Commentary by Mark A. Kastel
The meeting was opened by Dr. Jennifer Tucker, Deputy Administrator of the National Organic Program.
The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as passed by Congress, instructs the USDA Secretary to create a 15-member expert advisory panel with seats specifically designated for various industry constituencies (farmers, consumers, environmental scientist, certifiers, handlers, etc.).
The board meeting this week in Omaha is comprised of only 10 members — with specific constituencies either underrepresented or lacking any representation. That is not what the law intended. Any votes/business conducted during this meeting could very well be challenged in court.
Dr. Tucker reported that the NOP had reviewed applications and made recommendations for new NOSB members, but their recommendations had not been acted upon yet by the political appointees running the USDA.
Top import (by dollar volume): beef, primarily from Australia and Uruguay. Investigations into Uruguay found problems with “origin of livestock” (meaning that exporters were using conventional calves).
Twenty suspects identified in the “Black Sea region” which has been responsible for many past scandals. Testing taking place in West Africa. Problems with fumigant’s detected in imports of fresh produce from Central and South America, as well as continuing problems with Mexico.
Dr. Tucker outlined a close collaboration with one particular software company, Wolf and Associates, one of the largest and most prominent corporate agribusiness consultants in the organic industry, and the Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA), a trade group representing certification businesses.
Personally, I don’t think this sounds kosher. The law governing organics, the Organic Foods Production Act, mandates that the USDA Secretary consult with the NOSB in implementing regulatory oversight. But they were bypassed in the final process. And instead of issuing a “request for proposal” and taking competitive bids gauging qualifications and costs, the NOP just took it upon themselves to select a winner. They are encouraging all certifiers to adopt this new software/form.
Let’s hope it works out but this didn’t sound like it followed proper procedure.
OrganicEye has suggested less frequent inspections and the redirection of those funds to senior auditors and forensic accountants to do serious, unannounced investigations. So far that has not gained traction. Instead, the proposals are just to decrease the amount of scrutiny, which could create a whole new problem in itself. There was a lot of discussion about the discretion and definition of risk that the certifiers will now oversee in dealing with their “clients.”
Both representatives of the Organic Trade Association, a lobbying group representing agribusinesses, and one of their key members, the CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), suggested it would be hard to enforce the requirement that information, currently mandated by law to appear on organic packaging, be displayed on web pages.
They created a bit of a smokescreen regarding whether or not a retailer, brick-and-mortar or online, is exempt from certification (because they just sell products in packages rather than doing any processing themselves). However, this is not germane to the question of requiring the required disclaimers online. Neither is it the responsibility of the manufacturer if an online retailer does not comply with the regulations.
The proposal brought forth by OrganicEye has otherwise received universal support. And there was an abundance of testimony supporting its adoption as a formal regulation, as we recommended, rather than as a guidance that is not enforceable.
The meeting was opened by Dr. Jennifer Tucker, Deputy Administrator of the National Organic Program.
Legality of Meeting
Dr. Tucker claimed that the meeting was being legally conducted because the requirements for a “quorum” have been met. However, that’s a different subject entirely from whether the board itself is legally constituted.The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, as passed by Congress, instructs the USDA Secretary to create a 15-member expert advisory panel with seats specifically designated for various industry constituencies (farmers, consumers, environmental scientist, certifiers, handlers, etc.).
The board meeting this week in Omaha is comprised of only 10 members — with specific constituencies either underrepresented or lacking any representation. That is not what the law intended. Any votes/business conducted during this meeting could very well be challenged in court.
Dr. Tucker reported that the NOP had reviewed applications and made recommendations for new NOSB members, but their recommendations had not been acted upon yet by the political appointees running the USDA.
Investigating Import Fraud
Interdicted $1.5 million worth of allegedly fraudulent imports (12 shiploads), in addition to soybeans, a frequently fraudulent import; problems associated with oilseeds, herbs, and plant-based protein.Top import (by dollar volume): beef, primarily from Australia and Uruguay. Investigations into Uruguay found problems with “origin of livestock” (meaning that exporters were using conventional calves).
Twenty suspects identified in the “Black Sea region” which has been responsible for many past scandals. Testing taking place in West Africa. Problems with fumigant’s detected in imports of fresh produce from Central and South America, as well as continuing problems with Mexico.
A Standardized Organic Systems Plan
Dr. Tucker presented a comprehensive overview of the department’s effort to come up with a common organic systems plan (OSP), a form used by farmers to articulate their management practices in initial and/or annual reports to their certifiers. Historically, every certifier has had its own forms.Dr. Tucker outlined a close collaboration with one particular software company, Wolf and Associates, one of the largest and most prominent corporate agribusiness consultants in the organic industry, and the Accredited Certifiers Association (ACA), a trade group representing certification businesses.
Personally, I don’t think this sounds kosher. The law governing organics, the Organic Foods Production Act, mandates that the USDA Secretary consult with the NOSB in implementing regulatory oversight. But they were bypassed in the final process. And instead of issuing a “request for proposal” and taking competitive bids gauging qualifications and costs, the NOP just took it upon themselves to select a winner. They are encouraging all certifiers to adopt this new software/form.
Let’s hope it works out but this didn’t sound like it followed proper procedure.
Risk-Based Certification
There’s quite a discussion about how to dumb down the annual certification process. This has become a common point of discussion since the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) went into effect, attempting to crackdown on import fraud. It’s made annual certification much more expensive for small and medium-sized domestic farmers who have been caught in the USDA dragnet. There’s also been a shortage of qualified organic inspectors.OrganicEye has suggested less frequent inspections and the redirection of those funds to senior auditors and forensic accountants to do serious, unannounced investigations. So far that has not gained traction. Instead, the proposals are just to decrease the amount of scrutiny, which could create a whole new problem in itself. There was a lot of discussion about the discretion and definition of risk that the certifiers will now oversee in dealing with their “clients.”
Public Comments
E-Commerce Required Organic LabelingBoth representatives of the Organic Trade Association, a lobbying group representing agribusinesses, and one of their key members, the CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), suggested it would be hard to enforce the requirement that information, currently mandated by law to appear on organic packaging, be displayed on web pages.
They created a bit of a smokescreen regarding whether or not a retailer, brick-and-mortar or online, is exempt from certification (because they just sell products in packages rather than doing any processing themselves). However, this is not germane to the question of requiring the required disclaimers online. Neither is it the responsibility of the manufacturer if an online retailer does not comply with the regulations.
The proposal brought forth by OrganicEye has otherwise received universal support. And there was an abundance of testimony supporting its adoption as a formal regulation, as we recommended, rather than as a guidance that is not enforceable.