Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Response to Hops Petition 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

In response to a petition to remove Hops (Humulus lupus) from section 

205.606 from the National List, the NOSB recommends removal of Hops 

(Humulus Lupus) from Section 205.606 of the National List on January 1, 2013. 

The NOSB vote on this recommendation was 14 Yes, 0 No, 0 Abstentions, 0 

Absent, and 0 Recusals. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

OFPA and the NOP mandate the NOSB board to add or remove materials on 

the National List. The compromise removal date was acceptable to the 

petitioner and a large majority of the industry. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Joe Smillie Second: Jennifer Hall 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Response to Petition to remove 

Hops (Humulus luplus) from § 205.606 

Revised Committee Decision Discussion 

October 8, 2010 

List: 

National Organic Program Subpart G: The National List of Allowed and Prohibited 

Substances. § 205.606 

Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as “organic.” 

 Hops (Humulus luplus) 

Committee Summary 

 Petition is for removing Hops (Humulus luplus) from § 205.606 

The petitioner requested that Hops be removed from § 205.606 because the production 

of organic hops has increased significantly since the petition to place them on § 

205.606, and subsequent listing on the National List. There was no date specified for 

removal. The form, quantity, and quality of organic hops are addressed in the petition. 

The petition cites support from credible brewers, hop associations, and hop growers to 

the increased quantity of organic hops available. The petitioner claims differences in 

quality between cultivars of hops are not an issue. Public comment has been received 

objecting to the removal of hops from 205.606. 

Four members of the committee had conversations with 12 or more brewers, three 

certification organizations, and multiple hop producers and organizations about the 

availability of organic hops and the cultivars of hops needed for different brews. Several 

microbrew makers in the Pacific Northwest, New England, and a college chemistry 

professor, known to one of the Committee members as being proficient in the art and 

science of beer-making, vehemently attested to the unique properties provided by 

individual hop cultivars. They claimed that substantial differences in character are 

discernable between hop cultivars. Beyond that, they attested that these differences are 

discernable from year to year for a single cultivar from the same grower, and moreover 

that varietal differences are discernable from grower to grower an identical. This is 

consistent with generally accepted expectations of other perennial crops such as nuts, 

grapes and berries, as well as annual crops such as grains and legumes. Vital 

characteristics of a crop vary from place to place, grower to grower, and year to year; 

this is not a novel concept and is generally accepted in the agricultural community as 

valid and correct. No commenter’s have provided analyses demonstrating that hops 

should be viewed differently than other perennial crops in this regard. 
The question at issue is whether these variations constitute a sufficient rationale to 

justify some breweries’ use of non-organic hops in some circumstances. The Handling 

Committee asserts that this case by case evaluation is appropriately done at the level of 

organic certification, since only the ACA’s have access to the product formulation 

details, product specifications, and specific market data that each brewery should be 

providing in defense of their organic system plans. In order to be used in an organic 

product in conventional form, a given crop must not only appear on 205.606; the 

producer must also demonstrate to the certifier that the variety needed is not 

commercially available in organic form at the time of inspection. 

The difference in opinion between the petitioner and some of these commenter’s lies in 

the area of cultivars and form (dry, fresh, pelletized, pressed etc). The petitioner makes 

the argument that there are so many cultivars of hops that it is unjust to burden the 

organic hop industry with making every cultivar available organically and that there are 

enough cultivars available so that substitution would not be a hardship for organic 

brewers. It is of concern that the petitioner states that organic hops that are available 

are not being sold. However, a large number of recent commenter’s have expressed 

their opinion best summarized by the comment “organic beer should be made with 

organic hops.” While the Committee agrees with this comment completely in principle, 

and believes such expectations are genuine and important, such comments do not 

provide any novel information that is helpful in determining the fate of Hops on § 

205.606. 

As a component of this recommendation, the Handling Committee, would like to 

reiterate its hope that the November 30th, 2007, NOSB recommendation “ Further 

Guidance on the Establishment of Commercial Availability Criteria” will soon be 

fully implemented by the NOP. Additionally, the Handling Committee would like to 

emphasize again that irrespective of that recommendation’s implementation, ACA’s 

must play an essential role in evaluating on a case by case basis the organic system 

plans provided by their clients who produce organic beer. Unquestionably, it is an 

ACA’s responsibility to assess the immediately salient characteristics of hops’ supply, 

demand, quality, quantity, and form relative to an operator’s formulations, intended 

products, and target markets. Their action (or inaction) contributes substantially to the 

degree of functionality of commercial availability perceived by industry and the public at 

large. 

While many necessary cultivars of hops are available in an organic form, the argument 

that hops cultivars can be acceptably substituted for one another in all cases is not fully 

supported by the history and practice of beer brewing, along with the feedback of 

several craft beer producers, as noted above. The Committee is hesitant to remove 

hops from § 205.606 at this time, but also recognizes that the listing of hops on 205.606 

should be limited, in order to support the development of a truly sufficient organic hop 

market. 

The committee proposes the removal hops from § 205.606 by January 1 2013. This 

time interval formally recognizes the growth of organic hops’ availability and yet allows 

brewers two growing seasons to secure their organic hops through forward contracting, 

making adjustments to future product formulations and specifications, and preparing 
their customers and consumers for the product changes anticipated, if any. If they so 

choose, brewers may also begin the process of petitioning to the National List specific 

hop cultivars and forms of cultivars they feel to be inadequately available in organic 

form. Those cultivars and forms petitioned will identify specific needs for hop growers to 

provide for. In short, we believe that this approach charts a course that will facilitate the 

growth and development of the organic hop market without the potentially catastrophic 

effects that immediate removal of hops from § 205.606 would cause. 

The comment made by one of the hop growers, Patrick Smith, on his blog of September 

15th was especially insightful “ ...what we really want is for a clear roadmap to a day 

when all organic beer is brewed with 100% organic hops. A transition period that allows 

brewers and growers to work together to secure organic hop sourcing would provide the 

environment for an orderly conversion.” The NOSB would like nothing more than to 

provide the roadmap and herein provides a recommendation that does so. 

This recommendation will also provide immediate encouragement and market demand 

for those organic suppliers who claim to have unsold organic hops in storage. 

Additionally, this will provide producers the certainty to continue or expand existing hop 

yards in anticipation of future markets or to begin the production or organic transition of 

the most needed cultivars. The Handling Committee’s expectation and hope is that this 

compromise will provide a fertile ground for fruitful dialogue and continued measured 

growth of the organic marketplace. The Handling Committee is looking forward to 

hearing additional opinion of brewers, barley growers, malt producers, and hop growers 

on this issue. 

Updated Committee Recommendation 

Hops (Humulus Luplus) be removed from 205.606 on January 1, 2013 

Motion: Joe Smillie Second: John Foster 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

August 30, 2010 

List: 205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as 

ingredients in or on processed products labeled as “organic.” 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

Committee Summary 

Federal register notice of the sunset of this material elicited public comments against 

re-listing. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is new information contradicting 

the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB decision to list 

this material.This information contained in a petition cites the increased production of 

organic hops. The petition calls for the removal of Hops from 205.606 . The Handling 

committee has examined this and issued a recommendation.As a 205.606 listed 

material, it is subject to commercial availability scrutiny for use in organic products. 

Committee Recommendation(s) 

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substance in this use 

category as published in the final rule: 

Hops (Humulus luplus) 

Committee Vote: 

Motion: Joe Smillie Second: Steve DeMuri 

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