NOSB Update: Facing Challenges as the
Organic Industry Heads into the Future

By Jeff Moyer


When the National Organic Program was launched in 2001, no one had even heard of the word “nanotechnology.” They also hadn’t imagined that the market for organic personal care would explode into such a wide array of products (and confusing marketing claims). Lecithin becoming available in an organic form was not really thought possible and certifying restaurants and retailers as organic was not on the radar for most.

While the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) may not have anticipated discussing these topics a few years back, at the last NOSB meeting these issues were very real. The Board debated and heard public comment on these and several other topics ranging from protecting biodiversity in organic farming to requiring third-party peer reviews for the National Organic Program (NOP). Many of the decisions and discussions will have direct relevance to the processing industry and the organic community as a whole.

As the organic industry develops commercially, it has become increasingly more difficult to find a balance between the protection of the integrity of the “O word” and the desire for the industry to grow and expand into new product areas. Through all of this, the NOSB is working to tighten the organic standard in an effort to help strike that balance and foster the growth of the industry we all have worked hard to create.

Making Your Voice Heard. An important part of this is your voice—the input from the organic community of producers, processors, handlers and consumers. At the last meeting, between written comments and public testimony, well over 400 voices rose up to cheer on or set the Board straight on a variety of issues. Meetings only happen only twice a year, so don’t miss the opportunity to make your opinion known.

What is Nanotechnology and What Does It Have to Do with Organic?
As the NOSB discovered at its spring meeting, there really is no simple answer to this question, especially when trying to determine how this new and increasingly pervasive technology fits or doesn’t fit into an organic system.

Nanotechnology is a science with many different definitions. Some of these definitions deal with particle size or formation of the particles, while others focus on end use. By its very nature, the technology is hard to define.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) says that something is “nanotechnology” only if it involves all of the following:

• Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular, or macromolecular level, in the length scale of approximately 1-100 nanometer (nm) range,

• Creating and using structures, devices, and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small or intermediate size, and

• Ability to control or manipulate on the atomic scale.

Nanotechnology is in use today and has many possible future applications. You can already find it in coatings for eyeglasses, food packaging to improve gas barrier properties and ingredients in foods to improve nutritional benefits, antibacterial properties, and improved mouthfeel. They are also being used in personal health care and clothing as well as in industrial settings in material coatings and paints.

Possible future uses of nanotechnology include altering bioavailability of nutrients and targeted delivery of nutrients, nanosensors to provide improved sensitivity and speed for chemical and biological analysis, and packaging materials that detect and communicate changes in food quality and safety.

The development and use of nanotechnology creates unique safety and regulatory questions because below 100 nm, particles have the potential to behave differently than larger-sized particles. They may be more reactive, conductive, and stronger than larger particles of the same material. Concern for these changes include, but are not limited to, changes in intake via dermal, respiratory or oral routes; the ability of the particle to cross biological membranes of individual cells and potentially the blood-brain barrier; increased occupational exposure regarding worker safety; increased risk to the environment via multiple pathways of entry during manufacturing, transport, use or disposal, and decreases in the rate of biodegradation.

These same changes offer great potential advantages in other areas, including but not limited to medicine and food safety. In the future, it is likely that some product of nanotechnology could be required by law to be added to some types of food products.

There is no mention of nanotechnology in the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as amended, nor in the National Organic Program (NOP) Rule. The Rule does prohibit Excluded Methods, which are defined as:

“[a] variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the position of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization or tissue culture” (§205.2).

Excluded methods are prohibited in substances and ingredients in organic production and handling for products to be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic”, “organic”, or “made with organic…” (§205.105(e)). However, under the current definition, most nanotechnology would not fall into the category of excluded methods becasue that type of tecnology was not addressed when the rule was written. It will require action from the board to specifically include nanotechnology on the list of excluded methods.

As an example of possible options in dealing with nanotechnology, the Materials Committee has found these references (via Organic Trade Association research):

• The Soil Association bans human-made nano-materials from organic cosmetics, foods and textiles.

• In Australia, the proposal states that only nano-free products may carry organic certification.

• In the U.S., at least one certifier has a statement in its policy
manual to regulate the use of nanotechnology particles.

The vast majority of public comments made in response to the Materials Committee’s discussion document about nanotechnology opposed the use of nanotechnology in organic production. Many cited the unknown effects of nanotechnology on human and environmental health as a primary factor in their opposition to its use and advised NOSB to apply the precautionary principle to nanotechnology and avoid its use until more information is available.

The Dizzying Debate on Organic Personal Care
As the organic industry grows in size, it also grows in complexity. Back in 2005, the USDA extended NOP regulations to cover the organic claims made by cosmetic/personal care products that meet the composition requirements for organic food. These products that carry the USDA seal are held to the full regulation and enforcement of the NOP. Today, there are several personal care products sporting the USDA organic label in the marketplace.

However, there are also several other non-USDA-governed organic personal care labels and claims on the market, some of which have no third-party verification system at all. Because the word “organic” is not regulated in personal care like it is in food, consumers are not assured that organic claims are consistently reviewed and applied to this product class. Manufacturers of personal care products that contain organic ingredients are hindered by a thicket of competing private standards and confusion regarding the applicability of the NOP to their products. Transactions lack the regulatory clarity that applies under the NOP to food products that contain organic ingredients. This brings up the question: should we have a separate standard for organic personal care. If not, what other options are there?

To address this issue and assure consumers and businesses alike that the products have an unquestioned home in the USDA National Organic Program, the NOSB discussed a recommendation that would take the initial steps toward: 1) assuring consumers that the federal government is policing these claims, and 2) allowing for the development of a complete federal organic cosmetic program.

A wide range of opinions were voiced in response to the discussion document on personal care that was presented. Some members of the organic community expressed appreciation for NOSB’s efforts to tackle the issue of personal care and encouraged the Board to develop a recommendation that could be used by NOP to formulate an official organic standard for personal care products. Others opposed NOSB’s efforts to become involved in regulating this sector and suggested the job would better be left to those in the cosmetics industry. Still others proposed that the NOSB recommend modifying and/or adopting existing personal care standards (such as the new “Made with Organic” standard developed by NSF) rather than developing entirely new ones.

Materials Review—Lecithin Is Off the List
In addition to the discussion on major topics like nanotechnology and personal care, there was also a historical event in the realm of minor ingredients. For the first time ever, the board agreed to a recommendation to remove a significant item from the National List of synthetic materials allowed in organic processing: lecithin.

When the National List was made, the idea of organic lecithin was unimaginable because of conventional lecithin’s synthetic processing method. Thus, nonorganic bleached lecithin was put on the National List under allowed synthetics, section §205.605(b).

But, through innovation and a desire to provide a truly organic option, organic lecithin has been developed and the manufacturer, Lynn Clarkson of Clarkson Grain, petitioned to have the nonorganic, synthetic version removed from the List. After reviewing this petition and hearing public comment, the NOSB removed bleached lecithin from the section §205.605(b) of the National List. At the same time, the board also recommended that the annotation for lecithin under section §205.606(o) be changed from “lecithin – unbleached” to read “lecithin – de-oiled.”

This may seem trivial or confusing, but these are giant steps for the crop and food processing industries and for the organic community in terms of demonstrating the maturity of our program. We now have a proven process for adding materials to the List and one for removing materials from the List once organic sources are shown to be available in the proper form and function as the synthetic material already on the List.

Voluntary Retail Certification
Another issue the board discussed was how to best go about certifying retailers such as stores and restaurants. Historically, retailers have been exempt from organic certification. As such, there has been no guidance regarding requirements retailers must meet to become certified. In order to prove their authenticity, retailers such as Whole Foods and restaurants such as Organic To Go and Pizza Fusion voluntarily sought certification as processors and handlers, for whom certification requirements are defined.

Since 2002, voluntary retail certification has sometimes been applied using a multi-site construct for retailers with several sites. This construct allowed such retailers to develop and implement an Internal Control System (ICS) that was centrally managed and executed at all of the sites.

In the fall of 2008, voluntarily certified organic retailers were notified by their certifiers that they were out of compliance and that inspection of all retail sites must be implemented immediately. Retailers reacted strongly to this information, given the time and costs associated with achieving this kind of inspection. NOP responded to retailers’ concerns by issuing an extension and granting them additional time to become compliant. Nonetheless, many retailers have chosen not to pursue organic certification to avoid both the time and money needed to achieve it and the threats posed by noncompliance.

As a means to support and promote retailers’ pursuit of voluntary certification, NOSB’s Compliance, Accreditation, and Certification Committee has identified the need to create consistent guidelines and regulations specific to this sector. From its perspective, such structure “will help sustain more participation in the voluntary retailer certification program, and will support marketing the end message of USDA organic to the consumer.” The Committee hopes to have a recommendation on retail certification to present at the November 2009 NOSB meeting.

Other Issues
The Board tackled many other issues in addition to the ones above. One of these was to recommend that that the NOP receive regular peer reviews by outside agencies such as the American National Standards Institute. This would help the NOP improve its accreditation programs.

In addition, the importance of biodiversity was discussed. Maintaining and improving biodiversity has long been a priority of the organic agricultural system. However, it has always been unclear exactly how biodiversity should be integrated into and implemented into organic systems plans. In order to help define this area better, the NOSB unanimously approved recommending a revised guidance document on biodiversity.

Certification of bivalves as part of an inclusive aquaculture standard and the use of methionine feed for chickens were also discussed. A number of other materials were petitioned to be on the List as well. You can find out more about these topics at www.ams.usda.gov.

The Challenges Will Continue, But Maintaining Integrity Is Everything
The organic industry will always have some new challenge to face. One of these could be legislation on food safety. To date, over a dozen food safety bills have been introduced in Congress. From traceability to FDA/USDA reorganization, these pieces of legislation take various approaches to reforming the food system. In the weeks leading up to the NOSB meeting, there was a great deal of misinformation circulating about the impact that some of these bills would have on the organic industry. Many advocacy organizations with connections to the organic community joined these conversations to assure their members that the leading bills will not put an end to the organic industry, as some critics claimed.

That’s not to say that there isn’t important food-safety work to do. Organic certification is not, nor is it intended to be, a substitute for compliance with the letter and the spirit of Good Agricultural Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices to ensure the safe food standards consumers have every right to expect.

As an industry, we have seen serious issues of fraud exposed over the past several months, pointing out the need for continued vigilance. We all have a role to play in protecting the brand value of the word organic. Reinforcing and improving consumer confidence in the organic food industry is paramount.

In light of all this, our industry continues to shine as a beacon of light in an otherwise failing food system. Data from research around the country now proves conclusively that organic production systems not only produce high-quality food products, but through carbon sequestration, can have a positive impact on climate change as well.

As we go into the future, it takes all our voices—heard at the NOSB meetings, heard today in our businesses and heard tomorrow by new audiences—to make this industry strong and credible to consumers.

Jeff Moyer is farm director at the Rodale Institute (www.rodaleinst.org) and the 2009 chair of the USDA’s National Organic Standards Board. He can be reached at jeff.moyer@rodaleinst.org.