Leading the National Organic Program
into the Next Phase of Growth

An Interview with Miles McEvoy, the New Deputy Administrator
of the USDA National Organic Program


Since the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) was passed in 1990, organic has become the fastest growing segment in the food industry with sales increasing at double-digit rates year after year—taking it from $1 billion in 1990 to a projected $23.6 billion in 2009. Although the industry has grown exponentially, the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), which accredits organic certifiers and enforces the organic standards, has lacked the resources to fully keep up with this growth.

But a new day for the NOP is here and changes are on the way.

Organically grown agricultural products are of key interest to the Obama administration, and the NOP will be receiving increased funding and staffing in the new fiscal year. Thanks to this funding—and the support of a new group of forward-thinking USDA leaders such Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture, and Kathleen Merrigan, deputy secretary—the NOP will be expanding to better meet the needs of the organic industry.

The biggest change is that the NOP is now officially an independent program within the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Prior to this, the NOP was one of many small programs packed into one division of the AMS. Leading this new bigger and better program is Miles McEvoy, the new deputy administrator of NOP.

McEvoy has worked in the field of organic agriculture for more than two decades, spending most of those years as the head of the Washington State Department of Agriculture’s (WSDA) Organic Food Program, one of the nation’s first state organic certification programs. In 2001, he helped establish the WSDA Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program. In addition to this, from 1993 to 1995, McEvoy helped found and direct The Food Alliance, a program that includes sustainable farming practices and social welfare components. McEvoy helped establish the National Association of State Organic Programs (NASOP) in 1998 and served as its president until taking the NOP position. He also assisted the Montana Department of Agriculture in developing the state’s organic certification program and has been helping the Oregon Department of Agriculture establish its own organic certification program.

After relocating to Washington D.C, McEvoy took time during the first week in his new position to chat with Organic Processing Magazine and express his priorities and hopes for the NOP.

OP: As the new—and first ever—deputy administrator of the NOP, what do you think are the most pressing issues for the program to address?

McEvoy: While I am still in the process of assessing the program and developing a plan for the upcoming year, the first priority I see for the program is to complete the Access to Pasture rule. We intend to have the final rule published by the end of the year. In addition to this, we will be looking at all of the NOSB recommendations and start taking action on those as well.

Another top priority is to develop a staffing plan and a budget and get people in here to get the work done! I was very surprised at how few people there are here in the NOP—just 15 staff members—to deal with a host of issues including complaints, enforcement, accreditation, audits, standards, the NOSB, cost share programs, state organic programs, equivalency and recognition agreements, the National List, and guidance and interpretation of NOP. We receive so many questions every day on interpretations of the regulations alone that there just simply is not enough time or people to get the work done. However, the 2010 budget should enable the program to hire a number of new staff to handle the current workload, improve the program’s ability to protect organic integrity and implement a new strategic plan for the NOP.

Part of this plan is to look at quality system improvements for the NOP. This includes responding to the Office of Inspector General’s findings and undergoing a third-party audit by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to help us see where the system can improve. One key step in improving the system is to create a guidance manual to help clarify the standards. This will not only provide more guidance to certifiers that are actually doing the inspections and certifications, but it also will give guidance to producers and handlers to help them be more successful in terms of meeting the requirements of the NOP. In addition to this, we’ll also be doing increased training sessions for accredited certifiers.

Market access is another important issue. There is going to need to be continual work to make sure that the U.S.-Canada equivalency agreement is running smoothly. There are many requests from other countries looking for equivalency as well, but first we need to make sure that our existing recognition agreements are being implemented in compliance with the NOP regulations.

To create consistency within the NOP throughout the world, we will publish guidance documents that are aligned with the NOP as well as improve the information and usability of the NOP website. This is urgent, and we plan on taking care of this within the next couple of months.

OP: What do you see as the largest opportunities for the organic industry as we head into the future?

McEvoy: One opportunity is to have the NOP start collaborating more with other organic groups including the NOSB, Organic Trade Association, National Organic Coalition, NASOP, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Organic Consumers Association and the Accredited Certifiers Association. My intent is to work closely with these various interest groups. I believe that better communication and more transparency in regard to the process the NOP goes through to publish guidance will help reduce the kind of divisiveness we’ve seen at times within the organic community.

There is a great opportunity to build on the success that the industry already has, and build on the benefits of organic agriculture. My hope is that the industry can come together around the principles of organic agriculture and that all the various interest groups within the organic community can get more aligned in terms of the principles.

OP: Now that the NOP is an independent program within AMS, how will that improve oversight integrity and services?

McEvoy: It’s certainly raised the profile of the program. We now have a full program within AMS and I am one of 10 deputy administrators. This means better access to the AMS administrator and the other political appointments within USDA. It also provides better access to other resources within the AMS including public affairs, science and technology, compliance and information technology. Overall, it gives a higher visibility and access to resources that the NOP didn’t have in the past.

OP: How will increased funding and staffing in the new fiscal year be used to increase services and improve the NOP?

McEvoy: We’re in the process of developing a staffing plan for the program and each of the branch chiefs are developing a staffing plan for their needs. I’ll be working with them to develop an overall plan for the program within the next few weeks. Funding for 2010 is expected to be $6.7 million, a $2.8 million increase from last year. This will enable the program to implement many projects which in the past have not been done because there just have not been enough people to do the work. I saw something the other day that said we had over 2,000 inquiries last year. Most are just questions about the regulations and many are fairly straightforward but it still takes time to answer those questions.

OP: Are there particular insights or experience gained in your 20 years working with the WSDA, as well as helping develop organic programs in Montana and Oregon, that you feel will help you guide the NOP?

McEvoy: One of the advantages of spending so much time working with a certifier is that I have a wide range of experience on the ground level in everything from inspecting organic handling operations and developing standards to compliance and enforcement.

Over the years, I have conducted hundreds of inspections and investigations first hand. I helped set up certification programs in both Oregon and Montana, and performed internal audits for the Montana Department of Agriculture. But I also know the other side of the auditing process as well; WSDA was audited by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS) and USDA auditors.

I have a good understanding of what the challenges are for the organic industry. From what I have seen, most producers and processors are working really hard to meet the requirements of the NOP. Most of the time when there is a non-compliance it’s not because they’re trying to cheat the system, but because they don’t understand the standard. We need to do a better job of providing clear information to producers and handlers so they can be successful.

On the other hand, I’ve also seen fraudulent operations. It’s very rare but these operations need to be held accountable and removed from the organic market.

OP: When we interviewed Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan, she said one of the big goals was to integrate the values of organic and sustainability throughout the entire USDA. How do you see this coming to life?

McEvoy: First, it’s important for the other branches of the USDA to develop better understanding of organic agriculture and our mission. This is something we are working on. Through better understanding, we will be able to take advantage of more resources within the USDA.

For example, we are looking into ways to increase market surveillance of organic labels that are being sold in the marketplace. We don’t have the resources to do much surveillance with our 15 staff members here but there are USDA inspectors all over the country. If we can have a cooperative agreement with some of these other programs, we could utilize those inspectors to help the NOP have more of a presence.

OP: You also used to work closely with The Food Alliance, which is a program of environmental and social guidelines that go beyond what the NOP requires. Do you feel that more environmental and social issues need to be addressed by the NOP?

McEvoy: The initial concept of The Food Alliance was to ensure food operations benefited farmers economically and were environmentally sound and socially just—but it is not a strictly organic program and doesn’t prohibit synthetic inputs. Other programs such as fair trade have social components, and these labels can complement the organic label quite well. The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) did not include social standards, however, and thus it’s something that would not be a component of the NOP unless the statute was changed. IFOAM is trying to address social issues through its work, but it’s certainly not a part of the NOP at this point.

OP: Looking to the future, what do you see as the goals of NOP?

McEvoy: Short-term goals are to publish the Access to Pasture Final Rule, develop a strategic plan for the program that meets the expectations of the organic community and hire additional staff to put the plan into action.

One of the long-term goals is to expand the oversight of the organic label and the organic industry. We plan to implement a complex and robust program to protect organic integrity including more unannounced inspections, sampling and market surveillance—three things not happening much at the current time. We want to get input from the organic community as we develop this strategic plan and implement the program.

OP: So how can those in the organic industry help achieve these goals?

McEvoy: Most importantly, the organic community needs to continue to be active. Providing input to the NOP is essential. In addition to this, it would be helpful if various organic interest groups could learn to work together and get on the same page so we can reduce divisiveness. I really believe people in the organic community agree to the same general principles around organic agriculture. I think one of the biggest frustrations to all these groups has been that the NOP has moved relatively slowly. This is due in large part to the fact that it hasn’t had enough people to do the work. However, we will soon publish the Access to Pasture Final Rule and start enforcing the pasture provisions. In addition, we will also begin to take action on other NOSB recommendations and respond to the findings from the Office of Inspector General and the National Institute of Standards and Technology audits. My hope is that all these things will give more confidence to the consumer about the integrity of organic products.

OP: What is the best way for the organic industry to share its input?

McEvoy: One way is to take advantage of public comment opportunities at the two NOSB meetings each year. In the past, these meetings have been held in Washington D.C. However, one of the things we’re planning to do is move the NOSB meetings around the country to ensure that people in different regions have a better opportunity to come to a meeting to submit their comments.

Besides the NOSB meetings, comments can also be emailed to me at Miles.Mcevoy@ams.usda.gov. I am thrilled and honored to be leading the National Organic Program and I look forward to working with everyone in the organic community—farmers, ranchers, processors, marketers, farm input supply companies, certifiers, activists, retailers and consumers.