National Organic Standards Board 

Crops Subcommittee 

Fish Oil Annotation Proposal 

August 13, 2021 

Summary: 

In May 2019, the NOSB requested a work agenda to annotate fish oil to address environmental 

concerns. Specifically, The NOSB request stated: 

During the sunset review of Fish Oil at the Spring NOSB 2019 meeting the NOSB asked for comment 

on how to address environmental and conservation concerns raised about the manufacturing of Fish 

Oil. Public comment was received validating these concerns as well as suggesting annotative 

language to address this area of concern. These annotations were proposed by industry and trade 

associations as well as interest groups. The Handling Subcommittee (HS) would like to request a 

work agenda item to propose an annotation to Fish Oil to address environmental concerns. 

In August 2019, the NOP agreed to add this item to the NOSB work agenda. Specifically, the NOP 

stated: 

You have requested to review the current listing of fish oil and develop recommendations to 

address the environmental impact of harvesting of fish directly for their oil. Please limit your 

work to this topic; this work agenda item does not include the organic certification of fish (i.e. 

aquaculture or wild seafood standards). In your review, please consider how your 

recommendations would align with other Federal regulations addressing fish harvesting. 

Citations: 

OFPA § 6517. National List 

(c) Guidelines for prohibitions or exemptions 

(1) Exemption for prohibited substances in organic production and handlingoperations The 

National List may provide for the use of substances in an organic farming or handling 

operation that are otherwise prohibited under this chapter only if— 

(A) the Secretary determines, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 

that the use of such substances— 

(i) would not be harmful to human health or the environment; 

OFPA § 6518. National Organic Standards Board 

(l) Requirements 

In establishing the proposed National List or proposed amendments to the National List, the 

Board shall— 

(1) review available information from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National 

Institute of Environmental Health Studies [sic (National Institute of Environmental Health 

Sciences)], and such other sources as appropriate, concerning the potential for adverse 

human and environmental effects of substances considered for inclusion in the proposed 

National List; 

OFPA § 6518. National Organic Standards Board 

(m) Evaluation 

In evaluating substances considered for inclusion in the proposed National List or proposed 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 111 of 205
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

amendment to the National List, the Board shall consider— 

... 

(6) the alternatives to using the substance in terms of practices or other available 

materials; and 

(7) its compatibility with a system of sustainable agriculture. 

7 CFR 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as “organic.” 

Only the following nonorganically produced agricultural products may be used as ingredients in or 

on processed products labeled as “organic,” only in accordance with any restrictions specified in this 

section, and only when the product is not commercially available in organic form. 

... 

(e) Fish oil (Fatty acid CAS #'s: 10417-94-4, and 25167-62-8)—stabilized with organic 

ingredients or only with ingredients on the National List, §§205.605 and 205.606. 

Summary of Review: 

Fish oil was added to the National List in 2007, based on a petition from a manufacturer. At that time the 

NOSB did not request a Technical Report (TR) or Technical Advisory Panel Report (TAP). The 2007 NOSB 

recommendation indicated that the OFPA criteria were met in all categories but provided no scientific 

rationale or citations to support such findings. However, the final NOSB recommendation from May 9, 2007, 

stated ...”pursuant to the judgment in Harvey v. Johanns, the NOSB was instructed to develop criteria for 

determining commercial availability, an essential tool in evaluating whether or not petitioned materials 

could be listed at § 205.606.” These criteria were finalized in the NOSB “Recommendation for the 

Establishment of Commercial Availability Criteria National List § 205.606” of October 19, 2006. “That 

recommendation allows for pro-active listing on § 205.606 of materials that may currently be available in an 

organic form, but the supply of which has a history of fragility due to factors such as limited growing 

regions, weather, or trade-related issues. “.... After discussion, the Board decided to add an annotation to 

the recommendation to list fish oil to the National List. The annotation is “stabilized using only allowed 

ingredients on the National List.” The Board felt that this annotation was not overly prescriptive since a 

nonorganic material that falls within the annotation exists on the market.” The NOSB (2007) further noted 

that “There were no public comments specifically opposing the listing of fish oil on §205.606....” 

While the NOSB has submitted several recommendations on organic aquaculture standards, the NOP has 

not proceeded with rulemaking on these recommendations. At this time organic fish and therefore organic 

fish oil cannot be produced under the USDA organic regulations. If fish oil is to be used by organic food 

manufacturers it must remain on the National List. 

In subsequent sunset reviews in 2015 and 2019, public comment indicated that the listing as is left room for 

concern based on how the fish for the fish oil were harvested. Sustainability of fishing is a key 

environmental concern and the U.S. has been a leader in managing sustainable fishing. The management of 

U.S. Fisheries is primarily governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 

1976. This act recognized the need to manage fisheries to ensure fish stocks would be able to continually 

produce without depletion. Specifically, it sought to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, increase 

long-term economic and social benefits, and ensure a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. NOAA 

fisheries manages this program for federal waters (extending 200 miles offshore but excluding state 

managed water within 3 miles of the shoreline) and states “U.S. fisheries are scientifically monitored, 

regionally managed, and legally enforced under 10 national standards of sustainability. Managing 

sustainable fisheries is a dynamic process that requires constant and routine attention to new scientific 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 112 of 205
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information that can guide management actions. According to the World Wildlife Fund, “seven of the 

world’s top ten fisheries (by volume) target forage—also known as low trophic level—fish, 90 percent of 

which are processed into fishmeal and fish oil.” Fish and shellfish are renewable resources—they can 

reproduce and replenish their populations naturally. Because of this, we can sustainably harvest fish within 

certain limits without depleting the resource. Fishery management is the process of using science to 

determine these limits—some fish are caught while some are left to reproduce and replace the fish that are 

caught.” As part of its regulatory duties, NOAA maintains a Fish Stock Sustainability Index. In this index fish 

stocks by region are described as: 

• Maximum sustainable yield (MSY): The largest long-term average catch that can be taken from a stock 

under prevailing environmental and fishery conditions. 

• Overfishing: A stock having a harvest rate higher than the rate that produces its MSY. 

• Overfished: A stock having a population size that is too low and that jeopardizes the stock’s ability to 

produce its MSY. 

• Rebuilt: A stock that was previously overfished and that has increased in abundance to the target 

population size that supports its MSY. 

In the U.S., NOAA data shows a slight decreasing trend in the number of fish 

stocks that are not overfished or subject to overfishing. 

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) similarly 

recognizes concerns about over exploitation of fish. In its 2016 report, FAO 

recognized that worldwide overfished stocks had increased from 10% of total 

stocks in 1974 to 33.1% in 2015. The FAO classifies fish stocks fisheries around the 

world in terms of population stability. The FAO categories include: 

1. Over-exploited 

2. Fully exploited. 

3. Non-fully exploited. 

Proposed Annotation Discussion 

Significant U.S. regulation and International regulation exists to address the environmental concerns of 

overfishing. In addition, there are numerous private standards established to monitor fishing, including, but 

not limited to, voluntary third-party organizations that certify fishery practices to sustainability standards 

such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), Friends of the Sea, Global Standard for Responsible Supply 

(IFFO RS), and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. In contrast to third-party certifiers, there are groups like 

Seafood Watch (https://www.seafoodwatch.org/) that grade fish products by environmental criteria (i.e., 

red, yellow, green) but do not certify products on a fee basis. Thus, fish producers have no choice as to 

whether their products are assessed against environmental criteria by Seafood Watch. 

Previously, the Handling Subcommittee presented a discussion document for the April 2020 NOSB meeting 

that argued that while private third-party standards may be sufficient to address potential environmental 

concerns related to fishing, the use of sufficient and recognized U.S. Government national standards and 

United Nations international standards may be preferred because legal definitions have been defined and 

are potentially more enforceable compared with third-party private entities. 

Public Comment Summary 

Several dairy and other producers reported using fish oil in milk and other products and projected lost sales 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 113 of 205
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if fish oil was not allowed as part of the non-organic 5% of USDA Organic labeled products. 

The Handling Subcommittee originally suggested adding three elements to the current fish oil annotation. 

The first element would state that fish oil should be sourced from fishing industry by-product only. This 

annotation would prevent the use of fish caught solely for oil production. Note, krill are not recognized as 

fish. Because the National List specifically identifies “fish oil”, oils derived from krill are not allowed in 

organic products and are not the subject of this annotation. 

In public comment in 2019 and 2020, it was noted by industry and trade associations that fish oil is always a 

byproduct due to economics, but environmental groups remain concerned that fisheries may be exploited 

exclusively for fish oil production. Overall, public comment supported restricting fish oil production only as 

a byproduct. 

Earlier discussion documents proposed an annotation limiting fish oil production from fisheries that were 

harvested such that, when the fisheries were within National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA)’s or Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s jurisdiction, they must not be unsustainably 

exploited. 

These suggested annotations received substantial public comment which raised concerns by some certifiers 

and fish-oil industry representatives. Certifiers were concerned about their lack of expertise to ensure 

compliance with either NOAA or FAO standards, and recommended a simple affidavit by processors 

verifying compliance. Others were concerned that while NOAA and FAO standards were similar in 

objectives, they were not directly comparable because they used different timeframes and population 

assessment methods, including different data sources and populations modeling techniques. Thus, 

application of standards based on NOAA and FAO classifications would likely not be uniform across 

producers or verifiable by organic certifiers and would introduce regulatory inconsistency, and therefore 

would not be a practical bar to set for fishery sustainability standards. Other limitations to these 

governmental standards include: 

• There are state managed marine fisheries where NOAA doesn’t have jurisdiction and thus doesn’t 

assess the populations. In these cases, there may be specific populations that are overfished while 

the species as a whole may not be; 

• Many fisheries in foreign waters are not necessarily tracked by FAO but may, in fact, meet 

sustainability standards, or be over-exploited; 

• Many fisheries in international waters are not tracked by governmental or international agencies 

but may, in fact, meet sustainability standards, or be over-exploited; 

• For some species, some populations may be at risk of over-exploitation, whereas other local 

populations may be sustainable, without clear market demarcation of fish origin. 

In response to these concerns, the HS reached out to scientists at NOAA, Seafood Watch, and MSC. These 

individuals and groups recommended annotation language consistent with public comments suggesting 

certification of environmental sustainability “by a third-party certifier” as more likely to achieve OFPA goals. 

This suggested reliance on third part certification for National List annotation raises several concerns, 

including: 

1. Organic environmental sustainability standards would be sourced outside USDA and other U.S. 

government agencies; 

2. There is potential for “greenwashing” if an unscrupulous third-party certifier did not meet 

environmental sustainability standards; 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 114 of 205
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Requiring third–party certification could exclude smaller-scale producers that cannot afford third 

party certification even though their fishery meets sustainability standards. 

However, there are also advantages to relying on third-party certification programs for non-agricultural 

products that derive from natural resources. According to MSC and other scientists consulted, “certification 

schemes are complex and, within seafood, cover varying issues related to environmental sustainability and 

social responsibility ... the question on which certifications meet the requirements laid out by the NOSB for fish 

oil will undoubtedly come up. It would be a challenge for the NOSB to create and maintain a list of acceptable 

certification schemes for fish oil in organic products and would require constant vetting of the changes of each 

certification...” 

Three examples of a possible annotation 

were discussed at the April 2021 NOSB 

meeting (see box). Overall, public comment 

leaned to Option 2. Fish oil producers 

generally preferred Option 1 but would 

accept Option 2. Dairy and other groups 

producing products containing fish oil leaned 

toward Option 2 and were not concerned 

about impacts product availability. Option 3 

utilizing the Seafood Watch program was also 

supported, but concerns were raised about 

the size and reach of the program. 

Option 2 in particular has several advantages 

according to MSC because the “... International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) 

and Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI)... [are]... global membership organization for ambitious 

collaborative, and transparent sustainability systems. One of their core work streams is defining credible 

practice of programs based on emerging global consensus...” These “... organizations ... are highly respected 

globally as leaders in science-based sustainability certifications. There are established processes, quality 

controls and quality assurances already in place for GSSI recognized and ISEAL compliant certification 

programs. GSSI and ISEAL help to define and ensure programs demonstrate their continual compliance in 

upholding best practice for seafood sustainability certifications and sustainability systems at a global level. 

Further information on the rigor and process of becoming GSSI benchmarked or an ISEAL Code Complaint 

member can be found on the respective organizations’ website” and the requirements would be clear and 

enforceable. 

Based on public comments and consultation with MSC, the Handling Subcommittee modified Option 2 and 

recommends adoption of the following annotation. 

Fish oil annotation: §205.606 (e) Fish oil (Fatty acid CAS #'s: 10417-94-4, and 25167-62-8) - stabilized with 

organic ingredients or only with ingredients on the National List, §§205.605 and 205.606. Sourced from 

fishing industry by-product only and certified as sustainable against a third-party certification that is 

International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) Code Compliant or Global 

Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) recognized. 

In the future, listing of fish oil at §205.606 and the annotation can be reevaluated when organic aquaculture 

standards are approved. 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 115 of 205
 

 

 

Subcommittee Vote: 

Motion to accept the proposed fish oil annotation 

Motion by: Asa Bradman 

Seconded by: Kyla Smith 

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

Citations: 

• Fish oil annotation discussion document, April 2021 NOSB meeting 

• https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/fishmeal-and-fish-oil 

• 2019 Fall Sunset Review – Fish Oil, NOSB Public Comments Fall 2019 NOSB meeting 

• https://www.fishwatch.gov/sustainable-seafood/managing-us-fisheries 

• https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/2018-report-congress-status-us-fisheries 

• https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/population-assessments/status-us-fisheries 

• https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/status-stocks-2019 

• http://www.fao.org/3/I9540EN/i9540en.pdf 

• http://www.fao.org/newsroom/common/ecg/1000505/en/stocks.pdf 

• https://www.msc.org/ 

• https://friendofthesea.org/ 

• https://www.iffors.com/ 

• https://ivopure.org/ 

• https://www.sustainablefish.org 

Approved by Jerry D’Amore, Handling Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOP August 14, 2021. 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents October 2021 116 of 205