The National Organic Standards Board 

Aquatic Animal Task Force 

Recommendation on Operations that Produce Aquatic Animals 

May 30, 2001 

BACKGROUND and PURPOSE

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 authorizes the National Organic Standards 

Board (NOSB) to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on production and handling standards for 

organically produced agricultural commodities. The Secretary draws upon the recommendations 

of the NOSB in developing the standards of the National Organic Program (NOP). By including 

"fish used for food" in the definition of livestock, the OFPA also requires that any fish used for 

food that is labeled as organic must be raised in accordance with NOP standards. Therefore, any 

producer labeling a fish as organically produced must comply with all applicable requirements 

and restrictions for livestock production in the OFPA and the NOSB is responsible for advising the 

Secretary on standards for the production and handling of fish. To clarify the meaning of the term 

"fish", the NOP developed the term "aquatic animals" to refer to finfish and shellfish used for food 

either propagated in a selected, controlled environment (aquaculture) or taken from free ranging 

marine or fresh water populations (wild capture). 

In recent years, there has been growing public interest in certification programs that address the 

production practices and environmental impacts related to the production of aquatic animals. As 

the OFPA authorizes the development of standards for aquatic animals, some of these 

certification programs have drawn upon organic practices and principles in developing their 

standards and several specifically identify the products they certify as organically produced. A 

number of individuals and organizations have presented testimony in support of organic 

standards for the production of aquatic animals at public meetings of the NOSB. Simultaneously, 

the implementation of standards for terrestrial animals in the NOP final rule has brought greater 

clarity and consistency to the meaning of organic livestock management in its entirety. In 

September 2000, the NOSB named six of its members to an Aquatic Animal Task Force to 

evaluate aquaculture and wild capture aquatic animal operations and to assess the feasibility of 

developing organic production and handling standards for their certification. 

STRUCTURE and PROCESS

The Task Force determined that aquaculture and wild capture production systems were 

sufficiently unique to warrant separate consideration in the review process. The Task Force also 

concluded that it needed additional expertise to undertake a thorough analysis of the diversity of 

aquatic animal production systems under consideration. To address these concerns, the Task 

Force empanelled independent Working Groups on aquaculture and wild harvest production 

operations that included experts from the fields of fisheries management, production, marketing, 

and aquatic systems ecology. The Working Groups also included representatives from organic 

certification and marketing organizations. Each member of the Task Force was assigned to a 

Working Group and the chairs of the Working Groups were added to the Task Force. Recognizing 

that strongly divergent positions existed on numerous core issues, the Working Groups did not 

pursue consensus recommendations but opted for the fullest elaboration of alternative points of 

view. Beginning their deliberations in November 2000, the Working Groups engaged in an 

expansive dialogue over four months and presented their final reports at the NOSB meeting in 

Buena Park, CA in March 2001. The Task Force reviewed the Working Groups’ findings and 

narrowed their recommendations to those contained in this report. 

The Task Force has also drawn upon the work of the NOP to solicit public comment on organic 

certification standards for the production of aquatic animals. The two proposed rules for 

implementing the NOP (62 FR 65850 and 65 FR 13512) elicited numerous public comments on 

the feasibility of certifying aquatic animal production. Given the absence of consensus in these 
preliminary comments, the NOP determined that a more focused analysis of the issues would be 

needed to facilitate the incorporation of standards into the NOP final rule. On March 13, 2000, 

AMS announced in the Federal Register plans to hold three public meetings to consider the 

certification of aquatic animal production. The announcement included a series of questions 

pertaining to wild capture and aquaculture production systems. AMS convened public meetings 

on April 10, 2000 in Mobile, Alabama, April 12, 2000 in Anchorage, Alaska, and May 3, 2000 in 

Providence, Rhode Island and received a total of 71 written and oral comments. AMS also 

participated in an organic certification workshop for wild capture operations in Seattle, WA on 

April 9, 2000 and the National Organic Aquaculture Workshop held at the University of Minnesota 

on June 23 and 24, 2000. Members of the NOSB attended each of these public meetings and 

workshops. 

Finally, the Task Force took into consideration existing guidelines and standards applicable to the 

certification of aquatic animal production. The Task Force noted that the Codex Alimentarius 

Commission for the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organically Produced 

Foods of which the United States is a member has determined that the products of hunting or 

fishing wild animals shall not be considered livestock under their guidelines. The Task Force also 

reviewed numerous existing certification programs that contain standards for organically 

produced aquatic animals. The Working Groups and Task Force also benefited from and greatly 

appreciates the insight and expertise of numerous individuals who produce, market, or study 

aquatic animals. Knowledge of how existing aquatic animal production systems function was 

indispensable in developing pertinent recommendations. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The development of standards for the production of aquatic animals represents a unique 

dimension of certification that will require careful consideration of the fundamental principles of 

organic management. The unique physiological and behavioral characteristics of aquatic animals 

make it impractical to develop standards by extrapolating from the requirements and restrictions 

that apply to terrestrial production systems. The OFPA provides the authority to develop 

standards for the production of aquatic animals and identifies the elements of a livestock 

production system that must be addressed in every organic system plan – livestock origin, feed 

ration, health care, living conditions, and identification. However, the OFPA does not contain 

provisions specifically intended for aquatic animals or address how standards developed from 

and for terrestrial systems should be applied to aquatic environments. Our intent has been to 

recommend standards for the production of aquatic animals that reflect an innovative approach to 

organic certification while remaining fully consistent with the statutory requirements of the OFPA. 

A. Origin of Livestock

• Organically produced aquatic animals must be raised in a discrete population, similar to a 

herd of cattle or flock of poultry, that is brought under continuous organic management 

beginning no later than the second day of the animal's life. 

• Aquatic animals captured from free ranging populations that have not been under a 

producer’s continuous management beginning no later than the second day of the 

animals’ life are not suitable for organic certification. 

B. Livestock Feed

• Producers must provide organically produced aquatic animals with a total feed ration 

composed of agricultural products that are organically produced, except that nonsynthetic 

substances and synthetic substances included on the National List as feed supplements 

and feed additives may be used. 
• Producers must provide organically managed aquatic animals with a feed ration 

consistent with the animals’ natural dietary preferences. 

Fish meal and fish oil should be added to the National List as allowed feed supplements for 

aquaculture production if the total content of fish meal and fish oil does not exceed 5 percent of 

the total feed ration. 

C. Livestock Health Care Practice Standard 

• Producers must establish and maintain preventive health care practices including 

selection of appropriate species, provision of a suitable feed ration, establishment of 

living conditions to allow for natural behaviors and stress reduction, and use of allowed 

medicines and vaccines as necessary. 

• Producers may use temperature or pressure shock to induce triploidy in aquatic animals 

in their operation. 

D. Livestock Living Conditions

• Organically managed aquatic animals must be raised within a secure, defined production 

system that accommodates the animals’ health and natural behavior and minimizes the 

risk of escape. 

• Producers must maintain healthy water conditions with respect to temperature, oxygen 

concentration, pH, and toxins including ammonia and carbon dioxide, 

• Producers must maintain production systems, whether self-contained or located in open 

water, in a manner that does not contribute to the contamination of water or soil by 

nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms. Producers should prioritize recycling of 

residual nutrients produced by the operation. 

• Production systems located in open water must be sited and managed to minimize the 

potential for contact with prohibited substances including environmental pollution. 

E. Identification

• Producers must maintain records sufficient to document the origin, feed ration, living 

conditions, and, as needed, health care practices applicable to each group of aquatic 

animals produced on their operation. 

Discussion

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) is the statutory foundation for the certification 

of organic agricultural commodities. The Task Force developed its recommendations on aquatic 

animal standards for aquaculture and wild harvest production systems based on the ability of 

producers to comply with the livestock management requirements established in the OFPA. The 

requirements in the OFPA specific to livestock production are origin of livestock, feed ration, living 

conditions, health care, and identification.

Wild Capture Production Systems

Origin of Livestock 

The first consideration in assessing aquatic animal standards for wild harvest production systems 

is to determine the point at which the OFPA requires a producer to select the animals produced 

on their operation. Some working group members maintained that the OFPA provides for a 

comprehensive interpretation of the term "fish" and that all aquatic animals, including those 
spending their entire life in the wild, could potentially be organically produced. These members 

based their position on the conviction that organic production is derivative of natural systems and 

that aquatic animals sustainably captured in the wild that have, with reasonable assurance, been 

free from contact with prohibited substances should be considered organic. Proponents of this 

approach to certifying wild aquatic animal production cited the analogous provisions in the OFPA 

for the certification of wild crop operations. From their perspective, a producer is not responsible 

for intentionally introducing the animals that they ultimately capture if the production system in its 

entirety meets all applicable requirements for organic certification. 

Other working group members stated that organic certification must reflect an intentional 

management system in which a producer establishes and manages a distinct group of animals 

from the earliest feasible stage of production. These members maintained that producers 

exercise no positive oversight over individual animals within populations of free ranging aquatic 

animals and can do nothing to prevent, or even detect, contact with prohibited substances. They 

asserted that the continuous oversight of organically raised aquatic animals must begin with the 

intentional selection of the animals being produced. They agreed that the OFPA does not require 

the introduction of the plants produced on a wild crop operation but maintained that the statute 

specifically restricts that provision to plants. These members concluded that only operations that 

introduce and continuously manage a discrete population of aquatic animals analogous to a herd 

of ruminants or flock of poultry are suitable for certification. 

The Task Force concludes that the origin of livestock requirement in the OFPA mandates that a 

producer must be responsible for introducing the specific animals produced on their operation. 

This principle is reflected in the origin of livestock provisions in the NOP final rule: regardless of 

the age at which organic management begins, all animals are identified, assembled in a discrete, 

contained population, and managed under a producer’s continuous oversight. These 

requirements are not satisfied in wild harvest systems in which a producer has no managerial 

responsibility or direct contact with the animal until the time it is captured. The Task Force did 

consider the special case of wild capture operations that include juvenile life stages of aquatic 

animals reared in and released from a hatchery. The Task Force supports using hatchery 

production in organic aquatic animal production but does not find that it adequately addresses the 

origin of livestock requirement in wild capture operations. Hatchery raised juveniles are typically 

used to support established wild populations and a producer capturing mature adults would be 

unlikely to distinguish the origin of a specific animal. 

Livestock Feed 

Section 6509(c)(1) of the OFPA requires that producers provide livestock "organically produced 

feed that meets the requirements of this title." The Task Force understands this provision to 

require that the producer must provide an adequate amount of feed materials appropriate to the 

species and that each component of the diet is an allowed material. Under the NOP final rule for 

terrestrial livestock production, any feed ingredient that can be organic – that is, feed materials 

that are agricultural commodities – must be organically produced. The NOP final rule also 

establishes two categories of nonorganically produced feed products – nonsynthetic, 

nonagricultural substances and synthetic substances included on the National List – that may be 

added to livestock feed. The feed provisions in the final rule, which are supported by the 

recommendations of the NOSB, establish that a producer must pro-actively supply the animals on 

their operation with a balanced and complete feed ration. The Task Force concludes that a 

producer who captures wild aquatic animals has no direct involvement in providing their feed 

materials and is incapable of fulfilling the managerial responsibility required by the OFPA. 

Livestock Health Care 

While health care practices in organic livestock production are predicated upon prevention of 

stress and illness, the need for natural and synthetic forms of intervention is well established. The 
OFPA specifies several allowed and prohibited therapeutic practices, directs the NOSB to 

develop additional guidance, and includes livestock medications among the substances suitable 

for addition to the National List of allowed synthetics. The NOSB has crafted its recommendation 

on preventive health care practices to include provisions mandating the selection of appropriate 

species, allowing for the physical comfort and natural behavior of confined animals, and 

performing physical alterations in a manner that minimizes the animal’s pain and stress. The NOP 

final rule incorporates these provisions and includes the requirement that producers cannot 

withhold treatment from a sick animal, even if such treatment resulted in the loss of its 

certification. In summary, organic livestock health care management mandates that a producer 

monitor the health of livestock and use a variety of therapies including natural and synthetic 

medications to promote livestock well being when the animal’s welfare is in jeopardy. A producer 

capturing aquatic animals from the wild cannot perform either the pro-active or mandatory 

intervention responsibilities required in organic livestock health care management. The Task 

Force concludes that wild capture operations do not satisfy the health care management 

requirement established in the OFPA. 

Livestock Living Conditions 

The provision of livestock living conditions that are appropriate for the species of animal, the size 

of their population, and their stage of development are an integral consideration in organic 

livestock management. These considerations must also be addressed in the design of facilities 

used to temporarily confine livestock. The NOP final rule focuses on living conditions that allow 

animals to express their natural behavior by providing free movement, access to a suitable 

outdoor environment, and appropriate bedding and shelter. Some working group members 

contended that no living conditions could be more natural and therefore suitable to organic 

production than the open waters in which wild aquatic animals are born and mature. However, 

other working group members maintained that, as with the provisions for livestock origin and feed 

ration, natural systems do not equate to organic production. These members maintained that 

organic management requires that a producer intentionally engage in the production process by 

using practices and materials sanctioned by the OFPA. With regards to living conditions, this 

requirement entails establishing a distinct, defined space that provides livestock with appropriate 

shelter and mobility and protects them from prohibited practices and inputs. Since a producer of 

wild aquatic animals is not responsible for performing this task, they cannot fulfill the OFPA’s 

managerial requirement to do so. 

Livestock Identification 

The OFPA requires that a producer maintain sufficient records to document that each animal or 

flock of poultry that he or she sells as organic was produced on their operation. The OFPA also 

requires producers to keep records on all feeds, feed supplements, and medications administered 

to livestock on the operation. Maintenance of a comprehensive audit trail is fundamental to the 

integrity and viability of certification. In principle, producers of wild captured aquatic animals are 

capable of documenting that a specific animal was captured at a given time and location and 

handled in accordance with the standards from that time on. However, such records do not 

provide consumers with an authentic management history since the producer had no direct 

involvement with the animal prior to its capture. By comparison, the records required under the 

NOP final rule document the source of the animal, when it was brought under organic 

management, and how it was fed, cared for, and housed , and slaughtered. The Task Force 

concludes that while a wild capture producer can document which animals were caught on their 

operation, such records do not fully convey the information that is required by the OFPA. 

Summary of Wild Capture Production Systems 

The Task Force concludes that operations that capture wild aquatic animals do not reflect the 

degree of producer management, continuous oversight, and discretionary decision-making that 
are characteristic of an organic system. The regulated capture of aquatic animals from wild 

populations is unquestionably a managed system, but it does not afford producers the 

opportunities to exercise the specific production responsibilities that are required by the OFPA. 

Producing aquatic animals without violating the livestock origin, feed ration, health care, and living 

conditions requirements in the OFPA does not make for an organic production system. The 

inclusion of those requirements in the OFPA necessitates that they be pro-actively managed and 

that in doing so a producer intentionally choose materials and practices that are consistent with 

the standards. Since wild capture aquatic animal operations do not allow producers to make 

these essential decisions, the Task Force recommends that the NOSB not develop standards for 

the certification of aquatic animals captured in the wild. 

The Task Force acknowledges the point of view that sustainable natural systems, as the 

functional model for organic production, could themselves be considered organic. However, the 

Task Force maintains that such an understanding obscures the continuous producer-level 

decision making that is essential to the meaningful differentiation of organic production. 

Advocates of certifying wild harvest aquatic animal operations argue that natural systems that are 

protected from deleterious human impacts (specifically unsustainable capture levels and contact 

with prohibited substances) should be certifiable. However, the Task Force does not consider 

those conditions to represent a sufficient degree of intentional producer oversight to differentiate 

between organic and nonorganic management. The Task Force believes that organic 

management must be predicated on the producer's site-specific application of a recognized 

standard reflecting allowed and prohibited practices and materials. The organic certification of 

wild captured aquatic animals essentially implies that entire ecosystems can be organic, whereas 

the OFPA places the boundaries for certification at the level of the operation. 

As previously stated, the regulated capture of wild aquatic animals is a managed system, albeit 

one in which many critical management issues exceed the individual producer’s influence. 

Although the Task Force concludes that organic certification is not appropriate for such systems, 

we recognize the increasing importance of providing consumers with the fullest and most 

accurate information possible on the production and handling of food. The Task Force 

encourages the wild harvest aquatic animal operations industry to explore other certification 

efforts outside of the National Organic Program that addresses areas of differentiation they want 

to highlight to consumers.

AQUACULTURE

Origin of Livestock 

The production of aquatic animals in an aquaculture system begins with the introduction of 

juvenile life stages such as seed, gametes, fertilized eggs, fry, and smolts from one or more 

species. The Task Force concludes that the OFPA requires a producer to pro-actively select the 

animals that are organically managed on his or her operation. The Task Force recommends that 

juvenile life stages be brought under organic management no later than the second day of the 

animal's life. This "day old" standard is identical to the provision in the OFPA for using chicks from 

nonorganic operations in organic poultry production. Beyond the allowance for introducing day old 

animals reared on nonorganic operations, all juvenile life stages raised in hatcheries must be 

managed in compliance with organic standards. The intent of this recommendation is to allow the 

introduction of nonorganically managed aquatic animals but to require that they remain under 

continuous organic management beginning no later than the second day of life. 

Livestock feed 

How to apply the OFPA’s feed ration requirements to the tremendous diversity of herbivorous, 

piscivorous (fish eating), and omnivorous diets found among aquatic animals was unquestionably 

the most challenging aspect of the deliberations on aquaculture. No other issue so clearly 
illustrates the practical difficulty of adapting a statute that was drafted for the traditional species 

raised in terrestrial livestock operations to aquaculture production. Section 6509(c)(1) of the 

OFPA requires that producers feed livestock "organically produced feed that meets the 

requirements of this title." Under the NOP final rule for terrestrial livestock production, agricultural 

feed ingredients such as pasture, grains, and legumes must be organically produced. The 

OFPA's classification of aquatic animals as agricultural products necessitates that natural feed 

materials derived from them including fish meal and fish oil must also be organically produced. 

Since the Task Force is recommending against the certification of aquatic animals captured from 

wild capture systems, the vast majority of fish meal and fish oil that are currently used in 

aquaculture will be prohibited in organic production. The Task Force recognizes the 

consequences of this position for aquaculture operations that are dependent upon fish meal and 

fish oil but must adhere to an approach that is consistent with the OFPA and the final rule. 

The Aquaculture Working Group gave extensive consideration to aquatic animal nutrition 

including the potential approaches to allowing fish meal and fish oil in organic production. The 

Working Group concluded that the fundamental requirement in organic feed management is to 

provide a balanced and complete feed ration exclusively composed of allowed materials that 

closely resembles the animal's natural dietary preferences. Applying this principle to piscivorous 

aquatic animals, they concluded that there is no allowable natural or synthetic alternative to a 

feed ration including appropriate amounts of protein derived from fish meal and fish oil. The 

Working Group determined that the complete substitution of protein derived from plants or 

terrestrial livestock for sources derived from aquatic animals is unacceptable for naturally 

piscivorous species. While agreeing up to this point, the Working Group split on the best way to 

address the inherent need for fish meal and fish oil in the diets of piscivorous species. One group 

supported creating a National List allowance for fish meal and fish oil in amounts appropriate to 

the dietary needs of a species provided that the feed material was produced from a sustainably 

managed fishery. The second group could not support an open-ended allowance for fish meal 

and fish oil but was open to allowing such materials as feed supplements provided that they did 

not exceed a certain percentage (5% was discussed) of the total feed ration. 

The Task Force concurs that organic livestock producers must provide a complete, balanced, and 

naturally palatable diet and that this requirement mandates including fish meal or fish oil in the 

diets of piscivorous aquatic animals. While section 205.237 of the final rule requires agricultural 

components of the feed ration to be organically produced, it also allows nonsynthetic substances 

and synthetic substances included on the National List as feed additives and supplements. The 

Task Force recommends that up to 5% of the total feed ration may include nonorganic fish meal 

and fish oil as feed supplements to provide natural sources of amino acids and Omega 3 fatty 

acids. The Task Force recognizes that this recommendation will restrict the species of aquatic 

animals that can be raised organically. There is also potential for operations that manage algae 

blooms to raise herbivorous aquatic animals in a manner comparable to ruminants grazing on 

pasture. By-products of these herbivorous species raised on organic operations could provide a 

source of organic fish meal and fish oil for organically raised piscivorous species. 

Health Care Management 

The Task Force concludes that the preventive health care management principles outlined in the 

OFPA and reflected in the NOP final rule are readily transferable to aquatic production systems. 

Producers must document in their organic system plan that they have factored breed selection, 

feed ration, living conditions, and sanitation practices into a production environment that fosters 

pest and disease resistance among the aquatic animals they raise. The Task Force also supports 

the allowance for vaccines and veterinary biologics, natural therapeutic agents, and synthetic 

medications included to the National List in aquaculture production. Finally, the Task Force 

recommends allowing a producer to use temperature or pressure shock as a physical alteration to 

induce triploidy in aquatic animals. Triploidy can be an effective technique for inducing infertility 
and can reduce the risk that aquatic animals that escape from confinement will establish feral 

populations. 

Livestock Living Conditions 

The Task Force identified three essential components in the requirements for livestock living 

conditions in organic aquaculture systems: the provision of a species appropriate production 

environment; the preservation of environmental quality in the surrounding ecosystem; and the 

continuous separation of organically and nonorganically managed populations of aquatic animals. 

The Task Force concludes that a producer must satisfy these requirements by maintaining a 

production system that restricts the movement of aquatic animals within fixed, recognized 

boundaries. These systems can include ponds, netpens, raceways, re-circulating systems, and 

other enclosed operations in which the producer is responsible for introducing the organisms and 

retains an active role in managing their development. 

The determination of appropriate living conditions must be species-specific and the Task Force 

believes that the guidelines developed in the final rule for terrestrial species can be adapted to 

aquatic animals. Responsiveness to species’ fundamental behavioral and physiological 

requirements must be the primary consideration in this determination. Evaluating the potential 

adverse environmental impacts of an organic aquaculture operation is both a species and sitespecific determination. Of particular concern in aquatic systems is the potential for nutrients from 

undigested food and feces to move into the ecosystem. While it is preferable for systems to 

contain and recycle the nutrients they introduce in production, a completely closed loop is not 

possible on every operation, including terrestrial ones. The Task Force concludes that net pen 

systems that use polyculture with seaweeds, molluscs, or other organisms to capture excess 

nutrients may meet the requirements of an organic system. Recycling nutrients is central to 

organic farming, whether or not discharge of those nutrients would cause significant harm. 

Organic farm plans/standards require nutrient cycling in all organic systems regardless of the size 

of the operation. The Task Force also concludes that the potential for contact between prohibited 

substances and organically managed aquatic animals in open water netpen systems can be 

managed through monitoring included in the organic system plan. The prohibition on contact with 

prohibited substance, particularly those not intentionally introduced into the production process, 

contains some allowance for genuinely unavoidable and incidental contact. Finally, the Task 

Force concludes that livestock living conditions in organic aquaculture production must be 

adequately secure to prevent escape of aquatic animals to the wild or movement of 

nonorganically managed animals from the wild on to an operation producing a similar species. 

Identification 

The Task Force concludes that an aquaculture operation that complies with the recommended 

provisions for origin of livestock, feed ration, health care management, and living conditions can 

satisfy the identification and record keeping requirements in the OFPA.

MOLLUSC PRODUCTION

Systems currently used to produce molluscs such as oysters, scallops, clams, and mussels 

represent a synthesis of wild capture and aquaculture production systems. Mollusc production 

incorporates several of the elements characteristic of aquaculture that are also required in an 

organic livestock production system. For example, mollusc producers establish a selected 

population of juvenile animals on a production site with distinct boundaries that has been sited for 

its environmental suitability. Molluscs are filter-feeding animals that typically utilize naturally 

occurring microalgae for their nutritional requirements. While filter-feeding represents a natural 

process and can benefits the environment by cycling excess nutrients, it does not conform with 

the Task Force's understanding of the OFPA's requirement that producers provide livestock with 

an organically produced feed ration. Similarly, there appears to be little or no pro-active health 
care management in the mollusc production once juvenile life stages leave the hatchery and 

become established on the operation. There does not appear to be any conflict between mollusc 

production and the identification requirements of the OFPA. 

In considering the mollusc production as a complete system, the Task Force concludes that there 

is insufficient compatibility with the requirements of the OFPA to warrant the development of 

certification standards for such systems. The Task Force concludes that mollusc producers are 

not called upon to make a sufficient number of the management decision imposed by the statute 

nor could certification standards create significant differentiation between organic and nonorganic 

operations.