Sunset 2018 Review Summary 

Meeting 1 - Request for Public Comment

Crops Substances

April 2016 

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 on the 

National List used in organic crop production that must be reviewed by the NOSB and renewed by the 

USDA before their sunset dates in 2018. This list provides the substance’s current status on the National 

List, use description, 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. To see 

if any new technical report is available, please check for updates under the substance name in 

the Petitioned Substances Database. 

Request for Comments

While the NOSB will not complete its review or recommendations on these substances until the fall 2016 

public meeting, the NOP is requesting that the public provide comments about these substances to the 

NOSB as part of the spring 2016 public meeting. These comments should be provided through 

www.regulations.gov by April 6, 2016 as explained in the meeting notice published in the Federal 

Register. 

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

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

substances currently on the National List were added to the list based on evidence available to the NOSB 

at the time. The substances were found to be: (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 focus on providing 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. Public comment should also address the continuing need for a substance 

or whether the substance is no longer needed or in demand.

Guidance on Submitting Your Comments

Comments should clearly indicate your position on the allowance or prohibition of substances on the list 

and explain the reasons for your position. You should include relevant information and data to support 

your position (e.g., scientific, environmental, manufacturing, industry impact information, etc.). 

For Comments That Support Substances Under Review:

If you provide comments in support of an allowance of a substance on the National List, 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. 

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 271/302
For Comments That Do Not Support Substances Under Review: 

If you provide comments that do not support a substance on the National List, you should provide 

reasons why the use of the substance should no longer be allowed in organic production or handling. 

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 

(3) inconsistent with crop production. 

For Comments Addressing the Availability of Alternatives: 

Comments may present information about the viability of alternatives for a substance under sunset 

review. Viable alternatives include, but are not limited to:

o Alternative management practices that would eliminate the need for the specific 

substance; 

o Other currently exempted substances that are on the National List, which could 

eliminate the need for this specific substance; and

o 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 producers or handlers 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. The following table can help you describe recommended 

alternatives in place of a current substance that you do not want to be continued.

Written public comments will be accepted through April 6, 2016 via www.regulations.gov. Comments 

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

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 272/302
Sunset 2018 Review Summary 

Meeting 1 - Request for Public Comment

Crops Substances

April 2016 

Reference: 7 CFR §205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

(Linked below)

Copper sulfate 

Ozone gas

Peracetic acid

EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown Toxicity

Reference: 7 CFR §205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop 

production.

Calcium chloride 

Copper sulfate

Reference:

205.601(a)(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application 

per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase 

baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited 

certifying agent; and, 

205.601(e)(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to 

one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do 

not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and 

accredited certifying agent.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP (Copper Sulfate and Other Coppers); 2001 TAP; 2011 TR

Petition(s): 2001

Past NOSB Actions: 10/2001 meeting minutes and vote; 11/2007 recommendation; 04/2011

recommendation 

Recent Regulatory Background: National List amended 10/31/2003 (68 FR 61987); Sunset renewal 

notice effective 11/03/2013 (78 FR 61154)

Sunset Date: 11/03/2018

Background

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

recently reviewed for Sunset 2017 and the documents were posted regarding the review criteria in 

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 273/302
regards to copper. The listings under review now are for copper used in aquatic rice production to 

control algae or tadpole shrimp (§205.601(a)(3) and §205.601(e)(4), respectively). Because the copper 

sulfate is used in aquatic systems the current annotations include specific requirements for application 

rates. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: 

1. Has there been any new information regarding the viability of alternatives to these uses of copper?

2. Have ACAs noticed any increase in baseline soil test values for copper and done anything about it?

Ozone gas 

Reference: 205.601(a)(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only. 

Technical Report: 2002 TAP

Petition(s): 2001

Past NOSB Actions: 09/2002 meeting minutes and vote; 11/2007 recommendation; 12/2011 

recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: National List amended 10/31/2003 (68 FR 61987); Sunset renewal 

notice effective 11/03/2013 (78 FR 61154)

Sunset Date: 11/03/2018

Background

Ozone was petitioned for use for weed control in crop production. It was suggested that ozone be 

injected through irrigation drip tape under plastic mulch. A subsequent additional request was made for 

use of ozone as an antimicrobial agent to clean irrigation lines. Ozone is a strong oxidant and works by 

oxidizing plant tissue and bacterial membranes.

In the 2002 TAP review, one reviewer objected strongly to use of “a known and problematic air 

pollutant” in organic farming. Two reviewers felt that ozone should be permitted with restrictions.

Ozone was not approved for use in weed control, but was listed for use as an irrigation system cleaner 

in September, 2002. Used as an irrigation cleaner, ozone is much less likely to be released into the 

atmosphere. Used for weed control, ozone could escape into the atmosphere. At sunset in November 

2007, ozone was relisted by a vote of 14 to 0. At sunset in December 2011, ozone was relisted by a vote 

of 13 to 0.

Additional information requested by NOSB: 

The Crops Subcommittee would like to know if ozone is currently in use for irrigation system cleaning. 

The Subcommittee asks certifiers, inspectors, and producers to provide feedback on whether or not 

ozone is listed on organic system plans and used in organic crop production, to help evaluate if it is still 

necessary for ozone to remain on the National List.

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 274/302
Peracetic acid 

Reference:

205.601(a)(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated 

planting material. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations as allowed in §205.601(a) at 

concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the pesticide product label; and, 

205.601(i)(8) Peracetic acid - for use to control fire blight bacteria. Also permitted in hydrogen peroxide 

formulations as allowed in §205.601(i) at concentration of no more than 6% as indicated on the 

pesticide product label.

Technical Report: 2000 TAP 

Petition(s): 2008

Past NOSB Actions: 11/2007 recommendation; 11/2009 annotation change; 12/2011 sunset 

recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: National List amended 10/31/2003 (68 FR 61987); Sunset Review 

10/09/2008 73 FR 59479 ; Annotation change 05/28/2013 (78 FR 31815) 

Sunset Date: 5/29/2018

Specific Uses of the Substance: Peracetic acid in organic crop production is used to disinfect equipment. 

It can also be used to treat seeds or asexually propagated planting materials as a disinfectant. It can be 

used to disinfect pruning equipment to help prevent the spread of the fire blight bacterium or used in 

one of the hydrogen peroxide formulations for control on the tree canopy of this same disease. 

Peracetic acid is also used in formulations of hydrogen peroxide, allowed at a concentration of no more 

that 6%, for use in organic crop production. (The Handling listing for Peracetic acid, a 2016 Sunset 

Review material, has recently been voted on to re-list its allowed use).

Technical Report: The Crops subcommittee has requested a new Technical Evaluation Report for 

peracetic acid, but it has not yet arrived and thus any additional information that it might provide will be 

in the 2nd posting for this material review (Fall 2016 NOSB meeting).

Discussion: This appears to be a pretty straightforward material: made from and decomposes back to 

acetic acid, oxygen, and water. Peracetic acid is a very strong oxidizing agent. This substance was first 

developed in 1950. Historically it has been used to treat fruits and vegetables to reduce spoilage from 

bacteria and various fungi. It is used to treat bulbs, to disinfect potting soil, clean irrigation equipment, 

and in seed treatment to inactivate fungi or other plants diseases. Additionally, in organic crop 

production it is also used as a bactericide/fungicide in wash waters to help decrease Escherichia coli 

O157:H7 on some fruit and vegetable crops. With the recent removal of two antibiotics previously 

allowed for use in organic crop production to assist in fire blight reduction, use of this substance as part 

of a rotational control and fire blight prevention program has increased, according to information 

provided by some organic stakeholders during recent public comment periods.

In the December 2, 2011 NOSB recommendation for the 2013 Sunset Review of peracetic acid for the 2 

Crops listings at §205.601(a)(6) and §205.601(i)(8), the Board clarified the annotation change from the 

2009 recommendation and supported it. The original recommended annotation change was:

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 275/302
§205.601(a)(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated 

planting material. Permitted in hydrogen peroxide formulations at concentration of no more than 5%.

§205.601(i)(8) Peracetic acid—for use to control fire blight bacteria. Permitted in hydrogen peroxide 

formulations at concentrations of no more than 5%.

This annotation was later implemented by the NOP with a slight change. The recommended 5 percent 

limit was changed to a 6 percent limit, based on information provided during public comment stating 

the recommended 5% limit was too low compared to percentages in use at the time. This has brought 

some slight confusion into this review, so we are going to try and clean up this historic information and 

also seek to get some clarity on what impact, if any, this annotation had on the various stakeholders 

that are involved. 

Additional information requested by NOSB:

1. Can organic crop producers or certifiers provide the full committee with any information 

that can explain why this material (or one of the alternative materials) is a better option for 

use, in organic crop production, for the listed allowed uses?

2. Has anything changed during the current sunset cycle that would make this material no 

longer necessary for its intended uses for organic crop production? If so, please help to 

explain.

3. It would help the NOSB in the review of this material if we could get feedback as to whether 

the current annotation (at a concentration of no more than 6%) presents any unforeseen 

problems for organic stakeholders, certifiers, or for product formulation. Also, could you 

provide input as to whether or not this annotation is even necessary? 

EPA List 3 - Inerts of Unknown Toxicity 

Reference: 205.601(m)(2) EPA List 3—Inerts of unknown toxicity—for use only in passive pheromone 

dispensers.

Technical Report: N/A

Petition(s): NA

Past NOSB Actions: 10/2002 meeting minutes and vote (see pheromones); 11/2007 

recommendation; 05/2012 recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: National List amended 10/31/2003 (68 FR 61987); Sunset Review 

10/09/2008 73 FR 59479 Sunset Review 10/03/13 (78 FR 61154)

Sunset Date: 11/03/2018

This listing will be superseded by the annotation change approved by the NOSB for EPA List 4 and List 

inerts (§205.601(m)(1)). The NOSB is continuing the sunset review process for these EPA List 3 inerts in 

case that change cannot be implemented through rulemaking before the 11/03/2018 sunset of EPA List 

3 inerts. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: 

None

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 276/302
Calcium chloride 

Reference: 205.602 - Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production. 

(c) Calcium chloride, brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a 

physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.

Technical Report: 2007 TAP

Petition(s): 2005; 2015

Past NOSB Actions: 09/1996 minutes and vote; 11/2006 annotation change (failed); 11/2007 sunset 

recommendation; 12/2011 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: National List amended 10/31/2003 (68 FR 61987); Sunset renewal 

notice effective 11/03/13 (78 FR 61154)

Sunset Date: 11/03/2018

Background

The NOSB originally voted to allow calcium chloride for use to control bitter pit in apples and as an 

emergency defoliant for cotton; the material was categorized as nonsynthetic and was not included on 

sections 205.601 or 205.602. Calcium chloride was subsequently petitioned and added to National List 

section 205.602 as a nonsynthetic substance prohibited for use in organic crop production. The 

annotation states: “brine process is natural and prohibited for use except as a foliar spray to treat a 

physiological disorder associated with calcium uptake.”

This material has historically not been allowed for direct soil applications due to high chloride and high 

solubility concerns, however a 2015 petition for removal of the prohibition contests these concerns and 

argues the contrary. Natural substitutes including limestone, gypsum, rock phosphate and bone meal 

are unable to supply calcium in sufficient quantities when faced with limited calcium uptake conditions. 

There are currently 20 registered OMRI products and 10 WSDA registered products. 

The Subcommittee has no concerns regarding the continued listing of calcium chloride.

Additional information requested by NOSB: 

None 

NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 277/302
NOSB APRIL 2016 PROPOSALS & DISCUSSION DOCUMENTS 278/302