Sunset 2024 

Meeting 2 - Review

Crops Substances § 205.601 & § 205.602

October 2022

Introduction

As part of the Sunset Process, the National Organic Program (NOP) announces substances on the National List 

of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) that are coming up for sunset review by the National 

Organic Standard Board (NOSB). The following list announces substances that are on the National List which 

must be reviewed by the NOSB and renewed by the USDA before their sunset dates. This document provides 

the substance’s current status on the National List, annotation, references to past technical reports, past NOSB 

actions, and regulatory history, as applicable. If a new technical report has been requested for a substance, this 

is noted in this list. 

Request for Comments

Written public comments will be accepted through September 29, 2022 via www.regulations.gov. Comments 

received after that date may not be reviewed by the NOSB before the meeting. 

 

These comments are necessary to guide the NOSB’s review of each substance against the criteria in the 

Organic Foods Production Act (see 7 U.S.C. 6518(m)) and the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR 205.600). The 

current substances on the National List were originally recommended by the NOSB based on evidence 

available to the NOSB at the time of their last review, which demonstrated that the substances were: (1) not 

harmful to human health or the environment, (2) necessary because of the unavailability of wholly 

nonsynthetic alternatives, and (3) consistent and compatible with organic practices. 

Public comments should clearly indicate the commentor’s position on the allowance or prohibition of 

substances on the National List and explain the reasons for the position. Public comments should focus on 

providing relevant new information about a substance since its last NOSB review. Such information could 

include research or data that may support a change in the NOSB’s determination for a substance (e.g., 

scientific, environmental, manufacturing, industry impact information, etc.). Public comment should also 

address the continuing need for a substance or whether the substance is no longer needed or in demand.

For Comments that Support the Continued Use of §205.601 Substances in Organic Production:

If you provide comments supporting the allowance of a substance at §205.601, you should provide information 

demonstrating that the substance is: 

1. not harmful to human health or the environment;

2. necessary to the production of the agricultural products because of the unavailability of wholly 

nonsynthetic substitute products; and 

3. consistent with organic crop production. 

For Comments that Do Not Support the Continued Use of §205.601 Substances in Organic Production: 

If you provide comments that do not support a substance at §205.601, you should provide reasons why the 

use of the substance should no longer be allowed in organic production. Specifically, comments that support 

the removal of a substance from the National List should provide new information since its last NOSB review to 

demonstrate that the substance is: 

1. harmful to human health or the environment; 

2. unnecessary because of the availability of alternatives; and/or

3. inconsistent with organic crop production. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 65 of 152
For Comments that Support the Continued Prohibition of §205.602 Substances in Organic Production:

If you provide comments supporting the prohibition of a substance on the §205.602 section of the National 

List, you should provide information demonstrating that the substance is:

1. harmful to human health or the environment; and

2. inconsistent with organic crop production. 

For Comments that Do Not Support the Continued Prohibition of §205.602 Substances in Organic 

Production:

If you provide comments that do not support the prohibition of a substance at §205.602, you should provide 

reasons why the use of the substance should no longer be prohibited in organic production. Specifically, 

comments that support the removal of a substance from the §205.602 section of the National List should 

provide new information since its last NOSB review to demonstrate that the substance is:

1. not harmful to human health or the environment; and/or

2. consistent with organic crop production. 

For Comments Addressing the Availability of Alternatives: 

Comments may include information about the viability of alternatives for a substance under sunset review. 

Viable alternatives include, but are not limited to:

• Alternative management practices or natural substances that would eliminate the need for the specific 

substance; 

• Other substances that are on the National List that are better alternatives, which could eliminate the 

need for this specific substance; and/or

• Other organic or nonorganic agricultural substances. 

Your comments should address whether any alternatives have a function and effect equivalent to or better 

than the allowed substance, and whether you want the substance to be allowed or removed from the National 

List. Assertions about alternative substances, except for those alternatives that already appear on the National 

List, should, if possible, include the name and address of the manufacturer of the alternative. Further, your 

comments should include a copy or the specific source of any supportive literature, which could include: 

product or practice descriptions, performance and test data, reference standards, names and addresses of

organic operations who have used the alternative under similar conditions and the date of use, and an 

itemized comparison of the function and effect of the proposed alternative(s) with substance under review. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 66 of 152
§205.601 Sunsets: Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production:

• Herbicides, soap-based

• Biodegradable biobased mulch film

• Boric acid

• Sticky traps/barriers

• Elemental sulfur

• Coppers, fixed

• Copper sulfate

• Polyoxin D zinc salt

• Humic acids

• Micronutrients:

o Soluble boron products

o Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, 

selenium, and cobalt

• Vitamins C E

• Squid byproducts

§205.602 Sunsets: Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production: 

• Lead salts

• Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 67 of 152
Herbicides, soap-based

Reference: §205.601(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.

(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, 

building perimeters) and ornamental crops.

Technical Report: 1996 TAP; 2015 TR

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: Actions: 1996 recommendation; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

As herbicides, soap-based herbicides are used as weed barriers, for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, 

ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops as a last resort.

Manufacture

Soap-based herbicides are potassium salts of fatty acids and are produced through saponification, where 

aqueous potassium hydroxide is added to fatty acids commonly found in animal fats and plant oils. 

Ammonium salts of fatty acids, such as ammonium nonanoate, are produced through room temperature 

reaction of aqueous ammonia or ammonium hydroxide with fatty acids.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian Organic Production Systems Permitted Substances List provides several use patterns for soaps in 

organic crop and livestock production, as well as organic processing

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

European organic regulations allow the use of soap salts in crop and livestock production as insecticides and 

disinfecting agents but are not mentioned for use as herbicides.

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999)

The use of soaps in organic productions is an allowed synthetic substance for plant pest and disease control 

but no mention of specific use as an herbicide.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

A number of uses of soaps are listed for organic crop production and disinfection but no mention of specific 

use as an herbicide.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

Soaps can be used for control of pests in organic crop production. No mention of specific use as an herbicide.

Environmental Issues

Potassium and sodium salts of fatty acids decompose rapidly and do not persist in the environment. They 

need to be sprayed directly on the target plant and thus, environmental contamination is not expected. 

Studies have not shown any negative interactions with other chemicals used for organic farming.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 68 of 152
Discussion

In 2017, the NOSB received several comments in favor of keeping soap-based herbicides on the National List. 

Comments indicated that although soap-based herbicides are sometimes only marginally effective, they are a 

safe alternative, and some farmers rely on them for weed control on farmsteads, roadways, and other places 

they are approved for use. In the Spring 2020 NOSB meeting again there were no comments in favor of 

removing soap-based herbicides. The subcommittee discussed soap-based herbicides and considers them to 

be benign to the environment and human health. 

Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds herbicides, soap-based compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) 

and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove herbicides, soap-based from the National List 

Motion by: Rick Greenwood

Seconded by: Jerry D’Amore

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 3 

Biodegradable biobased mulch film

Reference: §205.601(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable. (2) Mulches.

(iii) Biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or 

feedstock derived from excluded methods.

Technical Report: 2012 TR; 2015 Report; NOP Policy Memorandum 15-1; 2016 Supplemental TR. 

Petition: 2012. 

Past NOSB Actions: Actions: 10/2012 recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation; 2021 annotation 

change

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Biodegradable biobased mulch film (BBMF) is used to suppress weeds, conserve water, and facilitate 

production of row crops. Some commenters have noted that having a degradable plastic mulch is likely to be 

more environmentally friendly than using landfills for the non-degradable plastic mulches. The requirement for 

100% biobased feedstocks to manufacture the film is articulated in the preamble of the final rule that added 

BBMF to the National List. Past commenters have acknowledged that there are currently very few options 

(other than difficult to use paper mulch) for 100% BBMF but have generally felt this listing should remain 

despite the fact that no 100% BBMF is available (see below). At the Fall 2021 NOSB meeting, the Board voted 

to allow 80% BBMF.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 69 of 152
As noted in numerous public comments on past documents relating to BBMF, the current listing allowing the 

use of these films is impractical. No biobased films meet the 100% annotation and are unlikely to meet this 

criterion in the near future. There is also broad consensus among the Board and stakeholders that the use of 

allowed polyethylene mulch has serious negative environmental impacts. After input from stakeholders on the 

practicality and environmental impacts from biodegradable mulch, the Board passed a proposal modifying the 

annotation for BBMF. While there are no currently available products that meet the modified criteria, 

commenters noted that it is possible that materials meeting the proposed annotation could be available in the 

near future. The use of BBMF that meets this proposed annotation would alleviate the environmental impact 

of disposal of non-recyclable polyethylene mulch. The proposed language, “When greater than 80% 

biodegradable biobased mulch films become commercially available, producers are required to use them, 

given that they are of the appropriate quality, quantity, and form”, also reflects the Boards intent to ensure 

that famers must use BBMF with biobased content greater than 80% when these materials become 

commercially available.

The timing of this sunset review predates the rulemaking process to implement the annotation allowing 80% 

BBMF. at §205.601(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable. (2) Mulches. (iii) Biodegradable biobased 

mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived from excluded 

methods until the annotations is implemented.

Manufacture

BBMF is a synthetic plastic material manufactured from polymers using plant-based carbon sources.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

Plastic mulches: non-biodegradable and semi-biodegradable materials shall not be incorporated into the soil or 

left in the field to decompose. Use of polyvinyl chloride as plastic mulch or row cover is prohibited. 

Biodegradable mulches: 100% of biodegradable mulch films shall be derived from bio-based sources. 

Biodegradable polymers and Carbon Black from GE or petroleum sources are not permitted.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

Mulches are not specifically addressed in EEC. Under plant protection it states that all plant production 

techniques used shall prevent or minimize any contribution to the contamination of the environment.

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999)

No reference in CODEX on biodegradable mulch.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Under section 4.5.1, mulches are permitted as a pest management practice under and 4.5.2 references 

appendix 3 as an approved list including “mulch” as a barrier. 4.6.3 states “for synthetic structure coverings, 

mulches, fleeces, insect netting and silage wrapping, only products based on polyethylene and polypropylene, 

or other polycarbonates are permitted. These shall be removed from the soil after use and shall not be burned 

on the farmland.”

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

Mulches are permitted for the control of noxious animals and plants in fields or cultivation sites. Mulches 

derived from used papers (those without chemically synthesized materials added in production) or plastic 

mulches (those intended to be removed after use). There is no listing of biodegradable mulches.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 70 of 152
Environmental Issues

Concerns about BBMF have been discussed extensively in prior documents, including discussion documents, 

reports, and proposals for an annotation change. Concerns have been raised about incomplete degradation 

and migration of partially decomposed particles into the environment.

Discussion

There have been numerous public comments requesting the NOSB work with the NOP to allow a

BBMF that contains unique polymers. Some noted that having a degradable plastic mulch is likely more 

environmentally friendly than disposing of non-degradable mulches in landfills. Previous commenters also 

acknowledged that there currently are no alternatives (other than difficult-to-use paper mulch) to 100% BBMF 

but felt the listing should remain despite the fact that 100% BBMF is not available. As noted above, at the Fall 

2021 NOSB meeting, the Board voted on a recommendation to allow 80% BBMF. Subsequently, in 2022, during 

Subcommittee review for the sunset, there was hesitation by both the NOSB and stakeholders for relisting 

biodegradable mulch. Ongoing discussions include the degradation of BBMF and its unknown effects on soil 

health, comparisons of biodegradable mulches and bags, stickers, and other “biodegradable” products; 

estimates of polyethylene (PE) mulch residue; and concerns about phthalate residues.

Questions to our Stakeholders

1. At the Spring 2022 meeting the Crops Subcommittee asked about availability of 100% biodegradable 

biobased mulches. Commenters did not present any new information. Has there been any new 

development since then?

2. Mulches are critical to many organic farming operations; are those operations eager for biodegradable 

options?

3. How much residue is typically remaining after attempting to remove the standard polyethylene (PE) 

mulch?

4. If any producer has experience with trials of biodegradable mulches, please share.

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee vote was mixed. Four members voted to remove BBMF from the National List, two voted to 

not remove it, and one member abstained. While the substance's manufacture, use, and disposal may have 

minimal impact on the environment and are done in a manner compatible with organic handling, under OFPA 

SEC. 2109. [7 U.S.C. 6508] Prohibited crop production practices and materials; (c) CROP MANAGEMENT - For a 

farm to be certified under this title, producers on farms shall not- (2), “use plastic mulches unless such mulches 

are removed at the end of each growing or harvest season.” Complete removal of these materials has proven 

to be challenging and has organic producers searching for alternatives.

Plastic mulches have been identified as a critical material category for many organic producers. The quest for 

an appropriate alternative has proven difficult, and stakeholders and NOSB members have conflicting opinions.

The Subcommittee would like further information on the decomposition products of BBMF, including microplastics, and whether they are harmful to soil microorganisms.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove Biodegradable biobased mulch film (BBMF) from the National List

Motion by: Logan Petrey

Seconded by: Rick Greenwood

Yes: 4 No: 2 Abstain: 1 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 71 of 152
Boric acid

Reference: §205.601(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).

(3) Boric acid - structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP. 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

As an insecticide, boric acid is odorless. It attacks insect nervous and metabolic systems. It can also dehydrate 

insects and be abrasive to insect exoskeletons. It has been used as an insecticide since 1948 and is common in 

household insecticides.

As a structural pest control tool, it is used as a bait which insects ingest and return to their colonies. As a result, 

it can eliminate entire pest colonies.

Boric acid is often used in packing sheds and other facilities. Many times, it is used as a powder introduced into 

cracks and crevices, and is essential for controlling ants and roaches. 

It has a number of industrial and medical uses and is often used as an amendment in boron-deficient soils.

Manufacture

Boric acid is a white powder that is soluble in boiling water. It is a mined substance, occurring naturally in areas 

of high volcanic activity, and its primary source is the Mojave Desert of Nevada and California. It also occurs in 

plants, is prevalent in most fruits, and appears in rocks and soil.

Boric acid produced through the manufacturing process includes a broad range of formulations in 

concentrations from 1-100% in liquids (solutions, emulsifiable concentrates), granules, wettable powders, 

dusts, pellets, tablets, and baits.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian Organic Production Systems Permitted Substances List includes boric acid for structural pest 

control.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

European organic regulations do not reference boric acid.

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999)

CODEX regulations do not reference boric acid.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

IFOAM regulations do not reference boric acid.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

JAS regulations allow boric acid for pest control for plants.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 72 of 152
Environmental Issues

Boric acid is generally regarded as safe (GRAS) and of low toxicity, although it can be an eye, skin, and 

respiratory and nasal irritant. Ingestion by humans or pets can cause gastrointestinal distress. Long-term 

exposure can affect the kidneys, although it is not generally considered to be carcinogenic. There is no 

evidence it can be an endocrine disruptor or can create reproductive toxicity in humans (although birds may 

experience some reduced growth rates after ingestion). Several species of fish have been tested for impacts 

from boric acid, and the World Health Organization determined very low sensitivity to the material in those 

species. It has low toxicity to bees.

Boric acid is mined from the environment in deserts where sensitive habitats and species may exist. Boric acid 

is released into the environment due its wide range of applications, including borate salt laundry products, 

power generation, chemical manufacturing, copper smelters, rockets, mining operations, and the manufacture 

of glass, fiberglass, porcelain enamel, ceramic glazes, metal alloys and fire retardants.

Discussion

Boric acid, derived from the mineral borax/borate salts, is a weak acid that has long been considered a “leasttoxic” pesticide because it is non-volatile when placed in bait or gel formulations and therefore eliminates risk 

of direct exposure. It is essentially hydrated boron. 

At the Fall 2015 NOSB meeting, the Crops Subcommittee proposed to remove boric acid from §205.601(e) on 

the basis of not fully meeting all sub-components of OFPA criteria, particularly criteria of Impacts on Humans

and the Environment, Essentiality, and Compatibility & Consistency. The motion to remove failed after 

receiving 1 “Yes” and 13 “No” votes. While boric acid does not fully meet the OFPA criteria of Impacts on 

Humans and the Environment, Essentiality, and Compatibility & Consistency, the alternatives often have 

equally challenging issues. 

In 2017 and 2022, there was no new information provided from the stakeholder community through public 

comment. There was also no support for removing boric acid from the National List. Neither the Subcommittee 

nor the full Board recommended its removal from the National List.

The Crops Subcommittee discussed the use of this material and noted it is both common and useful for 

structural pest control applications.

Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds boric acid compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 

205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove boric acid from the National List 

Motion by: Wood Turner

Seconded by: Jerry D’Amore

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 73 of 152
Sticky traps/barriers

Reference: §205.601(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).

(9) Sticky traps/barriers.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP.

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Sticky traps/barriers are used for pest control and monitoring. They are also used with traps as a production 

aid.

Manufacture

This listing covers a wide range of traps and coatings made with a number of different materials, including 

coated paper, coated plastic, and brushed on sticky chemicals applied directly to plants. Some sticky traps are 

made with petroleum wax or linear hydrocarbons.

International Acceptance

None noticed

Environmental Issues

Sticky traps are used in limited quantities in confined areas such as traps or tree trunks, and have limited 

mobility, making it unlikely to have environmental impacts. Also, sticky traps do not come into contact with 

food. 

Discussion

There was broad support for relisting sticky traps/barriers from farmers, certifiers, and trade organizations 

during the last sunset review for these materials. Based on the previous Subcommittee review and public 

comments from the Spring 2022 NOSB meeting, the NOSB found sticky traps/barriers compliant with OFPA 

criteria, and do not recommend removal from the National List. 

Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds sticky traps/barriers compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 

7 CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove sticky traps/barriers from the National List 

Motion by: Rick Greenwood

Seconded by: Amy Bruch

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 3 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 74 of 152
Elemental sulfur

Reference: §205.601(h) As slug or snail bait.

(2) Elemental sulfur.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2018 TR.

Petition: 2017. 

Past NOSB Actions: 04/2018 recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Added to National List on 11/22/2019 (84 FR 56673).

Sunset Date: 11/22/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

When used to manage slugs and snails, sulfur is formulated with attractants plus other inert ingredients and 

extruded into pellets. These are broadcast or hand-applied near crops needing protection from these target 

pests. For this purpose, a 1% sulfur formulation is used at a labeled rate of up to 44 lbs. per acre, with an 

actual elemental sulfur application rate of up to 0.44 lbs. per acre. This application rate is much lower than 

labeled rates for sulfur when it is used as a fungicide in formulations of 80% or 90% elemental sulfur.

Manufacture

Elemental sulfur can come either from a natural mined source, or may be produced as a by-product from 

natural gas or petroleum operations and refinery processes. The latter appears to be the source of most 

elemental sulfur currently being used. Because the sulfur is chemically extracted from fossil-fuel feedstock, it is 

considered synthetic. 

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) includes elemental sulfur from either mined and reclaimed 

sources as permitted substances for organic production systems (CAN/CGSB-32.311-2015) for use as a soil 

amendment and as a foliar application. The CGSB also permits the use of sulfur for the control of external 

parasites and sulfur smoke bombs in conjunction with other methods used for rodent control when a pest 

control program is temporarily overwhelmed. 

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

The European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation (EEC No 2092/91) and carried over by Article 

16(3)(c) of Regulation No 834/2007, permits the use of sulfur as a fungicide, acaricide, and repellent in organic 

food production. 

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

The Codex Alimentarius Commission’s “Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling, and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods” (GL 32-1999) lists elemental sulfur as an allowed substance for pest and disease 

control. 

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) lists sulfur as an approved substance 

for pest and disease control, for use as fertilizer/soil conditioner, and for use as a crop protectant and growth 

regulator. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 75 of 152
Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

The Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production (Notification No. 1605 of 2005) permits the use of 

sulfur as a fertilizer or soil improvement substance, and as a substance for plant pest and disease control. 

Environmental Issues

When used as a fungicide with several applications per season, sulfur can lower soil pH over time, and have 

negative effects on beneficial mite populations. However, application rates used for slug and snail 

management are much lower and would not be expected to have those effects.

Discussion

Sulfur for use as a slug or snail bait was added to the National List at §205.601(h) in 2019. This is its first sunset 

review. It was petitioned for use in 2017 with studies showing that a sulfur slug bait product was slightly more 

effective than other products approved for the same use in organic production. 

Other synthetic products commonly used by organic farmers to kill slugs contain the active ingredient, ferric 

phosphate. It is invariably combined with a synergist, the chelator EDTA, which is an inert ingredient on the 

defunct EPA List 4. The EDTA + ferric phosphate combination has been implicated in harm to earthworms in 

soil and also pet dogs due to enhanced iron toxicity. In 2012, these products were petitioned for removal from 

the National List at § 205.601(h) for this reason, but the NOSB motion to remove failed. At that time, the 

NOSB Recommendation indicated that there were no commercial alternatives to ferric phosphate. In 2018, 

the listing for ferric phosphate was renewed on the National List.

In light of questions about the toxicity of ferric phosphate and the availability of relatively new sulfur 

alternatives, organic farmers may consider the sulfur products to be desirable. The label of one sulfur-based 

slug bait product states that it can be used around pets and wildlife when used as directed. The label shows 

1% sulfur and 99% inert ingredients, which include iron. It is not known whether this product also contains 

EDTA. At labeled rates, sulfur used to target slugs and snails is thought to have little or no negative 

environmental impacts, even if applied multiple times per season. However, other components of a sulfur 

product’s formulation are unknown and may have negative environmental effects.

Written and oral comments in 2022 included 5 in favor of relisting, 1 opposed, and 1 calling for further review. 

The point was made that farmers have little experience with sulfur for this specific use because it is relatively 

new. Also, some commenters noted that the goal of reducing tillage may lead to an increase of damaging slug 

populations. Questions about inert ingredients in product formulations, which can be 99% of total ingredients, 

highlight the need for more work on these products.

Based on 2022 comments, the relatively low environmental profile of sulfur for this use, and its potential as a 

less toxic formulation than current slug control products, the Crops Subcommittee recommends renewing the 

listing of sulfur at §205.601(h) as slug or snail bait.

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds elemental sulfur compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 

CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal. 

Subcommittee Vote:

Motion to remove elemental sulfur from the National List 

Motion by: Brian Caldwell

Seconded by: Jerry D’Amore

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 2 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 76 of 152
Coppers, fixed

Reference: §205.601(i) As plant disease control.

(2) Coppers, fixed —copper hydroxide, copper oxide, copper oxychloride, includes products exempted 

from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes 

accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as herbicides. 

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2011 TR. 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 4/2011 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation.

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Fixed coppers was reviewed and approved for continued use during the October 2015 NOSB meeting. Coppers

were considered to be an important tool for organic producers as part of a comprehensive approach to disease

management in many crops. For example, copper products became an integrated part of fire blight control in

pome fruits after antibiotics were removed from the National List. While some copper minerals and

compounds occur in nature, products for agriculture are made from by-products of processing copper ores and

are considered synthetic. Copper is on the list of exemptions for synthetic materials in OFPA at § 

6517(c)(1)(B)(i). Copper sulfate is also undergoing sunset review, and the Crops Subcommittee has submitted a 

separate review.

Manufacture

Fixed coppers, such as copper hydroxide, are formed by treating copper sulfate with another compound (in

this case sodium hydroxide). In another example, copper carbonate is formed by treating copper sulfate with

sodium carbonate. 

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

• Permitted for use as a wood preservative, fungicide on fruit and vegetables or for disease control.

• Shall be used with caution to prevent excessive copper accumulation in the soil. Copper buildup in soil 

may prohibit future use.

• Visible residue of copper products on harvested crops is prohibited.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

• The EEC states that, “it is appropriate to restrict the use of plant protection products containing copper

compounds to a maximum application rate of 28 kg/ha of copper over a period of 7 years (i.e., on

average 4 kg/ha/year) in order to minimize the potential accumulation in soil and the exposure for not

target organisms, while considering agro-climatic conditions occurring periodically in Member States

leading to an increase of the fungal pressure. When authorizing products Member States should pay

attention to certain issues and strive for the minimization of application rates.”

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 77 of 152
CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

• Copper in the form of copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, (tribasic) copper sulfate, cuprous oxide, 

Bordeaux mixture and Burgundy mixture are listed in Annex 2 (Permitted substances for the 

production of organic foods), Table 2 (Substances for plant pest and disease control) of ―Guidelines 

for the production, processing, labeling, and marketing of organically produced foods‖ (CODEX-GL 32, 

1999). 

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Copper is only mentioned as a soil amendment and trace soil nutrient under IFOAM.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

• While the document refers to ‘copper powder” repeatedly, only copper sulfate is specifically mentioned. 

Copper sulfate is only permitted in organic agriculture as a fungicidal spray

Environmental issues

Run-off from treated fields can contain high levels of copper. Copper is readily dissolved and suspended in the 

water and is lethal to fish and other aquatic organisms at fairly low concentrations. In the soil, it tends to 

concentrate heavily in the topsoil and leads to copper resistant fungal strains over time, as well as altering the

soil microbiota and killing soil-dwelling animals such as earthworms. Copper toxicity in the soil can reduce the 

growth and nutrient value of crop plants, as well as damage the integrity of root systems (Van Assche and 

Clijsters, 1990). Because copper accumulates in the soil over time and eventually results in poor plant 

outcomes, its use as a sustainable practice must be questioned.

Discussion

Copper products are difficult substances to evaluate, as there appears to be broad consensus throughout the

US, EU, and Canada that they are hazardous to both human health and the environment. Despite this, they

have repeatedly had their use period extended in all three jurisdictions. There doesn’t yet appear to be a 

viable organic alternative for copper in certain applications, including in the lucrative organic wine industry.

Banning the use of coppers entirely could eliminate organic wine production, as there are no other widely

available and effective tools for controlling downy mildew. While there is not yet a broadly accepted

alternative to copper compounds for controlling downy mildew, research has pointed to plant extracts from

yucca and salvia, as well as another fungus , Trichoderma harzianum, as a possible means of biological control

(Dagostin et al., 2011). However, some organic vineyards have also withdrawn from the organic label in order

to allow for use of copper alternatives in their vineyards, citing toxic copper build-up in the soil. One way to

mitigate this issue would be to implement regular soil testing in organic vineyards and mandate soil

remediation once a toxic threshold is approached. 

One method to remove toxic copper levels from the soil of vineyards uses plants and bacteria to pull the heavy

metal from the soil (Mackie et al, 2012). Phytoremediation with mustard (Brassica juncea) can help remove

toxic copper levels from the soil (Ariyakanon and Winaipanich, 2006). There appears to be varying tolerance of

crops to copper levels in the soil, suggesting that copper-tolerant crops could be rotated into place after a 

period of copper intensive cropping. While this would clearly not work for long-lived perennial crops like

grapes, annual crops such as potatoes and melons might benefit from this type of crop rotation.

2017 NOSB Review 

Fixed coppers and copper sulfate used for plant disease control (§205.601(i)(2) and §205.601(i)(3),

respectively) were reviewed in 2015 ahead of the 2017 sunset date. There was strong public support for

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 78 of 152
relisting of copper materials. Although there was some discussion regarding the annotation, the final public

comment was that the current annotation is adequate. Given the extensive use and documented need for

copper sprays, the NOSB found coppers, fixed, compliant with OFPA criteria, and voted unanimously to not

remove coppers from the list.

2022 NOSB Review

Overview: Distinguishing between fixed coppers and copper sulfate seems redundant as they are used in a 

similar manner and are reviewed in the same technical reports (TRs). In the scientific literature, they are

grouped as CBACs (copper-based antimicrobial compounds). Copper sulfate contains more “free” copper ions

vs. “fixed” and is therefore often combined with lime to bind the copper ions. The free copper ions contribute

to its solubility in water and its higher uptake by plants.

Main Considerations in 2022 Review

• Copper compounds readily dissolve in water and are highly toxic to many aquatic organisms. They disperse 

quickly in water.

• Copper compounds bind to soil and tend to accumulate significantly in clay soils and increasingly with 

increasing soil pH. Soils with pH over 6.5 are particularly susceptible to metal toxicity from repeated 

application.

• Copper compounds can damage the plants they are applied to, as well as impact the appearance and taste 

of the crop.

• Widespread use of copper compounds has led to the evolution of copper-resistant disease varietals

• There is a well-studied link between dysfunctional copper metabolism and Alzheimer’s disease. Recent 

research finds a link between the epidemic of Alzheimer’s disease and the agricultural use of copper for 

disease management in plants. 

• Foliar spray of copper mixtures has long been recognized to impact lung and liver function in agricultural 

workers

In December 2021, the Crops Subcommittee discussed the need for an updated TR. Not only have ten years

passed since the previous report was written, but there are new concerns regarding human and environmental

health. 

The Subcommittee requested that the new TR highlight five areas that should be expanded and updated with

the latest research: human health concerns, soil health and microbiota, application rates and accumulation in

the soil, copper in the aquatic environment, and alternatives to copper-based products. We also asked that the

future TR use consistent units of measurement when discussing rates of application and copper

concentrations.

In July 2022, just prior to the deadline to submit proposals for the Fall meeting, the Crops Subcommittee

received a draft copy of the copper TR, which it found comprehensive, thorough, and sufficient. The 2022 TR

contained updated and expanded information regarding continued and expanded environmental and human

health concerns, and the Crops Subcommittee will continue to review the TR and public comment. Although

the Subcommittee found the TR sufficient, it did submit additional clarifying questions for the authors of the

TR, and expects those answers some time prior to the Fall NOSB meeting. 

Questions to our Stakeholders

1. Are there organic alternatives available to copper products that are more suitable for use in disease 

control?

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 79 of 152
2. Are there viable practices that can be used in situ to offset the toxic build-up of copper in the soil and 

water? 

Justification for Vote 

The Subcommittee finds coppers, fixed compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR

205.600(b) and is not proposing removal. 

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove coppers, fixed from the National List

Motion by: Jerry D’Amore

Seconded by: Brian Caldwell

Yes: 1 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

References

1. Ariyakanon N, Winaipanich B (2006). Phytoremediation of copper contaminated soil by Brassica 

juncea (L.) Czern and Bidens alba (L.) DC. var. radiate. J Sci Res Chula Univ 31(1):49–56

2. Dagostin S, Schärer H, Pertot I, Tamm, L (2011). Are there alternatives to copper for controlling 

grapevine downy mildew in organic viticulture? Crop Protection. 30(7):776-788.

3. Mackie KA, Müller T, Kandeler E (2012). Remediation of copper in vineyards—a mini review. 

Environmental Pollution 167:16–26. 

4. Van Assche F, Clijsters H (1990). Effects of metals on enzyme activity in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 

13:195-206. 

Copper sulfate (i)(3)

Reference: §205.601(i) As plant disease control.

(3) Copper sulfate - Substance must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation of copper in the 

soil.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2011 TR. 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 4/2011 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use 

Copper sulfate was reviewed and approved for continued use during the October 2015 NOSB meeting. 

Coppers were considered to be an important tool for organic producers as part of a comprehensive approach 

to disease management in many crops. For example, copper products became an integrated part of fire blight 

control in pome fruits after antibiotics were removed from the National List. While some copper minerals and 

compounds occur in nature, products for agriculture are made from by-products of processing copper ores and 

are considered synthetic. Copper is on the list of exemptions for synthetic materials in OFPA at § 

6517(c)(1)(B)(i). Fixed coppers is also undergoing sunset review, and the Crops Subcommittee has submitted a 

separate review. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 80 of 152
Manufacture

Copper sulfate is manufactured by treating copper ore with concentrated sulfuric acid. It is also known as 

copper vitriol. In order to enhance its fungicidal properties, copper sulfate is mixed with calcium hydroxide to 

produce a “Bordeaux mixture” which is sprayed on crops for disease control. 

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

• Permitted for use as a wood preservative, fungicide on fruit and vegetables or for disease control.

• Shall be used with caution to prevent excessive copper accumulation in the soil. Copper buildup in soil 

may prohibit future use.

• Visible residue of copper products on harvested crops is prohibited.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

• The EEC states that, “it is appropriate to restrict the use of plant protection products containing copper

compounds to a maximum application rate of 28 kg/ha of copper over a period of 7 years (i.e., on

average 4 kg/ha/year) in order to minimize the potential accumulation in soil and the exposure for not

target organisms, while considering agro-climatic conditions occurring periodically in Member States

leading to an increase of the fungal pressure. When authorizing products Member States should pay

attention to certain issues and strive for the minimization of application rates.”

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

• Copper in the form of copper hydroxide, copper oxychloride, (tribasic) copper sulfate, cuprous oxide, 

Bordeaux mixture and Burgundy mixture are listed in Annex 2 (Permitted substances for the 

production of organic foods), Table 2 (Substances for plant pest and disease control) of ―Guidelines 

for the production, processing, labeling, and marketing of organically produced foods‖ (CODEX-GL 32, 

1999). 

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Copper is only mentioned as a soil amendment and trace soil nutrient under IFOAM. 

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

Copper sulfate is only permitted in organic agriculture as a fungicidal spray.

Environmental Issues

Run-off from treated fields can contain high levels of copper. Copper is readily dissolved and suspended in the

water and is lethal to fish and other aquatic organisms at fairly low concentrations. In the soil, it tends to

concentrate heavily in the topsoil and leads to copper resistant fungal strains over time, as well as altering the

soil microbiota and killing soil-dwelling animals such as earthworms. Copper toxicity in the soil can reduce the

growth and nutrient value of crop plants, as well as damage the integrity of root systems (Van Assche and

Clijsters, 1990). Because copper accumulates in the soil over time and eventually results in poor plant

outcomes, its use as a sustainable practice may be questioned.

Copper sulfate has been shown to be toxic to bees, particularly in tropical environments. At sub-lethal levels,

the heavy metal also changes behavior and movement ability. Despite this, there are multiple statements on

the National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) and in US Environmental Protection Agency Office of

Pesticide Programs documents stating that copper sulfate is virtually non-toxic to bees. This is an important

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 81 of 152
point to clarify. The role that bees play in the pollination of commercial crops globally should make this a 

concern to farmers and the general public alike.

Copper sulfate has been classified as a human carcinogen by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), with

specific concern for renal cancers (Buzio et al, 2002). Chronic exposure to fungicidal sprays elevated the risk of

renal cancers by almost 3 times. While copper binds to soils readily, copper contamination of drinking water

sources would also be a concern.

Discussion

Copper sulfate is a difficult substance to evaluate, as there appears to be broad consensus throughout the US, 

EU, and Canada that it is hazardous to both human health and the environment. Despite this, the use period 

for copper has been extended in all three jurisdictions, as there isn’t yet a viable organic alternative in certain 

applications, including in the lucrative organic wine industry. Banning the use of copper sulfate entirely could 

eliminate organic wine production, as there are no other widely available and effective tools for controlling 

downy mildew. While there is not yet a broadly accepted alternative to copper sulfate for controlling downy 

mildew, research has pointed to plant extracts from yucca and salvia, as well as another fungus, Trichoderma 

harzianum, as a possible means of biological control (Dagostin et al., 2011). However, some organic vineyards 

have also withdrawn from the organic label in order to allow for use of copper alternatives in their vineyards, 

citing toxic copper build-up in the soil. One way to mitigate this issue would be to implement regular soil 

testing in organic vineyards and mandate soil remediation once a toxic threshold is approached. 

One method to remove toxic copper levels from the soil of vineyards uses plants and bacteria to pull the heavy 

metal from the soil (Mackie et al, 2012). Phytoremediation with mustard (Brassica juncea) can help remove 

toxic copper levels from the soil (Ariyakanon and Winaipanich, 2006). There appears to be varying tolerance of 

crops to copper levels in the soil, suggesting that copper-tolerant crops could be rotated into place after a 

period of copper sulfate intensive cropping. While this would clearly not work for long-lived perennial crops 

like grapes, annual crops such as potatoes and melons might benefit from this type of crop rotation.

2017 NOSB Review 

Copper sulfate and fixed coppers used for plant disease control (§205.601(i)(2) and §205.601(i)(3)) were 

reviewed in 2015 ahead of the 2017 sunset date. There was strong public support for relisting of copper 

materials and the NOSB voted 2 “Yes” and 12 “No” on the motion to remove copper. Although there was 

some discussion regarding the annotation, the final public comment was that the current annotation is 

adequate. Given the extensive use and documented need for copper sprays, the NOSB found copper sulfate 

compliant with OFPA criteria, and did not recommend removal from the National List. 

2022 NOSB Review

Overview: Distinguishing between copper sulfate and fixed coppers seems redundant as they are used in a 

similar manner and are reviewed in the same technical reports (TRs). In the scientific literature, they are 

grouped as CBACs (copper-based antimicrobial compounds). Copper sulfate contains more “free” copper ions 

vs. “fixed” and is therefore often combined with lime to bind the copper ions. The free copper ions contribute 

to its solubility in water and its higher uptake by plants.

Main Considerations in 2022 Review

• Copper compounds readily dissolve in water and are highly toxic to many aquatic organisms. They 

disperse quickly in water.

• Copper compounds bind to soil and tend to accumulate significantly in clay soils and with increasing 

soil pH. Soils with pH over 6.5 are particularly susceptible to metal toxicity from repeated application.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 82 of 152
• Copper compounds can damage the plants they are applied to, as well as impact the appearance and 

taste of the crop.

• Widespread use of copper compounds has led to the evolution of copper-resistant disease varietals.

• There is a well-studied link between dysfunctional copper metabolism and Alzheimer’s disease. Recent 

research finds a link between the epidemic of Alzheimer’s disease and the agricultural use of copper 

for disease management in plants. 

• Foliar spray of copper mixtures has long been recognized to impact lung and liver function in 

agricultural workers.

In December 2021, the Crops Subcommittee discussed the need for an updated TR. Not only has ten years 

passed since the previous report was written, but there are also new concerns regarding human and 

environmental health. The Subcommittee requested that the new TR highlight five areas that should be 

expanded and updated with the latest research: human health concerns, soil health and microbiota, 

application rates and accumulation in the soil, copper in the aquatic environment, and alternatives to copperbased products. We also asked that the future TR use consistent units of measurement when discussing rates 

of application and copper concentrations.

In July 2022, just prior to the deadline to submit proposals for the Fall meeting, the Crops Subcommittee 

received a draft copy of the copper TR, which it found comprehensive, thorough, and sufficient. The 2022 TR 

contained updated and expanded information regarding environmental and human health concerns, and the 

Crops Subcommittee will continue to review the TR and public comment. Although the Subcommittee found 

the TR sufficient, it did submit additional clarifying questions for the authors of the TR, and expects those 

answers some time prior to the Fall NOSB meeting. .

Questions to our Stakeholders

1. Are there organic alternatives to copper sulfate that are more suitable for use as a fungicide?

2. Are there viable practices that can be used in situ to offset the toxic build-up of copper in soil and 

water? 

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds copper sulfate compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 

205.600(b) and is not proposing removal. 

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove copper sulfate from the National List

Motion by: Jerry D’Amore

Seconded by: Amy Bruch

Yes: 1 No: 5 Abstain: 1 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

References

1. Ariyakanon N, Winaipanich B (2006) Phytoremediation of copper contaminated soil by Brassica 

juncea (L.) Czern and Bidens alba (L.) DC. var. radiate. J Sci Res Chula Univ 31(1):49–56

2. Buzio L, Tondel M, De Palma G, et al. (2002) Occupational risk factors for renal cell cancer. An Italian 

case-control study. La Medicina del Lavoro. 93(4):303-309.

3. Dagostin S, Schärer H, Pertot I, Tamm, L (2011). Are there alternatives to copper for controlling 

grapevine downy mildew in organic viticulture? Crop Protection. 30(7):776-788.

4. Mackie KA, Müller T, Kandeler E (2012) Remediation of copper in vineyards—a mini review. 

Environmental Pollution 167:16–26. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 83 of 152
5. Van Assche F, Clijsters H (1990) Effects of metals on enzyme activity in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 

13:195-206. 

Polyoxin D zinc salt

Reference: §205.601(i) As plant disease control.

(11) Polyoxin D zinc salt.

Technical Report: 2012 TR; 2017 Limited Scope TR; 2021 Lmt’d Scope TR Pending

Petition: 2016 (Addendum #1, #2, #3). 

Past NOSB Actions: 04/2018 recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Added to National List on 11/22/2019 (84 FR 56673).

Sunset Date: 11/22/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Polyoxin D zinc salt is used as an agricultural fungicide. It has a locally systemic function, meaning that it is 

absorbed into surface plant tissues. It currently appears on the National List as plant disease control at 7 CFR 

205.601(i). Few fungicides used in organic production are systemic, and polyoxin D zinc salt products may have 

greater efficacy against some plant disease organisms.

Manufacture

Polyoxin D is produced by controlled fermentation of the naturally occurring (non-GMO) soil microorganism 

Streptomyces cacaoi var. asoensis. While polyoxin D might be considered a nonsynthetic product, its chemical 

conversion to a zinc salt makes it synthetic. The zinc salt makes this product more useful by lessening its high 

water-solubility, thereby preventing the product from washing off the application area too quickly.

International Acceptance

Polyoxin D zinc salt does not appear on any of the following lists:

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

Environmental Issues

The 2012 Technical Review (TR) states that polyoxin D zinc salt rapidly degrades on plant surfaces, in 

approximately 2-3 days, and has a half-life of 16 days in soil. The 2018 NOSB review concluded there was low 

environmental risk, and further that there is no concern during the manufacture, use, or disposal of polyoxin D 

zinc salt other than that this product should not be used nearby to, or in, water since it is moderately toxic to 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 84 of 152
aquatic invertebrates and fish. The 2017 TR concurs and states “Based on the results [of numerous studies 

cited], polyoxin D zinc salt is presumed to carry very low environmental risk and because polyoxin D zinc salt is 

formed through fermentation, it is considered to be less toxic to the environment than a fungicide that was 

chemically manufactured such as copper, sulfur, or petroleum distillates.”

Polyoxin D zinc salt has a unique, non-toxic mode of action. No other active ingredient registered for use in 

North America has the same mode of action (FRAC Code 19). As described in the 2012 petition (page 18): 

“The active portion of polyoxin D zinc salt is polyoxin D which is produced by a microorganism that is naturally 

occurring in the soil. Polyoxin D inhibits the growth of phytopathogenic fungal cell wall chitin by competitively 

inhibiting chitin synthetase. Without chitin, susceptible fungi are unable to continue growing and infecting 

plant cells. Polyoxin D zinc salt does not kill the fungi; it simply stops the fungal growth. The action of Polyoxin 

D is highly specific; it does not affect bacteria, viruses, or mammals.” 

In response to NOSB questions of toxicity to beneficial soil fungi, honeybees, or ladybird beetles, the petitioner 

commissioned their own studies and found no negative effects of polyoxin D zinc salt on any of these 

organisms. If directly mixed with products used by organic producers containing living beneficial fungi, the 

fungi could be rendered ineffective. 

Human Health Issues

The 2017 TR of polyoxin D zinc salt states there is very low acute toxicity to humans by oral, dermal, or 

inhalation routes, and it did not demonstrate mutagenic potential. There are warnings on the label about 

possible skin and eye irritation effects. Polyoxin D zinc salt is poorly absorbed after ingestion with the vast 

majority of the product (>90%) being excreted unchanged, directly in the feces. Polyoxin D zinc salt has been in 

use as an antifungal agent for over 40 years in Japan on rice, without any notable, consistent, adverse human 

reactions being recorded. It has been approved in the USA and Mexico on food crops for over 5 and 3 years, 

respectively and for non-food crops in the USA for over 16 years. The direct risk to humans is considered to be 

extremely low. 

A separate issue relates to how its agricultural use could affect anti-fungal medicines in human health.

Considerable research has focused on polyoxins as less-toxic alternatives to currently available therapeutic 

antifungal medications in humans. These studies have led to mostly unsuccessful results, and polyoxins are not 

used clinically at the present time. Polyoxin D has thus far been ineffective in therapeutic exploratory studies 

for potential human use against fungi, except at very high concentrations. It has shown some efficacy against 

yeasts, but is considered unlikely to be used as a human medicine. Thus, human pathogen resistance to 

polyoxin D would have little or no medical impact.

It is possible that from polyoxin D use in agriculture, cross-resistance could develop to related antibiotics such 

as Nikkomycin Z, currently being tested as a human anti-fungal medicine. In order for such resistance to 

develop, polyoxin D would need to be used widely. A human fungal pathogen would need to acquire the 

resistance to polyoxin D, either from direct exposure or via transfer from other resistant organisms. Finally, 

the pathogen’s resistance to polyoxin D would need to confer resistance to the to-be-developed new 

medicine. This seems to be a highly unlikely chain of events.

Discussion

Written and oral comments in 2022 were strongly in favor of retaining polyoxin D zinc salt on the National List. 

Producers reiterated that it is an effective and valuable material. 

Based on its efficacy, low environmental impact, and low risk to human health, the Crops Subcommittee 

recommends renewing polyoxin D zinc salt at §205.601(i) As plant disease control.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 85 of 152
Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds that polyoxin D zinc salt continues to be compliant with the Organic Foods Production 

Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal. 

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove polyoxin D zinc salt from the National List 

Motion by: Brian Caldwell

Seconded by: Amy Bruch

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 3 

Humic acids

Reference: §205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments.

3) Humic acids - naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali extracts only.

Technical Report: 1996 TAP; 2006 TR; 2012 TR (oxidized lignite/humic acid derivatives). 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 09/1996 minutes and vote; 4/2006 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Humic acids can be soil-applied or foliar applied depending on the specific product. Humic acid affects soil 

fertility by making micronutrients more readily available to plants rather than contributing additional nutrients 

to the soil. According to the 2006 Technical Report (TR), humic substances can chelate (bind) soil nutrients, 

improve nutrient uptake, reduce the need for nitrogen fertilizer, remove toxins from soils, stimulate soil 

biological activity, solubilize minerals, improve soil structure, and improve water holding capacity. 

Manufacture

According to the 2006 TR, humic substances (which includes humic acids) naturally constitute a significant 

fraction of the organic matter in the soil and are formed through the process known as “humification.”

Humification is the natural conversion of organic matter into humic substances by microorganisms in the soil 

(Mayhew, 2004). 

Commercially available humic acids are derived from leonardite, lignite, or coal. Extracts from non-synthetic 

humates by hydrolysis using synthetic or non-synthetic alkaline materials are permitted, including the use of 

sodium, potassium, or ammonium hydroxide. The TR states that the process begins with separating organic 

matter from the inorganic matrix of sand, silt, and clay. The terrestrial source is leached with hydrochloric acid 

(HCl) to remove calcium and other positively charged ions and to increase the efficiency of extraction of 

organic matter with alkaline reagents. Next, a stronger sodium hydroxide solution creates a liquid solution 

(Weber, undated). The extracted liquid solution is incompatible with acids because it is very alkaline, in the 

range of 8 to 12 pH, and can be treated with an acid to precipitate out the humic acid portion (Mayhew, 2004). 

Alkali extraction can also be carried out using potassium hydroxide, a common reagent used by manufacturers 

to extract humic acid from leonardite. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 86 of 152
International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

As noted in the 2012 TR, humates, humic acids and fulvic acids are permitted if mined; produced through 

microbial activity; extracted by physical processes; or with: a) Table 4.2 Extractants; or b) potassium 

hydroxide—potassium hydroxide levels used in the extraction process shall not exceed the amount required 

for extraction. Levels (mg/kg) of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury shall not exceed the limits 

(category C1) specified in Guidelines for the Beneficial Use of Fertilizing Residuals. Shall not cause a build-up of 

heavy metals or micronutrients in soil.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

Humic acid derivatives and oxidized lignite do not appear on Annex I, Fertilizers, soil conditioners and nutrients 

referred to in Article 3(1) and Article 6d(2) (EC, 2008). The EU requires all substances used as a fertilizer, soil 

conditioner or nutrient in organic production in the EU appear on that Annex (EC, 2007). However, humic 

acids do appear on Annex VII, Products for Cleaning and Disinfection (EC, 2008).

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

No information was identified at the listed site.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Humic acid derivatives do not appear on Appendix 2: Fertilizers and Soil Conditioners. However, the use of 

humic acids are covered under a derogation found in §4.4.6, which reads: “Mineral fertilizers shall be applied 

in the form in which they are naturally composed and extracted and shall not be rendered more soluble by 

chemical treatment, other than addition of water and mixing with other naturally occurring, permitted inputs.”

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

The Japanese Agricultural Standard for Organic Production does not include humic acid derivatives or oxidized 

lignite on Table 1, Fertilizers and Soil Improvement Substances (JMAFF, 2012). Alkali extracted humic acid is 

banned for use on products grown for export to Japan under the Equivalency Agreement between the 

Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the USDA’s National Organic Program, the only 

such substance currently to have that status (Arai, 2008).

Environmental Issues

Humic acids themselves are not known to cause environmental issues. When evaluating the manufacturing 

process, the TR states that there is no information available from EPA to suggest that environmental 

contamination results from the manufacture, use, misuse, or disposal of humic acids. Improper disposal of 

acids or bases used in the extraction process could be a source of environmental contamination. The mining of 

lignite/leonardite or other source materials may have environmental impacts. 

Discussion 

In 2022, the majority of the comments submitted to the NOSB regarding humic acid substances were 

supportive of continued listing. Various certifying bodies indicated the widespread usage on multiple crops. 

The Subcommittee discussed information in the TR about a lack of standardized analysis for substances 

marketed as humic acid substances, resulting in the marketing of some products that produce minimal to no 

results. However, scientists have researched and documented the benefits of using humic acid substances in 

agriculture. The Subcommittee reviewed concerns from stakeholders, including environmental impact, the 

risk of synthetic fortification of extractants, and also the Fall 2012 NOSB vote to prohibit oxidized lignite (humic 

acids derived from coal by oxidation with hydrogen peroxide) due to environmental and health impacts, lack of 

essentiality, and incompatibility with organic production. 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 87 of 152
Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds humic acids compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 

205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove humic acids from the National List

Motion by: Amy Bruch

Seconded by: Rick Greenwood

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Micronutrients: soluble boron products

Reference: §205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments. (7) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, 

herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Micronutrient deficiency must 

be documented by soil or tissue testing or other documented and verifiable method as approved by the 

certifying agent.

(i) Soluble boron products. 

Technical Report: 2010 TR (Micronutrients); 2021 Lmt’d Scope TR pending

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 micronutrient annotation change; 11/2017 

sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 1/28/2019 (83 FR 66559)

Sunset Date: 01/28/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Soluble boron is a crop micronutrient that can be soil applied or applied foliarly. According to the Technical 

Report (TR), boron deficiency is the most common when compared to the other recognized plant 

micronutrient deficiencies. Every year, boron deficiency is responsible for significant crop losses, whether in 

volume or quality.

Soluble boron products have appeared on the National List for use as micronutrients since it was first 

published in 2000.

Manufacture

The TR states that all soluble boron products are derived from mined borate mineral deposits. Borate minerals 

can be extracted by surface mining or solution mining (Garrett, 1998). 

Borax/borate salts

Refined sodium borate salts are typically produced by crushing solid borate ores and dissolving in water 

alongside trona (a double salt of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate), or supersaturating brine with 

carbon dioxide in the case of solution mining (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2002; Smith, 

2000). Insoluble waste materials are filtered out of the liquid, and disodium tetraborate pentahydrate and 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 88 of 152
decahydrate are selectively crystallized by temperature control and vacuum crystallization, followed by 

centrifugation and drying (Smith, 2000). To prevent crystallization water loss and caking, disodium tetraborate 

decahydrate crystals are sometimes washed with a boric acid solution that coats the crystals with a thin layer 

of the pentahydrate variety (Smith, 2000). 

High purity borax can also be produced by reacting boric acid with hot sodium hydroxide (Smith, 2000). 

Various dehydration and rehydration methods can selectively produce the different hydration states of 

disodium tetraborate (Smith, 2000). Boric acid reactions with sodium hydroxide can produce disodium 

octaborate tetrahydrate (Kutcel, 2001). 

Boric acid

In the United States, boric acid is typically prepared by reacting naturally occurring solid sodium borate 

minerals with strong mineral acids like sulfuric acid (Smith, 2000). This results in a concentrated solution of 

boric acid and sodium sulfates, after which the boric acid is crystallized by evaporation. 

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian Organic Standards permit soluble boron products at CAN/CGSB 32.311-2020 Table 4.2, column 1, 

entry for boron. Borate (boric acid), sodium tetraborate (borax and anhydrous), and sodium octaborate are 

permitted only when one of the following has been established: 

• soil and plant deficiencies are documented by visual symptoms

• testing of soil or plant tissue demonstrates the need

• the need for a preventative application can be documented (CGSB, 2020)

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

Several boron substances are allowed for soil management and fertilization by the European Union organic 

regulations. EC Regulation No. 889/2008 Article 3 permits the use of substances appearing in Annex I when the 

nutritional needs of plants cannot be met by certain preventative measures (European Parliament, Council of 

the European Union, 2008). Annex I permits the use of boric acid, sodium borate, calcium borate, and boron 

ethanolamine (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2003). 

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

The Codex guidelines include “Trace elements (e.g., boron, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, zinc)” in 

Table 1, substances for use in soil fertilizing and conditioning (FAO 2007).

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Boric acid, sodium borate, calcium borate, and “borethanolamin” (presumably referring to boron 

ethanolamine) of mineral origin are permitted as fertilizers and soil conditioners in the IFOAM NORMS, where 

soil or plant nutrient deficiency can be documented by soil or tissue testing or diagnosed by an independent 

expert. Chloride and nitrate forms are prohibited, as are micronutrients used as defoliants, herbicides, or 

desiccants (IFOAM Organics International, 2019). 

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

Trace elements (manganese, boron, iron, copper, zinc, molybdenum, and chlorine) are permitted by the 

Japanese Agricultural Standard for Organic Plants as fertilizers and soil improvement substances if a crop 

cannot grow normally because of a micronutrient shortage (MAFF, 2017). 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 89 of 152
Environmental Issues

Mining borate minerals could cause an environmental impact. In addition, the TR states that sulfuric acid is 

used as a reactant to make boric acid from colemanite, and calcium sulfate is sometimes produced as a byproduct. This results in a significant waste stream and can have environmental consequences related to the 

build-up of industrial waste. Wastewater discharge is also a source of boron pollution since boron appears in 

some soaps and washing chemicals. 

Discussion

The Crops Subcommittee reviewed soluble boron products and discussed the role that soluble boron products 

play in crop development. 

In 2022, the NOSB received several comments in support of relisting soluble boron on the National List. 

Comments indicated that boron is an essential nutrient for plant development. There was an over-arching 

theme stating that having the ability to correct nutrient deficiencies in organic production is critical to creating 

strong, healthy, resilient soils. Commenters also mentioned the final rule effective in January 2019 that 

specifies deficiency “must be documented by soil or tissue testing or other documented and verifiable method 

as approved by the certifying agent.”

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds soluble boron compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 

205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove soluble boron from the National List

Motion by: Amy Bruch 

Seconded by: Jerry D’Amore

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Micronutrients: sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, 

molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt

Reference: §205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments. (7) Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, 

herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Micronutrient deficiency must 

be documented by soil or tissue testing or other documented and verifiable method as approved by the 

certifying agent. 

(ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, 

and cobalt. 

Technical Report: 2010 TR (Micronutrients). 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 annotation change recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 

sunset recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 1/28/2019 (83 FR 66559)

Sunset Date: 01/28/2024

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 90 of 152
Subcommittee Review

Use

Micronutrients are essential for plant growth and are used across all types of crop production, but are typically 

required in very small quantities. Although some forms of micronutrients are found naturally in the soil, many 

producers find deficiencies of some or all of the micronutrients on the National List. These deficiencies can be 

a limiting factor in water and macro-nutrient uptake, and can result in limited growth and vitality of crops.

Manufacture

Plant micronutrients at this listing are made up of both compounds and natural minerals. After physical 

processing such as breaking and grinding, these natural minerals might be used as micronutrients in 

agriculture. Many commercial micronutrients are manufactured as by-products or intermediate products of 

metal mining and processing industries.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian Organic Production Systems Permitted Substances List permits micronutrients with a similar 

annotation to the USDA.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

European organic regulations do not reference micronutrients.

 

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

CODEX does not reference micronutrients.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Micronutrient use is restricted to cases where soil/plant nutrient deficiency is documented by soil or tissue 

testing or diagnosed by an independent expert. Micronutrients in either chloride or nitrate forms are 

prohibited. Micronutrients may not be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

JAS does not reference micronutrients.

Environmental Issues

Simple inorganic compounds such as Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Mo, Se, and Zn, are found naturally in soil. Applied 

micronutrients are not expected to be significantly different from naturally occurring compounds in terms of 

concentration and physiological activity, when applied under set limits. Micronutrients are “heavy metals”, but 

the annotation prevents contamination by restricting their use to correct a deficiency. 

Discussion

Micronutrients are crucial for organic production and stakeholders were overwhelmingly supportive of 

relisting. 

Questions to our Stakeholders:

None

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 91 of 152
Justification for Vote

Based on the current review and public comment, the Subcommittee finds micronutrients: sulfates, 

carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt, 

compliant with the OFPA criteria, and does not recommend removal from the National List.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove micronutrients: sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, 

molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt from the National List 

Motion by: Logan Petrey

Seconded by: Amy Bruch

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Vitamins C and E 

Reference: §205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments.

(9) Vitamins C and E.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2015 TR. 

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation (relist C and E, remove 

B1). 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Vitamins, including synthetically derived C (ascorbic acid) and E (tocopherols), are generally considered nontoxic essential nutrients for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Vitamins C and E are used to promote both

growth and yields and to protect plants from oxidative stress due to salinity. During the previous sunset review 

(11/2017), vitamin B1 (thiamine) – which had been previously paired with the other two vitamins on the 

National List – was recommended for removal from the list on the basis that foliar and soil applications of the 

material did not stimulate root growth in transplanted crops, and it was subsequently removed. 

A Technical Report was completed on these materials in 2015. While it relied on peer-reviewed scientific 

literature to assess its alignment with OFPA criteria, it does not include practical information regarding the use 

of Vitamins C and E. 

Manufacture

Although Vitamins C and E are naturally occurring in commonly consumed foods, they are typically derived for 

commercial use from laboratory processes.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

Vitamin C is listed for crop production; Vitamin E is not listed.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

Neither substance is listed.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 92 of 152
CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

Neither substance is listed.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

Neither substance is listed.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

Neither substance is listed.

Environmental Issues

It is unclear whether there are particular environmental concerns regarding the manufacture and use of 

Vitamins C and E for plant or soil amendments.

Discussion

The Subcommittee has had a general discussion of the historical review of these materials and what was 

involved in the separate, now-delisted Vitamin B1 from this section. Stakeholders and the Subcommittee are 

supportive of relisting vitamins C and E, and added a question about use in organic crop production to be 

considered for the next sunset review. 

Questions to our Stakeholders

1. How are Vitamins C and E being used in organic crop production?

2. Are Vitamins C and E being used by significant numbers of organic growers?

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds vitamins C and E compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 

CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove vitamins C and E from §205.601(j) of the National List

Motion by: Wood Turner

Seconded by: Brian Caldwell

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

Squid byproducts

Reference: §205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments.

(10) Squid byproducts—from food waste processing only. Can be pH adjusted with sulfuric, citric, or 

phosphoric acid. The amount of acid used shall not exceed the minimum needed to lower the pH to 

3.5.

Technical Report: 2016 TR. 

Petition: 2015 (Amendment #1).

Past NOSB Actions: 04/2016 recommendation. 

Recent Regulatory Background: Added to National List on 01/28/2019 (83 FR 66559).

Sunset Date: 01/28/2024

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 93 of 152
Subcommittee Review

Background

Squid are littoral invertebrates classified into the phylum Mollusca, class Cephalopoda and order Loligo (later 

renamed Doryteuthis). There are an estimated 300 squid species known throughout the world. Common to the 

northeastern Atlantic coast is the longfin squid, species Doryteuthis (Loligo) pealli. Common to the US west 

coast is the market squid, species Doryteuthis (Loligo) opalescens. The use of squid and squid byproducts in 

agriculture dates back to the 1800’s when much of the product was shipped from California market squid 

fisheries to Asian countries for consumption and fertilizer applications. 

Use

Squid and squid byproducts are the starting ingredients in the production of enzymatically produced 

hydrolysates with N-P-K values ranging from 2-2-2 to 3.3-7.3-2 or more. Seafood derived hydrolysates, 

including squid and squid byproducts, have been used both as foliar sprays and soil amendments for 

propagating cranberries, cherries, and apples. 

Manufacture

Squid byproducts make up 52% of the total body weight and include the squid ink, pen, skin, milt, liver, and 

viscera and are typically discarded as waste. In general, squid byproducts are chopped, heated, digested with 

natural enzymes, and stabilized with an acid such as phosphoric, sulfuric, or citric acid to prevent microbial 

growth. 

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

The Canadian Organic Standard allows for the use of fish products; in Canadian fisheries, the definition of fish 

includes marine invertebrates such as squid.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

The EU Organic Standard allows the use of molluscan (squid) products from sustainable fisheries and may be 

used in organic production of feeds for non- herbivores; squid products are not explicitly authorized for use in 

organic production.

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

CODEX does not reference squid byproducts.

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

IFOAM permits the use of fish and shell products and food processing of animal origin.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production 

The Japanese Organic Standard permits the use of food industry byproducts of fish origin if they are derived 

from natural sources; mollusks (squid) are included in Japanese fisheries.

Environmental Issues

Squid are commercially harvested using nets directly above spawning grounds during mating season primarily 

for calamari. Fisherman target spawning squid because they die shortly after reproduction. There are two 

main squid fisheries in the US including along the Atlantic coast for long-finned squid and along the Pacific 

coast for market squid. The US Pacific squid fishery is managed by the California Department of Fish and Game, 

the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, and the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council. Atlantic squid are managed in federal waters by NOAA Fisheries in conjunction with the 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 94 of 152
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. Management includes seasonal catch limits, timed fishery closures, 

administration of permit issuance, and limitations on using lights to attract squid to ensure uninterrupted 

spawning.

Discussion

The manufacturing and use of squid byproducts has little to no environmental impact or human health 

concerns and provides organic growers with another nitrogen source. Most commenters support the relisting 

of squid byproducts with the current annotation. No further discussion in subcommittee.

Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee finds squid byproducts compliant with the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 

CFR 205.600(b) and is not proposing removal.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove squid byproducts from the National List 

Motion by: Logan Petrey

Seconded by: Brian Caldwell

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Lead salts

Reference: §205.602(d) Lead salts.

Technical Report: N/A

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation.

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Lead salts are used as both pesticides and herbicides. 

Manufacture

Lead salts are usually produced using the following reaction, which leads to formation of the desired product 

as a solid precipitate: 

Pb(NO3)2 + H3AsO4 → PbHAsO4 +2 HNO3

International Acceptance

None found

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 95 of 152
Environmental Issues

Lead poisoning can cause a number of adverse human health effects but is particularly detrimental to the 

neurological development of children. Since lead accumulates in soils, it is important to avoid soil applications 

of materials containing lead, whether the lead is in synthetic materials or naturally occurring (nonsynthetic) 

lead salts. Notably, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that there is no safe level 

of lead exposure and in 2021 lowered the reference level from 5 ug/dl to 3.5 ug/dl. 

Discussion

Public comments received in previous sunset reviews were in favor of keeping lead salts on the list of 

nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production. One commenter suggested that it 

would be worthwhile to add more detail about the scientific and regulatory rationale (i.e., OFPA) for why lead 

salts should continue to be prohibited. The Crops Subcommittee consulted the Toxicological Profile from the 

Agency for Toxic Substances (ATSDR 2007, Toxicological Profile: Lead. P. 304. 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.) and noted the following: 

Occurrence and Prevalence:

Lead (PB) occurs naturally in soils in small amounts and in ore deposits throughout the world. Lead is also given 

off as an emission from combustion of leaded gasoline (now banned in the US), and was used in house paint 

until 1978. Lead was widely used as an insect disease control in the early part of the 1900s on tree fruit, and 

residual lead in old orchard areas can still be detected. People can be exposed to lead in ambient air, drinking 

water, foods, soil, and dust.

Lead does not break down in the environment. Particles of lead can be transported through air, water, and 

soil. Once in soil, it does not leach. It's availability to be taken up by plants is limited but lead can be in the soil 

adhering to root crops.

Health and Environmental Hazards of Lead:

Toxicity of lead in humans has been known for over 2000 years and is not disputed. There is vast literature on 

the health effects of lead exposure. More details on the exact symptoms of too much lead, and details of the 

many studies, can be found in the ATSDR report cited above. There are a few treatments to facilitate removing 

lead from the body, but they are not easily accessible and take a lot of time. Livestock can also be exposed to 

high levels of lead through dust and air pollution.

While the most polluting forms of lead from auto emissions and lead paint are no longer being generated, 

much of the lead that they put out into the environment is still there. Additional sources of lead pollution may 

come from lead-acid batteries if not disposed of properly, lead in ammunition used for hunting, air pollution 

from aircraft using fuel with lead in it, and smelting of lead ore. Industries continue to release large amounts of 

lead into waterways. Sediments from these waterways can end up in agricultural soils from flooding and 

dredging.

Lead is very slow to leach out of soils, although it can slowly migrate down through soils. However, soils with 

high organic matter create conditions for the lead molecules to be bound to organic matter, thereby lessening 

its migration. 

The Crops Subcommittee supports keeping lead salts in its prohibited status on the National List and the NOSB 

will vote on the proposal at the Fall 2022 meeting. The Subcommittee concurred that lead salts should stay on 

the National List in prohibited status.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 96 of 152
Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote 

The Subcommittee supports continued prohibition of lead salts and is not proposing removal from the 

National List. 

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove lead salts from the National List

Motion by: Javier Zamora

Seconded by: Amy Bruch

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

Reference: §205.602(j) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate).

Technical Report: N/A

Petition: N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 11/2017 sunset recommendation.

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice effective 3/15/2017 (82 FR 14420). Sunset renewal 

notice effective 10/30/2019 (84 FR 53577) 

Sunset date: 10/30/2024

Subcommittee Review

Use

Nicotine is a natural insecticide produced as a secondary metabolite in tobacco. Tobacco dust can be used in 

agriculture for pest control.

Manufacture

Tobacco dust is a by-product of agro-industrial waste from the commercial processing of tobacco products. It 

was noted during a previous review that tobacco dust is no longer commercially available as a crop pest 

control product, however it could still be homemade by mixing tobacco with water.

International Acceptance

Canadian General Standards Board Permitted Substances List

There is no reference to tobacco dust.

European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation, EC No. 834/2007 and 889/2008

There is no reference to tobacco dust.

CODEX Alimentarius Commission, Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of 

Organically Produced Foods (CXG 32-1999) 

There is no reference to tobacco dust.

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 97 of 152
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) Norms

There is no reference to tobacco dust.

Japan Agricultural Standard (JAS) for Organic Production

There is no reference to tobacco dust.

Environmental Issues

Classified as super toxic on the National Library of Medicine’s Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) and regulated by 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a pesticide. EPA published a Federal Register notice [74 FR 26695] in 

June 2009 indicating that as of January 1, 2014, the EPA would no longer register nicotine products.

Discussion

Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) has been present on the National List as a prohibited substance since the 

inception of the USDA organic regulations. Due to the negative human health effects caused by this material, it 

has been relisted as a prohibited nonsynthetic on the National List at every sunset review, with no objections 

from the public or from the NOSB. It is present on the Hazardous Substance list and regulated by OSHA and the 

EPA as well as other agencies.

Previous public comments indicated that certifiers, businesses, and public interest organizations agree that 

tobacco dust should remain listed as a prohibited nonsynthetic. The Crops Subcommittee supports keeping 

tobacco dust on the National List at §205.602.

Questions to our Stakeholders

None

Justification for Vote

The Subcommittee supports continued prohibition of tobacco dust and is not proposing removal from the 

National List at §205.602.

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to remove tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate) at §205.602 

Motion by: Logan Petrey

Seconded by: Wood Turner

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1 

NOSB Proposals & Discussion Documents October 2022 98 of 152