Page 1 of 23 | July 2018

Organic Import Oversight: 

Collaboration Opportunities and Technology Needs Assessment

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) National 

Organic Program (NOP) is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the USDA organic seal. 

Rapid organic growth has increased the complexity of supply chains that carry organic products 

from farm to table. AMS continues to address new oversight challenges created by industry 

growth and increased market complexity. 

This report responds to recommendations from the USDA Office of the Inspector General 

concerning the oversight of imported organic products. The report describes activities taken to 

date by AMS, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP), and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The report also 

identifies opportunities for future collaboration between these agencies, and presents a Needs 

Assessment for International Systems to better oversee organic trade. 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 2

1.1. Background and Purpose.................................................................................................. 2

1.2. Document Purpose and Intended Audience ..................................................................... 4

1.3. Overview: Current Organic Authorities and Oversight Mechanisms.............................. 5

1.4. Criteria for Evaluating Future Solutions.......................................................................... 8

2.0 Import Oversight: Collaboration with CBP ......................................................................... 8

2.1. Overview of Key Stakeholders and Current Setting ........................................................ 9

2.2. Summary of Actions: 2017-2018 ................................................................................... 11

2.3. Opportunities for Future Collaboration with CBP......................................................... 12

3.0 Fumigation Oversight: Collaboration with APHIS............................................................ 13

3.1. Overview of Key Stakeholders and Current Setting ...................................................... 13

3.2. Summary of Actions: 2017-2018 ................................................................................... 14

3.3. Opportunities for Future Collaboration with APHIS..................................................... 16

4.0 International Systems Needs Assessment.......................................................................... 17

4.1. “As-Is” Description: Existing Technology Investments and Resources........................ 18

4.2. Goals and Success Factors for an International System................................................. 20

4.3. Towards an International Organic Traceability and Oversight System......................... 20

4.4. Next Steps ...................................................................................................................... 22

5.0 Closing ............................................................................................................................... 23

6.0 Acronyms........................................................................................................................... 23
Page 2 of 23 | July 2018

1.0 Introduction 

1.1. Background and Purpose

The mission of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) National Organic Program (NOP) is to protect the integrity of the USDA organic seal, 

both domestically and abroad, to maintain trust in the organic label. Rapid organic growth has 

increased the complexity of supply chains that carry organic products from farm to table. AMS 

continues to address new oversight challenges created by industry growth and increased market 

complexity. 

The USDA organic regulations require all organic imports to be from certified operations. While 

USDA has found specific instances of fraud, the organic global control system of standards, 

certification, accreditation, and enforcement acts to protect the integrity of the organic market. 

In September 2017, the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) published a report

evaluating AMS’ controls over the approval and oversight of AMS international organic trade 

arrangements and the import of organic products into the United States. The OIG audit found 

that AMS needs to strengthen its controls over the approval and oversight of international trade 

arrangements and agreements for the import of organic products into the United States. 

The OIG report included four findings with nine recommendations. AMS provided a response to 

the OIG, with a summary of planned actions. Table 1 summarizes both the OIG 

recommendations and the AMS response. 

Table 1: September 2017 Office of Inspector General Report 

on Organic Trade: Recommendations and Agency Response

OIG Recommendation AMS Response

Finding 1: Organic Standards’ Equivalency Determination Process Was Not Fully 

Transparent

1. Prior to issuance of future U.S. 

equivalence determination letters, 

develop and implement a procedure to 

document and disclose the final 

resolution of all foreign country organic 

standards identified as having 

differences from USDA organic 

standards.

• AMS agreed to develop and implement a 

procedure to document and disclose the final 

outcome of the variances from the side-byside analysis of organic standards. This will 

assure interested parties and the public that all 

variances were resolved in a way that justifies 

the equivalence determination. 

Finding 2: NOP Organic Import Documents Were Not Verified at U.S. Ports of Entry

2. Execute a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) between AMS 

and Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to obtain assistance from CBP 

• CBP officials have told AMS they have 

limited capacity to take on additional 

responsibilities and no current authority to 

review organic imports or NOP import 
Page 3 of 23 | July 2018

OIG Recommendation AMS Response

officials in reviewing National Organic 

Program (NOP) import certificates from 

countries with established equivalence 

arrangements at U.S. ports of entry.

certificates. AMS agreed to develop this

report outlining how AMS and CBP could 

collaborate in these areas under existing 

authorities.

3. Request CBP to update the Automated 

Commercial Environment (ACE) 

system message sets to provide CBP 

officials with instructions for reviewing 

NOP import certificates at U.S. ports of 

entry and the actions to take if they are 

not found.

• NOP import certificates are only required for 

organic imports from the European Union, 

Switzerland, Korea, and Japan. AMS 

currently has an MOU with CBP that allows 

NOP limited access to ACE. AMS agreed to 

submit organic message set proposals to CBP 

and request that CBP implement organic 

message sets.

 

4. Develop and implement a plan to verify 

NOP import certificates at U.S. ports of 

entry, identify fraudulent import 

certificates, and capture organic import 

data.

• AMS agreed to prepare the needs assessment 

that appears in this report for an organic 

verification system that validates organic 

import certificates, identifies fraudulent 

certificates and captures data. 

Finding 3: Controls Over Organic Products Fumigated at U.S. Ports of Entry Were 

Inadequate

5. Execute an MOU between AMS and 

APHIS to ensure that APHIS officials 

notify NOP officials when imported 

agricultural products are treated with 

NOP-prohibited substances at U.S. ports 

of entry.

• In January 2017, AMS and APHIS executed 

an MOU to document collaborative efforts to 

identify imported organic shipments of 

agricultural products that, prior to importation 

into the United States, are treated for plant 

pests or are treated as a condition of entry.

6. Request CBP to update the ACE system

message sets to ensure APHIS officials 

are notified of steps to take when 

organic agricultural imports are treated 

with NOP-prohibited substances at U.S. 

ports of entry. 

• AMS agreed to work with APHIS to develop 

mechanisms within the APHIS Emergency 

Action Notification (EAN) system to identify, 

track, and ensure that treated organic products 

are not sold, labeled or represented as 

organic. 

7. Develop and implement a plan for 

creating and implementing procedures 

for tracking organic products treated 

with NOP-prohibited substances at U.S. 

ports of entry and ensuring those 

products are not sold, labeled or 

represented as organic.

• AMS agreed to work with APHIS to establish 

procedures to notify importers and certifiers 

when organic products are treated and can no 

longer be sold, labeled, or represented as 

organic.
Page 4 of 23 | July 2018

OIG Recommendation AMS Response

Finding 4: Onsite Audits Not Conducted Timely

8. Develop and implement performance 

measurements to collect, analyze, and 

report to management regarding the 

timeliness of onsite reviews for foreign 

countries that maintain a recognition 

agreement or equivalency arrangement 

with USDA.

• AMS already has a system to monitor audit 

frequency for accredited certifiers. AMS 

agreed to use its audit monitoring system to 

collect, analyze and report the timeliness of 

the onsite reviews AMS conducted of 

recognition or equivalence partners as a 

performance measurement.

9. Revise NOP Handbook NOP 2100 to 

include the requirement that NOP 

officials conduct onsite audits of foreign 

countries that maintain equivalency 

arrangements with USDA every 2 years.

• AMS agreed to revise its procedures to 

require NOP officials to conduct onsite audits 

of foreign countries that maintain equivalency 

arrangements every 2 years. 

1.2. Document Purpose and Intended Audience

This report summarizes activities that respond to OIG Finding 2: NOP Organic Import 

Documents Were Not Verified at U.S. Ports of Entry; and Finding 3: Controls over Organic 

Products Fumigated at U.S. Ports of Entry Were Inadequate. Findings 1 and 4 are addressed 

through different documents. 

Specifically, the report outlines activities taken to date by AMS, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS). The report also identifies opportunities for future collaboration 

between these agencies, and presents a Needs Assessment for International Systems to better 

oversee organic trade.

Key audiences for this report include: 

• The USDA Office of Inspector General 

• Government agency leaders and staff that contribute to organic oversight 

• Organic certifiers and trade, including farms, businesses, and brokers that trade 

internationally 

• Companies that may wish to support the development of an international organic 

traceability and verification system 

This document assumes that the reader has a foundational understanding of the NOP mission, 

structure, and operating environment. For example, the document assumes pre-existing 

awareness of what an organic certifier is and does, and what it means to be a certified organic

operation.
Page 5 of 23 | July 2018

1.3. Overview: Current Organic Authorities and Oversight Mechanisms 

All organic farms and businesses must be certified. Certification is demonstrated through an 

operation-level certificate issued by the organic certifier. The certificate does not expire unless 

the farm or business surrenders its certification or is suspended or revoked from certification. 

This section of the report discusses NOP’s oversight authorities and known oversight gaps. 

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities

The NOP is authorized by and operates under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6501-6522 (OFPA), and associated organic regulations, 7 C.F.R. §§ 205.1-205.699 

(USDA organic regulations). NOP, which is charged with administering and supervising the 

program, has also promulgated a detailed National Organic Program Handbook: Guidance and 

Instructions for Accredited Certifying Agents and Certified Operations. The purpose of the 

OFPA is to assure consumers that organically produced products meet a consistent standard (7 

U.S.C. § 6501(2)).

The Secretary of Agriculture was given authority to establish and oversee an organic certification 

program for producers and handlers of agricultural products that have been produced using 

organic methods (7 U.S.C. § 6503(a)). Additionally, the Secretary was authorized to implement 

a program to accredit governing State officials or private persons as certifying agents for the 

purpose of certifying production and handling operations as organic (7 U.S.C. § 6514). 

It is difficult to distinguish conventionally produced agricultural products from organically 

produced agricultural products without records demonstrating compliance. As such, Congress 

authorized the Secretary to establish numerous recordkeeping and record production 

requirements for certified operations, certifiers, and all persons subject to the OFPA (See 7 

U.S.C. §§ 6503, 6513, 6519, and 6521). The USDA organic regulations define “records” as any 

“information in written, visual, or electronic form that documents the activities undertaken by a 

producer, handler, or certifying agent to comply with the Act and regulations” (emphasis added). 

Record Collection and Production Authority for Certified Operations and Certifiers 

Both the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations require certified operations to maintain and 

make available to the Secretary records concerning the production, harvesting, and handling of 

agricultural products that are or that are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic 

(See 7 U.S.C. § 6519, 7 C.F.R. § 205.103, and 7 C.F.R. § 205.400(d)). Certified operations’ 

records must include records that are adapted to the particular business that the certified 

operation is conducting, fully disclose all activities and transactions of the certified operation in 

sufficient detail as to be readily understood and audited, and sufficient to demonstrate 

compliance with the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations (7 C.F.R. § 205.103(b)). These 

records must be sufficient to provide an “audit trail” to determine the source, transfer of 

ownership, and transportation of any agricultural product labeled as organic (7 C.F.R. § 205.2)

Additionally, 7 C.F.R. § 205.201 requires certified operations to create organic production and 

handling system plans that must include a description of the recordkeeping system implemented 
Page 6 of 23 | July 2018

to comply with the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations, and additional information deemed 

necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the USDA organic regulations.

Likewise, both the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations require certifiers to maintain and 

make available to the Secretary records concerning its activities (See 7 U.S.C. § 6519, 7 C.F.R. § 

205.501(a)(9), 7 C.F.R. § 205.510(b)). Additionally, as a condition of their accreditation, 

certifiers must “comply with, implement, and carry out any other terms and conditions 

determined by the Administrator to be necessary.” (7 C.F.R. § 205.501(a)(21). 

Background on Organic Imports 

Organic products move across complex supply chains around the world. Certified organic 

businesses are overseen by certifiers, who conduct regular inspections of the farm or 

business. As organic product changes hands, the receiving business is responsible for confirming 

the organic certification of the business from which it receives that product.

 

For products crossing the border into the U.S., the exporting entity often also generates 

transaction certificates, which verifies the organic status of the shipments. These are approved by 

the organic certifier overseeing the business responsible for the product. These transaction 

certificates, however, are neither standardized nor required under the USDA organic regulations, 

and may not be required by the specific importer receiving the product in the U.S.

 

For imports coming from countries or regions with which the U.S. has an equivalency 

arrangement (Canada, European Union, Switzerland, Japan, and Korea), each import must be 

accompanied by an “NOP Import Certificate,” an Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-

approved form that is generally completed by the exporter and approved by the certifier 

responsible for certifying the business shipping to the U.S.

 

NOP does not currently explicitly require import certificates for imports coming from countries 

with which the U.S. does not hold equivalency. However, nothing in OFPA precludes this from 

being implemented in the USDA organic regulations. In addition to the abundant authority 

described above that allows the Secretary to require import certificates, OFPA also provides the 

Secretary with broad authority to establish appropriate and adequate enforcement procedures and 

any other requirements that the Secretary may determine to be necessary (See 7 U.S.C. § 6506). 

This broad authority coupled with the existing statutory and regulatory authority to require and 

maintain auditable records provides the Secretary the legal authority necessary to require the 

production of import certificates. 

Organic Enforcement 

A core challenge in organic enforcement and import oversight is that organic certification is done 

at the business-level, not the product-level. As such, the current enforcement provisions are 

focused on taking action against a non-compliant business, rather than blocking the sale of a 

particular product as organic.

• NOP and its certifiers have the authority to deny, suspend, or revoke organic certification 

or accreditation. When a certified organic business receives a proposed adverse action 
Page 7 of 23 | July 2018

(such as a proposed suspension or revocation), the business may appeal the adverse 

action to the AMS Administrator. If the adverse action is upheld by the Administrator, 

the business can request a Hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, and then appeal 

to the USDA Judicial Officer. The organic business maintains certification throughout 

this process, which can take up to 1-2 years. 

• When an uncertified organic business (like a broker or other uncertified organic handler) 

engages in demonstrated fraud, NOP has historically issued a Cease and Desist Notice, 

which notifies the business of the violation and warns them to stop selling as 

organic. Unfortunately, it is not clear under OFPA that NOP has the authority to enforce 

a Cease and Desist Order. As such, NOP has generally pursued civil penalties through 

settlement agreements, which are set in the USDA organic regulations. These limitations 

illustrate the difficulty that NOP currently has to enforce against uncertified operations.

Currently, an importer can make the business decision to refuse a product that it believes to be 

non-compliant, however, there may be business-related legal and contractual barriers that 

discourage this. Right now, as long as the importer can demonstrate that it checked the organic 

certification status of the business immediately before them in the supply chain, it can show due 

diligence to accept that product and sell it as organic. Only hold-intact, stop-sale, or conditional 

release/provisional entry authorities would allow the holding/blocking of suspect product – this 

would require very rapid investigation and due process mechanisms that are not currently in 

place.

Known Oversight Gaps Related to Imports 

This section summarizes known gaps in the current system of organic oversight of imports. 

First, while NOP has the authority to require import certificates under OFPA, world-wide import 

certificate collection is not currently part of the USDA organic regulations. The NOP is currently 

working on rulemaking that will propose the requirement for organic import certificates for all 

imports from all countries. 

Second, even if a requirement for import certificates were implemented, this would not provide 

the authority to oversee products at U.S. ports directly, or to block product from entering the 

country. AMS does not currently have the regulatory authority to establish and implement 

specific controls on organic products at U.S. ports of entry. As such, there is no current 

mechanism to consistently discover or block incoming fraudulent organic shipments.

The current statute prohibits the sale of products that violate the statute and regulations as 

organic, but does not clearly provide AMS with the authority to stop sale, hold product, or recall 

products in the marketplace or at the borders. To manage this challenge, if there is sufficient 

information that fraudulent product has entered the U.S., and if enough is known about the 

destination of these products, the NOP sends letters to the trade warning them of the concern and 

reminding them of the penalties associated with representing non-organic product as organic. 

Third, organic products are often traded through brokers and handlers who do not touch the 

organic product, and are currently not required to be certified. In these cases, the uncertified 
Page 8 of 23 | July 2018

broker or handler receives the import documents for a product, which may or may not include an 

organic certificate, and passes it along to the next step in the chain. While the final importer of 

the product is responsible for obtaining an organic certificate from the last handler, the current 

oversight system does not require traceability back to the farm. The NOP is currently working 

on rulemaking to eliminate the allowance for uncertified brokers and handlers, and to require full 

traceability back to the farm at any point in the supply chain. 

Finally, NOP’s inability to swiftly enforce Cease and Desist Notices and civil penalty 

collections, as well as the existing lengthy enforcement and appeals process, is not a strong 

deterrent for those wishing to engage in fraudulent activities. Stronger and swifter enforcement

actions are needed to protect the market. 

1.4. Criteria for Evaluating Future Solutions

It is clear that the global control system could benefit from more oversight and additional control 

systems. AMS agrees with the OIG finding that direct controls for organic products are not 

currently in place at U.S. ports of entry; however, AMS does not currently have the regulatory 

authority to establish and implement specific controls at the ports themselves. 

This reality highlights the need to establish clear criteria for evaluating future solutions for 

improving the oversight of organic products. These criteria are listed here: 

• Legal and Regulatory Authority: Any solutions for improving the oversight of organic 

products must be within AMS’ or other agencies’ statutory authorities, and allowed for 

under the regulations. AMS is currently working on a Strengthening Organic 

Enforcement Proposed Rule, which is intended to modify the USDA organic regulations 

to improve critical oversight practices. However, AMS will not be able to implement 

requirements not provided for under OFPA. 

• Resources and Feasibility. Any solution must be both technically and administratively 

feasible, and must be able to be implemented based on existing or realistically projected 

resources. For example, neither CBP nor NOP currently have the resources to monitor all 

organic shipments crossing the border, nor would it be technically or administratively 

possible to do so without significantly hampering trade. Any solutions must be feasible to 

implement given a reasonable assessment of resources. 

• Cost. Separate from the resources required for Federal agency oversight, solutions for 

improving the oversight of organic products should not create unreasonable financial 

burdens for organic businesses and importers. 

2.0 Import Oversight: Collaboration with CBP

In its September 2017 Organic Trade Oversight Report, the OIG made a number of 

recommendations related to protecting the integrity of organic imports at U.S. ports of entry. 

Implementing changes based on these recommendations requires collaboration with CBP, which 

is the lead agency with authority at the border. This section provides an overview of the key 
Page 9 of 23 | July 2018

stakeholders involved in this work, actions taken to date, and opportunities for future 

collaboration. 

2.1. Overview of Key Stakeholders and Current Setting

CBP is the agency with the most direct responsibility for enforcing trade laws against 

counterfeit, unsafe, and fraudulently entered goods. The agency reports that “on a typical day, 

CBP welcomes nearly one million visitors, screens more than 67,000 cargo containers, arrests 

more than 1,100 individuals, and seizes nearly 6 tons of illicit drugs. Annually, CBP facilitates 

an average of more than $3 trillion in legitimate trade while enforcing U.S. trade laws.” (Source: 

https://www.cbp.gov/about). 

Overview of the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE)

To assist its mission, CBP operates a system called the Automated Commercial Environment 

(ACE). ACE is “the primary system through which the trade community reports imports and the 

government determines admissibility of products.” In short, ACE processes import documents 

for almost all products entering the U.S., including organic products. 

Currently, however, any exchanges of organic certificates (at the operation or transaction level) 

are independent of other import filing requirements. The ACE system does not currently identify 

or flag specific import shipments as containing organic products. 

Systematically flagging products or shipments as organic would require the integration of NOP’s 

organic import certificate into the ACE system in the form of a “message set.” A message set is 

the data that allows the ACE system to accept and store specific information about a shipment 

with specific characteristics – such as evidence of products as being certified organic. The 

“organic message set” is central to the proposed future collaboration between AMS and CBP, 

and it is discussed further below. 

CBP Import Notification Levels and Hold Authorities 

As a shipment of product makes its way to the U.S., CBP can receive up to three different levels 

of notification, depending on the product’s characteristics. Each level contains a different level 

of detail about the shipment: 

(1) Advance Data Manifest: National Security Check (Level of Detail: General product 

category – e.g., cheese, 10 boxes). This data is not at a sufficient level of detail to be 

useful for supporting NOP oversight. CBP also requires an Import Security Filing (ISF) 

24-hours prior to arrival for inbound containerized ocean shipments. 

(2) Customs Release Entry Form (Form 3461) – Includes Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

(HTS) codes for product and its origin. (Level of Detail: Product type – e.g., parmesan 

cheese, 10 boxes.) This package generally arrives 10 days after shipments arrive in the 

U.S.
Page 10 of 23 | July 2018

(3) Entry Summary Form (Form 7501) – Information package containing marketing data 

and information. (Level of Detail: Product type – e.g., parmesan cheese in wheels from 

Region Y.) This package generally arrives 30 days after shipment delivery in the U.S. 

In addition to receiving this incoming information, CBP can take different actions with an 

imported product based on a specific agency’s legal authorities. For example, CBP can: 

• Require explicit agency approval before releasing an import (“Hold Intact” authority).

This would prevent the shipment from entering commerce until approved by the 

governing agency. As such, the agency needs information about the shipment as early as 

possible (Advance Data Manifest stage) to be able to adjudicate it before arrival. 

Early discussion with CBP suggests that adjudicating organic imports at the port is not 

an option, because OFPA does not currently provide the appropriate authorities, and the 

resources and cost to facilitate that adjudication are a prohibitive barrier. 

• Implement “Post-Release” or ‘Conditional Release” authority, which allows the import 

into the U.S., but also allows the agency and its supply chain partners to adjudicate the 

shipment after it passes through a U.S. port of entry. In this scenario, information from

the Entry Summary Form (Form 7501) is often sufficient and the most appropriate, as it 

contains the marketing information needed to effectively review the validity of the 

product. If a problem is found with the shipment, the agency can then notify the supply 

chain and take enforcement action as needed. 

Early discussion with CBP suggests that this is best option for NOP to pursue at this 

time. It would require certifiers to have access to ACE organic message set data to verify 

organic integrity throughout the supply chain. 

Case Study: AMS Specialty Crops Marketing Orders Agreement Division 

The AMS Marketing Orders Agreements Division (MOAD) is another AMS program that has 

established an electronic reporting connection with the CBP ACE system. Before MOADregulated products reach a U.S. point of entry, importers enter information into ACE. MOAD has 

an internal system (the Compliance Enforcement Management System or CEMS) that receives

and processes this information from ACE. 

Once MOAD certifies a product as meeting import requirements, inspection staff transmit an 

inspection’s “pass/fail” outcome back to CEMS. If all import requirements have been met, 

CEMS transmits a "May Proceed" message back to ACE. If requirements have not been 

satisfied, CEMS automatically assigns the case to AMS personnel for follow up. 

One possibility would be to have NOP and its certifiers receive data about organic products from 

ACE by building a new module in CEMS, and then adjudicating under “post-release” or 

“conditional release” authority, with the ability to alert trade to fraudulent or fumigated product 

if it is detected. 
Page 11 of 23 | July 2018

Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Codes 

HTS codes are important numerical sequences for identifying specific commodities imported 

into the U.S. for trade purposes. Very few HTS codes for organic commodities exist, further 

complicating the ability to track organic product as it crosses the border. 

AMS has considered two alternatives to address this: (1) adding a chapter in the HTS specifically 

for organic products (would add a prefix to the code); (2) adding an organic qualifier (suffix) to 

existing HTS codes to identify product as organic. This would add two digits to all existing eight 

digit codes to further identify a product as organic.

Ultimately, AMS decided that neither of these high-level changes to the HTS were feasible, as 

the majority of organic products do not meet the minimum requirements set by the U.S. 

International Trade Commission to add more organic codes. Additionally, importers are only 

required to identify cargo at a six or eight digit level (not the ten digits needed to code a product 

as organic). This analysis process is what led AMS to conclude that the “organic message set,” 

introduced above and discussed further below, is the best possible alternative for identifying 

product as organic across all categories, rather than pursuing additional HTS codes. 

2.2. Summary of Actions: 2017-2018

AMS has engaged in three primary activities in collaborative action involving CBP. 

Targeted Investigations of Imported Grains 

Based on emerging concerns about organic fraud, as well as other rules restricting the import of 

specific commodities from specific countries, CBP have increased their targeting of grains 

coming to the U.S. from specific countries of concern in Eastern Europe. When shipments 

appear to involve organic grains and oilseeds, NOP has requested documentation from the 

organic certifiers involved and has provided that information to CBP through APHIS. 

As a result of these investigations, CBP has blocked at least three shipments with product labeled 

as organic from entering the United States – including a shipment of chickpeas and about 39 

thousand metric tons of corn, valued at approximately $14.5-million dollars.

Organic Message Set Development 

As mentioned above, introducing an “organic message set” within the ACE system would 

facilitate the identification of product as organic in CBP systems. To initiate this process, 

between March and September 2017, AMS developed the documentation required to propose an 

organic message set to CBP and its governing body, the Border Interagency Executive Council 

(BIEC). 

AMS formally presented its organic message set “request for development” to CBP in April 

2018. The responsible Steering Committee prioritized the request, and CBP provided a cost 

estimate to AMS in July 2018. 
Page 12 of 23 | July 2018

Joint Collaboration Session: CBP, APHIS, AMS 

In February 2018, senior leaders from several offices in CBP, APHIS, and AMS met to outline 

potential areas for collaboration to implement the OIG’s recommendations related to organic 

trade oversight. Many of the insights provided during that meeting are reflected in this report. 

AMS will continue to meet with CBP and APHIS staff as work proceeds. 

2.3. Opportunities for Future Collaboration with CBP 

There are both near-term and long-term collaboration opportunities between AMS and CBP. 

ACE Data Access 

To access import-related data in ACE, including information about specific shipments possibly 

including organic products, agencies must have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 

CBP. AMS has an existing MOU with CBP, but the document requires updates to allow NOP

access to Entry Summary Form (Form 7501) and Customs Release Entry Form (Form 3461) 

information for shipments associated with all pertinent HTS chapters (e.g., all chapters that 

include products that could be represented or sold as organic under OFPA). AMS plans to 

collaborate with CBP to update the current MOU. 

If CBP takes on additional roles for monitoring organic products once the organic message set is 

developed and implemented, the MOU will need to be updated with the associated roles and 

responsibilities as well. 

Organic Message Set Development and Deployment 

As noted above, AMS formally presented its organic message set “request for development” to 

CBP in April 2018. CBP provided a cost estimate to AMS in July 2018. For the next steps,

AMS will need CBP’s support to: 

• Coordinate OMB approval for information collection through the organic message set.

• Facilitate completion of an Inter-Agency Agreement (IAA) to transfer funds from AMS 

to CBP to initiate a development task order/contract. 

• Lead development of the organic message set on behalf of AMS.

Explore “Post-Release” Process for Organic Shipments 

Early conversations with CBP suggests that the “Post-Release” adjudication process may be 

most appropriate for NOP given its authorities and resources. As such, future collaboration will 

involve articulating the Concept of Operations that would be associated with implementing this 

process. This would not be implemented until after the programming of the organic message sets 

is complete. 
Page 13 of 23 | July 2018

3.0 Fumigation Oversight: Collaboration with APHIS 

In its September 2017 Organic Trade Oversight Report, the OIG also made a number of 

recommendations to improve controls over organic products that are fumigated at U.S. ports of 

entry. Implementing changes based on these recommendations primarily requires collaboration 

with APHIS, which leads fumigation activities at the border. This section provides an overview 

of the key stakeholders involved in this work, actions taken to date, and opportunities for future 

collaboration. 

3.1. Overview of Key Stakeholders and Current Setting 

Working closely with CBP, APHIS is the lead agency for making sure that agricultural products 

crossing U.S. borders are free from regulated pests and diseases. All fumigants (e.g., methyl 

bromide, aluminum phosphide, magnesium phosphide) are prohibited substances under the 

USDA organic regulations. Therefore, products that are fumigated cannot be represented or sold 

as organic. 

The NOP does not currently have the authority to directly prohibit a fumigated product from 

entering the U.S. or the stream of commerce as non-organic, as the products do not pose a risk to 

human or plant health. As such, collaboration between NOP and APHIS is important in notifying 

both certifiers and trade when fumigation has occurred, so that businesses in the supply chain can 

take appropriate actions to avoid labeling fumigated product as organic. 

Fumigation Requirements and Process 

The U.S. requires fumigation for numerous fruits and vegetables as a “condition of entry.” In 

other words, certain products from certain countries will be fumigated prior to entering the U.S. 

100% of the time. “Condition of entry” fumigation is required for phytosanitary purposes –

specifically, to prevent harmful plant pests and diseases from entering the United States. 

Other products may be fumigated on an ad hoc basis, if a visual inspection at a port of entry 

shows the presence of an APHIS regulated pest or disease. These pests and diseases may be 

present in the product, or on packaging or transport vehicles. 

Figure 1: Summary of Fumigation Process
Page 14 of 23 | July 2018

Here is a case study with the steps involved when fumigation occurs: 

(1) Case Study: A fruit shipment arrives in Florida. APHIS may be alerted to the incoming 

shipment based on HTS codes and APHIS message sets in the CBP ACE system. 

(2) CBP conducts a risk-based inspection of the container and finds a pest that could harm 

Florida orchards.

(3) The shipment must be treated (fumigated) to enter Florida.

(4) The broker or importer identified in ACE is notified of the pest detection, through the use 

of an Emergency Action Notification (EAN) form (PPQ Form 523). APHIS has asked 

CBP to update the EAN form to state that products fumigated with prohibited substances 

no longer comply with OFPA requirements and may not be sold as organic. If this is 

completed, any broker or importer receiving the form would have received written 

notification that fumigated product is not eligible for sale as organic.

(5) Once they have received the EAN, the broker or importer has three options: (a) accept the 

fumigation and sell the fruit as non-organic; (b) re-export shipment to a place where the 

pest poses no risk; or (c) destroy the shipment.

(6) If fumigation is selected, then PPQ or CBP oversees the treatment and submits the

Fumigation Notification form (PPQ Form 429) to APHIS. This notification responds to 

and closes out the EAN. The data from any Form 429 linked to product originally 

identified as organic by APHIS is available to the NOP. 

Fumigation presents unique challenges to organic oversight, since the supply chain may include 

brokers and traders who do not physically handle organic products - and who are excluded from 

certification requirements. As such, if an uncertified broker or importer receives an EAN form or 

Fumigation Record, they are not directly accountable to organic certifiers. Moreover, uncertified 

brokers might not share Fumigation Records with certified importers. This reflects a potential 

risk in the organic oversight system. 

3.2. Summary of Actions: 2017-2018

NOP and APHIS have taken a number of collaborative steps over the past year to decrease the 

risk that fumigated products entering the U.S. are sold as organic. This section summarizes these 

activities. 

Training for Organic Certifiers: Accessing Fumigation Rules

In February 2018, APHIS staff conducted face-to-face training with more than 150 people from 

organic certifier organizations. The goal of the training was to teach certifiers how to identify 

commodities that are always fumigated as a condition of entry to the U.S. or that may be 

fumigated based on visual detections of pests. During the training, APHIS staff helped certifiers 

understand how to access fumigation rules for different commodities and countries. The NOP 

complemented APHIS’ training by providing certifiers with sample questions for inspections and 

reviews of organic importers. NOP is also reviewing its audit checklists to ensure that certifiers 

are asking for the necessary information from their certified brokers. 
Page 15 of 23 | July 2018

Training for APHIS Staff: Recognizing Organic Products 

In June 2017, NOP launched a self-guided training module for APHIS’ Plant Protection and 

Quarantine (PPQ) and CBP Agriculture Specialists. The goal of the training was to help 

Agriculture Specialists who oversee fumigation to better identify organic imports, and record 

them as organic for NOP notification purposes. The training includes a one-page reference guide 

as a job aid. The recorded training was accessed more than 200 times between June 2017 and 

May 2018. 

Fumigation Notifications 

In January 2017, AMS and APHIS executed an MOU to document collaborative efforts to 

identify imported organic shipments of agricultural products that, prior to importation into the 

United States, are treated for plant pests or are treated as a condition of entry. APHIS personnel 

now have resources available to help them identify products as organic when the label or 

document indicates such a designation. Because of this, the NOP can now run reports and query 

data directly from APHIS’ fumigation database (from the “PPQ form 429” described above) to 

identify and analyze fumigated shipments. 

NOP is now able to analyze APHIS fumigation notification data for products identified as 

organic by APHIS. For some notifications, NOP has been able to identify the certified organic 

handler and certifier associated with the transaction, and has requested targeted investigations by 

the certifier or the State Organic Program to confirm that the fumigated product was not sold as 

organic. 

For other shipments, NOP has not been able to connect the transaction to a certified organic 

operation. This is because APHIS system from which the fumigation reports are generated was 

not built or designed to capture certain organic data that NOP needs to connect the transaction to 

a certified organic operation. In addition, the few existing HTS codes for organic commodities

and a lack of access to conventional trade data limit the NOP’s ability to analyze incoming 

products. As such, it is rare that NOP can identify the consignees, company name, certifier, or 

final disposition of fumigated organic shipments. 

The lack of HTS codes for most organic commodities, as well as NOP’s current lack of access to 

conventional/non-organic HTS codes, prevents NOP from cross-referencing fumigations with 

specific entries in ACE. In a few cases, NOP has found sufficient information to initiate an 

investigation. However, in some of those cases, the investigation showed the product had been

incorrectly coded as organic and was always intended to be sold as conventional. 

To maximize its resource investment, NOP has moved to a risk-based approach to processing the 

fumigation notices. This involves identifying common and specific commodity-country

combinations that are consistently fumigated as a condition of entry (e.g., asparagus from Peru, 

blueberries from Chile). The next step, then, is to notify both certifiers and trade of these 

combinations to help focus their investigations and preventative actions.
Page 16 of 23 | July 2018

3.3. Opportunities for Future Collaboration with APHIS

There are a number of opportunities for future collaboration between AMS and APHIS to 

prevent fumigated product from being sold as organic in the U.S. This work will primarily build 

upon the ongoing analysis of APHIS data to improve training and timely notifications of 

fumigation for organic certifiers and the organic trade. 

Ongoing Training and Instruction for Certifiers 

The APHIS fumigation rules are complex. They are found in different databases and manuals,

and they vary based on commodity groups, origin country, and/or the U.S. destination port of 

entry. NOP plans to collaborate with APHIS to expand training for certifiers on how to search 

the APHIS information systematically to more effectively oversee organic products that may be 

treated before entry into the U.S. 

NOP has also published policy documents for organic certifiers and organic trade on accessing 

APHIS fumigation rules. These reaffirm that certifiers need to ensure that organic businesses 

have procedures in place to ensure that fumigated ad prohibited products are not sold as organic 

in the U.S. These policy memos, which expand on an AMS Notice to Trade from July 2016, are 

published in the NOP Handbook, and signal the importance of this topic to certifiers and the 

trade. 

Introduce Notifications to Trade 

Based on its analysis of fumigation patterns over the past several months, NOP is working 

towards completing notifications for certifiers and industry about fumigation “hot spots” on a 

regular basis when new trends are seen (e.g., regular fumigation of blueberries from Chile). NOP 

and the AMS Fair Trade Practices Program have also issued a joint letter on fumigation to 

licensees under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and to major specialty 

crop importers in the U.S. 

Enhance Fumigation Feedback Mechanisms to ACE

Once the APHIS Fumigation Notification (PPQ Form 429) is complete, there is currently no 

feedback into the ACE system. APHIS has reported that the EAN form (PPQ Form 523) may 

capture bill of lading, entry numbers and other means of identification for APHIS and CBP 

regulatory and business purposes. Unfortunately, they often cannot be cross-referenced against 

CBP Entry Numbers. As a first step, Entry and Line Numbers (by HTS Code and possibly 

message set number) from ACE are needed in this section of the EAN.

Once organic message sets are programmed into ACE, it will be important for any fumigation 

notification information to be fed back into ACE by CBP and/or APHIS, so that NOP and 

importers are aware of the product’s change in organic status. This collaboration would require 

changes by both CBP and APHIS. CBP would need to adopt changes already made by APHIS to 

their EAN, which now includes a statement about the impact of fumigation on organic labeling, 

and APHIS would need to include information on the EAN form that maps back to the ACE 

system as described above.
Page 17 of 23 | July 2018

Figure 2: Information and Document Flow for 

Organic Fumigation Feedback Mechanisms into ACE

4.0 International Systems Needs Assessment 

The OIG’s September 2017 report on the oversight of organic imports recommended that AMS 

engage in further systems modernization work to address international trade tracking and 

enforcement. This additional modernization is needed to address emerging and evolving 

challenges created by the rapidly expanding international market for organic goods, and the 

growing need to monitor and enforce supply chain integrity. This section presents a high-level 

Needs Assessment for this work. 
Page 18 of 23 | July 2018

4.1. “As-Is” Description: Existing Technology Investments and Resources 

AMS has already invested significant effort and resources into technology resources to facilitate 

organic oversight. This section outlines the existing technology landscape that additional systems 

development work would extend. 

Organic Integrity Database 

In September 2017, the NOP successfully completed its development of the Organic Integrity 

Database. The Organic Integrity Database is a modernized database of certified operations, 

which can be updated at any time by organic certifiers. The public can search the database using 

a variety of search terms to identify the certification status of any organic operations, and to 

identify possible supply chain connections based on location and products. Publically-available 

Application Programming Interfaces (API) are available for those wishing to consume data from 

Integrity on a regular basis. 

Two key features of Integrity have been shown to be particularly useful when interfacing with 

other systems: 

• USDA uses a common security module called “eAuthentication,” which provides user 

credentials for system use. Any component of a future system that uses USDA resources 

should allow certifiers and trade to use the same authentication account across USDA 

systems. 

• The Organic Integrity Database includes a unique ten-digit identifier for each individual 

certified organic operation. The first three digits of the identifier designate the certifier 

with oversight over the operation. This standardized identification approach facilitates 

data transfer and certifier identification across systems, so that data can be pulled from 

Integrity as long as the ten-digit code is known. 

U.S. Export Management and Reporting 

AMS has also already invested in other trade management systems. The first is the AMS 

Electronic Trade Document Exchange (eTDE) system for export certificate management. NOP 

has programmed a number of existing export certificates into the eTDE system as an option for 

organic traders in the U.S. wanting to market their products to other countries. The NOP modules 

in eTDE accept data from the Organic Integrity Database, and the user registration and 

authentication process mirrors that of the Organic Integrity Database. 

The second AMS trade-related system is the Compliance Enforcement Management System 

(CEMS) which exchanges information with ACE about the status of imports under the AMS 

Marketing Orders agreements. 

Either of these tools, eTDE and/or CEMS, could become government-side modules in a global 

traceability system for organic oversight. 
Page 19 of 23 | July 2018

Figure 3: Information and Document Flow for 

Electronic Export Certificates in eTDE

APHIS ePhyto Hub

AMS has also met with the APHIS PPQ team responsible for the international “ePhyto Hub,” a 

paperless, global, digital exchange for electronic phytosanitary certificates. The PPQ ePhyto 

group is working with the ePhyto Steering Group of the International Plant Protection 

Convention (IPPC). The IPPC is an international plant health agreement with 183 participating 

countries, including the United States.

The ePhyto Hub allows countries to exchange certificates between computerized trade systems in 

individual countries. Participating countries share a common technical vocabulary and a set of 

established trade rules. This allows them to interconnect through the global ePhyto Hub, where 

they can exchange electronic phytosanitary certificates with many other countries quickly, 

accurately, and at very low cost. In addition to the global ePhyto Hub, the ePhyto project 

includes a generic national ePhyto system that can be deployed by developing and low trade 

volume countries. This ensures access into the global network for certificate exchange. 

The ePhyto project is of interest to NOP not only because of its technology infrastructure, but 

also because of its governance model. The U.S. participates as a member of a global Steering 

Committee that governs activities across countries. The ePhyto Hub data is housed on United 
Page 20 of 23 | July 2018

Nations cloud infrastructure, making it truly an internationally-governed system. This provides 

an interesting benchmark for NOP, given the international nature of the organic control system. 

4.2. Goals and Success Factors for an International System

USDA is currently considering foundational needs and requirements that would drive the 

development and implementation of an industry-administered supply chain traceability and 

import oversight system. 

Goals for such as system are as follows: 

• Facilitate full organic supply chain traceability from farm to market and back, across 

multiple handlers and across multiple organic certifiers. 

• Allow governing entities, such as organic certifiers and the USDA, to quickly access and 

both approve and verify (check) that organic certificates and transactions are valid. 

• Implement organic oversight control systems that are electronically-based and secure, 

with verified trusted users and secure authenticated data and records exchange. 

Criteria for a successful system development effort are as follows: 

• Use existing Federal trade systems as modules for transactions governed at the border 

(e.g., import and export certificates). 

• Build on technology and data investments provided by the Organic Integrity Database. 

• Emphasize distributed industry use and oversight, consistent with the public-private 

model of organic certification, while also allowing Federal and certifier appropriate 

levels of access for approval and verification activities. 

• Maximize adoption by providing mechanisms that allow for multiple tiers of information 

for different users/purposes, and the ability to interface and feed data to/from Federal 

trade systems and corporate supply chain management systems. 

The ultimate goal is to develop technologies that would allow, and even require, certifiers to 

approve transactions along an organic supply chain in real-time, enabling them to detect 

falsification of documentation and inventory counts across that supply chain. A comprehensive 

system would allow the NOP to audit across the supply chain, fulfilling the goal of tracing 

product from farm to market and back. 

4.3. Towards an International Organic Traceability and Oversight System 

There has been significant discussion about the need for an international system to improve the 

traceability and oversight of organic supply chains. The governance, architecture, and business 

requirements for such a system have not yet been defined. A high-level summary of needs is 

described here to facilitate an evaluation of alternative approaches and technologies. The NOP 

welcomes input and feedback from the organic trade and from system developers to further 

advance this project. 
Page 21 of 23 | July 2018

Defining System Needs: Refining Scope 

Often, identifying what a new system will NOT do helps in establishing the project’s charter and 

scope. The following bullets summarize core functions that are NOT expected to be part of this 

system. 

• The system may feed data into government import systems, but will NOT become an 

import system of record. The CBP ACE system is envisioned as the system of record for 

organic imports data, as it is already used for import tracking. NOPs first priority is 

investing in organic message sets in the ACE system that will facilitate the identification 

of imports as organic. Any international system for tracking and overseeing organic 

supply chains would likely interface with ACE, but will not replace it. 

• NOP does not envision developing or deploying a system to replace existing supply 

chain management systems. Data may be exchanged between the system and existing 

corporate supply chain systems, but will not replace full supply chain management 

software. 

• The NOP does not currently advocate developing an organic tracking system for U.S. 

domestic organic transactions. The focus of this system would be on tracking imports on 

their way to the U.S. Once the product is in the U.S., the domestic organic control 

system would provide sufficient traceability and oversight. 

• Based on legal, technical, and administrative constraints, the NOP does not believe that a 

centralized federated system to store organic transaction data is an appropriate solution. 

The NOP could act as a neutral stakeholder to guide and facilitate a governance model 

and technical architecture for a trade-run system. NOP could also envision operating an 

oversight node or module within a system, or having access to a cloud-based system 

administered by the trade itself. However, a master organic data warehouse on federal 

servers is likely not a viable alternative. 

Conceptual Model: A Network of Organic Stakeholders 

It has been suggested that creating a full electronic record of transactions from the point of U.S. 

import back to the place of production would be a good application of distributed ledger system 

technologies, such as a Blockchain. The NOP is open to this option, and is interested in viable 

strategies that address both the governance (participants, rules, workflows) and technology 

associated with such a system. 

Informed by the goals, success factors, and constraints above, Figure 1 shows a conceptual 

model for an international organic traceability and oversight system. 
Page 22 of 23 | July 2018

Figure 4: Conceptual Model for an International

Organic Supply Chain Traceability and Oversight System

In this model, data about organic product would enter the system (or network or Blockchain) 

either at the farm or at the initial consolidation point if organic products are coming from 

multiple small farms to an initial collection point. Ensuring the integrity of the organic at this 

entry point would be critical: Is the farm certified organic and in good standing with its certifier? 

Can its acreage support the yield being delivered or reported based on previous activities? 

Certifier reviews at this stage of the process would be one of the most important steps in the 

process. 

The data entered into the system (or network or chain) would then move across different nodes 

as product is transferred and transformed between handlers and brokers. Organic certifiers would 

act as approval authorities at each stage, verifying the authenticity of the product and the organic 

certification status of transactions. USDA would have visibility into the entire network to 

reaffirm certifier oversight activities, and to conduct investigations as needed. As with any 

system, effectively designing workflows, user roles and rights, and the data element 

requirements would be critical steps in system design. 

Ultimately, we anticipate that critical data to populate a U.S import certificate would flow from 

the system into the ACE import system of record. Once the product enters the U.S., it would be 

overseen by the existing domestic organic control system. 

4.4. Next Steps 

NOP is eager for feedback about possible approaches for developing an international organic 

verification and traceability system. Next steps are as follows: 

• Continue to work to advance the “organic message set” project with CBP 
Page 23 of 23 | July 2018

• Launch the organic export certificate functionality in eTDE

• Invite feedback from the organic trade and systems development teams to further refine 

the concepts introduced in this Needs Assessment; engage in the next step of developing 

a System Vision document to further articulate system options. 

5.0 Closing 

Rapid organic growth has increased the complexity of organic supply chains, and has created 

new challenges for organic oversight. This report has focused on current activities and future 

opportunities to enhance the oversight of organic imports. Protecting the integrity of imports is a 

shared responsibility across all participants in the organic market: producers, buyers, brokers, 

organic certifiers, and the USDA. AMS will continue to work closely with our Federal partners

and participants across the organic public-private partnership to transform opportunities into the 

actions needed to realize our shared vision of organic integrity from farm to table. 

6.0 Acronyms

ACE - Automated Commercial Environment

AMS - Agricultural Marketing Service 

APHIS – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

API - Application Programming Interfaces 

BIEC - Border Interagency Executive Council 

CEMS - Compliance Enforcement Management System 

CBP – Customs and Border Protection 

EAN - Emergency Action Notification 

eTDE - Electronic Trade Document Exchange 

HTS - Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

IAA - Inter-Agency Agreement

ITS – Information Technology Services

MOAD – Marketing Orders Agreement Division (AMS Program) 

NOP – National Organic Program 

OFPA - Organic Foods Production Act 

OMB - Office of Management and Budget

PPQ - Plant Protection and Quarantine (APHIS Program)

USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture