NOSB Oral Comments, Spring 2024

DAY 1: APRIL 23, 2024

Liz Bell – Organic Valley (LS, CACS, General)

I work to advocate for and consult our 1600 farmer members. OV believes that holistic animal care is essential in organic livestock management. OV, Stonyfield, and Arora petitioned to add Meloxicam to be added to the National List (NL). It would be used to help with animal pain. We believe with the addition of this material, it would be regarded that organic is in tune with animal welfare.

Support to relist DL methionine on the NL. We support additional research to encourage more commercially available alternatives and believe it should be at the top of the list.

We celebrate the Origin of Livestock (OOL) and have seen numerous good impacts of that rule with those transitioning to organic.

Regarding SOE, we have seen some early sticking points. First, those that were previously not certified but need to be now. I hope to encourage there be grace given to these suppliers that work to get certified. It would seem that the rules were meant to be for materials being received, not those that are produced on farm. It seems unreasonable to require a sign be added to the outside of a producer’s cement silo, and this does not appear to be sound or sensible.

Kyla Smith: I do not have a question, but wanted to say that ACA is fully aware of the nonretail container labeling discrepancies, and will be forming a working group to address this.

Ellie Hudson – Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA), Executive Dir. CACS; (General)

[Note that this commentor provided Cornucopia with their comments in full.]

We are a nonprofit educational organization and our mission is to ensure consistent interpretation of USDA Organic Regulations through collaboration and education of accredited certification agencies. Our membership includes 64 certification agencies that are accredited by the USDA, including yours, of course, and an ever-growing community of non-certifier associate member companies that support ACA’s mission.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the NOSB and the National Organic Program.

In addition to the written comments previously submitted and on behalf of these members, we are pleased to offer comment on the following topics: Certifier working environment, market development, and online comments.

ACA is coming out of our season of in-person and online conferences for certifiers, which happen annually between January and April. One theme that emerged repeatedly in the dialogue at these events was stress and fatigue around the continued intense pressure in certifier working environments, with ever-increasing complexity and additional steps required to carry out the work of certification.

ACA and our members are fully committed to organic integrity as a regulatory instrument and to the movement of organic. A serious human capital shortage and changes brought about by the Strengthening Organic Enforcement final rule continue to place the most pressure on certifiers. Working in an environment under this level of pressure is not sustainable. ACA is committed to being a voice in partnership with the Board and the National Organic Program to seek and find areas for addition by subtraction toward capacity building and protecting organic integrity. ACA will continue our work on identifying ways to move further toward a risk-based certification system. We envision a system that reduces record-keeping-burdens-and-redundancies, eliminates or reduces unnecessary barriers to certification, and enables organic to more effectively reach marginalized communities.

Market development.

In reviewing the two rounds of awards for the Organic Market Development Grants, ACA was pleased to see funding for various regional efforts to educate consumers. We need to grow this effort at a national level, as we continue to fall short of a cohesive and consistent educational effort to tell the great story of organic. Should the Board take up this topic in the future, ACA will commit to partnering within that effort.

Finally, ACA thanks the Board and the NOP for the opportunity to offer these comments online. ACA supports the online comments and the unique benefits of using this medium, which from our perspective are the ease of decorum, efficiency, and the ability to participate without having to travel. We hope to see the online option for oral comments continue. If a web-based oral comment option is available, ACA will participate this way for the foreseeable future.

And with that, thank you again and see you next week.

Bruch: You mentioned there are 64 groups in ACA, what % of certifiers is that?

Hudson: Yes that would be good.

Amy Bruch: We will try and get that going on our end.

Scott Myers – Woodlyn Acres Farm (General)

Dalton, Ohio. Appreciates commenting virtually. ROP certified. 4th generation family farm. 8th year certified organic. Supports residue testing – imports have reduced prices. Due to huge increase in sunflower imports, we can’t raise them now b/c get 50% of price as two years ago. Hard to say if imports are truly organic. Should be tested before entering US marketing channels. Knows a corn buyer that tests every load for GMO content. All imported grains should be tested.

I would like to speak about crop insurance related to organic farming. I would like to see it reformed so that it works better for organic farmers. During conventional production, our farm carried this for 28 years and it saved our farm many times. When I switched to organic farming, I was shocked to find that it did not work for organic farming. A farmer needs 5 years data from each crop production unit (crop), and with our long crop rotation, it could take 35 years to get those 5 years of data, making it almost impossible for us to benefit from crop insurance.

Brian: Struggling to figure out why there isn’t more organic production in the U.S. and wondering the biggest barrier to increasing domestic production – financial or other barriers?

Scott: we’re fortunate most of our corn goes to the east coast so we aren’t that far. Alot staying local. Friends out in Illionois and Indiana even have trouble finding trucking. We went to hauling our own grain b/c we couldn’t find reasonable trucking and we’re doing it for half of what they were going to charge.

Amy Colfer – True Organic Products (CACS; HS; MS)

TOP is leader in organic fertilizers and other products. As organic input supplier and manufacture we know that these inputs have contact with food. Compost is an important amendment: long term compose use improves soil organic matter. Many benefits including reducing pollution risks. In the early days

Processed manure products should not contain too much coliform or salmonella, but not “none”. Food safety has been accessed by industry, and the acceptance criteria are much different than these original levels set for organic. We believe the thresholds are unacceptably high rates and ask NOSB to accept better standards based on California Produce group, including acceptance criteria for compost in organic.

Pesticides contaminate the food supply. The concept of organic food being safer than conventional food is powerful. A major step would be accepting better food safety requirements.

Michael Deakinn – Deakin Farms (CACS)

Organic producer on 3k acres in MT. 4th generation farmer who started in UT, on a farm certified in ‘94. Wanted to talk about the overlap between NRCS programs and the NOP. Realized as a farmer when reading stuff coming out on national level for NRCS, especially EQIP initiatives – get excited about it. But I feel there is a disconnect with what the national level has set aside and what we see when we go to our county offices. My worry is the end of the program because “people were not interested.” Issues we are running into: organic transition initiate – there isn’t enough outreach on the local level. By the time they had the info the application period had already passed. There are only certain practices that are touted, like 823 organic management. That works great in Midwest or irritated. It does not work well in dryland management like in MT. We can keep living roots in the soil but it’s almost impossible to follow as the practice has been set out. The problem is people can get excited about it but it’s not practical for them. In MT we only have $200k for the entire year for the state for EQUIP. Not enough for the entire state.

Nate Powell-Palm: You are farming in NC Montana, and it’s working, and you’re raising food that everyone ones. It sounds like you are doing food in NC Montana, but 823 wasn’t really written in a context base. We need to get NRCS to think about how organic works in these locations that aren’t necessarily PA or Colorado.

We can do all of that stuff, but the specific of practices in 823, such as growing cover crops to get 1T of biomatter above the ground every year, that’s something that we aren’t able to do because we do not have the growing season for it.

Nate Powell-Palm: You mentioned going into your office and they not knowing what 823 was. Di you think that we just need to train NRCS folks better to know what organic is, or do you think that your office knows what organic is?

Michael: I do not. Actually, when I went into my local office and ask about it, the soil conservationist there said that they had been told that they should discourage people from applying for 823 because we do not believe that it is able to be successfully followed in MT. I would be interested in it, and I know others who would be, but when you get down the specifics, I do not think it is able to be followed in MT.

Seth Kroeck – Crystal Spring Farm (General)
[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

My name is Seth Kroeck and for the last 20 years I have grown certified organic vegetables and wild blueberries at Crystal Spring Farm in Brunswick Maine. Currently I serve on the board of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the Organic Farmers Association Policy Committee, the OFA Crop Insurance Workgroup and am a TOPP mentor farmer.

Thank you for your service on the board and for the chance to speak today. I appreciate the opportunity to comment virtually during the busy spring season.

My farm is almost 200 certified acres and has been tilled since colonial times and our wild blueberry crop was tended by indigenous farmers for an unknowable period before that.

Our fields are surrounded by forest and broken up by perennial plantings that shelter and host a wide range of species beneficial to both our crops and the wider ecosystem that the farm and my family are an integral part of. Because of careful rotations our soils host a diversity of organisms large and small that dwarf the number we can see above its surface.

The farm produces for the wholesale market. We wash, grade, store and package our produce and then send it off into the world of retail grocery. The vast majority of my customers, the people that enjoy a crisp sweet carrot or a tart deep purple blueberry, will never have the chance to visit my farm or ask me questions about how I grow the food they feed their families. What they can do is use the organic seal to choose a product that they can trust.

In the twenty years I have been a certified grower there has been unprecedented consolidation in retail grocery. Small local chains are gone, large regional chains are still around in name only, having been absorbed by four publicly traded behemoths. This consolidation has continued onto the shelves as produce departments are dominated by private label items and a handful of corporate brands that use their market dominance to crowd out local and regional production and distribution.

Unfortunately, consolidation in the market has gone hand in hand with distortion or outright defiance of organic standards. Several large brands shop for organic certifiers that allow their input focused production and move production to cheaper labor markets abroad where certification lacks redundancy or in some cases, integrity.

The current lack of enforcement around hydroponics and aeroponics is a leading issue for the farmers that are members fo the organic farmers association year after year and while growing techniques are technological wonders, they are not organic and when they are allowed to display the USDA Organic seal while controlling the majority of a grocery category it is a crime.

I have spent more than half of my life learning how to farm. I hope continue to do my job. I ask that you defend the standards so that I can. Thank you.

Nate Powell Palm: Appreciate what you said about retailers and consolidation and any ideas for how we can empower independent retailers to tell the story about organic. Some don’t know how to see organic as a selling point.

Seth: I think trying to highlight that consolidation seems to be running parallel with direct or indirect with push against organic standards. In your service to Board, the more you can look at the standards and why we have them and take changes and challenges and look at through that lens to protect smaller growers who produce in concert with ecosystems – it’s complicated, it isn’t easy, but foundation of organic movement is trying to do something complex and working with nature.

Terry Shistar – Beyond Pesticides (Misc)
[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

My name is Terry Shistar, and I’m on the board of directors of Beyond Pesticides. We have submitted comments on almost all the issues before the board. You are condemned to again hear me talk about so-called “inert” ingredients. More details are in our written comments and in our 2017 report “Inert” Ingredients in Organic Production.

NOP has repeatedly tried to divert our attention from the crucial issue—one that has threatened the integrity of organic products for more than 20 years and continues to do so. The question that must be addressed is not whether these potentially toxic inputs should be individually evaluated, but how to do it. The evaluation of individual so-called “inert” synthetic ingredients in products used in organic production is not optional. It is required by law. NOP must allocate resources for this project.

Because of the NOSB’s intensive review of active ingredients and the lack of oversight over other ingredients, the so-called “inert” ingredients pose greater risks than the active ingredients.

“Inert” ingredients make up the largest part of most pesticide products. Here are some examples.

And “inert” ingredients are not generally listed on pesticide labels, so NOP and the NOSB have been allowing unknown toxic mixtures to be applied to organic crops and livestock.

On to the real issue… how to deal with “inerts”… First, identify the materials needing review. Second, pass a binding recommendation that will require USDA to act. Third, establish a review process.

We estimate that there are 137 synthetic “inerts” currently used in organic production that must be evaluated. NOP must immediately publish the known list with a request that registrants of products approved for use in organic production notify NOP of the “inert” ingredients contained in their products.
We propose that the NOSB first insist on the publication of that list. The NOSB has undisputed authority over allowed synthetics in organic production and should not shy away from taking a strong position.

Second, we have proposed substitute language for these substances on the National List, establishing a timetable for sunsets. Here we list categories of substances as previously determined by the “Inerts” Working Group, but more details are in our written comments. The exact assignment of “inert” ingredients to the review groups can, of course, be adjusted to meet the convenience of the NOSB and contracted reviewers. This substitute listing should be approved at the Fall 2024 meeting.

Details of the review process can be worked out while the system is grinding away at the earlier steps. The time to act is now.

Amy: Appreciate you elaboration on the strong position to review inerts. What are your thoughts on our equivalency partners that do not have a process to receive products that have not had as stringent of results.

Terry: It’s a synthetic amino acid, so it does not fit under vitamins and minerals. I think that we would support something with a similar annotation for methionine, but I think it’s being used more broadly and used to industrialize the poultry industry.

Julia Barton – Organic Farmers Association (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Good afternoon, my name is julia barton with the Organic Farmers Association. I’d like to share comments today on 3 topics.

First: Farmer Participation in NOSB

Thank you for including both virtual and in-person comments in this meeting. You have already heard from some OFA farmer members and you will continue to hear from more. This way of handling comments offers an opportunity for various types of interactions, stakeholder input, and community building. OFA farmers are very clear that we need both types of commenting. More opportunities for communication are better. Thank you for holding time and space for this important part of the public process.

I also wanted to note that Linda Halley, long-time organic farmer was going to be with you to comment in Milwaukee on Monday. Linda was the most active member of our NOSB workgroup. She has had some health issues come up that will prevent her from being with you that day, but we will get her comments to Michelle via email and will be sharing them on OFA social media, so please follow OFA to hear from Linda, organic farmer of over 30 years. This will be her first comment to the board.

Next: Hydroponics and Containers

OFA is part of a working group of certification, education, and policy organizations who agree that soil is the foundation of organic agriculture.

OFA farmer members are very clear that hydroponics is not settled issue. We urge the board to call for a moratorium on the certification of new hydroponic operations, and crops grown to maturity in containers until we can utilize our existing NOSB and rulemaking process to move forward with greater consistency. Please activate the latent agenda item “Field and Greenhouse Container Production.”

Finally: Crop Insurance

OFA appreciates the board’s work on this important topic. OFA farmer-members have a wide range of experiences with crop insurance and are eager to make crop insurance more fair, functional, and informed for organic farmers and all farmers. You’ve heard from two of our working group’s very active members and you’ll meet Noah Wendt, if you don’t already know him, in Milwaukee. If you have any specific items our group can workshop, we’d be happy to help in that way, and we’d also be happy to respond to any questions you have on our comments.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, for your time, and for your service.

Mike Menes – True Organic Products, Inc (CACS)

My name is Mike Menes. I am the CTO at True Organic Products. Thank you to the NOSB for your tireless efforts in Organic. The work you do continues to have a great impact on the foundation of Organic. Let me start by quickly mentioning that I have submitted a petition to Re-Classify Ammonia Extract. We are requesting to take a deeper look at Ammonia Extract as a synthetic. But the focus of my comment today is not on this but on the Oversight to Deter Fraud: Residue Testing for Global Supply Chain Discussion Document. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. I’ve been working at True for 15 years. Our mission is to “Make Organics Work for a Better World”. Since day one, I have had Organic Integrity be a priority. Historically, we’ve been actively participating in efforts to deter fraud throughout the supply chain. In fact it is the motivation behind our name: True Organic Products. Early on, I was always curious about what the criteria AND associated testing was for determining if a tomato, for example, was grown organically. The understanding was that testing was limited only to pesticide residues and was done with some regularity. We submit to you that it is all prohibited substances and not just pesticides. All of this is in my written comment and I did want to make sure that I made 3 distinct requests for clarification and guidance: 1. Certifying Agents already have the authority (205.670) to test for prohibited materials, and it is not limited to pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs. It is all prohibited materials. a. Request: Clarify that certifying agents have the authority to test for any prohibited substances. 2. Certifying agents have the authority (205.670(c)) to test agricultural inputs like they would with soil, water and seeds. This intent would be to ensure that organic grower’s entire systems are operating in compliance with organic regulations. a. Request: clarify that Ag Inputs and Ag products sold as organic can be tested by certifying agents 3. Material Review Organizations would also have the same authority to test (NOP Guidance 5012) a. Request: Same as 2 but applied to MROs We’ve answered some of the questions you requested in our written document and focused on questions 1, 2 and 3. We provide a few examples and propose a flow diagram for your review. With your guidance and clarification certifiers and MROs can prevent prohibited substances from entering the Organic supply chain and deter the occurrence of fraud. We believe this work can help strengthen Organic integrity and protect the USDA Organic seal. Thank you.

Amy: You mentioned in your written comments that there are only a couple of certified MROs that are certified to ISO standards. When we are looking at this, we are looking at it from a global stance. Do you have any idea on how we can deal with this internationally? I am curious about the global perspective for input testing.

Mike: I think that needs to be explored further. Our comments did focus a lot on the B portion of it, but we did focus a bit on the C. I do think this needs to be explored a bit further. Similar to this, is the question of whether or not there is a possibility for things to come into contact with this and cross-contamination.

Abby Youngblood – National Organic Coalition (CACS; MS; General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Hello – thank you Board for your work and this opportunity to comment. I’m Abby Youngblood, executive director at the National Organic Coalition or NOC.

The past several years have been pivotal for the organic community. Together, we closed loopholes for the most pressing organic integrity issues. With the Origin of Livestock, Strengthening Organic Enforcement, and Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards rules across the finish line, NOC is now considering how to prioritize future work.

Looking forward, three of our top priorities include the ‘omnibus nitrogen proposed rule’, increasing organic seed usage, and creating consistency for greenhouses, containers, and hydroponic systems.

On the nitrogen rule – the NOSB has already passed unanimous or near-unanimous recommendations to limit high nitrogen, non-synthetic fertilizers. The National Organic Program has taken the step of consulting with the EPA, but after nearly a year, there is still no EPA response. As time passes, this new regulation will become much more difficult to adopt. We ask that you please use your influence to urge USDA to move forward with this rule.

On organic seed, we are dismayed that organic seed usage has stagnated – there has been no meaningful improvement in the use of organic seed over the past five years, and NOSB recommendations from 2018 and 2019 were never fully implemented. In the meantime, new challenges have emerged – USDA has determined that the use of CRISPR genetic manipulation does not have to be identified to end users. Organic growers may not realize that some of the conventional seeds they are using have been genetically altered using an excluded method. The NOSB should take up this topic.

On greenhouses, containers, and hydroponic systems – these production methods continue to proliferate, and we are concerned about the lack of standards and large inconsistencies from one certifier to the next. We urge you to add standards for these systems to your workplan.

In the last bit of time that remains, I want to highlight two topics that relate to excluded methods:

First, NOC fully supports the technical review template update, which will help fill gaps in information that were not covered in the prior TR template. The additional questions on excluded methods are very important.

For the handling subcommittee, I’d like to draw your attention to NOC’s detailed comments on the numerous issues related to products of fermentation. One issue is that several products of fermentation that are on the National List may be made using genetically engineered (GE) organisms or GE substrates. There is no clarity as to how fermentation should be reviewed with respect to excluded methods. We need a clear policy that the Board and certifiers can follow in reviewing substances. We request that you add this to your work plan.

We hope you will continue to lean on the expertise within NOC’s membership to keep moving your work forward. Thank you.

Amy: Question about the seed comment – when we look at expanding organic seed usage. What is your stance on that from an international perspective? I believe that when we talked in previous public comments, we do not have that much data on international use of organic seed. Are we setting ourselves up for higher standards in the US versus overseas if we push on this?

Abby: Hard question. I think that on the piece of asking the question or not asking the question, NOC believes that we have to ask the question. We cannot stick our head in the sand. You’ve seen us on a variety of issues from inerts to excluded methods. You’ve heard our full support for knowing where excluded methods are popping up. In terms of getting movement from USDA, I think it’s time to open up some conversation again about if guidance to codify NOSB recommendations – I think we need to have a more serious conversation about the variability of that as a path forward. Different administrations view guidance differently and what you can do with guidance. I think, as you are aware, there is a right moment and a not right moment to push these things forward. I think we have to consider that to get recommendations codified. Let’s keep talking.

Kristopher Klokkenga – organic producer (CACS)

4th generation farmer based in IL. My family and I – have extensive work in Ghana West Africa and have worked in processing plant there. We needed to figure out a way to come back and farm. We transitioned to organic. We now grow more than just corn and soybeans. Important are threatening organic farmer viability. Our price of soybeans is nearing price of production. The work CACS is invaluable to expand organic markets and improve organic crop insurance. But we need to be testing all imported grains to ensure there is a level playing field. With my experience in West Africa I sourced imports from places that say they are exporting organic soybeans and from my boot on the ground experience it is very unlikely that is happening. Soybean, in order for it to be produced by average person in Ghana it would have to be processed, It’s just not likely true organic is happening. We want to continue to succeed and do our part to strengthen the industry and our farm.

Amy: You said that you had experience farming in Ghana, and that’s tropical environment. Can you talk about the yields and quantity of growing crops in a tropical environment?

Kristopher: I had a farm on a lake in Ghana, 40 acre center pivot, 2 rainy seasons in Ghana. The issue with yields – yielding 120 bushels in corn whereas in U.S. somewhere around 250 bushels – not an organic process. In tropical climate struggling with disease and pests. Pests and disease and if have them, then how do you treat them. Ag sector isn’t robust enough to handle that.

Lillian Hawkins – Organic Farmers Association (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Lily Hawkins, I am the Policy Director of the Organic Farmers Association.

Today I’ll be speaking on a few big-picture issues and suggested agenda items that have been raised by our farmer-members.

First – RACIAL EQUITY

OFA is grateful for the board’s efforts to address racial equity within organic. We encourage the board to keep thinking about how the USDA Equity Commission’s report findings can become part of the NOSB and NOP’s processes, possibly by making this a work agenda item. Institutionalizing equity through strategic outreach, board trainings, and a racial equity lens incorporated into all committee work is necessary for organic to move forward.

Second – GLOBAL ORGANIC MOVEMENT CONSISTENCY

Organic is a global movement, and organic farmers deserve to be operating in an equitable marketplace under the organic label.

OFA supports the idea of testing imports to verify organic integrity – covered in depth by other speakers today.

Furthermore, as the U.S. organic regulatory system benefits from consistency of interpretation and application, the international organic movement benefits from increased consistency across national organic programs.

There are a few materials in which there is a lack of consistent practice in the U.S. system, which conflicts with our trade partners, organic neighbors, IFOAM interpretations, and CODEX regulations.

We appreciate the Board’s attention to this matter when reviewing each material, and OFA agrees that we should bring our standards into greater alignment with the global organic movement.

Third – STRENGTHENING ORGANIC ENFORCEMENT IMPLEMENTATION

OFA is very grateful for the effort it took to bring the SOE rule to the point of implementation. At the same time, we have concerns about low-risk organic operations being burdened by the increased scrutiny and oversight, and certifiers implementing the rule inconsistently across the nation.

Our NOSB workgroup noted that the paperwork for feedstock for livestock, and for mixed vegetables were more burdensome this year. In some cases, we have heard of the OSP length doubling from 2023 to 2024.

We understand that the intention of the SOE was not to increase the paperwork burden for low-risk organic operations, and we request that the NOP, during their certifier accreditation audits, review the changes made to the OSP, with a critical eye to the enhanced paperwork and activities required of low-risk, small and mid-scale short supply chain operations. We want SOE to focus where it was intended.

We also encourage the NOP to support dialogue amongst certifiers to define low-risk and high-risk, and provide guidance so that certifiers can administer the standards with the security of NOP alignment on risk assessment. And put the increased scrutiny where it is most needed and reducing burden on low-risk operations.

Lastly – AGROFORESTRY AND 90/120 DAY RULE

In OFA’s annual policy survey, farmers noted the need for NOSB to review the 90/120 day rule as it applies to agroforestry production systems in which livestock graze under fruit and nut trees. Please consider creating an agenda item to address this request.

Kyla: NOP has been addressing risk-based approach with certifiers.

Mindee: In your written comments, you commented on post-consumer garbage as far as compost is concerned, and that good compost is being made. Can you comment on that and what you mean? Where is the line from your perspective on feedstock and contamination?

Lilly: Our comments are a group effort, so other speakers from OFA might be able to address this later. My understanding is that there is a risk from post-consumer waste getting in there – stickers and things – and it just does not have the oversight that the current stream has.

Alan Lewis – Natural Grocers (General)

Natural Grocers, Lakewood, Colorado.

In the world of quality and standards, there is a classic quote that says that quality is the steps you are going to take to get to where you want to be. Want to talk about reverse engineering the NOSB/NOP standards. If you reverse engineer it, it appears that we are going to end up with only a few large suppliers and retailers and maybe a handful of food service wholesalers. We can idolize small producers, but they will not survive without irrigation, processing, and markets. In the broadest sense, the future of organic lies with the global smallholders, often not certified, but doing the hard work in the dirt. While we have to focus on economic gain in the US and not losing our seat in the global organic community. The global organic community continues to move forward on social and economical standards far broader than we do here, and we need to keep an eye on those standards farm more closely than we currently do here.

Mindee: Going to diverge a little bit and doing work of talking to consumer about organic and what GMO means. Still don’t feel comfortable with separation. What does consumer need to really separate organic from non-GMO?

Alan: There is no middle acre farmer anymore.

Mark Kastel – OrganicEye (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

I’m speaking to you today from La Farge, Wisconsin.

I wish, like members of Congress, NOSB members were required to take an oath to protect and defend the spirit and letter of the law governing organics. But I’m going to give each and every one of you the benefit of the doubt that that is your goal, placing it over and above corporate profit.

Celery Powder: The use of celery powder is a “synthetic nitrogen delivery system.” Based on how it is bred, grown, and processed, this workaround is intended to deliver the same dangerous compound used as a preservative, albeit under a more innocuous name. The answer to concerns of consumers from some organizations is to develop a certified organic version of celery powder. How incredibly disingenuous. If the research is successful — and I don’t know any professionals who believe it will be (due to the copious amounts of nitrogen fertilizer required, which is unavailable in organically approved forms) — this would equate to developing a “certified organic carcinogen.” As I said, how disingenuous. According to the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, nitrates in celery powder react with amino acids in the digestive system to create nitrosamines. These are reported to cause: • Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma • Cancers of the esophagus, larynx, stomach, bladder, colon, prostate, and thyroid Do you think that sounds like a material that would comply with the law requiring approved substances not be deleterious to human health? The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, assessed the risk of nitrates and processed meats and classified them as a group 2A “probable carcinogen.” They also state that, in addition to being a likely carcinogen, foods preserved with celery powder may contain even more nitrates and nitrites than foods preserved with synthetically manufactured versions of the same preservatives. I ask this body to err on the side of caution by reviewing the citations in our written comments, including statements from Consumer Reports and the American Cancer Society, before siding with industry lobbyists.

In closing, I’d like to add that we have certifiers violating the law by accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments, over and above certification fees, from some of the agribusinesses they certify (and certifiers are here today lobbying on behalf of their “clients”). We have unregulated material review organizations where, literally, 99% of their revenue comes from commercial entities with interests in materials. It’s imperative that this body act impartially to protect the integrity of the organic label, the health and well-being of organic eaters, and the livelihoods of farmers and ethical business people. Thank you for your time. …

Compost I want to remind members that whatever is in compost will bioaccumulate in the soil and that certain plants are very adept at uptaking those compounds. We’ve already had disasters.

DL Methionine Please understand that, despite the industry telling you that this material is necessary for humane animal husbandry, it is a production tool given to increase egg laying. In terms of feather pecking and other aggressive behaviors towards their flock mates, these problems do not exist on familyscale operations where birds are allowed legitimate access to the outdoors. Unfair competition is preventing those farms from scaling-up. In all the commercial organic broiler operations I have visited, generally with 20,000-30,000 bird buildings, I’ve never seen a single bird outside. We aren’t talking about porches here. Even in most moderate-sized organic laying operations, I’ve never seen more than 1-3% of the birds outside at a given time. We’re not talking about new rulemaking being phased-in. We’re talking about certifiers that are not enforcing the current law and the NOP looking the other way. If the laws were enforced, methionine would not be necessary for the preservation of these birds.

Rebekah Weber – CCOF (General)

Policy Dir at CCOF. Critical issue of farm viability, food system capacity constraints. CCOF has seen a net loss of certified farms in the last year. At the same time CA is defining “regenerative farming” which is both a potential risk and benefit to organic farmers. Represents an opportunity for farmers to provide food to schools, correctional facilities, etc. CA has proposed a broad definition of “regenerative”, we are concerned an overly broad meaning is meaningless. The repercussions of a weak definition are widespread (beyond CA). Organic farmers should not have to compete in a world where regenerative farmers get funding from the state despite not holding a high bar. We ask that the NOSB and stakeholders weight into CA’s process for defining regenerative so that organic is the floor.

Nate Powell-Palm: Could you send Michelle all of the details for how we weigh-in on that process and contribute:

Rebekah: Yes.

Jay Feldman – Beyond Pesticides (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

The NOSB was created to play a leadership role in bringing the views of organic consumers and producers, and science-based thinking to bear on USDA, not the reverse. The NOSB, therefore, is critical to a sustainable future—which must be in sync with nature. To this point, we support the notion that organic must be transformational with its practices and allowed substances. In this context the board has before it, critical issues—in the spirit of continuous improvement— that must meet the existential health, biodiversity, and climate challenges of our time. Some high priority issues for this meeting 1. Reject the petition to allow unspecified “compostable materials” in compost allowed in organic production. Synthetic substances in these materials could introduce hazardous contaminants like PFAS and microplastics. Don’t allow organic to get dragged into these escalating crises. 2. Get nonylphenol ethoxylates out of organic. Organic must lead on eliminating surfactants or complexing agents containing nonylphenols (NPs) and nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), which are strong endocrine disruptors with adverse impacts on organ systems and multigenerational effects. This is where an annotation is needed for iodine. 3. Ensure the quality of the science on which the NOSB decisions are made. The sunset and petition process must not allow the listing of substances without “sufficient scientific information.” We support the change to the Policy and Procedures Manual (PPM) to only allow recommendations with valid scientific information on that material’s impact on the environment, human health and its compatibility with organic. 4. Eliminate nonorganic ingredients in processed organic foods as a part of the sunset review. The materials on §205.606 up for sunset review this year are made from agricultural products that can be supplied organically and thus should be taken off the National List. Now issues critical to organic’s leadership position: • Ensure that so-called “inert” ingredients in the products used in organic production undergo NOSB assessment. The NOSB has passed repeated recommendations instructing the National Organic Program (NOP) to replace the generic listings for “inerts” that may be biologically and chemically active (currently using EPA Lists 3, 4A, and 4B “inerts”), with specific substances approved for use. • Make elimination of plastics in organic a goal and a research priority. Microplastic particles are found in human lungs, blood, feces, breast milk, and placenta. Keep organic in the forefront. Thank you for your service on the NOSB.

Kyla: I saw in BP’s comments about annotating a specific substance as only allowing nonsynthetics. I believe that is something that is on the nonsynthetic list of 605 – would that just be redundant? Do you recall that and can speak to that at all? Possibly calcium chloride?

Kyla: I think it was calcium chloride where I made the note.

Dan Langager – Northwest Horticultural Council (CS; HS)

Represent growers, packers, shippers, of cherries. Directs to extensive written comments and feedback on inerts and compost. Appreciate challenges of updated regulations and encourage board to take a scientific approach while not putting availability at risk. Reduction in compost or rise in costs would be tough. Decisions can make a difference about whether to stay in business. Crops and handling – would like to underscore pheromones, parasitic acid, inerts. Horticultural oils. they have a lighter viscosity and provide a safe and consistent level of disease control.

Pheromones are essential to tree fruit production. We strongly support the relisting of pheromones, as their loss would be catastrophic. It is the foundation of apple and pear integrated pest management programs, and enables growers to make fewer applications of pesticides. Inerts in imperative for pesticides.

Peracetic acid – all organic tree fruit packing facilities use this. Does not leave residue on the skin of the fruit. Essential.

Brian: Horticultural oils are petroleum based. Have any of your growers experimented with vegetable oils for same purposes?

Dan: Tree fruit growers will use it either as an amendment or a mulch; I think both are important uses. We did not receive any direct input in terms of the specific ratios. I think that if it leads to an end product that meets the regulations and meets their needs, that is something they support.

Adam Seitz – QAI (HS)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Good afternoon. My name is Adam Seitz and I serve as a senior technical reviewer and policy specialist for Quality Assurance International, an NSF International company and a leading provider of organic certification services worldwide.

Check your local grocery and without a doubt you’ll find the QAI mark well represented on its shelves.

Thank you NOSB and NOP for your efforts and for the opportunity to comment.

Please see our written comments detailing the use of sunset materials by QAI certified operations. It’s worth noting that nearly every handler input up for sunset review is in use by a QAI certified operation.

Classification and Excluded Methods Verification for Handling Substances

Several of the handler substances subject to the current sunset review include questions to stakeholders regarding how certifiers verify classification requirements and the prohibition on excluded methods. See our written comments on this front, but in summation, QAI urges the NOSB to review applicable sections and forms within the Accredited Certifiers Association Best Practices for Common Material Review Issues. QAI’s practices on classification and excluded methods verification are consistent with these certifier best practices.

L-malic Acid – 205.605(a)

As noted in previous comments, QAI does not currently take a deep-dive on L-malic acid classification, as is consistent with ACA Best Practices. QAI simply verifies that the substance is L-malic acid and not DL- or D-malic acid.

Using current guidance from the NOP, QAI considers L-malic acid produced via the two-step process with a synthetic fumaric acid precursor to be synthetic. To QAI, the synthetic fumaric acid is the starting substance in the context of NOP Guidance 5033-1 Decision Tree. This results in a synthetic classification for the L-malic acid.

While QAI supports re-listing L-malic acid at 605(a) for now, it should be added to 605(b) and subsequently removed from 605(a) to reflect the form typically used in organic products.

Nutrient vitamins and minerals

There’s not a lot of time to go over this, so check out our written comments. In short, there is not complete consistency amongst certifiers regarding what substances are permitted in organic products via the 205.605(b) nutrient vitamin and mineral inclusion. This is largely due to the NOP’s previous interpretation regarding accessory nutrients as acknowledged in the January 12, 2012 Proposed Rule (77 FR 1979) and the continued allowance of the QUOTE “status quo” END QUOTE implemented by the subsequent September 27, 2012 Interim Rule (77 FR 59287), which remains in effect. This “Status Quote” is the 2006 NOP interpretation that QOUTE “The NOP determined that accessory nutrients, that are non-agricultural, are allowed in the production of products to be sold, labeled or represented as organic under the NOP; provided, they are used in full compliance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules and regulations.” END QUOTE Regardless of some discrepancies on what nutrients are permitted, the current 605(b) listing should be renewed.

We thank the NOSB for all its work, commitment, expertise, and for the opportunity to comment.

Allison: Nutrients, Vitamins, and Minerals – this is a tricky one. I dug back through the history that you relayed. This listing has gone through a number of reviews with lots of ideas on what to do with it, but just sits there. Are you aware of any materials that are coming in through that listing that are particularly important to handlers or particularly questionable?

Adam: I think it’s helpful info. In ACA best practices look at risk-based approaches. Would be helpful to include that content in TRs to help calibrate full community. We try to be experts in a lot of things, but deep dives are helpful. Kind of have idea that we should keep look out for excluded methods. Confusions on what exactly isn’t permitted or is on nano tech front. If it is included further discussions around engineered nano would be warranted.

Andy Faeh – Organic Farmer (CACS)

Nanotech – exposed to that a week ago. Something that was supposed to be an insect presence, but I don’t know.

Family farm 1400 acres in Nebraska. Use cover crops, growing a variety of diff grains including yellow corn, wheat, beans, etc. Through the years have grown a lot of no-till, which is good for the soil. What is the continued education for the public considering the benefits of organic for the environment and the soil? One concern of mine starting organic was that extra tillage which might harm the soil. But through our practices with lots of tillage and cover crops, or tests have shown over all the different soil tests that we have increased our organic matter 6-70% on every farm we have changed over from chemical farming. It’s important – that information should be made available to the public. The chemical farming is largely misunderstood with how detrimental it is to the soil.

Consumer should be able to purchase organic products that are trusted. We want consumes to trust the organic label so they can live healthier lives. It’s a concern when non-organic products are flooding the organic market in the States.

Brian: Just to be clear, you used to do no-till organic or conventional?

Andy: Detriment of using chemical and poisoning the soil – is more detrimental than we realize than just to the ecosystem. I know personally on our farm how different it is not using chemicals. I know we aren’t going to reverse chemical use overnight.

Matt Keegan – Keegan Commodities (CACS)

Market participant for close to 20 years, focusing on global supply of grain commodities for animal feed. Fraud, fraud prevention. We want a level playing field: we want to ensure the integrity of what we are supplying. At the end of the day our customers are the consumers. If there is no consumer faith in supply chain then we have a problem. In a lot of ways we are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. Import fraud is bad, but a lot of fraud in the USA is domestic too. One place finally had certificate fraud after knowingly commit fraud for decades.

We need to put enforcement in place at ports. We just sample when cargo arrives. The amount of cargo that is arriving that has solvent-extracted soybean is very high, exceeding 50%. We are making it too complicated – put it back on the importer.

For my own testing, from getting samples across the united states, and testing it by myself. Even so far as have received sample sent to accredited lab. From supplier to the lab, I touch no part of it, they show solvents. See methanol and acetone. Won’t see hexane. Data was sent to certifier and it did nothing about it. I have seen it through my own testing and other entities. From my perspective, this is a problem. When look at SOE, many people doing these things for years – test, trust and verify. without integrity this industry collapses, but today’s market place, question is do you have organic cert and what’s your price. There is an overabundance, bird flu, and now more supply than demand, and large part of pricing is related to that.

Kimberly: CACS has a document out regarding different testing policies. Any suggestions to manuals that we have questions on. Secondly, as we know, changes take time and hard, what are some things market can do to self-regulate this?

Matt: Melamine – I have had the US senate ag committee. They have said that it’s an IP issue not a food safety issue. That statement is the crux of it for our govt. Because it’s not food safety it runs on a different path than it would otherwise. You can pay expedite fees. It is days to get testing back – 5 business days conservatively. We should be testing and validating before we feed it anyway. We all want the same things, just start with something simple. And this is very simple.

Mike Appel – Organic Farmer (General)

Three Springs Farm in Oklahoma. Wife was on NOSB for several years and thank you. My comment is short about organic integrity and keeping soil in organic. During Emily’s time on the Board seeing the politics involved and divergence of organics between taking care of land and soil and keep small scale farmer still working the soil in mind. We are still trying to grow healthy food in soil.

Wood: Give Emily our best.

Mike: We struggle with b/c when started 20 years ago and asked if more organic farmers in 20 years, I would have said “of course.” Still kind of out here by selves. There is a wave of new small scale vegetable and have chose regenerative or no certification. I don’t understand it and would love to communicate importance of growing organic movement.

Sydni Arnone – International Food Additives Council (HS)

Manager of Market Relations.

Citric and lactic acid are important and relisting supported. Annotation to citric acid – to ensure continuity of market, we do not support addition of annotation. Supports relisting of potassium phosphate and to add letter “s.” Refer to IFAC’s petition.

Wood: Manufacturer provides a statement about excluded methods? What does that mean?

Sounds like it would just be a little extra effort. Putting it into a little perspective – maybe not a big ask and would push/pull a market that does not have that now.

Johanna Phillips – Strengthening Organic Systems, LLC (CACS; LS; MS; General)

Dir of Business development and technical affairs. Please see submitted comments. Residue testing helps for monitoring and deterrent.

Amy: Residue testing comments are very informative. Trying to balance a lot of public comments and look at guidance documents and possibly including more than pesticide residue. Some say need thought process and some prescriptive. We don’t always know what we don’t know. Where do you lie in recommendation in terms of balancing teaching of knowledge?

Nate: Appreciate that you know they will flip the test results around fast.

Ron Alexander – R. Alexander Associates, Inc. (compost/composting consulting company) (CS)

Compost consulting and on US Composting Board. Comments on modernizing NOP regulations. Wife and I have worked for listing products through OMRI and CDFA. Reiterate: compost is a staple for industry. Hope the efforts will review products and quality without unduly raising costs to processors and end users. First comment: compost definition within regulations is somewhat outdated. The process info in there is not needed. This is the AFFCO definition – I would suggest the NOSB evaluate. Upfront C;N ratios are somewhat outdated in the regulations. C:N ratios are seen as best management and not requirements at all now. Having alternative sanitizations standards is very important moving forward. It also important to have access to Kraft paper bags. I know the inks need to be looked at. Paper bags are important for feedstock collection and prevent inerts contamination. Horticulturalist and soil scientist: very concerned about synthetic contaminates in compost and feed. But be cautious when developing standards because it can impact product availability.

Nate Lewis: Do you see downside or risk to eliminating the send to end ratio? What’s the con?

Brian: The issue is trying to figure out what the feedstocks can be.

Bryce Irlbeck – AgriSecure, B&B Irlbeck Farms (CACS; HS)

Corn and soybean and alfalfa. 2 topics: importation of organic grains and organic transition initiative. Imports – we are losing organic farms at incredible rate and really coming from importation of grain. Importing from Russia, Turkey, Africa. Gut punch to farmer. Then we added in extra rigorous certification process and didn’t curb imports. We have grain coming in and once our farmers leave, they don’t come back. Call to action – need testing and testing ships that come over and make it same as U.S. grower has to go through.

OTI plan was great to promote industry, but idea was great. Local USDA people were good but had zero info on how program worked and how to make it go through. Changing goal posts and won’t even get to utilize the program.

Allison: Tell us more about who running into challenges with?

Bryce: I am not. Told we were one of very few that signed up. Not sure program actually exists.

Emily Moyer – International Fresh Produce Association (CS; HS)

Vice president of regulatory compliance and safety at IFPA. Represents every segment of fresh produce and floral industry. IFPA organic committee comments. A number of materials being reviewed next week are important for our organic members. CO2 petition and peroxyacetic acid (PA) We know NOSB has hesitated adding CO2 based on the petition – IFPA members have found that CO2 is important for controlling production systems on-farms, especially controlled-environment agriculture. CEA production does continue to grow as a production method and CO2 is needed as a plant or soil amendment Peroxyacetic acid is necessary for sanitizing in fresh produce and handling environments. It’s one of the most common antimicrobials for this use. It’s also used for cleaning water wash and irrigation. If PA is not available we worry safe organic produce would be severely impacted.

Logan: Thanks for comments on CO2. Petition was extremely vague for amendment. TR is only thing that provided any info. Petition really focused on irrigation water and so that really directed the board. Do you know what methods are being used in organic greenhouses currently since CO2 not allowed?

Logan: not the material itself nervous about, but the use. Haven’t heard from any greenhouse user or anybody saying it’s needed and help convince us. Did see QCS comment and encourage them to get more info for us.

Hilary Near – City & County of San Francisco, Environment Department (CS)

Comment re: definition of compost. The compostable plastic liners have been important to capture food scraps. We’ve required all businesses and residences to have access to it. Significant results related to that. Rely on food contact and regulated to require packages to be reusable to recapture more organics generated in city. Have to capture food scraps to meet climate goals. Also have high contamination and we do see that these products are important to reducing contamination. Compostable produce bags required. Guidelines that limit composters and asking NOSB to consider comprehensive view to allow food scraps.

Nate Lewis: Curious if can provide insights into non-film compostable products. Any thing beyond the bag and how that does or doesn’t help waste reduction goal.

Hilary: Alot to clean up. US Composting Council important. CA is unique in that we have microcosm. What you do here and how impacts CA will be significant federally.

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

Represent global industry. Built on quality standard, mission to increase consumption. The review of fish oil: GOED continues to support inclusion of fish oil. During previous sunset sustainability has been the most contentious issue. Disappointed that NOP has not acted on the NOSB’s recommendation to amend the fish oil annotation to ensure the product is sustainable. There is no species that is caught primarily for fish oil.

Rob MacGregor – Horizon Organic Dairy (LS)

Large animal vet who has worked in organic for 15 years. Work as vet and milk quality manager. Excited about NOSB opportunity to support meloxicam for organic dairy for horn removal. Horn removal is important for staff and animal safety. De-horning while necessary is painful,. Especially with chemical removal. Currently org dairy producers have limited tools to keep dehorning humane. The substances for pain control are limited. Meloxicam is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) drug used for humans and animals. It is more effective than aspirin. It is routinely given in pill form which is easier than IV. Adding Meloxicam to the list would give a safe, reliable, and easy to administer medication. Support continued use of xylazine as well. It is a commons sedative including for sedative. Also support parasiticides of moxidexin and fenbendazole.

Nicole Dehne – Vermont Organic Farmers LLC (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

My name is Nicole Dehne, I’m the certification director for Vermont Organic Farmers representing close to 750 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 discussion document regarding compost.

VOF does not support a change in the regulations to redefine compost feedstocks. We feel organic farmers in Vermont would be negatively affected by this change. Compost is a critical input that farmers in Vermont use to improve soil quality and health. We are concerned that changing the regulations to allow more synthetic feedstocks in approved compost would risk serious contamination to organic land.

VOF runs our own compost approval program. We ask composters to fill out an application that describes their feedstocks, composting process, and asks them how they mitigate the risk of contamination from specific feedstocks. Composters fill out the application and have an on-site inspection every two years. Once approved, we identify them to our certified producers as “compost approved for use on organic farms”. This allows our farmers to understand that this compost meets the NOP regulations for compost. It also provides some assurance that these composters are addressing contamination risk from feedstocks.

Our approved composters are required to screen feedstocks for plastics and compostable products before the composting process begins. We agree that 100% of these contaminants are not removed during this step. However, screening for these materials is an important step to reducing the contamination in the final product. An even better step is not accepting food waste that allows compostable products, and some of our composters start there. Commercial compost operations in Vermont have identified that it is feasible and preferred to avoid allowing compostable products to enter compost.

We hear from our composters that because there is no way for them to tell the difference between compostable plastic and plastic, that all of those materials must be pre-screened at the same time.

In fact, the majority of composters in VT have stopped taking food waste that contains compostable products because it increased the amount of petroleum based products that ended up in the feedstock. We feel that changing the regulations to allow for some compostable materials would result in the allowance of plastics in compost, as then both of these materials would be screened out of the final compost process (vs pre-screened) resulting in a compost with more potential contaminants.

In general, we feel that compost approved for use on organic farms should meet more stringent standards. Because the composting process can concentrate contaminants, we must be extremely diligent about what feedstocks are allowed to be used.

Finally, this regulation change would not help organic farmers. It would put them at more risk for potential soil contamination and it would not improve the quality of the compost that they rely on.

Mindee: Wondering if two-year inspection cycle – what visibility that gives you? And in thinking how we can reduce contamination if post-consumer vs. Post-producer could be interesting path? Is that distinction in feedstocks?

Nicole: Heard others comment and feel I don’t have enough expertise to comment on it. Want to bring composters who are really knowledgeable to the next meeting.

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

[Comments pending.]

Nate: Refer back to your written comments about testing. Is there a reason that certifiers can’t adjust their fee schedules, when they are private (not state certifiers).

Heather: Wish Chris were here. Will pull together a more specific response and staff in Milwaukee will convey that.

Ginny Olson – Lockton Companies ‐ Organic Crop Insurance Agent (CACS)

Positive: good farming practices. I had a farmer who has been planting spring rye with his soy, and worked to get approval to get spring rye insured despite their practices. It was said to be a good farming practice. Amy: We got to celebrate the successes and your Part 2, will pose the question back to you. You’ve worked with producers – would from agent perspective it be better if can use transitional yield info to build APH?

Ginny: Think so. I see that yield keeps increasing over time. I think you can see the mind shift change when they build yield and not have to go back to the beginning. I think it’d be a great option to let the farmer choose b/c back in the day when farmers were conventional and transitioning we could use a conventional yield. If in transition, would that be a potential just to give farmer an option?

Nate Powell-Palm: I really appreciate you bringing the good news, and I want to give Amy a shoutout for making crop insurance a focus so that we are seeing tangible progress. Thank you for that question, because that is the kind of data gathering that we need. Thank you for thinking about these ideas and bringing solutions, rather than just complaints.

Mike Dill – Organic Produce Wholesalers Coalition (OPWC) (CACS, CS, HS)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Good afternoon. My name is Mike Dill and I’m representing the organic produce wholesalers coalition. Otherwise known as OPWC. Today I’ll be commenting on 3 topics. As well as one general idea for improving the endless be experience.

First, this meeting was a doozy, 269 paid packet, 15 topic areas, 56 sunset materials and many questions for stakeholder response.

Often several questions per topic. It’s really astonishing the amount of thought and work that the 15, I mean, 14 board members put into the single meeting as well as the effort required by the organic community to respond.

The problem is such an extensive range and depth of topics makes it impossible for commenters to provide substantive, substantive feedback within the 30 day timeframe.

OPWC would like to offer the following ideas to foster more in-depth exchange of ideas and information.

One, we could move all discussion topics to a town hall format throughout the year with the 60 day advance notice period.

To dedicate the spring meeting to sunset materials and research priorities only. 3 reserve the fall meeting for proposals and sunset materials only, those topics that are up for a vote.

And then 4, we can make the spring meeting virtual and the fall meeting in person to reduce expenses, cut our carbon footprint and increase the equity of participation opportunities.

Next OPWC supports a proposal on improving support for organic transition, but we would like the subcommittee to add a reference to the farm bureau in section 3 of the proposal.

We think that this is an important investment in relationship and trust building with a group that we simply cannot afford to overlook.

Additionally, OPWC would like the NSB to work with stakeholders to create a definition for the terms transition transitioned and or transitional land.

The industry uses the term transition extensively, yet the closest thing we have to a definition in OFPA or the NOP is a reference to a 3 year eligibility period.

Neither, but nor NLP use the term transition as it relates to land. The result is that transition is a concept not linked to land undergoing any ecological transition.

On the topic of organic food system capacity and constraints, OPWC would like to re-emphasize our concern about the possibility of negative impacts on organic markets.

If programs and incurred, if programs encouraging transition are not balanced with equal or greater emphasis on growth and development of markets for organic products.

In our comments, we offer several suggestions, one of which is prioritizing regulation and enforcement of ecosystems, regenerative, and all other green claims made on agricultural products.

Finally, on the topic of compost, OPWC disagrees that biological or biodegradable plastics and other potential components of compost should be included in a definition of the term compost feedstocks.

Instead, we favor a listing for biodegradable plastics and inputs such as PLU stickers as compost on 205.601.

Along with the listing for prohibited feed stocks as well. Regulating compost feed stocks via the national list will allow for greater flexibility, the use of annotations to refine listings and quicker action whenever ASTM standards are amended in the future.

Amy: Thank you. I appreciate the comments that OPWC put together. Very informative. Thank you for bringing up the idea that we need to reach out to other groups.

Kyla: It’s really awesome, and there’s going to be a call for nominations coming up soon. Don’t let anyone scare you off.

Sara Neagu‐Reed – IFPA (CS)

Director of Production & Environmental Policy, IFPA. Focusing comments on residue testing and crop insurance. As my colleague Emily Moyer shared earlier, our Trade Association represents over 2,500 companies from every global fresh produce supply chain segment, including the over 500 companies directly involved in the organic fresh fruit, vegetable, and floral supply chain.

Residue testing for global supply chain, IFPA thinks it is critical to take steps to ensure compliance of operations. However, creating more rigorous testing requirements must be done carefully. Currently, residue testing is already conducted on farms and certifiers are to sample 5% of their clients. Any changes, must remain science based. Moreover, ISPA members have expressed concern if testing gets more refined that producers will have difficulty detecting residue at increasingly low levels, which would negatively impact organic designations.

Crop insurance: One member explained that they recently suffere3d from a virus outbreaks in AZ. Crop insurance wasn’t available and they have been struggling to cover their losses. ……

Additionally, I want to reiterate IFPA’s support for the continued use for objective, science-based consideration when considering materials on the NL.

Wood: Did you say more-refined testing would limit residue detection at low levels? I didn’t follow, did I hear that correctly.

Wood: That helps.

Alice Runde – National Organic Coalition (General)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Good afternoon, my name is Alice Runde, I am the operations director at the National Organic Coalition or NOC.

(slide 1)

NOC is extremely grateful for the tremendous work the NOSB leads. And we think it is crucial for the NOSB, as public representatives of the organic community, to actively seek to center racial equity in the organic movement. Racial equity needs to be centered in organic for the following reasons:

(slide 2)

The USDA Equity Commission, analyzed how USDA’s programs, policies, and practices contribute to systemic discrimination. In February, the commission published their Final Report which provided 66 recommendations. In our written comments, we highlight a few examples of recommendations that seem particularly relevant to the NOSB and NOP.

(slide 3)

I would like to elevate the first recommendation in the report: Institutionalize Equity. The report says “Lasting and long-term organizational change requires consistent leadership attention, adequate resources, and accountability.” Especially because NOSB members only serve a 5-year appointment, it is important that any equity practices, resources, and accountability mechanisms be institutionalized in the NOSB process, and supported by the NOP.

We encourage the NOSB to work on this idea, and to ask for recommendations from the public and organizations experienced in this area.

(slide 4)

On this slide and in our comments, NOC suggests several ways to institutionalize equity in NOSB processes.

For example, by including racial equity training in the onboarding process for new NOSB Members and by including work agenda items that directly address racial equity.

(slide 5)

Other examples of institutionalizing equity would be to build a culture of equity and inclusion at the NOSB level, and address barriers to participation for diverse representation on the NOSB.

One way to work towards a culture of equity and inclusion at the NOSB level would be to set agreements about how to work together. Everyone appointed to the Board was selected because of their outstanding skill sets – but it takes a group acknowledgement to make sure that all Board members have equal chances to voice their opinions. Community agreements can help make power dynamics more visible and ensure everyone in the room gets to contribute to the process.

One way to address barriers to participation for diverse representation on the NOSB is to leverage the Technical Specialists’ roles.

Their purpose is to ease the burden of board service. We would like further clarification on the process that Board members use to request support and if there are limits to the support offered. We believe that the NOP should not be a gatekeeper for support or output of that staff, and in our written comments, we provide suggestions for a transparent process.

With many upcoming Board positions needing to be filled we encourage this transparency so that as we talk with and encourage qualified people to apply, we can accurately tell them what support they might be able to expect from these specialists.

Thank you for all your work and commitment to organic agriculture.

(next slide please)

I knew that if I said all this very quickly I would have 10 seconds left to squeeze this last slide in – this is a resource on the main barriers to organic certification that was developed thanks to a Human Capital Initiative NOC, OFA, IOIA, ACA, IFOAM and others were involved – it’s in our comments but wanted to highlight it here, since we’ve brought this topic up several times in our past comments.

Allison: I’d love to see more of your last slide of barriers to organic. Is you have thoughts about what else the NOSB can do to address some of these barriers from where the Board sits.

Alice: I’m lacking because I feel that it’s such a huge question that I’m not in a position to answer. At our Pre-NOSB Meeting coming up, there will be 6 farmers, a couple of which have chosen not to certify anymore, and I think it might help to inform this discussion.

Milo Petruziello – OEFFA

[Comments pending.]

Nate Lewis: Question about OEFFA’s comments on methionine. I was intrigued because you suggest the possibility with aligning with Canda and the EU, where we would make natural sources the priority with the methionine the secondary option. Would you support that with the current restrictions that we have, or would you support it with no preference for the limitation.

Milo: I would refer comment to one of my colleagues whom are on schedule to comment.

Justin Raikes – Raikes Organic Farms, LLC (CACS, CS)

5th generation row crop farmer in Nebraska. Organic production has a steady market where the prices don’t crash. In the last 2 years gone from $15 bushel soy to $2 bushel???? Soy. All our other crops are similar. We can’t keep going at these prices, struggling to pay living wages to our employees which we could do in the past. The fraud overseas is really harming our price variability. The imports appear to fail a basic mass-balance test, like what is required for our certification. We need more than the SOE rule though we support it. All of our production gets tested why do we have different standards? How can we place value on domestic organic products? This has to work as a business. Any efforts to encourage more transition will not succeed if the standards are not enforced.

Nate Powell Palm: To be clear, you’re a fan of using testing as an enhanced tool to ensure the playing field is leveled; correct?

Brian: I think that you broaden out some of these issues with price volatility and spikes and valleys. The end result of that is that it hurts farmers, crop growers, livestock producers, and goes to the consumers who will lose faith in the product when they are hit by high prices. Thank you for bringing that to us.

Jackie DeMinter – MOSA (CS, MS)

[Comments pending.]

Nate Powell Palm: Could you give us a gut feeling on when MOSA does their 5% residue testing, do you feel that you are testing operations that are most at risk in the supply chain or just trying to meet the requirement?

Kyla: Please feel free to pass that along to Michelle.

Mark Way – President/CEO ‐ York State Bank (CACS)

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Mark Way. I’m the president CEO of York State Bank.

We’re a community bank located in Nebraska and part of a group of 9 banks. If all of our group was rolled into one bank, we’d be the number 3 ag lending bank in America, by volume.

Today I’d like to give you a banker’s perspective on financing organic farming operations and the critical nature of commodity pricing.

As with any lending cash flow is critical. As bankers, we spend time analyzing both the current production cycle as well as future cycles to ensure that short and long-term Dead obligations can be serviced.

We have found organic prices and practices. Lead to higher break even points than what we see in conventional forming.

Thus, there’s a necessity for the presence of premium pricing in the marketplace. These higher break events are a result of a cost higher larger cost structure.

I’ll highlight just a few of those. One primary example is weed management. How to quickly control measures dictate more intensive efforts equating to more passes through each field.

Consequently, this increases time allocation for field management and labor as well as greater fuel costs.

This also leads to an increase in wear and chair on equipment in turn representing higher expenses from frequent repairs and replacement.

In addition, investment and extra equipment is often necessary in an operation to meet the narrow windows of time available for adequate we control.

Some other key cost differences from conventional agriculture show up in fertility sourcing and crop inventory delivery.

Input and delivery channels create added transportation expense due to the lack of local access points. But more significant than that.

Facilities cost for storage can be much greater. We see fertilizer being sourced earlier and the need for a crop inventory to be held longer.

In fact, as lenders, we often finance 3 separate production cycles within the same calendar year. As we finance the crop growing in the field.

Last year’s crop and storage and next year’s inputs. Given the cost structural differences, our concern looking forward is primarily on commodity prices.

In general, organic producers face greater uncertainty in pricing. There’s no Chicago Board of Trade. This means less market efficiency and fewer hedging tools available.

Therefore, is imperative that adequate price premiums for organic products are present. Whether your point of view is macro or in my case, it’s more micro as we work directly with local producers.

A serious threat to the sustainability of American organic organic farming is an equitable marketplace. Is imperative that we ensure the integrity of it organic imports.

We must have standards that preserve a level playing field for domestic informed products. Foreign producers are facing similar high cost constraints as outlined earlier and as a result not it’s not practical for other nations to profitably deliver imports at a lower price point than our US producers.

If they can, something’s amiss.

Nate Powell Palm: Your concerns echo concerns of many farmers.

Logan: I was going to talk about the labor that Franklin brought up. I wanted to give it perspective on a corn crop here. It looks like it is only 10% or less of the total cost of production. If you’re hand weeding, you’re going to bump up to 25-20% more, but that’s just to give an idea.

Emily Musgrave – Driscolls’ Inc. (CACS, CS)

Organic Regulatory Manager.

Additionally we are a voluntary member and support International Fresh Produce Association (IFPA) comments.

Hydrogen peroxide – supports, widely used by Driscoll growers. Widely used for disease control. Supports continued listing of horticultural oils. Entire organic industry is dependent for killing fungal pathogens. Pheromones are primary way to control moths as mating disruptor. Supports continued listing of ferric phosphate. Integral component of IPM strategies. Supports continued listing of potassium bicarbonate – extremely important in strawberry production. Also essential for IPM strategies. Magnesium sulfate – supports. Plants will suffer without proper levels of magnesium.

Brian Baker – Belcairn Concerns in Eugene OR (CS, MS)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Thank you for the opportunity to address you.

Brian Baker, Belcairn Concerns, Eugene, Oregon.
[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Please consider my written comments submitted with Chuck Benbrook. Today’s comments are on the discussion papers:

Key points:

A growing body of scientific evidence supports the health claim that organic food significantly reduces dietary risk from exposure relative to pesticides in conventional food.

Fraud, negligence, and unavoidable circumstances all mean organic food is not pesticide-residue free.

Organic certifiers have a growing database of pesticide residues in organic food.

Analysis of that data can target sampling of crops and pesticides that pose the greatest risks to organic food buyers.

Many positive samples of organic food are for post-harvest chemicals or evidence of commingling at the processor level.

It is easier to buy conventional food and sell it as organic than it is to grow conventional food and sell it as organic.

Glyphosate, its metabolites, and EPA registered plant pesticides in transgenic crops are missing in the current guidelines and discussion document.

Unavoidable Residual Environmental Contamination needs to be addressed.

FDA does not handle samples labeled as “Organic” any differently from any other samples.

The FDA does NOT inform the NOP and responsible certifiers when the FDA finds a sample labeled as organic that tests positive.

The FDA does not enforce the NOP threshold of 5% of EPA contamination for products labeled as organic and regards that as the USDA’s responsibility.

FDA should report to the USDA and the certifiers they discover pesticides in organic food.

The USDA and its accredited certifiers should investigate FDA’s reported findings.

USDA should acknowledge the growing body of scientific evidence supports the claim that organic food is safer than conventional food.

Organic food must meet the safety standards for all food AND is required by law to provide greater protections to human health from pesticides and other human health risks.

Regarding inert ingredients—or as I prefer to call them, “co-formulants”—my key points are:

Thank you for your service. I welcome your questions.

Dilip: Organic pesticides in organic food is interesting and important, as consumers have this expectation. Can you provide more insight into more pesticides in organic food; is it from more use or drift, or…?

Brian: There was one sample of a sweet pepper that came up from Mexico, and there was like 17 residues on that pepper. Why? That was in 2022 and it wasn’t until 2024 that those results were reported… that food was long gone.

Ron DeBoer – Organic Farmer (CACS)

Organic farmer in Nebraska. Farming organic corn and beans for last 5-6 years. Within those years the price was really good. I was able to keep farming bc of the organic stuff I was selling. At the point now where organic is down in soy and corn. We have too much imports and we need to make stricter regulations because it’s an unfair market. Some of the imports coming in are at less than cost of production. The proposals by CACS are a great start. The best way to grow organic markets is to not bring in so much imports and rely on farmers in the USA to supply everyone.

Kyla: I appreciate all of the farmers that are coming to speak about imports. I have heard that there is a real urgency, and I know that there are some things that happened within the SOE rulemaking that will take some time to roll out and to see the impact of. I did just want to highlight that every import that is coming into the country is going to need to have an NOP Import Certificate, and certifiers are going to have to have processes in place in how to do them. I know it’s not going to happen fast enough for a lot of folks, but I wanted to highlight that it is coming, and hopefully it will be impactful for fraudulent imports and cheaters that are out there.

Kyla: That’s a bigger issue than our authority to have any impact on trade relations. Your congress person might be a good start.

Tony Michaels – organic producer (CACS)

Farm in Nebraska. I am not on the trade limitations side of things, but I do think that we can speed up and do a better job on the “organic” crops that are coming in from overseas. I think that there is a lot of things that we can do to cut down on fraudulent imports. The fluctuations seem to be too great and we should be able to do something about them.

Also, want to say that if you are going through a transition, you should be able to count your yield if you are going through APH for organic, and it seems that should be able to help you get to good yields for when you are organic.

Kim: As fellow border state farmer, tell me a little bit about how you transport your products to market and how fragmented infrastructure affects getting product to market?

Kim: Having a complementary rotation program that can feed into those rotations as well is important.

DAY 2: APRIL 25, 2024

Barry Flonnory – BF Farm Enterprises, LLC (CS)

We’re in Georgia and own 163 acres and farm about 1000 acres. In midst of transition. Three comments are NCRS – they have a hard time administering the program. They don’t know a lot of policies and procedures. The Conservation Stewardship Program and Env. Quality program they don’t know how to manage. Transition costs during period of transition, following organic practices, but have to buy land and equipment. There’s a lot of cost involved. During 3-year period doing organic practices but selling conventional prices. If way to help that would be appreciated.

Nate Powell Palm: Have you tried to get 823 funding? What have you tried to apply for?

Barry: Yes, have three representatives helping me right now.

Merry Clark – Roseland Organic Farms (LS; PDS; General)

Short story, parents started farm in 1980. Had about 1500 acres. There were droughts, high interest rates, and by 90s things moving along. Mom was on NOSB in 1992. She was chair of first livestock committee. I understand still debating same issues as 30 years ago. Access to pasture is a big issue still being discussed. After dad passed, brother took over the operation. He decided it would be grass-fed and land would be certified organic. Lack of certified organic processors in SW Michigan. When Whole Foods came in it changed the ball game. Probably heard this before, the certified organic grass-fed beef is competing with organic beef. I know ROP people are talking about those issues. Dave Chapman will be on here. Back to my mom, 86, has Alzheimer’s. She left a lot of notes about experience on NOSB. I’m turning it into a book coming out next May. Want to know about Farm Systems Reform Act.

Kyla: I will be fascinated to read the book when it comes out.

Merry: Book is called Dandelion Roots Run Deep.

Kestrel Burcham – The Cornucopia Institute (General)

[See Cornucopia’s Policy Director’s oral comment script online.]

Daniel Giacomini – Pacific Nutrition‐Consulting (General)

Consulting since 1990s. Former NOSB member; chair in 2010.

I support the re-listing of all sunset items under consideration specifically as support listing the current listing of iodine on 603. There’s a concern with NPEs and I’m not aware of any such products still on the market. I support re-listing both fenbendazole and moxidectin. However, the NOP needs to review how certifiers are satisfying. From 238(d), “Organic livestock operations must have a comprehensive plan to minimize parasite problems” for recurring non-routine needs.

Urge you to review the current TR template review 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. The bias should not be toward the manufacturer wanting to sell their product. The growing of aquatic plants is part of our industry and I do not see where the value of CO2 in those systems… receive comment or it was considered in the current review. If you reject the petition, please note that the aquatic plant sector’s input was limited from that sector and should not be refused as an already denied substance as others have stated. While the industry is booming, our individual farmers are struggling. Every action the NOP takes requiring more time and paperwork up and down the supply chain can increase production costs without improving farm prices.

SOE was significant and welcome, but it will raise operation costs in time and money while offering very little opportunity to increase prices received by organic producers. So at least consider this in your future rulemaking before our booming retail industry has no small US farmers supplying it.

A petition requesting Meloxicam has been added to be added to 603 as an oral pain relief medication is in the hands of the livestock subcommittee. Research and pain mitigation and animal care is far beyond where it was at the time of OFPA or even when the pain relief substances were finally added to the national list. Meloxicam is a substance that needs to be added now. Meloxicam as petition would be an oral treatment which is less stressful than another injection and it is more effective at pain relief than the allowed oral options. Relieves pain for a longer duration, requiring fewer treatments over a 24 h period. Meloxicam provides improved pain relief with less stress. Please add Meloxicam to the national list.

Nate Powell Palm: Dan, thank you for your service to the board and your expertise today. Could you speak a little bit to how we can how certifiers can manage and review the use of parasiticides better. Is there a reasonable route to requiring more manure tests to try to see actual? Quantitative pest loads or what do you see as being the next step to improving?

I really wonder sometimes how aware each individual producer really was of the fact that ivermectin was coming off the list. If they had been needing something, and that was the only thing on the list, and then it was no longer there.

Matt Begley – Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association (LS, MS)

OEFFA materials review specialist. Peracetic acid, methionine, and CO2. Peracetic acid is essential, want it to remain on NL. The listing restricts the use but does not contain a prohibition against direct contact with animals. Weve had requests that peracetic acid be used to clean milking rolling brushes – we don’t allow this because it leads to contact with animal teats, but there could be inconsistency in how it’s used because the annotation does not include this.

Methionine is necessary and supplementation is necessary, especially because the standards restrict animals to a vegetarian diet. Organic sources could be allowed with no restriction on amount fed. We support slaughter byproducts used for methionine with a hierarchy of organic sources then natural then synthetic.

With respect to greenhouse standards, we do not support the use of fossil fuel byproducts.

Logan: Question about the CO2. You are against adding it to the list? Any alternatives that are being used? Usually can vent greenhouses, but during colder weather going to have issue of lowering temperature. Most of green houses around here don’t have that issue. Any alternatives?

Matt: don’t really. Don’t know what people are doing.

Joe Freeze – Albert Lea Seed (CACS)

I’ve been in seed business for 54 years and organic for 15 years. Concerned about the imports of organic seed. Currently 70% of soy and 30% of corn is imported without the control the American organic farmer has to put up with. This creates major issues. There are inconsistencies in price for these commodities. The organic seed rule: keep hearing they want to strive toward organic seed only. The organic seed industry as far as row crops are concerned – capable of creating all the seed needed. But we are allowing almost 40% of the seed to come from conventional non0GMO. The investment into organic seed is higher, yields are probably lower. We have the ability and just need a year or two gear up for row crops. Can’t speak to vegetable side of the organic world. I don’t think certifiers understand the seed arena well.

Wood: Curious about the cost barriers for more producers in US involved in seed production. Why not enough or is there enough seed production? Why domestic seed producers not getting into business.

Joe: Weed control is a big challenge. Basically speaking there is some reluctance b/c want to look good with neighbors and incentives for growing soybeans organically – no stability to it.

Peter Gunther – Organic Producer (CACS)

Organic farmer in Texas, peanuts, corn, wheat and hay. Certified since 2013 – organic is a game changer. Big issue is unfair competition form imports. Testing to make sure imports coming in over the boarder are legitimate. There are resources for helping transitioning farmers, but we need to have a market there for them when they finish transitioning. Appreciate CACS work to address these issues.

Kim: Where do you farm in TX? Any of the fires impact you? When you look at growing markets and outlets for your products, where do your products go, and do you have any logistics – rail vs. truck – any kind of bottlenecks in that space to help get your products to where they need to go to grow the market?

Peter: Correct. IT takes so much manual labor and equipment – I am sure in other countries their labor forces are cheaper. Yes there are things they can do cheaper, but we are not on a level playing field. We have more things we need to abide by – which is great we need that. Other countries don’t have things keeping them in check or accountable. Why are we pushing the AMerican farmers so hard to be legitimate when imports are not. Unfair for American farmers. Hard enough with inflation and everything.

Tracey Dion – organic producer (CACS)

Family and I converted farm to certified organic in 2017. Coming from traditional sugar beets – all organic farmers are having a ripple effect. Organic benefits everyone and consumer knows it. Consumer places confidence in us and hats off to founders who pioneered growing techniques. American organic farmers are most efficient and highest producers. Facing serious problem – imported organic grains are being brought in cheaper. American producers love competition but have to compete on a fair playing field. Organic imports should be scrutinized at same level. Excited NOSB is discussing testing. Montana lost export market to Italy. Astounds me that Europe is testing everything we send them, but we are hardly testing. We need to do better than 5% testing. We need a fair playing field.

Nate Powell-Palm: You speak to a lot of the questions coming up in the public comments – American farmers are very good at growing what we do. Is the comments we’ve been hearing is that American farmers are happy to compete but that we want a fair playing field, correct?

Tracey: you are hearing me right.

Guy Jodarski – CROPP Cooperative/Organic Valley (LS; MS)

My name is, yep, my name is Guy Jodarski. I represent crop cooperative organic valley. Thank you to the NOP and the board. For the chance to provide comments on behalf of our cooperative. I work as a veterinarian for our farmer members and with cooperative staff in the area of animal health. I lead our veterinary team that works with farmers, industry partners, and allied academic researchers. I also serve on the livestock advisory panel for OMRI, and help review materials and inputs for use in organic livestock production.

In regard to meloxicam, Organic Valley submitted a petition to the NOP to add meloxicam to the national list. The veterinary team at Organic Valley fully supports this petition. We believe this material will provide organic producers an improved tool to reduce pain and suffering of livestock. Meloxicam is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agent less likely to cause side effects than the currently available option flunixin.

Meloxicam can control pain, inflammation, and fever. It is widely used in humans, animals, and nonorganic dairy production. It’s long duration of activity and ease of administration support the fact that meloxicam provides pain control for livestock superior to the currently available options allowed for organic production.

Regarding sunset materials, we support Re-listing the following materials currently being reviewed for possible sunset. Atropine as an antidote for poisoning, hydrogen peroxide and iodine, essential for wound care, surgical procedures and equipment disinfection, magnesium sulfate for medical treatment. Tolazoline and xylazine are essential for humane delivery of surgical procedures, trace minerals and vitamins for nutritional support for immune function and essential supplementation.

We support re-listing fenbendazole and moxidectin on the national list. Good management eliminates the need for parasiticides in most cases. However, when management practices fail and parasitism is severe, there’s a need for synthetic treatments as natural alternatives often fail. Under these conditions. In response to the questions regarding these materials. Are there suggestions to improve the annotation? The annotation could outline guidelines for emergency treatment. For example, documentation of parasite load by fecal examination, evidence of severe physical signs, and or veterinary recommendation. Which age class of animals do certifiers see their clients requesting approval for emergency parasiticide use? Severe clinical parasitism is seen almost exclusively in 6- to 18-month-old cattle. An exception being lung worms, which affect both young stock and mature cattle.

Thank you. For the opportunity to provide testimony to the board. I’m happy to answer any questions.

Nate Powell-Palm: We had great convo earlier about animal welfare. How do we get the consumer aware of all that goes into animal welfare and it seems it’s never a consideration when pitching to consumer?

Guy: Topic was seized by conventional and large organic producers who designed cert systems that were advantageous to large operations in regard to record keeping, data, etc. Freedom animals have, grazing, soil, env have been missed and caught in bureaucracy and bias to large operations in certification system.

Ty O’Connor – organic producer (CACS)

Farmer from MT, organic grain, pulses, and cattle on 53k acres. We use the cattle as a crucial part of our cropping system. The last couple of years we added at USDA org certified beef, sheep and pork slaughtering facility. Excited to see USDA invest in organic via organic transition initiative. One concern: NRCS/EQIP is not being rolled out in MT. Only given 30 days to apply – we only get 10 inches of MT. The EQIP money would certainly increase transition but farmers in MT are not being given the chance to participate in the program. Hoping the whole organic community can open up 823 program again in all states. Also the deadline needs to be published. Farmers need a fair chance to sign up for this.

Brian: intrigued to hear processing facility includes hogs. What do you see market and barrier to be for organic?

Brian: A lot of acres would sign up Sign up period was so short. I think it needs to be opened up.

Lance Bruch – Farmer (CS)

Northwest Iowa. Ton of organic around here. Good crop and good ground. All of that helps with efficiencies. All said, biggest challenge is the pricing. Last year selling beans for 35-40 bucks and now half. Want to make sure foreign stuff is getting tested. Every load I send out is tested. WE need to do a better job of testing the foreign stuff. All on same page – when prices change, you figure what’s going on? We can produce good crop. Raising soybeans for $20 is a real challenge. At end of day doesn’t work out very well.

Kim: hard for farmers to be engaged, appreciate time. Do most of row crops go to food or feed outlets and have you seen change in outlets for crops?

Amy: I just wanted to learn more about Lance’s area. Thanks.

Steve Boyda – Organic producer and OFARM (Organic Farmers Agency for Relationship Marketing) (CS, General)

Oregon field crops in Kansas. Serve as secretary of OFARM.

Intro and affiliation: Organic field crops producer in NE Kansas growing primarily corn, wheat and soybeans which are the staple crops for this region. I am commenting today on behalf of field crop producers who comprise the collective membership of OFARM – – where I serve as president.

The primary concern for our membership is the devastating market impact from the continuing flow of imported organic feedstuffs. Markets for the primary feed grains have fallen to levels that come near and are, in some cases. even below actual production costs.

As we mentioned in our written comments, this dismal market picture is causing some certified producers to abandon their organic commitment and certainly is putting a damper on increasing acreage through new transition. While we fully embrace the concept that it is much more than just a better market, economic viability is still the driving factor in making the final transition decision.

While we applaud the many, and often successful, initiatives to provide for transition assistance through new and creative government programs such as greater assistance through NRCS and improvements to federal crop insurance program to better serve organics the long-term viability of and organic operation is still based on economic profitability.

We fully support efforts underway to bring more extensive residue testing into the picture. However, enacting significant change still has many hurdles to overcome. One area that could have a more immediate impact is to more fully utilize existing authority for sampling and testing.

The much needed, and now enacted, elements of the SOE have paved the way for greater scrutiny. The question is, are we fully using the surveillance authority the SOE created. Much is said about risk-based decisions about where to use this authority. Obviously, with the recent increase in imports from Africa, the horse left the barn long before a mass balance audit can be completed.

Let me put it in a farmer’s term: if it looks like something is wrong and it smells like something is wrong it is time to check out why. This is accomplished by a ‘boots on the ground’ examination of the source of irregularity.

Obviously, the NOP now has significantly increased capacity to perform on their obligation as the organic industry watchdog. Added certifier scrutiny, enhanced inspector training and initiatives to establish mass balance audits are all plausible efforts. It does appear, however, that the actual intervention in questionable activities still remains somewhat limited. While there is some, sometimes legitimate, concern for government over-reach, in our humble collective opinion, there is plenty of opportunity to examine areas that just simply don’t add up or smell right.

So, what is our ask in this setting with the NOSB?

We believe there is room for a greater direct interaction in the NOP processes. You spend significant time on evaluation of the ingredient lists. Is the evaluation of NOP process and procedure subjected to that level of scrutiny? Possibly the NOP oversite should be a higher priority for study and debate. Thus, more specific guidance could be issued and the whole arena of the surveillance required could be significantly improved. It would appear that there is, at least, some opportunity for improvement in the NOSB oversite the NOP.

One final comment would be this. In the interest of satisfying the consumer desire to know the source of their food we believe a strong statement by the NOSB in support of Country of Origin labeling would be in order.

Amy: Look at SOE and final rule talks about complex supply chains and when talking about this, just curious why there is a need for a supply chain for grains?

Steve: Residue testing on spraying for pests. There is a long way to ship from there to here, and I think there might be stuff being sprayed. Also, for herbicide residue. You can plant nonGMO, and it will show nonGMO, but you can put a lot of sprays on that to keep the weeds out.

Mark Smith – organic producer (CACS)

Livestock producer with Montana Organic Producer Coop. Want to comment on the importance of the Board supporting more and better ways of educating the public on what organic is and isn’t. I’ve been certified for 17 years, and we continually see the confusion at the consumer level. We encourage that we would support an education program on what organic is. Even organic producers seem to be a little confused. This is organic sour cream (shows container), but this particular producer wants to be able to say that it is “beyond organic” right on the same container. That is something that the person making the sour cream wouldn’t feel compelled to say that it is “beyond organic” if there was a better understanding by the public of what organic is. I would like to point this out, because I think there is a substantial amount of confusion in the marketplace. A thorough and robust campaign of educating consumers of what organic is. I run into this all of the time when I’m selling organic beef, especially with other producers saying that they are as good as organic, but if consumers really understood organic, that wouldn’t be an issue.

Jerry: We have an internal rule that we aren’t supposed to comment to commentors. Thank you for your comments.

Kyla: I’m dropping a link in the chat for everyone; spread the word. [Link: USDA Certified Organic: Understanding the Basics | Agricultural Marketing Service]

Jess Alger – organic producer (CACS)

I raise cattle and grain. Member of Montana Org Production Coop and on board for National Farmers Coalition.

I’m here to support using testing as a tool to level the playing field for organic feed grains. The imports flood our market, and that’s not good. EU and Canada test our products, but we don’t test theirs much. I’ve heard others talk about testing, and we need to do that. If USDA mandated testing of imports, it seems it would be a lot more fair. There are many leaving organic because of low grain prices. They’re good farmers, and it’s not fair right now. Testing grain is a way that we can ensure that the market is fair.

I also hear that cooking oil is coming in from China and making the soybean market fall off. That’s not good. I feel that if you had an announcement to the countries that we are going to actually start testing these grains, that might help, and then we should start doing it. They are brining conventional grain into the US and killing our organic market with imported grain.

Nate Powell Palm: You mentioned the level playing field. I think we’ve heard a lot from folks saying that we want a fair shake. Can you speak to the opportunity that you see for organic for those other farmers who aren’t getting a fair crack at it? Do you think the organic market would grow domestically if there was a level playing field?

Jess: Yes, I do.

Mark Holoubek – Seed Salesman ‐ Seitec (CACS)

Live in Nebraska. Farmer. Certified Crop Advisor. Row crop organic producers in Midwest are under duress. Sell in 8 states and as far east as Illinois. This year have lost growers in 3 states. Customer that just cancelled and three growers cancelled last week. Things are tough. I went to college when things were good in 1977. Started farming in the 80s. Things aren’t that bad but they are tough. Level playing field is what we’re after. As supplier for organic seed, I share that. Growers I work with and some of best. I was organic grower a year ago. Was executive director of Nebraska soybean board. Have all kinds of seeds available b/c seeds are less this year. Applaud for efforts to suppor the industry.

Kim: Have you seen any changes in the people that you are selling to or the demand side of the market?

Mark: Bottom line is that it’s about the genetics. We are licensed with every supplier of elite seeds from all over the world. We also have our own proprietary line. We have absolutely elite genetics without the traits in them. That’s why we have customers in so many states. The genetics side is there, if people want to work with it, and they compete with leading genetics.

Lynn Clarkson – Clarkson Grain (CACS)

CEO. Based in Illinois – buy condition and process organic corn and soy with clients domestic and foreign. We used to import crops now we don’t. Testing for residues we find things not allowed in the USA – not allowed anywhere in the world except Brazil. My confidence in imported crops is less than 50%. We quit selling imported because we cannot trust it. Cheating is easy proving it is difficult. Commercial codes and functioning judicial system in the US punishes fraud. But in countries supplying most of our organic products there are no protections or enforcement of fraud. There is little that disincentivizes them.

Randy Constant is the poster child of domestic fraud. Had Randy been a foreign supplier he would still be operating, free to still commit fraud, bribe, threaten, etc. I know Randy’s behavioral cousins in imports. Recommend we test all crops coming into USA for pesticides residues. Regard Indvidual suppliers as part of the environment we come from – remove certification from suppliers where countries do not enforce.

Nate Powell Palm: When you think about the ability of American farmers to meet the needs of your demand, do you think they can do it?

Lynn: there are some structural issues re: where grain is raised. Cost of moving material by land moving from Midwest to coast is almost identical moving by water from other countries to the U.S. difficulty in matching logistics cost once they get to water. We don’t use our coastlines well to serve selves. Very few facilities set up to use rail. Trucking costs are very high.

Marni Karlin – ACA (CACS)

[Note that this speaker provided their comments in full to Cornucopia which we have copied here.]

Hi, I’m Marnie Carlin. I’m a consultant here today representing the Accredited Certifiers Association. Today I’m going to comment on considering certifier perspectives, residue testing, and comments to the open docket.

First, considering certifier perspectives. As my colleague Ellie noted on Tuesday, certifiers are experiencing stress and fatigue as the complexity of certification increases, creating continued intense pressure. ACA members are fully committed to organic integrity and our role in service of that integrity. While Ellie noted our commitment to building capacity, I’d like to note another important piece of this puzzle, ensuring that any new regulatory or legislative mandates that might add to the complexity and pressure of certification are developed with the benefit of certifiers perspectives. We often talk about the public-private partnership and the importance of farmers in trade being at the table to ensure that regulators and legislators consider the real-world impact of policy change. We also need to be sure certifiers are at that table, bringing their real world perspective. Without the certifier voice represented from the beginning, we risk creating mandates that are not feasible or unnecessarily place more stress and pressure on the system.

Of course, this is really a call out to ourselves and it’s true that we are already very ably represented here on the board and are proud of our strong partnership and working relationship with the NOP. The ACA commits to building on these strengths and engagement with other policy makers and stakeholders. Together, we must think critically about moving further toward a risk-based certification system that protects organic integrity while being appropriate to the needs and risk factors of all certified operations.

Residue testing. We appreciate the expertise the CACS subcommittee has put into its work on residue testing. An updated testing program can help certifiers verify compliance and deter fraud. If something isn’t truly organic, it should not be in the organic supply chain. Such a testing program must also be feasible, particularly when certifiers are implementing the largest update to the organic regulations in 20 years. We must be mindful of human capital and other resource constraints and user risk-based lens for compliance verification.

Certifiers perspectives must be considered in development of any uptake updated residue testing program. We are critical to verifying compliance and best understand pressures on the system that must be considered. We respectfully requested that discussion of this topic continue in the fall to allow time for certifiers perspectives to be included in a risk-based approach to residue testing. This would also allow the work to be informed by the sector’s experience in implementing some of the new tools from SOE, such as supply chain traceability audits and other tools designed to remove fraud from organic supply chains so we can see what’s working and where further checks may be needed to protect integrity.

And finally, comments to the open docket. As you know, the short window for comments in advance of this meeting fell immediately after the SOE implementation deadline. And ACA members were understandably fully focused on SOE impacts at that time. We commit to engaging with some of the important topics on this meeting’s agenda, such as updates to the TR and submitting comments to the open docket so the board to continue its important work.

Thank you for your service and this opportunity to comment.

Amy: You mentioned risk-based systems when we’re looking at residue testing. When we were looking at written comments, especially from inspectors, they talk about risk-based, as well. When we hear from our oral comments, we’re hearing that a lot of people in the handling space are doing their own testing. How do we get more testing instituted, especially on the imports? What’s the next step?

Marni: The answer is, it depends. We do have some standing working groups that are ongoing that deal with ongoing topics. When I think about my comment that if we could pull together some thought around the TR template, that would be a finite WG to pull together comments and share them. We have been known to be very nimble and agile and move something in as little as 6 weeks to a couple of months. That takes a push, but it’s doable. When I made comments both in writing and orally that we would love to have the opportunity to have input, I would do so in a way that recognizes the process that is in place.

John Sheppard – Organic Soybean Processors of America (CACS)

Good afternoon. I’m John Shepherd, the director in the Domestic Trade Association.

Organic soybean Processors of America or OSPA advocates for fair and free trade, specifically the advancement of safe, reliable, organic livestock feed. I’m also the president of Shepherd Grain Enterprises. Shepherd Grain has produced organic soybean meal for over 2 decades. Thank you for this opportunity to address the NOSB.

Currently, the US organic soybean market is rife with fraud. In January, Ospel contracted with Agamaris to accomplish a mass balance analysis of African exports of organic soybean meal relative to available certified feedstock and production capabilities. The evidence is clear. There is no way all the meal is born of certified organic soybeans. My written submission highlights this effort and I encourage you to refer those comments. I prepared 2 slides to describe a snapshot of today’s US or organic soybean market. This information is derived from import info, a US Customs Import Data Reporting subscription.

In 6 weeks, 41,510 metric ton of organic soybean meal was imported into the United States. This is an annual rate of 360,000 metric ton. 70% of the current US annual demand of organic Soybean meal. 60% was imported from Turkish ports originating through the Black Sea region. 35% came from Africa.

The meals available to the US market is 70 to $90 a metric ton below the cost of producing domestic meal. That equates to nearly a $2 per bushel reduction of domestic soybean value. Or domestic crossers to match the importer pricing at the cost of production.

The next slide shows bill of blading description examples of imported organic protein. Organic soybean meal is accompanied by the description non-GMO not treated with pesticide, which of course is innate. The truly born of circuit of certified organic soybeans. The import market currently has fraud competing against fraud for market share.

Organic protein is exported. Prepaid. DTHC for sellers account. Organic meal is being pushed to the United States and sold on consignment. And why not? The exporting entities return US dollars. The downside risk is merely selling the claimed organic meal is conventional. The current US organic soybean market has devolved the lowest stabilization and immediate recovery effort should be made. Oxford supports the requirement for imported organic soybean meal to be laboratory tested for solvents.

This could easily be implemented through the USDA and CBP. In addition, an audit of the 5 largest importers of organic soybean meal from seed to meal would renew consumer confidence and support its supply.

Thank you.

Nate Lewis: You mentioned synthetic solvents being a potential contaminant in “organic” soybean meal from overseas. Do you have information on industry-accepted methodologies that you could share with the Board?

John: A simple test is analyzing the retrained oil of organic SB meal. Mechanical processing is not going to get below 6%. If organic SB Meal is being pedaled as lower than 6%, then there’s an issue. Solvent extracted can get below 2%.

Matt Nidlinger – CGB ‐ Consolidated Grain and Barge Co CACS)

Organic grain manager. Joined organic market 4 years ago and procure organic grain in our elevators and distribute out in truck or rail where needed. Mostly in feed but some food as well. Fraud prevention – testing of organic grains. SOE is a step in the right direction. We need to test and insure authenticity through supply chain. We are testing every load for GMOs. Encourage NOSB to increase GMO testing standards. Chemical residue testing should be enhanced to prevent fraud from entering supply chain. Frequency of testing is now “when fraud is suspected” which is too late. We should proactively test for chemical residues and make those tests statistically relevant. Areas where there is suspected fraud should still be scrutinized but this shouldn’t t the be only basis for a test. Gene edited seed is going to be a problem upcoming. Issues are important to sustainability and integrity if the label.

Kim: From your lens, as far as logistics of moving organic products to the end user – can you give perspective on bottle necks?

Matt: one of largest exporters of identity preserved grains. Do testing as customers require. On organic side, haven”t’ ventured down that path. For chemical residue testing, it is not as feasible. GMO can have quick testing at facility.

Garth Kahl – Common Treasury Farm, Independent Organic Services, Organic Integrity Cooperative Guild (CACS, CS, HS, LS)

I wear many organic hats. I’m an organic grower stockman for 30 years, organic inspector and a consultant with the organic integrity cooperative guild. I want to thank you for the opportunity to call and as always thanks to the members for your service and the NOP staff for your support. You already have my written comments specifically on the CACS discussion documents residue testing for a global supply chain, and organic food system capacity and constraint. With respect to the former, I would draw your attention to the comments made by IOIA. Most importantly, we need new testing screens, particularly for synthetic solvent residues in processed animal feed. In this main I particularly want to applaud Amy Bruch for her work on that marker bill that will require more testing of bulk inputs. Go Amy.

Mainly I want to talk about the capacity and constraints document and to raise the alarm about the stampede of organic livestock producers who are dropping certification or leaving livestock farming altogether. As anyone who works in organic certification will tell you, the last 3 years have seen a massive loss of organic dairy producers. The victims of a perfect storm, entrenched monopolistic conditions in the dairy processing market, huge spikes in energy and commodity prices and labor shortages. The handful of organic dairy producers I personally work with, who have granted certification in the last years and another is desperately trying to sell. The organic beef industry is even more dismal. Mainly because there really is no price premium for organic grass fed versus conventional grass fed beef.

In part this comes from consumers not knowing the benefits of organic beef in addition to potentially fraudulent cattle chasing organic price premiums whenever they do a run. Well, conventional producers can use cheaper hay and hormones to facilitate breeding and conventional parasitizing fly control.

I’ve personally seen nearly a dozen cow crop operators who have decided that, “Organic just isn’t worth it.” We in the realm of organic enforcement have done very little to address this crisis, and, in many ways, have made it worse.

In an attempt to address procedural fraud, our response has been a raft of new record keeping requirements and multiple updates to growers OSPs. The NOPs 2023 livestock memo, the SOE and the OLPS all hit producers like a hailstorm when they were recovering from the tornado that was the pandemic and inflation.

Unfortunately, the NOP guidance and certifiers interpretation of the new standards are becoming increasingly prescriptive and less willing to accommodate the differences between operation. This is not sound or sensible. Larger operators simply hire nutritionists to document grazing compliance and continually update OSP document. Smaller operators must mostly suffer, and worse, receive non-compliances for small record keeping lapses that don’t really reflect a breach of organic integrity.

Thank you very much. I welcome any questions.

Amy Bruch: I wanted to just ask you if you could walk us through some of the inspections that you’ve done, especially at ports of entry with imported products and just how that testing procedure can happen.

I can’t help but make another pitch for town and sensible. I mean, there’s no reason we need to look at risk based analysis. People say this, we hear it every meeting, but in reality you know the rubber hits the road on dairy producers. Dairy producers work harder than honestly anybody I know and a small dairy producer like that added paperwork burden or that you know added 2 hours to that inspection because that’s what it takes. That’s a real burden. And when you’re already getting, you know, pumped around by everything else, it feels like yet another, you know, incoming punch. So, I, you know, obviously we need integrity. We need to, you know, ensure that the trace ability is there. But there’s got to be a way to do this in a risk-based manner, so we’re not beating up on people.

Luke Giannforte – organic producer (CACS)

Certified org farmer in NY, certified for 25 years. Small grains. Focus on food-grade but also sell feed and seed. Received organic market development grant which we will use to improve on-farm processing for products we sell to organic dairies. These grants are a great tool. The smaller simplified equipment-only funding is a good option for farmers like this. Many other grants cant be used on equipment even though that’s a cost that holds many producers back. We’ve worked hard to diversify our market and the crops we sell but we still feel the depression in corn and soy. Weve heard people say domestic suppliers need to grow less corn and soy because of imports. That seems backwards. We can trace any product back to the field it came from and we need to make sure that’s the case for any product – foreign or domestic should be held to the same standards.

Kim: Look forward to hearing more about USDA grant program and your implementation. Customer base – have you noticed changes in outlets for products and aspect on demand side?

Luke: Correct.

Joseph Kibiwott – Organic Processor (General)

Certified organic enterprise. We process and market US grown specialty grains. Markets include domestic food distributors, food manufacturers, and some over seems. Timeless Seeds supports residue testing to protect family farms and processors. My submission is bringing into focus our experience. The strong need is that is often caused is always born by farmer. Sometimes want to sell product to Europe and they have strict testing needs and when they test it and if out of spec, we can’t even market as organic here in US. Imports have access to US markets. Growers are doing their best. Need a level playing field.

Nate Powell-Palm: When you were describing amount of testing other countries do on American products, if we increase testing, we are only playing catch up.

Joseph: yes, increase number of tests that we can.

Craig Schmitt – organic producer (CACS)

Farmer in NE Montana, part of Montana producers co-op. Grow grain and building a seed cleaning facility to allow me to sell directly to consumers. I did apply for the organic grant and it’s been a huge help to get going – doing cleaning for other farmers in MT as well. It’s a long drive to deliver grains sometimes up to $2 a bushel. Excited to see USDA helping with that and hopes the program will continue. Another issue is market stability: organic consumers and farmers want a stable market. The price getting out of hand because of imports is a problem. Fortunately I have multi-year contracts for wheat but a lot of farmers do not have that.

Nate Powell-Palm: $2/bushel — that’s a lot of money! How are we moving this grain less so we retain some of that value.

Craig: Have contracts with mills directly and one particular customer – have market already and feeding it by supporting it.

Kim Dykman – Agrisecure, organic consultant for farmers (CACS)

Western Nebraska – work with 20+/- growers with digital certification support. Concerned with fraud at the import levels. While the new SOE rule was needed, it does not go far enough to address the “organic” imports that are threatening our markets. How do we know when a country is exporting it is actually supportable? It should be imperative that every imported crop be tested, and not just 5% of the certifier customers that are now. They are addressing fraud at the local level, but every import that comes in should be testing. In keeping with the new SOE, how do we ensure that bills of lading are accurate? How can we verify them to ensure that there are no duplicate sales?

The A23 program at NRCS, I’m hearing from my growers that while in spirit it was great, local offices are not well informed, deadlines are missed, and they cannot get the information that they need. We need to get more organic acres going in the pipeline.

Amy: Can you talk about retention of acres with the producers that you are working with? Are they looking to grow, decertify acres?

Kim: I think they would grow. Several have added fields, but I’ve also lost three farms that decertified. Two were in Kansas and had a hard time getting their crops sold due to trucking prices. And then I lost a guy with organic cattle. He was frustrated. He lost processing. He is in Nebraska. Couldn’t find a way to truck them to where they needed to go so that it made sense economically.

Maria Gerling – general public (CACS)

Consumer of organic food. Should be able to expect soil organic food is grown has been free of synthetic chemicals for at least 2 years. Expect the use of compost and cover crops, recycling of organic waste, the use of non-toxic control that will not harm environment or human health. The use of nonsynthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc. There are 7 universal point consumers should demand of organic food: it is organic, free of synthetics, food is hormone free, the food had not been radiated, not been genetically altered, food that is organic ingredients, the backing of organic certifiers. Without this the consumer will be ripped off. As an example I have an apple on my table that is a mummy after 4 months. Consumers often don’t have any information about sourcing.

Brian: Gave some clear points we can use b/c we have been talking about how to promote organic to the consumer.

Maria: Labels – true labels.

Dave Chapman – Long Wind Farm, Real Organic Project, Organic Farmers Association, Vermont Organic Farmers (CS)

Hello everybody. I’m Dave Chapman, co-director of the Real Organic Project. I’m a member of the Organic Farmers Association, and I’m also a farmer who runs Longwind Farm in Vermont.

I want to talk about something I think we can all agree on, which is rare for me. I’ve seen something very disturbing in the last few years. I’ve seen a lot of small farms leaving organic certification. I’m sure we’re all aware of this, but just in the last year for the real organic project, we have lost a hundred farms that we certified. That’s close to 10% of the farms that we certify as real organic, and they left the NOP program. They’re small farms, not midscale or large farms. I’ve been trying to think about what we can do, because I think everybody in the NOP loses by this. I think Grimway and Driscols lose. I think everyone loses when small farms leave. More and more we are seeing organic become large scale industrial farming labels, which none of us wants.

And I’ve really been struck by in Denmark, where certification is absolutely free. It’s all paid for by the government, and I actually think that that would be a huge step forward for the national organic program. We could easily double the number of certified organic farms in a year if all certification was paid for. But at the very least, we could try to get at least the certification entirely paid for in smaller farms, maybe less than $500,000 gross sales. And it would make a big difference. The small farms often don’t see an economic benefit for getting certified. When we began certification, what we saw was people did it because they believed in a movement. Now, it’s become a little bit more of a business proposition.

Farms are always struggling, so if we took away the economic pain of getting certified, there’s still a lot of paperwork and whatnot that people have to do. But I think it could be pretty important. Right now, you know, farms can get about 50% of their fee paid for a small farm up to $750. Through the FSA they have to wait half a year to get the money, make a big difference if it was just covered by the government.

And finally, I just wanted to say that real organic urges the NOSB to not permit the recycling of so-called biodegradable plastic in compost. I know you’re working on that. Thank you.

Alison: On the cost-share program, I agree with you that funding that would go a bit further to cover producer’s costs would go a long way. That’s not within our power to make it happen, but it’s in our proposal on the transition initiative feedback. Do you have a sense of how many producers might stay in the program longer if the reimbursement numbers were greater?

Dave: I wish I had some numbers, but I don’t. Maybe Jenny Tucker does, but I doubt it. I hear from a lot of farms that it’s just too expensive. They’re not saying that they can’t do the paperwork; it’s that they cannot come up with the money.

Dave: I’m not opposed to a lot of logos on one label. It’s a reflection that everyone’s needs aren’t being met. In almost every country, there are add-on labels. I think we have a lot of common language. I just heard Paul Holmbeck speak. He’s an American who was head of organic in Denmark for 20 years. It was inspirational about all of the ways that they are supporting organic growers through growth in the marketplace, through technological support. I think we could learn a lot from them.

Doug Currier – The Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) (CS, MS)

I’m presenting comments today on behalf of the Organic Materials Review Institute. OMRI’s mission is to support the growth and trust of the global organic community through expert, independent, and transplant verification of input materials, and through education and technical assistance. Our comments are intended to provide technical data and other information about materials to support the NOSB’s work. Our organization is accredited through the USDA’s quality assessment division. I’m presenting comments today on inert ingredients, compost, and proposed technical report template revisions.

So first, inert ingredients. We continue to maintain that an updated system used for the review and approval of inert ingredients should ensure that any inner ingredient approved for use in USDA organic production meets all the evaluation criteria, and this updated system must also not overwhelm the NOSB to the point where your mandate cannot be fulfilled. We do not support individual listings of inert ingredients on the National List since that would most likely mean that that second item, one that we review as a requirement and a new updated system, cannot be met. We maintain that the assessment of many of the off evaluation criteria can be fulfilled by considering EPA documentation used during their past reassessment work and documentation from subsequent rule making efforts. Consideration of remaining criteria evaluation and how to present the outcomes of these evaluations be at a national list or otherwise are areas that we encourage the materials subcommittee to seek advice from experts at their committee meetings. We encourage continued attention and focus on the issue. The finish line is in sight.

Compost. I’m looking forward to exploring the questions and issues the subcommittee has raised on compost at the meeting next week in person. There’s 1 point, though, I wanted to highlight now that it’s just involving contamination removal prior to composting. We require composters that we work with that use raw material or the feed stocks that are at high risk for contamination have a foreign materials removal method in place. So, high risk feed stocks right now include green waste that are municipally collected like leaves, lawn clippings and food waste.

And lastly, TR templates. As you’ve seen from our written comments, we’re not in favor of amending the TR templates in a way that officially expands the scope to include focus on the use of excluded methods and the manufacture of materials under petition. Our position is not only coming from an organization that currently writes these reports but takes into consideration future organizations that might have to do that work. I’ve often heard over the years this question, yes, we can ask for some of the documentation or information, but what are we going to do with the information we get back?

Addition to the logistical challenges outlined in our comments, knowing what to do with the information that is received is a major concern for us given the history of criteria when it comes to applying the definition of excluded methods and there are subsequent prohibition and input.

Amy: Question regarding compost – comprehensive work agenda item that we’re working on. From your opinion, should we look to increase the scope further and review of inoculants used for compost to add further guiderails or framework. They are leading to modified practices, such as need to turn the piles.

Doug: what we found with inducement of genesis tR is that the excluded methods definition is written with plant breeding in mind. I think microorganisms are definitely high risk. Perhaps beefing up understanding of those methods could help by way of excluded methods definition.

Randy Mitchell – Perdue Foods LLC (LS)

VP of Nutrition of Perdue Foods. 30 years poultry nutritionist. To date no alternative to synthetic methionine. Need to keep available. See slides.

Nate Powell-Palm: Talking about animal welfare, and the effect of over feeding protein. Could you speak to impact on birds that high ammonia levels have?

It’s not every flock. It’s especially bad when it gets warm because during heat stress, you’ll also have poor absorption of amino acids. It’s almost like a tipping point. I can tell you as someone who is responsible for organic welfare, there is nothing you can do for that animals, and it’s a terrible feeling knowing that you have no other options on what to do.

Adele Durfey – Clear Frontier Ag Management (CACS)

We have a large number of partner-growers mostly in Midwest. Increase testing requirements for imported grains. Want to increase stringency. Spent a lot of time working internationally specifically in Ukraine and consulting countries in Eastern block. In Ukraine much of the corn and soy was GMO despite being sold as non-GMO. There was bribing and cheating of tests. Nothing much has changed. Even USDA has come out with a report saying 60-65% of soy in Ukraine is GMO. It’s too easy for a non-GMO country ton produce that much GMO product you can easily see the problem. There are no serious detractors from cheating. We need to increase required testing. Once it hits US we do our own testing – both volume we are testing but the breadth of contaminants tested as well. We have a lot of producers taking soy out of organic and back to conventional because of the problems.

Wood: The value of that practical experience on the ground is really useful. Thank you for calling in.

Adele: WE don’t actually deploy capital for them. We are a portfolio company and think there are other avenues they pursue. I can’t really speak to that.

BJ McNeil – organic producer CACS

Organic grain farmer in central South Dakota. Want to talk about roll out of NRCS practice standard 823. The other thing is the flooding commodity market of imported grain. Also antiquated rules related to micronutrients in organic. Want to focus on importing of grain and how its affecting producers and the industry. We have 25% of our corn in the bin that can’t get a bid for. Plenty being imported. The second thing, soybeans in bin. Can sale but below cost of production. Also have sunflowers in the bin from 2022 that haven’t been able to move. Importation of grain, drastically affected our operation. We’ve had to move some acres back to conventional b/c the price being offered doesn’t cover cost of production. Other thing getting overlooked is the squeeze of smaller feed mills. Larger corporations controlling imports, setting price on imports, then going to smaller mills and dictating price.

Nate: Could you speak more about pressure on small infrastructure.

BJ: Thank you.

Annette Cook – Simmons Grain Co. (CACS)

Secretary in Ohio. 100% organic soy processor. If the NOP does not act the seal is in danger. We need better oversight on foreign imports. Implement pesticide testing and full panel solvent testing. The NOP 2611 and 2613 – need to be improved. Refined products cannot be treated the same as a raw commodity. Need to look at producer groups – they were good in a young market but now the market has matured past this point. Grower groups are absurd and allow fraud. Large domestic entities use these to blend conventional product and accelerate land transition. We need to remove the model. SOE requires all steps to be certified but grower groups are still allowing multiple producers under one certificate –large loophole. Equivalency to product oforiginn only. Mass balance needs to be done immediately. We cant promise transitioning farmers there is a market when they finish. US cant continue to be a dumping ground for fraudulent product.

Kim: Been a great opportunity to hear from crush plants. Do you ahve any data about amount of imports coming in from grower groups.

Annette: I do not, but I believe that speakers coming up with have more information surrounding that.

Erin Silva – UW Madison HS (celery powder)

Professor of U Wisconsin, Madison. I have been working with industry partners on issues related to organic curing materials for past 8 years. We are looking at feasibility of transitioning from conventional curing powders to organic curing powders. The research conducted by UW Madison and U Florida has demonstrated that organic celery and Swiss chard can be produced with higher rates of nitrogen. This is also the case in the production of conventional curing powders. These higher rates can be managed through cover cropping and other responsible ways of nitrogen application to minimize negative environmental consequences. More information is needed to identify the best management practices. Depending on soil type, crop rotation, and specific environments. Research in two major production regions has generated data for the appropriate level of nitrogen fertilizer needed in those environments, but we still need to collect more data across working farms to validate those results.

While organic sources of curing powder is now available through Diana Food, there remains concerns regarding the reliability of these resources over time. These concerns include the availability and consistency of supply as well as understanding the season to season variability between sources for which again we need further research.

Our current research has also investigated the impact of organic curing powders on processed organic meat quality and food safety. This work conducted at University Wisconsin Madison has demonstrated that organic sources of curing powers produce equivalent food safety and quality parameters as compared to conventional sources.

More work is needed in partnership with industry to optimize these formulas. To account for these novel organic curing powder sources, including Swiss chard. To further scale up supply, more research is needed to understand how to optimize the fermentation of organic juices used to produce the nitrite that is actually using curing powders. New technologies are being explored to produce high quality consistent products that is required by industry using these organically allowed practices. In addition to this organic fermentation research, scaling up supply also requires a continued assessment of advertising and handler logistics to ensure consistent quality.

So, in summary, we’re not ready to move on to a completely organic supply chain at this point.

Alison: It sounds like we are potentially on track to be there in five years at the next sunset, but not there yet?

Erin: Initially investment was a 2 mill grant, and I’m flying back from PD meeting. Project team is very interested in going back to funding source. Refining research over time. Where are bottlenecks and bring on more expertise.

Duane Myer – Farmer producer (CACS; CS)

Producer – father son operation, small to midsized. Corn, beans, oats, hog confinements that we use manure from for N needs. Capitalism you have to compete – from the imports coming in we have been struggling due to pricing. The testing needs to be done. We are tested on every load. We are held to a higher standard. Some of the stuff coming in is held to no standard. Take of the fraud at import levels to make level playing field. Micronutrients are a big deal for our operation too, because we have to prove we are deficient in every category. I don’t mind competing I just want a level place.

Amy: Just going to say thanks for commenting.

JACOB GOLBITZ – Agromeris (General)

Director of Agromeris. Focus on organic and specialized grain. For last several years, worked with stakeholders to investigate grains. Most recently been looking at organic soybean imports from Africa – then consolidated into producer groups. According to language in SOE, small overseas markets to source products. Not limited to products not produced in US – dramatic increase in imports threatening domestic production. While facets of SOE rule will increase visibility of organic, the issue of how 3rd party certify thousands of small holders, not addressed by SOE rule.

Kim: Do you have any data around grower groups that supply imports to the US?

Jacob: Better acreage data would answer that question. Have seen wild swings in acreage. There’s a lot of turmoil and strife in some of these areas.

Pete Kapustka – Organic Producer (CS)

59-year-old 5th year organic farmer. Operates in MN and WI. Live in Iowa. Grew up on family farm. Degree in ag business. Took over family farm. In 1992, spent next 20 years working with conventional farming companies. Some large, some small. In 2020, at age 56, I decided to pursue organic farming operation against advice of many. Continue to push the pencil. Telling you all this so you understand how I see current organic. USDA must sample each and every load of organic grain that enters the US market. Consumer will realize that fraud. Brand and industry destruction is likely outcome. Think of Planet Fitness and others. By taking a strong and proactive position. How can you explain to a consumer why contamination occurred and how could be prevented. 1 in 20 load could be tested it’s established fact that a minimum of 5% … access to domestic markets is a privilege not a right.

Audre Kapacinskas – S2G Ventures HS; General

Principle at S2G, investment firm. Commitment to creating long term outcomes. As part of mission we are dedicated to empowering farmers, including organic. We want to provide necessary resources for organic to flourish by providing capitol. American farmers are innovative especially as it relates to soil health and environmental sustainability. Recent years have brought challenges to American farmers to supply chain disruptions and economic issues. We want organic farmers to have a reliable marketplace. Transparent testing practices benefit consumers. Work to prevent import fraud, figure out how crop insurance can better benefit American farmers, etc.

Nate Powell Palm: Appreciate that you brought up the consumer in this discussion. I would say that when you hear most podcasts about what is organic, the lay person might say that they don’t know because they don’t test. Would you agree with that?

Audre: not necessarily. It influences the market conditions that we assess. Naturally influences prices. I think inherently we are believers in this framework even if prices are somewhat depressed. We believe framework is necessary and robust set of choices for consumers. Does it influence us? Yes, but we think inherently there is value in this framework and in American production.

Kate Newkirk – International Organic Inspectors Association (CACS)

IOIA accredited inspector. Masters in Agronomy from VA Tech. Soil scientist and inspector.

IOIA finds the instruction documents 2610 and 2611 inadequate to meet the testing requirements of 405… These are only specific to periodic pesticide screening, but do not meet the testing. IOIA believe that sampling and testing are risk specific. Because they are so widely varied and risk dependent, IOIA suggests that scope specific best practices are developed by certifiers in cooperation with the NOP.

Training is need for inspectors and certifiers, and should be conducted in conjunction with the laboratories that are being used. Further training is needed regarding custody requirements, sampling methodology, and in many other areas.

This will go a long way in supporting consumer confidence and in deterring fraud.

Sampling requires additional time, effort, and expertise by inspectors, and they should be compensated appropriately.

Nate Powell-Palm: Waited 2 days to hear inspectors are on board and we can do this.

Kenn Jenkins – Organic Crop Advisor/Farmer, Peak Ag Solutions (CACS; CS; HS)

Certified crop advisor. Focused on traceability. 10 states. Residue testing of every load. Losing farmers b/c US grower feels being hired to higher standard. We can supply more. Our farms can trace back to the seed. We battle debt, weeds, yet imports are accepted without the same scrutiny. Major red flags that USDA should be focusing on enforcement. Why would USDA not automatically investigate. There was a belief USDA would protect the label. Consumer surveys show trust is declining from previous survey. Test all grains at the ports. We don’t mind competing. Everybody in fraudulent supply chain is profiting.

Skip Hulett – Organic Produce Association

As tech advances continue the 3-year transition period isn’t needed, and we think they should be able to test out of the transition requirement. With approved soil testing or alternative if an alternative to soil is used. No substances not allowed by the NOP can be tested for. We have a proposal that outlines this shift for the NOP, which outlines how to break down all barriers to organic transition and production. With allows us to address the growing demand for organic.

Anne Ross – The Cornucopia Institute (General)

[Please see Cornucopia’s Organic Investigator’s full comment online.]

Nate Powell Palm: Thank you for your comments. I really appreciate the tone and tenor that Cornucopia has taken with this topic.

Jaydee Hanson – Center for Food Safety (LS; MS; PDS)

This is Jaydee Hanson. I’m the policy director at the Center for Food Safety.

I want to urge you to begin doing some real work on plastics. The FDA this week finally responded to our petition to get PFAS out of polyethylene used for food. And, you know, since 2016, the Center for Food Safety has been asking the NOSB to exclude the phenyl compounds, orthophalates, and PFAS compounds from food and food contact substances. It is really past time to act on this. You know, I do understand that generally organic hasn’t paid attention to plastic wraps, but we’re having a huge problem with all of these chemicals. In that list of bisphenols, PFAS, and orthophalates have been found to be hormone disrupting chemicals. In our opinion, plastic should be banned by the NOP in many areas where they’re ubiquitous.

I want to urge you to take very seriously these risks to human health and the environment. We are going to damage the organic label unless we take strong action. Talk to the organic growers in Maine who unknowingly put PFAS contaminated sludge on their fields from years ago.

Organic farms should not be the next source of plastic pollution. That will shut down organic operations.

Brian: Plastics have been weighing on my mind too. The question is would the plastics industry be able to produce that would be functional without PFAS, phalates, bisphenols, etc.

Jaydee: maybe a year or 2 years ago, petitioned the FDA to ban some kinds of PFAS in plastic contact substances – it’s illegal to have food additive that causes cancer. Just this week they said we’re going to go and address petition.

Erin Levine – World Centric (CS)

I’m with World Centric. We’re manufacturers of 3rd party certified compostable freeware, and my background is actually in commercial composting. In California, I used to sell compost that’s approved for organic use into the agricultural community, so this issue is very close to me personally.

I want to express my support for, BPI’s proposed amendment to the definition of compost from plant and animal material to compost feed stocks. I think that permitting food contact products that are certified compostable, meaning ASTM standards, and that are verified by third-party certifiers like TV or CMA or BPI, they allow an opportunity for composters to receive more nitrogen sources, since that food wear acts as a vessel for food scraps and additional carbon sources from the products themselves. I recognize that currently all biopolymers are classified as synthetic. They break down into natural non synthetic elements through naturally occurring biological processes that leave no toxicity. All established under the ASTM standards D.6,400, D. 68, and D. 84. So, the resulting compost feeds off doesn’t contain anything synthetic, just natural non synthetic substances.

If the concern is that anything added to the compost stock should be natural, to know that biopolomers do essentially, they break down into CO2 and water. And so, in communities that have really robust compost collection and processing, I have seen success with accepting certified compulsive packaging and an overall reduction in conventional plastics that truly act as a contaminant to compost. The food contact products that are non-reusable, non recyclable, and then are certified compostable, they need an appropriate outlet to aid in waste reduction and to contribute to the whole circular economy.

I personally conducted a field test with the compostable field test program and that’s funded by the compost research and education foundation. The objective was to measure how certified compulsive products are breaking down in commercial facilities. So, and I’ll try to move this along, but the end result was that in a desirable time frame, we saw complete disintegration of all the compostable plastics, even the line paper and fiber products. The liner disintegrated 1st before the paper and the fiber did. So, that’s really been a hangout because especially with the lining piece because we’ve had communities that have had foodware and they want alternatives to conventional plastic, but don’t end compost or that sell their final product as approved or organic don’t allow these. It’s just impossible and people don’t want to revert back to conventional plastics. Thank you.

Alison: Thanks for your comments. I’ve been trying to understand all of the pieces that are coming together on this compost issue and miners in particular my understanding was that at least still some, like compostable products have P in the liners. Can you speak to whether there’s a threshold or they’re not allowed at all under the guidelines that we’re considering.

Nate Powell Palm: I totally appreciate that sentiment. It seems like when we said we weren’t going to have sewage sludge in organics, we sort of made a very similar decision that yes, it’s very circular to have human waste go back, but we said that that is an acute source of contamination not to argue with you. I appreciate your comments today.

Albert Straus – Straus Family Creamery (LS)

This burden includes adding paperwork and placing the responsibility on the farms to be part of the enforcement for certification.

This situation will result in critical mass, losing organic farms and rural communities simultaneously because the certification will be too expensive and onerous.

We need to be nurturing and educating the public about organic farming.

We need to address fraud.

I’m calling for a national standardized Organic System Plan and a national approved material list.

John Brunquell – Egg innovations (LS)

Leading producer of organic eggs. Need to keep organic seal as gold standard. There are too many certifications we have to put on egg cartons. Greenwashing. Egg innovations we use an identify-confirmed grain mill – try to purchase as much locally and then domestically – unfortunately some of our grain comes from overseas. We need a more robust grain market so that we can produce all the grain we need in the US. We need to increase testing of international grain. It’s unfathomable we can produce an organic soybean in Africana and ship it for cheaper than we can grow it in the US. We need to put more effort into educating organic consumers; growing organic movement supports every stakeholder.

Kim: I appreciate your comments and lens and how look at this as end user. Do you feel like there is pressure the elevator or crusher to provide US products competitive to pricing structure to end user to get eggs to market in competitive fashions? Is there pressure from end user to bid on domestic products at same as imported?

John: Highly variable. Generally not. We own elevator so we blend domestic into import. It’s not exclusivity one or the other.

Matthew Fitzgerald – Matthew Fitzgerald organics (CACS)

Here to comment on the residue testing of imported grains. 24 year old organic farm. Today 2500 organic corn soybeans peas. On farm yields 58/acre soybeans. We consider ourselves to be highly skilled. Take pride in what we do. Support organic industry. Urge board to consider additional regulations and practices for testing imported grain.

END