Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

Date: December 2, 2011

Subject: Evaluation of Material Review Organizations

Chair: Tracy Miedema

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Guidance Statement

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

Recommendation to provide draft guidance language to NOP as per attached 

CACC Recommendation. Passed by a vote of 14 yes, 0 no.

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

CACC recommendation is attached. 

NOSB Vote:

Moved: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri

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

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Committee

Proposed Recommendation

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

Introduction

The assessment of specific substances for compliance with the National Organic 

Standards – known as “Materials Review” – is a foundational element in the organic 

supply chain. Certifiers and other materials review organizations regularly review 

materials as a service to their clients, and these decisions directly impact the organic 

integrity of growing, livestock and handling operations and ultimately the integrity of the 

USDA Organic label. The uniformity, consistency and integrity of materials review 

decisions is of paramount importance to the integrity of the entire organic supply chain, 

and the National Organic Program must play a primary role in supervising and 

monitoring these activities. 

Following the NOP’s request for NOSB advice on this issue, the CACC prepared a 

discussion document for the April, 2010 NOSB meeting in Seattle. This document 

summarized the issue and the NOP request, and posed a number of specific questions 

about specific facets of this complex subject. The board received written and oral public 

comment from numerous stakeholders, including certifiers, materials review 

organizations, input manufacturers and others. The CACC has evaluated these 

comments and has carefully considered them in making the current recommendation. 

Background

On January 18, 2011, the NOP Deputy Administrator requested the participation of the 

NOSB in developing a clearer NOP policy on the oversight of materials review 

organizations:

The NOP is interested in developing a more uniform and consistent procedure for 

evaluating the competency and quality of material evaluation programs, as 

approved by accredited certification agencies or by other third party 

organizations. 

The NOP is requesting that the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

develop a recommendation that delineates the criteria that should be used by 

certifying agents and third party organizations to evaluate materials used in 

organic production and handling. The recommendation should include the criteria 

and process that should be used to determine the approval of input substances 

used in crop production (e.g. fertilizers, pest control materials, soil amendments, 

crop production aids), livestock production (e.g. feed supplements, feed 
Page 2 of 6

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

additives, medications and livestock production aids), post-harvest handling and 

food processing (e.g. processing aids, sanitizers, facility pest control materials). 

A number of organizations currently provide materials review services to producers and 

certifiers. At least one of those organizations is an independent organization that is not 

an Accredited Certifying Agent or under any NOP oversight. At least one other materials 

review organization is a formal subdivision of an ACA, and many ACAs provide some 

material review services to clients on a formal or informal basis. The CACC agrees with 

the NOP that there is a clear need for more uniform and consistent policies governing 

material review services, and we believe that all organic stakeholders would benefit 

from a clearly defined NOP guidance around the qualification and activities of these 

organizations. 

Challenges

1. All certifying agents review input materials for compliance with the NOP

regulations. Most certifying agents do not publish their list of approved inputs. 

This leads to a lack of transparency of what materials have been approved for 

use in organic production and handling.

2. There are numerous organizations reviewing materials for compliance with the 

NOP regulations. On numerous occasions a material that is allowed by one 

certifying agent is prohibited by another. This lack of consistency in what 

materials are approved creates an uneven regulatory landscape, is unfair to 

organic producers and handlers, and leads to certifier shopping to find the 

certifying agent that allows more materials.

3. There have been situations where the NOP has disallowed the continued use of 

materials and material review organizations continue to list/register these 

materials as approved for use in organic production/handling.

4. A universal list of approved substances is not currently available to organic 

producers and handlers. It is difficult for many organic producers and handlers to 

understand what materials are allowed and which materials are prohibited. This 

regulatory uncertainty causes reluctance by many potential organic producers 

and handlers to enter the organic trade.

5. OMRI and WSDA maintain a publically available list of approved materials. The

process for removing substances from these approved lists is not consistent. 

There is not a consistent process for material input manufacturers to appeal 

decisions made by OMRI, WSDA or certifying agents.

6. The NOP does not have direct regulatory authority over material manufacturers. 

If material manufacturers violate the organic standards or fraudulently represent 

their product as approved for organic use the NOP does not have authority to 

issue civil penalties or propose adverse actions. Currently organic producers 

and handlers bear the risk of using substances that may not comply with the 

NOP regulations.
Page 3 of 6

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

Relevant Areas in the Rule

While both OFPA and the Rule deal extensively with the review of materials as 

performed by NOSB, NOP and ACAs, neither provides any language that relates 

directly the work or oversight of materials review organizations. 

Discussion

Based on the challenges presented above, the committee’s March discussion document 

solicited feedback from impacted stakeholders on a number of specific questions. 

Those specific questions are attached to this document as Appendix A. 

The committee spent several meetings carefully weighing and discussing each of the 

stakeholder responses to the various discussion questions. This analysis yielded the 

following recommendation. 

Recommendation

The NOSB recommends that the National Organic Program actively regulate materials 

evaluation programs, in order to facilitate consistent and uniform materials review 

decisions. 

Materials Review Organization (MRO) Qualification

In order to facilitate adequate oversight and enforcement of the activities of 

MROs, the National Organic Program should require that MROs become 

accredited or formally recognized under a newly formed Material Review scope.

MROs that only perform material review services should be restricted to 

materials review activities. ACAs who currently perform materials review would 

simply add the Materials Review scope to their existing accreditation. Materials 

review activities should only be allowed by NOP accredited entities. 

The NOSB acknowledges that the creation of a new accreditation scope is a 

complicated and potentially long-term undertaking. On an immediate basis, NOP 

should provide detailed guidance and criteria on the material review process in 

order to promoted consistency and uniformity among currently operating MROs 

while longer term regulatory changes are undertaken. 

The CACC intends to develop additional an recommendation regarding specific 

material review criteria and procedures for the Spring 2012 meeting. 

MRO Definition

Material Review Organization: Any entity accredited or authorized by the 

Secretary to review and approve materials as compliant with the National 

Organic Program for use in producing or handling certified organic products.
Page 4 of 6

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

MRO operation and review criteria

MROs should use OFPA, the USDA National Organic Standards, NOP guidance 

and the National List as the base standards for their operations and activities. 

MROs should not make synthetic vs. non-synthetic determinations except as

guided by NOP materials classification guidelines. MROs should be compliant 

with ISO 65 standards, which require the development of detailed review 

protocols and policies. 

MROs must make their review process -- including organizational hierarchies, 

procedures and governance structures related to materials decisions --

transparent to all stakeholders. While the creation of such review criteria and 

procedures by the NOP should necessarily be done in partnership with certifiers, 

MROs and other stakeholders, we do not believe that a the creation of a formal 

Task Force is necessary to accomplish this goal. The NOSB functions as an 

advisory body which represents diverse factions of the organic community, and 

has carefully considered rich stakeholder feedback in creating this 

recommendation. 

Equivalency among Accredited MROs

We believe that once an entity is accredited as an MRO, its decisions must be 

accepted by other MROs and ACAs. If we develop a uniform, accredited, 

transparent material review program, at its core must be equivalency of review 

and decision-making among accredited MROs. Without equivalency, we will lose 

the trust and confidence of organic input manufacturers, which will certainly lead 

to fewer input options to the organic production community and create a 

disincentive to the development of new and innovative input materials.

In addition to accepting the decisions of other MROs and ACAs, the program 

must have a description of a transparent process to resolve conflicts between the 

MRO’s decision and determinations with those of another MRO, ACA or the 

National Organic Program. We believe it will be critically important for the NOP to 

establish clear standards and requirements for how a MRO decision can be 

appealed. 

Structure and Consistency of a Materials List

We believe that the most effective way to ensure consistency among MROs is to 

ensure that all such organizations are operating by a consistent set of review 

protocols and procedures. NOP oversight and accreditation will promote 

consistency both by requiring a uniform set of procedures and by allowing NOP 

to monitor materials review decisions made by accredited MROs. 

While a generic materials list is an extremely valuable guidance tool to the 

organic producers and input manufacturers who rely on MRO services, we do not 

believe it is the interest of the organic community to require producers to only use 
Page 5 of 6

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

inputs on any materials list. Many local products and custom mixes are provided 

on a regional basis, and such materials are reviewed by ACAs as part of the 

certification process. Membership on a list should never be a requirement for use 

of an input on an organic operation. 

The NOP should work closely with certifiers and existing MROs to determine a 

set of subcategories and list structure which reflects the review criteria to be used 

for each category. Such structure should at minimum reflect the National List 

Categories reflected in 205.601-201.606, and potentially include sub-types of 

National List categories. For example, OMRI’s generic materials list currently 

divides the “Crops” category into the classes Crop Fertilizers and Soil 

Amendments (CF), Crop Pest, Weed and Disease Control (CP), and Crop 

Management Tools and Production Aids (CT). We also note that the effective use 

of such a list is contingent on guidance as to the point at which an agricultural 

product ceases to be a crop and becomes the subject of processing/handling. 

The current National List contains several post-harvest handling substances in 

both 206.601 and 605.605, and the precise contour of the line between crops 

and handling should be resolved prior to the design of such a list. 

We believe that the NOP should maintain a single, national Generic Materials 

List along with a Brand Name Materials List. The generic materials list would 

serve as guidance to ACAs and the industry on specific substances’ consistency 

with the rule, and as a record of NOP decisions on such materials (including 

synthetic vs. non-synthetic and agricultural vs. non-agricultural determinations). A 

brand name list would serve as an aggregation of ACA/MRO decisions which 

had been reported the NOP. Such a list would drive inter-ACA/MRO consistency 

and provide a valuable service to the organic community. Both lists should be 

available to the public via the NOP website, and updated in real time. Such lists

will only be possible once consistent and transparent review criteria and 

oversight mechanisms are established. Regular communication of materials 

review decisions by MROs to the NOP would also facilitate NOP monitoring of 

MRO decisions. 

Finance and Oversight

We believe that the MRO program should at least be financed in part by those 

input producers seeking review. Under a model which follows the existing ACA 

structure, entities seeking certification (or review) would pay certification costs

directly to the ACA/MRO. Accreditation would managed financed through the 

existing NOP accreditation structures. 

Similarly, programmatic oversight and appeals would also be handled by the 

same set of structures which currently govern the oversight of ACAs. MROs 

would be different from other ACAs only in terms of the scope of their certification 

activities. As with existing ACAs, the NOP should provide clear and uniform 

guidance, training, oversight, audits and enforcement over MROs. NOP should 

review their existing appeals process to ensure that input manufacturers have the 
Page 6 of 6

Evaluation of Materials Review Organizations

December 2, 2011

same ability to appeal and MRO decision as producers currently have to appeal 

ACA decisions. 

Enforcement and Fraud

The NOP MRO process should clearly hold the MRO accountable for mistakes 

and prescribe penalties, just as is currently the case for ACA certification 

decisions. NOP should pursue legal action against fraudulent manufacturers. 

We believe that NOP oversight of MROs as ACAs is the most effective way to 

ensure consistency and integrity in the organic input material supply chain, and 

provides the most powerful set of tools to prevent fraud, monitor compliance, and 

enforce the National Organic Standards. 

Committee Vote

Motion by: Joe Dickson Second: Calvin Walker

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