The Checks and Balances of the NOP:
Ensuring Integrity from the Ground Up

By Mark King and Kathryn Schuett

Organics was born out of a grassroots movement pioneered by those wanting to offer an alternative to mainstream mass produced food. In 1990, with the passing of the Organic Foods Production Act, that movement became a law. After years of public debate and development the National Organic Program (NOP) was fully implemented Oct. 21, 2002. Now, after almost five years of gigantic growth spurts, this set of standards is at a point where it’s attracting significant attention from the media, customers and the industry itself—some singing praises, others raising questions.

While those in organics continue to shape and mold this solid system with a vision of continued success well into adulthood, there will always be naysayers along the way. However, the organic industry as a whole, from farmers to the NOP, has a strong commitment to integrity—and an amazingly complex and comprehensive system of checks and balances to ensure that our promise remains strong and true.

The Foundation for Integrity and Oversight
When Wal-Mart announced its intention to “go organic,” the media responded with their normal “breaking story” coverage and the organic community held their breath. What will this mean? The thought of a consumer buying organic food at a big box super deep discount center that sells $20 DVD players is, quite frankly, scary. Or is it?

The founders of this industry—farmers, co-op members, consumers, the 101st Congress and others—saw to it that food carrying an organic label would be different. Think about it. Food labeled as organic is essentially verified every step from seed to mouth and subjected to a multitude of requirements, standards and oversight at every level. As such, it’s arguably one of the strongest agricultural process claims in the history of the USDA.

In a time when most marketers steer consumers away from thinking too much about what goes into the product, the NOP is based on the idea of transparency and complete disclosure. An intricate paper trail details out each action; every ingredient is traceable. Those in the organic industry do all this to ensure that a consumer can buy an organic product in full confidence; a confidence backed by the certification of an independent third party USDA accredited agent who assures each standard is met from field to shelf.

The National Organic Standard Board (NOSB) is yet another part of the system that ensures the integrity of the organic seal. Out of the close to 50 advisory boards that work with the USDA, the NOSB is the only one with statutory power. That means that before the USDA can make a change to the standards, the NOSB first has to review, vote and draft a recommendation of a proposed rule. Since this board is made up of 15 members of the organic community—farmers, processors, retailers, environmentalist, consumers, a scientist and a certifier—this essentially means people who are passionate about organics are the ones who craft the rules, rather than just a group of governmental officials.

Also, as a committee that operates via the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the NOSB must conduct business in the open, under the requirements of P.L. 94-409, also known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act.” As part of this transparency, recommendations are posted 30 days before NOSB meetings allowing public review and comment. In addition, the public and those in the industry can also attend NOSB meetings to observe and present evidence as the board discusses and votes on each recommendation. The industry also has a chance at anytime to petition any substance to be added or taken off the National List and have it reviewed by the board.

“This transparent process allows the community to be involved during the rule making process,” said Kevin O’Rell, senior VP of operations and R&D for Healthy Food Holdings, NOSB member and former NOSB chairperson. “The NOSB carefully considers all public comment during its deliberation in a public forum prior to voting on any recommendation for submission to the NOP. We encourage the public to offer their critique or support.”

Making Sure Standards are Met
Whether it’s Wal-Mart or a mom-and-pop shop, all of those who want to be a part of the organic industry have to play by the rules of the game.

“We don’t care whether you farm 10,000 tomatoes or a million tomatoes, the rules are the rules and we are committed to preserving the integrity of the program,” said Joan Shaffer, spokeswoman for the NOP. “If you think someone is not following these standards then let us know and we’ll investigate it. It works this way for everyone.”

So who makes sure that the rules are followed? The NOP has their own elite force of certifiers who must undergo a comprehensive accreditation process. Certifiers must demonstrate knowledge of the standards, as well as prove that each member of the certification team is free from any conflict of interest.

Adding to the transparency and traceability of the program, certifying agents must keep records relating to all aspects of the certification process of their clients for up to ten years. These records and practices can be investigated at anytime by the USDA and are audited on a yearly basis. Certification agencies may lose their accreditation at any time if they are found not to be in compliance with requirements set forth in the NOP.

These USDA certifiers are responsible for making sure that every farmer, manufacturer, processor and retailer that seeks to be “USDA Organic Certified” meets every detail of the standards. Each link of the chain is reviewed by the certifier on a yearly basis.

Break the Rules and Pay the Price
American Food Safety Institute International, based in Chippewa Falls, WI, found this out the hard way when the NOP revoked their accreditation last July for not complying with regulations. This was the first revocation for the NOP but it sets a standard for all other certifiers that non-compliance will not be tolerated.

As for others in the industry, breaking the rules can mean that they not only lose their “USDA Organic” certification, but also any attempt to pass something off as organic that is not organic can cost them up to $10,000 per incidence. With heavy fines such as this even Wal-Mart and the big guys would be insane to risk marking a nonorganic apple as organic just to make an extra 10 percent. With certifiers, consumer watchdogs and the industry itself keeping a close eye on the big players, they are bound to be caught and if they are, that would be one expensive apple.

Dealing with Doubters
Even with all these checks and balances, levels of transparency, traceability and enforcement, there are still some people and organizations that doubt the validity and benefit of the NOP. While the media has been one of organics’ biggest cheerleaders at times, it has also brought into question certain issues. These questions are often the result of misinformation or lack of knowledge, and when that is the case, education and awareness are the ultimate weapons of defense. Understanding NOP standards and the efforts of those protecting them upholds industry integrity. This integrity, in turn, is critical to the ongoing success of the industry. Communicat-ing the integrity of the standards
to the consumer and the media can make a big difference in how they view
organic.

Also, the organic industry needs to reach out to communicate a positive message rather than just responding to criticisms. For too long the organic industry has relied mainly on grassroots word of mouth to sell themselves, but now with organic crossing over into markets dominated by conventional food, the organic community must take it upon themselves to educate and spread the word about organic. Pitching stories on the benefit of organic to the media, banding with other organic companies to create public awareness campaigns, including information about the standards on labels are all ways the industry can help communicate the message to this new generation of consumers.

When the media or other groups make inaccurate or accusatory statements about organic, it’s damaging to the entire industry but it’s also an opportunity to set them straight. When an article in Business Week made defamatory statements about Aurora Organic Dairy, including pictures depicting a sickly looking cow that was not even from their dairy, Aurora wrote an in-depth letter to the editor. This letter not only pointed out inaccuracies about their dairy, such as their herd’s access to pasture, but also addressed other comments about organic in general. Responses such as this expand the media’s knowledge of organic.

Growing Pains
As controversial topics are discussed in the news, it’s important for everyone to remember the fact the NOP is constantly growing and evolving and with that comes challenges, and often changes. At only five years old, this program is young and as it matures we will learn more and more about what works and what could work better. Fortunately, the NOP was designed to adapt as the organic industry grows. As new information is brought to light, evidence can be presented to the NOP and NOSB to amend the rule if warranted.

“Instead of falling into a trap about high and low, we should be asking what have we learned that could be and should be incorporated in the regulation,” said Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation. “Right now the hot topic is access to pasture. There is more information about nutrient delivery then we had years ago and now that we know, we need to address that.”

The NOP is currently investigating this issue and others. However, as issues pop up and challenges are worked through by the NOP and the NOSB, there is bound to be some criticism from the press and other organizations. But this is not always a bad thing.

“This ride of press is going to result eventually with some very eye-opening critique. If anything we should be encouraging the critique,” said Scowcroft. “One of the ways that something gets better is when you open it for peer review. That is what science is about. If a good writer points out a flaw, instead of saying, ‘Oh, this is a terrible story,’ we should assess if it has validity. If it does then acknowledge it and fix it.”

Some processors themselves are taking very proactive steps to ensure that standards are being met, if not exceeded, during these challenging times. For example, as international trade continues to grow, questions have surfaced. These products and ingredients, like their domestic counterparts, must also comply with the requirements of the NOP. However, coordination of inspections and logistics for organic products can be challenging, much like the importation of other goods and services. For added insurance, Stonyfield Farms sent in their own USDA certifier to do an additional organic certification. In addition they also did quality and social audits, which are not required by the NOP. When the results came in they were quite happy, especially with the level to which organic standards were being upheld.

“We’re at the point where organics is this success story and everyone is trying to knock it so you have to be completely bulletproof,” said Nancy Hirshberg, of Stonyfield Farms. “With the controversy in the media we wanted to send in someone for our own peace of mind.”

Earthbound Farms is no stranger to controversy. When their organic spinach was falsely implicated in the E. coli scare last year, they decided to take extra measures to ensure their farms are meeting guidelines. For one, they will soon be implementing random quality checks at all of their farms.

“Not that we don’t trust our farmers, but we want to be extra diligent,” said Samantha Cabaluna, senior manager of communications. “The usual inspections are only once a year and you know when they are coming. There is a big difference between that and knowing that an inspector could come anytime.”

Cabaluna said that if they find discrepancies then the frequency of visits will go up.

Evolution of the NOP
In their letter to Business Week, the executives from Aurora Organic Dairy wrote: “There is not one belief, but many. There is not one organic path, but a multitude of paths. On these paths are many different individuals, farms, companies, legal structures, sizes, geographies and what-have-you. We are all in the boat together, pulling toward the same shore, which is a more sustainable system of food production over the long term.”

This is very a representative statement of the organic world today. Although from person to person, company to company, the community may hold differing views of what organic means, there is one set of standards for everyone to live by and we must stand behind these standards together.

As farmers, food professionals and consumers look to the future of organic food and agriculture, most are confident that the industry will continue to thrive and evolve. And yet questions and concerns will continue to surface as this once grassroots movement encounters new challenges. However, as long as those in the industry remember to always live by the principles upon which the NOP was built and stay true to the standards, organics will continue to grow and thrive.

Mark King is principle of 4 FOOD WORKS, a consulting firm dedicated to the development and implementation of sustainable and verifiable food systems. He can be reached at tmarkking@earthlink.net.

Kathryn Schuett is the editor of Organic Processing Magazine. She can be reached at kat@organicprocessing.com.