Organic Standards Board. My name is Erika Rohr Luke, and I am a regulatory affairs project manager for Pro Farm Group Inc, formerly known as Marrone Bio Innovations.

Pro Farm is dedicated to delivering higher-performing, biological-based, and sustainable solutions that are safe for people and protect our natural resources.

Today I would like to emphasize our written comment on the inert ingredients in organic pesticide products proposal in front of the material subcommittee, which concerns the USDA organic regulations references to the updated EPA inerts ingredients list 3 and 4.

First, I would like to applaud the NOSB for continuing the work to modernize the system for reviewing inert ingredients, and to replace obsolete regulatory references. Thank you.

I’m here today to communicate Pro Farm’s support of option 2 — this is the so-called “EPA list with exceptions” — because it leverages the expertise of these EPA reviews of inert ingredients. But also allows the board to limit use of individual ingredients or classes in organic agriculture. This can be through a response to a petition, or on its own. It also will reduce the sunset review burden going forward by using categorical listings.

In any case, whichever option is ultimately enacted, we do appreciate that the board would have the ability to adapt the allowed inerts to changing times, and also encourage innovations for the benefit of the farming community and all consumers. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

And for the board’s commitment to organic agriculture and the support for growers and the biological tools that they rely on to nourish us and our environment.


Brian Caldwell: Do you have any idea of how many new inerts substances your company would like to add that are not currently approved in organic?

Erika: Everything that we formulate with is allowed with list 3 and 4 and allowed at 205. We are not looking to add anything.

Brian: Have heard some formulators thought much better inerts but not on old list so can’t use. You aren’t in that situation?

Erika: We personally aren’t. The same vehicle that would allow for things to be de-listed by petition would also allow flexibility for things to be listed by petition.

Kim Dykman – Agrisecure, consultant (CACS)
This is Kim Bachman, I’m with Agrisecure. I’m a consultant for organic row crop farmers in a 5 state area. And I just wanted to pass on some concerns that my farmers had given me during the course of the certification process. So, a couple of points.

They’re concerned about the quality of available organic seed. Much of the Organic seed that’s grown is not grown in their regions and is not grown in the soils and conditions where they farm, so they are just concerned that certifiers are asking for more organic seed, and it’s just not suitable for their growing conditions. They’re concerned that there’s a risk point and vulnerability with people using restricted-use pesticides and fertilizers and imported crops.

And farmers have expressed that they’re concerned about the legitimacy of the imports. Less organic acres are being certified. Farmers are barely breaking even. The playing field needs to be evened out for better access to organic markets.

Another point: more testing needs to be done to verify organic imports. We were asking [[if they price]] inspections at the ports? And what percentage of those crops are being tested when they come into our country? And I just hear a lot of guys asking for expanded testing of imports. They think that should be supported in order to catch fraud. Thank you very much.

Neil Edgar – California Compost Coalition (Crops (CS))
Good afternoon, I’m Neil Edgar. I’m the executive director of the California Compost Coalition. I’m also here on behalf of the US Composting Council as a board member, and my comments here are in addition to written comments that were also provided.

Our CCC members are predominantly service providers from municipalities throughout California who process yard trimmings and, increasingly, food materials, to meet landfill diversion goals prescribed in SB. 1383, our landmark methane avoidance legislation. Under SB 1383, compostable materials collection programs are changing rapidly to meet organic waste landfill diversion mandates.

Most programs are currently or will soon be collecting compostable packaging along with food waste generated at both residential and commercial courses. Many jurisdictions mandate reusable or compostable takeout containers used in restaurants for food not consumed on-premise.

As organic materials diversion programs grow dramatically over the next several years, the importance of providing clean organic compost that agricultural markets will increase immensely.

Agriculture is the single largest market for compost in California with over two-thirds share now, and it remains largely untapped. Agricultural production standards for fresh produce continue to elevate under pressure from restaurants, grocers, and other entities in the food production and distribution industries. In response to consumer demand, most farmers, both conventional and organic growers, are requiring compost they purchase to be in compliance with NOP standards.

We commend the crop subcommittee for all of their hard work. I’m responding to the BPI petition, and their August 13th proposal regarding compost. We’re fully supportive of the recommendations to revise the definition of compost and updates to the technical parameters, which will better align NOP regulations with other regulatory standards already in place across the US. We support requirements for compostible polymers to undergo an evaluation and petition process, as each individual material has unique properties, production processes, and may have varying outcomes in composting systems and soils. We would, however, like to see some clarification in the list of allowed paper and fiber materials and the list of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic production, specifically section 205.601c, which currently only states “as compost feed stocks, newspaper or other recycled paper without glossy or colored inks.” Many of the current paper packaging products cannot be considered “recycled paper.” Even napkins, paper towels, and other basic paper products used in food service may not be composed of recycled content.

It may have no potential impact on compost quality, as compared to those are that are. Additional definition is thoroughly needed as to which paper and fiber food serviceware products are allowed.

Both USC and CCC — among others in the packaging production world, I’m sure — would be happy to work with NOSB staff to provide additional information for consideration and expanding the section. Appreciate the opportunity to provide comments and look forward to the deliberations and recommendations from the board next week in Portland.


Nate Lewis: We are intending on continuing the conversation on the topics that you discussed. I’m curious about your comment related to the polymers – should we be evaluating and listing each one separately, or is there a role to rely on some ASTM standards, as suggested by that industry?

Neil: I don’t believe the STM standards reflect alot of things typically being considered through NOSB process. PHD is made from variety of materials, including natural gas and how those products perform in composting systems and while may comply with ASTM standards, we see a wide variety and residuals are still being evaluated in real time by programs. Need to evaluate individually and recommended this to number of manufactures years ago.

Mindee Jeffrey: Curious if you are clear on where California landed on the bifurcation? They are collecting plastic and compostables at the same time; is that correct?

Neil: Correct. Determination was based upon current collection systems and practices and would it be feasible for CA to collect to different sets of materials – one suitable for organic and one not. Deemed not to be feasible. New trucks, separate composting on site, separate areas for separate streams – deemed bifurcated program not feasible in CA at this time.

Amy Vasquez – Veterinarian with Horizon Organic (Materials (MS))
My name is Dr. Amy Vasquez. I’m a veterinarian currently working with Horizon Organic Dairy as a senior manager of milk quality and animal care. I want to express my sincere gratitude for allowing me to give this oral comment here today. I intend to share my advocacy for the placement of meloxicam on the approved materials list for livestock, specifically for organic dairy farms.

I’ve been in my profession, working nearly exclusively with small organic farms, for over 3 years, and I’ve been in the dairy industry for about 2 decades, specifically applying veterinary knowledge for 15 of those years. The next step in my career includes stepping into a professorial position, focusing on milk quality and animal welfare.

In speaking with several veterinarians in academia that service our local farms here in New York, they are flabbergasted. The academic welfare experts are regularly invited to give seminars about the application of basic analgesia for painful procedures on dairy farms because this should be a quote unquote “no-brainer,” and widely accepted here in 2024. However, I beg to argue that this is not a no-brainer when it comes to organic dairy farms, as they lack the tools in their toolbox — specifically, longer-acting, easier-to-administer pain control.

The procedure of removing horn buds, as we’ve heard, on dairy young stock, is necessary and it’s worth using cautery (or burning method), which can be quite painful, as well as the healing process. And meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory with preference for COX2 receptors, which means it’s less likely to cause side effects.

Meloxicam tablet is very tiny; it’s about the size of an allergy pill, and extremely easy to administer, as we heard earlier. Its therapeutic effect can be up to 72 hours in young stock, which differs greatly from flunixone and aspirin.

In fact, vets were provided a letter recently from the FDA notifying them that nearly all forms of aspirin that are currently marketed are unapproved, and therefore illegal to use in food producing species — thereby removing one of the tools we had for alleviating pain — and then, flunixone is an NSAID that’s currently accepted on the organic side, but has to be given intravenously; otherwise it can cause deep lesions and infections that can be refractory to antibiotics. Think about a farmer trying to find a vein on a wiggling calf. So we’ve also heard the precautions.

I also share that I interact regularly with veterinary students, specifically those anticipating working with dairy farms at the Summer Dairy Institute at Cornell, and many have been vocal about their anxiety working with organic farms — number one, due to their own lack of knowledge about the systems, and number two, their inability to use certain conventional products that they believe would be beneficial to animal health and welfare, and upholding their oath.

Not asking that meloxicam be put on to appease incoming vets — but I share that, as a vet, I believe this will be a useful tool for animals, that meets modern-day welfare standards. So the time is now to add meloxicam to the list. Thank you.


Wood Turner: Appreciate hearing in the context… what’s taken so long for this material to be petitioned?

Dr. Vasquez: I don’t have a general perspective. The perspective that I have is that I have been working with the team, and we have collectively working as a group with other processors. We did try to petition it at the last meeting, but it was removed from the agenda. I’m happy that we are addressing it now, and I thank you for keeping this on the fall agenda.

Kimberly Huseman: Heard from \Heard from a lot of dairy producers where disbudding is a common practice. As a vet, what other types of procedures or cases do you see that this would be an effective tool in the pain management box?

Dr. Vasquez: Certainly on young stock, castration. Lameness, mastitis – having this as a tool beyond flunixin and if you don’t hit dose you can cause gastrointestinal side effects.

Kimberly Huseman: This could be something not only useful at the farm level, but also at a vet practice, in circumstances that might be more rare. Such as, we talked about castration at a young age, or there are some that are done later and this might be useful then.

Dr. Vasquez: Certainly useful tool. On conventional farms where dehorn or disbud a bunch at a time, vet would pop pills in cows’ mouths. Makes process a lot quicker and less anxiety when trying to restrain them.

Nate Powell-Palm: I’ve got pigs on my mind. Can you speak to castration in pigs and meloxicam.

Dr. Vasquez: I have to admit, I know nothing about pigs, but I have some goats in the backyard, and they can have meloxicam.

Tim Dewey-Mattia – Napa Recycling & Waste Services (Crops (CS))
Tim Dewey-Mattia, Napa Recycling & Waste Services; we are a compost operator, recycler, and hauler, in Northern California. I want to thank everyone on the board again for inviting me and others in spring; to be on that compost panel, it was really beneficial for us. I hope it was beneficial for you. I want to keep this conversation going; I don’t want to bury that. This is an important conversation. It’s very urgent to talk about compost and updating the feedstock information, and to where we are in the current moment.

Neil gave a good summary of a lot of the points, just a few minutes ago. I just want to build on that. I appreciate the work on the proposal, and updating some of the basic compost stuff. I do think that we do need to do more work on fiber, and Neil talked about this.

Say, compostable polymers need to go through the one by one review — that just does not seem to be feasible for fiber. Fiber right now — you know, paper products — are an alternative to some of these compostable plastics that are used in places that don’t allow compostable plastics due to the organic rules. If that goes away, then what are we left with? We’re left with conventional plastic getting into our compost, and then more non-recyclable conventional plastic getting into our recycling systems, which are not outcomes that I think any of us want — since we’re really all here fighting to get more clean compost, more food scraps out of landfills, to reduce climate change, add nutrients back to our soils, while having less single-use plastic, not more.

Unfortunately, if something doesn’t change on what’s allowed — for feed stocks, just to clarify — we will see more single use-plastic, with a lot of the rules going into effect, with extended producer responsibility in California. So, you know, kind of a few other points. Just, moving forward: how do we get there?

And, you know, if we are going through the process of NOSB reviewing materials, we’re happy to be there to help. I encourage everyone to reach out. And then I think there do need to be clarifications on fiber just like what Neil was talking about before. Really, that’s it.

And one thing I want to just stress is please, if you’ve never been out to a composting facility, we would love to host you. Please come on out to one of our facilities, or another one in your region, and see what we’re doing. It’s really important work, to make compost. We’re all kind of working to get more organic food — you know, “gross,” organic compost — and also making sure that that packaging on organic food is sustainable packaging, there’s less of it, and there’s some way to divert it from landfills. And I think that’s kind of where it all ties together.

So, happy to answer any questions, and thanks again.


Nate Lewis: Do you differentiate between different types of compostables? What’s the best way to batch things to achieve goals? Maybe they meat ASTM standards but maybe don’t compost how you like?

Tim: Gets into bifurcation question as well. Needs to be realistic and coherent rules. Once gets to use we have to process it. We have to have multiple processes. We have conventional plastic as number 1 contaminant. Currently because of conventional plastic, a lot of compostables get removed. This is a long term process to remove plastic from compost train. Way of looking at is that needs to be some coherent labeling before it gets to us. Otherwise just doing lowest common denominator to remove things that look and act same way.

Mindee Jeffrey: So it sounds like on the bifurcation front, right now, California’s infrastructure is such that any contamination that comes in with compost feedstocks, whether it’s a compostable package or it’s a plastic, it all has to get separated right now. Because there’s no other way to bring the feedstocks to the composters in California. Is there a timeline? Is there a step forward, on how we could potentially separate them?

Tim: Correct. This is a bigger long shot than allowing them in the feedstock in the first place. If it’s compostable it ends up in the container. It comes to us. Any residual we could send to someone else. Maybe the plastic industry could process the compostable plastics. If compostable synthetics are not allowed then they would cease to exists. Unless the laws change, it’s ither in the mix with everything or it’s not allowed. Otherwise no one would pick it up. Have to consider municipal system.

Mindee: So in CA right now, even if some forms of compostable allowed, there isn’t a way for you to receive them?

Tim: If they were allowed, we would receive them, and we could do what we could on our end to allow them in the system. Right now, we’re just getting all of the conventional out of there. If it is allowed, we could have our human sorters take them out on the sort line.

Mindee: CA could potentially bring to you and you could potentially sort it?

Tim: As long as the packaging industry were to fund that kind of thing, and that seems expensive, but if there is a way for us to identify these things and we could sort them…

Allison Johnson: Appreciate you flagging paper products as being confusing. I think just paper is natural and not on the list because it can just go through. But paper packaging materials are more complicated, because of things like glues that come along with it. Are there other matierals we should look at that might go along with paper?

Tim: Currently right now it says newspaper or recycled paper, which is very vague. Recycled people to us is something that hs been made from recyclable content. If you’re talking about glues and adhesive stickers, that’s a different product that is added on it, and you want to make sure that’s not allowed. What is the appropriate way to determine whether or not a fiber product is or isn’t allowed, and maybe it’s a clarification of what is NOT on there, right?

Lynn Clarkson – Clarkson Grain (CACS)
Hello, Lynn Clarkson, CEO, Clarkson Green Company, Illinois. The US Organic Seal is offered as an international standard. Unfortunately, it doesn’t mean the same thing everywhere, because regulatory enforcement varies from good to terrible with political geography.

Discovering and proving fraud is difficult. Inside the US, the organic community has access to a functioning judicial system, good commercial codes, excellent third party testing, and a free press. Outside the US, the NOP’s best intentions run into local reality and embedded corruption. In such areas, we lack the tools to find truth and punish fraud. Inside the US, we find in jail those found to have committed fraud. Outside, I don’t see fraud being penalized. Once in a while, someone loses their organic certificate. The penalties that would discourage fraud are missing.

As a consequence, foreign sourcing has become the way to profit from organic fraud: either it’s the party committing the fraud, or the buyer taking an unjustified price advantage. The recent NOP warning about organic soy coming from West Africa is an example of the whack-a-mole frustration of tempering collective sales of conventional crops with organic. Profit incentives unchecked by fear of penalty encourage fraud.

What’s my window on this? My company makes organic olestin for such sensitive products as baby food. To protect that supply chain, we residue test. We use test labs in the United States and the EU. We find residues and pesticides legal in the United States, illegal in the United States, and illegal everywhere except some third-world countries. We find residues that go beyond tolerances for even conventional crops.

The huge wave of foreign-sourced organic soybeans flowing into US toll processing plants contaminates the entire US system. At times, it has become almost impossible to find clean organic soy oil in the US. My conclusion: there’s way too much pesticide residue arriving on foreign-sourced soybeans. Fraud is common. Testing is expensive, necessary, but effective.

So what can I do? How can we bolster organic integrity and minimize fraud? We need the enforcement that NOP can apply here in the US, with acknowledgement that best efforts elsewhere are not going to be as good. I’m now suggesting to consumer product clients that they pair the US organic label with another label: US farmed.

Developed by the American Farmland Trust, it means that 95% of the labeled product was raised on a US farm under US regulations. It is a simple but powerful claim verified by SGS, the well-respected international company.

Organic consumers here and abroad could enjoy the benefit of US enforcement, quality assurance, and environmental sensitivity.

US farmers would be recognized for the higher standards to which they are held. It will require no change in rules, no government action, no fraud committee meetings. It takes nothing away from organic. The NOP itself might be delighted [[…]]. Thank you.


Amy Bruch: The organic program is a public/private partnership. It was interesting to hear your comments about the US Grown label. Can you explain the value for the USDA program to benchmark with private industry to make the systems more robust, please?

Lynn: We have some people very interested in integrity and think that they get the best integrity from products raised here in the US, and they wish to acknowledge that the regulatory standard works better here, and they want that recognized. I’m sure they would be happy to work with the USDA.

Amy: Importance of residue testing – do you see event line of demarcation of fraudulent applications versus unintentional or drift type scenarios?

Lynn: We see so many pesticides. If we can isolate a supply from the US, it seems to be from drift and not significant. If we see pesticides not used in US, it’s from impots. Things that are illegal everywhere show up from imports. Its hard to find just US-production. If we find something that does not pass we reject it, but as far as we know it goes right back into the organic supply stream.

Jackie DeMinter – MOSA (Misc)
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Jackie DeMinter, and I am the certification policy manager at MOSA.

We certify 1775 organic operations in the United States. MOSA is invested in upholding organic integrity and doing our part to help grow the organic sector practically and in an achievable manner.

My comments will focus on risk-based certification and residue testing, and then close with the need for practical expectations on the administrative end.

We appreciate the need to develop NOP guidance for these topics so we can apply the concepts uniformly.

We agree with the principle of using a risk-based system for many standards requirements. Implementing risk measures for lower risk operations in order to reduce the length of an inspection is an area of an area of opportunity.

For example, the inspector could adapt their audits, inspect fields on a rotational basis, or forego the lengthly drive to the home of a virtual business owner to conduct an “onsite inspection” every year. Maybe every 3 years is enough for site verification. There is room for some discretion, without cutting corners. In actual compliance verification, aligning certifiers to target testing and inspections without the need for NOP compliance directives that ask for costly additional work would be a good use of time and of industry-wide risk-based verification. We would have a more significant impact on organic industry rather than meeting arbitrary compliance requirements that take significant resources and efforts to accomplish.

Testing most of the clients has not revealed fraud in any real sense. And we’d like to see an effort to minimize the unintended negative impact on small farms that test positive for residues that clearly aren’t application of a prohibited substance.

Clarifying intended outcomes would be a big gain for organic integrity. In an ideal world, we would zero in our compliance efforts on a unified approach on specific markets, commodities, and areas of production.

It is important that certifiers have uniform guidance regarding residues to be tested. Including realistic penalties for the residues tested and including sanctions for existing threats such as drift events.

In closing, we hope to catch your attention regarding change fatigue. While we understand the need to progress the organic industry forward in areas where weaknesses are exposed, we encourage NOSB and NOP to make sure the asks for more are absolutely necessary to to protect organic integrity, and the gain to be realized is clear for all stakeholders. When changes significantly create more work for us and our clients, we need time to implement them effectively and completely.

We greatly appreciate all of your hard work.


Nate Powell-Palm: Surprising this round to hear how risk assessment is mostly being looked at as how to assess less risky farms. How do you see allocation of resources playing out?

Jackie: That’s a big questions – yes to both. Yes, less expectation, perhaps, for some things for lower risk operations. Not to cut corners on integrity, to be clear. Looking to make it realistic and practical for small farms that are 100% home grown feed on their operation. High-risk operations – yes – that might free up some time spent on those lower-risk operations and purposeful gain that we may have. We would have the ability to focus our efforts. Imports might be an area of focus and we want to zero in on that. Certifiers that certify a lot of importers could zero in on that, and we could zero in on our producers who use imports. We want to deter fraud. We want to see imports that come in with integrity. So, then, let’s all zero in on those high-risk areas, instead of certifiers randomly testing 5% of our clients. I want to be able to feel and realize a purpose for what we are doing. When we’re doing these lengthy inspections on these low-risk farms – what parts of those could we realistically reduce and refocus for where we can actually gain something.

Amy Bruch: Coordinating efforts and talked about the what? How do we accomplish that?

Jackie: ACA might be a great forum. NOP does a great job of connecting with certifiers, sending out memos, but it’s the collective goal and lets get on same page about how to do it. ACA is doing fantastic job, but that is the organization certifiers are part of that could facilitate that we could center our efforts through. NOP does webinars, put these on, talked about it but having taken efforts without NOP directives. Would be great to absorb compliance work within what we already do and to see all of us rallying around same effort. Livestock effort – certifiers rallied around same measurements, but was really a lot of extra effort.

Kestrel Burcham – The Cornucopia Institute (General)
I am Kestrel Burcham, Policy Director for The Cornucopia Institute. I will focus my comment on the inherent risk in allowing soil-less production under the organic seal.

First and foremost, despite the organic standards requiring soil-based practices, soil-less produce continues to grow in the organic market. This soil-less production exists within a regulatory vacuum. Organic products cannot meet a consistent standard while soil-less production exists alongside the requirements for soil. OPFA requires this consistency!

Allowing soil-less production under the organic label is also misaligned with the existing rules. From a regulatory standpoint this puts the organic marketplace on shaky ground because it’s not clear which regulations apply to which products. This has already created huge schisms in the marketplace that go to the heart of organic integrity.

Inconsistencies in crop production practices and their enforcement have several detrimental effects on the organic market:

1. Producers can have significantly different production costs for the same organic product, causing economic unfairness;
2. Certifiers cannot apply rules consistently when soil-less production apparently exists within a regulatory vacuum;
3. In some cases, consumers are unaware that not all organic products are grown in soil, resulting in consumers paying for an attribute they are not receiving.

We are headed to another “market failure” – if we are not there already – because soil-less organic production is allowed without any regulatory basis. When the issue of inconsistency arose in the livestock realm, the Organic Livestock and Poultry Standard (OLPS) was finalized to help cure the issue. We need to act to cure this issue as well.

This schism must also be resolved to move forward with any form of risk-based certification – because how do you calculate risk for soil-less operations when they are operating outside so many of the organic standards?

Finally, one of organic agriculture’s strengths is its emphasis on soil health. Many studies now definitely show that the soil-fostering practices found in the organic regulations are the basis for all sustainable farming. For example, a recent study confirmed that compost and manure applied to the soil directly fight rising global temperatures through boosting carbon sequestration. How can we continue to argue that organic is “climate smart” when we haven’t dealt with this issue?

The Cornucopia Institute continues to support the Organic Agriculture is Soil-Based: Position Statement: organic farming is soil-based, and hydroponic and container production is incompatible with the regulations as they stand.

Thank you for your time and continued work supporting organic integrity!

Colehour Bondera – Kanalani Ohana Farm (General)

Aloha, my name’s Colehour Bondera, a farmer of Kanalani Ohana Farm in Honaonao, Hawaii: organic kona coffee, cacao, avocados, and many other fruits and vegetables make up our diversification of our small scale, Real Organic certified farm. Though not easy, I was able, thanks to my wife, to take a significant unpaid break from my job as a farmer and serve on the NOSB from 2011 to 2016. Thanks for accepting my testimony. Thanks as well to the efforts of the National Organic Coalition and to Beyond Pesticides for needed support and leadership; my testimony is about the past and how we can make things better in the future.

I wanna thank you for having in-person testimony. I do wish that my testimony fit into the live schedule. The limits mean that those of us who can only quote unquote “just” make this happen — it seems that the NOSB can take a look through the lenses of the policy development subcommittee, and the policy and procedures manual, and determine if there is a more fair way to ensure that testimony is received from local farmers as the meetings move around the country. Perhaps, for example, 3 and a half days of meeting time, and/or a percentage of the slots held for actual farmers.

Now to some of your present considerations. First, the title of an early piece of work: “What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: inert ingredients in pesticide formulations,” which I compiled as an undergraduate student while within cap in Eugene in 1986 and 1987. Since then, I have been flabbergasted that the honesty of organics still includes allowance for inert ingredients in formulations which only protect capitalism. The excuse is the default for not considering the chemical and health realities of full formulations. And I raise this as an important subject to be brought to conclusion. Organics is not about hiding, and “inerts” is a synonym for deception. We must consider all inputs.

The fact that we must look at the whole picture reminds me, after many decades, that we can and should by now have achieved the availability and guarantee that all seeds and starts used for organic production are organic. The NOSB must put forth policy which requires these to be accessible to “the little guys,” so to speak. Small demand does not mean eased access, but the NOP can and should determine how to encourage subsidized and truly require such materials to be available at all times to all producers. This is a simple chicken-and-egg question: and since organic and organic seed comes first, together, let’s make that available and therefore required.

Though not in my written testimony, my final topic is about why so many farms have sought out Real Organic certification. The answer is simple: we are required to nurture the whole system, and to have soil improvements as organic producers.

Hydroponics can happen, but it’s not organic. And, NOSB must work with the NOP to correct this error that is now over five years in the making. Remove hydroponics from permitted practices, as NOSB has done repeatedly. Permitting hydroponics only waters down what is perceived as organic.

In 2024 everything is still not organic. And together we must show that we care about true organic producers, and ensure that tools permitted are based on the founding principles of organic. Thank you.

Ben Jackle – Materials Review Specialist at MOSA Certified Organic (Crops (CS); Livestock (LS); Materials (MS)

Hey, my name is Ben Jackle and I’m representing the materials review team at MOSA in these comments. First, a quick thank you to the NOSB for all of your ongoing work. As always, we appreciate the opportunity to comment.

In addition to my oral comments today on DL-methionine and iodine, I’m happy to answer any question on MOSA’s written comments concerning carbon dioxide.

Compost induced me to Genesis and inerts. Annotations of National List materials often have a significant impact on our review process.

Therefore, we welcome consideration of the necessity and clarity of each annotation as part of the sunset process.

In the case of DL-methionine, we both appreciate the flexibility that this proposed change will provide to our certified producers, and note that this change would also reduce the amount of paperwork that our certified operations must complete, and the amount of time that MOSA’s reviewers and inspectors would spend verifying compliance with this particular restriction. If implemented, we will have more flexibility to address the areas of these operations that we identify as the most critical for maintaining organic integrity. Having this flexibility is especially important in light of the numerous additional requirements that have come with the implementation of SOE and OLPS.

On the other hand, the impact of the proposed iodine annotation is not as clear. MOSA follows the ACA materials working group Best Practice Document when reviewing iodine.

This guidance generically allows any complexing agents included in the iodine formulations. Our hesitation regarding support for this annotation is specifically based on the fact that it restricts the more general class, Alkylenol ethoxylates, or APEs, as opposed to the more specific subset of nonolphino ethoxylates, or NPEs.

Based on our reviews of numerous inputs containing iodine, we are aware that the industry has reformulated many products such that they are now free of NPEs.

We are not sure that all of these products are also free of APEs; verifying that numerous products are free of APEs when we already know these products are free of NPEs will end up in many additional hours of work, that may not ultimately exclude any additional products from organic production. Therefore, we support an orientation limiting the use of NPEs in the formulation of iodine, but would appreciate additional consideration before prohibiting the more general class of APEs.

Furthermore, additional, more thorough consideration of APEs may allow for a general prohibition of these materials from organic production. Specifically, the proposed annotation would prohibit APEs in iodine formulations, but does not necessarily give certifiers a regulatory standard which will prohibit the use of APEs as excipient ingredients in livestock health products — or, for that matter, as inert ingredients in crop pesticides.

Thank you for this opportunity.


Brian Caldwell: For the more general prohibition of APEs, wouldn’t you be able to just consult with an MRO for the evaluation of a material?

Ben: It’s true, we do rely on WSDA and OMRI for some, but we do our own reviews for livestock health inputs as well. We do our own product composition reviews. We reach out to manufacturers.

Brian Caldwell: Is that because they are not reviewed by OMRI or another MRO?

Ben: They could certainly be, and some are reviewed by OMRI, but we do not find there to be as many that are. There are not as many of the livestock health inputs that are reviewed by MROs as there are, say, crop pesticides.

Nate Lewis: I think the intention of using APEs is people would swap in just as toxic of a substance. I want to acknowledge the intentionality behind the annotation.

Ben: Certainly. And we support the general direction of that, too, and want to recognize that it’s additional work verifying it to the APE standard, and due to the inability to get all of the information on some products, it may end up not allowing some products that our producers are currently using.

Kyla: I believe in the inerts proposal, an option was an allowance where we call more APEs. We are trying to connect the dots. That has been called out with the excipients listing, as well.

Margaret Scoles – IOIA Executive Director (CACS)
Thank you for all your work. Margaret Scoles, Montana, International Organic Inspectors Association. We’re very grateful for the discussion on risk-based certification, because the foundation of our job as inspectors is risk assessment. We submitted written comments and listed focal points. A few are noted here:

Split operations in parallel production; long, complex, and/or non-transparent supply chains; imported products, especially feed; and unprocessed produce and herbs.

Certified organic operations with a larger market footprint inherently pose a higher risk. A single large operation has the potential for accidentally or intentionally introducing exponentially more non-compliant product.

The time required to implement a regulation change is often years, or even decades, from the time the NOSB makes a recommendation. Risk-based certification is needed now. The industry cannot wait. Regardless of whether the NOSB votes on a recommendation to change the rules, there are ways to establish an industry standard quicker.

IOIA strongly supports the creation of a working group. The ACA did a fantastic job of providing excellent resources for risk determination for SOE. Now that the industry has had some time to see the results of implementation, our experience can be used to continue the conversation.

IOIA encourages the NOP to create guidance and OILC courses that provide information and clarification on risk, strengthening organic systems, training and fraud prevention plans. Note: vulnerability is not the same as risk. Vulnerability is a weakness, a gap. Risk is the likelihood of it mattering. IOIA agrees and encourages the industry to prioritize time and resources on areas that matter most to the consumer and to the planet. We also commented to the consistency in organic seed discussion document.

And yes, we still support the 2018 and 2019 recommendations, with some improvements, which we included in our written comment, based on risk and commercial availability requirements.

Organic seed options are not growing, and they are unlikely to grow without a stronger regulation that closes the current loophole. The last organic seed alliance survey on organic seed usage showed minimal growth in the use of organic seed for most field crops. Commercial availability is burdensome for all producers, and verification of seed search documentation consumes a considerable amount of time for inspectors and certifiers, with minimal outcome.

Inspectors of crop operations frequently see contracts with buyers of organic crops that specify the use of a specific variety or source of seed. The handler might provide the planning seed and at the same time a letter that says organic seed is not commercially available.

Very little organic open pollination. And pulse crop seed is available in regions where lots of organic open pollinated grain and pulse crops are produced. Thank you.


Nate: Do you feel with seed that we are struggling with forces that go beyond regulations –infrastructure. When we look at seed consolidation, what do you see as the catalyst for getting more local seed available?

Margaret: This is maybe not a popular answer, but, the current rule is not working. If the intent is to get more people to use organic seed, the commercial availability clause is too big of a loop hole. I know that if we suddenly required producers to have 100% organic seed, that would create a hardship, but I think it’s a lot more about cost than anything else. I have seen instances where I’m pretty sure people knew they could get organic seed, but they just had three different sources say that organic seed wasn’t available.

Allison Johnson: Weve been thinking about the handler rule – we’ve heard handlers are telling farmers what to grow; but had not heard they are supplying that letter. Sounds like that would not solve the problem – how do we engage the handlers in this puzzle?

Margaret: I don’t know how to solve the problem. I do think there is a genuine problem that people are intentionally not using organic seed. I live in Montana, it’s not hybrid, no reason can’t get organic wheat seed. I frequently see letters from buyers that say they provide seed documentation to their growers. I wish I knew how to fix it.

Amy: Thanks, you mentioned on risk-based certification on long, complex, or non-transparent supply chains. Heard that a lot. SOE is being implemented. How do we get more transparency in this area?

Margaret: Probably not so well, other than that there are a lot of entities that do not want to share. There are business reasons to being non-transparent, to avoid being cut out as the middle person. I think that’s the main reason. The lack of transparency is just business, because things change hands so many times – so many hands, and borders. Even coffee – there can be a long supply chain with someone selling it to someone who resells it again.

Kim: Is there any kind of a mechanism to understand price spreads between conventional and organic seed prices?

Margaret: A lot of the cost is access and transportation, because you see people many times that it’s not the fact that the seed isn’t available, but that the transportation cost is exorbitant. I don’t know how to answer producers who say that if they can’t find it within 300 miles, they don’t have to use it. I don’t know how to answer that, because it’s kind of a nice idea, but it’s not true. I tell them to talk with their certifier.

Megan Vaith – Northbourne Organic Crop Insurance, LLC (CACS)

Hi, my name is Megan Vaith and I own Northbourne Organic Crop Insurance, where I work with multiple organic farmers on the insurance options they have available to them. Crop insurance has been an important risk management tool used for years, and has progressively become more popular in the organic industry. Crop insurance has been a hot topic recently in multiple work groups I’ve been a part of. I believe this is for two main reasons: One, commodity prices are low, and farmers want to make sure they’re covered, and two, most FSA disaster program payments are now requiring crop insurance, forcing some farmers to purchase it even if they haven’t had it in the past.

I believe we all know that crop insurance is pretty straightforward for the conventional farmer: you take the proven yield, times the coverage level, times the price, to get your guarantee.

You would think it’d be the same for the organic farmer, but there are so many more variables that go into it. What if the field is full of weeds, which drags the yield down? What if the farmer has a no-till operation, and the insurance company doesn’t recognize that as a good farming practice? What if she has been farming conventionally for years, and wants to transition to organic, but the crop insurance coverage is so low that it would take a complete wipe-out to collect?

I think it’s time to take a step back and start to analyze why the subsidized program is not used more widely among organic growers, like it is for their conventional counterparts. I believe this could be attributed to a few different reasons.

Number one, farmers can’t truly do enterprise units by organic practice. There was a major release recently stating that there was a big enhancement which made crop insurance farmers eligible for enterprise units by organic practice. In theory, this sounds great, and is actually what I’ve been wanting for years. However, this only splits organic versus conventional. This in no way helps the farmer that is transitioning more ground, as transitional acres will automatically be enterprised with the certified organic ground, as it is all considered organic. For this to be truly effective for these farmers, they need to split out the transitional organic acres as well. Coverage during the trade session period is not adequate during a very risky time for the farmer. Why can’t we make sure they at least have decent insurance policy in place that will cover them in case a disaster strikes?

Number two, T-yields. I believe this has been talked about many times, but we still haven’t seen a resolution. On average, the county T-yields for organic crops are only 65% of the T-yields for conventional crops. Where is the research to show that organic farmers are truly only raising 65% of the conventional yield?

The third point is good farming practices. For the last year, I have seen a large uptick in audits on organic policies which are considered “random.” Almost all of them have fallen into the “good farming practices” category, where they put the farmer through a grueling interview process, questioning every farming decision. If he answers one question in a way they don’t like, they will automatically deny the crop insurance claim. I had 3 claims denied last year alone that should have been paid out. In the past, it used to be if the farmer followed what was written in his organic plan, he was good to go. While I don’t believe this is the best way to handle it, there should be a little more leeway for these farmers. For example, a farmer no-tilled wheat into a field that was in an extreme drought, because he didn’t want to lose any more moisture. He was denied a crop insurance claim solely for his decision to no-till, where nowhere in the crop insurance handbook does it say that he could no-till his wheat.


Nate Powell-Palm: I think you said that the T-yield automatically assigning a lower yield to organic is punitive. Is there a better formula we can use that would use the conventional history to better inform organic yields?

Megan: I think it absolutely should. If farmer transitioning from conventional to organic – I just don’t understand why organic is 65% of conventional. I want to see good research and reasoning on why we decided this once upon a time.

Nate Powell-Palm: We have an economist on our team so we will have to assign her on that one.

Ryan Weeks – Weeks Family Farms (CACS)
My name is Ryan Weeks. I’m an organic farmer from south central Nebraska.

Just wanted to make a few comments today, regarding what’s going on in the organic industry. You know, we’re fighting prices, right now, that are very depressed because of what we believe are fake imports coming into the US and impacting

One of the things we’d really support is, you know, for us as organic farmers — our process we go through, to get certified and make sure that the product that we’re providing to the American consumer, that we say is organic, is organic. It’s a very daunting process. We take a lot of time. We go through it. There’s penalties, there’s consequences if you don’t do it right.

There are not those consequences for people who are importing these products that, we believe, are probably not organic — and are getting into our food supply. In my mind, that creates a food safety issue.

Here in the United States, we’ve been telling the consumer we have the safest, best, most nutritious food source. But if we’re not going to actually take care, and make sure to test every single organic product being imported into the United States, we’re lying the consumer. Because we’re allowing this to come into our processes. And we’re allowing it to come into our food supply, which creates a food safety issue for consumers here in the United States.

I’ll use a quick example. We export popcorn through Preferred Popcorn here in Nebraska. The process to get certified to import our product into the EU — it’s robust. Everything’s tested. It’s got to be traced, all the way to field level. It is robust. It’s difficult. It’s hard. We do it because they ask us to, because they want to export that product — because it’s a static market here in the United States, that they have most of. Okay, we need to find some way, here in the US, to ensure that we’re providing our customers with the safest, most nutritious, best product.

The EU gets all the good product; we get all the junk here. Because the fact is: we don’t test. We do not make sure that that product coming into the United States is certified organic.

I agree a lot with what Lynn said earlier, about the fact that there’s repercussions here if we don’t do things right. There’s no repercussions anywhere else in the world.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you today and testify. I would say this is a super important issue for the American organic farmer. We need our pricing to be above our cost of production. And right now that is not the case. And it’s because we have that amount of imports coming in. And I’m gonna use one example.

But the implied yields, per country of origin, and the “US organic” bean supply coming out of the country of Nigeria equates them to a 400 bushel per acre yield — and the top quarter of US organic producers produce 60 bushels an acre, the average in the US is 37.

Thank you.


Kim: Can you speak to your crop rotation – you mentioned popcorn. What other crops do you have?

Ryan: We grown organic blue, popcorn, feed, food and organic wheat goes into food supply, organic soybeans. That’s majority of crop rotation. Did do some barley but we grow based on what we can sell well.

Kim: can you identify which part of rotation see biggest struggle to find end-user or customer that’s able to take product for price that makes sense to you?

Ryan: Yellow corn and soy — both are dead markets right now.

Kim: Creating competition in space is of value. Appreciate efforts.

Amy Bruch: Kim ask your question about seed costs to Ryan you were asking to Margaret.

Kim: Spreads and values in seed costs.

Ryan: In addition to being farmer, also been a seed salesman. Problem is quality issue and the thing is I try to raise just as good organic as conventional. Nothing worse than getting off to bad start. Have to have high quality. I’ve tried organic seed and most difficult thing ever done b/c use flamers and delays females too much then…cost of production of organic seed corn is through the roof. I can sell non-GMO untreated seed for down to 180 dollars a bag. If I were to sell organic, which is not as high quality, it’s 300 dollar per bag range.

Kim: Appreciate that information.

Aaron Hobbs – North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture (Livestock (LS))

Good afternoon. My name is Aaron Hobbs. I’m the executive director of NACIA, the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture. (And I also run film for the Yorktown freshman football team. So I’m sliding out of here pretty quick when we get done.)

Thanks for the opportunity to talk this today. I doubt that I’ll take my full 3 min.

We as the North American Coalition for Insect Agriculture have really appreciated working with the NOSB getting to know and understand the processes and within the NOP and the organic community. We appreciate the opportunity to continue to do so.

Our comments today are about methionine, and our concern is: it feels like the current direction of the NOSB will create a preference for sources other than natural sources in nonsynthetic form.

So what we are looking for, we don’t believe that the standard needs to be relaxed, and that, you know, we would like the opportunity to see, and create, we think there’s enough methionine available through insects. And allow insects to be a nonsynthetic form of methionine. (So I have not said that correct until I got it right this time.)

Insects are a growing industry. We’ve talked about it over several meetings now. And we know there’s been a lot of discussion about that. But we think that we do have a source that’s available, and don’t think that the current direction is the right one, and don’t think that the standards need to be relaxed.

So again, as we continue to grow together, we’re excited about the opportunity to work with organics.

We feel like our young industry, and your slightly more mature industry, have same goals for the environment, and for climate, and look forward to continuing to working together and providing new tools to organic agriculture, through our industry and the work that we do. And that’s it.


Nate Powell-Palm: How many pounds of crickets or BSFL would you need to replace DL-methionine. Could you also look at capacity – we have x-million birds organic, could insects meet that need? Could farmers row these insects on their own farms?

Aaron: No idea how many pounds of crickets. Last question, answer is 100%. Very specific development of insects with specific outcome, whether it’s methionine or something else that a farmer needs.

Nate Lewis: Heard you support development of productions standards for labeling insects as organic? I hear that part of the goals and that you want to be considered for non-synthetic methionine. Which is the priority because if you are agricultural you need to be certified as organic?

Aaron: If I understand correctly if I had a magic wand, would like to see both. Industry is still growing. From our perspective have shared outcome. Don’t want either door closed in short-term. Some not pursuing organic insects b/c lack of steady stream of feedstocks for the insects. Even if organic byproduct, that is the concern.

Nate Powell-Palm: What is the feedstock you need?

Aaron: We can talk offline. How much do you want for it is the big question. Part of the value of insects is taking a low-grade product and upcycling it. For example we have mealworm producers using wheat and veg byproduct (like lettuce byproduct). Part of what helps us with our sustainability and environmental goals is to upcycle something with little value, not taking beautiful grain and using it.

John Sheppard – Sheppard Grain/Organic Soybean Processors of America (OSPA) (CACS)

I’m John Shepard, the president of Sheppard Green Enterprises, LLC. Sheppard Green is in upstate New York, and has produced organic soybean meal for over 2 decades. I’m also a director in a domestic trade association, Organic Soybean Processors of America or OSPA; OSPA advocates for fair and free trade, specifically the advancement of safe and reliable organic livestock feed. Thank you for this opportunity to address the NOSB, and for your service. I offered a presentation to the NOSB during your spring conference.

In that event, first I spoke of an […] Agrimaris mass balance analysis of African organic soybean meal exports, relative to the available feed stock and production capabilities; that report identified it is highly unlikely the meal is born of certified organic soybeans. Second, I addressed how fraud will destroy the domestic organic soybean market. And third, I talked of the low price; imported organic soybean meal depresses the domestic organic soybean value by at least $2 a bushel.

Today I’ll present two slides. The source documents were submitted for your record. The first side is quotes from an ARGUS insight paper on the shrinking profitability of organic farming.

ARGUS calculated an organic form with corn, wheat, and soybeans in rotation would make merely $42 an acre this marketing year. They also calculated that if production costs remain steady, a market value of August 2024 would net a total return of minus $213 an acre, in the marketing year 2024-25. ARGUS concludes the retention of existing organic farm operations is at risk. What is noticeably missing is why soybean values are depressed — which, obviously, is a large supply of imported organic soybeans and meal.

The second slide calls out an NOP directive to accredited certifying agents in West Africa, notably the countries of Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo. This directive is an administrative effort to validate the organic integrity of both soybeans and soybean meal exports. The directive was quite comprehensive, with deliverables due to the NOP by October 28th. Hopefully, non-compliant certified agents will have their accreditation revoked. A similar NOP directive should be implemented for organic soybeans and organic soybean meal exported from the Black Sea region, which is the predominant source of imported organic soybean meal to the States. Thank you.


Amy Bruch: How can private sector work to inform NOP certifiers and inspectors of known and assume risks so we can react faster?

John: The private sector to inform NOP – without the tools or defensible chain of custody, an individual like me can’t make accusation of unethical behavior without risk of a libel suit. The NOP directive is an administrative step but is effective. And will have an effect on exportation of soy and soybean meal. The risk is too great. Provided the NOP is willing to enforce, it will have an effect.

Rachel Merritt – Columbia Laboratories – Tentamus Group (CACS)
My name is Rachel Merritt. I am the lab operations manager at Columbia Laboratories; this is a third party testing facility out of Portland, Oregon. Our service lines include food, environmental, and cannabis testing. Some of the testing we offer includes microbiology, nutrition testing, soil and water testing, heavy metals, residual solvents, and pesticide residues. I’ve been overseeing our pesticide testing at Columbia for the last 8 years. We offer the NOP 2611-1 panel, specific commodity panels, USP 561, and comprehensive multi-residue panel. We see a variety of samples including water, soil, raw commodities, and finished goods for pesticides. I wanted to give my thoughts on the current NOP testing panel, and the 2613 document on responding to results.

The current NOP panel includes roughly 200 pesticides; most multi-residue panels at a well-established food testing lab are over 400. I would encourage the committee to look at moving to a more comprehensive list and/or a list based on commodity group types. This means a testing panel specific to that commodity, including commonly used pesticides and other substances. By creating testing requirements surrounding a type of product, the results will be more applicable and appropriate to give the product the status of organic.

When discussing expanding the list, here’s a background on what our lab typically tests beyond pesticide screens, including polar pesticides such as glyphosate, […] carbamates, fumigants such as methyl bromide or inorganic bromide, heavy metals, residual solvents — and there’s more than that, but those are the top ones.

I agree that testing needs to go beyond a pesticide screen. Currently, for example, a carrot could have no pesticides detected on the NOP list, but could contain a high level of glyphosate — but it could still be deemed as organic.

I’m speaking on the 2613 document for responding to results, specifically the detection without tolerance levels.

I routinely evaluate products for the US or EU markets. Generally the US regulations in the 40 CFR are more vague, compared to the EU. They do not get updated often, and miss new commodities on the market or new pesticides in use.

I know a risk for expanding testing is the risk of more substances found. For positive findings that do not have an established tolerance, you could implement something called an ARFD calculation. ARFD stands for acute reference dose; the ARFD of a chemical is an estimate of the amount of the substances in food and drinking water that can be ingested in a period of 24 hours; it’s a nice way to evaluate the risk to the public health.

It also seems that there’s agreement that metabolites of substances need to be added to the list. I would suggest pulling the definitions from the 40 CFR for that.

In regard to dehydrated, extracted, or concentrated organic products, I agree with looking at a correction factor; while the USP 561 limits can be useful, the panel for this is narrow, and looking into how the EU calculates this is advised. Thank you so much for letting me talk today. It’s important for laboratories to speak on testing decisions, since we’re the ones working with the clients to ensure that it’s done properly.


Nate Lewis: Solvent extraction tests: we don’t have a regulatory hook to hang our hat on. In the conventional industry they don’t set tolerances, so how do we start setting limits for synthetic solvents in organic? How do we unravel that since it’s a synthetic substance

Rachel: Only experience with solvent regulations is with cannabis and hemp. Even those are very applicable for what’s being used on production side of things. I’d suggest looking at other countries. EU regulations surpass US regulations and have docs about how they regulate their solvents.

Amy Bruch: Helpful to hear there are corps-specific panels. Innovation in lab testing: are we able to achieve more rapid results for these samplings? Is that an area improvement or focus?

Rachel: Definitely. That’s one of our biggest drives is turnaround times for customer satisfaction. Things can get done quickly, 5 days is common. Some clients even want 2 day turnaround on some. Turnaround time isn’t an issue for a well functioning laboratory.

Everett Codd – Regulatory Consultant for Chapul Farms (Livestock (LS))

Everett Codd, regulatory consultant for Chapul Farms, speaking to DL-methionine. Chapul Farms is a black soldier fly larva and insect frass producer. The dried larva are AFCO-approved poultry feed, and our first product has been reviewed and is allowed for use in organic crop production. In our process to bring the larva to the feed input market for organic livestock, we have found an absence of relevant organic standards, and inconsistent application of the standards by certifiers.

The OPLS clarified that invertebrates may be certified under the organic standards at 205.239, however, current production methods for feed insects are entirely indoors as biosecurity concerns have completely limited that development.

Additionally, organic standards regarding care and slaughter for feed insects are completely absent. Aquatic animals and yeast are allowed as non-synthetic sources of methionine, while insects are required to have organic certification.

Please do not relax the synthetic allowance for DL-methionine. That is not the policy work needed to support bird health. The livestock committee’s proposal is misinformed regarding nonsynthetic insect alternatives. This is a market failure, not a development issue. Commercial availability has been blocked due to inconsistent application of the organic livestock standards and regulatory shortsightedness.

Our AFCO-approved whole insect larva product cannot reach the organic market as a nonsynthetic feed input, or as a certified organic livestock product.

Bird health has been used as an excuse to increase the allowance for synthetic inputs. Avian species eat insects in a natural setting — yet, under the organic standards, soybeans and synthetics are being promoted as the solution to flock health.

The policy work needed is a non-synthetic allowance for insect feed inputs, not increased reliance on synthetics in organic poultry production. Thank you for your consideration.


Nate: Hearing it’s hard to access the organic market with your product; I think part of it is just that they just haven’t been able to use them, because there’s ambiguity about whether there’s organic compliance. And so, until we can evaluate whether or not it’s actually an effective alternative, we just need to wait until we go through that regulatory work. Is that accurate?

Everett: In terms of AFCO, black soldier flies are approved in several different forms, including meal, oil, and whole. We do a whole dried larva, so there’s no processing other than dehydration. In that sense, we’re not trying to change anything within that larger livestock regulatory complex.

The issue we’re running into, with specifically organic feed, is that we cannot meet the organic standards, due to the production requirements of insects — and that we cannot be considered a non-synthetic input. So essentially there is no nonsynthetic source of methionine from insects in organic agriculture. It is an organic source of methionine that is based off of insects in organic agriculture. So that’s the disconnect right now, is: we are allowing fish and yeast as non-synthetics, but insects are being required to be certified organic, according to both OMRI and WSDA.

Mark McHargue – NE Farm Bureau President / Farmer (CACS)
Thank you. My name is Mark McHargue, farmer […], Nebraska, and also serve as president of Nebraska Farm Bureau, and serve on the National American Farm Bureau board as well.

So, as a farmer, a couple of things that, maybe you wanna know, especially relative to Farm Bureau — I was excited when Amy reached out to me to develop a little better relationship. Farm Bureau is very involved in the organic space. One of the organic farmers that I get to talk a lot about: how it’s going, how it’s working, how the profitability is going, and so we are invested. Farm Bureau represents all agriculture, doesn’t matter if it’s organic, big, small. I just want to make sure and visit about that a little bit.

And then, we also grow popcorn — and I think Ryan Weeks was on earlier, and we grow for Preferred Popcorn. And one of the things that […] started doing the organic side but they found it very difficult to […] that popcorn and get into markets even like California. We’re in the Midwest obviously. But they resorted to having to chill their bins, through the winter and through the summer, and then also chill during shipping, just to ensure that they didn’t have any bugs in that shipment. So when we start thinking about shipping some of these organic products around the world, on ships — the fact that, just to ship popcorn down from Nebraska we have to chill it to keep the bugs out, I think that might be a little bit of a litmus test: if you have anything coming from any other country and there’s not actually bugs in that product, would make you if they weren’t using fumigants or something in that potentially organic product, just because it’s so difficult.

But, I just really wanted to get on to thank you for doing your work. And, any questions that you might have relative to the organization. I think the shipment in international trade is really important; I serve on an international trade committee and chair of that committee at our national level.


Amy Bruch: Can you highlight some of the things that have bubbled p in conversations at farm-beuro level

Mark: I think policy on international trade side, I’ve heard a substantial amount this year. When you start looking at profitability depending on which shipment came where from overseas. Imperative to develop policies to hold them accountable. The prices are too depressed. If from importation of products that may not be certified USDA that’s a tragedy. Alot of things pointing to not being free market.