International.fumigation.Oct98 1

NATIONAL ORGANIC STANDARDS BOARD

NOSB Issue Paper and Proposed Recommendations 

October 27, 1998

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE

PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS ON FUMIGATION

Recommendations

1. The National Organic Standards Board should rescind the July, 1998 recommendation entitled

“Chemical Fumigation of Imported Certified Organic Product.” 

2 The Secretary should incorporate provisions in the forthcoming Proposed Rules for organic

standards to require certified handling operations to maintain records documenting that the

certified commodities which they import are not treated with prohibited materials upon entry

into the United States. The appropriate records for this purpose are the commodity invoices

which importers present to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at the

port of entry. To satisfy the record-keeping requirement, these invoices must include APHIS’

official documentation of what, if any, quarantine treatment or action was taken. Certified

handling operations shall make these records available upon the request of their certifying

agent.

3. The Secretary should enter into cooperative agreements with APHIS and the Agricultural

Research Service (ARS) to identify approved quarantine practices for inclusion in national

organic standards. Upon approval by the appropriate regulatory authorities, these quarantine

practices shall be applicable to organic commodities imported into the United States and

domestic product exported to international markets.

OVERVIEW

Concern that pest organisms including insects, nematodes, and fungi may be transported across

national borders through agricultural trade has prompted many countries to enact and enforce

stringent quarantine practices. These practices protect against the introduction of recognized

agricultural pests, such as fruit flies, as well as the possibility that previously insignificant organisms

may prove destructive in a new environment. International distributers of organic food and fiber 

products must comply with the agricultural pest control requirements of the countries in which they

trade. These requirements may entail the use of synthetic pesticides, such as methyl bromide, which

are prohibited under all organic standards currently used in the United States. Quarantine treatments

for commodities entering the United States must be conducted in a facility approved by the USDA.

These facilities may be located in the country of production, in another country along the shipping
1This memo addresses USDA procedures to control imported pest organisms which

threaten agricultural production. The primary federal agencies for enforcing human health safety

standards for imported foods are the Food and Drug Administration (for plant products) and the

USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (for animal products.)

International.fumigation.Oct98 2

route, or within the United States. The USDA operates numerous quarantine treatment facilities in

addition to the private operations it approves. Without economical and effective quarantine

treatments which are compatible with certification, international trade in organic commodities would

be severely curtailed.

There are three scenarios for imported agricultural commodities entering the United States. First,

certain commodities originating from specific countries must receive an approved quarantine

treatment as a condition of entry. For example, all grapes imported into the United States from Chile

must be treated with a specified concentration of methyl bromide with additional requirements for the

temperature and duration of the treatment. Second, agricultural trade which does not require

mandatory treatment is inspected by quarantine officials at the time of entry. Officials may authorize

entry of the product or, upon finding an actionable pest, require the treatment, destruction or reexport of the infested commodity. A third possibility exists for exporters who want expedited access

to markets in the United States. In coordination with the International Services division of APHIS,

exporters can fund and operate a pre-clearance program. These programs require that commodities

on the discretionary quarantine list be inspected in their country of origin. Infested commodities must

be treated before export while non-infested product is released immediately. All commodities are

then sealed and shipped to the United States and granted immediate entry. Exporters must fund the

APHIS-managed programs but they avoid delays when their commodities arrive in American ports.

 Pre-clearance programs are prevalent in countries, such as Chile and the Netherlands, which export

large quantities of perishable fruits, vegetables, and flowers to the United States and are used for both

organic and conventional products.

The USDA conducts its agricultural pest management activities through APHIS.1 APHIS’s

responsibilities pertain to plant and animal pests which could jeopardize agricultural production within

the United States or abroad or whose entry into the country could result in other forms of ecological

damage (e.g., spread of the gypsy moth into new territory). Within APHIS, the Plant Protection and

Quarantine program (PPQ) is responsible for the eradication of recognized plant pests found in, on,

or with commodities offered for entry into or export from the United States. The Veterinary Services

program (VS) protects the health of domestic livestock and poultry by regulating the importation and

exportation of animals and animal products. Because the USDA has prevented animal products from

being labeled as organically produced, the requirements of the VS program have not created the

conflicts with domestic certification standards which the PPQ program has for fruits, vegetables and

other plant products. However, once the USDA implements organic standards for animal products,

the potential for VS pest control practices to create similar conflicts will emerge.

 Applicants for organic certification are required to establish that mechanisms are in place to protect

the organic integrity of their product from the point of production to the point of sale. When
2For this reason, the NOSB has reviewed the APHIS mandatory and discretionary

treatment tables at past meetings. Sudden changes in quarantine requirements have made it

difficult for the NOSB to stay current with APHIS policy.

International.fumigation.Oct98 3

reviewing an application from a handling operation, certifying agents are responsible for taking into

account how quarantine requirements will affect the status of exported product. Agricultural products

which require a mandatory quarantine treatment with a prohibited material are precluded from

organic certification once they cross the border.2 By checking the mandatory, prohibited quarantine

requirements of an importing country, certifying agents can determine which commodities cannot be

imported as organic. For example, under current quarantine conditions, Chilean grapes imported to

the United States cannot be organic because they must be treated with methyl bromide.

However, all certified organic commodities are potentially subject to discretionary quarantine

treatment which may involve application of a prohibited material. The determination of whether to

treat an imported organic commodity on the discretionary list is made at the time of the border

crossing and is triggered by the detection of an actionable pest. Discretionary quarantine treatments

create the potential for misrepresentation in cases where organic commodities exposed to prohibited

materials as a condition of entry are not diverted to conventional markets. Such misrepresentation

constitutes a violation of the Organic Food Protection Act as it would constitute a misuse of the

organic label.

APPROVED CHEMICAL FUMIGATION PRACTICES

The PPQ has approved a variety of chemical and nonchemical quarantine practices for the treatment

of imported fruits, vegetables, plant products and other agricultural commodities. Chemical

treatments, including fumigation, aerosols, dips, dusts, and sprays, are generally not allowed in

organic systems because they rely on synthetic products for pest control. With nonchemical

treatments, extremes of temperature such as immersion in hot water, application of steam, forced hot

air, or sustained cold are used to kill pests. These treatments are generally within the boundaries of

the physical pest control activities allowable under organic standards. The only other treatment

option approved by PPQ is ionizing radiation (irradiation) which is performed on certain tropical

fruits brought from Hawaii to the United States mainland.

Due to the low cost of treatment, acute toxicity to pest populations, suitability to a wide range of

commodities and relative ease of use, fumigation is the preferred quarantine treatment option for

agricultural commodities shipped in international trade. Fumigation is the act of releasing and

dispersing a toxic chemical so it reaches the target organism in a gaseous state. The only products

which PPQ authorizes for fumigation purposes are the “restricted use” pesticides methyl bromide,

sulfuryl flouride and phosphine. All three fumigants are categorized by EPA as Class 1 - highly toxic

compounds and can only be applied by licensed applicators under label conditions. Because

fumigants are used in a gaseous state, humans are most likely to be exposed through inhalation.

Chronic exposure to all methyl bromide, sulfuryl flouride and phosphine can result in depression of

the central nervous system, neurological dysfunction, kidney and liver damage and respiratory failure.
3Under provisions of the Montreal Protocol, industrialized countries must incrementally

reduce their use of methyl bromide leading up to a phase-out in 2005. Developing countries have

a more gradual reduction schedule culminating in a phase out in 2015. Post phase-out exceptions

are permitted for critical agricultural production uses for both industrialized and developing

countries. 

International.fumigation.Oct98 4

Acute exposure to all three compounds can result in death. Once applied, methyl bromide naturally

degrades to bromine which is highly destructive to the Earth’s ozone layer. Ozone depletion results

in significant increases in the levels of carcinogenic and mutagenic ultraviolet-B radiation reaching

the Earth’s surface. The fumigant concentration and length of exposure are determined by the

temperature of the treatment environment. Methyl bromide is registered for use on a wide variety

of perishable fruits and vegetables and treatments can be completed in between thirty minutes and two

hours. By comparison, PPQ approved heat treatments take hours and cold treatments require weeks

or months to achieve the same measure of pest control. Due to its enhanced ability to penetrate dense

materials, phosphine is registered for a variety of grain, seed and milled flour products. Sulfuryl

flouride is used against insects that attack wood and is used primarily for structural purposes and

pallets and is not registered for use on any food products.

Methyl bromide is the most commonly used of the three approved quarantine fumigants. In the

United States during 1996, more than five million pounds were used for quarantine treatments. This

accounted for approximately 11% of the methyl bromide used in the United States that year. 

Tropical fruits are one commodity group for which methyl bromide has proven excessively injurious

to food quality (taste and appearance) and alternative options including irradiation have been

approved for those products. In almost all cases where methyl bromide is an viable treatment option,

its low cost and ease of application make it the preferred option. International commerce depends

heavily on methyl bromide for quarantine treatment and more than thirty million pounds were used

for those purposes in 1996. Recognizing that methyl bromide has few equals as a low cost, highly

effective and widely tolerated fumigant, the international community exempted quarantine treatments

from the Montreal Protocol which phases out other applications of the product.3 Methyl bromide’s

ozone depleting properties are well established, but despite protests by environmentalist groups, have

been deemed an acceptable risk by the treaty signatories due to its pivotal role in international trade.

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act, the United States was committed to an accelerated phase out of all

methyl bromide applications by 2001. However, the agricultural appropriations bill passed by

Congress last week will substitute the Clean Air Act regulations with the more gradual and flexible

phase out provisions of the Montreal Protocol (including the exemption for quarantine treatments).

Methyl bromide will likely continue to be the most widely used fumigant for international trade in

perishable agricultural products.

NONCHEMICAL QUARANTINE TREATMENTS

Many quarantine pest management practices based on environmental control predate the modern era

of synthetic fumigants. These practices typically regulate the thermal environment of the commodity

being treated at temperatures above or below the threshold at which the targeted pest can survive.
International.fumigation.Oct98 5

Other management practices utilize a systems approach analogous to integrated pest management in

which environmental conditions during production and in the process of storage and handling are

modified to exclude pest organisms. To maximize efficiency, most contemporary quarantine practices

incorporate elements of the synthetic fumigant, environmental control and pest exclusion approaches.

Important factors for determining which quarantine practice to employ include lethality to pests,

toxicity to non-target organisms, the cost of treatment, and ease of application under field conditions.

The affect of the treatment on the durability, appearance and taste of the protected commodity is also

of central importance. Some degree of degradation is inevitable after an agricultural commodity has

been harvested and quarantine treatments can, at best, slow down this natural tendency. In other

cases, the treatment may actually accelerate degradation, engender undesirable physical properties

in the treated product or simply be too expensive or time consuming to be practical. The postprocess condition of the protected commodity is critical to the commercial viability of any quarantine

treatment.

While few nonchemical quarantine treatments have received APHIS approval, they do exist. Six

nonchemical treatments are currently approved for a variety of commodities and two more show

strong potential. None of these alternatives have received research resources comparable to the

commitment made to fumigation. As with other dimensions of agricultural research, many physicallyand biologically-based treatment systems were neglected after the advent of chemically-based

alternatives. The introduction of the fumigants methyl bromide in the 1940's and ethylene dibromide

in the 1950's provided producers much faster treatment than the existing thermal regulation and pest

exclusion approaches. Research in non-chemical systems was largely sidetracked until ethylene

dibromide was banned in 1984 and methyl bromide was scheduled for elimination. Non-chemical

treatment options are viable and are being used for many applications. The extent to which these

options could resolve the dilemma surrounding international trade in organic commodities can only

be ascertained through an enhanced research and development commitment.

1. Hot Water Immersion Treatment

Hot water immersion treatment (also called hydrothermal treatment) uses heated water to raise the

temperature of the commodity to the required temperature for a specified period of time. This

treatment is used primarily for fruits that are hosts to fruit flies, but may also be used for nursery

stock for a variety of pests. Currently, PPQ approves hot water immersion as a quarantine treatment

for limes imported from Chile, all mangos and several less economically important tropical fruits. The

Mediterranean fruit fly, which is potentially devastating to domestic citrus production, is the principal

target pest. Treatment entails raising the pulp temperature of the treated fruit to between 115E and

118E F for an hour or more. While cooling of the fruit after hot water treatment is not an APHIS

requirement, many facilities do so to maintain fruit quality.

Treatments are performed outside the United States at one of approximately seventy-five privately

owned facilities approved by APHIS and maintained in an insect-free environment during shipment.

There is one commercial, APHIS approved hot water immersion treatment facility in Puerto Rico.

PPQ operates 13 facilities across the United States though they are too small to accommodate
International.fumigation.Oct98 6

commercial size shipments. APHIS estimates the material and installation cost of a modern hot water

immersion treatment facility at between $140,000 and $250,000 exclusive of land, building, and the

fruit packing and storage equipment.

2. Vapor Heat Treatment

Vapor heat treatment uses heated air which is saturated with water vapor to raise the temperature of

a commodity to between 110E and 112E F for a period of between four and six hours. The latent

heat released by the condensation of the vapor on the commodity raises the pulp temperature quickly

and evenly and minimizes damage. Vapor heat treatment is used primarily for fruits and vegetables

that are hosts to the Mediterranean and Oriental fruit flies. It is approved for use on citrus from

Mexico, mangos, papayas, pineapples, bell peppers and eggplants. 

3. Forced Hot Air Treatment

The use of forced hot air is similar to vapor heat except that the treatment environment is not

saturated with water vapor. Commodities are treated at temperatures of at least 117E F for between

four and eight hours. PPQ has approved forced hot air treatments for citrus from Hawaii and Mexico

and papaya from Hawaii and Chile. Like vapor heat and hot water immersion treatments, it is

designed to eliminate fruit flies. Vapor heat and forced hot air treatments are often preferable to hot

water immersion because they result in less damage to the fruits and vegetables. The capital costs

for establishing a commercial size vapor heat or forced hot air treatment facility are range between

$120,000 and $250,000. In addition to the treatment operations which PPQ oversees in exporting

countries, private interests operate three vapor heat and four forced hot air treatment facilities in

Hawaii. 

4. Steam Treatment

Steam at a temperature of 212E F will destroy most pathogenic microorganisms although

temperatures approaching 250E F are needed for the most virulent varieties. Food grade agricultural

commodities cannot withstand exposure to these temperatures and uses for steam treatment are

restricted to non-edible commodities including soil, hay and packing materials. There are three

approved commercial steam treatment facilities in the United States in addition to nine domestic PPQ

operations.

5. Cold Treatment

Cold storage is the oldest and most widely used quarantine treatments. It is effective against a variety

of pest organisms and can be tolerated by many fruits and vegetables. The PPQ has approved cold

storage treatments for a variety of commodities including apples, pears, grapes, citrus, kiwis, plums

and avocados originating from more than fifty countries. The treatment is compatible with current

commodity distribution systems because almost all perishable commodities are shipped at low

temperature to delay ripening. Cold temperature treatment entails chilling the pulp of the commodity
International.fumigation.Oct98 7

at close to or below freezing for an extended period of time. However, the duration of the various

treatments (between 10 and 22 days) make this option problematic for highly perishable commodities

where quick turnover is desirable. The PPQ licenses qualified refrigerated containers and vessels so

commodities traveling long distances by train, truck or ship can complete some or all of their

quarantine treatment on their way to market. In addition to the refrigerated containers and vessels

licensed for cold treatment, there are twelve approved commercial facilities located in ports of entry

across the United States. These facilities range between several hundred thousand and a million

square feet in capacity.

6. Irradiation

The PPQ has approved the use of irradiation to control fruit flies on papayas, carambolas (starfruit),

lychee and other fruit grown in Hawaii. Research has determined that fruit flies on these commodities

are killed or sterilized at treatment levels which the Food and Drug Administration has authorized.

While approved for quarantine purposes, irradiation is not currently used on Hawaiian fruit due to

the lack of treatment capacity. The extremely high capital costs of establishing a commercial

irradiation facility and the uncertainty of consumers’ acceptance of the practice leaves future

applications of the treatment in doubt. The USDA has stated that irradiation will not be considered

for approval under organic standards at this time.

7. Controlled Atmosphere

Controlled atmosphere technology using elevated carbon dioxide and/or reduced oxygen

concentrations has significant potential as a quarantine treatment. It is effective against insect pests

and pathogens, is less damaging to most fruits and vegetables than either fumigant or heat treatments,

and can preserve commodity quality by suppressing respiration rates. Use of a controlled atmosphere

environment requires special enclosed facilities which add approximately 20% to the expense of a

refrigerated container. Research has demonstrated that treatment with controlled atmosphere is well

suited to table grades, which are a high value export and import commodity. The Department of

Defense experimented with controlled atmosphere to help preserve the large quantities of perishable

products it ships overseas. The Department found that controlled atmosphere treatments are

generally less damaging to perishable commodities than methyl bromide and that the expense of

changing systems was offset because they could switch from air to sea freight. However, the

Department made the conversion to controlled atmosphere for quality control rather than quarantine

purposes. Currently, there are no PPQ-approved controlled atmosphere treatments for agricultural

imports. Many researchers believe that the protracted treatment periods needed to make controlled

atmosphere system sufficiently lethal to pest populations will also make them commercially

unattractive. Most research is focused on using controlled atmosphere environments to make existing

fumigant and temperature based treatments more effective and economical.

8. Systems Approaches

Systems approaches to quarantine treatment involve the integration of pre-harvest and post-harvest
International.fumigation.Oct98 8

practices used in the production, harvest, packing, and distribution of agricultural commodities which

cumulatively meet the requirements for quarantine security. They are holistic approaches which

minimize the presence of pests throughout production and use intensive quality control measures to

remove any that reach the processing and shipping stages of distribution. The most thoroughly

developed systems approach for quarantine purposes is the effort to exclude coddling moth from

apples and cherries exported from Washington and Oregon. By using IPM systems in the field, postharvest removal of insect-infested or damaged fruit and surveillance during shipment, producers have

achieved control levels comparable to fumigation systems. However, importing countries may decide

that systems approach treatments are insufficient to satisfy their quarantine requirements. Even after

more than a decade of well documented success, Japan and the Republic of Korea have not approved

the systems methods used for apples and cherries from Washington and Oregon and require that all

incoming product be fumigated with methyl bromide. The United States has itself proven reluctant

to approve biologically based treatment systems when chemical alternatives are known to be effective.

ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF ALTERNATIVE QUARANTINE TREATMENTS

Economic comparisons between chemical and non-chemical treatment options are complicated

because cost is only one of several factors which influence quarantine decision-making. The selection

among approved options reflects considerations beyond cost including the commodity’s post-process

quality, availability of treatment facilities, and the benefits of treatment, such as extended shelf life,

other than pest control. Especially with high value commodities, including exotic or out of season

fruits and vegetables, post-process quality is integral to market value and can offset significant

differences in the cost of treatment options. For example, tropical fruits deteriorate rapidly after

fumigation with methyl bromide and lose market value. Most importers pay the higher per unit cost

associated with hot water immersion, vapor heat and forced hot air treatments to minimize damage

to the fruit and bring a higher quality product to market. 

Importers prefer some treatments which are not be the low cost option because of the non-pest

control benefits they offer. In addition to destroying or sterilizing targeted pests, irradiation inhibits

cell division in treated product which can delay ripening and extend shelf life. While not yet an

approved treatment, controlled atmosphere slows the respiration rate of perishable products and

reduces spoilage. Despite higher up-front costs, treatment of certain types of hardwood logs with

steam, hot water or dry heat have proven an economical alternative to the use of methyl bromide. 

The heat treatments serve the dual purpose of pest control and curing the wood while logs treated

with methyl bromide must be cured in a second procedure at added expense. 

The cost-effectiveness of quarantine treatment systems are a function of their capital and operational

expenses. Typically, non-chemical treatment systems such as thermal regulation have slightly higher

capital costs and significantly higher operational costs than conventional fumigation systems. 

Irradiation facilities have enormous capital costs of between $1 million and $3 million yet have

secured a small share of the quarantine treatment market. Methyl bromide has advantages for

treating large volumes of product where the energy costs associated with thermal regulation are

significant. However, it is likely that operational costs for thermal regulation, and possibly irradiation,
4

Information on the ARS Methyl Bromide Alternatives National Program is available at

http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/308s2.htm .

5Copies of the Treatment Manual are available from the PPQ Professional Development

Center, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD, 20737. Their phone number is (301) 734-5523.

International.fumigation.Oct98 9

will decrease in the future as the number of treatment facilities increases. Additionally, methyl

bromide will likely increase in price once production is forced to taper off after 1999 and pre- and

post-harvest users compete for the available supply. Per unit cost will remain an important

consideration in the selection of quarantine treatment options but it cannot be viewed independently

of commodity tolerance and other quality control concerns. Additionally, the per unit cost is often

a relatively small percentage of the total handling expense (including sorting, grading, processing and

shipping) and more expensive options may make sense within larger, integrated treatment and

distribution systems.

 

USDA QUARANTINE DECISION MAKING 

The proposal for a quarantine treatment typically originates from an exporting country wishing to use

a system which is more economical or less injurious to the treated commodity than existing practices.

Approved quarantine practices must be treatment and commodity specific; that is, a detailed set of

conditions applied to a particular fruit, vegetable, grain, or other plant product. The decision to

approve a quarantine treatment option is the joint responsibility of the PPQ and the ARS. The ARS

conducts research in alternative quarantine technologies and reviews data which exporting countries

submit in support of applications for approval of new treatments. Research in new quarantine

treatments is supervised by the ARS Methyl Bromide Alternative National Program. One of the

objectives of the National Program is “to develop alternatives to post-harvest (commodity,

quarantine, and structural) uses of methyl bromide including heat, cold, radiation, controlled

atmosphere and systems approaches using new risk-based strategies.”4 Currently, staff at eight ARS

Agricultural Research Laboratories are working on one or more post-harvest treatment technologies.

Once ARS validates the efficacy of a treatment in the laboratory, PPQ must determine if it can be

practically applied in the field. PPQ staff at the Oxford, North Carolina Plant Protection Center are

responsible for establishing specifications and drafting procedures for all approved treatments.

Approved treatments are published in the PPQ treatment manual which governs all agricultural trade -

import, export, and domestic - of the United States.5

The United States Custom Service and PPQ are the federal agencies responsible for documenting

the arrival and disposition of every agricultural shipment entering the country. To bring plants or

plant products into the United States, importers must first submit PPQ form 587 which identifies the

name and quantity of the commodities being imported, the country of origin, and the intended port

of entry. Typically, importers provide Customs and PPQ a computerized manifest of the commodities

they are carrying approximately one week prior to arrival of the shipment. This enables quarantine

officials to determine which portions of the overall shipment need to be placed on hold. PPQ staff

place an automatic hold on all agricultural commodities on the manifest as well as some non-
International.fumigation.Oct98 10

agricultural goods to determine if a potential pest infestation has spread. Upon arrival of the

shipment, the importer provides PPQ with a bill of laden (for ground and sea shipments) or an airway

bill (for air freight) which lists the commodities being held. Attached to the bill of laden or airway

bill are invoices correlated to the individual commodities - ten cases of tomatoes, for example, or

fifteen cases of cut flowers. After review and inspection, PPQ staff determine whether individual

commodities can be released, require a quarantine treatment as a condition of entry, or must be

refused entry and destroyed or re-exported. Once all holds have been addressed and all required

treatments completed and documented, PPQ clears the shipment and the importer reclaims the

commodities from the Custom Service.

The actions ordered by PPQ for each commodity are recorded on the invoices which are returned to

the importer. These invoices are not official PPQ forms but are correlated to every commodity being

imported. An official PPQ stamp will designate whether the commodity was inspected and release

or whether quarantine treatment was required. If treatment was required, the importer must

demonstrate compliance before the commodity is released. The PPQ processed invoices are the key

documentation which importers can use to establish that imported organic commodities were not

exposed to prohibited materials upon entry into the United States.

ORGANIC CERTIFICATION AND TREATMENT FACILITY APPROVAL

While the value of the organic market is growing, in most cases it has been insufficient to justify and

sustain a dedicated processing sector. More typically, organic handlers have had to share processing,

storage and transportation facilities with non-organic commodities and implement quality control

measures to avoid cross-contamination. In the dairy industry, for example, certifying agents will

approve handling plans which allow organic producers to have their milk processed and packaged at

a plant handling non-organic milk if appropriate safeguards are in place to isolate and distinguish

between batches. Similar arrangements characterize the organic industry’s dependence on approved

treatment facilities for allowable quarantine practices. Organic handlers and importers must rely upon

the same cold storage and heat regulation facilities which serve the non-organic market. For example,

mangos entering the mainland United States (including those from Hawaii and Puerto Rico) must

receive either the hot water immersion, high temperature forced air, or vapor heat treatment.

Because both organic and non-organic commodities require identical treatments and the number of

approved facilities is limited, individual plants will process both types of fruit. Some certifying agents

require separate production runs for organic commodities to insure that water left over from

treatments of non-organic produce is not re-used. Importers of organic commodities may not have

sufficient volume to fill a segregated shipping container and therefore have to share space with noncertified goods. Certifying agents may impose additional handling restrictions to preserve the identity

of certified product.

The current arrangement to allow dual handling operations enables organic handlers to utilize a

variety of treatment facilities in lieu of ones which exclusively accommodate certified commodities.

Under proper supervision from the certifying agent, this is a reasonable and enforceable provision

which protects the integrity of the certified commodity while allowing the importer flexibility in
6The NOSB stated “The activity of individuals or businesses who do not take legal title to

organic products but act as agents, licensees, employees, contractors, or subcontractors and who

process, package, or store organic agricultural products for a certified handling operation will be

covered by the certification of that organic handling operation. Such activity must be described in

the Organic Handling Plan and inspected and scrutinized with the same rigor and to the same

standards as certified entities as part of the certification requirement of the certified organic

handling operation for which they act as agent, licensee, employee, contractor, or subcontractor.” 

NOSB Final Recommendation, Requirement for Handler Certification, Attachment 1, adopted

June 4, 1994. 

International.fumigation.Oct98 11

finding an economical and convenient way to fulfill quarantine requirements. Since the existing

markets for conventionally produced commodities are likely to exceed the growing organic markets

for some time, importers of organic products can take advantage of the large treatment capacity for

allowable practices already in place. For example, the conventional Hawaiian papaya industry

developed excess capacity to meet its quarantine requirements which the organic industry has come

to utilize. 

To facilitate the dual handling option, the NOP needs to incorporate the NOSB’s guidance on the

distinction between handlers and handling operations. The NOSB noted that the OFPA’s definition

of handler as “any person engaged in the business of handling agricultural products, except such term

shall not include final retailers that do not process agricultural product” was broad enough to include

virtually anyone who helped move food from the field to the shelf. However, the OFPA only requires

handling operations, not handlers, to be certified. It defines handling operations as those operations

(again, exclusive of retailers of agricultural products who do not process them) that “(A) receive or

otherwise acquire agricultural products and (B) process, package or store such products.” In 1994,

the NOSB interpreted to “receive or otherwise acquire” as synonymous with taking legal title to the

product.6 This interpretation created a distinct, verifiable threshold which clearly identified those

operations which needed to be certified and others which could be monitored under an Organic

Handling Plan. The NOP needs to incorporate this interpretation of handler and handling operation

to insure that importers (who are legitimate handling operations) retain access to the full range of

approved, allowable treatment facilities available to them. 

DISCLOSURE AND VERIFICATION OF TREATMENT STATUS

USDA regulations governing the importation of agricultural commodities were not designed with

separate standards for organic and conventional commodities. However, organic trade could be

strengthened through quarantine requirements which provide transparency for determining how

commodities are treated. There are also benefits for facilitating the use of materials and practices

which are approved under organic standards. The existing procedures for regulating the importation

of agricultural commodities can be used to provide the transparency to strengthen consumer

confidence in the integrity of organic certification. In addition, the NOP can collaborate with APHIS

and ARS to identify and certify quarantine treatments which conform with the forthcoming federal

organic standards.
International.fumigation.Oct98 12

The paperwork needed to provide an audit trail for imported organic commodities already exists in

the APHIS documentation which importers receive at the point of entry. For every commodity, the

importer’s invoices are stamped with the APHIS mandated enforcement action such as inspected and

released or inspected and treated. When quarantine treatment is required, the importer must provide

verification it was completed before the Customs Service will release the commodity. Verification

that an importer used an approved treatment practice such as cold storage or heat treatment could

establish that certified commodities were not exposed to prohibited materials. The considerable

volume of international trade in agricultural commodities and the rapidity with which product is

turned over have complicated efforts by wholesalers and retailers to receive adequate assurances that

importers are in compliance with certification standards. Some private certification agents require

that handlers submit a letter or affidavit that all products they import will remain in compliance with

standards. However, this is a self-policing approach and cannot eliminate the potential for

misrepresentation. By requiring certified handlers to provide upon request the APHIS documentation

regarding imported product, the NOP could establish a time- and cost-effective mechanism to

document the integrity of organic product.

TRADE IMPLICATIONS OF QUARANTINE TREATMENTS

The identification of quarantine treatments which are approved for organic systems could foster new

markets for organic commodities domestically and abroad. For example, the availability of hot water

and vapor treatment systems has created a market in the United States for organic mangos and

papayas. The USDA estimates that the United States currently exports approximately $500,000,000

of agricultural commodities annually which importing countries require to be treated with methyl

bromide. Some of these markets, such as the trade in cherries to Japan which exceeded $90,000,000

in 1996, could become available to organic producers if organically compatible treatments were

approved by the importing country. The NOP should collaborate with ARS and APHIS to develop

and achieve approval for alternative treatments. However, many countries have proven reluctant to

approve non-conventional quarantine treatments when existing chemical systems are in place. The

United States is currently engaged in litigation with Japan before the World Trade Organization

regarding the slow pace with which the Japanese approve new quarantine treatments. Hopefully, as

free trade and global markets accelerate international agricultural commerce, new opportunities will

emerge for countries to satisfy their legitimate quarantine requirements while becoming more

receptive to imported commodities. This accelerated trade increases the possibility that quarantine

practices allowed in organic systems could be approved.

REVIEW OF JULY NOSB RECOMMENDATION

At its July, 1998 meeting, the NOSB recommended that the NOP consult with APHIS with a goal

of developing a field certificate for all certified organic product entering the United States. Further

review of existing regulations indicates that the documentation provisions currently in place are

sufficient to establish an adequate audit trail for organic integrity.