National Organic Standards Board

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Subcommittee

Import Oversight Discussion Document

February 25, 2018

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the passage of the Organic Foods Protection Act into law in 1990, organic trade has grown to a 

nearly $50 billion market in U.S. sales alone. Strong year over year growth has led to an increase in 

imports, particularly in grains. Integral to past and future growth is consumer confidence in the integrity 

of the USDA organic label. Recent press, NOP enforcement actions, and testimony from stakeholders 

have raised concerns around fraudulent imports of organic products. Organic supply chain integrity 

relies on a public/private partnership that has different roles for industry (growers and handlers), 

certifiers, and the USDA in a global organic control system. It is important that further actions are taken 

to improve the integrity of the organic supply chain and global control system to ensure U.S. businesses

do not lose market share to fraudulent products and U.S. consumers get the product they expect. 

II. BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2017, the USDA issued a memo to the NOSB on oversight of imported organic products. 

In this memo, the USDA outlined a number of actions taken by the NOP to deter fraudulent shipments. 

Additionally, the memo expressed the AMS’s priority to explore additional measure that would 

strengthen the global organic control system. AMS specifically requested the NOSB “provide 

recommendations on improving the oversight and control procedures that are used by AMS, certified 

and operations to verify organic claims for imported organic products.” 

To support this work AMS convened a panel at the Fall 2017 NOSB meeting. This panel was composed 

of federal agencies including representatives from NOP, AMS, APHIS, and CBP to discuss the federal 

perspective and tools used in relation to imports of agricultural products. The NOP also provided 

suggestions on areas of work. The NOP is convening a panel at the Spring 2018 NOSB meeting with 

representatives from certification agencies and industry representatives to provide testimony on import 

oversight. 

IV. DISCUSSION

In order to gain further insight and background on the diverse perspective and opportunities to increase 

integrity in the global organic control system, the NOSB is seeking input from the public. Several specific 

subject areas are outlined below with questions. We also ask the public to provide their perspective on 

what actions or opportunities would have the greatest impact to increase integrity in the global organic 

control systems, whether listed here or not. 

The NOSB plans to develop proposals for Board voting once we have received sufficient input and 

background information, as soon as the Fall 2018 NOSB meeting. 

VI. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

We present over 75 questions below across 10 different subject matters and a broad area asking what 

areas we are missing. We realize most members of the public will not be able to answer all questions –

we encourage all credible responses, even if they address just one or a few of the questions. 
1) Role of documents in an organic supply chain with a focus on imports.

There are a number of documents created or utilized to import agricultural commodities. These 

documents are created by multiple parties, including but not limited to: export governments, 

U.S. government, exporter, importer, shipping company, and third parties. Some of the 

documents are: sales contracts, pro forma invoices, commercial invoices, customs invoices, 

inspection certificates, insurance certificates, phytosanitary certificates, sanitary certificates, 

health certificates, fumigation certificates, certificate of origin, packing lists, bill of lading, 

waybills, export permit/license, import permit/license. These documents may or may not 

document the organic status of the shipment since organic verification documents like organic 

certificates or transaction certificates are issued in addition to these other documents. 

Questions:

a) Should it be a requirement that the organic status of a product be recorded on all 

documents including those listed above? How would this increase organic integrity? What 

impact would this have on the industry? 

b) Which documents (listed above or in addition) are necessary to verify an import supply 

chain? How well do these documents serve to prevent fraud?

c) Some imported products change hands once or several times while in transit. How do these 

documents appropriately trace and verify the organic status of the products for the ultimate 

importer? 

d) Different documents in the import supply chain are issued by different parties. Are some 

documents or issuing parties (like export governments) more reliable than others? Should 

these documents be required? 

e) Should the use of organic tariff codes (when they exist) be required when organic products 

fall under those codes? If so, should failing to use an organic tariff code negate the organic 

status of the imported product? Should the U.S. government be working actively to vastly 

increase the number of organic tariff codes? What impact would these changes have on the 

industry?

f) Do organic import certificates (as required in the EU) or organic transaction certificates 

provide value in documenting the organic status of a shipment? What are the strengths and 

weaknesses of this system, and what can be done to further strengthen this process? 

Should a similar document be required for the import of organic products into the U.S., and 

if so, who should issue the document? What impact would this have on the industry? How 

do certifiers currently issuing Transaction Certificates utilize this data in audits of the 

certified operation?

g) Are there procedures or systems that could be put in place that are not reliant strictly upon

documentation, such as direct communication between the certifiers of the commodities 

being traded, that verifies the organic status of items being bought and sold?

2) Role of Importers in the organic supply chain.

Several international organic standards, like the EU or Japanese, require the certification of 

importers regardless of their interaction with organic products. Similarly, U.S. government 

regulations like FSMA have special requirements for importers of record as the first U.S. entity 

taking some level of responsibility for the imported product. 

Questions:

a) Should importers of organic products be required to be certified regardless of how they 

handle a product? What impact would this have on the industry?

b) The organic control system relies on a process that generally checks the organic status of a 

product one step back to the last certified operations. Should importers be held to a stricter 

standard of documentation or other forms of communication to verify the organic status of 

products being imported into the U.S.? What additional requirements should be placed on 
importers given their critical spot in the supply chain? What impact would this have on the 

industry?

c) What documents or system should be developed for an importer to verify the organic status 

of a shipment?

3) Role of uncertified operations in the supply chain.

The current regulations exempt several types of operations from organic certification based on 

how products are handled. Operations may be involved in the import supply chain but not be 

certified - for example, brokers and traders who do not take possession but take ownership of a 

product are not required to be certified. Similarly, transport operations and customs brokers 

who are involved in the logistical transport or clearance of shipments are not required to be 

certified. CBP licensed private entities know as Customs Brokers serve a unique role in ensuring 

imports meet the documentation/regulatory requirements for import into the U.S. 

a) What are examples of uncertified handlers in import or domestic supply chains? Should 

these operators be certified or not, what additional value would this bring, and what impact 

would this have on the industry? 

b) Should operations that take ownership of products or operations that market but don’t own 

products be required to be certified? What impact would this have on the industry, and 

how would this improve supply chain integrity?

c) What role do customs brokers play in the organic control system? How could customs 

brokers be further engaged with organic integrity through regulation or other means? What 

impact do uncertified customs brokers have on the organic control system?

d) How can audit trail documentation as well as systems of verification be improved with these 

types of operations? 

4) Global and National organic crop acreage information.

Several data points are required by the USDA, either as part of annual reporting requirements or 

to populate the Organic Integrity database. A piece of information not required is acreage and 

yield information at the production level. 

Questions:

a) Would including production acreage and yield information in the Organic Integrity database 

serve to strengthen global organic control systems? If so, how would this information be 

used? What concerns do producers have in making this information public?

b) Is acreage and/or yield information currently being accumulated by certifiers? What 

concerns do certifiers have in collecting and communicating the information to the NOP?

c) Is both acreage and yield information important? 

d) Should acreage and yield information be proprietary to the operations and not be 

communicated? What would be the impact be of sharing the information with certifiers and 

ultimately the NOP and public (thru the Organic Integrity database)? If privacy and other 

concerns prevent publishing individual information, would aggregate data by helpful and at 

what level of aggregation (state, country, etc.). 

e) Are there other means to accurately calculate organic acreage and/or yield estimates on a 

country-by-country basis? 

f) Should these reporting requirements also be required of countries operating under an 

equivalency agreement? 

g) Can this acreage and yield information be a basis by which certifiers can track the 

approximate volume of product an entity would be allowed to sell under their organic 

certificate?
5) Equivalencies, Recognition Agreements and certified operation databases (like the Organic 

Integrity database).

The NOP designed and maintained Organic Integrity database serves as a way to independently 

and rapidly verify the authenticity of an organic certificate. This database includes all operations 

certified to USDA organic regulations by an NOP accredited certifier. This database does not 

include operations in equivalent countries eligible to export to the U.S. as organic nor 

operations certified to the USDA regulations by a certifier operating under a recognition 

agreement. 

Questions:

a) Should the NOP require foreign governments to maintain a similar database with certified 

operator data in its equivalency and recognition agreements? 

b) Should this data be required to be integrated into the Organic Integrity Database?

c) How would this data serve to strengthen the global organic control system? Is this system 

currently being utilized by industry or certifiers, and if so, how? 

6) The role of residue testing to verify bulk shipments of grain.

USDA organic regulations require certifiers, on an annual basis, sample and test from a 

minimum of five percent of the operations they certify. Testing for residues has been an integral 

part of some organic control systems. For example, this is commonly required in Europe and is 

part of the procedures of the California State Organic Program. 

Questions:

a) Should testing of imports be required? Does testing provide useful information, or is it 

situational? If situational, please provide situations where it is useful or not useful. What 

burden would this put on the industry? What party (importer, exporter, other) should be 

responsible for testing? 

b) Should testing be required if the shipment passes a certain market value or size threshold? 

c) If testing should be completed, what type of testing should be done? 

7) Verification of organic status in perishable supply chains.

Fresh produce supply chains are unique. Such products cannot be fully packaged due to their 

nature and requirements for refrigeration, inspection, sampling, and respiration. This makes 

fresh produce especially vulnerable to cross contamination and difficult to label and track. Fresh 

produce transactions often occur very quickly due to their perishable nature. 

Questions:

a) What additional actions can be taken to increase supply chain integrity in fresh produce 

supply chains? 

b) Are there difficulties experienced by the industry in documenting the organic status of 

organic produce offered for purchase? What are some potential solutions to better 

ascertain the organic status of produce offered for purchase? 

c) In an organic fresh produce supply chain, which operators should be certified (transport 

operators, storage warehouse, distributors, retail distributors, brokers, etc.)? What impact 

would this have on the industry?

Is there repacking of fresh produce currently occurring by non-certified handlers?

8) Role of certifier/operation when certifying a commodity in a third country with import 

controls on the commodity. 

Some commodities imported into the U.S. from certain origins may be subject to fumigation or 

other treatment in order to be imported into the U.S. as a requirement of APHIS, another 

government agency, or by statute. The Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements (FAVIR) 
database lists the requirements for fresh fruits and vegetables, and the Seeds Not for Planting 

lists several other requirements for non-fruit or vegetable commodities. 

a) Should certifiers of operators who are producing commodities subject to import restrictions 

or mandatory fumigation conduct further assessments to verify a compliant marketing plan 

is in place for said commodities? 

b) Is this currently being done by certifiers, and have certifiers operating abroad had this 

activity verified during NOP accreditation audits? 

c) Should certified operators importing products from abroad conduct specific assessments 

related to mandatory fumigations or treatments? Is this currently done by certifier’s who 

are certifying importers? 

d) Do certifiers have the expertise, training, and ability to conduct these audits/risk 

assessments? What additional training would be helpful to certifiers and operators? 

9) Additional controls for origins with documented fraud or integrity issues.

It is common in other import regimes for food control or phytosanitary regulations to impose 

additional requirements from regions with documented issues or fraud. In August 2017, 

additional control and reporting requirements were imposed by NOP for a set period of time on 

certifiers of handling operations in regions identified as high risk. Similar actions have been 

taken by the EU in regards to the import of certain organic products from some countries. 

a) Should the NOP develop an ongoing system to impose additional requirements on 

operations doing business in or with countries or regions with documented fraud? 

b) Should testing be mandatory for shipments from these regions? If so, where should testing 

be done?

c) What criteria should be used to identify a region of increased concern? What role do 

changes in USDA ERS import data play in these evaluations?

d) What impact would this have on the industry? 

e) Should the NOP develop specific channels of communication with our global organic 

certification partners, to better identify, track, deter and prevent fraudulent organic 

products? Are there examples of this type of communication already present and how 

could this be improved and implemented?

10) Full Supply Chain audits.

Organic control systems currently rely on checking the organic status one step back from the 

party from which products are being purchased or the last certified operation in the supply 

chain). The control system makes it difficult to conduct full supply chain audits (from shelf to

field) if each operation and certifier is only looking one-step back. 

Questions:

a) Do full supply chain audits offer value in ensuring organic integrity? If so, who should 

conduct these audits, and when?

b) What are the challenges of completing full supply chain audits? 

c) How could the start and end points of a supply chain audit be defined in a systematic and 

repeatable way (commodity-based, geography-based, other criteria)? 

d) What are possible approaches that a full supply chain audit could take (desk audits, physical 

audits, etc.)?

11) Other Areas/Questions/Opportunities/Threats.

a) What other areas should the NOSB focus on in order to have the greatest impact on 

strengthening the global organic control system or to deter fraud in an organic supply chain? 

What are the areas of greatest weakness in the global organic control system, and what can 

be done to improve them?
b) What other information would be helpful to inform the NOSB deliberations and work on 

composing recommendations? 

c) Can the NOP accreditation system play a role in providing consistency in the oversight of 

both domestic and international certifiers in the area of global trade? Do you have 

suggestions for specific activities or systems that could be implemented?

Subcommittee vote

Motion to approve this discussion document on Import Oversight

Motion by: Tom Chapman

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

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