Farm Bill

Food Safety

GE & Cloning

Pests & Pesticides

Regulatory Agencies

Take Action

Custom Search

USDA/NOP/NOSB/SOP

Regulatory Bodies: CCOF works with a number of regulatory agencies on the federal, state and local levels, both as a certifier and as a trade association. Among other things, CCOF provides comments on proposed rules, testifies at hearings and standards committee meetings, and works with legislative staff on proposed legislation.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture)
The National Organic Program (NOP) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the official regulatory and enforcement agency for organic agriculture, food and other products.

Consistent with CCOF’s history, CCOF remains committed to working with the NOP to ensure organic food and agriculture maintains the highest standards and consumer confidence possible. CCOF actively engages the NOP on a variety of issues ranging from standards interpretation to protection of organic consumer expectations and addressing drift issues. Please support CCOF to help continue our vital work.

National Organic Program (NOP)
On the NOP website, CCOF clients and the public can obtain a wide variety of information. Some sections of the website highly recommended to CCOF certified clients are:

NOP Policies and News Updates
Labeling guidelines
Frequently Asked Questions
Accreditation
Appeals Process
State Organic Program Approval Procedures
Export Arrangements
Contact Information
Background and History
Upcoming Events

Clients can also view the final rule text, and download the rule in Spanish and Japanese.

Read the National Standards on Organic Agricultural Production and Handling
View Final Regulations in Japanese
View Final Regulations in Spanish
View the Final Rule Fact Sheets in English and Spanish
Commercial Availability Comments

The National List of Materials is also available on the NOP website, as is the petitioning process for adding materials to the list.
Back to top

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB)
The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is comprised of 15 members who advise the US Secretary of Agriculture and USDA on implementation of the National Organic Program. They are hugely influential and are responsible for review of new materials petitions, many organic standards interpretations, and recommendations on development of new organic standards. However, recommendations by the NOSB are not official policy until they are approved by the National Organic Program.

CCOF has been very active in monitoring NOSB meetings and providing commentary reflecting the needs to organic agriculture, consumers and organic processors. Your support helps keep organic standards strong.

Recent NOSB Agenda Items
(November - December 2011) The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) fall meeting as held at the Hilton Savannah DeSoto in Savannah, Georgia.

Some of the issues that the NOSB considered were reports from working groups as well as recommendations on issues such as:

Petitioned materials, including odorized propane for use in rodent control (see below)
Sunset 2013 recommendations, including copper sulfate and inert substances that are included in the EPA's list of inerts
Animal welfare stocking rates
GMO vaccines in Section 205.603

Propane Petition
In 2010, CCOF submitted a petition to the National Organic Program to add propane to the National List for use in rodent control devices. The petition lost a narrow vote by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) at its fall meeting (see above). The Technical Evaluation Report for the propane petition is now available in the Petitioned Substances Database, reached through the NOSB website.

(April 2011) CCOF communicated with our members and supporting members in March, 2011 about the NOSB agenda for the meeting which was scheduled for April, because there were specific issues that we encouraged you to comment on, including many of the sunset items that were deferred from the October 2010 NOSB meeting.

Included on the agenda was one important item for CCOF members to consider:

1) Consideration of whether to recommend the continued allowance of Sodium (Chilean) Nitrate in organic production.

Since both of these issues are important to our members, we provided you with background information and tips to ensure your voice was heard. CCOF will not take a position on either petition, but we encouraged you to comment directly to the NOSB if the issue is important to you.

View the recommendations on whether or not to allow the use of Sodium (Chilean) Nitrate in organic production.

View talking points on Sodium (Chilean) Nitrate.

If you have questions on the Sodium (Chilean) Nitrate issue, you can email Zea Sonnabend, organic inspector and CCOF Policy Specialist, at zea@ccof.org.

You can also sign up to receive The NOP Organic Insider newsletter. This publication by the National Organic Program, will notify interested persons when the NOSB agenda is posted, when the comment period is open, when final recommendations are posted, as well as a other interesting information about the NOP and the NOSB. You can set up your profile to just request information on the NOSB meetings if you don't want other NOP news, by simply checking the box "NOSB Meetings and Recommendations."

(October 2010) The fall 2010 meeting of NOSB was held on October 25-28 in Madison Wisconsin. The full agenda can be found on the NOSB website.

CCOF senior staff attended the meeting in October and made verbal comments at the meeting. The following is CCOF's summary of the October meeting.

The October 25-28, 2010 National Organic Standards Board could have been nicknamed “is it or isn’t it?” The extensive agenda which included many sunset items also contained 4 issues that challenged members to delve into the history and intent of the Organic Food Production Act and the National Organic Program rule to determine:

if something was synthetic or not;
if a product was commercially available or not;
if outdoors means dirt or not; or
if eggs produced by tens of thousands of hens in one large confined space are really organic.

There were several positive recommendations from the meeting, including the decision to require organic yeast in food products when available, recognizing the emerging availability of organic hops and requiring its exclusive use in beer making by 2013, and the re-listing of numerous materials essential to organic production and handling. However, controversies surrounding several key issues will continue to plague the organic industry and the development of more effective pest control, crop fertility, and processing tools.

The 4-day meeting included 2 full days of public testimony, from hop growers who were pleased to see the Board change its mind and vote to remove non-organic hops from the list of approved inputs; egg producers who talked about how well-cared for their animals are; certifiers, chemists, reviewers and manufacturers who tried to help the Board figure out whether or not Corn Steep Liquor is a synthetic ; and many poultry producers who discussed the nature of access and what defined outdoors.

The board heard from many organizations that nanoengineered substances (nanotechnology) should simply be prohibited under the NOP rule. There was much discussion between the Board and public commenters about the recommendation, which didn’t go as far as an outright prohibition, but created what the Board referred to as “a wall with a locked door.” Their recommendation was to list it as a synthetic and require each manufacturer of a nanoengineered product petition for its use. Most consumer organizations and many others demanded the Board simply prohibit the use of any nanoengineered product outright. Despite procedural issues that were complicated, the Board voted to classify nanoengineered products used in production, processing, and packaging as synthetic, and therefore prohibited under the NOP rule.

Corn Steep Liquor discussions won the prize for being the most complicated and technical, with many commenters talking about during which part of the process of making CSL broke sulfide bonds. Commenters used several analogies to try to explain a very technical chemical process to the lay members of the Board (and the audience), and there was disagreement whether CSL was a by-product of food processing that was being recycled into another value-added use, or was a product in itself. The controversy over this substance continued through the voting when the committee that brought the recommendation forward withdrew it, because of internal disagreements about how to proceed. There was a board-level procedural process during the vote on a related product, corn starch, that caused more than an hour of lively discussion on parliamentary procedure. The end result is that the NOSB will have Corn Steep Liquor on its agenda again next spring.

Read CCOF's written comments.

(April 2010) The spring 2010 meeting of NOSB was held on April 26-29 in Woodland, California. The meeting focused on many crucial issues. The agenda for the meeting included several items that are of specific interest to CCOF certified members. The full agenda can be found on the NOSB website.

CCOF prepared written and verbal comments for this meeting. Read CCOF’s comments on the April 26-29, 2010, NOSB agenda.

Read more about the meeting, including decisions and recommendations, as well as a review of the Deputy Administrator’s report on the National Organic Program.

Pasture Rule Update

(May 2010) On February 12, 2010, the National Organic Program (NOP) published the long awaited “Pasture Rule." With input from a large number of interested parties and over 26,000 comments submitted to NOP, the final version had the support of the three regional Organic Dairy Producers Associations and has seen an overall enthusiastically positive response from all sectors of the community, including producers, processors, watchdog groups, and consumers. Read CCOF's comments on the livestock rule.

CCOF has developed new resources, guidance documents, and worksheets to help producers demonstrate compliance with these new requirements. Read More.

USDA NOP Proposed Rule for Access To Pasture (Livestock)
In late October, 2008, the USDA announced its proposed Rule for access to Pasture (Livestock) and solicited comments through the Federal rulemaking process. The open comment period on the proposed Rule, which ended December 23, 2008, is one of the greatest opportunities to influence organic standards since the original rule was published in 2002. You can read the proposed rule here National Organic Program -- Access to Pasture (Livestock); Proposed Rule.

CCOF staff members Robin Allan, Grower and Livestock Certification Supervisor, and Elizabeth Whitlow, Regional Service Representative (RSR) represented CCOF in our effort to analyze, interpret and comment on the proposed rules. To inform our positions and comments on this proposed rule, CCOF met with its Livestock Committee, other members, certifiers and a variety of organizations to fully explore the potential positive and negative effects of this major change to the organic rule. CCOF’s work helped members and many others in the livestock communities gain a better understanding of the implications of the proposed rule change. A partial list of CCOF’s activities includes:

Participated in Organic Trade Association (OTA) and Accredited Certifier Association (ACA) taskforces.
Attended the National Organic Coalition (NOC) meeting on the proposed rule in Washington DC
Testified at the USDA listening session in Chico, California, on December 5, 2008. There is a transcript from this session to be available on the NOP website.
Met with USDA, Resource Conservation Districts, NRCS, the local water boards, and County Agricultural Commissioners in Two Rock, CA.
Met with or spoke to a wide variety of CCOF and non-CCOF certified organic dairy producers in a wide variety of regions. In the North Coast meetings were attended to help producers understand the rules and support their comments. These efforts led to engagement with Congress Representatives Woolsey and Pelosi, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, and California Legislators Huffman and Leno.
Spoke with numerous CCOF certified beef producers.

CCOF Comments on Livestock Rule
Read CCOF’s comments to the National Organic Program -- Access to Pasture (Livestock); Proposed Rule
Because of CCOF’s work, CCOF members and the many others in the dairy and livestock communities gained a much better understanding of the implications of the proposed rule change. Although many California producers initially felt the rule was fine, once CCOF staff did their excellent outreach, producers had a better understanding of the rule changes, allowing them to develop their own well-written and compelling response to the proposed regulations.

CCOF’s comments on the proposed organic livestock rule began with the recognition that organic consumer expectations are vital to the success of the organic market place. Organic consumers expect and deserve a pasture-based management system. We strongly commend and support the NOP’s efforts in crafting the rule, and despite many specific objections or recommendations for change, we endorse the thinking behind the NOP’s efforts. CCOF submitted written comments pointing out that some of the proposed changes to the rule :

Contradict the intent of the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA);
Conflict with other agency requirements (either federal or state);
Are overly prescriptive and will be too burdensome or unrealistic to enforce;
Do not related to pasture and should be handled through another rulemaking process.

We focused our comments on the certifier’s perspective, on how to enforce the rule, and asked “Will this proposed rule give CCOF the tools that we need to draw the line between compliant and non-compliant operations? Will this proposed rule allow CCOF to take action against non-compliant operations, and will that action stand up to any legal challenge?”

Fundamentally, CCOF supports strong and enforceable livestock standards. In the process of reviewing this proposed rule, CCOF became concerned about a number of areas that could negatively affect small operations, as well as areas that lack a sufficient enforcement mechanism to meet the rule’s stated intentions. We realized that while certain aspects of the proposed rule were popular with some groups, they did not provide a sufficient tool for addressing problems or shortcomings in grazing practices. CCOF worked hard in its comments to ensure a level playing field that does not unduly burden the small farmer with complex record keeping and that provides certifiers with effective mechanisms for identifying and addressing shortcomings among so called “bad actors." For more information about CCOF’s activities related to access to pasture and grazing practices, read about our Unannounced Livestock Compliance Initiative.

Highlights from our comments include:

CCOF did not support the proposed 30% DMI requirement; instead, we proposed alternative language that will result in better results where they are most needed.
Clarify “livestock feed” definition so that a producer of an organic livestock operation must provide livestock with a total feed ration composed of agricultural products, including pasture and forage, that are organically produced, with specific exceptions (read full comments for these).
CCOF opposed the “Sacrificial Pasture” requirement.
Because of vast differences in climactic conditions across livestock production areas, grazing season is NOT synonymous with growing season. CCOF’s comments recommended substituting “grazing season” for “growing season,” to accommodate these local and regional differences.
Remove apiary and aquatic standards from the proposed rule and handle them in a separate rulemaking process.
Clarify “origin of livestock” so that once an entire, distinct herd has been converted to organic production, all dairy animals shall be under organic management from the last 1/3 of gestation.
CCOF asked for many changes to the “living conditions” proposed rule.

It is important to note that this proposed rule and any likely final rule will undoubtedly increase the rigor, time, and cost required to achieve organic certification. While this may be unavoidable, CCOF believes that this rigor should result in standards that support the larger goals of the organic community. Therefore, we attempted to provide complete and thorough comments that suggest specific changes that will help CCOF ensure that the spirit and goals of organic standards are met.

Read CCOF’s comments to the National Organic Program -- Access to Pasture (Livestock); Proposed Rule. For more information about CCOF’s activities related to access to pasture and grazing practices, read about our Unannounced Livestock Compliance Initiative and Summer 2008 livestock updates.

California State Organic Program Issues

CCOF members in California must register with the State Organic Program (SOP), a program that has been fraught with challenges and problems for a long time. One of CCOF's high priorities is to work with the program and CDFA Inspection and Compliance Division to improve the way SOP does business.

CCOF has been actively involved for more than 2 years in working with the SOP, CDFA, and the National Organic Program (NOP) on a number of fronts, to help the SOP be more efficient and responsive to our members’ needs and to consumers’ expectations.

In August 2008, CCOF wrote a letter to the National Organic Program (NOP) articulating some of the problems we were experiencing with the California State Organic Program (SOP), which launched a 2 year project with federal and state regulators and the California Legislature, to streamline SOP functions and bring them into compliance with the NOP. CCOF is pleased to that AB 2612, the bill sponsored by the California Farm Bureau Federation and CCOF on behalf of California organic operations, and lobbied for by CCOF, during 2010, went into effect on January 1, 2011. This bill is now law – Chapter 393, Statues of 2010 – and it significantly modifies the required registration process for California organic producers and handlers who are certified by a USDA accredited certifying agent (ACA) such as CCOF. CCOF's California clients will no longer need to file an organic site profile or an organic substance list. This is a huge step in the direction of eliminating duplicative paperwork. View the revised California SOP application.

California Fertilizer Materials Inspection Issues
In 2008, CCOF and other organizations reacted to news that liquid nitrogen fertilizers were being adultered by requesting the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) prosecute illegal activities, and increase inspections and enforcement. CDFA's response to the problem was to a bill, AB 856, which was signed into law in October 2009 and went into effect in January 2010. Although commonly referred to as AB 856, the law is actually Chapter 257, Statutes of 2009. The law will be implemented by CDFA's Fertilizer Materials Inspection Program.

CCOF is represented on the AB 856 Implementation Subcommittee by Brise Tencer, CCOF's Director of Policy and Programs.

AB 856 defines Organic Input Materials (OIM); requires registering and licensing of all OIMs used in California; requires inspections of Organic Input Materials (OIM) facilities; increases penalties for a number of violations related to misbranding or mislabeling of OIMs; creates a materials review program that is compliant with NOP, within CDFA. Upon registering and passing the inspection and review, OIMs will receive a CDFA label.

AB 856 was passed by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor, in the wake of the liquid fertilizer scandal, to give CDFA authority to regulate such materials in the cases of adulteration of product.
Regulations for AB856 are in draft form and will be finalized by around the middle of April, 2011.
AB 856 requires all "Organic Input Materials" manufacturers to be registered, all OIMs to be labeled, with the CDFA Fertilizer Branch ($500 per label) and all facilities to be inspected once a year.

These requirements are NOT CCOF requirements. They are CDFA requirements.
CDFA has sent out a letter to input manufacturers REQUESTING them to register and apply for the license, by April 1, 2011. They will be REQUIRED to register by January 1, 2012.

For our clients, input manufacturers will still need to get listed with OMRI/ WSDA/ approved by CCOF regardless of CDFA registration. AB856 does not currently change the way CCOF will approve materials for our clients.
CCOF will not be enforcing AB856. That is, if a farmer is using an input not registered with CDFA, CCOF will not report that to CDFA.
The CDFA material review program is not currently approved by the NOP, although CDFA is attempting to obtain that approval. The CDFA label does not replace an OMRI, WSDA, or any other third party review under the NOP, at this time.

What will be the impact of AB 856 on certifiers? For now, there is no impact on certifiers. CCOF does not recognize the CDFA program for our material review, and currently NOP does not recognize the CDFA program. CDFA will try to get NOP to approve its program as a third party material reviewer, and I will keep you posted on the status of that process.

What will the impact of AB 856 be on manufacturers? Manufacturers are being encouraged to apply for the required license and registration between April 20, 2011 and December 31, 2011. CDFA is doing what they call a "soft implementation" during 2011. Refer all questions about registering or getting a license to: 916-445-0444 | cdfaoim@cdfa.ca.gov | www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/fflders/index.html

The CDFA label will NOT replace an OMRI or WSDA listing under the NOP at this time. The law covers all materials USED in California, not just manufactured in California. To read the proposed regulations and comment, go to: www.cdfa.ca.gov/is/Regulations.html

Further questions? Please feel free to refer any questions to policy@ccof.org.