National Organic Standards Board

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Subcommittee

Discussion Document

Sound & Sensible Initiative

August 27, 2013

Introduction

Each year every organic producer and handler is inspected and certified through an independent third party 

process. Over the decade since the National Organic Program (NOP) was established this inspection 

process through Accredited Certifying Agencies (ACAs) has resulted in strong consumer confidence in the 

integrity of the organic seal and an increase in the organic sector of agriculture. Today there are 84 (49 

domestic) ACAs and over 25,000 (17,500 domestic) organic producer/handlers. Organic standards were 

intended to be consistent throughout the country while allowing for regional diversity. 

Moving forward, it is imperative that we maintain an incontestable process of compliance with the regulation.

ACAs require rigorous documentation from their clients on all aspects of an operation as well as having to

meet their own accreditation standards established with the NOP. The Organic System Plan (OSP) is the 

primary tool used to convey the necessary information about a given operation. Over time, the amount and 

degree of required documentation has increased to a point that it is seen as a barrier to entry for some 

farmers and handlers, and a frustration to existing operations. 

Some direct marketers have become frustrated by the amount of paperwork and choose not to seek 

renewal of their certification. Some farm families have indicated that completing the OSP for submission is 

more stressful than filing their federal income taxes with the IRS. For some, the fear of using the wrong 

material input will wipe out years of transition and understanding of organic principles. Still others feel the 

stress of inspection day to have every minute detail up to date is overly daunting, especially during the 

growing season. Because of these and now, lack of cost-share funds, many growers are disenfranchised 

with the system and opt out. This leads to greenwashing the organic term. Signage like “better than 

organic”, “organik”, “naturally grown”, or “unsprayed” are terms direct marketers are using. Many consumers 

equate local with organic. Why should they go through all of this, if the other guy can claim the same thing? 

The increase in enforcement by the NOP to reduce the abuse is a key element in helping certified growers 

stay with the program. The consumer educational efforts of the NOP are very helpful as well. ACAs have 

increased their efforts in systematic unannounced inspections and residue testing with guidance from the 

NOP, which helps compliant farmers feel proud of following all the rules.

The goal of this discussion document is to inform the organic community of steps being taken by the NOP 

and ACAs to streamline the entire inspection process and to seek additional input from the community. For 

the ACA, it must be sound. For the farmer and handler, it must be sensible.

Background

At the farm (and facility) level, the owners prepare their OSP by evaluating the previous year’s performance 

and speculate what changes will be made in the coming year. Compiling all the receipts, logs, seed lists, 

Fall 2013 235 of 268
and field history documents is time consuming, albeit a good business practice anyway. Other factors such 

as new neighbors may create new buffer issues, early weather prediction for rotation decisions, market 

demand or contraction all must be factored in while completing the OSP. Often this new plan is well under 

way before the ACA is able to verify all points are accurate or complete. The OSP reviewer will submit a list 

of questions for the inspector to verify when on-site. 

At the ACA level, the ACAs prepare an Accreditation Manual when seeking authority from the USDA-NOP 

to certify operations as organic. Each ACA is allowed by the NOP to interpret the regulation and develop its 

own policies and process’s to verify an operation’s compliance with the regulation. Each ACA is somewhat 

different, meeting the regional, cultural, and agronomic needs of their clients. The Accreditation branch of

the NOP periodically audits the ACA to ensure that they are meeting their self-proclaimed protocols which

verify their client’s compliance with the USDA organic regulations. Many farmers perceive the present 

verification process as “document chasing and data collection” rather than visual inspection of compliance. 

In recent years, ACAs have begun to look at how the information exchange with their clients can be 

simplified to lighten the paperwork burden while maintaining the integrity that consumers expect. 

At the NOP level, they conducted “re-calibration training” for their auditors early in 2013, based on feedback 

from ACAs on how the process is being overworked and inconsistent between audit teams. The NOP also 

enlisted consultants to evaluate their internal processes to advise them on simplification steps that could be 

made. The NOP accreditation staff also conducts regular meetings to ensure that consistency of 

interpretations of the rule and policies are conveyed to all ACAs uniformly as they arise. The NOP conducts 

annual training for ACAs with the goal of consistency in the implementation of the certification process. The 

NOP has been challenged by the Secretary of Agriculture to evaluate barriers to entry into the organic 

sector and reduce the challenges for existing operations. 

This paperwork burden is seen as more of a farm issue, as most handlers must maintain adequate records 

for food safety traceability purposes that often meet the needs of the ACA. 

Relevant areas of the Rule

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 and the USDA organic regulations, (The Rule).

Discussion

Farmers attend educational conferences during the winter meeting season to learn about successful 

organically compliant growing and managing strategies from other growers. This is also an opportunity for 

the ACAs to educate farmers about compliant materials use and the certification process in general. It can 

seem rather daunting to decide what logs and record keeping systems must be in place. The questions on 

the ACA(?) forms may feel redundant and out of touch with how the operation works. Many have the 

appropriate records on hand but they do not fit the format of the forms. The fear of finding out the Insecto 

2.1 was not compliant when you have been using Insecto 2.0 for years, weighs heavy on farmer’s minds. 

In the spring of 2013 leaders from the Accredited Certifiers Association, Independent Organic Inspectors 

Association, the NOSB, the NOP, and the broader community met to discuss the best way to reduce the 

paperwork burden without relaxing integrity standards. The following topics have been identified as the 

focus for this initiative: A) Re-tooling the Organic System Plan, B) noncompliances and reminders, C) 

materials review, D) on-site Inspection, E) Oversight Systems, and F) other considerations. The following 

discussion reflects the comments provided by participants at these and ensuing meetings: 

Fall 2013 236 of 268
A. Re-tooling the Organic System Plan (OSP) to streamline flow of information 

 

The Organic System Plan may be the largest cultural barrier to paperwork reduction in the organic 

certification process. It has historically been a paper based, lengthy and annually updated document that 

has been interpreted as needing to capture all elements of a compliance plan accurately and in real 

time. 

The USDA Organic regulation (Section 205.406(a) – Continuation of certification) outlines the necessary 

requirements for an operation to update their certification annually. Within this section a certified 

operation must do the following annually: pay certification fees; and submit an updated organic 

production or handling plan which includes:

• Changes from the previous year; 

• Changes in the coming year; 

• Outline any additions to or deletions of contact, business name and/or address; 

• Provide an update on the correction of minor noncompliances previously identified by the certifying 

agent as requiring correction for continued certification; and, 

• Any other information as deemed necessary by the certifying agent to determine compliance with the 

Act and the regulations in this part. 

These are examples where organic integrity is not in question. The trigger of a noncompliance carries 

with it a string of communications and documentation of verification that the action was corrected, taking 

staff time away from more pertinent issues.

ACAs typically try to communicate with their farm clients in the winter and early spring, before the OSP 

is put in place. Many ACAs are under the impression they must have their clients submit a complete 

OSP, versus an update that indicates any notable changes or deviations from the previous plan in place. 

The ACAs need the flexibility to develop better mechanisms of communicating with their clients, without 

fear of retribution from the auditors. Some ACAs that have implemented abbreviated update reporting 

methods can see the benefit of time savings and lessened frustration by their farmer clients. 

Farmers and handlers need the flexibility to notify their ACA of changes by phone or other electronic 

means. This is capturing the activities in real time, as an OSP is a working document, not a file server. 

The ACA and the client have the joint responsibility to annually verify the ACA has the most complete 

version on hand. Verification of acceptance of the information should only be necessary when the 

compliance of the action is in question. 

Additionally, updates to the OSP should not only be allowed, but encouraged at the time of inspection. 

Also, inspectors should be encouraged to clarify the regulation for the client at inspection so the operator 

can better inform the ACA of their activities and demonstrate compliance. Growers can easily not realize 

the need to notify the ACA of a minor change to the plan they submitted back in the winter, until the 

inspector recognizes the deviation. Inspectors are often the only face of certification for an operator. 

Relaxing the tone of information exchange at the time of inspection will greatly improve customer service 

and encourage compliance by the client. 

Fall 2013 237 of 268
B. Use of Noncompliances and Reminders to Motivate Clients toward Compliance

Often the first communication a farmer gets after an inspection is a letter with an attached “Notice of 

Noncompliance” with or without an updated certificate. The noncompliances must be addressed in some 

given time frame, depending on the severity of the violation. Often these are minor technical errors 

where organic integrity is not in question. This letter has an impersonal feel and the farmers prefer the 

ACA simply advise them of the corrections that must be made. 

In 2012 the ACAs were given NOP 2612 Instruction Document, Recommended Penalties for Violations 

of Specific Regulatory Requirements and the Penalty Matrix by Category of Violation in an effort to 

provide consistency to compliance decisions. It was widely believed that the Instruction Document and 

Penalty Matrix rely too heavily on the use of noncompliances to address issues that do not affect organic 

integrity. The overreliance on noncompliance notices creates an adversarial relationship between 

certifiers and operators, and hampers beneficial collaboration that can better achieve desired continual 

improvement of organic systems. 

Several ACAs submitted comments and suggested revisions to the Penalty Matrix and to NOP 2612, 

Recommended Penalties for Violations of Specific Regulatory Requirements. This document has since 

been retrieved by the NOP for further evaluation with intention to employ sound and sensible principles 

within, as a result of this discussion. 

ACAs need to have the ability to communicate with their clients in various methods with the goal of 

gaining or verifying compliance in the most time effective manner. Often the information can be 

conveyed with a simple email or phone conversation. Again, the issuance of a noncompliance causes a 

cascade of documentation of verification that a corrective action was performed, often consuming more 

of the clients and ACA staff time than the corrective action itself. Improving customer service is one of 

the simplest ways to encourage new growers into organics, and preventing ill will between growers and 

their ACA. ACAs know which of their clients need more attention and firm, deliberate communication to 

protect organic integrity. Any time organic integrity is in question, the ACA has tools to enforce the 

regulations, and document it for future reference. Overuse of noncompliances dilutes their effectiveness. 

Revisions to the Penalty Matrix relative to required actions by the ACA for noncompliances and major 

noncompliances should be evaluated by the NOP in conjunction with leadership of the Accredited

Certifiers Association. This revision can then be put forth at annual trainings and posted on the NOP 

website.

C. Input Materials Review and Clarity of Use by Certified Operations

Lack of clarity about what materials can/cannot be used in an organic system is a leading barrier to entry 

for many direct marketing operations. Growers participating as a supplier to distributors or handlers are 

often given guidelines on material use by the buyer. ACAs can provide a list of materials to their clients

that are allowed in an organic production system, but cannot inform the client on the effectiveness of any

particular one. On occasion, ACAs may reach a different conclusion about a particular materials 

acceptance for use by a farmer or handler. This causes concern to the operator and can also lead to 

certifier shopping by a farmer. Fear of making a mistake, jeopardizing years of learning and work along 

Fall 2013 238 of 268
with the inability to get real time answers, is a hindrance to farmers’ comfort level with being certified 

organic.

Although information on materials is necessary to complete multiple parts of the organic certification 

cycle, current materials evaluation systems are recognized as a weakness. There is no industry standard 

that provides criteria or procedures for review of brand name materials—OFPA and the NOP regulations 

only address review of generic materials. As a result, certifiers have implemented materials review 

systems that differ widely in both methodology and rigor and sometimes produce inconsistent results 

such as different rulings on the same brand name product.

Materials review systems require personnel with specialized training and skills and the pool of workers 

with such training is limited. Many certifiers do not have staff that is appropriately trained to perform 

materials reviews, which is a significant factor than can affect the soundness of decisions about 

materials.

Certifiers also report an inability to perform materials reviews in a timely fashion. Typically, there is an 

influx of applications for certification and continuation of certification that are processed over a span of 

months. During this period, operators are using the materials that they have reported on the OSPs, 

including those that may not yet have been approved by their certifier. Problems arise if the certifier’s 

review of the material eventually determines that an operator has used a material that does not meet 

NOP standards. A critically important reason that concerns about materials review are so widespread is 

that NOP’s oversight of materials review systems through accreditation assessments is not rigorous. For 

example, NOP’s Accreditation Assessment Checklist (Revision Date: May, 15, 2013) addresses materials 

review in a cursory fashion. Rather than a checklist of questions about the specific methods used in 

materials evaluation, NOP’s document contains only a single question about materials evaluation: “Are 

the materials and inputs used in compliance with the NL and annotations?”

Although the Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) provides high-quality materials review services, 

there are still many brand name materials that are not submitted to OMRI and therefore must be 

reviewed by ACAs when these products appear on operators’ OSPs. As reported during the ACA 

trainings, the need to review materials requires each ACA to devote resources to maintaining its own 

review system. To do so, certifiers must recruit and retain staff members who are competent to review 

materials and they must implement information systems to ensure that inspectors and reviewers have 

adequate information on each material.

Unfortunately, after doing the work to evaluate materials, most ACAs lack mechanisms for sharing the 

results of their evaluations, resulting in certifiers duplicating efforts to review the same materials. Some 

certifiers stated that they have not yet implemented effective procedures for sharing information about 

reviewed materials internally, among their own reviewers and inspectors. Clearly, it would be more 

sensible to have one review by a well-trained staffer, with the results shared.

Another problem is that maintaining review materials systems creates a financial burden on each ACA. 

And if every certifier evaluates many of the same materials these duplicate costs are passed on to the 

farmer and consumer. 

Fall 2013 239 of 268
Materials review makes its way into the Sound and Sensible discussion because of the duplicative efforts 

of the ACAs. 

There is a need for training that is specific to materials review. Perhaps OMRI and the International 

Organic Inspectors Association (IOIA) could work together to offer trainings on development and 

implementation of certifier-based materials review programs. 

Standardizing the materials review systems through NOP issuing guidance on the criteria needed for 

such systems. One mechanism for such guidance could be in the form of increased detail on assessment 

of materials review systems in the NOP’s accreditation checklist. Thus moving toward a centralized 

review system through policies that encourage materials suppliers to submit their materials to OMRI, 

operators to use OMRI-approved materials, and requiring all certifiers and other Material Review 

Organizations (MROs) to make public their lists of approved materials. This would provide more 

transparency to operators, certifiers, and the public (Sound), reduce duplicative reviews of the same 

material (Sensible), and reduce the amount of time all certifiers would need to spend on evaluating 

materials (Sensible).

It was acknowledged that publishing lists of approved (and prohibited) materials has inherent risks and 

liability for the ACA. It was noted that the higher level of oversight and a standard material review 

process, would likely lead to more confidence among certifiers regarding accepting other lists and 

publishing their own list. Publication of the lists would also serve as a precursor to establishment of a 

body to analyze the results of different certifiers’ evaluations and resolve any points of disagreement. The 

farming community would like to see one list for brand name materials, managed by the NOP. 

• Moving towards materials review systems that incorporate inspections of materials suppliers based 

on random selection as well as risk factors such as concerns about individual suppliers, problems 

specific to certain types or classes of materials. 

• Expanding the scope of the NOP’s accreditation program to include MROs that are not ACAs as 

discussed by the NOSB in 2012 would be both Sound and Sensible.

D. Inspections and the Exit interview Process

Inspection day can be very stressful for farmers. The inspection is a snapshot view of every detail of 

everything on that farm. Good organic farmers are very proud of their operations, but worry that some 

document may be missing, causing the inspector to wonder what else might be wrong. The division 

between regulation and education must be maintained, but certifiers and inspectors are compelled to 

assist in the understanding of the regulation and it need not be adversarial in nature.

As stated before, the farm or facility inspection is the only real face to face transaction in the certification 

process. Certifiers often have very rigid inspection report forms (often 20 or more pages long) that 

inspectors must complete while on-site or after leaving the operation. In most cases, the inspection report 

body could be much shorter if the Exit Interview process and document included OSP updates, follow-up 

to certifier’s requests, follow-up to last year’s non-compliances, scope of inspection, as well as issues of 

concern and further information needed. The focus of the body of the inspection report could be reporting 

things that could not be verified, things that were inconsistent with the OSP, or that were unusual. 

Fall 2013 240 of 268
The Exit Interview document is critical because it is the one document that is co-signed by the operator 

and the inspector. While ACAs generally require specific discussion of and documentation of 

noncompliances during the Exit Interview, the Exit Interview is neither well-enough used nor understood.

Properly used, it ties together updates, reports, and reviewers. In general terms, everyone understands 

what is to be covered in the Exit Interview (issues of concern and further information needed). 

Currently, the Exit Interview formats used by different certifiers vary widely. They are often free-form, 

relying on the knowledge of the inspector on how to structure and report audit findings and 

nonconformities. Potential non-compliances are often buried in the body of the report and not re-iterated 

on the Exit Interview document. Industry-wide, there is much less focus on structure of the Exit Interview 

(both process and document) than the inspection report, when the exit interview is actually more 

important. Great inconsistency in what certifiers expect and what inspectors are doing has resulted. The 

exit interview should summarize updates to the OSP. As described above, updates at inspection are still 

often the best way to update minor changes. 

In addition, the NOP should take steps toward implementation of the NOSB Inspector Qualifications 

Recommendation of December 2011. The recommendation includes good steps to increase inspector 

performance, including continuous education requirements and witness audits. Witness audits are 

valuable, but are currently vastly under-utilized. 

E. Oversight Systems

Both OFPA and the early NOSB recommendations envisioned a multi-level oversight system (inspection, 

certification, accreditation, and oversight of accreditation) managed with rigor and accountability. USDA 

and NOP address requirements for quality assurance of inspection and certification through the 

accreditation system; however, a mechanism for continuous oversight of the NOP accreditation system 

itself has not been institutionalized. This type of review is performed when equivalency agreements are 

being considered with other programs like the EU or Canada. This committee can not only evaluate 

accreditation protocols and consistency between the Standards, accreditation, and enforcement 

divisions, but information systems and internal processes, much like the USDA auditors evaluate the 

ACA to their own accreditation manual.

Continuous oversight of the NOP would not only ensure that noncompliances in the accreditation system 

are identified through procedures such as internal and external audits, but also that corrective actions 

are taken by the accreditation body (NOP), reviewed by USDA management, and reported to the 

oversight body (Peer Review Panel) within a time frame set by the oversight body. 

It has also been pointed out in the preliminary discussions; there is no feedback mechanism for farmers, 

handlers, ACAs, inspectors, or auditors to provide information on how well the process works. There is 

actually a disincentive to do so for fear of retribution. This need not be only for complaints, but a positive 

place for suggestions and ideas on how to make the process more Sound and Sensible. The NOP 

oversight committee could be a forum for such information exchange. This committee could mine the 

data looking for common threads that show up in audit reports. 

Fall 2013 241 of 268
Conclusion

The CACS welcomes thoughts and ideas on what steps can be taken to streamline the accreditation and 

certification process to encourage new farmers and handlers to transition to organic practices and to 

maintain existing organic operations in the program.

For the ACA, it must be sound. For the farmer and handler, it must be sensible.

Discussion Questions

1. How can the OSP/information exchange mechanism be altered verify compliance in a more user 

friendly manner?

2. How could a feedback loop for operators and ACAs be developed for complaints and suggested 

changes without fear of retribution?

3. How can new technologies be employed to verify compliance and reduce document deluge? 

4. How can ACAs create a functional information exchange with operators and inspectors to verify all 

information is current and accurate?

5. What forms of communication should be available for ACAs to encourage and document 

compliance, other than Notices of Noncompliance? 

6. When is visual verification satisfactory and when must documents be sent to the ACA?

7. How can the ACAs and inspectors develop a more user friendly process to verify compliance with 

the regulation?

8. What are examples of USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Food and Drug 

Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection protocols that are 

less burdensome but effective to consider here?

9. How should a peer review process for the NOP itself function? Who should be on that committee?

10. How should approved materials lists be shared among certifiers and to the operators themselves?

Fall 2013 242 of 268