Moving Organic Forward: An NOSB Update

By Kevin O’Rell and Kelly Shea


The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) met in Washington, DC, October 12-14, 2004, during the Natural Products Expo East conference and tradeshow. The mission of this 15-member board is to advise the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on the development and revision of standards used to support U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program (NOP) regulation of the National List of substances used in organic production.

The communication and collaboration between the NOSB members and the USDA NOP staff at the meeting were stellar, and the organic community was pleased to see the excellent working relationship developed by the two groups. NOSB and NOP staff covered a lot of ground in just over two days, with a major focus on creating processes and laying groundwork for consistent and defendable decision-making in the future.

At the October meeting, NOSB committees reviewed and discussed several elements of the National List that are of current interest to organic producers, processors/handlers and others involved in the production, manufacture and marketing of certified organic food, fiber and personal care products. These include reviews of the standards pertaining to livestock, crop and handling/processing materials, such as approval of food-contact substances and new inclusions of handling materials to the National List, and discussions involving the clarification of definitions associated with such materials.

The NOP representatives and NOSB members also discussed next-step approaches and activities pertaining to the now-rescinded April 2004 NOP guidance and directive document. They formally commented on the statements made by Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venemen when she rescinded the scope document directives, making it clear that that the NOP will work with NOSB and the organic community to determine the best solutions to the issues raised by the directives. The NOP Scope document released to organic certification agencies stated that the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) would not extend to products over which USDA stated that it had no regulatory authority, including personal care, health care, fertilizers, dietary supplements, pet foods, aquatic animals, and related products. It also stated that some types of agricultural products (such as mushroom, apiculture, greenhouse and hydroponic operations) that are covered by OFPA may need additional standards for their unique production and handling.

Handling Materials
Although there were no actual materials votes taken at the meeting. NOSB Materials Committee Chair, Rose Koenig, briefed the board on the status of petitioned materials, and Arthur Neal of the NOP joined her for a presentation on the status of approved materials. NOP has two Federal Register dockets pending on materials–one for livestock materials and one for crops and processing.

The NOSB presented its work plan for the “sunset provision.” The National List, by statute, provides a sunset provision of five years for substances used in organic production and handling. All materials appearing on the National List, as published in the Federal Register final rule dated Oct. 21, 2002, must be reviewed by Oct. 21, 2007, in order to continue to be permitted for use in organic production. The NOSB and the NOP have agreed on a logistical plan to comply with the statute for reviewing all materials and for public input.

Kevin O’Rell, chair of the Handling Committee, provided an update on materials approved as food contact substances (FCS). The history of this issue is as follows: On Dec. 12, 2002 the NOP issued a policy statement clarifying under what conditions synthetic substances used as ingredients in organic processed food products are subject to review and recommendation by the NOSB. The policy states: “Handlers must include in their organic systems plan a list of all synthetic substances to be used in the production of processed products. Each synthetic substance must be identified as an ingredient or a contact substance. If identified as an ingredient, it needs to be on the National List. Any substance identified as a contact substance must be accompanied by documentation that substantiates the claim.”

Prior to issuance of the policy statement, the NOSB had recommended six handling materials for inclusion on the National List. Those six materials are considered FCS. At the April 2004 NOSB meeting in Chicago, the NOP again acknowledged that FCS are outside the scope of the NOP and the NOSB for materials review. However, due to industry confusion over FCS, the full board voted to accept a handling committee report, which was intended to be an update on materials recognized as FCS. Part of that NOSB report was a recommendation that the six materials, previously approved by the NOSB and considered FCS, be added to the National List. The six materials are: activated carbon, periacetic acid (peroxyacetic acid), and four boiler water additives—ammonium hydroxide, cyclohexlamine, diethylaminoethanol, and octadecylamine. The NOP provided an update, stating that there is a docket in process that contains all remaining processing materials approved by the Board, including these six FCS materials.

The NOSB also is updating the procedures for petitioning materials to the National List and will prepare a Federal Register notice to replace the notice of March 13, 2000. The new notice will further delineate a petitioner’s responsibility in requesting the review of materials for addition to or deletion from the National List. The Materials Committee also is working on defining and clarifying the definitions of “synthetic” and “non-synthetic” materials and processes. Koenig presented a research paper on the issue and the Materials Committee is actively seeking input from the public. The findings will be presented at a future NOSB meeting.

Defining Criteria for Agricultural Products
Also on the Handling Committee’s agenda was the topic of organic yeast and the issue of “agricultural” and “non-agricultural,” as it relates to handling materials. The public is asking for more clarification and guidance for the definition of “agricultural product” and “non-agricultural substance” since these terms are used by the NOSB to review materials for addition to the National List. The NOP final rule requires that a substance used in organic processing or handling be either: organically produced; non-agricultural and appearing on the National List in section 205.605; or agricultural, determined to be not commercially available in organic form, and used as provided in 205.606.

The distinction between whether a substance is agricultural, or whether it must be on the National List as a permitted non-agricultural substance, is subject to the definitions of “agricultural product” and “non-agricultural substance,” as defined in 205.2 of the final rule. Today there are ingredients currently listed as non-agricultural substances in part 205.605 of the National List, such as yeast, flavors and colors, that are being certified organic. In addition, certifying agents are determining that substances are agricultural products, not commercially available as organic, without clear guidelines or consistency.

The NOSB recognizes the need for clarification and for guidelines; they are crucial to provide consistent criteria for certification agencies, as well as for classification of substances on the National List. Some public comments at the Washington, DC, meeting focused specifically on the issue of reclassifying yeast as an agricultural product. At this meeting, it was the recommendation of the Handling Committee that criteria to be used when judging whether a material is non-agricultural or agricultural be developed and that the materials in the category 205.605(a) of the National List be reviewed under the new criteria. The Handling Committee will propose a recommendation for presentation and discussion with the full NOSB at the group’s next meeting in Washington, DC, in March 2005. The Handling Committee will solicit outside input. In forming the recommendation, it should be noted that the Handling Committee intends to interface with the NOSB Materials Committee, which is working on refining and defining “synthetic” and “non-synthetic.”

Pet Food and Aquatics Review
Based on the NOP’s original Scope document directive and the resulting significant public response, pet food standards is another high-priority subject on the Handling Committee’s work plan. The handling committee recognized that there has been industry work done in this area through the Organic Trade Association (OTA) and the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO). The Handling Committee will be charged with accessing and reviewing what has been done in terms of developing pet food standards and seeks input from interested parties. They are preparing to update the full NOSB at the March 2005 NOSB meeting.

There were many comments presented by the public that focused on organic certification of aquatics. Commenters came from as far away as Ireland and Alaska. A taskforce/working group is being assembled by the NOSB Livestock Committee, reviewing both wild caught and farm raised aquaculture and looking into the possible formation of standards. Those interested in being involved are advised to frequently check the NOP website for an announcement of a Federal Register notice. The taskforce will be divided into wild caught and aquaculture participants.

Organic Fiber and Personal Care Addressed
The NOP agreed that they would provide clarification statements in response to the NOSB’s feedback on the organic fiber, personal care and other policy directives that caused so much consternation earlier this spring. Since the time these directives were publicized—and then rescinded—there has been confusion for certifiers and certified entities. The NOP stated they had been awaiting feedback from the NOSB, and had taken no compliance actions with regard to the policies and directives. The NOP was sure that any uncertainties would be resolved through an open, public discussion based on the recommendations and the papers the NOSB drafted. The goal is to make sure there will be no further ambiguity, and that everybody will hear and understand the same thing. The public should keep in mind that in order to affect some of the NOSB recommendations, it may be necessary to enter rule-making. It would behoove every interested party to closely follow this process.

NOP also reported its intention to work with USDA’s personnel service to hire an executive director for the NOSB. NOP will be publishing the ANSI findings, the peer or outside review of the accreditation process, and their response to the outside findings.

The October meeting concluded with the election of NOSB officers for 2005. Those chosen were Jim Riddle, as chair, Kevin O’Rell, as vice chair, and Goldie Caughlin, as secretary.

Kevin R. O’Rell is V.P. of Research & Development and Quality Assurance with Horizon Organic. O’Rell leads all of the company’s activities in organic certification, food safety, regulatory compliance, product formulation and new product development. He serves on the NOSB, is a member of OTA’s Materials, Processing, Packaging and Labeling Committee, and serves an editorial advisor to Organic Processing Magazine. He can be reached at KevinO@horizonorganic.com.

Kelly Shea is Director of Organic Agriculture with Horizon Organic, where she leads the Horizon Organic Agriculture Program, a multi-faceted initiative that sponsors research, lobbies congress, volunteers expertise and provides education for current and future organic partners. She serves on the OMRI Board of Directors and is chair of OTA’s Quality Assurance Council Livestock Committee. She can be reached at KellyS@horizonorganic.com.