National Organic Standards Board

Livestock Subcommittee

Aquaculture Materials Review Update Report

February 2015

Overview

This document is being prepared in order to provide some institutional memory and a frame of 

reference for future National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) members as it relates to 

Aquaculture materials review. 

Background on Regulation Development

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), also known as Title XXI of the Food, 

Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, provided references that support the 

development of standards for aquatic animals and their products. OFPA includes “fish used for 

food” in its definition of livestock. OFPA has been amended twice; first to add general 

provisions to allow certification of wild caught seafood as organic; and second, to address a 

ruling in a lawsuit filed by Arthur Harvey. One aspect of the Harvey lawsuit pertaining to the 

rearing of aquatic animals is that it clarified, among other things, that the agricultural products 

fed to organic animals must be organic.

On March 13, 2000 the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issued a Federal Register notice 

announcing plans to hold three public meeting to consider the certification of aquatic animal 

production. 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.

In September 2000, the NOSB named 6 of its members to an aquatic animals 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. The task force 

assembled two working groups; one on aquaculture and the other on wild capture operations. 

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

expansive dialogue over four months and presented their final reports to the Task Force at the 

NOSB meeting in Buena Park, CA in March 2001.

The Task Force reviewed the working groups findings and, on May 30, 2001, NOSB Aquatic 

Animal Task Force issued its report on development of organic standards for aquatic animals. 

The report provided recommended standards for the production of seafood to be sold as 

organic. On the subject of wild caught seafood, the report concluded that OFPA requires the 

management of organic animals and that wild caught fish do not meet that level of 

management. They also concluded that mollusk production was incompatible with OFPA and 

that mollusk producers were not called upon to make a sufficient number of management 

decisions to differentiate between organic and nonorganic operations. 

At its October 2001 NOSB meeting, the Board made its recommendations for aquatic animals. 

The Board recommended the development of standards for aquatic animals, no standards for 

Page 219 of 249
wild caught, and to use the Aquatic Animals Task Force report as the basis for developing 

standards for organic aquatic animals.

On April 16, 2003, Congress amended section 6506 of OFPA to provide for the certification of 

wild caught fish as organic. The legislation was sponsored by Senators Stevens and Murkowski 

of Alaska. The amendment drew sharp criticism from some in the organic industry, including 

the Organic Trade Association.

At its October 2004 meeting, the NOSB recommended the formation of an aquatic animal task 

force to develop proposed production, handling and labeling standards for aquaculture. This 

task force was to be comprised of two working groups— aquaculture (Aquaculture Working 

Group) and wild fisheries (Wild Caught Working Group). 

On January 24, 2005, Federal Register notice (FR 70 3356) announced the intention to develop 

draft organic production and handling standards for aquatic animals produced in aquaculture

and called for volunteers. 

In May 2005, the NOP named 12 individuals to the Aquaculture Working Group (AWG). A Wild 

Caught Working Group was never appointed due to a lack of nominees interested in 

participating.

The AWG’s discussions were informed by the May 24, 2005 National Organic Aquaculture 

Working Group (NOAWG) white paper1 . The NOAWG was a private sector ad hoc group of 

approximately 85 individuals interested in advancing organic aquaculture in the United States. 

On January 13, 2006, the AWG issued an Interim Final Report of the Aquaculture Working 

Group for the USDA National Organic Program, with recommendations for Aquaculture 

standards.2

Public comments on the Interim Report were received until April 10, 2006. 

In March 2007, the NOSB issued a formal recommendation to the NOP on Aquaculture 

standards, which identified some issues of concern and indicated where additional public 

comment was requested. Specifically, the issues of feeding wild caught fish to fish being raised 

in aquaculture facilities and open net pens were of concern. The sections of the AWG’s 

recommendations addressing these issues were removed from the formal recommendation to 

the NOP pending public comment.3

In July 2007, the AWG issued a Supplement to the Interim Report (Bivalve Molluscs) of the 

Aquaculture Working Group. 4 This supplement included recommendations for standards for 

production, handling and transportation of bi-valves, including oysters, clams, mussels, and 

1 National Organic Aquaculture Working Group (NOAWG) white paper. May 2005 

2 Aquaculture Working Group; “Interim Final Report of the Aquaculture Working Group, for 

the USDA National Organic Program”, Winter 2006 

3 National Organic Standards Board; “Formal Recommendation By the National Organic 

Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Aquaculture Standards 

Recommendation”, March 2007

4 Aquaculture Working Group; “Supplement to the Interim Final Report (Bivalve Molluscs) 

of the Aquaculture Working Group for the USDA National Organic Program”; 

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5062437&acct=nopgen

info, July 2007

Page 220 of 249
scallops. Gastropod molluscs, such as abalone and conch, and cephalopods, such as octopus 

and squid, were not included. Public comments were received through November 9, 2007. 

At the November 2007 NOSB meeting in Washington DC, the NOSB hosted the Organic 

Aquaculture Symposium on fish feed and net pens to explore the range and depth of scientific 

and environmental challenges facing global aquaculture. Of particular focus of the symposium 

was the challenge around providing adequate supplies of essential nutrients to a new industry 

with non-existing sources of organic fish meal and fish oil. The meeting was marked with the 

NOP’s first activist demonstration where protesters opposing net pens and feeding forage fish to 

salmon paraded through the meeting wearing fish hats. 

On May 22, 2008, the NOSB submitted to the NOP Recommendations on Farmed Aquatic 

Plants in Organic Agriculture. 5

 These recommendations were based upon a joint document

from the Livestock and Crops committees, and were intended to provide clarification around 

recommendations for farmed aquatic plants. 

On September 8, 2008, the AWG issued a revision to the Supplement to the Interim Report 

(Bivalve Molluscs), in response to public comments.6

In November of 2008, the NOSB submitted to the NOP final recommendations on fish feed and 

related issues, and net pens and related issues.7,8

These two recommendations addressed the issues of concern raised by the NOSB in March 

2007 in response to the AWG’s Interim Final Report for aquaculture standards, and sought to 

modify sections of the rule language originally proposed by the AWG. Specifically, the use of 

wild caught fish for feed sources had proposed step-downs to allow for the development of 

certified organic sources for fishmeal and fish oil. Further, the allowance for net pens included 

stringent environmental considerations including non-point source and point source pollution 

documentation, living conditions and aquaculture facilities. 

In November 2009, the NOSB submitted final recommendations to the NOP on Bivalves and 

Molluscan Shellfish. The recommendation placed emphasis on strict environmental monitoring 

of living areas and careful harvesting techniques, and included an appendix, which outlined the 

differences between conventional and proposed organic standards for bivalve production.9

 This 

document rounded out the recommendations by the NOSB on aquaculture. The Livestock 

Committee had already presented three other parts of aquaculture to the entire Board for vote 

(fin fish in March 2007; fish feed and net pens in November 2008). All recommendations had 

5 National Organic Standards Board; “Recommendation to the National Organic Program on 

 Farmed Aquatic Plants in Organic Agriculture”, May 22, 2008

6 Aquaculture Working Group; “Revised Supplement to the Interim Final Report (Bivalve 

Molluscs) of the Aquaculture Working Group for the USDA National Organic Program”, 

September 8, 2008 

7 National Organic Standards Board; “Formal Recommendation by the National Organic 

Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Aquaculture: Fish Feed – Fish Oil and Fish 

Meal and Related Issues”, November 19, 2008 

8 National Organic Standards Board; “Formal Recommendation by the National Organic 

Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Aquaculture: Net Pens and Related 

Issues”, November 19, 2008

9 National Organic Standards Board; “Formal Recommendation by the National Organic 

 Standards Board to the National Organic Program, Molluscan Shellfish (Bivalves)”, 

 November 5, 2009

Page 221 of 249
passed and were recommended to the Program for inclusion in the regulation. At the Spring 

2010 NOSB meeting, the board adopted recommendations for Bivalves. With this action, the 

board had provided a complete set of recommendations for NOP rulemaking for organic 

aquaculture.

In October 2010, the AWG submitted to the NOSB, Comments and Proposed Revisions by the 

Aquaculture Working Group Pertaining to the Recommendations of the USDA National Organic 

Standards Board for Organic Aquaculture Standards. (Footnote for hyperlink).

Written and Oral Public Testimony

A thorough analysis of available written and oral testimony presented to the NOSB on 

aquaculture demonstrates a number of repetitive areas of concern. Prior to 2006, public 

comments primarily focused on if an organic aquaculture standard should be developed in the 

first place, and whether wild aquatic species should be certified organic. More specific areas of 

concern emerged in public comments beginning in 2006 and coincided with the Aquaculture 

Working Group’s Final Report

The greatest number of public comments span from Fall 2006 through Fall 2008. In some 

cases, testimony was submitted on behalf of multiple organizations and/or signed by multiple 

members of the public.

There has been overwhelming agreement within the public record of written and oral public 

comments about two important issues:10

- 99.1 percent (54,994) of comments oppose open ocean pen facilities being certified 

organic.

- 99.1 percent (54,990) of comments oppose the use of wild-caught fishmeal and oils in 

organic aquaculture feed.

From 2006 to present, public comment on organic aquaculture largely focused on these two 

issues. 

Materials Petition and Review

Beginning in June 2010 and at the request of the NOP, the AWG started submission of petitions 

for materials to be used in Organic Aquaculture. There was the thought among AWG members 

that it was important to start the petition process with those materials that were absolutely 

crucial to successful organic aquaculture operations, but by no means was the initial list 

considered to be comprehensive of all materials that might eventually be needed. 

It should be noted that Aquaculture standards were still going through the clearance process 

within the NOP and had not yet been promulgated. However, subcommittee members were 

encouraged by the NOP to evaluate materials using the standards recommended by the NOSB 

to the NOP between 2007 and 2010.

Per NOP staff, most petitions are revised at least once to address incomplete information 

identified by NOP before they are submitted to the NOSB for review. It is fairly common to have 

a delay of a few months or more while the petitioner revises the information. 

As an example, the first aquaculture petition, for carbon dioxide, was submitted to NOP as a 

draft on June 25, 2010, but was revised and later submitted to the NOSB for review in April 

2012. 

10 Information compiled from public records 

Page 222 of 249
The following table shows the ten (10) materials petitioned for use in organic aquaculture and 

their current status as of October 2014:

Table 1: Materials Petitioned for Organic Aquaculture as of October 2014

Petition 

Submitt

al Date* Substance Type

Technical 

Report Notes

1/6/12

Vitamins 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Animals

Technical Report 

(2013) (PDF)

Initial petition insufficient; Petitioner 

notified 8/10/11; revised petition sent to 

MC on 1/9/2012; sent to LS on 

5/30/2012; TR requested on 8/6/12; TR 

sent to LS on 4/29/2013; TR accepted 

as final 6/18/2013; Spring 2015 

Agenda

3/27/12

Trace 

minerals 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Animals

Technical Report 

(2013) (PDF)

Petition sent to LS on 6/8/2012; TR 

requested on 8/6/12; TR sent to LS on 

6/25/2013; TR accepted on 7/16/2013; 

LS vote complete; Spring 2015 Agenda

4/19/12

Chlorine 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Animals

Chlorine, 

Livestock (2006) 

(PDF)

Petition sent to Livestock on 

5/30/2012; petition determined to be 

sufficient on 7/3/2012; no TR 

requested; LS vote complete; Spring 

2015 Agenda

4/19/12

Chlorine 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Plants

Chlorine, Crops 

(2011) (PDF)

Petition sent to Crops on 5/30/2012; 

Petitioner notified of more info needed 

on 11/20/12; chlorine TR determined 

sufficient on 11/20/12; Spring 2015 

Agenda

4/27/12

Tocopherols 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Animals

Technical Report 

(2013) (PDF)

Petition sent to LS on 5/30/12; TR 

requested on 8/6/12; TR sent to LS on 

4/16/2013; TR determined complete 

6/4/2013; Spring 2015 Agenda

6/7/12

Micronutrient

s (PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Plants

Micronutrients 

(2010) (PDF)

Petition sent to CS on 6/8/2012; 

additional Q for petitioner and TR 

request recevied 12/4/12; clarification 

requested from CS on 1/7/13; petition 

accepted as sufficient on 7/2/2013; 

Spring 2015 Agenda

6/12/12 Vaccines

Aquacultur

e - Animals

Technical Report 

(2014) (PDF)

Petition sent to LS on 6/14/2012; 

petition sufficient on 5/21/2013; TR req 

sent to contractor on 6/14/2013; TR 

accepted as sufficient on 2/12/2014; 

Spring 2015 Agenda

Page 223 of 249
6/27/12

Lignin 

Sulfonate 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Plants

Lignin Sulfonate 

(2011) (PDF)

Note: there are two petitions for lignin 

sulfonate for aquaculture (plants and 

animals). Petition sent to CS on 

7/3/2012; additional Q for petitioner 

and TR request received 12/4/12; 

clarification requested from CS on 

1/7/13; petition accepted as sufficient 

on 7/2/2013; Spring 2015 Agenda

8/3/12

Vitamins, 

B1, B12, H 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Plants

Petition sent to CS on 8/10/2012; 

accepted as sufficient by CS on 

6/18/13; Spring 2015 Agenda

4/3/12; 

updated 

11/20/12

Carbon 

dioxide 

(PDF)

Aquacultur

e - Plants

Carbon Dioxide, 

Processing, 

2006 (PDF)

Initial petition insufficient; Petitioner 

notified 8/10/11; revised petition sent to 

MC on 4/17/12; sent to CS on 

5/30/2012; petition & TR determined 

sufficient on 11/20/12; Spring 2015 

Agenda

* - Petition Submittal Date reflects the date when a completed petition has been forwarded to the 

NOSB for review, not necessarily the first date of submission of a draft petition to the NOP.

Significant NOSB institutional memory had been lost due to the rotation of members off the 

board and due to the time lapse between the NOSB’s adoption of recommendations for organic 

aquaculture standards and the petition for aquaculture materials. Both the Crops and Livestock 

committees (now designated as subcommittees going forward) sought additional education of 

subcommittee members on general principles of aquaculture. A series of guests joined the 

standing subcommittee calls for both Crops and Livestock in an effort to provide a context from 

which to begin materials review. The subcommittees made concerted effort to invite speakers 

such that a diverse and balanced view was presented.

In January 2012, the NOP provided an aquaculture briefing to a joint meeting of the Crops and 

Livestock subcommittees. The intent of the briefing was to provide some historical perspective 

on the work completed by previous NOSB on standards development, to provide an update 

regarding where recommended Organic Aquaculture Standards were in the clearance process, 

and to address concerns of NOSB members on the absence of standards while reviewing 

materials petitions for use in Organic Aquaculture.

Initially, five (5) materials for aquatic plants were assigned to the Crops subcommittee, and six 

(6) materials were assigned to the Livestock subcommittee for review. Subsequently one 

material, Lignin Sulfonate, for use with aquatic animals, was withdrawn by the petitioner. 

On July 25, 2013, the NOP arranged for a few members of the Livestock and Crops 

subcommittees to tour and familiarize themselves with aquaculture facilities in Maine and to ask 

specific questions of the operators of the facilities. The tour included both land based and open 

net pen operations. Prior to the tour, the NOSB prepared questions for the facilities operators. 

Two attending members submitted to the NOSB reports of the facilities tour. While many 

questions were answered, one NOSB member continued to express concerns regarding the 

evolving nature of the technology around net pens and around the strength of regulations 

governing aquaculture facilities. 

In preparation for the Fall 2013 NOSB meeting, the Crops and Livestock subcommittees began 

to develop proposals for their assigned Organic Aquaculture materials, to be brought before the 

entire NOSB. While the Livestock subcommittee completed proposals for all of its materials, 

Page 224 of 249
the Crops subcommittee was unable to complete proposals that met with the approval of all its 

subcommittee members. As a result, in August of 2013 the Crops subcommittee voted to table 

all proposals for materials to be used in aquatic plants. 

Government shutdown in October 2013 necessitated the cancellation of the Fall 2013 NOSB 

meeting. However, prior to the shutdown, public comments were received regarding the 

proposals prepared by the Livestock subcommittee. Generally, the comments reflected concern 

that materials were being reviewed prior to promulgation of regulations governing Organic 

Aquaculture. 

In January 2014, the NOSB chair re-assigned all Organic Aquaculture petitioned materials to 

the Livestock subcommittee citing the need to consider all materials as a group and the need for 

consistency in analysis and presentation of materials, while acknowledging the gridlock in the 

Crops subcommittee. All aquatic plant materials were assigned to Livestock subcommittee

members and a review of the existing draft proposals from the Crops subcommittee was 

undertaken. In the end, each of the aquatic plant materials proposals was rewritten, with the 

additional step of a single member of the Livestock subcommittee providing a final consistency 

check across all materials – both for aquatic plants and aquatic animals. In order to address 

some committee members’ and public comment concerns, the following sentence was added to 

each proposal:

“It should be noted that at the time of drafting this proposal there are no federal 

standards promulgated for aquatic plant or animal production and this proposal is based 

on NOSB recommendations of standards voted in 2007, 2008, and 2009.”

 

Some members from the Crops and Livestock subcommittees felt that minority perspectives 

were lost with the re-writing of the proposals, and after significant debate, the Livestock 

subcommittee agreed that a Minority Opinion would be included as an attachment to each 

material proposal sent to the entire board. 

Public comments for the Spring 2014 meeting again addressed concerns regarding the 

evaluation of materials in the absence of Organic Aquaculture regulations. The Livestock 

subcommittee recognized the public concern and made the decision to continue bring all 

material proposals forward so that the full NOSB could have the opportunity to discuss the 

materials and to allow for further public oral comments at the Spring 2014 meeting. 

At the Spring 2014 meeting, each material proposal was brought for the full board to discuss. 

Out of those discussions, and based upon written and oral public testimony, the NOSB decided 

to send all ten (10) materials proposals back to the Livestock subcommittee for further 

evaluation. Specifically, the board and public comments indicated a preference for the materials 

to be reviewed within the framework of Organic Aquaculture regulations. It should be noted that 

there were no written comments submitted by individuals or companies who were seeking to 

use these materials in their organic fish farming business. No one from industry or the general 

public came to the meeting or provided oral testimony, which made it difficult for the NOSB to 

understand any market demand for any of the materials petitioned. Specific issues by material 

are as follows:

Table 2: Aquaculture Materials – Issues for Review**

Substance Type

Current 

Proposal Notes

Page 225 of 249
Vitamins 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Animals

Vitamins

Proposal

Are there different requirements for closed 

systems versus net pens? Need discussion 

on how the differences might affect usage. 

Trace 

minerals 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Animals

Trace 

minerals 

proposal

Characterization (or list) of the types of 

minerals to be used. 

Chlorine 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Animals

Chlorine 

proposal

Culture water issues not clear. Need to 

change annotation to include culture water. 

Specific questions for a limited scope TR or 

expert opinion to address the purposes and 

use of chlorine for culture water. Category 1, 

Question 6: need discussion of the impact of 

chlorine on culture water.

Chlorine 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Plants

Chlorine 

proposal

Similar as for aquatic animals. Need more 

robust and detailed checklist. Need 

discussion of culture water.

Tocopherols 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Animals

Tocopherols 

proposal

Question regarding feed manufacturing using 

tocopherols. Cold water vs. warm water 

vitamins. Is there a difference? What is the 

availability of tocopherols made without 

synthetic solvents (i.e., rosemary oil) for 

animal feeds?

Micronutrients 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Plants

Micronutrients 

proposal

Need a discussion on multi-tropic systems 

and their impact on the need for routine 

application of micronutrients. Compare and 

contrast hydroponics vs. aquaculture plants – 

clarification needed.

Vaccines

Aquaculture 

- Animals

Biologics – 

Vaccines in 

Aquatic 

Animal 

Production

How does stocking density affect the need for 

vaccines? Is there a competitive advantage if 

vaccinated animals escape into the ocean? 

Need specificity on vaccination techniques. 

Need discussion on management techniques 

that would reduce the need for vaccinations.

Lignin 

Sulfonate 

(PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Plants

Lignin 

Sulfonate 

proposal

Essentiality as it relates to the need for Lignin 

Sulfonate to be used as synthetic 

micronutrient.

Vitamins, B1, 

B12, H (PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Plants

Vitamins, B1, 

B12 and H 

proposal

Discuss types of systems where these are 

now used.

Carbon 

dioxide (PDF)

Aquaculture 

- Plants

Carbon 

Dioxide 

proposal

Comment that CO2 might only be needed at 

the very early stages in aquaculture system 

set up. Clarify. Need more information on 

specific uses in AQ system. Suggestion that 

a stronger annotation is needed to address 

closed tanks and possible release of CO2 into 

the environment. Need update on the use of 

CO2 internationally. What are alternatives for 

pH adjustment?

** - All materials should be reviewed using the framework of Organic Aquaculture standards 

as promulgated by the NOP.

Page 226 of 249
As of October 2014, all materials are currently tabled within the Livestock subcommittee with the 

intention to re-evaluate all materials as soon as a proposed rule for Organic Aquaculture 

standards is available.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tracy Favre

Livestock Subcommittee Chair

Page 227 of 249