THE GATEKEEPERS OFORGANIC INTEGRITY
Guide to Organic
Certifiers

A REPORT BY THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE | MARCH 2019

The Cornucopia Institute wishes to thank the foundations that support our research and the thousands of family farmers and organic advocates who fund this work with their generous donations.
Researched, written, and edited by the entire policy and communications staff of The Cornucopia Institute.
The Cornucopia Institute is chartered as a tax-exempt public charity focusing on research and education. Cornucopia
aims to empower organic producers, consumers, and wholesale buyers to make discerning marketplace decisions, protecting the credibility of the organic food and farming movement and the value it delivers to society.

The Cornucopia Institute
P.O. Box 126
Cornucopia, WI 54827
608-425-2000 voice
866-861-2214 fax
cultivate@cornucopia.org
cornucopia.org

Report design and layout: Draft Horse Studio | drafthorsestudio.com
Buyer’s Guide design: EFN Web, LLC | efnweb.com
All photos, except where noted: Adobe Stock or Public Domain
Other photo attribution as follows:
Cover: Inspectors in Mexico by USDA, Flickr
Page 4: Inspection image by CounterCulture Coffee, Flickr
Page 6: Soil image by USDA, Flickr; Hydroponic Facility image by USDA, Flickr
Page 10: Concrete Porch image by Cornucopia
Page 11: Oregon Tilth-Certified Egg Operation image by Cornucopia
Page 12: Herbruck's Egg Operation image by Cornucopia
Page 15: Chicken image courtesy of Clean Food Farm in Washington; Grazing Cow image courtesy of Meeting Place
Pastures in Vermont
Copyright © 2019, The Cornucopia InstituteCONTENTS
THE ORGANIC CERTIFIER GUIDE.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2History and Background: Organic Certifier Administration.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 2Inspector Qualifications .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4How Cornucopia Evaluates the Certifiers.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 4

CERTIFYING HYDROPONICS. .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Introduction: What Is Hydroponics?.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Hydroponics: Incompatible with Organic Principles.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 5Organic Rules Require Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Description of “Container” (Hydroponic) Operations and the Certifiers Allowing Them.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 7Organic Certifier Response to NOP Position on Hydroponics .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 8

CERTIFIER APPROACHES TO VARIOUS
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9Introduction .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9Legal Background for Livestock in Organics .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9Chicken Porches and the Certifiers that Enable Their Illegitimate Use .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 9Certifier Impact on Grazing Dairy Livestock.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 12
The Origin of Organic Dairy Livestock.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 13
What the Best Certifiers Are Doing to Protect Organic Livestock Production.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 15

CERTIFIERS AND IMPORTED GOODS .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 16
CONCLUSION.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 17
ENDNOTES.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 18

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

1

THE ORGANIC CERTIFIER GUIDEACCREDITED CERTIFYING AGENTS (ACAS), also

known as “certifiers,” are agents of the USDA’s
National Organic Program (NOP) and occupy oneof the most important roles in the organic movement.1
Farmers, processors, and handlers hire ACAs to ensurethat their practices comply with organic regulations.
Certification is a legal requirement under federal law forcommodities or food products to be labeled “organic.” Because certifiers often exercise discretion in interpreting
and applying organic regulations, their credibility andcommitment to organic principles is crucial in maintaining organic authenticity and trust in the organic label.
Every decision certifiers make cumulatively determines
the working definition of organics and whether
this definition embodies the spirit and letter of the law or simply caters to corporations who want to use the organiclabel for marketing purposes.
When Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act of1990 (OFPA), part of its intent wasto create a minimum uniform
standard for organic production.
Instead, the USDA has createdan uneven playing field with wide
variation in certifiers interpreting
the regulations, which has competitively disadvantaged and damaged ethical industry participants.
Given the important role certifiers play in ensuring compliance with the organic regulations and in safeguarding
consumer confidence in the organic label, The Cornucopia Institute recognized the desire of both producers andconsumers for comprehensive informational materials
setting forth the varying policies and procedures adopted
by ACAs.
This guide is designed to help producers choose certifierswith values that align with their own and to help educate
consumers about the ACAs that certify the organic products they purchase. Now, more than ever, the varying
polices ACAs have adopted reveal those that are commit-

2

ted to preserving and promoting longstanding organic
principles and those that are incentivized by profit andcorporate influence.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND:ORGANIC CERTIFIERADMINISTRATION
Certifiers are chosen from the USDA's accredited list.
Each establishes its own fee schedule as either a flat rate
or a sliding fee based on the operation's gross income.
Many longtime organic farmers or businesses renew
with their previous certifiers, given the amount of initial
work it takes to change certifiers (including an investment in current inventories of printed labels and packaging that are required to identify the certifier).
Some farmers operate on the misconception that they are obligated to patronize
certain certifiers that are dominant
in specific states, including the state
governments that operate certification programs.
While many producers choose
the cheapest option, others arechoosing certifiers based on theirreputation and practices. Some operations are becoming aware thatsome certifiers, playing fast andloose with enforcement, are hurting
their bottom lines and the reputation of
the organic label.
Just one step removed, consumers are also invested
in the credibility of certifiers. Just as producers have an
option when it comes to choosing certifiers, consumers
can look for the certifiers on product packaging.
Several issues have emerged in recent years that illustrate the divergent paths ACAs are taking. The willingness to certify hydroponics (soil-less growing), large
confinement dairies in desert conditions, and industrial
hen houses with small porches substituting for required
outdoor access has been most controversial. These issues
strike at the heart of a certifier’s commitment to organic
regulations and foundational principles.

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITYMany certifiers are members of theOrganic Trade Association (OTA)2, a
prominent and controversial industry
lobby group. The OTA primarily represents the interests of corporate agribusiness, oftentimes at the expenseof the core values held by farmers,
consumers, and the founding leadersof the organic movement.
The OTA pushed the USDA’s NOP toapprove hydroponic production of certified fruits and vegetables, despite therequirement that soil stewardship is aprerequisite for organic certification.
The primary certifier of hydroponic
operations is CCOF, the U.S.’s largest
certifier. One of CCOF’s hydroponicclients is the giant berry producer,
Driscoll’s.
CCOF has also been listed as one of
the largest donors to the OTA and has
been active at OTA’s public events.

Corporate members of the OTA haveincluded “factory farms” that USDA investigators have found to be “willfully”
in violation of the law. The OTA has aggressively lobbied to include a myriadof potentially dangerous additives inorganic food, including genetically mutated algal oil (DHA) and carrageenan,a food coagulant and documented
inflammatory agent.
Cornucopia holds the position thatconflicts of interest threaten organic
integrity when clear boundaries
between certifiers, their clients, theOTA, and the NOP are not defined andenforced.

In 2005, without public notice or opportunity for comment, the USDA unilaterally began allowing the certification of hydroponic (soil-less) operations, bypassing the
National Organic Standards Board’s (NOSB) input. Instead the USDA stated that they are leaving the decision
up to the ACAs. Many organic industry stakeholders andlongtime observers have questioned the legality of thisdecision.
Unlike other approved organic management systems,
the NOSB and NOP have never adopted any rules or
guidelines for hydroponic production.
Some ACAs already certify hydroponic systems, apparently because of the corporate-friendly USDA posture.
Others have decided not to certify hydroponics based on
the clear language in the law that identifies “improving
and maintaining soil fertility” as a prerequisite.
In addition to a commitment to soil health and all of its
associated benefits, the best certifiers are also paying
attention to animal welfare. Under the USDA’s organic
regulations, “all” livestock “must” have “outdoor access,”where animals get direct sunlight, fresh air, shelter andshade, and clean drinking water.
However, many organic egg producers do not provide
hens with access to outdoor space, or even sunlight, in

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

The certification system is rife for fraud
because certifiers are paid by the corporate clients they monitor. Certifiers
then collaborate with, and financiallycontribute to, lobbying organizations
that advance the interests of thesesame corporate agribusinesses.
The potential for fraud is amplified
when former NOP employees move,unfettered, through the proverbial “revolving door” to work for certifiers andlobby the NOP on their behalf.
These relationships must be closely
monitored and regulated to ensurethat conflicts of interest do not undermine the interests of high-integrity
organic farmers and the founding
entrepreneurs of the organic industry.
To learn which certifiers are membersof the OTA, consult Cornucopia’s ratings.

windowless buildings holding as many as 200,000 birds
each. Industrial-scale producers managed to convince
the USDA to substitute small porches—commonly withconcrete floors—in place of legitimate outdoor access.
In organic dairy production, operations with thousandsof cows in the desert are theoretically meeting grazing requirements on ridiculously small acreages, and industrial-scale dairies are allowed to buy conventionally raised
replacement heifers, sometimes raised with antibiotics,
and “convert” them to organic on an ongoing basis.
These practices place legitimate organic dairy farmers,
who raise their own organic replacement animals frombirth, at an extreme economic disadvantage. This has
facilitated the rapid growth of organic milk production;
the resulting surplus is now poised to drive farmers outof business from coast to coast.
Although the USDA has done nothing to stamp out abuses in produce or livestock production, some of the best
certifiers have consistently adhered to the spirit and letter of the law of their own accord—placing these ACAs
at a competitive disadvantage as well. Poor enforcementby the USDA has also encouraged industrial “organics”
to grow and invest hundreds of millions of dollars into
infrastructure.

3

a course in one of three areas of inspector training: crops,
livestock, or handling.
IOIA courses include presentations, field trips, mockinspections on real farms or processing plants, written
tests, and an individually-drafted inspection report. An
IOIA trainee is also expected to apprentice. The apprenticeship involves participating in site inspections accompanied by an experienced inspector.
Certifiers also have discretion in determining the continuing education and ongoing training required of inspectors.

An inspector looks over grower’s records.

INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS
Certifiers hire inspectors to review an operation seeking initial organic certification and to conduct subsequent annual inspections. Qualified and well-trainedorganic inspectors are an important link in ensuringorganic integrity.
A well-trained inspector will make unbiased observations and then provide inspection reports to the certifiers
they work for. In the report, the inspector records on-site
observations and audits relevant documentation to help
the certifier verify whether the operation’s practices are
consistent with the organic regulations and the Organic
System Plan (OSP) prepared by the operator.
Some organic inspectors are independent contractors andothers are employed directly by certifiers. The organic
regulations do not include specific training or experience
requirements to become an organic inspector, other thanspecifying the inspector must be “qualified.” This leaves
certifiers considerable discretion to determine whether
an inspector is suitable for hire.
Although not all certifiers require inspectors to successfully complete formal training, many do. Some certifiers
require inspectors to complete courses conducted by theInternational Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA).
For aspiring inspectors, IOIA training includes an initialtest to determine if a candidate’s background, knowledgeof organic techniques of farming, and perception of therole of an organic inspector are sufficient to proceed with4

HOW CORNUCOPIA EVALUATES THE
CERTIFIERS
ACAs were asked to provide information about whether
they certify hydroponic operations and details on if theycertify factory-style “farms.”
These topics—along with the certifier transparency—
were evaluated and synthesized to create three rating
categories:

EXEMPLARY (GREENLIGHTED)
Certifiers showing an exemplary commitment to organic
principles, transparency, and regulatory a dherence.

FAIR TO EXCELLENT (EXERCISE CAUTION)
Certifiers that did not fully share and/or formally confirm their policies in writing but have a positive track record and we found some information indicating they areoperating in an ethical manner.

DOCUMENTED UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR(STOP SUPPORTING)
These ACAs are certifying dairy CAFOs, chicken houses
with porches, and/or hydroponic operations. They may
have been implicated in other improprieties, like certifying products with non-organic/synthetic ingredients notincluded on the National List.

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITYCERTIFYING HYDROPONICS
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS
HYDROPONICS?
HYDROPONICS IS A TECHNOLOGY for growing ter-

restrial plants with the roots in nutrient solutions,
i.e., water with dissolved fertilizers, rather thansoil. Although interest in hydroponics began in
the early 1900s, it was not widely adopted commercially until recently. The advent of cheap plastics
in the 1970s coupled with the present-day availability of cheap oil for plastic containers, tubing, andgreenhouse covers currently allows hydroponics
to be a financially viable production method.3
Hydroponic systems depend entirely on purchased fertilizers, rather than naturally cycling nutrients in soil,
therefore hydroponics is not mentioned in the OFPA.
When the NOSB first sought to define the term “organic,” they did not consider the concept of growing organic
crops without soil because maintaining soil fertility isfoundational to organic farming.4 Good “soil stewardship” is a foundational precept of the organic farming
movement, predating the attempts of the USDA andNOSB to codify the term.

HYDROPONICS: INCOMPATIBLE WITH
ORGANIC PRINCIPLES
Most stakeholders within the organic community understand that the most important (and challenging) aspectof organic farming is ensuring that organic matter andfertility in the soil is maintained or increased. This is accomplished by costly but environmentally critical practices that prevent nutrient run-off, capture carbon in thesoil, and provide a humane life for farm animals. These
practices are solutions to the biggest environmental issues of our time: climate change, erosion, declining aquifers, and eutrophication. In fact, carbon is sequesteredfrom the atmosphere and stored in soils by the interactions between plant roots and soil microorganisms.5
The economic survival of authentic organic farmers depends on the enforcement of organic law, which requires
maintaining or improving soil fertility. Without this requirement, environmentally responsible farms face theserious risk of being outcompeted by agribusinesses using less expensive and unsustainable production pracGUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

All nutrients fed to these hydroponic strawberries are
generated off-site.

tices under the same organic label. Rather than cycling
nutrients on the farm, hydroponic operations use nutrient-free (“inert”) growing media and apply a continuous
supply of liquid fertilizers. These fertilizers are commonly sourced from hydrolyzed, conventionally-grownsoybeans, wild caught6 fish emulsion, or even byproductsof composting conventional grocery store waste.

ORGANIC RULES REQUIRE SOIL
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was the first government entity to officially define “organic.” Having
banned the use of the word organic in 1974 so as not tocondemn conventional agriculture, four years later the
FTC reversed its stance due to overwhelming consumer
demand. The 1978 definition read as follows:
Organically grown food is produced on humus-rich soil
whose fertility has been maintained with organic materials
and natural mineral fertilizers. No pesticides, artificial fertilizers or synthetic additives are used in the production oforganic foods. [emphasis added]7

Later, in 1995, the USDA’s National Organic Standards
Board defined organic agriculture as:
5The NOP has stated that “Organic hydroponic productionis allowed.” However, this statement is in direct contradiction to published federal regulations, the enabling legislation, and the NOSB’s historic recommendations.
Strictly speaking, the 1995 definition of organic (and earlier definitions) would not only prohibit hydroponics, itwould also prohibit organic certification of aquaculture
and aquaponics because soil is not involved.

Healthy soil is the foundation of authentic organic production.
…an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil
biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm
inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain,and enhance ecological harmony [emphasis added].

OFPA also makes it clear that maintaining soil fertility isfoundational to organic farming through its soil fertility
and crop nutrient management practice standard.8
For example, part of this OFPA standard requires that
“The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical,
chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil
erosion.”9This OFPA rule goes on to lay out various management
standards, all applying to how a producer must manage
their soil. This includes language regarding manure application, soil fertility, compost, crop rotation, and otherprinciples that cannot be translated into hydroponic production.
Given these definitions, can the term organic be applied
to soil-less systems, such as hydroponic crop production?

Later definitions of organic by the NOP removed the reference to soil. In 2002, the NOP defined organic agriculture in CFR §205.2: “Organic production [is] a production
system that…respond[s] to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster
cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biological diversity.” *The NOP website currently describes “organic” as:a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced through approved methods.
The organic standards describe the specific requirementsthat must be verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent
before products can be labeled USDA organic. Overall, organic operations must demonstrate that they are protecting
natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and using only
approved substances.10

The site previously included the verbiage that organic
production systems must “integrate cultural, biological,
and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources,
promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity” [emphasis added]. Since hydroponic systems do not cycle
nutrients, this requirement was also removed from thedefinition of organic.
In fact, hydroponic systems largely rely on nutrients derived from conventional agriculture, rather than cycling
nutrient back into the soil. These changes to the website

USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue tours a hydroponic operation in New Hampshire in 2017.

*

Aquaculture is the production of aquatic plants (algae) and animals (fish, crustaceans) in their natural environment, water. Aquaponics refers only to the production of crop plants in nutrient solutions produced from aquaculture.

6

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITY

were made by the same USDA bureaucrats that, despite
the clear articulation of the law, unilaterally decided thatorganic hydroponic production was “legal.”
Whether organic agriculture is considered a “production
system” or merely defined by the USDA as a “labeling
term,” it is clear in OFPA that organic agriculture is morethan input substitution (the substitution of approved “organic” materials for synthetic chemicals). Organic agriculture is also farming in concert with ecological cycles.
It is also clear that the USDA has redefined organic on
their website, removing language that relates to soil andthe cycling of resources to intentionally allow soil-lessproduction systems that completely depend on off-farm
inputs, including approved fertilizers.

DESCRIPTION OF “CONTAINER”(HYDROPONIC) OPERATIONS AND
THE CERTIFIERS ALLOWING THEM
Various terms describe whether plant roots are in a solid
substrate, whether the nutrient solution is recycled, andwhether fish are part of the system. “Aggregate systems,”
also called “medium culture,” allow plants to be rooted incoco coir, peat moss, sand, gravel, vermiculite, rock wool,or other nutrient-free substances, while continuously fertilizing the plant as it grows. These mediums are often
described in the industry as “inert” materials. Aggregate systems are commonly referred to by the industry
as “container” systems, although all hydroponic systems
are in some type of container.
In the fall of 2017, the NOSB Crops Subcommittee put
forth a proposal that would define hydroponics and limit
the amount of fertility that could be applied to a container-grown crop.
The motion stated that:…for container production to be certified organic, a limit of
20% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement can be supplied byliquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement can be added to the container after the crop has
been planted. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit iscalculated on an annual basis. Transplants, ornamentals,
herbs, sprouts, fodder, and aquatic plants are exempted fromthese requirements.11

Many certified organic farmers testified at the 2017NOSB meeting that the organic standards require “inthe-soil, in-the-ground” growing to be compliant, given
requirements for cover cropping, soil fertility, and biodiversity. Many were the pioneering, family-scale farmers

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

The term "container growing" was coined by the industry
in an attempt to differentiate the practice from traditionalhydroponic production. Container growing employs an inert
substrate, like coconut coir, to hold the plant's roots and all
nutrients are supplied via liquid fertilizer, as pictured here.
Container growing is a form of hydroponic production.

who have farmed, in the soil, for as many as 40 years andhelped build the organic industry.
Despite compelling testimony, the proposal to limit liquid feeding for container-grown crops failed in a sevento-eight vote. By this time, NOP leadership had alreadyquietly allowed the certification of hydroponic container
operations for several years—without NOSB approval
and with nothing to codify hydroponic production in organic regulations. It could thus be argued that the NOP
forced the NOSB to vote on a ban of organic hydroponics,
rather than on a proposal to allow certification.
Since a supermajority of at least ten out of 15 board members is required for a decisive vote, a proposal to allowhydroponics would have likely failed eight-to-seven, andthe organic farmers would have gone home victorious. Instead, as it was worded, the proposal to ban hydroponics
failed, seven-to-eight, and the hydroponic industry won.
USDA leadership was able to ensure the hydroponic industry would prevail in organics. They ultimately succeeded by illegally allowing hydroponic certification
without NOSB approval or regulatory standards govern-

7

ing its production and stacking the board with agribusiness representatives.*
At the same 2017 meeting the NOSB voted unanimously
to prohibit aeroponic production (i.e., feeding with liquid
fertilizer through a fine mist). The difference between
aeroponic and hydroponic systems essentially comes
down to the droplet size used to deliver liquid fertility.
This contradiction, allowing hydroponics but not aeroponics, is likely due to the fact that there is no aeroponic
industry lobby in the organic sector—yet.

ORGANIC CERTIFIER RESPONSE TO NOPPOSITION ON HYDROPONICS
The NOP has not issued a proposed rule or establishedregulations governing hydroponics based on the NOSB’s
recommendation, nor has the NOP issued guidance tocertifiers on how to inspect hydroponic farms.12 Thismeans certifiers must interpret the regulations on theirown. Some ACAs have chosen not to certify hydroponic
systems as organic and others accept applications to certify organic hydroponic systems.
One certifier, Oregon Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO),
previously posted FAQs on their website, which havesince been removed.13 The FAQs provided information
about the types of hydroponic systems that are being certified. Since these systems is typically based on sterilewater, rather than fertile soil, hydroponic farmers areconcerned about obtaining a source of plant nutrients.
OTCO addressed the problem as follows:
Can synthetic micronutrients be applied? What is required
to document deficiency? Synthetic micronutrients can beused in a hydroponic system. Most hydroponic systems are
obviously deficient of micronutrients, however deficiency
must still be documented (205.601(j)(6)). Documentation of
deficiency could include water or tissue tests, notes of visualobservations, extension or advisor recommendations, etc.

*

8

According to this interpretation, farmers can simply
grow plants in water plus micronutrients in a systemthat does not integrate biological practices, foster cyclingof nutrients, or promote ecological balance. In otherwords, this interpretation would allow hydroponic farmers to grow certified organic crops in a system that does
not meet the NOP’s own definition of organic.
This is ironic because soil-based growers have to illustrate the need for applications of synthetic plant nutrients
based on deficiencies documented through soil testing.
Despite this previous interpretation, OTCO then produced comments for the Fall 2017 NOSB meeting that
supported prohibiting hydroponic and aeroponic production methods:14
We agree with the Subcommittee’s findings that hydroponic
and aeroponic systems, as defined in this proposal, do notcomply with the National Organic Standards (NOS). Thesesystems are input-dependent, relying on large volumes ofsoluble fertilizers with little nutrient cycling. Prohibition ofhydroponic and aeroponic production methods clarifies how
and why certain systems are consistent with NOS. In addition, it ends inconsistency between certifiers, while increasing consumer confidence in products adhering to organic
production standards.
However, we urge the Subcommittee to reconsider their proposed prohibition of aquaponic plant production. Aquaponics offers environmental and socio-economic benefits, andOregon Tilth believes that these systems can be managed incompliance with the organic standard and should be eligible
for certification.

OTCO’s policies and reasoning are not unique amongcertifiers. What remains is a state of confusion, whereindividual certifiers are allowed to decide for themselves
whether hydroponic producers meet USDA organic standards. These decisions are based on the current regulations, previous NOSB recommendations, and conflicting
messages from the NOP.

The USDA Secretary is mandated to collaborate with the NOSB on implementing the federal law governing organics. TheNOSB has no authority to overrule or amend OFPA which clearly requires soil stewardship (and thus soil) to qualify for organic
certification.
THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITYCERTIFIER APPROACHES TO VARIOUS
LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT PRACTICESINTRODUCTION

a consistent standard. In fact, section 6501 of OFPA requires the USDA:LIVESTOCK IS AN ESSENTIAL PART of the organic pro-

1. To establish national standards governing the marketingof certain agricultural products as organically produced
products;

gram. Many consumers choose livestock-derived
products, such as milk, as their first foray into theorganic marketplace. The organic livestock sector
has faced the same competitive pressures as otherareas of the organic industry. Investors backing
industrial-scale production have a foothold in thedairy, poultry, pork, and beef markets. In manycases, this agribusiness foothold is supportedby the actions of certifiers that are unwilling tohold to the intent of organic law. The money thatchanges hands between certifier and agribusiness is an economic conflict of interest that the
USDA’s organic program is designed to mitigate.
There are several areas in organic livestock production
where industrial organic players, and the certifiers thatenable them, push the intent of the organic law in a direction that was never intended. The most egregious examples include:■■ The use of tiny porches instead of true outdoor accessfor laying hens■■ Fantasy management parameters written into OSPs

by giant factory farms milking “organic” cattle three
to four times a day, 10 head per acre, in desert-like
conditions■■ Cycling young conventional cattle onto organic dairies

These abusive practices represent some of the ways industrial interests take advantage of or create loopholes in
the organic regulations. These practices are aided by the
support of some certifiers.
As with giant hydroponic operations, it is much more remunerative for ACAs to certify these grotesquely large
livestock factories than small family-scale operations.

LEGAL BACKGROUND FOR
LIVESTOCK IN ORGANICS
Part of Congress’ broad dictate to the USDA is that consumers must be assured that the organic label meets

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

2. To assure consumers that organically produced products
meet a consistent standard; and3. To facilitate interstate commerce in fresh and processedfood that is organically produced. (7 U.S. Code § 6501 –Purposes)
OFPA has one section that dictates animal production
practices and materials.15 This section lays out the broadrequirements for inputs allowed in livestock production(including the prohibition of antibiotics and growth hormones) and general production practices.

CHICKEN PORCHES AND THE
CERTIFIERS THAT ENABLE THEIRILLEGITIMATE USE
Since its inception the organic farming movement asked
for strict oversight. It is this federal regulatory supervision that makes the organic label one consumers seek out
and trust more than other labels. One reason consumers
choose organic over conventional livestock products isthat the organic label provides higher welfare for animals.
Organic industrial-scale production has been built on exploiting or creating perceived loopholes or weaknesses
in the organic standards. Some certifiers have lent their“good names and reputations” to industrial-scale “organic” operations, endorsing practices that insult organic
regulations and ideals. As a result, these egg factories
now dominate the marketplace.
Most of the largest producers do not provide hens withany access to outdoor vegetated space (despite its mandate in the law).
Their hens are confined in large agricultural buildings
with as many as 190,000 birds each. In some of these situations, small enclosed porches serve as “outdoor access.”
These porches are typically walled-in areas with a roof,
hard floors, and screening on one side. In spite of the factthat the law clearly illustrates that all organic livestock
must have access to the outdoors, the porches usually do

9mum outdoor dimension requirements for poultry basedon organic industry standards while others did not. The
report also recommended the NOP develop specific criteria for outdoor access for poultry.*
The USDA never adopted any of the NOSB’s or the Officeof Inspector General’s recommendations as regulations
or guidance.**

DEFINING “OUTDOOR ACCESS” AND THE
LEGAL LIMITS OF CHICKEN WELFARE
Some certifiers allow these enclosed porches to substitute fortrue outdoor access.

not provide access for more than a tiny fraction of thebirds in the barn.
The NOSB has debated whether legal organic egg production actually requires meaningful outdoor access forhens (meaning access to vegetated outdoor runs, the soil,
and/or rotated pasture) for many years.
The NOSB issued a recommendation in 2002 statingthat surfaces other than soil should not count as “outdoor
access.”16 At that time, the NOSB clarified that outdoor
access for poultry should include access to open air, direct
sunlight, and soil. Their recommendation also statedthat bare surfaces other than soil do not meet the intent
of the national organic standards. The issue resurfaced
in 2009 and again in 2011, when the NOSB’s Livestock
Subcommittee included similar language in a set of recommendations aimed at strengthening animal welfare
in organic food production.
In March of 2010, the USDA Office of Inspector Generalreleased an audit report, Oversight of the National Organic Program, which asked the NOP to effectively improve their oversight of program operations with respect
to certifier consistency.17 One of the deficiencies specifically identified was that some certifiers developed mini-

Under the USDA’s organic requirements, organic livestock must have “outdoor access” where they have shelter and shade and get direct sunlight, fresh air, and clean
drinking water.18
Unfortunately, the organic standards do not specify theminimum to meet outdoor access requirements. Instead,the responsibility for determining whether outdoor access is adequate has been left to the certifiers.19
According to the USDA organic regulation 7 CFR §205.239, the operator must provide year round access tothe outdoors, including:■■ Shade■■ Shelter■■ Exercise areas■■ Fresh air■■ Clean water for drinking■■ Direct sunlight suitable to the species, its stage of life,

the climate, and the environment

Porches stretch the legal intent of these standards, particularly the term “outdoors,” to unreasonable bounds.
Despite these specifics, chicken porches are still used under some certifiers in industrial-scale organics. In someinstances, certifiers grant permanent exemptions fromthe requirements for outdoor access.****In October, 2010 the NOP published notice requested for public comment on draft guidance that indicated that the use of outdoor runs and pasture were ways to meet outdoor access regulation for poultry, but left unclear whether porches would comply
with the outdoor access requirements [Outdoor Access for Organic Poultry (NOP 5024)].
** The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) was scheduled to go into effect on May 14, 2018, in its fifth “final” version,
the OLPP rule would have increased federal regulation of livestock and poultry for certified organic producers and handlers.
The OLPP was intended to bring organic dairy, eggs, and meat production into line with consumer expectations of higher
animal welfare by explicitly prohibiting some practices used by industrial organic operations (particularly in the layer industry).
USDA has announced the decision to withdraw the OLPP final rule published on January 19, 2017. The withdrawal becomes effective May 13, 2018. More information on the OLPP final rule is available in the March 12, 2018, Federal Register.
*** In one documented case of birds being continuously confined, the certifier Oregon Tilth allowed Petaluma Farms in California
to confine their chickens because of a purported risk of avian influenza (no other farmers or certifiers in the state felt the needfor this exemption). The Cornucopia Institute. December, 2015. “Scrambled Eggs: Separating Factory Farm Egg Production fromAuthentic Organic Agriculture.” The Cornucopia Institute. https://www.cornucopia.org/egg-report/scrambledeggs.pdf
10

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITY

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO
CURE THE POULTRY PORCH “LOOPHOLE”
Over the years, the NOSB has made many recommendations with respect to the compliance problems in thepoultry industry. The NOSB has asserted many times
that housing must allow animals to perform natural instinctive behaviors and have access to the outdoors. In
May 2002, specific recommendations were made to the
NOP to clarify the rule regarding access to the outdoors
for poultry, 20 stating, “surfaces other than soil do not meetthe intent of the organic standards.” These recommendations specifically prohibited the use of porches to meetthe requirement for outdoor access. 21
The USDA Office of the Inspector General identified inconsistencies in certification practices in 2010. Inconsistencies in how poultry were housed were a chief concern.
In response to these findings, the NOP issued a draft
guidance, based on recommendations the NOSB made in2002.
In 2017 an addition to the regulations was proposed
by USDA officials. The Organic Livestock and Poultry
Practices (OLPP) draft rulemaking sought to strengthen
standards for organic livestock and poultry production. 22
In particular, the proposal would have made the use ofchicken porches explicitly illegal. Most commenters oneach successive iteration of the OLPP were in support ofthese changes.*
Despite the near-consensus support of the OLPP in theorganic industry, industrial egg businesses were notpleased with the proposed benchmarks. These businesses include the largest, vertically-integrated, conventional
egg producers with only a small percentage of their production in organics. With the turnover of administrations in 2017, and bipartisan support to undermine therule in the Senate agriculture committee, the egg industry saw their chance to get the proposed protections forpoultry thrown out.
The Trump administration’s USDA supported the industrial egg producers’ contention that the OLPP would
harm all organic businesses, despite support from the industry as a whole for the passage of the OLPP. The USDA
received over 40,000 comments supporting the implementation of the OLPP, while only 28 commenters supported its withdrawal. 23 On December 18, 2017 the USDA
published a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public comments on its intent to withdraw the OLPP final rule, just as it was poised to go into effect.

*

Oregon Tilth certifies these two-story henhouses with multiple
tier aviary systems. Buildings have small screened porches
along each side that a small fraction of birds can access. Notesemi-trailers in foreground for scale of operation.

Industrial interests in “organic” egg production were
fully aware that the current standards required outdoor
access. It was no secret that tougher enforcement provisions had been in consideration since 2002. Instead ofaligning their management plans to these requirements,
they invested in infrastructure that could not meet existing or proposed regulations. USDA Secretary Sonny
Perdue asserted that giving the NOP the tools to enforce
the standards would be injurious to farmers. It was a specious argument in favor of killing the OLPP. Real farmers supported the rule and factory interests did not.

THE ALLEGED THREAT OF DISEASE AS AN
EXCUSE TO KEEP BIRDS INDOORSOne of the primary justifications industrial organics
cites for the use of porches is a perceived risk to the birds’
health. They argue that the porches keep the hens safe byprotecting them from wild birds that theoretically could
spread disease, predators, and vermin. 24 However, better
indicators for bird health are enough space, fresh air, exercise, and low stress. Essentially, the root of the bird flu
is confinement conditions, not exposure to wild birds andthe natural world. 25
With respect to salmonella, the FDA had issued rules in2009 ordering farms to keep all mice, rats, and wild birds
out of chicken houses. 26 The rules now apply to all farms
with more than 3,000 laying hens.
Some industrial-scale (both conventional and organic)
producers—including Herbruck’s Poultry Ranch in
Michigan, whose representatives have testified numer-

Although the research of The Cornucopia Institute and aggressive organizing on the issue likely resulted in the draft OLPP,
Cornucopia did not support the recommendations for anemic minimum outdoor standards for poultry (for example, prominent
animal welfare certification programs require 108 ft.²).

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

11

ous times before the NOSB—express that their birds
are healthier indoors and that they create safer eggs. If
Herbruck’s and others want to market these perceived
advantages directly to consumers and label their eggs
“produced with organic feed,” rather than erroneously
carrying the organic label, more power to them.

certifiers the ability to define "temporary confinement"
however they choose. The memo is part of the “Guidance &Instructions for Accredited Certifying Agents & Certified
Operations,” also known as the NOP Handbook.

CERTIFIER IMPACT ON GRAZINGDAIRY LIVESTOCK
The integrity of organic dairy means something to consumers and the farmers who care about the reputationof the industry. One of the struggles in the organic dairy
industry, since its inception, has been ensuring cows arebeing legitimately grazed on pasture as the law requires.31
Large dairies, pushing for high production, have historically tried to avoid grazing their lactating herd altogether, mimicking the worst of the conventional industry.

One of Herbruck's "organic" egg operations in Saranac,Michigan. Note semi-trailers in foreground for scale ofoperation.

Guidance on the topic of avian influenza states that organic producers can temporarily confine birds:
During avian influenza outbreaks poultry may be confined
per the instructions of a state’s public health bureau. Thisis typically allowed. Normally the certifying agent will beaware of these outbreaks. Farmers should contact their certifying agent when concerned about the potential of an avian
influenza outbreak.27

This guidance builds on a perceived loophole in the regulations that scale operators and some certifiers take advantage of. This regulation allows organic egg producers to
temporarily confine or shelter “...an animal because of conditions un­der which the health, safety, or well-being of theanimal could be jeopardized.”28 Some producers, backed bytheir certifiers, claim the threat of disease is constant.
The USDA has responded to concerns of outbreaks ofHighly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and Low
Pathogenic Avian Influenza (LPAI). In the NOP’s policy
memo, the NOP gives broad discretion to certifiers whenworking with their producers, stating:29,30
If it is determined that temporary confinement of birds is needed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of organic flocks,
then producers and certifiers may work together to determine
an appropriate method and duration of confinement of organic poultry flocks without a loss of organic certification.

This memo explains actions that producers can take toprotect poultry flocks from infectious disease while also
maintaining organic certification. Some also argue it gives
12

After many years of delaying tactics, the USDA published more precise organic livestock standards in 2010.32
The updated livestock rule—more commonly known
as the “pasture rule”—sets minimum benchmarks how
much feed must be derived from fresh pasture.
When the new pasture requirements were finally enacted, the Secretary of Agriculture stated that that therule “will give consumers confidence that organic milkor cheese comes from cows raised on pasture, and organic
family farmers the assurance that there is one, consistentpasture standard that applies to dairy products.”33 The
USDA confirmed that pasture was one of the fundamental foundations of organic dairy.
Unfortunately, the pasture standards controversy was
far from settled by the rulemaking in 2010. The lack of
judicious USDA enforcement has not been solved by establishing clear minimum benchmarks for pasturing.
Some dairy brands continue to depend on operations thatmanipulate the organic regulations to fit their desire forhigher production and lower costs. During the Obamaadministration, the USDA’s efforts at enforcing the rules
were virtually nonexistent and widely criticized—andwidespread abuses continued.
Where large dairies previously tried to justify their lackof grazing and adequate pasture for lactating dairy cows,
they now work to create the illusion of meeting the low
standard set by the USDA. This illusion is made possible
by a number of agreeable accredited organic certifying
agents willing to collect large fees while accommodating
the industrial-scale model of production. Some certifiers
approve OSPs without determining whether a producer ismeeting the minimum grazing requirements. Paperwork
is easy to fudge, and most inspections are prearranged byappointment so that factory farms can easily ensure theirherds are out on pasture when inspectors arrive.

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITYOf course this behavior is facilitated by deficient oversight by the USDA.

The current rule that applies to transitioning organic
livestock went into effect with the adoption of the original standards in 2002.

THE ORIGIN OF ORGANIC DAIRYLIVESTOCKThe law is clear in this area, despite some bad actors taking advantage of a perceived “loophole.” The preambleof the organic regulations shows that the regulations
were not intended to allow the continuous transition of
conventional animals. It states, “Once an entire, distinct
herd has been converted to organic production, all dairy animals shall be under organic management from the last thirdof gestation.”34 This requirement is immortalized in the“origin of livestock” rule.35

When a dairy cow “ages out” or otherwise is removed
from milk production, typically due to health or reproductive problems, both conventional and organic dairies need replacement cows if they want to maintain thesame level of production.
Most family-scale organic dairies operate “closed herds,”
with the offspring of their lactating cows more than adequately filling the need for replacement heifers.
For many industrial-scale dairy operators, their replacement animals do not originate from organic sources. Instead of raising their own young calves, these operations
are purchasing cheaper cattle raised on medicated milk
replacer (instead of certified organic milk) that includes
antibiotics and, potentially, other banned pharmaceuticals
and substances. After weaning, these calves are typicallyfed conventional or genetically modified grains and haytreated with pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer.
Essentially, these animals are being raised as any conventional animal would, up until their first birthday. For
the second year of life, approximately one year before thecalves start producing milk, they are switched to organic
feed and management. These dairies are in “continuoustransition” to organic with the replacements they bringin. Conventional cows transitioned in this manner are
also typically used for expansion.
These practices have been legally questioned because it isa gross misreading of the purpose behind the language inboth OFPA and the organic regulations.

While these regulations seem to be straightforward, the
USDA and certain certifiers unilaterally decided that
farmers could convert conventional cattle in perpetuity,well beyond the first transition from a conventional farmto an organic one. This move has been legally questioned
because it is a gross misreading of the purpose behind the“once an entire, distinct herd” language.
This confusion, some certifiers and factory farm supporters within the USDA argue, is due to a passage in OFPA
that states:
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a dairy animal fromwhich milk or milk products will be sold or labeled as organically produced shall be raised and handled in accordancewith this chapter for not less than the 12-month period immediately prior to the sale of such milk and milk products. Section 6509(e)(2)(A)This 12-month conversion provision is supposed justification for converting organic cattle as long as they gothrough the 12-month transition. The USDA and somecertifiers allow businesses to buy conventionally raised
heifers and “convert” them to organic on an ongoing basis. This issue, often categorized as the problem of the“origin of livestock,” is fundamental to differentiating industrial organic dairies from others.
The NOSB noted in a 2003 recommendation that the preamble and the regulatory language strongly support a“systems” approach to organic production, highlighting
this language in the rule:
The conversion provision also rewards producers for raising
their own replacement animals while still allowing for the
introduction of animals from off the farm that were organically raised from the last third of gestation. This should protect existing markets for organically raised heifers while notdiscriminating against closed herd operations. Finally, theconversion provision cannot be used routinely to bring nonorganically raised animals into an organic operation.36

Most family-scale farms raise their own replacement cows.
GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

In addition to this evidence, the NOSB pointed out thatthe regulation at section §205.236(b)(1) clearly states
13The USDA and some certifiers allow businesses
to buy conventionally raised heifers and “convert”
them to organic on an ongoing basis. This issue,
often categorized as the problem of the “origin of
livestock,” is fundamental to differentiating industrialorganic dairies from others.
that animals may not be rotated between organic andnonorganic production. Continuous introduction of conventional dairy replacement animals undermines thesystems approach.
The NOSB was correct in its 2003 assessment of therules. The rule as a whole makes it clear that §205.236(a)(2)(iii) applies to all animals once a herd is converted. TheNOSB’s recommendation to change the numbering of the“origin of livestock” section would have made it clear on
the face of the regulation that every point applies to allorganic dairies.
Unfortunately, the USDA never implemented the advice
and direction from the NOSB. A guidance developed by
the NOP would have strengthened certifier positions by
acknowledging the rule was being misapplied during
the G.W. Bush administration and making a blanket
decree that the entire rule applied to all dairies. However, they chose not to clarify the rule with a statement
or other guidance to certifiers. Instead, the question wasleft open for mega-dairies and their certifiers to respondto however they chose, leaving organic integrity open
for interpretation.

ALLOWING INDUSTRIAL ORGANIC DAIRIESTO CHEAPEN THE DEFINITION OF ORGANIC
Why does bringing in conventional cattle and then transitioning them to organic management on a continuous
basis matter? Besides the blatant disrespect to organic
ideals and consumer perception, there are many practical reasons why transitioning in conventional calves isbad for the organic label and disadvantages organic dairy
farmers who follow the spirit and letter of the law.
Real organic dairies raise their own replacements, feeding them organic milk from their herd. This is organic
milk that could otherwise go to consumers, giving factory dairies an economic edge over family-scale farms(lower costs of factory farms create higher revenues by
selling more milk).
The abuse and poor enforcement of the “origin of livestock” problem would be most simply solved if certifiers
14

disallowed what is obviously a loophole in conflict withthe spirit and letter with the organic law and regulations.
Although some of the largest certifiers are allowing continuous conversion of organic dairy replacement animals,
the most ethical certifiers do not permit the practice.

ILLEGAL INSPECTIONS OF PASTUREDRUMINANTS
Certifiers are often culpable in the abuses found in the
livestock industry. When an inspector is inexperienced,
poorly organized, or downright fraudulent, it sets thestage for factory-organic dairies, egg producers, and others to get away with abuses. Organic inspections are suspect when:■■ Inspectors have no prior experience in organic live-

stock production, agriculture, or inspections. They
will not notice abuses experienced inspectors might
uncover.

■■ Inspectors perform a ruminant livestock operation’sannual inspection in the off-season. It is impossible tojudge how well a dairy, for example, is grazing theiranimals if you cannot see the pastures and animals
in question during the grazing season.

■■ Inspectors rely on paperwork provided by the produc-

er over visual analysis of the operation.

For example, the Aurora dairy factory farm is certified
by the State of Colorado. Interviews with the state’s Department of Agriculture indicated that the personnel
inspecting their facilities had no prior experience in organic livestock operations or inspections. Despite this,they inspected some of the largest and most sophisticatedorganic livestock operations in the country.
A front-page exposé in The Washington Post in mid-2017presented strong evidence that Aurora—the largest organic milk producer in the United States—has been operating illegally.37 What The Washington Post found when
they visited the largest of Aurora Dairy’s complexes, inWeld County, Colorado, was a giant feedlot where almost
all of the 15,000 cows were confined to a feedlot, rather
than being out on pasture as the organic law requires. Aurora claimed that their Organic Systems Plan, approvedby their certifier, ended their grazing on September 30,
even though the federal law clearly states that cows musthave access to pasture during the entire grazing season.
On top of this, the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s most recent inspection of this giant factory farm
took place during the previous November, when no cows
would be on pasture.

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITY

■■ Scrutinize the minimum space available to birds in-side and outdoors, and consider the cleanliness of the
facility, air quality, the distribution of food and water,roosting areas, and other enhancements.*

Top certifiers of ruminants, including beef and dairy
cattle:■■ Look for reasonable stocking densities and good pas-

ture management. Pasture cannot be overgrazed orin poor condition and still meet the legal definition of“pasture.”■■ Study animals’ body condition, as that can say a lot

about the quality of their feed and care.

■■ Inspect an operation’s records to ensure livestock

meet minimum pasture consumption requirements
and days on pasture rules.

■■ Generally prohibit alterations like tail docking (cut-ting off the cows’ tail to theoretically promote cleanliness).

■■ Expect closed herds (meaning the producer raises

Clean Food Farm in Washington

WHAT THE BEST CERTIFIERS ARE
DOING TO PROTECT ORGANICLIVESTOCK PRODUCTION

their own replacement cattle), except for planned upsizing or culling for health reasons. If a farm’s attrition rate is high enough that they need to consistently
bring in animals, whether or not they were raisedorganically from the last third of gestation, there’s
something amiss with farm management. The operator may be pressing for uncharacteristically highmilk production at the expense of animal health.

All of these points, and more, are taken into account by
top-tier organic certifiers.

The best ACAs follow both the letter and spirit of organic
regulations. While guidelines produced by the USDA
and NOSB are followed by most certifiers, there is more
to policing organic production and handling.
Top certifiers of poultry operations:■■ Do not allow porches to qualify as “outdoor access” foregg laying hens and require that birds have access tosoil with vegetation of some form.

■■ Require operations to provide “direct sunlight,” asspecified in the standards, by ensuring birds have
exposure to windows in the coop/building and open
sky outdoors.

■■ Require outdoor access year-round, except when

weather poses a danger to the health of the birds.

■■ Know there is no logic in providing “outdoor access”

if the birds can’t reach it! One small pop-hole door
from the barn to the outside is not sufficient for thousands of birds.

*

Meeting Place Pastures in Vermont

Top certifiers note they do not often see less than 1.5 ft2 per bird allotted indoors for organic operations.

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

15

CERTIFIERS AND IMPORTED GOODSFROM THE BEGINNING of the organic movement,

organic grains (both food and feed grade) havebeen an important segment of the North American market.
Over the past decade imports of organic grains havesoared. From 2013 to 2016 alone, imports of organic corn
quadrupled from $36.6 million to $160.4 million. Importsof organic soybeans also increased
dramatically, from $41.8 million in2011 to $250.5 million in 2016.38
The shift to unreliable internationalsourcing was highlighted in 2009
when The Cornucopia Institutepublished its Behind the Bean reportfocusing on certification problems
with organic soybeans being imported from China.39
In 2017, concerns about the authenticity of these imports were realized
when an investigation by The Washington Post revealed massive shipments of fraudulent organic corn and soybeans had infiltrated U.S. borders.40
Organic corn and organic soybean farmers in the UnitedStates lost an estimated $400 million between 2015 and2017 alone, as the increase in dubious organic grain imports skyrocketed.41
As U.S. farmers watched prices for their organic grain
fall dramatically, suspicious organic grain was making
its way across the United States from or through countries including Ukraine, Turkey, Russia, and other former Eastern Bloc countries.
In June 2018 Cornucopia released a comprehensive report chronicling how a small number of multibillion-dollar agribusinesses, predominantly based in Turkey, cameto dominate the U.S. organic grain industry, following
systemic failures of the USDA’s NOP to curb the infiltration of questionable organic imports.42
In the wake of lax USDA enforcement and farmer pleas
for action, some certifiers adopted policies to increase
oversight of organic grain shipments imported by theoperations they certify. These policies include additional control measures designed to identify fraud and stop
fraudulent imports from entering the U.S.43
16

Some certifier policies emphasize that the certified operation must maintain specific documents to demonstratecomplete audit trail trace-back and volume calculations.
Additional control measures were implemented by somecertifiers, including requirements that the certified operation notify the certifier of incoming shipments of grain
imported from high-risk countries like Kazakhstan, Moldova, Romania, Russia, Turkey, and Ukraine. The certifier might then require additional
unannounced inspections of the operation and the imported grain.
Today there are 32 USDA-accredited
certifiers based in foreign countries.
Some of these, along with specificimporters, have been banned fromorganic commerce in other countries, but the USDA has failed to takesimilar action. For example, ETKO,a Turkish certifier of organic products, was de-accredited by Canada
and the European Union, meaningthat ETKO-certified products are no longer accepted asorganic in those countries.
The USDA proposed suspending ETKO’s accreditation.
However, ETKO appealed the USDA’s decision and maintained its status after agreeing to take corrective action.44
Although international certifiers are not part of ourstudy, domestic and international certifiers play key roles
in evaluating the integrity of organic imports. Assurances of organic authenticity are highly dependent uponcertifier integrity. Recently, the NOSB requested publiccomment in their efforts to establish criteria that contribute to a certifier’s risk of fraudulent activity.
These factors include operating in an area or region
known to have fraudulent activity and certifying a highnumber of operations exporting or importing to the United States from foreign markets.
Because certifiers play such an important role in assuring the integrity of imports, Cornucopia requested copies
of any certifier policies related to imports. A certifier thatcertifies operations involved in importing organic agricultural products receives a higher rating in this category
if they have a policy outlining control measures designed
to detect import fraud.

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITYCONCLUSIONCERTIFIERS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART of maintaining

the integrity of the organic label and preserving
a fair and level playing field for ethical industry
participants. Unfortunately, how the USDA polices and guides certifiers in their duties can belackluster. Inconsistent application of organic
rules and regulations has led some certifiers tobend the existing rules to suit their largest clientsand the growing industrialization of the organic
marketplace.
The areas that are of most concern—hydroponics, consistent application of organic livestock management mandates, and how certifiers police imported goods—all effectthe organic marketplace at large. Farmers and handlers
choose their certifiers on a myriad of criteria, including acertifier’s fee structure, reputation and service level, andmembership in other organizations including the OTA.
Certifiers have enormous lobbying power with boththe NOSB and the NOP and have always been quick to
use that power to influence the direction of the organic
marketplace—for the better and for the worse. The Cornucopia Institute sees the independence of certifiers as
fundamentally important, like referees in sports. The optics of lobbying on behalf of the interests of their largest
clients are off-putting, to say the least.

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

While it is ultimately up to the NOP to keep certifiersin line, there are some certifiers who voluntarily
do excellent work. These certifiers stick to thespirit and the letter of organic law—because theirheritage and leadership demand nothing less.

While it is ultimately up to the NOP to keep certifiers inline, there are some certifiers who voluntarily do excellent work. These certifiers stick to the spirit and the letter of organic law—because their heritage and leadershipdemand nothing less.
This means those certifiers refuse to certify operationsattempting to exploit loopholes in enforcement or outright flout organic regulations, such as hydroponic operations and livestock factories.
While top certifiers may lose revenue by refusing to certify some of these enormous and lucrative operations, consumers, farmers, and businesses can reward their efforts
in the marketplace. Organic farmers and businesses canuse Cornucopia’s Certifier Scorecard to choose ethicalcertifiers to oversee their operations, and consumers canshift their spending to support the products they certify.

17

ENDNOTES
1

United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
marketing Service Webpage. 2019. “Accredited Certifying
Agents.” Accessed January 15, 2019. https://www.ams.usda.
gov/services/organic-certification/certifying-agents

16

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service. 2002. “Recommended Clarification on Access to
the Outdoors for Poultry (PDF).” Accessed December 13,
2017. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
Recommended%20Clarification%20on%20Access%20to%20
Outdoors%20Poultry.pdf

2

The Organic Trade Association. 2019. “Homepage.” Accessed
January 15, 2019. https://www.ota.com/

3

University of Arizona, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
“Growing Tomatoes Hydroponically.” Accessed October 8,
2018. https://cals.arizona.edu/hydroponictomatoes/history.htm

17

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General.
March, 2010. “Audit Report 01601-03-Hy.” Accessed January
25, 2018. https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/01601-03-HY.
pdf

4

7 CFR §205.203. Soil fertility and crop nutrient management
practice standard.

18

7 CFR § 205.239(a)(1) Livestock living conditions.

5

Lal R. January 17, 2018. “Digging deeper: A holistic
perspective of factors affecting soil organic carbon
sequestration in agroecosystems.” Glob Chang Biol. 24(2). doi:
10.1111/gcb.14054. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/
gcb.14054

19

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service, National Organic Program. 2017. “What are theoutdoor access and temporary confinement requirements fororganic poultry?” Accessed 12/13/2017. https://www.ams.usda.
gov/sites/default/files/media/9%20Outdoor%20Access%20
FINAL%20RGK%20V2.pdf

6Tacon A and Metian M. September, 2009. “Fishing for Feed
or Fishing for Food: Increasing Global Competition for Small
Pelagic Forage Fish.” Ambio. 38(6): 294. https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/19860152

20

United States Department of Agriculture, National Organic
Program, National Organic Standards Board. 2002.
“Recommended Clarification on Access to the Outdoors for
Poultry (PDF).” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/spring2002

7

Jeff Goodwin and James Jasper. 2009. “The Social
Movements Reader: Cases and Concepts. 2nd edition.”
Blackwell Publishing. Page 4.

21

United States Department of Agriculture, National Organic
Program, National Organic Standards Board. 2002.
“Recommended Clarification on Access to the Outdoors for
Poultry (PDF).” https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/spring2002

22

United States Department of Agriculture. 2017. “QA: Organic
Livestock & Poultry Practices Proposed Rule.” Accessed
January 5, 2018. https://www.ams.usda.gov/publications/content/organic-livestock-poultry-practices-proposed-rule23

Federal Register. November 14, 2017. “National Organic
Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices.”
United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/11/14/2017-24675/national-organic-programnop-organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices

24

Oregon Tilth. September 2, 2013. “Organic Hydroponic andAquaponic FAQ.” Accessed September 28, 2018. https://tilth.
org/education/resources/organic-hydroponic-and-aquaponicfaq/

Peter Whoriskey. 2017. “’Why the hell am I paying more forthis?’ Major egg operation houses “USDA Organic” hens atthree per square foot.” The Washington Post, July 13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/13/morethan-a-million-hens-filling-barns-at-three-per-square-foot-andyes-theyre-usda-organic/?utm_term=.59c8492a7ecd

25“OTCO Comments – Ponics Systems.” Oregon Tilth,Comments Submitted for Fall 2017 NOSB Meeting, October 11,
2017.

Robert G. Wallace. 2017. “Industrial production of poultry gives
rise to deadly strains of bird flu H5Nx.” Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy, January 24. https://www.cornucopia.
org/2017/02/industrial-agriculture-likely-created-bird-flu/

26

74 FR 33030 at 33035

27

United States Department of Agriculture. 2017. “What are theoutdoor access and temporary confinement requirements fororganic poultry?” Accessed November 21, 2017. https://www.
ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/9%20Outdoor%20
Access%20FINAL%20RGK%20V2.pdf

28§ 205.239(b)(3)8

7 CFR §205.203. Soil fertility and crop nutrient management
practice standard.

9

7 CFR §205.203(a)10

United States Department of Agriculture. 2018. “OrganicStandards.” Accessed October 8, 2018. https://www.ams.usda.
gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

11

National Organic Standards Board. August 29, 2017
“Crops Subcommittee Discussion Document. Field andGreenhouse Container Production.” National Organic
Program. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
CSFieldandGreenhouseContainersNOPFall2017.pdf

12Linley Dixon. December, 2018. “Troubling Waters: How the
USDA and Hydroponic Agribusiness Diluted Organics by
Sanctioning Soil-less Growing.” The Cornucopia Institute.
https://www.cornucopia.org/troubling-waters-how-theusda-and-hydroponic-agribusiness-diluted-organics-bysanctioning-soil-less-growing/

13

14

15

18

7 USC § 6509

THE GATEKEEPERS OF ORGANIC INTEGRITY

29

United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service, National Organic Program. April 3,
2017. “Confinement of Organic Poultry due to risk of Avian
Influenza.” Accessed January 25, 2018. https://www.ams.usda.
gov/content/confinement-organic-poultry-due-risk-avianinfluenza

30

United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service, National Organic Program. April 3, 2017.
“NOP Policy Memo 11-12 (pdf).” Accessed January 25, 2018.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-PM11-12-ConfinementofPoultry.pdf

31

The Cornucopia Institute. 2018. “The Dairy Report andScorecard.” Accessed September 15, 2018. https://www.
cornucopia.org/organic-dairy-report-and-scorecard/

32

United States Department of Agriculture. February 12, 2010.
“USDA Issues Final Rule on Organic Access to Pasture –News Release No. 0059.10.” Accessed August 29, 2016.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/press-release/usda-issues-finalrule-organic-access-pasture

33

United States Department of Agriculture. February 12, 2010.
“USDA Issues Final Rule on Organic Access to Pasture– News Release No. 0059.10Accessed August 29, 2016.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/press-release/usda-issues-finalrule-organic-access-pasture

34

Federal Register. December 21, 2000. “Federal Register
Volume 65, Number 246 – Preamble, Subpart: Livestock
Production.” US Federal Register, page 80560. https://www.
gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-12-21/html/00-32257.htm

35

7 CFR 205.236(2)(iii), Dairy animals.

36

USDA, National Organic Standards Board – LivestockCommittee. April 29, 2003. “Origin Of Livestock –Recommendation for Rule Change.” Accessed April 17,
2017. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
Approved%20New%20Rec%20Origin%20of%20Dairy%20
Animals.pdf

37Peter Whoriskey. 2017 “Why your ‘organic’ milk may not
be organic.” The Washington Post, May 1. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/business/economy/why-your-organicmilk-may-not-be-organic/2017/05/01/708ce5bc-ed76-11e69662-6eedf1627882_story.html?utm_term=.3ad1119eeccb

GUIDE TO ORGANIC CERTIFIERS

38

Data Source: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service’s Agricultural
Trade System

39

The Cornucopia Institute. 2009. “Behind the Bean: The
Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy
Foods Industry.” https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/behindthebean_color_final.pdf

40Peter Whoriskey. 2017. “The labels said ‘organic.’ But these
massive imports of corn and soybeans weren’t.” The
Washington Post, May 12. https://www.washingtonpost.
com/business/economy/the-labels-said-organicbut-these-massive-imports-of-corn-and-soybeanswerent/2017/05/12/6d165984-2b76-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_
story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.55bb46b989fe

41

The Cornucopia Institute. 2018. “Suspicious Organic Grain
Shipment Intercepted at U.S. Port.” The Cornucopia Institute,
April 23. https://www.cornucopia.org/2018/04/suspiciousorganic-grain-shipment-intercepted-at-u-s-port/

42

The Cornucopia Institute. 2018. “The Turkish Infiltration of
the U.S. Organic Grain Market: How Failed Enforcement andIneffective Regulations Made the U.S. Ripe for Fraud andOrganized Crime.” The Cornucopia Institute, June 18. https://www.cornucopia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TurkishInfiltration-Organic-Grain-Imports.pdf

43

Midwest Organic Farmers Association. September 25, 2017.
“Notice Regarding Requirements for Approval of Grain
Shipments Imported from Eastern Europe and non-EU
member states.” https://mosaorganic.org/images/documents/
MOSA-Imported-Grain-Policy-September-2017.pdf

44

United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service. “FOIA Reading Room.” Accessed May 1,
2018. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/
NOPETKOAppealSettlementFinalRedacted.pdf

45

Federal Register. November 14, 2017. “National Organic
Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices.”
United States Department of Agriculture, AgriculturalMarketing Service. https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/11/14/2017-24675/national-organic-programnop-organic-livestock-and-poultry-practices

19

ALSO PUBLISHED BY THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE:

Troubling Waters: How
Hydroponic Agribusinessand the USDA Diluted
Organics by Sanctioning
Soil-less Growing

Against the Grain:
Protecting Organic
Shoppers Against Import
Fraud and Farmers from
Unfair Competition

The Industrializationof Organic Dairy: Giant
Livestock Factories andFamily Farms Sharing theSame Organic Label

Raising the Bar: Choosing
Healthy Snack Bars versus
Gimmicky Junk Food

Behind the Dazzling
Smile: Toxic Ingredients inYour Toothpaste?

Protecting Children’s
Health: Choosing Organic
Food to Avoid GMOs andAgricultural Chemicals.

Scrambled Eggs:
Separating Factory
Farm Egg Production
from Authentic Organic
Agriculture, 2nd edition.

Decoding Pet Food:
Adulteration, Toxic
Ingredients, and theBest Choices for Your
Companion Animals

Culture Wars: How the
Food Giants Turned Yogurt,a Health Food, into Junk
Food

Carrageenan: How a“Natural” Food Additive is
Making Us Sick

Cereal Crimes: How“Natural” Claims Deceive
Consumers and Undermine
the Organic Label—A
Look Down the Cereal andGranola Aisle

Replacing Mother—Imitating Human Breast Milkin the Laboratory. Noveloils in infant formula andorganic foods: Safe andvaluable functional food orrisky marketing gimmick?

Behind the Bean. The
Heroes and Charlatans of
the Natural and Organic
Soy Foods Industry

Do It Yourself Organic
Certification Guide andVideo: Helps shoppers
navigate their local markets
when a certified organic
farm vendor is not available

The Organic
Hydroponics Dichotomy:
Can a Soil-less Growing
System be “Organic”?

THE CORNUCOPIA INSTITUTE is engaged in research and educational activities supporting the ecological principles
and economic wisdom underlying sustainable and organic agriculture. Through research and investigations on agricultural and food issues, The Cornucopia Institute provides needed information to family farmers, consumers, stakeholders involved in the good food movement, and the media.
P.O. Box 126 Cornucopia, Wisconsin 54827
TEL: 608-625-2000 FAX: 866-861-2214 cornucopia.org