National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Discussion Document

Fish Oil Annotation

February 18, 2021

Re-Issue of Discussion Document

The Handling Subcommittee (HS) has decided to re-issue the fish oil annotation discussion document

with new information requesting additional stakeholder input on possible options. 

Summary Work Agenda

In May 2019, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) requested to work on an annotation for fish 

oil to address environmental concerns. Specifically, the NOSB request stated:

During the sunset review of fish oil at the Spring 2019 NOSB 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 would like to request a work agenda item to propose an annotation to fish oil to 

address environmental concerns.

In August 2019, the National Organic Program (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 handling operations 

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, 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; 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 109 of 172
OFPA § 6518. National Organic Standards Board

(m) Evaluation

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

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 Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) criteria were met in all 

categories but provided no scientific rationale or citations to support such findings. However, the NOSB 

final 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. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fisheries manage this 

program for federal waters (extending 200 miles offshore but excluding state managed water within 3 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 110 of 172
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 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 slightly 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 stock 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), Friend 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 HS presented a discussion document at the April 2020 NOSB meeting that argued that 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 111 of 172
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 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 comments raised objections to the listing of fish oil on the National List. Those comments, 

however, are relevant to the sunset reviews and are not relevant to this proposed annotation. 

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

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

As described in the April 2020 discussion document, the HS originally suggested adding three elements 

to the current fish oil annotation. This first element would state that fish oil should be sourced from 

fishing industry by-product only. This annotation would restrict the use of fish caught directly for the 

sole use of its oil to that of by-products only. Note, it is possible that profit from oil extraction from fish 

by-products may tip the balance in favor of additional stock exploitation and population declines. Not 

addressed was the possibility that krill may also be harvested to extract fish-oil for human consumption. 

However, 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 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. 

The 2020 HS discussion document also proposed annotating fish oil production from fisheries that were 

harvested such that “Where within NOAA’s jurisdiction, only from fish species and regions not listed on 

NOAA’s current “Overfishing” or “Overfished” list. Where outside NOAA’s jurisdiction, only from fish 

species and regions not listed on FAO’s “Overexploited,” “Depleted,” or “Recovering.”

This annotation received substantial public comment and reflected concerns by some certifiers and fishoil 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. Other were concerned that while NOAA and FOA standards were similar in 

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

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

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

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

not a practical bar to set 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;

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 112 of 172
• 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 (although concerns were raised that “byproduct” is not formally defined).

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;

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

third party certification even though their fishery meets sustainability standards.

According to MSC and other scientists consulted, “certification schemes are complex and, within 

seafood, cover varying issues related to environmental sustainability and social responsibility. As GOED 

mentioned [in public comments], 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... Therefore, we would like to bring to your 

attention two organizations that determine which certification schemes meet global best practice: 

International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labeling (ISEAL) and Global Seafood 

Sustainability Initiative (GSSI). ISEAL is a 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. GSSI created and operates a Global Benchmark Tool for 

seafood and seafood-derived products. This tool assesses seafood certification schemes...against the 

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the FAO Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery 

Products from Marine/Inland Capture Fisheries and the FAO Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture 

Certification.”

In response to public comments and further discussions with scientists and groups involved in marine 

fishery ecology and policy, the HS developed three possible fish oil annotations and requests input from 

organic stakeholders on the merits and feasibility of each approach. For reference, we include the 

original annotation proposal from the April 2020 meeting.

Original April 2020 Discussion Document Proposal: 

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 byproduct only. Where within NOAA’s jurisdiction, only from fish species and regions not listed on NOAA’s 

current “Overfishing” or “Overfished” list. Where outside NOAA’s jurisdiction, only from fish species and 

regions not listed on FAO’s “Overexploited,” “Depleted,” or “Recovering”. 

Note, given that the FAO fish stock categories have been consolidated to three categories (noted 

above), the April 2020 annotation proposal should be corrected to read “not listed on FAO’s 

‘Overexploited’. 

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 113 of 172
Option 1 Current Proposal – Please comment:

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 byproduct only and certified as sustainable by a third-party certifier.

Option 2 Current Proposal – Please comment:

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 with full utilization of said scheme.

Option 3 Current Proposal – Please comment:

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 byproduct only and has either a green or yellow Seafood Watch rating or is eco-certified to a standard 

recommended by Seafood Watch (https://www.seafoodwatch.org/).

Questions

1. Which is the best option to mitigate environmental concerns about the over-exploitation of 

fisheries used to produce fish oil sourced for organic products? 

2. Are these requirements clear and enforceable?

3. What impacts would these requirements have on the availability of fish oil for organic products? 

Citations

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

Subcommittee Vote

Motion to accept the discussion document on fish oil. 

Motion by: Asa Bradman

Seconded by: Jerry D’Amore

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

Approved by Jerry D’Amore, Handling Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOP February 18, 2021.

NOSB Proposals and Discussion Documents April 2021 114 of 172