Formal Recommendation 

From: National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

To: the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: 

Subject: 

Chair: 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action: 

Guidance Statement: 

Other: 

Statement of Recommendation: (Motion # 1) 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with OFPA and NOP):

 

Committee Vote:

 

Moved: 

SecondĞĚ: 

Yes:EŽ͗ďƐƚĂŝŶ͗ďƐĞŶƚ͗ZĞĐƵƐĞ͗

 

 

 3DJHUHYLVHGPD

October 16, 2012

Petition to remove Ferric Phosphate from Section 205.601 (h)

Barry Flamm

Petition Failed

Failed

Motion to remove Ferric Phosphate from section 205.601(h). 

 

 

 

 

 

The NOSB rejected removal of ferric phosphate from the National List. Some Board member 

supported removal of ferric phosphate due to the use of EDTA as an inert ingredient in 

formulated products, however the Board found these are allowed under section 205.601(m)(1). 

Those Board members who supported the removal of ferric phosphate held that the use of EDTA 

is integral to killing the slug and snail as the target organism with the level of efficacy to be of 

value in the field. The NOSB-NOP-EPA Working Group on Inerts (IWG) will address the topic of 

inerts in pesticide products. 

Carmela Beck

Colehour Bondera

3 12 0 0 0
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee

Petitioned Material Proposal

Ferric Phosphate (to Remove)

August 15, 2012

Introduction:

Ferric Phosphate has been petitioned to be removed from the National List 205.601(h). The 

reason given in the petition is that it cannot be used without EDTA, which according to the EPA 

can either be considered an active ingredient or an inert ingredient.

 

Background:

In 2007 the NOSB considered a petition for “Sodium Ferric Hydroxyl EDTA” aka “Ferric 

Sodium EDTA” and voted not to allow it, partly because of concern about the EDTA 

component. In 2008 and 2009 Steptoe & Johnson Law Firm submitted a petition to delist Ferric 

Phosphate. The main argument was that it does not work by itself and is always used with 

EDTA. The Technical Report (TR) requested in 2009 was received in June 2010. From 2009 to 

2011 the Walter Talarek Law Firm submitted voluminous amounts of written comment in 

defense of keeping Ferric Phosphate listed. Much of the data submitted with this comment was 

not considered in the TR and needed to be reviewed objectively.

These two law firms represent competing product manufacturers and each is accusing the 

other of misrepresenting their data. Therefore the NOSB is having a big challenge in 

determining the truth among all the arguments. The Crops Subcommittee requested an 

unbiased review of a few specific and targeted questions of all available information, including 

the TR, the public comment from the last 2 years, and independent sources.

Relevant areas in the Rule:

The National List includes at:

§205.601(h)

As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0).

and

§205.601(m)(1)

(1) EPA List 4—Inerts of Minimal Concern.

Discussion:

The Supplemental TR (STR) received in July 2012 addressed the following questions and 

provided the following answers. At the request of the NOP, the USDA Agricultural Research 

Service (ARS) reviewed the STR; ARS citations follow below.

1. Is ferric phosphate alone an effective molluscicide? Can it be combined with other 

ingredients besides EDTA and still work, or are EDTA and related compounds the only 

ones that contribute to efficacy? 

x STR 66-69: Effective bait formulations have been made by combining a metal with “an 

appropriate organic ligand” to form a metal chelate, [1] for example aluminum and iron 

chelates (Henderson and Triebskorn, 2002). The compound EDTA is one example of a 

chelating agent, and it appears that all of the ferric phosphate slug and snail baits 

currently marketed in the U.S. contain EDTA in their formulations. 
Revised March 2012

x STR 182-187: Based on the available studies (summarized in Table 1), there is not 

enough evidence to definitively conclude that ferric phosphate alone is an effective 

molluscicide when incorporated into ingestible baits. The limited evidence does support 

the conclusion that iron baits that contain a chelating agent such as EDTA are typically 

more effective at killing snails and slugs than iron baits that lack a chelating agent 

(Henderson et al., 1989; Zheng et al., 2008; Whaley, 2007). However, the Whaley 

(2007) study demonstrated that ferric phosphate alone can have at least some 

molluscicidal activity against slugs. 

x STR 192-194: Besides EDTA, at least one other chelating agent has been used in 

combination with ferric phosphate in order to increase its efficacy as a 

molluscicide. That compound is (S,S)-ethylenediaminedisuccinic acid (EDDS), a 

structural isomer of EDTA that is biodegradable (Tandy et al., 2006).

x ARS pg. 1: The report...presents convincing evidence that ferric phosphate is toxic to 

slugs, but that it requires a chelating agent as a synergist in order to make it an effective 

product. Other types of aminopolycarboxylic acid chelating agents are available and 

EDDS, at least, is also an effective synergist.

2. Are there reasons for concern about EDTA beyond what information goes into a 

tolerance exemption, such as effects on soil organisms or contamination in 

groundwater?

x STR 273-275: there is not enough evidence to definitively conclude whether ferric 

phosphate molluscicides containing EDTA are toxic to earthworms following typical rates 

of application. 

x STR 282-283: No information was found linking the specific use of EDTA in pesticide 

formulations to groundwater pollution.

x ARS pg. 2: The Technical Review might have gone into more detail on potential 

environmental challenges posed by EDTA and compared it to other aminopolycarboxylic 

acid chelating agents. On the one hand, industrial use of EDTA has resulted in 

detectable residues in oceans and surface water, without apparent harm. On the other 

hand, such wide distribution and concentration within sediments could have unforeseen 

effects on particular ecosystems. 

3. Does the EDTA as used with ferric phosphate pose the same concerns as the EDTA 

that was reviewed as part of the Sodium Ferric Hydroxyl EDTA? 

x STR 295-296: The EDTA used with ferric phosphate poses the same concerns that were 

raised for EDTA as part of the review of sodium ferric hydroxyl EDTA

x ARS pg. 2: The Technical Review makes the case that EDTA poses the same concerns 

whether used with ferric phosphate or as sodium ferric hydroxyl EDTA. Given the 

dynamic nature of the status of a chelated molecule of EDTA, the Technical Review’s 

conclusion seems reasonable. 

4. Are there any unbiased studies that back up the findings of Edwards et al. (2009) as 

cited in the TR or with contrasting results? Does the Edwards et al. (2009) study seem 

biased?

x STR 318-319: There are three available studies that evaluate the potential toxicity of 

ferric phosphate molluscicides containing EDTA to earthworms: Edwards et al., 2009 

(sponsored by Lonza Ltd.); Langan and Shaw, 2006 (not sponsored by Lonza Ltd., 

however the authors were assisted by two Lonza employees); Luhrs, 2009 (sponsored 

by Neudorff). 

x STR 411-413: Based on the available studies (summarized in Table 2), there is not 

enough evidence to definitively conclude whether ferric phosphate molluscicides 
Revised March 2012

containing EDTA are toxic to earthworms following typical rates of application. All of the 

studies have strengths and limitations. 

x ARS pg. 2: Although the Technical Review concludes that there is not enough 

information to conclude with certainty that ferric phosphate slug-control products are 

harmful to earthworms, the study by Langan and Shaw (2006) certainly seems to be 

independently gathered data showing that under some conditions and for some 

earthworm species, Sluggo-type products can be harmful. Accepting this conclusion 

would indicate that the Edwards study is not likely to be biased. 

STR and ARS responses have been incorporated into the Checklist. Despite the information 

presented in the STR, the Crops Subcommittee recommends to vote down the petition to 

remove Ferric Phosphate from the National List. The generic active ingredient, Ferric 

Phosphate, needs to be considered separately from any other ingredients, either active or 

inert.

The inerts in the formulated Ferric Phosphate product are allowed under section 

205.601(m)(1). Because of this, the generic ferric phosphate substance should remain on the 

National List. The NOSB-NOP-EPA Working Group on Inerts (IWG) will address the topic of 

inerts in pesticide products. 

Minority View

The supplemental information received by the Crops Subcommittee concludes that it is 

actually the combination of at least two ingredients, ferric phosphate and EDTA, that 

establishes the efficacy of the registered product currently allowed under the ferric phosphate 

listing: § 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production, (h) As slug 

or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045–86–0).

ARS pg. 1, as cited above, states, “[The TR] presents convincing evidence that ferric 

phosphate is toxic to slugs, but that it requires a chelating agent as a synergist in order to 

make it an effective product.” The STR, line 82, states,

“[I]n a letter to the NOSB, the technical director for OMRI comments, “Based on the 

evidence compiled by OMRI, ferric phosphate as currently listed at 205.601(h) is not 

effective as an active ingredient without an additional chelating agent, such as EDTA,” 

and, “chelating agents such as EDTA facilitate the absorption of the metal into the 

body.” (OMRI, 2010)”

STR, line 90, states, “Puritch et al. (1995) claimed that an effective mollusc bait would be 

composed of both a simple iron compound and a second component, such as edetic acid 

(EDTA), hydroxyehyl derivative of edetic acid, or a salt of these acids. It also stated that 

individually neither component is toxic to terrestrial molluscs, but the composition becomes 

toxic once it is ingested. Therefore, this patent suggests that a chelating agent such as EDTA 

is necessary for ferric phosphate to be an effective molluscicide.”

In the lexicon of pesticide law, a material that is incorporated into a pesticide for the purpose of 

killing the target pest, and therefore necessary to kill, or elevate its efficacy in killing the target 

pesticide, is considered an active ingredient in that product. Therefore, EDTA must be 

evaluated an active component of the mixture of chemicals in the current slug or snail bait 

allowed under section 205.601(h).While ferric phosphate or similar iron salts may express toxic 
Revised March 2012

properties, as identified in several studies, STR, line 117, indicates that, “It [Henderson et al., 

1989] was reported that the baits containing the chelated compound killed a greater proportion 

of the slugs than the baits with the simple, iron salt, but quantitative results and tests of

statistical significance were not provided.” Other studies do show less efficacy associated with 

pure iron phosphate baits when compared to the chelated baits.

The minority view holds that the use of EDTA is integral to killing the slug and snail as the

target organism with the level of efficacy to be of value in the field. Therefore, the petitioner is 

correct that EDTA is an active ingredient in the materials allowed under section 205.601(h) 

since under this provision “ferric phosphate” is not sold for slug or snail bait without EDTA for 

its active properties and therefore must be evaluated in reaching a determination on its 

acceptability for listing on the National List.

The ARS review, pg 2, and the STR, line 295, find that, “The EDTA used with ferric phosphate 

poses the same concerns that were raised for EDTA as part of the review of sodium ferric 

hydroxyl EDTA.” 

STR, line 298 states, “The NOSB Crops Committee voted to reject sodium ferric 

hydroxyl EDTA (SFH EDTA) for use as a slug and snail bait in 2007 (NOSB Crops 

Committee, 2007). The reasons cited for rejection were that ferric phosphate is already 

listed for that use, concerns about potential harm to humans and the environment, and 

inconsistency with organic farming and handling. The Crops Committee concluded that 

EDTA clearly has the potential to be harmful to the environment and can result in the 

detrimental movement of metals in soils and river sediments. Furthermore, the Crops 

Committee was concerned about EDTA’s slow rate of biodegradation and its 

persistence in the environment. The EU Commission risk assessment on EDTA (EC, 

2004) was cited as the reference for this conclusion. The potential harmful effects of 

EDTA on human health were also a concern to the Crops Committee. In particular, the 

Committee concluded that “EDTA is a very strong metal chelating agent, especially for 

calcium. It is poorly absorbed in mammalian GI tract and concerns have been raised 

that excessive usage in food could deplete the body of Ca and other minerals” (NOSB 

Crops Committee, 2007).”

The minority view associated with these facts supports the claims of the petitioner.

Evaluation Criteria 

(Applicability noted for each category; Documentation attached) Criteria Satisfied? (see 

“B” below)

1. Impact on Humans and Environment ܈ Yes ܆ No ܆ N/A 

2. Essential & Availability Criteria ܈ Yes ܆ No ܆ N/A 

3. Compatibility & Consistency ܈ Yes ܆ No ܆ N/A

4. Commercial Supply is Fragile or Potentially Unavailable ܆ Yes ܆ No ܈ N/A

as Organic (only for § 205.606)

Substance Fails Criteria Category: [ ] Comments:

Proposed Annotation (if any): N/A
Revised March 2012

Basis for annotation: ܆ To meet criteria above ܆ Other regulatory criteria ܆ Citation 

Notes: 

Recommended Subcommittee Action & Vote, including classification recommendation 

(state actual motion): Motion to remove Ferric Phosphate from section 205.601(h)

Classification Motion: N/A

Listing Motion: Motion to remove Ferric Phosphate from section 205.601(h)

Motion by: Carmela Beck Seconded by: Jay Feldman

Yes__3___ No__5__ Abstain__0__ Recuse__0__ Absent__0__

܆ 1Allowed ܆ Agricultural ܈ Crops

Livestock ܆ Non-synthetic ܆ Prohibited2 ܆

܈ 3Rejected ܈ Synthetic ܆ Handling

No restriction ܆ Commercial unavailable as 

organic

܆ 4Deferred ܆

1

Substance voted to be added as “allowed” on National List to § 205. 601(h) with 

Annotation (if any): 

2

Substance to be added as “prohibited” on National List to § 205 with Annotation (if any): 

Describe why a prohibited substance: 

3

Substance was rejected by vote for amending National List to § 205. Describe why 

material was rejected: 

4

Substance was recommended to be deferred because:

If follow-up needed, who will follow up: 

Approved by Subcommittee Chair to Transmit to NOSB

Jay Feldman, Subcommittee Chair August 15, 2012

NOSB Evaluation Criteria for Substances Added To the National List

Category 1. Adverse impacts on humans or the environment? Substance: Ferric Phosphate

Question Yes No N/A1 Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other) 1

,

2

1. Are there adverse effects on environment 

from manufacture, use, or disposal?

X

1 Unidentified line numbers refer to the Ferric Phosphate TR, June 15, 2010.

2 STR labeled line numbers refer to the Supplemental Ferric Phosphate TR, July 26, 2012.
Revised March 2012

[§205.600 b.2]

2. Is there environmental contamination during 

manufacture, use, misuse, or disposal? 

[§6518 m.3]

X The only by-products of this process are 

sodium sulfate and water. Sodium sulfate is 

precipitated with lime and used as a 

secondary raw material. The water is 

released into a wastewater clarification plant 

(260-261). No information was found linking 

the specific use of EDTA in pesticide 

formulations to groundwater pollution (STR 

282-283). While reported as occurring 

naturally in soil, ferric phosphate, if combined 

with chelating agents such as EDTA or EDDS 

may cause the accumulation of larger 

concentrations of iron than would be 

expected under normal conditions (303-305). 

On the one hand, industrial use of EDTA has 

resulted in detectable residues in oceans and 

surface water, without apparent harm. On the

other hand, such wide distribution and 

concentration within sediments could have 

unforeseen effects on particular ecosystems 

(ARS, pg. 2).3 [Minority view addition: Sodium 

cyanide and formaldehyde are used in 

making EDTA.4

]

3. Is the substance harmful to the environment 

and biodiversity?

[§6517c(1)(A)(i);6517(c)(2)(A)i] 

X Another important issue is the level of 

mammalian toxicity of iron phosphate-based 

molluscicides containing EDTA or other 

chelating agents, especially since if chelating 

agents increased the uptake of iron from soils 

into crops they may be fed upon by humans 

(342-345). The EPA (1998) states: A number 

of ecological effects toxicology data 

requirements were waived based on the 

known lack of toxicity of iron phosphate to 

birds, fish and non-target insects, its low 

solubility in water, conversion to less soluble

form in the environment (soil), and its use 

pattern (soil application). (424-426). 

Submitted studies involving ground beetles, 

rove beetles and earthworms demonstrated 

that the product will not affect these 

organisms at up to two times the maximum 

application rate (430-432). If NOP’s 

consultant who wrote Report had had access 

to Neudorff’s Opinion, he would have seen 

that Edwards et al (2009) serves to 

demonstrate the harmlessness of NEU1165M 

Slug & Snail Bait to earthworms when it is 

applied at the recommended application rate 

(Talarek, 7)5

. This section also states that 

assuming the reports of mammalian toxicity 

are accurate, that would demonstrate the 

potential for some level of persistence on the 

food chain. This is a non-sequitur. If one 

3 USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) review of the STR, June, 26, 2012.

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid

5 Law Offices of Walter G. Talarek, P.C. letter to the NOP, October 7, 2011.6 Unidentified line numbers refer to Ferric 

Phosphate TR, June 15, 2010.
Revised March 2012

reads the reports of adverse incidents 

reported to EPA, one sees that most 

incidents involve minor acute effects that 

immediately follow oral exposure of dogs to 

the product; the incidents do not occur one 

month, two months, or a year after 

exposures. The environmental impact of ferric 

phosphate slug & snail baits is clear – there is 

none (Talarek, 7). [Minority view discussion: 

Combination toxic to earthworms, perhaps 

more. (409-417)6

TR discusses Edwards et al 

(2009) conclusions, “Clearly, molluscicides 

containing iron phosphate and EDTA or 

EDDS chelating agents may present 

significant environmental hazards to 

earthworms, domestic animals and humans 

and these issues need further investigation. 

The registration statuses of these chemicals 

in USA and Europe should be reviewed in 

light of these new data and conclusions 

“(Edwards, et al. 2009). The TR says “This 

also illustrates a mode by which ferric 

phosphate could be introduced into the food 

chain.” (347-351) Although the Technical 

Review concludes that there is not enough 

information to conclude with certainty that 

ferric phosphate slug-control products are 

harmful to earthworms, the study by Langan 

and Shaw (2006) certainly seems to be 

independently gathered data showing that 

under some conditions and for some 

earthworm species, Sluggo-type products can 

be harmful. Accepting this conclusion would 

indicate that the Edwards study is not likely to 

be biased. (ARS)]

4. Does the substance contain List 1, 2 or 3 

inerts? [§6517 c (1)(B)(ii); 205.601(m)2]

X

5. Is there potential for detrimental chemical 

interaction with other materials used?

[§6518 m.1]

X During the formulation process, there are no 

chemical reactions which form ferric EDTA or 

ferric phosphate EDTA as an active 

ingredient (Talarek, 5). [Minority view 

discussion: EDTA can result in the 

detrimental movement of metals in soils and 

river sediments (EU Commission Risk 

Assessment on EDTA)]

6. Are there adverse biological and chemical 

interactions in agro-ecosystem? [§6518 m.5]

X [Minority view discussion: *UþPDQHWDO

(2003) found that addition of 10 mmol

EDTA/kg soil (2920 mg/kg) decreased the 

structure of the fungal community in heavy 

metal polluted soil compared to a control 

treatment on days 1 and 56 after application. 

Results of a different trial showed that EDTA 

caused stress to soil microorganisms, as 

indicated by a significant increase in the trans

to cis phospholipid fatty acid ratio (*UþPDQHW

al., 2003). 

Epelde et al. (2008) studied the effects of 

6 Unidentified line numbers refer to Ferric Phosphate TR, June 15, 2010.
Revised March 2012

EDTA (1000 mg/kg soil) on soil enzyme 

activities, potentially mineralizable nitrogen, 

soil basal microbial respiration, and substrate 

induced respiration (a measure of potentially 

active microbial biomass). In control nonpolluted soils, EDTA caused a significantly 

negative effect on the soil microbial 

community activity (evidenced by a decrease 

in dehydrogenase activity and basal 

respiration). Examples of phytotoxicity 

observed in studies following the addition of 

EDTA to soil (1000-2920 mg EDTA/kg soil) 

include necrotic lesions on cabbage 

leaves/lowered yield of cabbage biomass, 

decrease of corn growth to 60% of control, 

signs of chlorosis and necrosis in white bean, 

and decreased biomass of cardoon plants 

*UþPDQHWDO(YDQJHORXHWDO

Epelde et al., 2008). The studies 

demonstrating toxic effects of EDTA on soil 

microorganisms and plants involved EDTA 

soil concentrations that are much greater 

than the EDTA soil concentration expected 

from the use ferric phosphate baits, but it is 

not known if toxic effects on soil 

microorganisms and plants would occur from 

the use of slug and snail baits containing 

EDTA because no studies were found that 

tested relevant concentrations of EDTA in 

soil. (STR 237-269) Also, EDTA is not 

degraded rapidly in the environment and is 

the most abundant anthropogenic chemical in 

some European surface waters (SFHEDTA 

checklist7

)]

7. Are there detrimental physiological effects on 

soil organisms, crops, or livestock? [§6518 

m.5]

X The EPA (2008) reported 5 domestic animal 

deaths, 8 major domestic animal incidents 

and 106 moderate and minor domestic 

animal incidents from the sue of iron 

phosphate slug and snail baits marketed in 

the USA up to May 7, 2008 (322-324). While 

this may be true, it is important to note that 

when the incident reports are reviewed 

carefully, in most cases, and in particular with 

regard to the reports of domestic animal 

deaths and major animal incidents, there are 

speculative exposures to the products, 

animals had preexisting conditions which 

were more likely to have caused the effects 

or there were exposures but the effects could 

not have been caused by the products; 

however, Neudorff felt that it was obligated 

under the law to report all incidents no matter 

how remote the exposure an effect 

relationship (Talarek, 5). EPA’s August 13, 

1997, Decision Memorandum on 

“Consideration of Registration of an end-use 

7 SFHEDTA Checklist is the checklist produced by the Crops Committee for Sodium Ferric Hydroxyl EDTA November 

2007.
Revised March 2012

product (NEU1165M Slug & Snail Bait, EPA 

File Symbol 67702-G)...does not indicate that 

there is a significant hazard to humans or 

domestic animals (Talarek, 6). EPA has 

issued tolerance exemptions for ferric 

phosphate & all the inert ingredients in 

Neudorff’s slug & snail baits, thus indicating 

that these chemicals are safe to humans if 

used according to good agricultural practice 

(Talarek, 6). Neudorff’s opinion contains 

documentation demonstrating that ferric 

phosphate slug & snail baits are not harmful 

to earthworms & other non-target organisms 

(Talarek, 6). Based on the available studies, 

there is not enough evidence to definitively 

conclude whether ferric phosphate 

molluscicides containing EDTA are toxic to 

earthworms following typical rates of 

application (STR 411-413). [Minority view 

discussion: “Clearly, molluscicides containing 

iron phosphate and EDTA or EDDS chelating 

agents may present significant environmental 

hazards to earthworms, domestic animals 

and humans and these issues need further 

investigation. The registration statuses of 

these chemicals in USA and Europe should 

be reviewed in light of these new data and 

conclusions “(Edwards, et al. 2009). (348-

351)] Although the Technical Review 

concludes that there is not enough 

information to conclude with certainty that 

ferric phosphate slug-control products are 

harmful to earthworms, the study by Langan 

and Shaw (2006) certainly seems to be 

independently gathered data showing that 

under some conditions and for some 

earthworm species, Sluggo-type products can 

be harmful. Accepting this conclusion would 

indicate that the Edwards study is not likely to 

be biased. (ARS)]

8. Is there a toxic or other adverse action of the 

material or its breakdown products?

[§6518 m.2]

X The EPA describes ferric phosphate as 

ubiquitous in nature. It is a solid. It is not 

volatile and does not readily dissolve in 

water, which minimizes its dispersal beyond 

where it is applied (291-292). [Minority 

view:See above, 6 and 7.]

9. Is there undesirable persistence or 

concentration of the material or breakdown 

products in environment? [§6518 m.2]

X Examples of the solubilization of phosphate 

from ferric phosphate by soil microorganisms 

such as Penicillium radicum & others, are 

common in literature. It is also reported to 

occur naturally in the soil as fertilizer (278-

280). [Minority view discussion: Assuming the 

reports of mammalian toxicity are accurate, 

that would demonstrate the potential for some 

level of persistence in the food chain. (414-

415) ). EDTA is not degraded rapidly in the 

environment and is the most abundant

anthropogenic chemical in some European 

surface waters (SFHEDTA checklist.)]
Revised March 2012

10. Is there any harmful effect on human health? 

[§6517 c (1)(A)(i); 6517 c(2)(A)i; §6518 m.4]

X No unreasonable adverse effects to human 

health are expected from the use of iron 

phosphate (467). One might presume that 

only the reports of mammalian toxicity cited in 

question 9 are likely to be of potential 

concern. (503-504); Neudorff states that there 

are no reports of mammalian toxicity cited in 

the discussion of Evaluation Question #9. 

There is only the statement “[a]ssuming the 

reports of mammalian toxicity are accurate, 

that would demonstrate the potential for some 

level of persistence in the food chain”. Not 

only does the discussion under Question #9 

not list or discuss any such reports, but the 

one sentence in the section mentioning 

reports of mammalian toxicity is a nonsequitur (Talarek, 8).

11. Is there an adverse effect on human health 

as defined by applicable Federal regulations? 

[205.600 b.3]

X

12. Is the substance GRAS when used according 

to FDA’s good manufacturing practices? 

[§205.600 b.5]

X

13. Does the substance contain residues of 

heavy metals or other contaminants in 

excess of FDA tolerances? [§205.600 b.5]

X

1

If the substance under review is for crops or livestock production, all of the questions from 205.600 (b) are N/A—not applicable.
Revised March 2012

NOSB Evaluation Criteria for Substances Added To the National List

Category 2. Is the Substance Essential for Organic Production? Substance: Ferric 

Phosphate

Question Yes No N/A1 Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is the substance formulated or manufactured 

by a chemical process? [6502 (21)]

X

2. Is the substance formulated or manufactured 

by a process that chemically changes a 

substance extracted from naturally occurring 

plant, animal, or mineral, sources? 

[6502 (21)]

X

3. Is the substance created by naturally 

occurring biological processes? [6502 (21)]

X

4. Is there a natural source of the substance? 

[§205.600 b.1]

X Ferric phosphate occurs in nature but the 

natural source is not able to be commercially 

produced [Minority view discussion: It is not 

effective for mollusc control without EDTA. 

(ARS)]

5. Is there an organic substitute? [§205.600 b.1] X

6. Is the substance essential for handling of 

organically produced agricultural products? 

[§205.600 b.6]

X

7. Is there a wholly natural substitute product?

[§6517 c (1)(A)(ii)]

X Examples have been reported in various 

semi-professional literature, albeit they are 

intended for home and garden use rather 

than agricultural purposes (513-519). The “All 

Natural Snail & Slug Spray RTU”...is not 

registered with EPA...this RTU product is 

intended for home & garden use, which 

means it might be impractical for agricultural 

use (Talarak, 8).

8. Is the substance used in handling, not 

synthetic, but not organically produced?

[§6517 c (1)(B)(iii)]

X

9. Are there any alternative substances? 

[§6518 m.6]

X Many of the “natural” remedies or deterrents 

for slugs and snails are abundant in the semiprofessional literature, such as home and 

gardening publications and blog sites on the 

internet (529-537). Copper tape, 

diatomaceous earth.8

The discussion lists spot 

treating with ammonia solutions, spraying 

with salt solutions, direct removal of slugs & 

snails observed & placement into containers 

of soap, water alcohol or other harsh solution 

to kill them, & predators, such as birds, 

mammal & toads. However, none of these 

methods are practicable for commercial 

agriculture (Talarek, 8).

10. Is there another practice that would make the 

substance unnecessary? [§6518 m.6]

X One last important point to mention is that no 

organic growers have supported Steptoe & 

Johnson’s petition, and organic growers have 

supported the continued listing of ferric 

8 Petition for sodium ferric hydroxyl EDTA, p. 20
Revised March 2012

phosphate (Talarek, 8). [Minority view 

discussion: The direct removal of any slugs or 

snails observed and placement into a 

container of soap [type not specified] and 

water, alcohol, or other harsh solution to kill 

them. Birds, small mammals, and especially 

toads, have been said to be predators on 

slugs and snails, but are obviously not readily 

controllable. (532-535) Cultivation.9

]

1

If the substance under review is for crops or livestock production, all of the questions from 205.600 (b) are N/A—not applicable.

9 Petition for sodium ferric hydroxyl EDTA, p. 21
Revised March 2012

NOSB Evaluation Criteria for Substances Added To the National List

Category 3. Is the substance compatible with organic production practices? Substance: Ferric 

Phosphate

Question Yes No N/A1 Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is the substance compatible with organic 

handling? [§205.600 b.2]

X

2. Is the substance consistent with organic 

farming and handling? [§6517 c (1)(A)(iii); 

6517 c (2)(A)(ii)]

X Ferric Phosphate is the only effective 

molluscicide available to organic growers. 

[Minority view discussion: It’s a synthetic 

material that does not present a compelling 

need for it as well as the toxic substances 

necessary for its manufacture.]

3. Is the substance compatible with a system of 

sustainable agriculture? [§6518 m.7]

X Following typical rates of application, ferric 

phosphate + chelator baits do not harm 

earthworms. No information was found linking 

the specific use of EDTA in pesticide 

formulations to groundwater pollution (273-283).

[Minority view discussion: EDTA is inert under 

some circumstances and can build up in soil. 

It is the most abundant anthropomorphic 

chemical in some European surface waters. It 

can enhance the movement of metals in soil 

and river sediments.(EU commission risk 

assessment on EDTA)]

4. Is the nutritional quality of the food 

maintained with the substance? [§205.600 

b.3]

X

5. Is the primary use as a preservative? 

[§205.600 b.4]

X

6. Is the primary use to recreate or improve 

flavors, colors, textures, or nutritive values 

lost in processing (except when required by 

law, e.g., vitamin D in milk)? [205.600 b.4]

X

7. Is the substance used in production, and 

does it contain an active synthetic ingredient 

in the following categories:

a. copper and sulfur compounds;

X

b. toxins derived from bacteria; X

c. pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, 

fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins 

and minerals?

X Ferric phosphate is a mineral. [Minority view 

discussion: Ferric phosphate plus EDTA does 

not fit into any category.]

d. livestock parasiticides and medicines? X

e. production aids including netting, tree 

wraps and seals, insect traps, sticky 

barriers, row covers, and equipment 

cleaners?

X

1

If the substance under review is for crops or livestock production, all of the questions from 205.600 (b) are N/A—not applicable.
Revised March 2012

NOSB Evaluation Criteria for Substances Added To the National List

Category 4. Is the commercial supply of an agricultural substance as organic, fragile or 

potentially unavailable? [§6610, 6518, 6519, 205.2, 205.105 (d), 205.600 (c) 205.2, 205.105 (d), 

205.600 (c)] Substance: Name

Question Yes No N/A1 Documentation (TAP; petition; 

regulatory agency; other)

1. Is the comparative description provided as to 

why the non-organic form of the material 

/substance is necessary for use in organic 

handling? 

X

2. Does the current and historical industry 

information, research, or evidence provided 

explain how or why the material /substance 

cannot be obtained organically in the 

appropriate form to fulfill an essential 

function in a system of organic handling? 

X

3. Does the current and historical industry 

information, research, or evidence provided 

explain how or why the material /substance 

cannot be obtained organically in the 

appropriate quality to fulfill an essential 

function in a system of organic handling? 

X

4. Does the current and historical industry 

information, research, or evidence provided 

explain how or why the material /substance 

cannot be obtained organically in the 

appropriate quantity to fulfill an essential 

function in a system of organic handling?

X

5. Does the industry information provided on 

material / substance non-availability as 

organic, include ( but not limited to) the 

following:

a. Regions of production (including factors 

such as climate and number of regions);

X

b. Number of suppliers and amount 

produced;

X

c. Current and historical supplies related to 

weather events such as hurricanes, 

floods, and droughts that may 

temporarily halt production or destroy 

crops or supplies; 

X

d. Trade-related issues such as evidence of 

hoarding, war, trade barriers, or civil 

unrest that may temporarily restrict 

supplies; or

X

e. Are there other issues which may 

present a challenge to a consistent 

supply?

X

1

If the substance under review is for crops or livestock production, all of the questions from 205.600 (b) are N/A—not applicable.