USDA National Organic Standards Board 

Research Priorities Discussion Document

Spring 2020 

Executive Summary 

Overall: The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) presents an annual list of research priorities for 

organic food and agriculture. The NOSB requests that integrated research be undertaken with 

consideration of the whole farm system, recognizing the interplay of agroecology, the surrounding 

environment, and both native and farmed species of plants and animals.

Livestock 

1. Evaluation of methionine in the context of a system approach in organic poultry production. 

2. Prevention and management of parasites, examining breeds, geographical differences, 

alternative treatments, and pasture species.

3. Organic livestock breeding for animals adapted to outdoor life and living vegetation. 

Crops 

1. Examination of decomposition rates, the effects of residues on soil biology, and the factors that 

affect the breakdown of biodegradable bio-based mulch film. 

2. Conduct whole farm ecosystem service assessments to determine the economic, social, and 

environmental impact of farming systems choices. 

3. Organic no-till practices for diverse climates, crops, and soil types. 

4. Develop cover cropping practices that come closer to meeting the annual fertility demands of 

commonly grown organic crops. 

5. Development of systems-based plant disease management strategies are needed to address 

existing and emerging plant disease threats. 

6. The demand for organic nursery stock far exceeds the supply. Research is needed to identify the 

barriers to expanding this market, then develop and assess organic methods for meeting the 

growing demand for organically grown nursery stock. 

7. Strategies for the prevention, management, and control of invasive insects and weeds.

8. Factors impacting organic crop nutrition, and organic/conventional nutrition comparisons.

9. Side-by-side trials of organic synthetic materials, natural materials, and cultural methods, with a 

request for collaboration with the IR4 project. 

10. Impartial evaluation of microbial inoculants, soil conditioners, and other amendments is needed 

as there is little objective evidence upon which to assess their contribution to soil health. 

11. More research, extension, and education are needed to fully understand the relationship 

between on-farm biodiversity and pathogen presence and abundance. 

12. Elucidate practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that contribute to farming 

systems resilience in the face of climate change. 

Food Handling and Processing 

1. Evaluation of alternatives to chlorine materials in processing: impact mitigation, best 

management practices, and potential for chlorine absorption by products. 

2. Suitable alternatives to BPA (Bisphenol-A) for linings of cans used for various

products.

Coexistence with GE and Organic Crops 

1. Outcome of genetically engineered (GMO/GE) material in organic compost. 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 105 of 115
2. Evaluation of public germplasm collections of at-risk crops for the presence of GE traits, and 

ways to mitigate small amounts of unwanted genetic material in breeding lines. 

3. Develop then implement methods of assessing the genetic integrity of crops at risk in order to 

quantify the current state of the organic and conventionally produced non-GMO seed. NOSB 

October 2019 proposals and discussion documents Page 121 of 230

4. Techniques for preventing adventitious presence of GE material in organic crops, and evaluation 

of the effectiveness of current prevention strategies.

5. Testing for fraud by developing and implementing new technologies and practices.

General 

1. Examination of the factors influencing access to organically produced foods. 

2. Production and yield barriers to transitioning to organic production to help growers successfully 

complete the transition.

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 106 of 115
National Organic Standards Board

Materials Subcommittee Discussion Document

2020 Research Priorities

February 9, 2020

INTRODUCTION 

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) presents an annual list of research priorities for organic 

food and agriculture. The NOSB’s Livestock, Crops, Handling, and Materials/GMO Subcommittees 

proposed an updated set of priorities at the fall 2019 board meeting and have updated those priorities 

based on written and oral public comment received leading up to and since that meeting. The topics 

listed below are the 2020 priorities. 

BACKGROUND 

The list of priorities is revisited each year by the NOSB. The list is made meaningful by input through the 

written and oral public comments shared with the Board, through the expertise of the Board itself and 

through interactions throughout the year with those engaged in some dimension of the organic farm to 

fork continuum. When the NOSB has determined that a priority area has been sufficiently addressed, it 

is removed from the list of priorities. Priorities are also edited each year to more accurately reflect the 

existing need for new knowledge. Three new research priorities were added in 2020 while others were 

significantly rewritten. 

The NOSB encourages collaboration with and between laboratories, federal agencies, universities, 

foundations and organizations, business interests, organic farmers, and the entire organic community to 

seek solutions to pressing issues in organic agriculture and processing/handling. 

PROPOSAL: 2020 RESEARCH PRIORITIES 

The NOSB encourages integrated, whole farm research into the following areas:

Livestock

1. Evaluation of Methionine in the Context of a System Approach in Organic Poultry Production

Methionine is an essential amino acid for poultry. Prior to the 1950’s, poultry and pigs were fed a plant 

and meat-based diet without synthetic amino acids such as methionine. One former NOSB member 

stated, in §205.237(5) (b), “We have seemingly made vegetarians out of poultry and pigs”. As the 

organic community moves toward reducing, removing, or providing additional annotations to synthetic 

methionine in the diets of poultry, a heightened need exists for the organic community to rally around 

omnivore producers to assist in marshaling our collective efforts in finding viable alternatives to 

synthetic methionine and to help find approaches for making them more commercially available. 

Continued research on the use of synthetic methionine in the context of a systems approach (nutrition, 

genetic selection, management practices, etc.) is consistent with the NOSB unanimous resolution passed 

at the La Jolla, California, Spring 2015 board meeting. A systems approach that includes industry and 

independent research by USDA/ARS, on farms, and by agricultural land grant universities is needed for 

(1) evaluation of the merits of natural alternative sources of methionine such as herbal methionine, high 

methionine corn, and corn gluten meal in organic poultry production systems; (2) evaluation of poultry 

breeds selection that could be adaptive to existing organic production systems – inclusive of breeds 

being able to adequately perform on less methionine; and (3) assessment of management practices for 

improving existing organic poultry welfare under different conditions. Research findings and 

collaborations under various climates, housing types, geographical regions, and countries should be 

noted and researched, where applicable. Certainly, the fruition of these types of research topics could 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 107 of 115
take years to achieve the expressed NOSB resolution; however, an aggressive and/or heightened 

research focus could lead to findings that can positively impact the organic poultry industry and the 

organic brand. The continued focus on methionine with a systems approach is imperative and necessary. 

The key research areas should include the efficacy and viability of alternatives such as: herbal 

methionine, corn gluten meal, potato meal, fishmeal, animal by-products, and other non-plant 

materials. Additional research on the more promising alternatives to bring them into commercial 

production is also encouraged. Additionally, management practices impacting the flock’s demand for 

methionine should be included, such as flock management practices, access to pasture, and pasture 

management.

2. Prevention and Management of Parasites 

Livestock production places large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, poultry etc. into relatively close 

contact with each other on fields and in barns. Organic production does not allow antibiotic use and 

requires that livestock be raised in a manner which approximates the animal’s natural behavior. The 

organic farmer can use synthetic parasiticides in an emergency but not prophylactically. Synthetic 

parasiticides have many limitations. Even if prophylactic treatment with parasiticides were possible, it is 

clear that parasite immunity to chemical control will inevitably occur. Thus, prevention of parasites is 

critical. 

The research question on prevention and management of parasites must be systems based. What farm 

systems, animal breeds, herd or flock management systems have shown the best results with parasite 

control over the last twenty years? What regional differences are there in the US in parasite prevention? 

Are there specific herbal, biodynamic, or other alternative treatments that have been proven to work 

over time? What are the parasite-resistant breeds? Are there plant species in pastures and scrublands 

that could be incorporated into the annual grazing system to reduce the spread of parasites or to 

provide prevention through the flora, fauna, and minerals ingested? Which pasture management 

systems appear to be best for parasite prevention in various parts of the country? Are pasture mixes 

being developed that include plants known to prevent parasites in various breeds? 

3. Organic Livestock Breeding 

Organic rules require livestock products originate from animals that are not confined and are adapted to 

outdoor living as well as obtaining feed from living vegetation. A current FAO report states that globally 

one third of pigs, half of all egg layers, two thirds of milk animals, and three quarters of meat chickens 

are produced with breeds more suited to confinement or “industrial” production systems than a typical 

organic farm or ranch. Similar to plant breeding, the organic community sees a great need for regionallyadapted and publicly available livestock breeds that can thrive in organic systems. Heritage, native 

regional breeds, and breeds used in the EU and other areas of the world that are typically more adapted 

to organic systems are still present but in small numbers. Increased research on the breeding, 

production needs, and improvement of these breeds is needed. Traits for good conversion rates from 

grazing to milk or meat, meeting consumer expectations for quality, as well as having the constitution 

and temperament to thrive outdoors would increase both the profitability and resiliency of organic 

livestock operations. Animal breeds that may have immunity to a variety of diseases and parasites 

would be useful traits to research and incorporate in a breeding program. 

Crops

1. Biodegradable Bio-based Mulch Film 

Biodegradable mulch was recently approved by the NOSB but did not specify a required percentage of 

biologically derived (i.e., bio-based) content. In 2015, NOP issued a Policy Memo1 that states that 

1 Policy Memo 15-1

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 108 of 115
certifiers and material organizations should review biodegradable mulch film products to verify that all 

(100%) of the polymer feedstocks are bio-based. This requirement makes bio-based mulches 

unavailable to organic producers because petroleum-based polymers are present in these mulch films. 

In order to provide a recommendation to the NOP addressing the presence of petroleum-based 

polymers in these mulches, the answers to the following questions are important to develop more 

clarity on mulch films and possibly develop an additional annotation to address producer needs for 

biodegradable mulch films even if petroleum-based polymers are used:

• How rapidly do these mulches fully decompose, to what extent does cropping system, soil type, 

and climate mediate decomposition rates, and does the percentage of the polymers in the 

mulch film affect the decomposition rate? 

• Are there metabolites or breakdown products of these mulches that do not fully decompose? 

Do any of these mulches fully decompose?

• Do breakdown byproducts influence the community ecology and ecosystem function of soils, 

plants, and the livestock that graze on crops grown in these soils? 

• As fragments degrade, do they pose a problem to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife? What are the 

environmental fates of micro- and nano-plastic fragments resulting from biodegradable mulch 

film degradation, and what hazards do they present to organisms that they interact with on the 

way to that fate?

• Do the residues of these films accumulate after repeated use? 

• Are the testing protocols in place to insure decomposition standards? 

2. Ecosystem service provisioning and biodiversity of organic systems (new in 2020) 

How do organic systems impact ecosystem service provisioning, both on-farm and off-farm through the 

materials and inputs sourced and used for production? For example, life-cycle analysis of environmental 

costs and benefits of inputs used for organic production, such as manure, seaweed, and fish-based soil 

amendments, would be beneficial. Additionally, what is the impact of diversified and agroecologically 

designed organic farming systems on biodiversity and ecosystem services within the farm and in its 

surroundings? Can farm-mapping be performed to quantify the impact of the location of a farm (in a 

broader landscape) and the arrangement of fields and non-crop habitat to enhance biodiversity and 

ecosystem service provisioning?

3. Organic No-Till and Minimum Tillage

Organic no-till can increase soil health and provide for increased biodiversity. Organic no-till preserves 

and builds soil organic matter, conserves soil moisture, reduces soil erosion, and requires less fuel and 

labor than standard organic row crop farming. 

Farmers are employing a number of different approaches to organic no-till. Some are using a rollercrimper to terminate cover crops for in-place mulching. They then transplant or seed directly into the 

cover crop mulch. Others are utilizing polyethylene sheets (silage tarps) to prepare land for no-till 

planting. This approach often involves termination of a cover crop, as with the roller-crimper systems, 

but seemingly as often, or more frequently, is utilized to prepare fallow ground (for stale seed bedding, 

termination of crop residue and subsequent incorporation via soil fauna), or in conjunction with large 

applications of compost or other sources of organic matter. 

Increased research is needed to develop organic no-till systems that function for a wide variety of crops 

in diverse climates and soil types. Annual crops such as commodity row crops and specialty crops, as 

well as perennial crops such as tree fruits, berries, and grapes would all benefit from these organic notill practices. Research areas that could be covered include:

• Development of plant varieties that have specific characteristics, such as early ripening, to aid in 

the effectiveness and practicality of organic no-till.

• What combination of mulch crops and cultural systems sustain crop yields, provide soil health 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 109 of 115
benefits, and suppress weeds? 

• How does organic no-till influence pest, weed, and disease management?

• What potential pest problems can be caused or exacerbated by cover crops used as mulches, 

and how can those problems best be managed?

• In perennial cropping systems, such as fruits, what are the benefits or drawbacks of using this 

mulching system on weed, pest, and disease management, as well as soil fertility?

• What are the biodiversity benefits to living and/or killed mulches, and how does this contribute 

to pest, weed, and disease management?

• Do these systems affect the nutrient balance of the soil and subsequent fertilization practices, 

including use of outside inputs?

• Based on the improved soil health, when there is less soil disturbance and more plant 

decomposition resulting in higher organic matter, how does this system affect soil microbial life 

and nutrient availability, and does this then result in crops that are less susceptible to disease 

and pests?

• Research is needed on seeds, specifically for good cold germination, rapid emergence and 

establishment, seedling vigor, nutrient uptake efficiency, and overall weed competitiveness to 

crop cultivar development goals for organic conservation tillage systems. 

• How can reduced tillage weed management be improved, including development of new tools 

and techniques that provide greater weed control for less soil disturbance?

Finally, organic farmers use whole-farm planning when deciding what will be done in each of their fields. 

Research that assesses the ecosystem benefits of reducing tillage in patches (field-level) across a farm is 

also needed. For example, the relative benefits of reducing tillage are greater in areas prone to surface 

water runoff. Research is needed to “inform” where reduced tillage practices are likely to have their 

greatest impact. 

4. Managing Cover Crops for On-Farm Fertility (new in 2020) 

Growing cover crops and green manures is a foundational practice on many organic farms. In addition 

to conserving soil, increasing water holding capacity, and providing weed suppression, cover crops can 

supply important plant nutrients and increase soil organic matter. As farmers seek to grow their own 

fertility, more research is needed on the efficacy of relying primarily on cover crops to meet production 

needs, particularly for horticultural crops. At present, there is inadequate data on the various nutrient 

benefits of different cover crop mixes and how those benefits vary according to species mix, mowing 

practices, tillage regimes, and subsequent planting time of the cash crops. This topic asks researchers to 

examine farm fertility needs using cover crops as the primary form of nutrient delivery. 

5. Disease Management

Disease management in organic fruit and vegetable production relies on a systems approach to succeed, 

but even with current systems plans in place, growers frequently struggle to manage commonly 

occurring blights and citrus greening. The NOSB underscores the need for systems research that 

addresses solutions to these and related diseases that are workable for farmers, that reduces adverse 

health effects on farmers and fieldworkers, and that also limits adverse effects on the soil and water in 

which the crops grow. To this end, we call for systems research that identifies disease resistant material 

while at the same time identifying biological controls that limit the use of copper-based compounds 

where possible. 

Specifically, targeted research is needed to identify management practices and less toxic alternative 

materials for a wide range of crops. More research is needed on many of the crop/disease 

combinations, including: 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 110 of 115
• Comprehensive, systems-based approaches for managing individual crops in a way that 

decreases the need for copper-based materials, including researching crop rotations, sanitation 

practices, plant spacing, and other factors that influence disease. 

• Breeding plants that are resistant to the diseases that copper controls. 

• Developing alternative formulations of materials containing copper so that the amount of 

elemental copper is reduced. 

• Developing biological agents that work on the same diseases that copper is now used on. 

• Evaluating plant nutritional strategies to mitigate the impacts of plant diseases. 

• Particular research on scum and algae control in rice and whether sodium carbonate 

peroxyhydrate or other materials are suitable alternatives in an aquatic environment. 

• Soil management and crop cultivar development for enhanced beneficial crop-root microbe 

partnerships that protect organic crops from soil borne and foliar pathogens.

• Alternatives to antibiotics (tetracycline and streptomycin) for fire blight control, particularly in 

pears and apples.

6. Identify Barriers and Develop Protocols for Organic Nursery Stock Production (new in 2020) 

The demand for organic nursery stock far exceeds the supply. Research is needed to identify the 

barriers to expanding this market, then develop and assess organic methods for meeting the growing 

demand for organically grown nursery stock. That work could include but is not limited to assessing 

phytosanitary rules for shipping plants and quantifying the production and demand for organic 

rootstock. Research has shown that application of the correct ectomycorrhizal inoculants to roots can 

substantially (50% or more) enhance establishment and early growth of woody perennial horticultural 

crops. How can fine tuning the use of mycorrhizal inoculants to make organic nursery stock production 

easier and more profitable, thereby helping to close the demand/supply gap? Research centered on 

development of practical organic methods for the nursery industry to implement is needed, including:

• Disease and insect control materials that are allowed under organic standards and may be 

accepted under specific phytosanitary regulatory requirements. 

• New materials for controlling pests addressed by phytosanitary rules that show promise of 

compatibility with National List review criteria. 

• Alternative protocols for phytosanitary certification of nursery stock that are based on 

outcomes (such as testing or inspection) rather than requirements for use of synthetic materials 

during production. 

7. Management and Control of Invasive Insects and Weeds

There is a large pool of research on the control of insects and diseases using organic methods. Many 

controls use a systems approach and are quite effective. The introduction of new invasive species into 

cropping systems threatens these systems approaches, and in several cases the organic control options 

are very limited or nonexistent. For example, spotted wing drosophila is a relatively recent invasive 

insect that infests soft fruits, such as berries, and many other fruits as well. Infestation renders fruit 

unusable since insect larvae feed inside the fruit and may reach critical levels before fruit is 

harvested. This insect is particularly problematic in that it has the ability to oviposit in green fruit, and it 

has multiple generations throughout the summer, creating an extensive control period. There is only 

one control material available, and it is in danger of overuse. The control period may also extend so 

long that maximum label rates are used before the season ends. A second invasive insect is brown 

marmorated stinkbug, and at this time there are no organic control measures beyond attempts at mass 

trapping. Research into organic control options for both these invasive pests, and others, is critical so 

that organic growers can integrate controls into their organic systems. Prevention is critical. Because 

invasive insect species lack native predators, the organic community needs more information on their 

biology in order to implement prevention strategies before they become established and are more 

difficult to control.

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 111 of 115
Weeds pose one of the greatest barriers to successful organic crop production. Invasive weeds include 

exotic species that aggressively displace both crops and native plant species, as well as creeping 

perennial species (exotic or native) that are difficult to control without repeated, intensive tillage. The 

NOP standards require certified organic producers to use tillage and cultivation practices that maintain 

or improve soil conditions. Development of integrated, organic management strategies that effectively 

control invasive weeds without excessive tillage continues to emerge as a top research priority for 

organic producers.

8. Nutritional Value of Organic Crops 

How do organic soil health and fertility practices—crop rotations, cover crops, compost and other 

organic or natural mineral amendments, etc. — affect the nutritional value or “nutrient density” of 

organically produced crops? How do organic production and shipping methods (including methods of 

production, handling, and time in transport) influence the nutritional quality, taste, palatability, and 

ultimately preference for organic vegetables and fruits? There is a lack of sound, rigorously conducted 

studies of this kind. How can growers and handlers retain nutrition through post-harvest handling and 

transportation? Additionally, can providing organic producers information on soil biology and soil 

nutrient composition help improve nutrition? Finally, more studies are needed examining how organic 

crops compare to conventional crops with regards to nutritional value.

9. Side-by-Side Efficacy Comparisons Between National List Allowed and Petitioned Synthetic Inputs 

Versus Non-synthetic Alternative Inputs or Practices

During its five-year review of sunset materials on the National List and in the evaluation of newly 

petitioned materials, the NOSB often lacks sufficient information of the effectiveness of these materials 

as compared with other synthetics on the National List, natural materials, and cultural methods. Sideby-side trials with approved organic inputs, both synthetic and natural, and cultural methods to evaluate 

efficacy would strengthen the review process and provide growers with valuable information in pest and 

disease management decisions. The NOSB specifically requests collaboration with the Minor Crop Pest 

Management Program Interregional Research Project #4 (IR4) to include materials on the National List in 

their product trials. Such studies would help inform the NOSB review process of sunset materials and to 

determine if materials are sufficiently effective for their intended purpose, particularly when weighed 

against the natural and cultural alternatives. It should be noted that growers commonly rely on a mix of 

cultural practices and both non-synthetic materials and materials from the National List to produce 

crops of marketable quality and sufficient yield for profitability; it is understood that such studies would 

serve as a starting point and would form part of the comprehensive material review process.

10. Evaluation of Microbial Inoculants, Soil Conditioners, and Other Amendments (new in 2020)

Vendors of organic amendments now offer a large and growing array of microbial inoculants, organic 

soil conditioners, and other materials claimed to improve soil health, crop vigor and quality, and combat 

weeds, pests and diseases. There is an urgent need for impartial evaluation of these materials to help 

producers decide which products to use and to avoid unnecessary expenditures on products that are 

unlikely to yield benefits. 

11. Pathogen Prevention (new in 2020)

Third-party food safety auditors believe that some biodiversity-maintenance strategies employed by 

organic farmers may increase the risk for introduction of human pathogens on the field. While some 

research has been conducted disproving this hypothesis, more research, extension, and education are 

needed to fully understand the relationship between on-farm biodiversity and food safety – and this 

research must be communicated to third-party food safety auditors and incorporated into their audits.

12. Climate Change (new in 2020)

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 112 of 115
A growing body of research demonstrates that organic farming can help prevent anthropomorphic 

climate change, and some strategies employed by organic farming can also help with resilience to 

current climate challenges such as drought and flooding. Although a number of researchers are 

examining this issue, additional work is needed to pinpoint specific strategies that organic farmers can 

take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and respond to current climate challenges threatening the 

future of our food security. 

Handling

1. Chlorine Materials and Alternatives

Chlorine materials currently allowed for use in organic agriculture are widely used in farming and 

handling to clean and disinfect equipment, surfaces, and produce. There have been some concerns 

raised about these materials and their impact on the environment and human health when/or if they 

form trihalomethanes and other toxic compounds. Chlorine materials are also acutely toxic to 

workers. New sanitizers and disinfectants are regularly petitioned to the NOSB for addition to the 

National List. FDA regulations on food safety (Food Safety Modernization Act) and best management 

practices for cleaning in handling operations both require a suitable level of cleanliness and 

disinfection to prevent pathogens from entering the food supply.

Producers and handlers are looking for alternatives to chlorine while continuing to provide a safe 

end product to their customers and the consumer. Addressing food safety while adhering to the 

fundamental organic principles involving human health and environmental impact is a concern.

The organic industry needs better information on how either alternative materials or appropriate 

chlorine materials are best suited for a specific use and control measure. This is especially important 

in determining if the industry can move away from the use of chlorine compounds in the future.

Points of consideration for future research activities:

• Comparison of alternatives to chlorine such as: citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, ethanol, 

isopropanol, peracetic acid, and ozone. How would each compare to the different 

chlorine materials for specific uses? The strengths and weaknesses would need to be

considered.

• Potential human health and environmental impacts of each chlorine material versus the 

possible alternative materials listed above. Are there ways that these impacts can be 

mitigated and still allow the material to work as needed?

• Determination of which of the above-mentioned alternatives would NOT be a suitable 

substitute for chlorine. What specific uses and/or conditions would this apply to?

• Identification of practices that could be used to help reduce the formation of 

trihalomethanes in those specific situations where chorine is the best material to use.

• Could the rotation of materials for cleaning and disinfecting help lower the risks from 

chlorine materials and still be effective in providing the desired control of pathogens?

• Research on the absorption of chlorine by produce from its use in wash tanks, including 

information about the amount of time of exposure, would help inform understanding of 

human exposure to chlorine and health risks. Are residues from produce washing a 

persistent residual effect or temporary (if temporary – how long is it a viable residue), and 

would it be harmful if consumed at these levels?

2. Alternatives to Bisphenol A (BPA)

The Handling subcommittee is examining the issue of whether to prohibit BPA in packaging 

materials used for organic foods in light of direct evidence that these uses result in human 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 113 of 115
exposures and mounting evidence that these exposures may be harmful. There is a need for 

increased research about alternatives for the linings of cans and jars used for organic products 

that do not result in human exposures and health risks.

Materials/GMO

In previous years, the Materials subcommittee has prioritized the Reduction of Genetically Modified 

Content of Breeding Lines (2013) and Seed Purity from GMOs (2014). These issues are currently being 

addressed through a Genetic Integrity of Seeds Ad Hoc Working Group. 

1. Fate of Genetically Engineered Plant Material in Compost 

What happens to transgenic DNA in the composting process? Materials such as cornstalks from GMO 

corn or manure from cows receiving rBGH are often composted, yet there is little information on 

whether the genetically engineered material and traits break down in composting process. Do these 

materials affect the microbial ecology of a compost pile? Is there trait expression of Bt (bacillus 

thuringiensis) after composting that would result in persistence in the environment or plant uptake? 

2. Integrity of Breeding Lines and Ways to Mitigate Small Amounts of Unwanted Genetic Material 

Are public germplasm collections that house at-risk crops threatened by transgenic content? Breeding 

lines may have been created through genetic engineering methods such as doubled haploid technology, 

or they may have had inadvertent presence of GMOs from pollen drift. The extent of this problem needs 

to be understood. 

3. Assess the Genetic Integrity of Organic Crops At Risk (New in 2020) 

Develop then implement methods of assessing the genetic integrity of crops at risk in order to quantify 

the current state of the organic and conventionally produced non-GMO seed. Such assessments are 

needed on the front (seed purchased by farmers) and back end (seed harvested from a farmer’s field) of 

the production chain as well as on points of contamination in the production chain. 

4. Prevention of GMO Crop Contamination: Evaluation of effectiveness 

How well are some of the prevention strategies proposed by the NOSB working to keep GMOs out of 

organic crops? For instance, how many rows of buffer are needed for corn? How fast does 

contamination percentage go up or down if there are more or fewer buffer rows? Other examples could 

be whether cleanout of combines and hauling vehicles reduces contamination using typical protocols for 

organic cleaning, whether situating at-risk crop fields upwind from GMO crops can reduce 

contamination, and what the role may be of pollinators in spreading GMO pollen. Lastly, research is 

needed on a mechanism to provide conventional growers incentives to take their own prevention 

measures to prevent pollen drift and its impact on organic and identity-preserved crops. This is policy 

research rather than field research but is equally as important. 

5. Testing for Fraud: Developing and implementing new technologies and practices New technologies, 

tests, and methodologies are needed to differentiate organic crop production from conventional 

production to detect and deter fraud. Testing to differentiate conventional and organic livestock 

products, for example omega 3 or other indicators, is also needed. Additional tools to identify 

fraudulent processed and raw organic crops require research to combat this problem. Current 

methodologies include pesticide residue testing, in field soil chemical analysis, and GMO testing. Areas 

in need of further testing methodology include phostoxin residues, fumigant residues, carbon isotope 

rations for traceability, validating nitrogen sources using nitrogen isotope rations, or other experimental 

testing instruments that can be utilized to distinguish organic raw and/or processed crops from 

conventional items. Additionally, there is a need to develop rapid detection technologies for adaptation 

to field-testing capacities. 

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 114 of 115
General

1. Increasing Access to Organic Foods 

What factors influence access to organically produced foods? Individual-based studies are needed to 

assess the constraints to accessing to organic food. Research should be funded that builds on an 

understanding of constraints by asking what community, market, and policy-based incentives would 

enhance access to organic foods. 

2. Barriers to Transitioning to Organic Production 

What are the specific production barriers and/or yield barriers that farmers face during the three-year 

transition period to organic? Statistical analysis of what to expect economically during the transition is 

needed to help transitioning growers prepare and successfully complete the transition process. 

Subcommittee Vote: 

Motion to accept the 2020 research priorities discussion document 

Motion by: Dan Seitz

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

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

Approved by Dave Mortensen, Materials Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB February 11, 2020

NOSB April 2020 proposals and discussion documents Page 115 of 115