National Organic Standards Board | October 2017| Proposals & Discussion Documents

TOC 1

National Organic Standards Board Meeting

Omni Jacksonville Hotel, Jacksonville, FL

October 31 - November 2, 2017

Title Page

Compliance, Accreditation, & Certification Subcommittee (CACS) | Scott Rice, Chairperson 

Proposal: Eliminating the incentive to convert native ecosystems to 

organic production

1

Proposal: Excluded operations in the supply chain (uncertified handlers) 7

Crops Subcommittee (CS) | Francis Thicke, Chairperson 

2019 Sunset Reviews: Chlorine Materials (Calcium hypochlorite, Chlorine 

dioxide, Sodium hypochlorite), Herbicides, soap-based, Biodegradable 

biobased mulch film, Boric acid, Sticky traps/barriers, Copper sulfate, 

Coppers, fixed, Humic acids, Micronutrients (Soluble boron products), 

Micronutrients (Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, 

iron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt), Vitamin B1, 

Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Lead salts, Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

17

Proposal: Fatty Alcohols (octanol/decanol mix) - petitioned 39

Proposal: Anaerobic Digestate - petitioned 43

Proposal: Strengthening the organic seed guidance (NOP 5029) 51

Proposal: Aeroponics/Hydroponics/Aquaponics/Container growing 63

Discussion document: Container and greenhouse production 93

Verbal update: Newspaper annotation change No 

document

Livestock Subcommittee (LS) | Ashley Swaffar, Chairperson 

2019 Sunset Reviews: Chlorhexidine, Chlorine Materials (Calcium 

hypochlorite, Chlorine dioxide, Sodium hypochlorite), Glucose, Oxytocin, 

Tolazoline, Copper sulfate, Lidocaine, Procaine

99

Proposal: Sulfur - petitioned 111

Proposal: Hypochlorous Acid - petitioned 119

Proposal: Clarifying “emergency” for use of synthetic parasiticides in 

organic livestock production

123
TOC 2

Handling Subcommittee (HS) | Lisa de Lima, Chairperson

2019 Sunset Reviews: Attapulgite, Bentonite, Diatomaceous earth, 

Nitrogen, Sodium carbonate, Acidified sodium chlorite, Chlorine 

Materials (Calcium hypochlorite, Chlorine dioxide, Sodium hypochlorite), 

Carbon dioxide, Magnesium chloride, Potassium acid tartrate, Sodium 

phosphates, Casings, Konjac flour, Pectin (non-amidated forms only)

131

Proposal: Potassium acid tartrate reclassification 155

Discussion document: Marine materials 157

Verbal update: Tocopherols - Annotation change at §205.605(b) of the 

National List

No 

document

Verbal update: Tocopherols - Additional listing at §205.605(a) of the 

National List

No 

document

Verbal update: Ancillary substances used in cellulose No 

document

Materials Subcommittee (MS) | Harriet Behar, Chairperson

Proposal: 2017 Research Priorities 159

Proposal: Excluded Methods Terminology 169

Discussion document: Non-GMO organic seed integrity 175

PLEASE NOTE: 

Discussion documents, proposals, reports and/or other documents prepared by the National Organic 

Standards Board, including its subcommittees and task forces, represent the views of the National Organic 

Standards Board and do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Department of Agriculture.

Please see the NOP website for official NOP policy, regulations, guidance and instructions. 
National Organic Standards Board

Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Subcommittee Proposal 

Eliminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Production

August 29, 2017

I INTRODUCTION

The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 (as amended) and Regulations promulgated by the 

NOP to implement the Statute, NOP Policy documents, and NOSB Recommendations and Principles 

include a clear bias towards protection of the natural resources present on an organic operation, 

including the physical, hydrological, and biological features of the farm. The soil, water, wetlands, 

woodlands, and wildlife must be maintained or improved by the organic operator through production 

practices implemented in accordance with the Act and Regulations. Organic agricultural systems rely 

upon the soil health, biodiversity, and conservation of ecosystem-based benefits such as pollinator 

habitat, for crop health, vigor, protection from pests, and more. Materials approved for use in organic 

agriculture are strictly reviewed before approval to determine their effects on the environment during 

manufacture, use, and disposal to represent the least toxic choice. This bias towards ecosystem 

preservation is also found within the organic marketplace with consumer expectations that organic 

farms and ranches will be examples of excellent land stewardship. 

Along with this strong environmental protection within the regulatory framework that oversees organic 

production, is the requirement that land cannot produce organic crops or livestock until 36 months have 

passed between the application of a prohibited substance and the harvest of an organic crop. This threeyear transition can be a challenge for farm operators who must follow organic regulations but cannot 

enter the organic marketplace with their production. Using land that has not had any prohibited 

substances applied to it provides an immediate entry into the organic marketplace for crops or livestock, 

without the three year wait. Fallow land that had previously been cropped can meet this requirement, 

as well as land that has never been cropped. There is a risk that native ecosystems, many of which 

provide habitat for endangered, threatened, and at-risk species of all types, could be destroyed if they 

are converted to organic agricultural crop or livestock production. The lack of the three-year transition 

timeframe is an incentive to convert these native ecosystems to immediate agricultural production.

Over the last two and a half years, the NOSB has received public comment describing loss of High Value 

Conservation and fragile ecosystem acreage when farmers transition to organic production. The NOSB 

has been asked to review this issue and propose incentives and disincentives to reduce conversion of 

native ecosystems.

The NOSB discussion document from January 10, 2016, provided background and encouraged public 

comment from a wide cross-section of stakeholders to determine if the NOSB should recommend to the 

NOP a Rule change, Guidance, or other mechanisms to address this issue.

II BACKGROUND

The NOP provided Guidance on Biodiversity in 2016 (NOP 5020) encouraging the protection and 

maintenance of a high level of biodiversity on farms because it brings benefits not only to the entire 

ecosystem in that geographic area, but also to the farmer. Advantages to certified organic operations 

that implement these types of production practices include: 1) decreased dependence on outside 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 1/175
fertility inputs; 2) reduced pest management applications and costs; 3) more reliable sources of clean 

water; and 4) better pollination (NOP 5020). 

III RELEVANT AREAS OF THE STATUTE, RULE and RELATED DOCUMENTS

The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, as amended, 7 U.S.C., Chapter 94:

7 U.S.C. 6504 (2) ...not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic 

chemicals have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural 

products;

7 U.S.C. 6513(f) Management of wild crops; (2) include a 3 year history of the management of the area 

showing that no prohibited substances have been applied; (3) include a plan for the harvesting and 

gathering of wild crops assuring that such harvesting or gathering will not be destructive to the 

environment and will sustain the growth and production of the wild crop;

7 U.S.C. 6518 National Organic Standards Board,

6518 (b) Board composition, (4) three shall be individuals with expertise in areas of environmental

protection and resource conservation; (6) one shall be an individual with expertise in the fields of 

toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry;

The OFPA Preamble to the Final Rule establishing the NOP states: “[t]he use of ‘conserve’ [in the 

definition of organic production] establishes that the producer must initiate practices to support 

biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it. Compliance with 

the requirement to conserve biodiversity requires that a producer incorporate practices in his or her 

organic system plan that are beneficial to biodiversity on his or her operation.” (65 FR 80547, December 

20, 2001) 

7 CFR 205.2 Definitions: 

Natural Resources of the operation: Physical, hydrological and biological features of a production 

operation, including soil, water, wetlands woodlands and wildlife.

Organic production: production system that is managed to respond to site-specific conditions by 

integrating cultural, biological and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote 

ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

7 CFR 205.200 Producer ...must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including 

soil and water quality.

7 CFR 205.202 Land requirements.

Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as 

“organic” must:

(b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years 

immediately preceding harvest of the crop;

NOP 5020, effective 1/15/16, Guidance, Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation.

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq, Endangered Species Act.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 2/175
NOSB Recommendation May, 2009, Implementation of Biodiversity Conservation in Organic Agriculture 

Systems. - “Conversion of native habitat to crop production has consequences to biodiversity that must 

be considered and the producer should discuss such planned conversion with his or her Certifier before 

action is taken.”

NOSB Policy and Procedures Manual, Principles of Organic Agriculture Organic agriculture, adopted 

2001, 1.1, Organic agriculture...is an ecological production management system that promotes and 

enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.

While there is no specific reference to the protection of native ecosystems in the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. 6506 General Requirements (11) states the program established under 

this title can “require such other terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary to be 

necessary and consistent with this title”.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), in Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) can “advise the Secretary 

on any other aspects of implementation of this title”. 

The proposal below is an NOSB recommendation to the Secretary, advising him of a need to address this 

important issue. The discussion document provided numerous instances of unaltered native ecosystems 

that are either at risk or have been destroyed for agricultural production, illustrating this issue is real 

and should be addressed. Numerous examples were provided that this destruction is occurring on land 

that subsequently is used for organic production. 

There are other regulations within the U.S. law that seek to protect specific areas, such as the 

“sodsaver” provision1

, which specifically addresses the protection of prairie potholes in the United 

States.

IV DISCUSSION and PUBLIC COMMENT

The discussion document preceding this proposal listed organic standards from other countries and 

organic control bodies that protect native ecosystems including Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, IFOAM, 

(International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements) and New Zealand. The NOP has 

Memoranda of Agreement and Equivalencies with several of the above listed countries. In addition, 

there are other ecolabels around the world providing consumers the assurance that high conservation 

value ecosystems were not destroyed in the production of their food or fiber.

The control bodies listed above can verify their standards using a variety of methods, including satellite 

images, Google Earth, and old photographs of ecosystems. Aerial images help to show intact forests and 

grasslands versus row crops. Ground-truthing is required, and some accept affidavits from disinterested 

parties that have been submitted by the producer. USDA Farm Service Agency records and NRCS records 

can be used as documentation in the United States. 

This issue of conversion of native ecosystems to agricultural production has been discussed through 

public comment and on the Board for two years. The discussion document received only positive 

comments supporting the need to address this issue in a timely manner. Consumers, retailers, scientists, 

 

1 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/pothole/, 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44876/7105_err120_reportsummary.pdf?v=41056

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 3/175
environmentalists, organic producers, and certifiers all agreed that the time has come to address this 

issue. 

The NOSB puts forward the proposal below to provide protections for these ecosystems through 

removal of the incentive to immediately gain access to the organic market after the destruction of these 

native ecosystems. It is understood that the operator requesting organic certification may not be the 

entity that destroyed the ecosystem. Organic production is more environmentally beneficial in many 

cases than nonorganic production practices. Taking these situations into account, the NOSB does not 

wish to ban the use of this land forever from organic agricultural production. However, the NOSB does 

want to provide a strong disincentive for both the production of annual and perennial crops on land 

where this loss of biodiversity and species has occurred. A 10-year “wait period” provides a strong 

disincentive for perennial crops such as tree fruits, nuts, and others, which can need five to ten years in 

order to produce a crop. Any shorter timeframe would not provide a sufficient disincentive to these 

perennial crop operators to destroy native ecosystems since they would be waiting for their crops to 

mature to productive levels during that shorter time period anyway. The proposal below does not 

prevent operators from wild harvest of crops from these native ecosystems, such as collection of prairie 

seed, as long as they meet the wild harvest requirements of 7 CFR 205.207. In addition, this wait period 

would not affect lands that have been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, since these lands 

have all been previously cropped.

The NOSB, along with the NOP, will continue working on this issue with the goal of providing future NOP 

guidance and further information on how to identify native ecosystems and their conversion date to 

agricultural production. 

V QUESTION

The NOSB would like to receive feedback from certifiers on possible economic impact this rulemaking 

may have on their certified operations:

How many operations, crops, and acreage would have been impacted if this rule had been in place in 

2016?

VI PROPOSAL

Add the following in italics to the organic regulation.

Subpart C- Organic Production and Handling Requirements

205.200 General

The producer or handler of a production or handling operation intending to sell, label, or represent 

agricultural production as “100 percent organic”, “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients 

or food groups (s)” must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart. Production practices 

implemented in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural resources of the 

operation, including soil and water quality.

(a) A native ecosystem site that has not been previously grazed or cultivated cannot be certified 

as organic as provided for under this regulation for a period of 10 years from the date of 

conversion to crop or livestock production. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 4/175
Motion to approve the proposal on eliminating the incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic 

production” for rulemaking. 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Tom Chapman

Yes: 4 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Scott Rice, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 5/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 6/175
National Organic Standards Board

Compliance, Accreditation and Certification Subcommittee

Excluded Operations in the Supply Chain Proposal

August 29, 2017

I. INTRODUCTION

Since the passage of the Organic Foods Protection Act into law in 1990, organic trade has grown to a 

nearly $50 billion market. Integral to past and future growth is consumer confidence in the integrity of 

the USDA organic label as the gold standard. Just as integral is trust in the certification services of USDAaccredited certifiers, a third-party system that evaluates the production and flow of products from farm 

to market. 

Under USDA certification, most operations in the organic market are subject to certification. Operations

that produce, process, or further handle organic product fall under the scrutiny of certification. Within 

the system of certification, integrity of the product relies on a strong record trail to transparently verify 

an organic product has remained intact and been handled in accordance with the regulations. However, 

certain operations are presently excluded under the current USDA organic regulations (7 CFR 

205.101(b)): 

• A handling operation that handles products that are packaged or otherwise enclosed in a 

container prior to being received or acquired by the operation and remain in the same package 

or container and are not otherwise processed while in the control of the handling operation.

• A handling operation that is a retail food establishment or portion of a retail food establishment 

that processes, on the premises of the retail food establishment, raw and ready-to-eat food 

from agricultural products that were previously labeled as organic. 

The second example above is of less concern as the organic product has essentially reached its end user. 

However, when a product passes through an excluded handling operation, such as a broker or 

distributor, a complete and transparent audit trail can become challenging to follow. The regulations 

require a certified operation to verify organic status by tracing back to the last organic certificate holder. 

Excluded operations may present gaps in this trail as they fall outside of the scrutiny of certification.

This discussion document seeks to explore a means to strengthen these audit trails by further clarifying

what operations are excluded from certification. It also seeks to clarify the requirements of labeling bulk 

packages and containers, as well as what constitutes an enclosed package or container.

II. BACKGROUND

With consumer demand and the premium organic receives, market growth has created opportunity for 

U.S. farmers and businesses. This opportunity continues as U.S. demand now outstrips supply in certain 

commodity crops such as corn, wheat, and soybeans. With increased demand comes the increase of 

imported grain and other products.

Much of the imported product passes through at least one—and sometimes many more—handlers, 

brokers, and distributors excluded from certification. Additionally, fresh produce from both domestic 

and imported sources often passes through similar entities not subject to certification. Operating 

outside of certification, these operations may be in compliance but present a gap in maintaining strong 

audit trails and transparent recordkeeping.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 7/175
At the Fall 2010 NOSB meeting, the NOSB passed a recommendation entitled Clarifying the Limitations 

of 205.101(b). This recommendation asked the National Organic Program to articulate their 

interpretation of existing regulations with respect to specifying those handling activities that are inside 

and outside the scope of §205.101(b), thereby implicating handling operations undertaking those 

activities and their eligibility or ineligibility, respectively, for exclusion from mandatory organic 

certification. Specifically, the NOSB recommended the following:

This notice is provided to inform the general public and interested parties that the National 

Organic Program (NOP) staff has determined that the limitations to the applicability of 

§205.101(b) have not been adequately observed and that a number of uncertified handlers have 

been operating in a manner inconsistent with 7 CFR Part 205 and the National Organic Program.

Handling operations selling or otherwise representing (organic) commodities such as grains, 

soybeans, hay, or cattle and commonly referred to as brokers, traders, or distributors of those

commodities, are not excluded from the requirements of 7 CFR Part 205, including but not

limited to organic certification, unless such an operation only sells organic agricultural products

labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or

food group(s))” that:

(i) Are packaged or otherwise enclosed in a container prior to being received or acquired 

by the operation; and

(ii) Remain in the same package or container and are not otherwise processed while in

the control of the handling operation.

Hay is typically sold or transported in bales of various sizes and configurations on trailers

without packaging; cattle are sold on the hoof in trailers. These activities are inconsistent with

§205.101(b)(1)(i). Brokers, traders or distributors of such organic goods are therefore required

to be certified organic operators, maintaining product segregation and records sufficient to

verify compliance with OFPA 1990 and 7 CFR part 205, the National Organic Program. 

Commodities such as grains and soybeans are typically not packaged and are received from one 

container or vessel and transported in another container or vessel; this is inconsistent with

§205.101(b)(1)(ii). Brokers, traders or distributors of such organic commodities are therefore

required to be certified organic operations, maintaining product segregation and records

sufficient to verify compliance with OFPA 1990 and 7 CFR part 205, the National Organic

Program.

Handlers currently engaged in brokering, trading or distribution activities in a manner

inconsistent with §205.101(b) are not in compliance and may be subject to penalties and fines

as per §205.100(c)(1). 

In February 2012 and July 2013, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted audits of the NOP. The 

OIG audits stated that the NOP needs to ensure that organic milk is not coming into contact with 

prohibited substances while being transported. In OIG's recommendations, it stated that the NOP 

should ensure that transporters are either certified or included in the responsible parties' Organic 

System Plan (OSP). 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 8/175
In response to this finding and the NOSB recommendation, the NOP, in January 2014, finalized guidance 

entitled Certification Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic Products as NOP 5031, which is a 

part of the Program Handbook. This document provided guidance to clarify the following:

In regards to 205.101(b)(1),] An operation is excluded from certification if:

• It only handles organic products that are enclosed in a package or container;

• The products remain in the same package or container for the entire period handled; 

and

• It does not process organic products.

In other words, the excluded operation must receive certified organic products in wholesale or 

retail containers and distribute them in the same wholesale or retail containers without 

opening, reconstituting, altering, repackaging, processing, or relabeling the products.

The guidance goes on to describe several types of operations that don’t require certification, operations 

that are excluded (don’t need to be certified), and operations that are not excluded (need to be 

certified): 

Examples of operations that are not required to be certified:

• Transportation companies that move certified organic hay or straw (wrapped or 

unwrapped) or milk from a certified organic farm to a certified organic buyer or processing 

facility;

• Transportation companies that transport certified organic grain from certified operations to 

a certified handling facility; and

• Transportation companies that move certified organic livestock from a certified organic farm 

to a certified organic slaughter facility.

And:

Excluded examples (those that do not need to be certified):

• Wholesale distributors, brokers, and traders that sell boxed or otherwise sealed containers 

of certified organic products (e.g., sealed tote bags, 55 gallon juice drums, boxed cereal, milk 

in cartons); 

• Trucking or other transportation companies that transport boxed or otherwise sealed 

containers of certified organic products; and 

• Produce handlers who do not open, repack, trim, or re-label certified organic products (e.g., 

bagged salad greens, boxed produce). 

As well as examples of non-excluded operations (those that must be certified):

• Operations that handle certified organic hay or straw (wrapped or unwrapped) by 

combining or splitting loads or lots; 

• Operations that handle unpackaged grain (including combining or splitting loads or lots), 

package, or otherwise handle the product other than for transport; and

• Fruit and vegetable wholesalers that package or label containers of certified organic 

produce for sale as organic. 

The program also published NOP 5031-1 Response to Comments Certification Requirements for Handling 

Unpackaged Organic Products. In this document, there is a discussion of changes requested but not 

made to Guidance NOP 5031. Some of these changes requested but not made are as follows:

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 9/175
1) Define “enclosed in a container” to mean impermeable with a tamper proof seal. A number 

of certifying agents requested that we clarify that the exclusion from certification described at 

section 205.101(b) applies only to products that are enclosed in tamperproof, impermeable 

containers. While we recognize that these types of containers and sealing systems are an 

important tool for prevention of contamination and loss of integrity for some distribution 

systems (e.g. rail cars hauling grain and milk tankers), we have not further defined “enclosed in a 

container” or “packaged”. For example, produce brokers who do not open boxes, repack, trim, 

re-label or otherwise handle the product are excluded from certification because they handle 

“packaged” products. Such products do not necessarily use impermeable boxes or seals, but 

these products are still considered “packaged”. Any change to specify that produce boxes are 

not considered “packaged” or “enclosed in a container” would require review of the impacts on 

the produce industry.

2) Handlers who take ownership should be certified. A number of commenters, including

processors, a trade organization, and certifying agents stressed that brokers, traders,

distributors or other handlers that take ownership or are directly paid for unpackaged (i.e.,

unsealed) organic product should be certified. The comments stated that without such a

requirement, there is a gap in the audit trail and the integrity of the product becomes difficult to 

verify. In the final guidance, we have not specified that ownership determines whether a 

handler (e.g., broker, trader, distributor) should be certified. The exclusion from certification 

provided for at section 205.101(b) of the regulations is not dependent on ownership, but is 

based on whether the product remains enclosed in a container and is not further processed. 

Therefore, the final guidance specifies that if you handle (i.e., sell, package, or process) 

unpackaged organic product, and you are not exempt or excluded (per section 205.101), then 

you must be certified. We have clarified that producers and owners of certified organic products 

must be able to provide adequate records and audit trail for products shipped via non-certified 

transporters.

3) Include a reference to section 205.307 of the USDA organic regulations. A commenter

suggested providing a reference to section 205.307: “Labeling of nonretail containers used for 

only shipping or storage of raw or processed agricultural products labeled as “100 percent 

organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food groups).” While this is 

a related topic, and applies to labeling of all non-retail packaging, it is beyond the scope of this 

guidance. This guidance focuses on the requirements for certification of packaged and 

unpackaged products, and does not address labeling.

Recent press revealed conventional product fraudulently sold as organic. Investigations conducted by 

the NOP have since shown at least one instance of fraudulent trade took place within the scope of 

certification. This news has made national headlines and has been raised in Senate Agricultural 

Committee hearings. It is important that consumers are confident in the integrity of the NOP control 

system, and it is prudent to re-review rules and guidance about excluded operations. Clarification of 

what operations are truly exempt from certification, the requirements of labeling bulk packages and 

containers, and what constitutes an enclosed package or container can aid in overall integrity and 

greater transparency in the supply chain. 

III. RELEVANT AREAS OF THE RULE

§205.2 Terms defined.

Bulk. The presentation to consumers at retail sale of an agricultural product in unpackaged, loose form, 

enabling the consumer to determine the individual pieces, amount, or volume of the product purchased.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 10/175
Handle. To sell, process, or package agricultural products, except such term shall not include the sale, 

transportation, or delivery of crops or livestock by the producer thereof to a handler.

Handler. Any person engaged in the business of handling agricultural products, including producers who 

handle crops or livestock of their own production, except such term shall not include final retailers of 

agricultural products that do not process agricultural products.

Handling operation. Any operation or portion of an operation (except final retailers of agricultural 

products that do not process agricultural products) that receives or otherwise acquires agricultural 

products and processes, packages, or stores such products.

Label. A display of written, printed, or graphic material on the immediate container of an agricultural 

product or any such material affixed to any agricultural product or affixed to a bulk container containing 

an agricultural product, except for package liners or a display of written, printed, or graphic material 

which contains only information about the weight of the product.

Nonretail container. Any container used for shipping or storage of an agricultural product that is not 

used in the retail display or sale of the product.

§205.101 Exemptions and exclusions from certification.

(b) Exclusions. (1) A handling operation or portion of a handling operation is excluded from the 

requirements of this part, except for the requirements for the prevention of commingling and contact 

with prohibited substances as set forth in §205.272 with respect to any organically produced products, if 

such operation or portion of the operation only sells organic agricultural products labeled as “100 

percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” that:

(i) Are packaged or otherwise enclosed in a container prior to being received or acquired by the 

operation; and

(ii) Remain in the same package or container and are not otherwise processed while in the control of the 

handling operation.

(2) A handling operation that is a retail food establishment or portion of a retail food establishment that

processes, on the premises of the retail food establishment, raw and ready-to-eat food from agricultural 

products that were previously labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s))” is excluded from the requirements in this part, except:

(i) The requirements for the prevention of contact with prohibited substances as set forth in §205.272; 

and

(ii) The labeling provisions of §205.310.

§205.272 Commingling and contact with prohibited substance prevention practice standard.

(a) The handler of an organic handling operation must implement measures necessary to prevent the 

commingling of organic and nonorganic products and protect organic products from contact with 

prohibited substances.

§205.201 Organic production and handling system plan.

(a)(6) Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the 

regulations.

§205.303 Packaged products labeled “100 percent organic” or “organic.”

(b) Agricultural products in packages described in §205.301(a) and (b) must:

(1) For products labeled “organic,” identify each organic ingredient in the ingredient statement with the 

word, “organic,” or with an asterisk or other reference mark which is defined below the ingredient 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 11/175
statement to indicate the ingredient is organically produced. Water or salt included as ingredients 

cannot be identified as organic.

(2) On the information panel, below the information identifying the handler or distributor of the product 

and preceded by the statement, “Certified organic by * * *,” or similar phrase, identify the name of the 

certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product and may display the business address, 

Internet address, or telephone number of the certifying agent in such label.

§205.306 Labeling of livestock feed.

(b) Livestock feed products described in §205.301(e)(1) and (e)(2) must: 

(1) On the information panel, below the information identifying the handler or distributor of the product 

and preceded by the statement, “Certified organic by * * *,” or similar phrase, display the name of the 

certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product. The business address, Internet 

address, or telephone number of the certifying agent may be included in such label.

§205.401 Application for certification.

A person seeking certification of a production or handling operation under this subpart must submit an 

application for certification to a certifying agent. The application must include the following information: 

(d) Other information necessary to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part

§205.406 Continuation of certification.

(a) To continue certification, a certified operation must annually pay the certification fees and submit 

the following information, as applicable, to the certifying agent:

(4) Other information as deemed necessary by the certifying agent to determine compliance with the 

Act and the regulations in this part.

NOP Guidance 5031 Certification Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic Products

NOP 5031-1 Response to Comments Certification Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic 

Products.

IV. DISCUSSION

This discussion will seek to build upon the scope and applicability of NOP 5031. Readers should refer to 

this document to understand why transport operations that do not sell, label, or repack organic product 

do not require certification. Additionally, if not specifically clarified in this proposal, current guidance in 

NOP 5031 should remain. For example, NOP 5031 makes clear that operations involved in the sale of 

unenclosed product need to be certified. We agree with this interpretation, and such guidance should 

remain in place. 

Upon further review of standards and guidance, the NOSB suggests the following clarifications to NOP 

Guidance 5031 to further strengthen organic integrity in the supply chain. 

An operation is excluded from certification if:

• It only handles organic products that are enclosed in a package or container; 

• The products remain in the same package or container for the entire period handled; and 

• The package or container is labeled as “organic”. When labeled as “organic”, products must also 

contain the “certified organic by” certifier statement and name the handler and ingredient list (if 

applicable). 

• It does not process organic products

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 12/175
The NOSB finds these additional recommendations are compliant with the standards as currently 

written and help to maintain organic integrity by limiting loopholes in supply chain documentation and 

labeling. This would clarify the following:

To be exempt, product must not only be enclosed in a package or container, but that package, 

container, or product must be labeled as “organic” and include the “certified organic by” certifier 

statement next to the name of the handler, as well as an organic ingredient list (as applicable). We find 

the labeling of product or containers to be required based on the text of §205.101 (b)(1). This section 

states the exemption only applies to operations or the portion of the operation that sells “organic 

agricultural products labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s))” ...” The requirement that products be labeled makes fraud, commingling, 

and contamination more difficult given the clear statement to all who come into contact with the 

product. Furthermore, §205.303 Packaged products labeled “100 percent organic” or “organic”, requires 

that packaged production labeled as organic also “identify each organic ingredient in the ingredient 

statement with the word “organic”; “below the information identifying the handler or distributor of the 

product and preceded by the statement, “Certified organic by * * *,” or similar phrase, identify the 

name of the certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product” [emphasis added]. For 

livestock feed, similar requirements are outlined in §205.306. These additional labeling requirements 

are referred to as “accompanying requirements” for the remainder of this document. 

The term label is defined by the NOP in section 205.2:

Label: A display of written, printed, or graphic material on the immediate container of an 

agricultural product or any such material affixed to any agricultural product or affixed to a bulk 

container containing an agricultural product, except for package liners or a display of written, 

printed or graphic material which contains only information about the weight of the product.

The definition makes the elements of a label clear. To be a label it must be “written, printed or 

graphically displayed” and must meet one of the following elements:

• Be on the immediate a container, or

• Affixed to the agricultural product, or

• Affixed to a bulk container containing an agricultural product [applies to retail only, see bulk 

below]

Bulk is also defined and is clearly limited to retail sale situations. Section 205.2 defines bulk as 

“the presentation to consumers at retail sale of an agricultural product in unpackaged, loose form, 

enabling the consumer to determine the individual pieces, amount, or volume of the product 

purchased.” Since bulk labeling only applies in the retail environment, handlers of unpacked and

unlabeled products in a non-retail environment must meet one of the other elements (a label on the 

immediate container or affixed to the agricultural product) to be considered labeled and thus eligible for 

exemption. 

Operations involved in the sale and distribution of retail-labeled organic products would be exempt if 

such products were already packed, remained in the same packaging, and were not further processed or 

packaged. This remains true regardless of how the non-retail containers containing retail-labeled 

products are packed. However, such non-retail containers must comply with the requirements of 

§205.307, and retail-labeled product must comply with §205.303. Similarly, operations involved in the 

sale of labeled and packaged organic livestock feed products would be exempted if such products were 

already packed, remained in the same packaging, and were not further processed or packaged; 

however, such packaging would need to comply with §205.306. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 13/175
This interpretation does not require transport operations that do not sell, package, or process (such as

rail cars of grain or tankers with liquid products) to be certified. Both operations that load and unload 

organic products into the rail car/tanker would need to maintain proper audit trail documentation of the 

organic products they receive and package (loading/unloading), including documenting that organic 

integrity was maintained throughout transit. In the example of a rail car/tanker, the rail car or tanker 

itself would be considered the container, so transit and physical handling of the rail car/tanker itself 

would not need to be certified. However, operations involved in the loading and unloading of product 

into the rail car/tanker would need to be certified since the §205.101 (b)(1)(i) and (ii) exemption only 

applies when the products “are packaged or otherwise enclosed in a container prior to being received or 

acquired by the operation, and remain in the same package or container and are not otherwise 

processed while in the control of the handling operation.” Additionally, the rail car or tanker would also

need to be physically labeled as organic with the accompanying requirements for any operation in the 

supply chain that is selling the product in order to be exempted from certification. If the rail car or 

tanker is not labeled, then any operation involved in selling, packaging, or processing would need to be 

certified since they did not meet the definition for exemption; this would include brokers/traders who 

sell these products regardless of their ownership of the product. We find it prudent for the NOP, under 

the authority of §205.401 and §205.406, to require that the same labeling information be included on 

packing slips as necessary to determine compliance with the regulations during audits. This would be an 

additional requirement and cannot be completed in lieu of physically labeling the product/container. 

If products were packed and remained packed in discrete containers like sacks, boxes, pails, drums, 

totes, etc. and labeled as organic with the accompanying requirements, then operations involved in the 

product’s sale, but not processing or packaging, are exempt operations per §205.101(b)(1). However, in 

this case, operations purchasing or receiving these products for further processing or packing would 

need to maintain audit trial documents that verify the organic compliance and integrity of the product 

as labeled. If the same containers were not labeled as organic with the accompanying requirements,

then operations involved in the sale of the same product packed in the same containers would need to 

be certified since they do not meet the “labeled” requirement of §205.101(b)(1). In this case, the selling 

party would be the same as the party providing evidence of organic certification. Operations purchasing 

or receiving these products for further processing, packing, or sale would need to maintain audit trial 

documents that clearly demonstrated that the selling party is certified organic. 

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The NOSB recommends the NOP make the following change to Guidance document NOP 5031:

1. Revise to make clear that exemption only applies to packaged and labeled product:

An operation is excluded from certification if:

• It only handles organic products that are enclosed in a package or container; 

• The products remain in the same package or container for the entire period handled; 

and 

• The package or container is labeled as “organic”. When labeled as “organic”, products 

must also contain the “certified organic by” certifier statement and name the handler 

and ingredient list (if applicable). 

• It does not process organic products

2. Revise to make clear that unlabeled, unenclosed produce handlers in a non-retail environment 

must be certified. 

3. Provide additional examples of operations that need to be certified and those excluded. An 

example of a template that can be expanded upon is provided in Attachment A.

4. Provide additional training to certifiers and certified handlers on proper ways to verify that 

organic certification documents of purchased products matches product as labeled when 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 14/175
purchased from a non-certified operation. Certifiers should be trained on how to audit to this 

requirement. 

5. Provide additional guidance to certified handlers and certifiers on proper audit trail 

documentation for purchases of unpackaged, unlabeled product from certified operations. Such 

documentation must be sufficient to connect sale, receipt, and integrity of unlabeled product. 

Certifiers should be trained on how to audit to this requirement. 

6. Include in the accreditation audit of certifiers a verification that this policy is properly 

interpreted by the certifier. 

VI. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

While it is uncommon for the subcommittee to seek questions in a proposal, the NOSB believes action is 

needed urgently to further ensure the integrity of organic products in the marketplace and maintain 

continued consumer confidence. The NOSB believes the NOP will be able to make any needed 

modifications to this NOSB recommendation based on a summary of the comments received when the 

NOP publishes draft guidance. 

The NOSB is requesting public comment from the community on these clarifications, implementation by 

certifiers, and impacts on existing trade. Please respond to the following questions, as well as provide 

any other information that would be helpful in moving this issue forward: 

1. What negative impact might there be on the trade and movement of organic product with these

clarifications? 

2. What economic impact might there be based on these clarifications? 

3. What impact will these clarifications have on maintaining organic integrity? 

Subcommittee vote

Motion to approve this proposal on excluded operations in the supply chain 

Motion by: Tom Chapman

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 4 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 1

Approved by Scott Rice, CACS Chair, to transmit to NOP August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 15/175
Attachment A – Template for clarification

# Handling Action of 

operation

Product 

already 

enclosed 

in a 

container?

Product 

already 

labeled 

organic?

Does 

Operation 

need to be 

certified?

Example

1 Process a product n/a n/a Yes Bakery making bread

2 Package a product n/a n/a Yes Labeling blank cans of already 

packed soup

3 Sell a product No No Yes Brokering Grains (whether or not 

taking physical possession) or 

Fruit distributor where fruit is in 

open trays and fruit itself is not

stickered

4 Sell a product Yes No Yes Distributor of enclosed product 

that is not specifically labeled as 

organic.

5 Sell a product No Yes No – but still 

comply with 

272

Fruit distributor where fruit is in 

open trays and fruit itself is

stickered

6 Sell a product Yes Yes No – but still 

comply with 

272

Distributor of packed and 

organically labeled product in 

discreet enclosed containers. 

7 Transit a product n/a n/a No – but still 

comply with 

272

Operations that load and unload 

unlabeled products would need 

to be certified as required under 

#4. However, the operation 

transporting would not require 

certification.

Attachment B

NOP 5031: Guidance - Certification Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic Products

Attachment C

NOP 5031-1: Response to Comments - Certification Requirements for Handling Unpackaged Organic 

Products

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 16/175
Sunset 2019 

Meeting 2 - Review

Crops Substances

November 2017 

Note: With the exception of biodegradable biobased mulch film, the materials included in this list are 

undergoing early sunset review as part of November 18, 2016 NOSB recommendation on efficient 

workload re-organization. 

As part of the National List sunset review process, the NOSB Crops Subcommittee has evaluated the 

need for the continued allowance for or prohibition of the following substances for use in organic crop 

production.

Reference: 7 CFR 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production.

Chlorine materials: calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite

Herbicides, soap-based

Biodegradable biobased mulch film

Boric acid

Sticky traps/barriers

Coppers, fixed

Copper sulfate

Humic acids

Micronutrients: soluble boron products

Micronutrients: sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, molybdenum, 

selenium, and cobalt

Vitamins B1, C, E

205.602 Nonsynthetic substances prohibited for use in organic crop production

Lead salts

Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 17/175
Chlorine materials - Calcium Hypochlorite

Reference: 205.601(a) - As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning 

systems. (2) Chlorine materials -For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop 

contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum 

residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used 

in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

 (i) Calcium hypochlorite

Technical Report(s): 1995 TAP; 2006 TR; 2011 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 04/2006 NOSB sunset recommendation; 04/2011 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Calcium hypochlorite is an EPA registered pesticide (OPP No. 014701) that is used in controlling bacteria, 

fungi, and slime-forming algae (2011 TR lines 86-87). In water and soil, calcium hypochlorite separates 

into calcium, hypochlorite ions (OCl-), and hypochlorous acid (HOCl) molecules. The hypochlorous acid 

molecules diffuse through cell walls of microorganisms, changing the oxidation-reduction potential of 

the cell and inactivating triosephosphate dehydrogenase, an enzyme essential of the digestion of 

glucose, destroying the microorganism’s ability to function (2011 TR lines 122-133).

Calcium hypochlorite is produced by passing chlorine gas over slaked lime. It is then separated from the 

coproduct, calcium chloride, and air dried or vacuumed (TR lines 194-195).

Calcium hypochlorite is highly caustic and is a concern for occupational exposure. Acute exposure to 

high concentrations can cause eye and skin injury. Ingestion can cause gastrointestinal irritation and 

corrosive injuries to the mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach (2011 TR lines 411-418).

Public comments were received during the 2019 review indicating that chlorine materials are necessary 

in organic crop production, and that chlorine sanitizers have a wide range of uses, including sanitation of 

equipment and work surfaces, maintaining functioning irrigation systems, preventing the spread of 

disease, and controlling pathogens detrimental to human health. Some commenters said it was 

important to have several types of sanitizers available for use in case resistance develops to any of 

them.

 

Some public commenters expressed concerns that chlorine sanitizers can be harmful to human health 

and the environment, and that alternatives should be used when possible. Commenters also suggested 

that chlorine sanitizers, and all sanitizers, should be reviewed as a group to identify if all sanitizers 

currently on the National List are needed, and if the use of chlorine sanitizers could be limited to use 

only where other sanitizers that are less harmful to human health and the environment are not 

adequate.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove calcium hypochlorite from §205.601(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 18/175
Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Chlorine materials - Chlorine Dioxide

Reference: 205.601(a) - As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning 

systems. (2) Chlorine materials - For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop 

contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum 

residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used 

in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

 (ii) Chlorine dioxide

Technical Report(s): 1995 TAP; 2006 TR; 2011 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 04/2006 NOSB sunset recommendation; 04/2011 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

EPA has registered the liquid form of chlorine dioxide for use as a disinfectant and sanitizer. The Agency 

also has registered chlorine dioxide gas as a sterilant. Chlorine dioxide is added to drinking water as a 

disinfectant in some municipal water-treatment systems in the United States. EPA has set a maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) of 0.8 mg/L for chlorine dioxide in drinking water and 1 mg/L for chlorite 

(chlorine dioxide’s oxidation product) (2011 TR lines 104-110).

Chlorine dioxide kills microorganisms directly by disrupting transport of nutrients across the cell wall. 

Chlorine dioxide is an effective disinfectant at a pH of between 5 and 10 (2011 TR lines 149-157).

To form chlorine dioxide, sodium chlorate (NaClO3) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) are reacted with sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), or chloric acid is reacted with methanol (CH3OH). Alternatively, chlorine dioxide can be 

formed with chlorine (Cl2) and sodium chlorite; sodium hypochlorite with hydrochloric acid; potassium 

chlorate with sulfuric acid; or by passing nitrogen dioxide through a column of sodium chlorate (2011 TR 

lines 206-210).

Chlorine dioxide is a severe respiratory and eye irritant. The reaction products of chlorine dioxide 

(chlorite and chlorate) can cause oxidative damage to red blood cells and mild neurobehavioral effects 

(2011 TR lines 433-436). 

Public comments were received during the 2019 review indicating that chlorine materials are necessary 

in organic crop production, and that chlorine sanitizers have a wide range of uses, including sanitation of 

equipment and work surfaces, maintaining functioning irrigation systems, preventing the spread of 

disease, and controlling pathogens detrimental to human health. Some commenters said it was 

important to have several types of sanitizers available for use in case resistance develops to any of 

them. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 19/175
Some public commenters expressed concerns that chlorine sanitizers can be harmful to human health 

and the environment, and that alternatives should be used when possible. Commenters also suggested 

that chlorine sanitizers, and all sanitizers, should be reviewed as a group to identify if all sanitizers 

currently on the National List are needed, and if the use of chlorine sanitizers could be limited to use 

only where other sanitizers that are less harmful to human health and the environment are not 

adequate.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove chlorine dioxide from §205.601(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Chlorine materials - Sodium Hypochlorite

Reference: 205.601(a) - As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning 

systems. (2) Chlorine materials -For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop 

contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum 

residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used 

in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

 (iii) Sodium hypochlorite

Technical Report(s): 1995 TAP; 2006 TR; 2011 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 04/2006 NOSB sunset recommendation; 04/2011 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Sodium hypochlorite is an EPA registered pesticide (OPP No. 014703) that is used in controlling bacteria, 

fungi, and slime-forming algae (2011 TR lines 86-87). In water and soil, sodium hypochlorite separates 

into sodium, hypochlorite ions (OCl-), and hypochlorous acid (HOCl) molecules. The hypochlorous acid 

molecules diffuse through cell walls of microorganisms, changing the oxidation-reduction potential of 

the cell and inactivating triosephosphate dehydrogenase, an enzyme essential of the digestion of 

glucose, destroying the microorganism’s ability to function. (2011 TR lines 122-133).

Sodium hypochlorite is highly caustic and is a concern for occupational exposure. Acute exposure to 

high concentrations can cause eye and skin injury. Ingestion can cause gastrointestinal irritation and 

corrosive injuries to the mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach (2011 TR lines 411-418).

Generally, sodium hypochlorite is produced by reacting chlorine with a solution of sodium hydroxide 

(NaOH, also called lye or caustic soda). This method is used for most commercial productions of sodium 

hypochlorite. A more active, but less stable formulation of sodium hypochlorite can be produced by 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 20/175
chlorinating a solution of soda ash (Na2CO3) (TR lines 199-202).

Public comments were received during the 2019 review indicating that chlorine materials are necessary 

in organic crop production, and that chlorine sanitizers have a wide range of uses, including sanitation of 

equipment and work surfaces, maintaining functioning irrigation systems, preventing the spread of 

disease, and controlling pathogens detrimental to human health. Some commenters said it was 

important to have several types of sanitizers available for use in case resistance develops to any of 

them. 

Some public commenters expressed concerns that chlorine sanitizers can be harmful to human health 

and the environment, and that alternatives should be used when possible. Commenters also suggested 

that chlorine sanitizers, and all sanitizers, should be reviewed as a group to identify if all sanitizers 

currently on the National List are needed, and if the use of chlorine sanitizers could be limited to use 

only where other sanitizers that are less harmful to human health and the environment are not 

adequate.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove sodium hypochlorite from §205.601(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: NA

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Herbicides, soap-based/ (Soaps, herbicidal)

Reference: 205.601(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable (1) herbicides soap-based—for use in 

farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.

Technical Report: 1996 TAP; 2015 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: Actions: 1996 recommendation; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review

Soap-based herbicides generally are comprised of a fatty acid component with carbon, hydrogen and 

oxygen atoms with potassium or ammonium counterions. Potassium salts of fatty acids include 

individual soap salts such as potassium laurate, potassium myristate, potassium oleate and potassium 

ricinoleate). Potassium salts of fatty acids are produced through a process known as saponification, 

whereby aqueous potassium hydroxide (KOH) is added to fatty acids commonly found in animal fats and 

plant oils (NPIC, 2001; Nora, 2010). Alternatively, ammonium salts of fatty acids, such as ammonium 

nonanoate, are produced through the room temperature reaction of aqueous ammonia (NH3) or 

ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) with fatty acids (Reiling, 1962; Dunn, 2010). Commercially available 

soap salt products are used as acaricides, algicides, herbicides, insecticides and animal repellents, 

controlling a variety of insects, mosses, algae, lichens, liverworts and other weeds. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 21/175
Technical Review Evaluation Report, Soap-Based Herbicides, February 27, 2015: 

Potential Human Health Impact Concerns: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies “salts 

of fatty acids” as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) when used in food and in the manufacture of 

food components (7 CFR 172.863). Ammonium salts of fatty acids are not included in the FDA’s 

description of GRAS fatty acid salts. Despite the lack of systemic toxicity associated with soap salts, both 

potassium and ammonium salts of fatty acids can lead to various forms of irritation. 

Potassium soaps are classified as corrosive to the skin, side effects include skin redness, cracking and 

fissuring of skin. Even though potassium soaps are only moderately irritating to the skin, they are 

corrosive to the eyes and may cause permanent eye damage in extreme exposure scenarios (US EPA, 

2012). 

Reproductive issues, weight loss, and failure to maintain pregnancies were observed in laboratory 

animals administered soap salts at high doses. However, the incidences of fetal loss, malformations, 

visceral or skeletal anomalies and skeletal variants were within the historical control range for young 

mice in the 500 mg/kg-day dose group. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has not 

listed potassium or ammonium soaps as carcinogens (IARC, 2014).

Potential aquatic organisms impact concerns: The technical review (TR) states that the acute and 

chronic toxicity of soap salts is markedly different for land- and water-dwelling organisms. Terrestrial 

animals—including mammals, birds, and insects—are largely unaffected by exposure to even high doses 

of potassium and ammonium salts of fatty acids; however, aquatic animals are moderately (fish) to 

highly (crustaceans) sensitive to these substances (Thurston County, 2009a; Thurston County, 2009b). 

Studies submitted to US EPA for registration of potassium and ammonium salts of fatty acids indicate 

that potassium salts are generally more toxic to aquatic organisms than their ammonium counterparts. 

The TR also states that they may harm many soil-dwelling organisms including insects, earthworms, and 

nematodes that are supportive of organic production. 

International Standards, Soap-Based Herbicides: Organic standards for COR, EU, Codex Alimentarius 

Commission, MAFF, and IFOAM allow fatty acid potassium salts for differing uses in organic production. 

COR specifically does not allow ammonium soaps to be in direct contact with soil or edible portion of 

crops production. 

The Crops Subcommittee supports relisting soap-based herbicides at §205.601(b).

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove soap based herbicides from §205.601(b) based on the following criteria in the 

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Sue Baird

Seconded by: Jesse Buie

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 2 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 22/175
Biodegradable biobased mulch film

Reference: 205.601(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable (2) Mulches (iii) Biodegradable 

biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2. Must be produced without organisms or feedstock derived 

from excluded methods.

Technical Report: 2012 TR; 2015 Report; NOP Policy Memorandum 15-1; Supplemental Technical 

Evaluation Report 2016

Petition(s): 2012

Past NOSB Actions: Actions: 10/2012 NOSB Recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Added to National List effective 10/30/14 (79 FR 58655) 

Sunset Date: 10/30/19 

Subcommittee Review:

Biodegradable biobased mulch films were approved for placement on the National List of approved 

synthetics without detailed information about the how much non-biobased content would be allowed. 

The vast majority of mulch films in this category contain 20% or less of biobased materials, with the 

remainder consisting of polymers, colorings, and other synthetic materials. There are some products 

that might meet the biobased aspect of this material’s definition on §205.2, but are either not 

biodegradable or are not used widely in production due to brittleness or other production issues. 

In January 2015, the National Organic Program issued Policy Memorandum 15-1, clarifying that 

biodegradable biobased mulch film must not contain any synthetic polymer feedstocks. The NOSB 

requested a limited scope technical review (TR) in 2016. This TR focused upon biobased biodegradable 

mulches that contain polymers and the soil and crop health effects they may have as they biodegrade. 

This supplemental TR was inconclusive, since research on these materials is currently limited. 

There have been numerous public comments requesting the NOSB work with the NOP to allow a 

biodegradable biobased mulch that contains these unique polymers. Some noted that having a 

degradable plastic mulch is more environmentally friendly than using landfills for the non-degradable 

plastic mulches. Commenters also acknowledged that there are currently very few options (other than 

difficult to use paper mulch), for 100% biobased mulch, but felt the listing should remain. This could 

encourage development of mulch that would meet the NOP regulations, or solicit information that 

could change the directive in the policy memo. The fact this product is derived from petroleum, led to 

negative comments asking for its removal from the National List of approved synthetics.

There are studies now in progress that could provide more information in the future, which could result 

in a proposed annotation change or other mechanism to allow the use of a mulch containing some 

percentage of these synthetic polymers. The research may also support the current NOP regulations 

and policy memo that no synthetic polymers are allowed in degradable mulch. Our current 

understanding of the unique synthetic polymers used in these biodegradable mulches is they are 

recognized by the soil biological life as food, and readily consumed and degraded when incorporated 

into the soil. However, there are fossil fuel-based fertilizers, used in nonorganic agriculture, that also 

break down in the soil and provide nutrients for plants as well, but they are not allowed. The Crops 

Subcommittee will keep biodegradable, biobased mulch film on our work agenda. We will revisit it again 

once we have more information and can determine if the polymers used in these biodegradable mulch 

films are compatible with the approved synthetic materials criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 23/175
The Crops Subcommittee favors keeping biodegradable biobased mulch film on the National List at 

205.601(b).

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove biodegradable biobased mulch film as defined in §205.2 - Must be produced without 

organisms or feedstock derived from excluded methods.

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Emily Oakley 

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse:

Boric acid

Reference: 205.601(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (3) Boric acid - structural 

pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

Boric acid, derived from the mineral borax, is a weak acid that has long been considered a “least-toxic” 

pesticide because it is non-volatile when placed in bait or gel formulations and therefore eliminates risk 

of direct exposure. However, when used as a dust for structural pest control, exposure can occur, 

causing hazards for exposed populations. 

Boric acid is a reproductive toxicant, a suspected endocrine disruptor, and toxic to plants and animals if 

misused. Boric acid has a low toxicity to mammals and humans (1995 TAP). Borax mining causes 

environmental damage. Boric acid raises challenging issues of health and environmental/mining 

impacts, and there are alternative materials and practices that may be less harmful. Of the alternative 

choices of pest control products, boric acid is considered to be among the least toxic, as noted in the 

sources used for this review. 

The following question was put forth by the NOSB to the public in 2015: “Are there situations in which 

boric acid is the only, or safest, means of controlling the pest?”, and some response was received. It 

was stated that it is good to have as a means for control and as a back-up with insect problems. 

Comment was received that natural alternatives do exist, and that management changes rather than a 

material application is the best if problems do occur. 

At the Fall 2015 NOSB meeting, the Crops Subcommittee proposed a vote to remove boric acid from 

§205.601(e) on the basis of not fully meeting all sub-components of OFPA criteria in regards to: criteria 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 24/175
of Impacts on Humans and the Environment, Essentiality, and Compatibility & Consistency. The motion 

to remove failed after receiving 1 “Yes” and 134 “No” votes. While boric acid does not fully meet the 

OFPA criteria of Impacts on Humans and the Environment, Essentiality, and Compatibility & Consistency, 

the alternatives often have equally challenging issues. 

This material is often used in packing sheds and other facilities. Many times it is used as a powder 

introduced into cracks and crevices, and is essential for controlling ants and roaches. A number of 

members of the public did comment regarding the listing of boric acid, and the majority supported relisting. Numerous distributors, food processing businesses, certifiers and farmers recommended 

relisting, as a necessary tool for control of ants and roaches in packing houses and food handling 

facilities. One certifier noted it was not used by any of their certified operations. A few organizations 

recommended changing the annotation to read: “For use only as bait in traps or in gel formulations”. 

The CS would consider a petition requesting an annotation change.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove boric acid - As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control) (3) Boric acidstructural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops from 205.601(e) based on the 

following criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: 

none

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Francis Thicke

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Sticky traps/barriers

Reference: §205.601(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control). (9) Sticky traps/barriers.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

This listing covers a wide range of traps and coatings made with a number of different materials, 

including coated paper, coated plastic, and brushed on sticky chemicals applied directly to plants. They 

are typically used for pest control and monitoring in limited quantities and in confined areas, such as 

tree trunks. As noted in the 1995 TAP review, these products are of low toxicity, and while persistent, 

they are unlikely to contaminate the surrounding environment. Coated plastic sticky traps produce a 

small amount of plastic waste. The sticky coating may contain petroleum distillates, and the traps may 

contain volatile attractants; however, as they do not come in direct contact with crops, there is minimal 

concern for human health effects. Some are non-specific and can trap non-targeted beneficial insects, 

spiders, mites, reptiles, and amphibians, although they do not attract non-targeted insects or animals. 

One 1995 TAP reviewer suggested the traps are compatible with organic production only in processing 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 25/175
plants. Another suggested they should be used only for monitoring, mass trapping, or barriers. Over 

twenty years later, more traps are now available, including targeted lures to attract only pest insects, 

and there is significant experience with their use in organic farming without negative consequences or 

problems.

During the 2017 sunset review (completed in 2015), public feedback was solicited on the following 

questions: 1) should the wide range of products covered by this listing be categorized by use and 

materials, and 2) are some uses of sticky traps incompatible with organic production? There was 

support for the continued listing of sticky traps/barriers as a permitted synthetic given both product 

availability and effective insect control. 

During this sunset review, no additional information was requested. As in the previous review, there 

was broad support for relisting sticky traps/barriers from farmers, certifiers, and trade organizations. 

There was some concern that non-target animals can get caught, with a suggested annotation stating 

that traps and barriers must be used in a way that prevents non-target trapping.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove sticky traps from §205.601(e) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Emily Oakley

Seconded by: Sue Baird

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Coppers, fixed

Reference: 205.601(i) As plant disease control. (2) Coppers, fixed —copper hydroxide, copper oxide, 

copper oxychloride, includes products exempted from EPA tolerance, Provided, That, copper-based 

materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil and shall not be used as 

herbicides.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2011 TR 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB meeting minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 

04/2011 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review: 

Coppers, fixed, and copper sulfate were reviewed and approved for continued use during the October 

2015 NOSB meeting. Coppers continue to be an important tool for organic producers as part of a 

comprehensive approach to disease management in many crops. For example, copper products became 

an integrated part of fire blight control in pome fruits after antibiotics were removed from the national 

list. While some copper minerals and compounds occur in nature, products for agriculture are made 

from by-products of processing copper ores and are considered synthetic. Copper is on the list of 

exemptions for synthetic materials in OFPA at § 6517(c)(1)(B)(i). This review applies to both the listing 

for Coppers, fixed and the listing for Copper Sulfate on the National List 205.601. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 26/175
The last technical report (TR) was completed in 2011 at which time the EPA had recently completed a 

re-assessment of copper products. The potential adverse impacts are well known and were discussed in 

the TR. The main concern with copper materials is their potential to accumulate to toxic levels in the 

environment. The TR notes the many factors that can affect copper accumulation (2011 TR lines 465 to 

549). To address this concern, the copper listings on the National List have the annotation "That, 

copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil..." 

To put copper use patterns into perspective, we consulted the Materials Fact Sheet Copper Products 

from the Organic Resource Guide, 2nd edition (2013): 

http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resourceguide/pdf/resource-guide-for-organic-insect-and-diseasemanagement.pdf 

"In New York, maximum soil concentration rates for copper have been recommended based on soil 

type; rates range from 40 ppm in sandy soils, to 60 ppm in silt loam, to 100 ppm in clay soils. These rates 

have been suggested in order to protect against phytotoxicity and negative impacts on soil life (Harrison 

et al. 1999). Typically, each spray with a copper-based fungicide results in an application of 1 to 4 lb. of 

copper per acre, raising the topsoil concentration from 0.5 to 2 ppm; often several copper sprays are 

made per season. Under a heavy copper spray program, toxic topsoil levels could be reached in a matter 

of decades." 

The effects on human health from agricultural copper were addressed in the TR as follows: 

"In "III Summary of Coppers Risk Assessments" of RED-Cu (2009), human health risk, after aggregate or 

combined exposure to copper compounds, was adequately assessed. The basic considerations are that 

copper is naturally-occurring, ubiquitous in environment, copper itself is a nutrient, copper deficiency is 

more of a problem than copper over-exposure, the active assimilation of copper through routes of food, 

drink, air, non-occupational sources, and other exposure is efficiently modulated, excessively available 

copper is not assimilated but instead is actively excreted, and no systematic and carcinogenic effects are 

observed/confirmed. The overall conclusion is that copper, when used as pesticide following the label, 

would not cause toxic effects." (2011 TR lines 933 - 940) 

The effects of copper on the agro-ecosystem (including on biodiversity) were also discussed in the TR: 

The 2011 TR (lines 647 - 761) is quite extensive and evaluates many studies on soil microorganisms, 

earthworms, and crops. The conclusions in all instances is that it depends on the soil composition, soil 

pH, concentration of copper, species being studied, and crop species being grown. 

And: 

Copper can have a significant diminishing effect on biodiversity in an aquatic environment such as 

wetlands. However it is not prone to leaching or runoff in all but the sandiest of soils and is not likely to 

end up in the sensitive environments if used according to label restrictions. In contrast, copper can be 

used to control invasive aquatic plants that out-compete native plants in some ecosystems and this 

would have a positive effect on biodiversity. (2011 TR lines 870 - 874) 

The TR closes with a quote from the "Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Coppers – Revised May 

2009":

"U.S. EPA recognized the advantages of using copper pesticides (RED-Cu, 2009): "Through extensive 

outreach to the public as well as additional comments and refined information provided by the user 

community, the Agency has determined that there are many benefits that support the significance and 

continued agricultural uses of copper pesticides. A significant benefit is that copper exposure from all 

sources, including use as a pesticide in agricultural settings, does not pose any human health concerns. 

Although there is still potential for ecological effects to non-target organisms, there are many benefits 

to retain agricultural uses of copper pesticides" (from the 2011 TR lines 988-996, p.20) 

The high variability in copper use patterns and organic farming situations led the NOSB to conclude in 

October 2015 that the annotation in place for this substance is appropriate since certifiers can assess 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 27/175
copper accumulation in the context of a specific farming operation. However, to make sure that this is 

true, public comment was requested from growers on the importance of this material, and the ways of 

monitoring accumulation. Input from certifiers was sought on whether testing was being required for 

monitoring and whether there have been non-compliances issued for enforcement of this annotation. 

Comments from certifiers indicated that they require either a testing protocol or an overall copper 

monitoring plan for growers who include copper on their OSPs. None of the certifiers who wrote 

comments had issued a non-compliance for accumulation of copper, but several had done so for not 

having a monitoring plan in place. 

In the review of copper materials in Spring 2017, several public comments expressed concern about the 

overuse of copper, particularly near harvest time, when copper residues could still be seen on harvested 

produce. There was a question of whether an additional annotation should be added that no visible 

residues of copper be present at harvest. Several certifiers commented that this would be very difficult 

to enforce since it would require an inspection visit during the actual harvest. In general, comments 

during the Spring 2017 Review supported relisting of copper materials and that the current annotation 

is adequate.

Given the extensive use and documented need for copper sprays, the Crops Subcommittee thinks these 

materials should be renewed. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove coppers, fixed from §205.601(i) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Copper sulfate

Reference: 205.601(i) As plant disease control. (3) Copper sulfate - Substance must be used in a manner 

that minimizes accumulation of copper in the soil.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2011 TR 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB meeting minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 

04/2011 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

Coppers, fixed, and copper sulfate were reviewed and approved for continued use during the October 

2015 NOSB meeting. Coppers continue to be an important tool for organic producers as part of a 

comprehensive approach to disease management in many crops. For example, copper products became 

an integrated part of fire blight control in pome fruits after antibiotics were removed from the national 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 28/175
list. While some copper minerals and compounds occur in nature, products for agriculture are made 

from by-products of processing copper ores and are considered synthetic. Copper is on the list of 

exemptions for synthetic materials in OFPA at § 6517(c)(1)(B)(i). This review applies to both the listing 

for Coppers, fixed and the listing for Copper Sulfate on the National List 205.601. 

The last technical report (TR) was completed in 2011 at which time the EPA had recently completed a 

re-assessment of copper products. The potential adverse impacts are well known and were discussed in 

the TR. The main concern with copper materials is their potential to accumulate to toxic levels in the 

environment. The TR notes the many factors that can affect copper accumulation (2011 TR lines 465 to 

549). To address this concern, the copper listings on the National List have the annotation "That, 

copper-based materials must be used in a manner that minimizes accumulation in the soil..." 

To put copper use patterns into perspective, we consulted the Materials Fact Sheet Copper Products 

from the Organic Resource Guide, 2nd edition (2013): 

http://web.pppmb.cals.cornell.edu/resourceguide/pdf/resource-guide-for-organic-insect-and-diseasemanagement.pdf 

"In New York, maximum soil concentration rates for copper have been recommended based on soil 

type; rates range from 40 ppm in sandy soils, to 60 ppm in silt loam, to 100 ppm in clay soils. These rates 

have been suggested in order to protect against phytotoxicity and negative impacts on soil life (Harrison 

et al. 1999). Typically, each spray with a copper-based fungicide results in an application of 1 to 4 lb. of 

copper per acre, raising the topsoil concentration from 0.5 to 2 ppm; often several copper sprays are 

made per season. Under a heavy copper spray program, toxic topsoil levels could be reached in a matter 

of decades." 

The effects on human health from agricultural copper were addressed in the TR as follows: 

"In "III Summary of Coppers Risk Assessments" of RED-Cu (2009), human health risk, after aggregate or 

combined exposure to copper compounds, was adequately assessed. The basic considerations are that 

copper is naturally-occurring, ubiquitous in environment, copper itself is a nutrient, copper deficiency is 

more of a problem than copper over-exposure, the active assimilation of copper through routes of food, 

drink, air, non-occupational sources, and other exposure is efficiently modulated, excessively available 

copper is not assimilated but instead is actively excreted, and no systematic and carcinogenic effects are 

observed/confirmed. The overall conclusion is that copper, when used as pesticide following the label, 

would not cause toxic effects." (2011 TR lines 933 - 940) 

The effects of copper on the agro-ecosystem (including on biodiversity) were also discussed in the TR: 

The 2011 TR (lines 647 - 761) is quite extensive and evaluates many studies on soil microorganisms, 

earthworms, and crops. The conclusions in all instances is that it depends on the soil composition, soil 

pH, concentration of copper, species being studied, and crop species being grown. 

And: 

Copper can have a significant diminishing effect on biodiversity in an aquatic environment such as 

wetlands. However it is not prone to leaching or runoff in all but the sandiest of soils and is not likely to 

end up in the sensitive environments if used according to label restrictions. In contrast, copper can be 

used to control invasive aquatic plants that out-compete native plants in some ecosystems and this 

would have a positive effect on biodiversity. (2011 TR lines 870 - 874) 

The TR closes with a quote from the "Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Coppers – Revised May 

2009":

"U.S. EPA recognized the advantages of using copper pesticides (RED-Cu, 2009): "Through extensive 

outreach to the public as well as additional comments and refined information provided by the user 

community, the Agency has determined that there are many benefits that support the significance and 

continued agricultural uses of copper pesticides. A significant benefit is that copper exposure from all 

sources, including use as a pesticide in agricultural settings, does not pose any human health concerns. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 29/175
Although there is still potential for ecological effects to non-target organisms, there are many benefits 

to retain agricultural uses of copper pesticides" (from the 2011 TR lines 988-996, p.20) 

The high variability in copper use patterns and organic farming situations led the NOSB to conclude in 

October 2015 that the annotation in place for this substance is appropriate since certifiers can assess 

copper accumulation in the context of a specific farming operation. However, to make sure that this is 

true, public comment was requested from growers on the importance of this material, and the ways of 

monitoring accumulation. Input from certifiers was sought on whether testing was being required for 

monitoring and whether there have been non-compliances issued for enforcement of this annotation. 

Comments from certifiers indicated that they require either a testing protocol or an overall copper 

monitoring plan for growers who include copper on their OSPs. None of the certifiers who wrote 

comments had issued a non-compliance for accumulation of copper, but several had done so for not 

having a monitoring plan in place. 

In the review of copper materials in Spring 2017, several public comments expressed concern about the 

overuse of copper, particularly near harvest time, when copper residues could still be seen on harvested 

produce. There was a question of whether an additional annotation should be added that no visible 

residues of copper be present at harvest. Several certifiers commented that this would be very difficult 

to enforce since it would require an inspection visit during the actual harvest. In general, comments 

during the Spring 2017 Review supported relisting of copper materials and that the current annotation 

is adequate.

Given the extensive use and documented need for copper sprays, the Crops Subcommittee thinks these 

materials should be renewed. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove copper sulfate from §205.601(i) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Francis Thicke

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Humic acids

Reference: 205.601(j) As plant or soil amendments. 3) Humic acids - naturally occurring deposits, water and 

alkali extracts only.

Technical Report: 1996 TAP; 2006 TR: 2012 TR for oxidized lignite/humic acid derivatives

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 09/1996 meeting minutes and vote; 04/2006 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 NOSB 

sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

Humic acids, which naturally exist in soils, can be supplemented by manufactured humic acids from 

oxidized lignite. Humic acids are used as a component of traditional fertilizers, and do not provide

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 30/175
additional nutrients to plants, but rather affect soil fertility by making micronutrients more readily 

available to plants. “Humic acids are applied as a soil conditioner to increase cation exchange capacity, 

enhance mineral availability, improve soil structure, stimulate soil microorganisms, and provide broad 

spectrum trace elements.” Commercially available humic acids are derived from leonardite and lignite.

Extracts from nonsynthetic humates by hydrolysis using synthetic or nonsynthetic alkaline materials are

permitted, including the use of potassium hydroxide and ammonium hydroxide. Humic acid derivatives 

are on the National List with the following annotation: naturally occurring deposits, water and alkali 

extracts only.” [7 CFR 205.601(j)(3)].

In 2015 the majority of comments were in favor of keeping humic acids on the National List. At the Spring 

2017 NOSB meeting the majority of commenters were also in favor of keeping humic acids. Several 

objections focused on environmental concerns related to humic acids as fertility tools manufactured, in 

some cases, from low grade coal (lignite).

However, as reiterated in public comment, humic acids are viewed as a critical and necessary element of 

nutrient management in organic farming. Concerns were raised that removal from the National List would

negatively impact many growers. 

Based on the Subcommittee review and public comment, the NOSB finds humic acids compliant with OFPA 

criteria, and does not recommend removal from the National List. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove humic acids from 205.601(j) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: NA

Motion by: Ashley Swaffar

Seconded by: Dave Mortensen

Yes: 0 No: 9 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Micronutrients: Soluble boron products.

Reference: 205.601(j)(6) - As a plant or soil amendment. Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, 

herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be 

documented by testing. (i) Soluble boron products. 

Technical Report: 2010 TR Micronutrients

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 micronutrient annotation 

change

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

 

Subcommittee Review:

Micronutrients, including soluble boron, are essential for plant health and are typically applied in very 

small quantities. While producers can choose to rely on the natural presence of micronutrients in their 

soil, many find deficiencies of some or all of these micronutrients on the National List. The lack of these 

micronutrients can be a limiting factor in water and macro-nutrient uptake, and can result in limiting 

growth and vitality of crops.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 31/175
At the October 29, 2015 NOSB meeting, the Board voted to change the Micronutrients annotation from:

205.601 (j) -As a plant or soil amendment. 

(6) Micronutrients -not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or 

chlorides are not allowed. Soil Deficiency must be documented by testing.

to:

205.601 (j) -As a plant or soil amendment. 

(6) Micronutrients - not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or 

chlorides are not allowed. Deficiency must be documented.

As of January 17, 2017, this annotation change has not yet been implemented by the NOP or printed in 

the Federal Register. The NOSB crops supports this annotation change.

 

All public commenters were supportive of relisting this micronutrient, calling it essential. Certifiers, 

distributors, food processing businesses, and many individual growers stated their need for this material 

and that it is very commonly used. One commenter felt that there should be a way to address overaccumulation of all micronutrients used by organic growers. Others felt that if testing must be done 

before micronutrients are used, the application may be too late to save the crop or perennial plant.

The Subcommittee supports the proposed annotation change recommended by the NOSB in October 

2015. Removing the requirement that there be soil testing before allowing application is problematic 

for both perennial and annual crop producers. There are numerous ways of documenting a deficiency, 

other than soil testing. By the time the deficiency is noted through soil testing, it may be too late to 

save the perennial plant or crop. This is an essential micronutrient, used across all types of crop 

production.

The Crops Subcommittee supports relisting micronutrients: soluble boron products at §205.601(j)(6).

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove micronutrients: soluble boron products from §205.601(j) based on the following 

criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Jesse Buie

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Micronutrients: sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese, 

molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt

Reference: 205.601(j)(6) - As plant or soil amendments. Micronutrients—not to be used as a defoliant, 

herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be 

documented by testing. (ii) Sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, manganese,

molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt. 

Technical Report: 2010 TR Micronutrients

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 annotation change recommendation; 10/2015 sunset 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 32/175
recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review: 

Micronutrients are essential for plant health and are typically applied in very small quantities. While 

producers can choose to rely on the natural presence of micronutrients in their soil, many find 

deficiencies of some or all of the micronutrients on the National List. The lack of these micronutrients 

can be a limiting factor in water and macro-nutrient uptake, and can result in limiting growth and vitality 

of crops.

At the October 29, 2015 NOSB meeting, the Board voted to change the micronutrients annotation from:

205.601 (j) -As plant or soil amendments. 

(6) Micronutrients -not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or 

chlorides are not allowed. Soil deficiency must be documented by testing.

to:

205.601 (j) -As plant or soil amendments. 

(6) Micronutrients -not to be used as a defoliant, herbicide, or desiccant. Those made from nitrates or 

chlorides are not allowed. Deficiency must be documented.

As of January 17, 2017, this annotation change has not been published in the Federal Register.

 

All public commenters were supportive of relisting these micronutrients, calling them essential in a 

variety of cropping systems. Certifiers, distributors, food processing businesses, and many individual 

growers stated their need for these materials and one or more of them are commonly used. One 

commenter felt that there should be a way to address over-accumulation of all micronutrients used by 

organic growers. Others felt that if testing must be done before micronutrients are used, the 

application may be too late to save the crop or perennial plant.

The Crops Subcommittee supports renewing micronutrients with the proposed annotation change 

recommended by the NOSB in October 2015. The requirement that there be soil testing before allowing 

application is problematic for both perennial and annual crop producers. There are numerous ways of 

documenting a deficiency, other than soil testing. By the time the deficiency is noted through soil 

testing, it may be too late to save the perennial plant or crop. Many of these are essential 

micronutrients, used across all types of crop production.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove micronutrients: sulfates, carbonates, oxides, or silicates of zinc, copper, iron, 

manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and cobalt at §205.601 (j) based on the following criteria in the 

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Steve Ela 

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 3 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 33/175
Vitamins B1, C, E

Reference: 205.601(j)(8) - As plant or soil amendments. Vitamins B1, C, and E

Technical Report(s): 1995 TAP; 2015 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 NOSB 

sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

Vitamins, including synthetically derived vitamins B1 (thiamine), C (ascorbic acid) and E (tocopherols), 

are generally considered non-toxic essential nutrients for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

Nonsynthetic sources of all vitamins and synthetic sources of vitamins B1, C, and E may be used in 

certified organic crop production. Vitamin B1 is an ingredient in many commercial root stimulator 

products helping to establish nursery-grown planting stock once transplanted. As noted in the 2015 

technical review, the available literature does not support the premise that foliar and soil applications of 

vitamin B1 are responsible for root stimulation in transplanted crops. Vitamins C and E are used to 

promote both growth and yields and to protect plants from oxidative stress due to salinity. However, 

practical information regarding their use was unavailable; therefore the TR relied on peer-reviewed 

scientific literature. 

An OMRI (Organic Materials Review Institute) product search for each of the three vitamins resulted in 

zero entries. An OMRI generic materials database search indicated that nonsynthetic plant hormones 

such as gibberellic acid, indole acetic acid (IAA), and cytokinins might be applied to organic crops as 

plant growth regulators. Additionally, there are several naturally derived, OMRI-listed substances 

marketed to stimulate root growth.

During the 2017 sunset review, there was some public comment in support of relisting these materials 

for the purpose intended. Commenters indicated that vitamins B1, C, and E are rarely used individually 

but are included as ingredients in some of the products reviewed for crop fertility. To supplement the 

1995 TAP review, the Crops Subcommittee requested a technical review.

The 2015 TR indicated that the root growth claims associated with vitamin B1 are largely 

unsubstantiated. Alternative practices include encouraging the growth and productivity of beneficial 

soil microorganisms to help produce vitamin B1, reduce fertilizer use, refrain from applying fertilizer at 

the time of planting, and proper irrigation of the root ball and surrounding soil. There was no use 

information for vitamins C and E on agriculture extension websites.

During the 2019 sunset review, additional information was requested on the efficacy and use of vitamin 

B1, given that the 2015 TR stated that it is not generally effective at reducing transplant shock or 

stimulating new root growth outside of a laboratory setting. Public comments were solicited as to 

whether vitamin B1 should be removed or if there are there other benefits attributed to it that 

necessitates its continued listing as a plant or soil amendment. Specific information was invited 

regarding its use in the tree fruit industry and if there is a need for vitamin B1 to assist in transplant 

shock or replant disease issues.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 34/175
Public comments were received from certifiers, material reviewers, organizations, and farmers 

supporting the continued listing of the vitamins. In response to the questions posed, stakeholders again 

noted that there are products in use containing multiple vitamins, particularly in blended fertilizers. 

There was some concern that the vitamins could be made from excluded methods; however, there are 

vitamins available from non-GMO sources, and material reviewers can obtain affidavits attesting to that. 

There was very limited feedback regarding the efficacy and use of vitamin B1, particularly in relation to 

the tree fruit industry.

The 2015 TR reveals that it is the auxins indole butyric acid (IBA) and naphthylacetic acid (NAA) that 

“contribute to root regeneration of transplanted trees by suppressing crown growth to effectively 

redirect resources to developing roots”, rather than vitamin B1 (TR lines 102-111). Additionally, 

multiple studies of vegetable transplants, trees, and flowers concluded that vitamin B1 had no impact 

on seedling vigor, size, color, or root development (TR lines 111-117). The TR was unable to describe a 

mode of action for the substance “in the absence of significant in vivo results correlating vitamin B1 

applications with enhanced root growth” (TR lines 212-219). The TR provides broad reference to 

alternative substances for Vitamin B1 (TR lines 643-692). There are no OMRI approved brand name 

crop inputs containing Vitamin B1 in the final product.

The Crops Subcommittee chose to separate the vitamins for voting purposes, as indicated below.

Subcommittee votes:

Motion to remove vitamin B1 from §205.601(j) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: incompatible with a system of sustainable 

agriculture due to its unproven efficacy or need and a lack of essentiality.

Motion by: Emily Oakley

Seconded by: Steve Ela

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 3 Recuse: 0 

Motion to remove Vitamins C and E from §205.601(j) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Emily Oakley

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 3 Recuse: 0

Lead salts

Reference: 205.602 The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production: 

(d) Lead salts.

Technical Report: none

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 35/175
Subcommittee Review:

Lead poisoning can cause a number of adverse human health effects but is particularly detrimental to 

the neurological development of children. Lead accumulates in soils, so it is important to avoid soil 

applications of materials containing lead, whether the lead is in synthetic materials or naturally 

occurring (nonsynthetic) lead salts.

Public comments received were in favor of keeping lead salts on the list of nonsynthetic substances 

prohibited for use in organic crop production. 

The NOSB recommends keeping lead salts in its prohibited status on the National List. 

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove lead salts from §205.602 based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

Reference: 205.602 The following nonsynthetic substances may not be used in organic crop production: 

(i) Tobacco dust (nicotine sulfate)

Technical Report: none

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review:

Tobacco dust, nicotine sulfate, has been present on the National List as a prohibited substance since the 

inception of the USDA organic regulations. This natural product can be used as a pesticide and as a fertility 

input. Due to the negative human health effects caused by this material, it has been relisted as a 

prohibited nonsynthetic on the National List at every sunset with no objections from the public or from the 

NOSB. It is present on the Hazardous Substance list and regulated by OSHA and the EPA as well as other 

agencies.

Public comments indicated that certifiers, businesses and public interest organizations agree that this 

product should remain listed as a prohibited nonsynthetic. It was noted by two certifiers and OMRI that 

this is currently allowed as a natural agricultural product to be incorporated into the soil, while tobacco 

dust, tea and smoke are prohibited by USDA organic regulations. Clarification had been requested to better 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 36/175
draw the line between where it is allowed and where it is prohibited. It was noted that this product is no 

longer commercially available as a crop pest control product, however it could still be homemade.

The Subcommittee recognizes there are questions as to where to draw the line in respect to the use of 

tobacco, tobacco dust, smoke, and tea. The Subcommittee is researching the use of various tobacco 

products as soil amendments, compost feedstocks, etc. in organic agriculture as well as future actions 

needed, if any, to clarify these allowed or prohibited uses.

The Crops Subcommittee supports keeping tobacco dust on the National List at §205.602.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove tobacco dust from §205.602 based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Joelle Mosso

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 37/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 38/175
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee

Petitioned Material Proposal

Fatty Alcohols (Octanol/Decanol mix) 

August 1, 2017

Summary of Petition 

Green Ag Supply, LLC has petitioned for inclusion of natural fatty alcohols in Section 205.601 of the 

National Organic Program’s (NOP) National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The petitioner 

intends to use this substance as sucker control on organic crops.

Category: Synthetic Substance Allowed for Use in Organic Crop Production 

NOP Reference: 205.601 - Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. 

NOP Section: 205.601(k) - As plant growth regulators 

Requested Annotation: As a sucker control on organic crops

Rather than filing separate petitions for octanol (C8) and decanol (C10), the petitioner chose to submit a

single petition to focus on the blend of C8C10 fatty alcohol since it is the product that is specifically 

manufactured for use in the end products N-TAC (EPA Reg. No. 51873-20) and O-TAC PLANT CONTACT 

AGENT (EPA Reg. No. 51873-18). This blend of fatty alcohols is also marketed under the product name 

ALFOL 810 (EPA Reg. No. 63896-1). The only other registered uses for individual fatty alcohols is the C10 

(decanol) and it is not included in this petition. There is no EPA registered use for C8 (octanol) fatty 

alcohol.

Summary of Review: 

Fatty alcohols (Octanol and Decanol) are monohydric aliphatic alcohols containing 8 and 10 carbons 

respectfully with a single (-OH) group. The Octyl-Decyl alcohol blend refers to a blend of C8 and C10 

alcohol (42.6%/56.7%). According to the petitioner, raw material for the alcohols are derived primarily 

from Palm Kernel Oil and Palm Oil, not synthetic alcohol.

The petitioner proposes to use the fatty alcohol blend for topping and sucker control on organic crops. 

The Technical Review indicates the specific use of this fatty alcohol substance is to chemically remove 

flower buds and suckers from tobacco plants. This process prevents seed formation and causes the plant 

to focus on leaf production. This is important because tobacco sells by weight, so the heavier the leaves, 

the greater the profit.

There is no reference in the National List for fatty alcohols. The proposal to add fatty alcohols to the 

National List specifies 7 CFR 205.601 (k) under the heading plant growth regulator. This section of the 

National List currently describes the use of the synthetic substance ethylene in organic crop production 

as a plant growth regulator for regulation of pineapple flowering. Fatty alcohols as aqueous emulsions 

inhibit terminal or axillary bud growth of tobacco plants. Contact with meristematic tissue affects plant 

development by preventing the growth flower buds and suckers. The EPA only registers products 

containing fatty alcohols for tobacco sucker control.

EPA has only approved fatty alcohols for use as a growth regulator on tobacco, and the technical review 

only covered use of fatty alcohols for use on tobacco. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 39/175
Category 1: Classification 

1. For CROP use: This substance is synthetic.

 Is the substance formulated or manufactured by a process that chemically changes a substance 

extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources? [OFPA §6502(21)] If so, 

describe, using NOP 5033-1 as a guide. 

 

Fatty alcohols can be produced from natural fats from plants or animals, or from petroleum 

sources. In either case, chemical changes are required to produce fatty alcohols.

2. Reference to appropriate OFPA category: 

Is the substance used in production, and does it contain an active synthetic ingredient in the 

following categories: [§6517(c)(1)(B)(i)]; copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 

bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and 

minerals; livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps 

and seals, insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; or (ii) is used in 

production and contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern?

Fatty alcohols do not fall into any of the OFPA categories. Fatty alcohols produced as a mixture 

of four aliphatic alcohols are not considered inert by the Environmental Protection Agency nor 

are they included in List 4. Fatty alcohols may be registered with the EPA only for tobacco sucker 

control. N-decyl alcohol (decanol) and n-octyl alcohol (octanol) are individually approved by the 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food and non-food use as solvents or co-solvents.

Category 2: Adverse Impacts 

1. What is the potential for the substance to have detrimental chemical interactions with other 

materials used in organic farming systems? 

There appears to be no known detrimental chemical interactions between fatty alcohols and 

other materials used in organic farming systems. Mineral oil, cooking oil or paraffin oil are 

currently the only topping and suckering substances used by organic crop producers and there is 

no proven adverse impact with these substances.

2. What is the toxicity and mode of action of the substance and of its breakdown products or any 

contaminants, and their persistence and areas of concentration in the environment? 

[§6518(m)(2)]

The log Kow is an indicator of a chemical’s tendency to bioaccumulate. The TR reports log Kow’s 

for octanol and decanol at 3.15 and 4.57 respectively, which are moderately low.

3. Describe the probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, misuse or 

disposal of such substance? [§6518(m)(3)]

According to the Safer Choice determination of the EPA, 1-decanol, 1-octanol, 1-dodecanol and 

the C6-C12 alcohols are expected to be of low concern for environmental contamination based 

on experimental and modeled data. Linear fatty alcohols in general are easily biodegradable. 

The solubility of fatty alcohols in water decreases with an increasing C-chain length. Fatty 

alcohols possess only moderate acute toxicity for aquatic organisms. In general, in their range of 

water solubility no toxic effects are observed. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 40/175
The fatty alcohols from both natural and manufactured sources represent a low risk for 

environmental contamination. 

4. Discuss the effect of the substance on human health. 

There is no evidence to suggest that the aliphatic alcohols cause increased susceptibility to 

health problems in infants and children. Based on the results of the available studies, no 

endpoints of toxicological concern have been identified for human health risk assessment 

purposes. The EPA concluded that there are no human risks of concern for aliphatic alcohols. TR 

lines 396 – 399.

5. Discuss any effects the substance may have on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including 

the salt index and solubility of the soil), crops and livestock. [§6518(m)(5)] 

When fatty alcohols are applied to tobacco plants for suckering with a surfactant, an average 

residue of 1.6 parts per million (ppm) of the applied fatty alcohols and 1.0 ppm of the surfactant 

remain on the cured leaves. Over 7000 ppm of naturally occurring fatty alcohols are also present 

in and on the cured leaves. Fatty alcohols induce a low incidence of polynucleate root tip cells 

or root tip cells with fragmented nuclei. The fatty alcohols are produced naturally, in all living 

organisms, from bacteria to man, and thus, are widely present throughout the natural world. In 

any agro-ecosystem, fatty alcohols will be present from natural sources. The introduction of C6-

C12 fatty alcohols for topping and suckering may produce short term toxicity to many organisms 

in the range of 1-100 milligrams/liter, however; because the application rate is intermittent and 

biodegradability and removal rate are high for this substance no readily observable effects occur 

in the agroecosystem. TR lines 342-352.

6. Are there any adverse impacts on biodiversity? (§205.200) 

Fatty alcohols are chemicals that naturally occur in all plants and animals. They are known for 

their high level of biodegradability in the environments. Their derivative products are 

additionally designed to rapidly degrade after use and are not considered endocrine disrupters.

Category 3: Alternatives/Compatibility 

1. Are there alternatives to using the substance? Evaluate alternative practices as well as nonsynthetic and synthetic available materials. [§6518(m)(6)]

Topping may be done by hand or with special machines that cut the flower heads and sacrifice a 

few leaves. Topping requires two or three trips over the field to catch all the plants. Suckers 

can be removed by hand as well as stunted by carefully applying approved soybean oil or 

mineral oil to the top of the plant. Topping and suckering are the most time-consuming tasks 

associated with growing organic tobacco, and may be necessary every week for 10 weeks.

2. In balancing the responses to the criteria above, is the substance compatible with a system of 

sustainable agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)]

No. The Crops Subcommittee does not think that use of a synthetic growth regulator is 

compatible with a system of sustainable and organic agriculture.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 41/175
Classification Motion: 

 

Motion to classify fatty alcohols (octanol/decanol mix) as petitioned as synthetic.

Motion by: Jesse Buie

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

National List Motion: 

Motion to add fatty alcohols (octanol/decanol mix) as petitioned at §205.601(k)(2) for use in 

organic crop production.

Motion by: Jesse Buie

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Francis Thicke, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 16, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 42/175
 

National Organic Standards Board 

Crops Subcommittee Petitioned Material Proposal

Anaerobic Digestate

August 15, 2017

Summary of Anaerobic Digestate Petition: 

Cenergy USA, Inc. submitted a petition “to establish a separate classification for anaerobic digestate on the 

National list of Allowed and Prohibited Substances”. The petition requests that anaerobic digestate fiber, or 

digestate, produced without synthetic materials, be allowed for use in organic production exclusive of daysto-harvest restrictions following application.

The petition states: “the section for inclusion of substance: §205.600 as plant or soil amendments”; 

however, the material does not include any synthetic materials and so would not fall under §205.601, 

Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. The petition requests that anaerobic 

digestate materials not be classified as raw manure and therefore not be subject to pre-harvest intervals. If 

approved, an inclusion of anaerobic digestate would likely involve an amendment to 205.203(c), with a new 

listing defining a standard for anaerobic digestate.

The petition is for anaerobic digestate derived from plant and animal products in a two stage mixed plugflow digester. Anaerobic digestate fiber is currently used in horticultural products, crop production, and 

landscape applications as a soil amendment and fertilizer with the same restrictions required of raw 

manure, when used in organic production. The fiber is an ingredient in potting soils, is used in fertilizers, 

and serves as an alternative to peat moss in the commercial greenhouse industry.

In this petition, anaerobic digestate fiber is manufactured by collecting animal manure and/or food scraps 

in a receiving pit. The petition states: “the waste is collected throughout the day, chopped as needed, and 

pumped directly into the anaerobic digester vessel”. During the first stage of production, the raw waste is 

mixed and heated to 101 °F. Either reclaimed waste heat or a boiler is used to maintain the digester 

temperature for the growth of methanogenic bacteria. Waste materials from the first stage gravity flow 

into the second stage of the vessel. Here “the methanogenic bacteria convert volatile fatty acids and acetic 

acids produced in the first stage of the anaerobic digestate vessel into a biogas”. Heat mixes the material in 

a rotational motion, and it is held at 101 °F for 21 days. Next the waste flows into an effluent collection pit 

for additional processing. The liquid and solids are separated, and a fiber of 30-35% solid material is 

produced. 

The petitioner states that digestate is not raw manure or compost, is virtually pathogen free, and therefore 

should not be restricted. They suggest that the two stage mixed plug-flow anaerobic digester produces a 

material that is equivalent to OMRI’s classification of processed manure (based on NOP Guidance NOP 5006 

Processed Animal Manures in Organic Crop Production). While this classification specifies a minimum 

temperature of 150 °F for at least one hour and maximum moisture content of 12%, the petitioner 

proposes that these temperature, duration, and drying criteria are unnecessary for pathogen kill when 

using their digestion process. 

Summary of Review: 

The NOP first sent the petition to the Materials Subcommittee before making an eligibility determination. 

In agreement with the NOP, the MS determined that the petition should be sent to the Crops 

Subcommittee for review. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 43/175
 

The CS requested a comprehensive technical review (TR) for all anaerobic digestate system technologies 

and feedstocks and posed the following supplemental questions: 

1. Define anaerobic digestion (AD) and its end products.

2. Describe commercially available AD technologies and how the different technologies affect the end 

products. 

3. Discuss differences between anaerobic digestate products and compost.

4. Provide a summary of all the methods in use for creating this material, with feedstocks, ingredients, 

and end products. The TR should also describe any materials (e.g., acids, bases, microorganisms, 

etc.) typically added during the anaerobic digestion process, and discuss the fate of these additives 

(e.g., if they are used up, removed, or contribute to the nutrient profile for the end product). 

5. Explain a typical nutrient cycle for the feedstocks into end products from these processes, focusing 

on nitrogen.

6. Describe available data concerning pathogen (e.g., E. coli, Salmonella) control using anaerobic 

digestion and describe documented microbiological risks from use of AD products. 

The TR provides a broad review of anaerobic digestate, looking at Plug Flow, Complete Mix, the Chinese 

Dome Digester, and the Indian Gobar System in addition to the Two Stage Mixed-Plug Flow method. It

examined only the digestate fiber, not the liquid that is also an end product. There is broad variability in 

the physical and chemical properties of digestate fiber depending upon the feedstocks and fermentation 

process. The three products of anaerobic digestion are biogas, digestate fiber, and liquid (also referred to 

as the liquor).

According to the TR, “anaerobic digestate is best characterized as friable, flocculated organic matter” (LINES 

96). “Application of AD recycles nutrients in a way that is similar to the application of raw manure and 

compost. However, a review of the literature indicates that the nitrogen in AD will have higher levels of 

ammonium (NH4

+

-N) nitrogen” (TR LINES 136-138). “Sulfur amino acid decomposition under reducing 

conditions—such as in the absence of oxygen—increases the production of hydrogen sulfide gas, which is 

usually vented with the biogas unless it is precipitated prior to release. More research would be needed to 

investigate how the soil sulfur cycle is changed by anaerobic digestion technologies, and whether the 

reduced forms of sulfur from AD have an impact on plant availability and soil microorganisms” (TR LINES 

185-189).

“While the anaerobic digestion process can take place without chemical additives, various substances are 

used to pre-treat the feedstocks, adjust the substrate during the digestion process, and treat the finished 

AD. Various other ingredients may be blended with the feedstocks before or injected during the digestion 

process, which may include acids and bases to adjust the pH, surfactants to dissolve and separate fatty 

acids, and sequestrants and chelating agents to precipitate and remove toxic metals. The fate of these 

various additives would depend on how they are partitioned when the digestate is removed. At least some 

can be reasonably expected to remain in either the digestate or the liquor. While it is possible to make 

some predictions about the likely fate of the additives based on their structure, function and activity, these 

predictions would need to be empirically tested by third-party peer-reviewed studies to see if these 

predictions are scientifically valid. Such studies are not available in the literature” (TR LINES 412-421). 

“Adsorbents and surfactants may also be added to remove the scum from the liquor, both during the 

wastewater pretreatment process as well as after the gas is vented and the effluent is released. Some 

surfactants, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, polyethylene sorbatan fatty acids (Tween), and polydimethyl 

siloxane polyethers (Tegoprens) may accelerate digestion and increase the methane yield (Madamwar, 

Patel, and Patel 1991; Madamwar et al. 1992). Others, such as the alkyl sulfonates, appear to inhibit some 

of the organisms responsible for the digestion process and lower the methane yield (Hobson and Wheatley 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 44/175
 

1993). Some commercial sources of AD will add nitrification inhibitors. Most of these are proprietary 

products, and the active substances are trade secrets” (TR LINES 199-208). 

Because this petition is for manure that does not meet the compost practice standard in 205.203(c)(2) and 

is requesting an exemption to the raw manure application practice standard in 205.203(c)(1), it is helpful to 

review some history for these two standards. The Preamble to the Final Rule published in 2000 (65 FR 

80547) addresses the issues surrounding applications of manure that were discussed during the rulemaking 

process. The 120-day interval for crops in contact with the soil and the 90-interval for other food crops 

were both supported by the NOSB. It explains on page 80567 that “commenters stated that the lengthy 

intervals between application and harvest would not impose an unreasonable or unfeasible burden on 

organic producers”. Additionally, “other commenters stated that the provisions were consistent with the 

requirements in existing organic standards and added that the restrictions were justifiable because they 

reflected responsible management practices”.

In 2010, the NOP published Guidance 5006 Processed Animal Manures in Organic Crop Production. It 

specifies guidelines for manure treatment to reduce pathogens that allow for such products to be applied 

without a pre-harvest interval. 

Some manufacturers subsequently inquired if their manure treatment methods not specified in NOP 5006 

could be viewed similarly. On May 9, 2016, the NOP sent a Memorandum to the NOSB on Guidance for 

Treated Manure Products. The memo notes, “Stakeholders have ... asked AMS to clarify if anaerobic 

digestate made with manure as a feedstock requires an application interval”. The memo goes on to 

request that the NOSB “evaluate if the prescribed application intervals apply when these products are 

used”. This proposal seeks to provide clarification on this request. 

In addition to anaerobic digestate, other manufacturers employ heat without drying or a moisture 

reduction process without heating to treat manure. NOP 5006 requests that the CS also evaluate these 

treatment processes to determine if they should be allowed without a preharvest interval. Following the 

adoption of the Food Modernization Safety Act, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) undertook a risk 

assessment of produce grown with manure. The CS is awaiting the outcome of the FDA’s assessment and 

will then determine how to evaluate these other manure treatment methods as a separate work agenda 

item.

Category 1: Classification 

1. For CROP use: Is the substance _X_ Non-synthetic or __ Synthetic?

 Is the substance formulated or manufactured by a process that chemically changes a substance 

extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources? [OFPA §6502(21)] If so, 

describe, using NOP 5033-1 as a guide. 

 No; the TR is not asking for a digestate listing using any synthetic materials.

2. Reference to appropriate OFPA category: 

Is the substance used in production, and does it contain an active synthetic ingredient in the 

following categories: [§6517(c)(1)(B)(i)]; copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 

bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and minerals; 

livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps and seals, 

insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; or (ii) is used in production and 

contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern?

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 45/175
 

No. The substance is not being petitioned as a synthetic, and these categories only apply to 

synthetic substances.

Category 2: Adverse Impacts 

1. What is the potential for the substance to have detrimental chemical interactions with other 

materials used in organic farming systems? [§6518(m)(1)]

None.

2. What is the toxicity and mode of action of the substance and of its breakdown products or any 

contaminants, and their persistence and areas of concentration in the environment? [§6518(m)(2)]

Heavy metals and other chemical contaminants may be present in digestate fiber. According to the 

TR, “the metal contaminants of greater concern in livestock systems are copper and zinc” (LINES 

616-617), as would also be the case when such manure is used raw in field applications or as an 

ingredient in compost. Other chemical contaminants may include phthalates from degraded 

plastics and pesticides (TR lines 622-623). 

3. Describe the probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, misuse or 

disposal of such substance? [§6518(m)(3)]

Digestate is often made using manure from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and 

as noted above, it is also sometimes used in raw manure field applications or as an ingredient in 

compost. “CAFOs are a significant source of environmental pollution and pose risks related to 

water contamination, greenhouse gas emissions, aerosol pollutants, heavy metal contamination, 

and farm chemicals such as pesticides, antibiotics, and growth hormones. Manure is also a vector 

for human and animal pathogens” (TR LINE 667-670). 

4. Discuss the effect of the substance on human health. [§6517(c)(1)(A)(i); §6517(c)(2)(A)(i); 

§6518(m)(4)]. 

“The principal human health concern from AD is food-borne pathogens” (TR LINE 791). “Several 

peer-reviewed papers document that foodborne pathogens commonly survive the anaerobic 

digestion process, as summarized in Table 2. In particular, spore-forming pathogens are the most 

likely to remain viable after the anaerobic digestion process (Franke-Whittle and Insam 2013; Nkoa 

2014)” (TR LINES 797-799). 

“While the anaerobic digestion process is documented to reduce certain pathogens, anaerobic 

conditions pose a different set of foodborne pathogen risks than would be found under aerobic 

conditions. Field validation of treatment processes is needed to verify that pathogens are not able 

to survive the anaerobic digestion process and migrate onto harvestable plant parts (Gerba and 

Smith 2005). That is because several pathogens are able to survive or at least remain viable after 

the anaerobic digestion process, but would be unlikely to survive aerobic composting. The 

indicator species used for aerobic compost, E. coli and Salmonella spp. may not be appropriate for 

anaerobic conditions. The indicator pathogens used for quality assurance of digested residues in 

Denmark are Salmonellae, Listeria, Campylobacter and Yersinia (Sahlström 2003)” (TR LINES 804-

813). 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 46/175
 

Digestate fiber made from agricultural feedstock may be contaminated with Listeria 

monocytogenes as well as other common foodborne pathogens mentioned above (TR LINES 820-

821, 824-831). Clostridium perfringens was not reduced in anaerobic digestion in several cases (TR 

LINE 830).

“Another foodborne pathogen of concern with AD is Campylobacter jejuni. While Campylobacter is 

a microaerophile, meaning that it requires some oxygen, it also thrives in oxygen-poor conditions. 

Anaerobic digestion was found to have little effect on Campylobacter jejuni populations after 112 

days of digestion (Kearney, Larkin, and Levett 1993)” (TR LINES 833-836). 

“Bacillus anthracis, the vector responsible for anthrax, was observed to survive anaerobic digestion 

of slaughterhouse wastes (Franke-Whittle and Insam 2013). The organism can be grown in either 

aerobic or anaerobic conditions, and also forms spores that can remain viable after thermophilic 

temperatures (J. E. Olsen and Larsen 1987). Prions, the vectors that transmit bovine spongiform 

encephalopathy (BSE), are not considered to be adequately digested in the fermentation process 

(Franke-Whittle and Insam 2013)” (TR LINES 844-850). 

“The petition claims that the pathogen reduction in plant and animal materials properly processed 

in a two stage mixed plug-flow anaerobic digester produced an equivalent heating process to 

aerobic composting as specified in the NOP regulations at §205.203(c)(2) (Joblin 2016). The 

petition requests that such AD not be subject to a days-to-harvest interval after application. 

Laboratory analyses were included in the petition, but the sampling methodology was not 

described. The results were not peer-reviewed. While AD is not raw manure, it is not aerobically 

composted. The temperature reported in the petition is 38°C (101°F) (Joblin 2016). This is in the 

mesophilic range and below the temperature of 131°F specified in the NOP regulations for 

composting manure at §205.203(c)(2)” (TR LINES 854-861). In the production of anaerobic 

digestate from sewage sludge, the EPA requires that the material go through aerobic composting 

under the same conditions stipulated in §205.203(c)(2), a process to further reduce pathogens 

(PFRP). Aerobic composting of the digestate is a process to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP) 

(TR LINES 918-924). 

“The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio for the system is not specified. The patent does not make a pathogen 

reduction claim or provide any evidence that the system reduces foodborne pathogens equivalent 

to aerobic composting (Dvorak 2012) (TR LINES 861-863). The petition does not address risks/fates 

of anaerobic pathogens that may be present following the anaerobic digestion process that may 

not be relevant to those normally studied in aerobic composting. “No peer-reviewed studies were 

found to support that the petitioned PFRP was effective to a degree equivalent to the aerobic 

composting requirements for livestock manure specified in the NOP regulations at §205.203(c)(2). 

Independent research to determine whether the process is equivalent would require original 

research and third party review of the findings and is beyond the scope of this report” (TR LINES 

863-867). 

5. Discuss any effects the substance may have on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including the 

salt index and solubility of the soil), crops and livestock. [§6518(m)(5)] 

As a source of organic matter, digestate fiber is generally beneficial to soil health; however, the salt 

content may be higher than in compost (TR LINES 729-730).

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 47/175
 

“The majority of trials with agronomic and vegetable crops show that AD is beneficial for plant 

growth, at least compared with mineral (chemical) fertilizer and with no fertilizer; there were some 

contrary results in a review of the literature (Möller and Müller 2012). In situations where yields 

were reduced and quality degraded by the AD treatment, there was evidence that the amendment 

was phytotoxic. Germination has been negatively correlated with ammonia nitrogen, fatty acids, 

and volatile organic acids, suggesting these constituents in AD may be harmful to crops when 

applied in excess (Poggi-Varaldo et al. 1999; Walker, Charles, and Cord-Ruwisch 2009; Prays and 

Kaupenjohann 2016)” (TR LINES 738-744). 

6. Are there any adverse impacts on biodiversity? (§205.200) 

Depending on the source of the materials for the feedstock, there may be a detrimental impact on 

overall biodiversity. For example, “with systems that produce biofuel co-products, the continuous 

production of corn (maize) has led to a loss of biodiversity. In these cases, the solid biomass left 

after the fermentation of corn to make bioethanol is anaerobically digested to produce biogas,

frequently co-digested with pig slurry collected from CAFOs. The anaerobic digestate is returned to 

the corn fields. The ecological efficiency of such a system has been questioned (Svoboda et al. 

2015). Efforts to find alternative biofuel crops that increase biodiversity and reduce dependence on 

fossil fuel inputs have had limited success (Mast et al. 2014)” (TR LINES 746-751). 

Category 3: Alternatives/Compatibility 

1. Are there alternatives to using the substance? Evaluate alternative practices as well as nonsynthetic and synthetic available materials. [§6518(m)(6)]

Organic producers employ a wide range of practices to foster soil health and fertility, including 

cover cropping, incorporating crop residue, crop rotation, and conservation and no-tillage 

techniques. There are numerous alternative materials to digestate fiber, including “compost, 

vermicompost, raw manure, heat-treated and processed manure, mulches, and organic fertilizers 

such as blood meal, bone meal, fish meal, soybean meal, alfalfa meal and cottonseed meal” (TR 

lines 876-878). In addition, anaerobic digestate may currently be used in organic production as an 

ingredient in compost or as a manure subject to the required preharvest intervals required of raw 

manure inputs in §205.203. 

2. In balancing the responses to the criteria above, is the substance compatible with a system of 

sustainable agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)]

Because of the potential for negative effects on human health through food-borne pathogen, the 

unproven safety of digestate fiber, and the many alternative practices and materials already in use 

in organic production, this substance as petitioned without preharvest application intervals is not 

compatible with a system of sustainable agriculture.

Classification Motion: 

 

Motion to classify anaerobic digestate produced from nonsynthetic feedstocks as nonsynthetic 

Motion by: Emily Oakley 

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 48/175
 

Motion to amend section 205.203(c) as follows:

 §205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard.

* * * * *

(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter 

content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant 

nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances. Animal and plant 

materials include:

(1) Raw animal manure, which must be composted or undergo an anaerobic digestion process

unless it is:

(i) Applied to land used for a crop not intended for human consumption;

(ii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 120 days prior to the harvest of a product whose 

edible portion has direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles; or

(iii) Incorporated into the soil not less than 90 days prior to the harvest of a product whose 

edible portion does not have direct contact with the soil surface or soil particles;

(2) Composted plant and animal materials produced though a process that:

(i) Established an initial C:N ratio of between 25:1 and 40:1; and

(ii) Maintained a temperature of between 131 °F and 170 °F for 3 days using an in-vessel or 

static aerated pile system; or

(iii) Maintained a temperature of between 131 °F and 170 °F for 15 days using a windrow 

composting system, during which period, the materials must be turned a minimum of five 

times.

(3) Uncomposted plant materials.

(4) Anaerobic digestion products that have been processed to reduce pathogens.

Motion by: Emily Oakley 

Seconded by: Steve Ela

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Francis Thicke, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 49/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 50/175
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee Proposal

Strengthening the Organic Seed Guidance

August 15, 2017

Introduction

Seed is much more than just an input. It is the fundamental starting point for transforming agriculture 

through nutritious ecologically grown food, feed and fiber, especially when coupled with the principles 

behind organic production of building healthy soils, using non-toxic inputs, and stewarding natural 

resources and the environment. As the foundation for organic farming systems, seed deserves continuous 

attention, from protecting its genetic resources, to preventing contamination, to building a strong organic 

seed sector which can supply the needs of a diverse and resilient agriculture.

The organic community has repeatedly noted that progress towards full adoption of organically grown seed 

in organic systems is too slow. While organic seed availability continues to improve, there has been 

inconsistent progress in the proportion of organic seed in use by many growers. The state of the organic 

seed industry has changed since the first circulation of the 2011 NOP draft guidance, with further evolution 

since 2013 when the final guidance became official. The final guidance does not reflect the progress that 

has been made in the organic seed sector since the regulations and the 20051 and 20082 NOSB 

recommendations were written.

Therefore, the NOSB started soliciting public comment in 2016 on ways the organic seed guidance could 

and should be strengthened in order to achieve full compliance with the statements in the federal rule in 

§205.204 (a). This proposal addresses the main points brought up during both the public comment periods 

and the NOSB discussions of this and related topics.

Background

The NOSB has worked on organic seed policies since its formation in 1992. This has enabled an organic seed 

industry to rise to fill the need for high quality organic seed since the USDA organic rule was implemented 

in 2002. After the NOSB made additional recommendations on the need for guidance on how the organic 

seed requirements should be explained and enforced, the NOP published the Guidance on Seeds, Annual 

Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production in 2013 (NOP 5029). The guidance adopted many 

of the NOSB recommendations but not all of them, and many stakeholders felt the guidance was not strong 

or specific enough to make sure that multiple benefits provided by organic seed were fully embraced on 

organic farms. Organic seed producers incorporate characteristics that are needed in organic farming 

systems and are not always present in nonorganic seed varieties. Organic seed breeders do not breed 

seeds with a “one size fits all” outlook, instead they include regional adaptions that provide more resilience 

for organic producers. 

Since the mid-2000s, genetically engineered seeds have led to contamination of the seed supply, and 

organic seed companies are struggling to stay viable when the adoption of organic seed is not growing at 

the same rate as the organic products market. Therefore it seems like a good time for the NOSB to re-visit 

the important topic of organic seed.

 

1

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Rec%20Commercial%20Availability%20of%20Organic

%20Seed.pdf

2

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP%20Final%20Rec%20Seed%20Commercial%20Availability.p

df

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 51/175
Relevant Areas of the Rule and Guidance

From the USDA organic regulations: 

§205.2 Terms defined

Practice standard. The guidelines and requirements through which a production or handling 

operation implements a required component of its production or handling organic system plan (OSP). 

A practice standard includes a series of allowed and prohibited actions, materials, and conditions to 

establish a minimum level performance for planning, conducting, and maintaining a function, such as 

livestock health care or facility pest management, essential to an organic operation.

§205.201 Organic production and handling system plan.

(a) The producer or handler of a production or handling operation, except as exempt or excluded 

under §205.101, intending to sell, label, or represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” 

“organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must develop an organic 

production or handling system plan that is agreed to by the producer or handler and an accredited 

certifying agent. An organic system plan must meet the requirements set forth in this section for 

organic production or handling. An organic production or handling system plan must include:

.....

(5) A description of the management practices and physical barriers established to prevent 

commingling of organic and nonorganic products on a split operation and to prevent contact of 

organic production and handling operations and products with prohibited substances; and

(6) Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate compliance with the 

regulations.

§205.204 Seeds and planting stock practice standard.

(a) The producer must use organically grown seeds, annual seedlings, and planting 

stock: Except, That,

(1) Nonorganically produced, untreated seeds and planting stock may be used to produce an 

organic crop when an equivalent organically produced variety is not commercially 

available: Except, That, organically produced seed must be used for the production of edible sprouts;

Excerpts from the Guidance on Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production 

published March 4, 2013 (NOP 5029).

4. Policy 

Producers should develop and follow procedures for procuring organic seeds, annual seedlings, and 

planting stock and maintain adequate records as evidence of these practices in their organic system 

plan (OSP). 

4.1 Sourcing of Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock 

4.1.3 The following considerations could be acceptable to justify use of non-organic seeds and 

planting stock as not commercially available. These considerations must be described by 

the operation in their organic system plan (OSP), pursuant to § 205.201(a)(2), and approved 

by the certifying agent. 

a. Form Considerations: Examples of forms may include, but are not limited to, treated or nontreated seeds or planting stock, use of pelleted seed... 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 52/175
b. Quality Considerations: Examples may include, but are not limited to, germination rate of the 

seed; presence of weed seeds in the seed mix; shelf life and stability of the seeds; 

and disease and pest resistance. 

c. Quantity Considerations: Producers may provide evidence that quantities are not available in 

sufficiently large or small amounts given the scale of the operation. 

4.2 Recordkeeping for Organic Producers 

4.2.1 The following records should be maintained by organic producers: 

a. A list of all seed and planting stock, indicating any non-organic seeds or stock used, and the 

justification for their use including lack of equivalent variety, form, quality or quantity 

considerations. Records describing on-farm trials of organic seed and planting stock can be 

used to demonstrate lack of equivalent varieties for site specific conditions. 

b. The search and procurement methods used to source organic seed and planting stock varieties, 

including: 

1. Evidence of efforts made to source organic seed, including documentation of contact 

with three or more seed or planting stock sources to ascertain the availability of 

equivalent organic seed or planting stock. Sources should include companies that 

offer organic seeds and planting stock. 

4.4 Role of Certifying Agents 

4.4.1 Certifying agents must verify the procedures that certified operations utilize to obtain and 

plant organic varieties suitable for their operations as part of their annual review of the 

OSP. 

...... 

4.4.3 Certifying agents shall verify the commercial availability requirements on an annual basis, in 

their review of the OSP, pursuant to§ 205.402(a)(1). 

4.4.4 Certifying agents should review an operation’s progress in obtaining organic seeds, planting

stock and transplants by comparing current source information to previous years. 

Discussion

This discussion will be framed around each major point brought up in public comment and NOSB 

deliberations, with a resulting proposal based on how and where “The Guidance on Seeds.....” (NOP 5029 

for reference purposes) should be improved. Also discussed briefly will be if a rule change might be 

appropriate to consider for some of these issues.

A. Crops at risk from GMO contamination might need to be acknowledged, emphasized and have 

additional requirements for sourcing seeds.

The NOSB has worked for almost four years on trying to assure seed purity for at-risk crops but has not yet 

come to a recommendation that can be implemented within the NOP. Each time this subject is raised, 

growers, handlers, accredited certifying agents (ACAs), and the public all indicate that there needs to be 

more incentive for seed companies to develop organic seed, keep it protected from contamination, and 

require growers to use it consistently. The fact that the NOP 5029 guidance does not even mention this 

subject is of concern to many stakeholders.

Commenters provided good suggestions about strengthening the guidance itself, and we heard from 

certifiers that better guidance and training for ACAs on non-GMO status verification as well as what level of 

contamination would lead to a non-compliance for seed, is needed. This issue is important and the NOSB 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 53/175
will continue the conversation in a future discussion document, planned for fall 2017, which will address 

seed purity from excluded methods. 

For this discussion document, we are looking in a more general way of several possible places where seed 

purity from excluded methods could be brought up in the structure of NOP 5029.

i. In the introduction to section 4. 

a. Policy- In addition to the procedures mentioned for procuring organic seeds and 

documenting them, procedures for preventing and avoiding contamination of at-risk crop 

seed could be mentioned. This could then lead into specific sub-sections in 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 

about how to do this. This is supported by the language in §205.201 (a)(5) that states that 

an OSP must describe prevention from contamination. As of the writing of this discussion 

document (winter 2017) the at-risk crops would be: corn, soybeans, canola, alfalfa, beets, 

chard, cotton, rice, and summer squash. More at-risk crops can be added to the NOP 

guidance document if they become commercially available in the marketplace.

ii. 4.1.2 could have the additional clause about excluded methods, "Certified operations may use 

non-organic seed and planting stock only if equivalent organically-produced varieties of organic 

seeds and planting stock are not commercially available, and the conventional replacement variety 

can be documented as being produced without the use of Excluded Methods. (Language in italics is 

proposed new language). 

iii. An alternative idea to this specific addition in number ii would be to add a section 4.1.7 which 

specifies that non-organic seed must be produced without excluded methods. While both these 

ideas are good, the first one of amending 4.1.2 is cleaner and where the authors are leaning at this 

time. 

iv. Contamination level can be a valid reason not to use organic seed if an operation is testing seed. 

We would hope that organic seed tests lower in GMOs but without a threshold or testing program 

in place there is no assurance of that. Therefore 4.1.3 could have part d. which states that 

contamination level is a valid reason to choose non-organic seed: d. Contamination from GMO 

Consideration: non-organic seed can be used if organic seed cannot be sourced because of GMO 

contamination.

v. Section 4.2 on recordkeeping could be strengthened in several ways. 4.2.1 (b1) indicates that a 

minimum of three seed sources should be contacted and documented. Several commenters 

believed the search for at-risk crops should be raised to five sources, with a stronger emphasis on 

the last sentence that the sources used should be companies that offer organic seeds. The NOSB 

CS agrees with this suggestion. See below for language.

Certifying agents (ACAs) have the ability under the NOP rule §205.201(a)(6) Organic

production and handling system plan, to require: 

"Additional information deemed necessary by the certifying agent to evaluate 

compliance with the regulations." 

vi. With this in mind, section 4.4.1 could be amended to not only obtain organic varieties but to avoid 

contamination for seeds at-risk of GMO contamination. An appropriate addition to 4.4 of NOP 

5029 could be to add 4.4.5 : Certifying agents review prevention measures taken to avoid 

contamination from seed of at-risk of GMO contamination crops:

4.4.5 Certifying agents should review the prevention measures taken to avoid 

contamination for seed of at-risk crops. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 54/175
The NOSB has already passed a comprehensive set of GMO prevention strategies that 

includes a section on seed, so it would be appropriate and logical to have ACAs verify those 

actions in the context of the seed guidance.

B. Organic seed usage as an Organic System Plan "goal"

The way that §205.201 (Organic system plan) is written in the regulations mandates the OSP meets the 

requirements of the section on organic production and must include descriptions of practices currently in 

use and records kept. It does not say anything about goals or future practices planned. That being said, part 

of compliance with the regulations includes §205.204 seed and planting stock. If the practices currently 

used are not sufficient to result in using organically grown seed or determining that such seed is not 

available, the certifying agent may require additional information deemed necessary (§205.201(a)(6)).

It seems reasonable for ACAs and their inspectors to request seed lists on non-organic varieties used by 

producers along with reasons for using those varieties over organically available versions of that crop type. 

Since producers often use dozens if not hundreds of seed varieties, having complete documentation in the 

OSP on each of them is neither sound nor sensible. Having inspectors look at this information on-site is 

more appropriate. The OSP is an appropriate vehicle for producers to indicate the practices they use to 

source seed, the measures they take to avoid contamination, and the reasons why they need to use nonorganic seed that is in compliance with the "equivalent variety" clause. The ACA must then evaluate if those 

efforts are sufficient and if they are not then the ACA can issue a path towards a correction. However this is 

different than an "OSP goal". Therefore the NOSB is not choosing to act on this particular point in this way.

C. Continuous improvement 

Almost every commenter wanted to have the concept of continuous improvement incorporated into the 

NOP 5029 guidance. However much of the discussion section above about OSP goals applies here. Nowhere 

in the NOP regulations are there statements that mandate improvement: not in ingredient selection for 

processed foods, choices of materials on the National List, or livestock management. Yet this has 

philosophically been one of the core values of the organic movement. 

The seed portion of the rule is a "practice standard" and the definition of this term in §205.2 above is that it 

is a minimum level performance. Yet the minimum level of performance should be to use organic seed. 

Therefore if a producer has not reached that level of performance the ACA may require additional 

conditions to establish that performance.

That leaves the NOSB with two possible avenues to make a recommendation: seeking a rule change to the 

seed practice standard §205.204 to require a demonstrable improvement over time until 100% organic 

seed use is achieved, or to work at strengthening the guidance NOP 5029 in ways that are consistent with 

the existing rule. These are not mutually exclusive; while waiting for a proposed rule change, the guidance 

could be strengthened as well. The issue becomes whether the NOSB should propose a rule change or not.

The simplest approach to a rule change might be to add a subsection to §205.204(a)(1) so it reads (new 

language in underlined italics) 

§205.204 Seeds and planting stock practice standard.

(a) The producer must use organically grown seeds, annual seedlings, and planting stock: Except, That,

(1) Nonorganically produced, untreated seeds and planting stock may be used to produce an organic 

crop when an equivalent organically produced variety is not commercially available: Except, That, 

organically produced seed must be used for the production of edible sprouts;

(i) Improvement in sourcing and use of organic seed and planting stock must be demonstrated every 

year until full compliance with (a) is achieved. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 55/175
If this were adopted then the guidance could specify what sufficient improvement would be, either as 

percent increase in acreage per year planted to organic seed, increased sourcing efforts, etc.

D. Documentation of quality, quantity and equivalent variety

Working within the existing meaning of a practice standard still leaves room for increased efforts on the 

part of producers to source organic seed and increased consistency by ACAs as they evaluate compliance.

ACAs in particular noted that they did not have enough enforcement tools to use in situations where there 

is not much improvement from year to year in the amount of organic seed used on a specific operation. We 

believe it is reasonable for ACAs to ask for improvement in compliance over time and to impose increased 

efforts to achieve compliance if progress is too slow.

Some possible changes include:

i. 4.1.3 is considered too vague. It was frequently pointed out that one reference to the OSP for

describing the considerations leading to use of non-organic seed is not being diligently enforced by 

ACAs. Commenters requested not just explanations of what form, quality and quantity meant, but 

more explicit guidance on what would not be allowed. It is not totally clear to the CS what could be 

added here except to the section on quantity. In this case it would be appropriate for the OSP to 

state what quantity of a variety is needed and the seed search to document what quantity was or 

was not available. For large operations with many seed varieties used, a few major ones could be 

represented in the OSP in this way, while others evaluated during inspections. It is not clear that 

this needs new language however, or is already covered in other sections, so no proposal is made 

for this section.

ii. §4.2.1 is the main section that could be strengthened according to most commenters. This is also 

the area where enforcement is very inconsistent. Some specifics include:

Justification for use of varieties needs to be specific to each variety on the list and which 

issue (form, quality, quantity, or equivalence) is the problem. This must be done in a 

consistent enough manner that an ACA can look for increasing the level of compliance over 

time. We suggest adding a sentence in this area:

a. 4.2.1(a). A list of all seed and planting stock, indicating any non-organic seeds or stock used, 

and the justification for their use including lack of equivalent variety, form, quality or 

quantity considerations. Justification for use of varieties needs to be specific to each variety 

on the list and which issue (form, quality, quantity, or equivalence) is the reason. Records 

describing on-farm trials of organic seed and planting stock can be used to demonstrate 

lack of equivalent varieties for site specific conditions.

iii. A better description is needed for the role of variety trials. ACAs felt that they could not mandate or 

even suggest them, yet they are one of the best ways to truly determine equivalence and quality of 

other organic varieties. Many growers perform variety trails, but documenting them has been a 

problem for both producers and ACAs. We suggest that this does not truly belong in the 

recordkeeping section because it is a production practice and therefore we are suggesting adding it 

as §4.1.2(c):

§4.1.2(c) On-farm variety trials of organic seed may be used by producers to evaluate equivalency 

and quality of varieties that are available as organic seed. Trials are encouraged and records should 

be kept of results to show inspectors but they are not mandatory. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 56/175
iv. 4.2.1(b) generates much discussion because of the three sources requirement. While this is the 

cornerstone of what ACAs require of producers, it is very prescriptive about the number, but not 

prescriptive enough about the quality of information that is received. Some companies just issue 

the same form letter every year without indicating which specific varieties they were referring to, 

while some growers use seed brokers and they simply say they checked their sources but don't 

name them. The most common suggestion to change this was to require five sources, with other 

ideas being to limit the number of years that three sources could be used as an excuse for not using 

organic seed, or to require more or different sources when improvement is not seen over time.

v. The CS agrees that checking more than three sources makes sense especially for at-risk crops. Most 

of these crops have had more development in the supply of organic seed than the vegetable 

industry. Trying to set a limit of three years on compliance is not feasible for inspectors or ACAs to 

monitor. We feel that a better approach is to aim for better compliance from both the producers 

and the seed companies and brokers who are the sources. Things like not checking the same three 

sources every year, specifying that brokers have to name the places they looked in their letters, and 

making seed sources prove that they carry organic seed are some examples. We have chosen not to 

be prescriptive about acreage or number of varieties planted because flexibility is needed for a 

great variety of cropping systems and markets, and because we do not want to inadvertently lead 

to a reduction of the genetic diversity in or crop choices. However we feel that ACAs can use 

benchmarks in improvement as a tool to verify compliance.

vi. A proposed revision of §4.2.1(b)(1) (changes in underlined italics):

1. Evidence of efforts made to source organic seed, including 

a. documentation of contact with three or more seed or planting stock sources to ascertain 

the availability of equivalent organic seed or planting stock. Five sources must be contacted 

for seed of at-risk crops.

b. Sources should include companies that offer organic seeds and planting stock. Such 

sources should provide evidence of their organic certification (if relevant), ability to source 

organic seed, and specific varieties sourced every year. 

c. Failure to demonstrate improvement in sourcing organic seed over time may result in 

additional seed sources being required or additional steps taken to procure organic seed.

vii. It is clear from public comment and from the report given during the Fall 2016 meeting on the State 

of Organic Seed report, that the organic seed requirements are not being enforced equally among 

all certifiers and upon all scales of operations. The conclusion from this is that the Role of Certifying 

Agents, as described in section 4.4 of NOP 5029, is not doing a complete job or is not being 

followed carefully enough. Much of this issue is training for ACAs rather than changing section 4.4, 

but if it were possible to put some specific language about what constitutes non-compliance, the 

ACAs would really appreciate it.

viii. §4.4.4 is the statement that justifies asking for progress in obtaining organic seeds compared to 

previous years and this is interpreted as meaning that improvement is required. Inserting language 

parallel to what we are suggesting in §4.2.1(b)(1)(iii) is one way to strengthen it:

4.4.4 Certifying agents should review an operation’s progress in obtaining organic seeds, planting 

stock and transplants by comparing current source information to previous years

a. If sufficient progress is not demonstrated a certifying agent may ask for a corrective 

action plan and require additional seed sources be researched, encourage variety trials, or require 

additional steps to procure organic seed.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 57/175
b. Non-compliances should be issued for repeated lack of progress in sourcing and using 

commercially available organic seed over time.

E. Handlers supplying seed to contract growers 

This issue was included in the 2008 NOSB recommendation on organic seed but not adopted by the NOP 

with the following comment (NOP 5029-1): 

Handlers Purchasing Seed for Contracted Growers. Several commenters stated that 7 CFR 

§ 205.204 applies to handlers purchasing seed for contractual growing purposes, and that language 

should be included in the guidance emphasize this. However, this guidance is applicable to crop 

producers subject to requirements of § 205.204, and handlers are not typically certified as crop 

producers subject to this requirement. All growers must meet the same standard and use organic 

seeds unless they can demonstrate that organic seeds are not commercially available. All producers 

must provide the necessary documentation regarding lack of commercial availability of organic 

seeds to justify use of non-organic seed or planting stock. Contracted growers should inform their 

buyers of the need to use organic seeds unless they are not commercially available.

It has been very clear that this has turned into a loophole where contract producers are not pressuring their 

buyers enough and buyers are not held accountable for promoting and requiring the use of organic seed 

when contracting with crop producers. The NOSB believes that the guidance could explicitly contain a 

statement similar to the last sentence above, and this would support both growers and certifiers to put 

more pressure on buyers who may require a specific variety be grown to fulfill a contract for organic crops. 

Also when appropriate, it should state in the grower's OSP the handler is sourcing or requiring a specific 

seed. This would then trigger inspectors and ACAs to require documentation illustrating organic seed 

sourcing and trialing would have been done. Many buyers work with specific seed sources and those 

sources could be encouraged to develop organic seed offerings, or equivalent organic varieties.

Therefore we are proposing addition of §4.2.1 (b) (3) (in underlined italics):

4.2.1 The following records should be maintained by organic producers: 

3. If seed sourcing is carried out or mandated by the buyer of a contracted crop, the producer must 

keep records of the buyer's documentation on attempting to source organic seed as part of the 

producer's own Organic System Plan. Such documentation must be comparable to that required of a 

producer who sources their own seed.

F. Organic Seed Finder

In order for producers to find organic seed, there needs to be a more comprehensive and accessible 

clearing house for listing the availability of seed varieties serving crop, vegetable and livestock producers. 

While we have a website www.organicseedfinder.org, managed by the Association of Official Seed 

Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), there is a cost for companies to list their available organic varieties, which 

leads to less than optimal use of this resource. There are other options that could be considered, such as 

having certifiers provide organic seed availability of their certified clients, in such as way so to include this 

information in a separate field in the National Organic Program Organic Integrity Database. Operators 

could then search that field for a specific variety of organic seed, and all certified operations who carry that 

seed would then be found. 

Another option is for the National Organic Program to provide some funds to an entity to manage an 

organic seed variety availability database, which could provide more in-depth information than the Organic 

Integrity Database. A more in-depth listing would cover varietal characteristics, to aid seed purchasers in 

determining if there are organic equivalent varieties to the nonorganic seeds they are currently purchasing 

and planting.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 58/175
One public commenter discussed the direction specific countries in the European Union have taken in 

promoting more organic seed use on organic operations. These countries no longer allow the use of 

nonorganic seed in certain crops that have been determined to have sufficient quantity of organic seed for 

that crop. This is not the direction the NOSB crops subcommittee is suggesting, but it is interesting to see 

how other certifying bodies are addressing this issue. Our preference would be to provide more consistent 

and accessible information on the availability of equivalent organic seed varieties.

G. Accredited Organic Certifier and Organic Inspector Training

NOP guidance 5029 states:

4.4.6 Certifiers are responsible for training their reviewers and inspectors on what protocols and 

documentation would constitute acceptable compliance in meeting commercial availability 

requirements when reviewing the organic seed mandate. 

While it is beyond the scope of this discussion document to start development of possible trainings that 

would aid consistency in verifying commercial availability of organic seed at on-site inspections and 

certification review, this is still an important topic that must be addressed in some future activity or 

discussion document. Numerous public comments were received from both the certification community as 

well as other stakeholders, stating more training is needed for certification personnel who are reviewing 

use of organic seed. Each certifier and inspector has their own approach on how to verify compliance to 

the various requirements surrounding the use of organic seed. The entire organic community could benefit 

from a more consistent and comprehensive approach, so all understand what is expected and how best to 

meet the requirements. 

The Accredited Certifiers Association, as well as the International Organic Inspectors Association both hold 

trainings tailored for their audiences, at a minimum once per year, providing venues for the dissemination 

of information once a curriculum has been developed.

The NOSB would be willing to work with these groups, within the Certification, Accreditation and 

Compliance Subcommittee structure to develop the requirements that should be met as part of a 

comprehensive training on organic seed use and determination of commercial availability. ACA and IOIA, as 

well as other stakeholders should provide us with feedback if they feel this approach is acceptable, or if 

there are other methods for achieving this goal of consistent implementation of the organic seed search 

and use requirement.

Proposals (all proposed text is in underlined italics)

1. To amend the National Organic Regulations §205.204 Organic seed and planting stock practice 

standard as follows:

(a) The producer must use organically grown seeds, annual seedlings, and planting stock: Except, That,

(1) Nonorganically produced, untreated seeds and planting stock may be used to produce an organic 

crop when an equivalent organically produced variety is not commercially available: Except, That, 

organically produced seed must be used for the production of edible sprouts;

(i) Improvement in sourcing and use of organic seed must be demonstrated every year until full 

compliance with (a) is achieved. 

2. Changes to NOP 5029 Guidance (Section 4)

The Guidance for Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock in Organic Crop Production should be 

amended as follows:

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 59/175
4. Policy

Producers should develop and follow procedures for procuring organic seeds, annual seedlings, and 

planting stock and maintain adequate records as evidence of these practices in their organic system plan 

(OSP). Producers must also provide clear documentation regarding the inputs and materials used during 

crop production (as required at § 205.201(a)(2)). Producers must prevent and avoid contamination from 

excluded methods in seed of at-risk crops. (corn, soybeans, canola, alfalfa, beets, chard, cotton, rice and 

summer squash). Certifying agents must assess procedures and documentation of certified production and 

handling operations as they source seeds, annual seedlings, and planting stock on an annual basis. Each of 

these concepts is described in more detail below. 

4.1 Sourcing of Seeds, Annual Seedlings, and Planting Stock

4.1.2 Certified operations may use non-organic seed and planting stock only if equivalent organicallyproduced varieties of organic seeds and planting stock are not commercially available, and the conventional 

replacement variety can be documented as being produced without the use of Excluded Methods.

§4.1.2(c) On-farm variety trials of organic seed may be used by producers to evaluate equivalency 

and quality of varieties that are available as organic seed. Trials are encouraged and records should 

be kept of results to show inspectors, but they are not mandatory. 

4.1.3 The following considerations could be acceptable to justify use of non-organic seeds.....

d. Contamination from GMO Consideration: non-organic seed can be used if organic seed cannot be 

sourced because of GMO contamination

4.2 Recordkeeping for Organic Producers

4.2.1 The following records should be maintained by organic producers: 

a. A list of all seed and planting stock, indicating any non-organic seeds or stock used, and the 

justification for their use including lack of equivalent variety, form, quality or quantity 

considerations. Justification for use of varieties needs to be specific to each variety on the list and 

which issue (form, quality, quantity, or equivalence) is the reason. Records describing on-farm trials 

of organic seed and planting stock can be used to demonstrate lack of equivalent varieties for site 

specific conditions.

b. The search and procurement methods used to source organic seed and planting stock varieties, 

including:

1. Evidence of efforts made to source organic seed, including 

i. documentation of contact with three or more seed or planting stock sources to ascertain 

the availability of equivalent organic seed or planting stock. Five sources must be contacted

for seed of at-risk crops.

ii. Sources should include companies that offer organic seeds and planting stock. Such 

sources should provide evidence of their organic certification (if relevant), ability to source 

organic seed, and specific varieties sourced every year.

iii. Failure to demonstrate improvement in sourcing organic seed over time may result in 

additional seed sources being required or additional steps taken to procure organic seed.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 60/175
3. If seed sourcing is carried out or mandated by the buyer of a contracted crop, the producer must

keep records of the buyer's documentation on attempting to source organic seed as part of the 

producer's own Organic System Plan. Such documentation must be comparable to that required of a 

producer who sources their own seed.

4.4 Role of Certifying Agents

4.4.4 Certifying agents should review an operation’s progress in obtaining organic seeds, planting stock and 

transplants by comparing current source information to previous years

a. If sufficient progress is not demonstrated a certifying agent may ask for a corrective action plan

and require additional seed sources be researched, encourage variety trials, or require additional 

steps to procure organic seed.

b. Non-compliances should be issued for repeated lack of progress in sourcing organic seed over

time.

4.4.5 Certifying agents should review the prevention measures taken to avoid contamination for seed of atrisk crops. 

Subcommittee Vote:

Motion to accept all additions as described in the proposal section above, to both the National Organic 

Program Regulation and the National Organic Program 5029 Guidance.

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Emily Oakley

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Francis Thicke, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 61/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 62/175
 National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee Proposal

Hydroponics and Container-Growing Recommendations

August 29, 2017 

Introduction

Over the past year the Crops Subcommittee has prepared—and received many public comments on—two

discussion documents and a proposal covering the range of growing systems in which nutrient delivery to 

plants is water based, including aeroponics, hydroponics, aquaponics, and plants grown in containers. We 

have learned that the public is divided on these issues, as are members of the NOSB. Some think that 

organic certification should require plants be grown in soil that is connected to the earth’s surface. Others 

think that organic certification should allow the growing of plants in pure nutrient solution, without the 

presence of any soil or compost. Others favor positions somewhere in between.

Accredited organic certification agencies have been permitted to certify hydroponic operations as organic 

by the National Organic Program (NOP), with some agencies certifying hydroponic operations and some 

choosing not to. The lack of consistency among certifying agencies and lack of standards for water-based 

nutrient-delivery growing systems has led to the need for the National Organic Standards Board to review 

this issue in a holistic way and recommend a path forward to the National Organic Program. 

The purpose of this proposal is to delineate the range of growing systems, from soil to soilless, and make 

recommendations on a middle ground within that range, which we hope the NOSB and the organic 

community can support. To do that, we first summarize pertinent past discussions and legal considerations.

Background

The 1995 NOSB recommendation Standards for Greenhouses contains the statement: 

Hydroponic production in soilless media to be labeled organically produced shall be allowed if all 

provisions of the OFPA have been met.

This was before there was an NOP rule so the NOSB only had OFPA to guide them. Also, that statement 

indicated that an analysis had not been made of whether or not hydroponics met the provisions of OFPA.

The brief dialogue at the 1995 meeting indicates that while some board members were supportive of 

hydroponics, others had concerns about soilless production:

Kahn concluded his report by reading the hydroponics recommendation that would allow organic 

labeling for products from soilless media if all other National Program requirements are satisfied. 

Baker expressed his concerns about the philosophical problems associated with soilless production. 

Kahn noted that the recommendation only allows for the possibility of an organic hydroponics 

industry developing. Kahn recognized that hydroponics is a practice that is dependent on synthetic 

inputs and wants to open up dialogue with its proponents. Crossley moved and Weakley seconded 

a motion to accept lines 101-105 as a Board Final Recommendation. Friedman first offered a 

friendly amendment that was accepted to strike "other applicable" from the document. Vote: 

Unanimous aye.1

A revised proposed rule for the National Organic Program was published in March 2000 revising the initial 

1 NOSB Meeting Minutes - April 24-28, 1995. Orlando, Florida.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 63/175
proposed rule published in December 1997. In the supplemental information, the following was stated:

(13) We have amended the term, “system of organic farming and handling,” to “system of organic 

production and handling” and retained the original definition in this proposal. The original 

definition was crafted to be consistent with the requirements of the Act. We have changed 

“farming” to “production” to provide a more encompassing term, which may come to include such 

diverse activities as hydroponics, green house production, and harvesting of aquatic animals. The 

purpose of the original definition was to describe practices and substances consistent with systems 

of organic farming and organic handling as required by the Act and to provide an explicit reference 

point for determining which practices and substances are most consistent with these systems. 

Several commenters suggested that the definition include the concepts, “agroecosystem health,” 

“ecological harmony,” and “biological diversity.” Commenters also suggested including definitions 

for “organic agriculture,” “organic farming,” and “transition to organic.” This definition is intended 

to clarify regulatory provisions in this proposal and is not intended as a broad philosophical 

statement. The terms “organic agriculture,” “organic farming,” and “transition to organic,” are not 

used in this proposal and, therefore, are not defined2

The final rule for the National Organic Program was published in December 2000 (65 FR 80547). In the 

supplemental information, the following was stated:

The proposed rule treated mined substances of high solubility as a single category of soil 

amendment and allowed their use where warranted by soil and crop tissue testing. Many 

commenters objected to the general allowance for this category of substances and were 

particularly disappointed that the NOSB annotations on two such materials, sodium (Chilean) 

nitrate and potassium chloride, were not included. Commenters cited the potential detrimental 

effects of these highly soluble and saline substances on soil quality and stated that several 

international organic certification programs severely prescribe or prohibit their use. One certifying 

agent recommended that natural substances of high solubility and salinity be handled comparably 

to similar synthetic materials such as liquid fish products and humic acids that appear on the 

National List, complete with their original NOSB annotations. 

At its June 2000 meeting, the NOSB recommended that the NOP delete general references to 

mined substances of high solubility from the final rule, and incorporate the NOSB's specific 

annotations for materials of this nature. We have adopted this recommendation by retaining a 

place for mined substances of high solubility in the soil 

fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard but restricting their use to the conditions 

established for the material as specified on the National List of prohibited natural substances. 

Under this approach, mined substances of high solubility are prohibited unless used in accordance 

with the annotation recommended by the NOSB 

and added by the Secretary to the National List.3

At the Spring 2002 Meeting the NOSB Crops Subcommittee brought forward a new proposal on 

hydroponics stating: 

Hydroponic production in soilless media shall be allowed if all other provisions of the Organic Food 

Production Act and NOP final rule have been met. However, the Crop Committee recommends that 

the principles of organic production as presented by the NOSB Board be met by any certified 

 

2 Federal Register Volume 65 Number 49. Page 13521. Docket Number: TMD-00-02-PR2, RIN 0581-AA40. 

National Organic Program Proposed Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. March 13, 2000

3 Federal Register Volume 65 Number 246. Page 80565. Docket Number: TMD-00-02-FR, RIN 0581-AA40. 

National Organic Program Final Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. December 21, 2000

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 64/175
organic hydroponic system. 

We recognize it will be a challenge for many hydroponic operations to meet some of the principles, 

that is, promoting biological cycles, recycling materials, minimizing use of non-reusable resources, 

et cetera. And we recommend that hydroponic operations that do not meet such principles be 

denied organic certification.

Discussion went on to note that this proposal followed recommendations made on greenhouse 

management, which allowed for waivers of certain NOP requirements. It was further noted that the intent 

of the proposal was to allow hydroponics if they meet all parts of OFPA/NOP other than soil requirements. 

Board members debated this motion and some questioned if exempting operations from soil was 

consistent with organic principles. Input was sought from the program if hydroponics were allowed under 

the NOP as currently written:

MR. BANDELE: Rick, maybe it would be helpful to get a clarification on, is hydroponics already 

covered?

MR. MATHEWS [NOP Program Manager]: The policy statement that is on the Web with regard to 

the scope of the National Organic Standards includes hydroponics.2

After input from the program, the board decided to table the matter stating: 

Hydroponic -- based on a discussion yesterday, the crops committee will reconsider that it was 

pointed out by Rick that hydroponics is already covered as far as the existing rule is concerned. So 

what the crops committee will do is try to provide some -- a guidance document... to the 

hydroponic situation at a later date.4

At the October 2002 meeting there was some discussion of hydroponics being on the Crops agenda but no 

additional information.5

 At the May 2003 NOSB meeting a draft discussion document about hydroponic 

and soilless production techniques and questions was circulated and at the meeting the following 

statement was recorded in the minutes: 

Draft guidance document regarding certification of hydroponics and other soil-less production 

systems. The draft will be forwarded to the strategic planning committee and NOP for feedback and 

to determine if further work on the document is a priority.6

The topic of hydroponics was next discussed at the October 2004 meeting. In the context of a draft NOP 

scope document, the policy sub-committee stated the following: 

[In regards to the scope document] ...the sixth area, which was mushrooms, apiculture and honey, 

greenhouse operations and greenhouse products, hydroponic agriculture; these are areas that the 

NOSB has had -- has addressed. These products from the April directive, the products may be 

certified to the existing NOP regulations which will be amended in future rulemaking to cover any 

unique production and handling requirements. NOSB has provided recommendations and the NOP 

is saying they'll publish at the earliest possible date through notice and comment rulemaking any 

additional standards needed for these commodities. So the Policy Development Committee 

recommends that the NOSB agree with the NOP for a position that mushrooms, apiculture and 

greenhouse operations can be certified organic and the products, as such, can be labeled as organic 

and carry the USDA Organic logo. We point out that the NOSB adopted the support of an April 25, 

1995 greenhouse recommendation, a section entitled "Specialized Standards for Hydroponic 

Production in Soil-less Media" and that their recommendations stated, "Hydroponic production and 

4 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – May 6-8, 2002. Austin, Texas 5 NOSB Meeting Minutes – October 19-20 2002. Washington DC

6 NOSB Meeting Minutes – May 13-14 2003. Austin, Texas

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 65/175
soil-less media to be labeled organically produced shall be allowed if all provisions of OFPA have 

been met." And though the issue has been discussed, the NOSB has not yet submitted a 

recommendation on hydroponic standards since a Final Rule was released, so we request that the 

Crops Committee place the item on its work plan and that rulemaking standards should not 

proceed until the NOSB has submitted a final recommendation.

Furthermore, during an exchange between Barbara Robinson (Agricultural Marketing Service Deputy 

Administrator) and a board member, the following was said:

MR. BANDELE: I just have a kind of related question in terms of the -- just a point of clarification. 

Like something like hydroponics, which is -- can be covered by the rule but in which no guidance 

has yet been given, than at this point a USDA accredited certifier could certify an operation that’s 

organic. Is that right? 

MS. ROBINSON: Yes. Yes. We believe that hydroponics are covered under the standards. They fall 

under the crop standards. But we recognize that, you know, there may be additional details that 

need to be added to the standards.7

Hydroponics was not discussed again until the August 2005 meeting and only to say there was no update8

. 

At the November 2005 meeting hydroponics was discussed again with frustration being expressed over this 

being a work agenda item for multiple years with no progress. It was noted that hydroponic operations 

were being currently certified organic and the next steps would be to survey certifiers on how they were 

meeting the regulations.9

 At the April 2006 NOSB meeting the following update was given: 

Hydroponics is still on the list. Gather information and fact-finding on how and if hydroponics 

should have or could have standards, organic standards.

At the October 2006 meeting the NOSB discussed potential issues with hydroponics and OFPA around 

soilless production and aquatic plants. A survey of certifiers was proposed by the Crops Subcommittee.10 In 

March 2007 the NOSB approved recommendations for aquaculture standards that included aquatic plants. 

As part of this recommendation the following definition was proposed:

Aquatic plant. Any plant grown in an aquaculture facility, including microscopic or macroscopic 

algae, and excluding vascular aquatic plants such as watercress, rice, water hyacinth, and 

hydroponically produced vascular plant crops.”

Additionally, the following was proposed regarding aquaculture effluent: 

(2) Metabolic products of aquaculture species are not considered animal manure under §205.2 

Terms Defined, Manure, and § 205.239 (c) Livestock Living Conditions.

(3) Metabolic products of one species are recognized as organic resources for one or more other 

species in an aquaculture production system. The Organic System Plan of facilities producing 

aquatic animals must consider measures to recycle or biologically process metabolic products. 

Where feasible, the Organic System plan must include the polyculture of two or more different 

species grown in the same body of water, and the integration of additional species as water moves 

through the aquaculture facility or into adjoining discharge areas.

(4) The feasibility of using water discharges and filtered metabolic products as nutrients for vascular 

plants in agricultural crops and constructed wetlands must be considered in Organic System Plans. 

 

7 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – October 12-14, 2004. Washington DC

8 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – August 15-17 2005. Washington DC

9 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – November 16-17 2005. Washington DC

10 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – October 17-19 2006. Arlington, Virginia. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 66/175
The quantities of such discharges and filtered products applied shall not exceed the requirements 

of targeted plants in the receiving area, and shall not be discharged into unplanned areas. Vascular 

agriculture crops using nutrients from certified organic aquaculture operations may be certified 

organic if in compliance with other regulations in this Subpart.11

At the May 2009 board meeting the Crop Subcommittee brought forward a discussion document on 

hydroponic production systems. This document generated substantial public comment and board debate 

about the compatibility of hydroponics with organic principles.12At the November 2009 NOSB meeting, 

Barbara Robinson (Deputy Administrator Transportation and Marketing Programs USDA) talking in the 

context of Canadian Equivalence stated the following: 

I told Canada that although we do not specifically prohibit hydroponic production, that it was my 

understanding that we don't approve hydroponic what I referred to as crops in a bucket in this 

country.13

In 2009 a document titled Soil-less Growing Systems Discussion Item contains the following statement:

In previous Crops Committee discussion documents, the question has been asked: ‘Should 

container culture based growing media (typically utilized in greenhouse systems) that are 

predominately compost and compostable plant materials be considered ‘soil’?’. As highlighted in 

earlier portions of this document, a foundational principle of organic farming is the practice of 

maintaining and nurturing soil health so as to foster the proliferation of the proper soil biology with 

their accompanying ecologies. Since all typical soil dwelling organisms, such as earthworms, insects, 

arachnids, protozoa, fungi, bacteria, and actinomycetes can thrive in a properly designed compost 

based growing media, producing the beneficial symbiotic ecological relationships found in soil, such 

growing media should be rightfully considered soil.

In 2010, the NOSB issued a recommendation entitled Production Standards for Terrestrial Plants in 

Containers and Enclosures (Greenhouses). The recommendation contained the following statements: 

Observing the framework of organic farming based on its foundation of sound management of soil 

biology and ecology, it becomes clear that systems of crop production that eliminate soil from the 

system, such as hydroponics or aeroponics, cannot be considered as examples of acceptable 

organic farming practices. Hydroponics...certainly cannot be classified as certified organic growing 

methods due to their exclusion of the soil-plant ecology intrinsic to organic farming systems and 

USDA/NOP regulations governing them. 

And, 

Although the regulations do not specifically state ‘soil only production’, the exclusion of soil from 

organic production of normally terrestrial, vascular plants violates the intent of the regulations.

In the May 2014 Organic Integrity Quarterly the following was stated about hydroponic operations:

Organic hydroponics is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, 

without soil. Terrestrial plants may be grown with their roots in the mineral nutrient solution only 

or in an inert medium, such as perlite, gravel, biochar, or coconut husk...Organic hydroponic 

production is allowed as long as the producer can demonstrate compliance with the USDA organic 

regulations...Accredited certifying agents are certifying organic hydroponic operations based on the 

11 NOSB Recommendation on Aquaculture Standards – March 29, 2007 12 NOSB Meeting Transcripts - May 4-6, 2009. Washington DC

13 NOSB Meeting Transcripts - November 3-5, 2009. Washington DC

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 67/175
current organic regulations and the operation’s Organic System Plan. In the future, the NOP may 

provide additional guidance regarding organic hydroponic production and how the regulations 

apply to such methods...The NOSB’s 2010 recommendation included a provision for not allowing 

organic hydroponic production. The NOP continues to work on evaluating and implementing a 

backlog of older NOSB recommendations including the greenhouse recommendation.14

In 2015, the NOP established a Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force to further explore this issue and

summarize their findings in order to provide additional information to guide the NOSB’s deliberations on 

whether hydroponic and aquaponic production should be allowed under the current organic regulations, 

and if not, how the regulations could or should be changed. At the April 2015 NOSB meeting Miles McEvoy, 

Deputy Administrator of the NOP, stated the following about the 2010 recommendation: 

...in order for us to do something to not allow organic hydroponics, we would have to do a rule 

change, which is, as you know, quite challenging... So, in order to move this topic forward, we did 

not have enough information from the NOSB 2010 recommendation to do a proposed rulemaking 

to prohibit organic hydroponics. We need more information to be successful.15

The NOP Task Force report was completed in July 201616. The Task Force was divided in their discussions 

and recommendations, so much so that the Task Force report was divided into two separate subcommittee 

reports, one named the “2010 NOSB Recommendation Subcommittee,” which proposed that organic 

certification require that plants get all or most of their nutrition from soil or compost, and one named the 

“Hydroponic and Aquaponic Subcommittee,” which favored allowing water-based nutrient delivery systems 

in organic certification. A third subcommittee of the Task Force explored options for labeling of hydroponic 

and container-based systems.

In consideration of the information presented in the Task Force report and from past NOSB 

recommendations, the Crops Subcommittee prepared a proposal for consideration by the full NOSB at the 

Fall 2016 NOSB meeting. The proposal included the following motion: 

Motion to allow bioponic17 (including hydroponic, aeroponic, or aquaponic) as consistent with 

organic production under the provisions and recommendations to be developed by the NOSB in 

2017.

The motion was worded “to allow bioponic” in order to require a 2/3 majority of the Board to overturn the 

previous NOSB recommendation (in 2010) that soilless production is not consistent with organic 

production. The Crops Subcommittee vote on the motion failed by a vote of two in favor and five opposed

to allowing “bioponic.“ 

At the Fall 2016 NOSB meeting, questions were raised about the wording of the motion. Particularly, it was 

noted that if the vote were to result in a failed motion, there would be no recommendation going forward 

from the NOSB to the NOP, making the vote meaningless. Therefore, the NOSB did not vote on the proposal 

 

14 Organic Integrity Quarterly, May 2014, page 13 “Organic Hydroponics”

15 NOSB Meeting Transcripts – April 27-30, 2015. San Diego, California

16 Hydroponic and Aquaponic Task Force Report, July 2016

17 While “bioponics” was used in the Fall 2016 NOSB proposal, that term is not used in this proposal. 

Operations popularly referred to as “bioponic” fit within the definitions of hydroponics, aeroponics, 

aquaponics, and container growing used in this proposal.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 68/175
but instead voted to send it back to the Crops Subcommittee for further work. However, the NOSB did pass 

the following resolution at the Fall 2016 meeting: 

The NOSB respects the efforts of the former NOSB that led to their 2010 recommendation on 

terrestrial plants in greenhouses. The NOSB recognizes that the foundation of organic agriculture is 

based upon a systems approach to producing food in the natural environment, which respects the 

complex dynamic interaction between soil, water, air, sunlight, plants and animals needed to 

produce a thriving agro-ecosystem. 

At the heart of the organic philosophy is the belief that our responsibilities of good stewardship go 

beyond production of healthy foods and include protection of natural resources, biodiversity and 

the ecosystem services upon which we all depend. We encourage future NOSB to consider this 

wider perspective as the board undertakes the challenges of assessing and defining innovations in 

agriculture that may be compatible in a system of organic production.

In the case of the hydroponic/bioponic/aquaponic issue, it is the consensus18 of the current 

members of the NOSB to prohibit hydroponic systems that have an entirely water based substrate. 

Although that was the original intent of the proposal before us today, the current proposal as 

structured does not achieve this objective. 

While the NOSB does not believe that the liquid substrate systems should be sold under the USDA 

organic label, these growers deserve the chance to promote their very commendable qualities and 

objectives in their own right.

For the Spring 2017 meeting, the Crops Subcommittee prepared a discussion document titled 

“Aeroponics/Hydroponics/Aquaponics,” which solicited additional public input on these types of growing 

systems as well as container-based growing systems.

Relevant areas in the Rule

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA)

§6504. National standards for organic production

To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this chapter, an agricultural 

product shall— 

(1) have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as otherwise 

provided in this chapter; 

(2) except as otherwise provided in this chapter and excluding livestock, not be produced on land to 

which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 

years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and 

18 Because two members of the NOSB did not support this resolution, the resolution was amended to 

substitute the word “majority” for “consensus.” However, it wasn’t recognized until later that that word 

change confused the sentence syntax. It should also be noted that the two NOSB members who did not 

support the resolution went on record as being opposed because they did not think the resolution was 

strong enough, but they too were opposed to “hydroponic systems that have an entirely water-based 

substrate.”

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 69/175
(3) be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and 

handler of such product and the certifying agent. 

§6512. Other production and handling practices 

If a production or handling practice is not prohibited or otherwise restricted under this chapter, such 

practice shall be permitted unless it is determined that such practice would be inconsistent with the 

applicable organic certification program. 

§6513. Organic plan 

... (b) Crop production farm plan

(1) Soil fertility

An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, primarily through the 

management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop rotation, and 

manuring. ...

.... (g) Limitation on content of plan

An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with 

this chapter. 

USDA Organic Regulations

§205.2 Terms defined. 

Crop rotation. The practice of alternating the annual crops grown on a specific field in a planned pattern or 

sequence in successive crop years so that crops of the same species or family are not grown repeatedly 

without interruption on the same field. Perennial cropping systems employ means such as alley cropping, 

intercropping, and hedgerows to introduce biological diversity in lieu of crop rotation.

Field. An area of land identified as a discrete unit within a production operation.

Organic production. A production system that is managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this 

part to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that 

foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

§ 205.200 General.

The producer or handler of a production or handling operation intending to sell, label, or 

represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic

(specified ingredients or food group(s))” must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart. 

Production practices implemented in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural 

resources of the operation, including soil and water quality. 

§205.202 Land requirements. 

Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as 

“organic,” must: (a) Have been managed in accordance with the provisions of §205.203 through 205.206; 

§ 205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 70/175
(a) The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the 

physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.

(b) The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the 

application of plant and animal materials.

(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter 

content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, 

pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.... 

§205.205 Crop rotation practice standard.

The producer must implement a crop rotation including but not limited to sod, cover crops, green manure 

crops, and catch crops that provide the following functions that are applicable to the operation: 

(a) Maintain or improve soil organic matter content; 

(b) Provide for pest management in annual and perennial crops; 

Discussion

This discussion section provides background information in support of the voting motions that follow. 

Arguments in favor of allowing hydroponic systems to be certified organic are in a minority view at the end 

of this document.

The role of the NOSB centers on making recommendations that underpin the integrity of the USDA organic 

label. Consumers entrust the NOSB with the important role of critically assessing what constitutes organic 

production and processing. The NOSB understands that many production systems and brand labeling exist 

outside of the organic label; however, our role is as gatekeepers of the organic label. As such, it is our 

responsibility to recommend production practices that uphold the integrity of the USDA organic seal, that 

are built on the primacy of soil stewardship, that are managed to emulate ecological processes of 

productive ecosystems, that support and enhance biodiversity, and that minimize to the extent possible the 

downside effects of farming while at the same time producing safe, nutritious, and tasty foods. 

The organic designation, with its roots in the teachings of Sir Albert Howard, is based on soil. This fact is 

evident throughout the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Section 6513 of the Organic Plan under the 

Crop Production section begins with Soil Fertility, detailing the critical role that managing organic matter 

plays in the plan, then finishes (section (G)) stating “an organic plan shall not include any production or 

handling practices that are inconsistent with this chapter”. There are a number of other reasons not to 

include hydroponic agriculture within the organic designation.

Field-grown plants are physiologically different from hydroponically grown plants for a number of reasons. 

Hydroponic, greenhouse plants are not stressed the way field-grown plants are. Secondary plant 

metabolites, for example, frequently increase in concentration in stressed plants.19 Secondary plant 

metabolites have also been found to be higher in organic crops than conventional, in soil-based systems.20

19 Ramakrishna, A. and Ravishandar, G.A., 2011. Influence of abiotic stress factors on secondary metabolites 

in plants. Plant Signal Behav. 2011 Nov 1; 6(11): 1720–173.

20 Benbrook, C.M., 2005. Elevating antioxidant levels in food through organic farming and food processing. 

An Organic Center State of Science Review. https://www.organiccenter.org/reportfiles/Antioxidant_SSR.pdf

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 71/175
Field-grown plants will also be symbiotic with sets of microbial communities that are distinct from those 

found in hydroponically grown plants, and there are many consequences of this. The endophytic fungi living 

in stems and leaves will also be very different in hydroponic container-grown and field-grown plants. These 

fungi influence a number of physiological variables including secondary metabolism, with consequences for 

flavor and nutrition. 

In addition to bypassing naturally occurring, co-evolved relationships between plant roots and the many 

functional trait types of rhizospheric organisms, nutrient bathing is an unbuffered system. For example, 

nutrient solutions contain high concentrations of nitrate, which plants can accumulate beyond their 

requirement, storing excess nitrate in leaf (and root) vacuoles. This is particularly problematic for some 

species like spinach and chard. Nitrate is toxic in food, has been linked to stomach cancer, and can kill 

livestock. Meta-analyses have shown that organically produced produce has lower nitrate levels than 

conventionally grown produce, an example of a clearly documented health benefit of organic production. 

Nitrogen regimes in organic systems are slow release, making them more synchronized with plant demand, 

which is better for the environment (less leaching and volatilization) as well as better for consumers. The 

problem with solution culture in this context is that N and P regimes are orders of magnitude more 

concentrated than those found in soil solution which is naturally highly buffered (meaning only a fraction of 

the nutrients that exist in the soil are available at any one time). Nutrient solutions are unbuffered, so high 

N and P concentrations are needed, which could result in unnatural and (in the case of N) problematic 

mineral nutrient accumulation. High P regimes will also reduce phytoavailability of Fe and Zn, two nutrients 

deficient in many human diets.

An added concern about the difference between a buffered soil--where nutrients are built up over a long 

period of time with the bulk of the mineral nutrition coming from manure, crop rotation, cover cropping, 

compost, and nutrient capture from rainwater--is that for a number of hydroponic systems, the principle 

source of fertility comes from highly soluble sources such as hydrolyzed soybean meal. Today, 

approximately 95% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified, using molecular methods 

prohibited by the NOP. The engineered trait used in GM soybean has brought about a dramatic rise in 

herbicide use on the backs of the so-called transgene facilitated herbicide treadmill (Mortensen et al. 

2012).21 Hydroponic growers who use hydrolyzed soybean meal have indicated that they source it from 

Europe, to avoid GMO soybean meal. Are the environmental costs of importing this nutrient factored into 

the claimed environmental benefits of hydroponic production? 

In a 2015 paper purporting to be “the first quantitative comparison of conventional and hydroponic 

produce production” (Barbosa et al. 2015),22 the authors compared the yield, water use efficiency, and 

energy use efficiency of the two production systems. The paper contained some misleading assumptions 

about the yield of the two systems. Specifically, the paper concludes that lettuce yield would be 11 times 

higher in the hydroponic production system. Only at the end of the paper is it clarified that the analysis is 

built on the assumption that lettuce is grown year round in the hydroponic system while “warm season 

crops” would be grown in the field, and the analysis only compared lettuce production and not those 

additional warm season crops. In effect, the paper far understates the yield of the “conventional, soil 

grown” crops. However, the energy required to produce the crops compared across the hydroponic and soil 

grown systems is revealing. The paper concludes that the pumps, heating and cooling, filtration, lighting 

 

21 Mortensen, D.A., Egan, J.F., Maxwell, B.D., Ryan, M.R., and R.G. Smith, 2012. Navigating a critical juncture 

for sustainable weed management. Bioscience Volume 62:1. pp75-84. 22 Barbosa, G.L., Gadelha, F.D., Kublik, N., Proctor, A. Reichelm, L. Weissinger, E. Wohlleb, G.M. and R.U. 

Halden, 2015. Comparison of land, water, and energy requirements of lettuce grown using hydroponic vs. 

conventional agricultural methods. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12(6), 6879-6891

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 72/175
etc. would result in an approximately 100-fold increase in energy use per unit of lettuce produced. By the 

author’s own admission, energy analyses of this kind are surprisingly rare. 

In a study of indoor Cannabis production, Mills (2012)23 found that energy consumption for this practice in 

the United States is 1% of national electricity use, or $6 billion each year. One average kilogram of final 

product was associated with 4600 kg of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, or that of 3 million 

average U.S. cars when aggregated across all national production. The paper goes on to state, “the 

unchecked growth of electricity demand in this sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings 

from energy efficiency programs and policies”. 

In addition to these systems being energy inefficient, they lack resiliency. During a recent visit to an 

aquaponics facility in the northeastern U.S., one NOSB member observed staff replanting lettuce and other 

greens and awaiting a shipment of new fish. An ice storm had moved through the region and knocked 

power out for nine hours. During that time, the daytime heat load, coupled with the lack of nutrient 

delivery and oxygenation of the roots of the plants and fish tanks, resulted in most of the lettuce dying and 

all of the fish dying. In terms of systems resilience, this aquaponics system with its high dependence on 

electricity, predisposed the system to be very brittle. A system built on a high degree of external energy use 

is not in keeping with the spirit of the organic label.

Hydroponic proponents argue that as many bacteria and fungi are found in hydroponics as are found in soilbased systems. However, they are not able to cite data to indicate that hydroponic systems have the 

ecological complexity of soil-based systems. How soils are managed does affect microbial diversity. In a 

comparison of organic and conventional soil-based systems, it was found that the “Organically managed 

system increased taxonomic and phylogenetic richness, diversity and heterogeneity of the soil microbiota 

when compared with conventional farming system.”24

It is not surprising that hydroponic systems would have high numbers of decomposing microorganisms 

when labile feedstocks like hydrolyzed soybean or fish meal are fed into the system. Populations of 

microorganisms will multiply quickly when given such an easily degraded food source. However, those 

should not be considered equivalent to the diverse populations of microorganisms present in a soil-based 

rhizosphere. 

Natural soils are generally 95% or more mineral matter by weight. Soil mineral particles (clay, silt, and sand) 

are intimately intertwined and complexed with soil organic matter. This mineral/organic matter soil system 

provides habitat and food sources for a great diversity of soil microorganisms and creates pore spaces in 

soils for storing water and for air exchange with the atmosphere. The clay/humus complexes also serve a 

primary function of holding soil nutrients in reserve for plant uptake. 

The maintenance and regeneration of this complex, living soil system is a biological process that requires 

continual recycling of organic materials within the soil system. Crop rotations and cover crops are also 

important to create and maintain healthy soils, which contribute to healthy plants. It is this complex soil 

system that pioneer organic farmers learned to work with and optimize, in contrast to the prevalent 

industrial, input-based model of agriculture, which they rejected. Early organic certification standards 

reflected this system and required on-farm practices and use of materials that fostered soil health by 

means of managing crop residue, using livestock manures, composting, cover cropping, and adding natural 

23 E. Mills, 2012. The carbon footprint of indoor cannabis production. Energy Policy 46 (2012) 58–67. 24 Lupatini, M., Korthals, G.W., de Hollander, M., Janssens, T.K.S., and Kuramae, E.E., 2016. Soil microbiome 

is more heterogeneous in organic than conventional farming system. Front Microbiol. 2016; 7: 2064.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 73/175
rock powders (Task Force report p. 14). For these reasons, many organic producers reject hydroponic

systems that are input-based rather than soil-based. 

Loss of arable land and the need to feed a growing world population are cited by pro-hydroponic 

advocates. However, organic agriculture, with its focus on soil building and protection or enhancement of 

natural resources, offers the opportunity to continually improve soil productivity and the natural resource

base while producing crops, as well as to transform land which has been degraded by poor farming 

practices or is of low productive capability into sustainable farming systems. Moreover, productivity per se

is not a measure of the legitimacy of organic agriculture. Maintenance and improvement of the natural 

resources of the operation are also mandated under the organic regulation. On soil-based organic farms, 

the production of food and fiber is accomplished in concert with improving habitat for wildlife of all types 

including pollinators, mammals, amphibians, and soil microbes. Increased soil organic matter, cover crops, 

rotations, contour strips, reduced tillage, and other activities continually improve soil structure and lessen 

erosion, which negatively affects water and soil quality. This integration of working lands with ecosystem 

stewardship is a foundational principle of organic agriculture.

Hydroponic production is highly dependent on continuous use of fertilizer inputs to the production system, 

rather than relying on a productive soil and natural recycling of nutrients through decaying organic matter

to regenerate the fertility needs of the crop. The “input substitution” approach used in hydroponics has 

long been considered incompatible with a system of organic agriculture. Some of the major fertility inputs 

used in hydroponic production are transported long distances to the hydroponic production site, negating 

the purported environmental benefits of hydroponic production.

Specific language from OFPA and the Organic Rule that justify disqualifying soilless production from organic 

certification includes the following:

• §6513 Organic Plan: “An organic plan shall contain provisions designed to foster soil fertility, 

primarily through the management of the organic content of the soil through proper tillage, crop 

rotation, and manuring...An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that 

are inconsistent with this chapter.”

• § 205.200 General: “Production practices implemented in accordance with this subpart must 

maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality.” 

• § 205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard: 

o (a) “The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain 

or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil 

erosion.” 

o (b) “The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover 

crops, and the application of plant and animal materials.” 

o (c) “The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil 

organic matter content...”

Aeroponic, hydroponic, and aquaponic production systems can be productive cropping systems, which can 

be appropriate and well adapted to specific situations. However, that does not mean those systems are 

compatible with the principles of organic production or should quality them for organic certification. 

Public Comments from Previous Proposal and Discussion Documents

Numerous comments were received from the public in response to the Hydroponics Task Force report and 

the NOSB Crops Subcommittee proposal and two discussion documents on hydroponics and container 

growing over the past year. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 74/175
Those in favor of allowing hydroponics to carry the organic label in the marketplace discussed the efficient 

use of water and nutrients as important considerations. They also stated that there were fewer disease and 

pest problems in their controlled-environment production systems, leading to lower use of organically 

approved pesticides. Soil and water were considered by them to be equally acceptable as a medium to 

deliver nutrients to plant roots. Food safety, worker health, providing food to urban food deserts, or aiding 

inexperienced or small-scale growers were also cited as benefits of hydroponics. Hydroponic growers were 

also concerned that if hydroponics were no longer allowed, current hydroponic growers would lose their 

organic market.

Those against allowing hydroponics to carry the organic label in the marketplace discussed the foundational 

principles of organic as originating with care and improvement of the soil and the overall ecosystem. 

Longer-term improvements such as the use of nitrogen-fixing crops, cover crops for improved organic 

matter, and an overall regenerative system that protects water and wildlife as well as supporting 

biodiversity, were also noted in numerous comments. The OFPA and organic regulations were cited, 

illustrating where soil- and ecosystem-based production systems are in the basic description of certified 

organic production. Many agreed hydroponics can be an innovative system of production, but did not agree 

that it met the letter or spirit of the organic law or regulations. Organic growers using soil in greenhouses 

contended that it is the greenhouse environment, not hydroponics, that allows for lower pesticide use, 

improved food safety, worker health, and providing food to urban food deserts.

Rationale for Proposed Recommendations on Aeroponics, Hydroponics, Aquaponics, and Container 

Growing

At the first meeting of the Hydroponic/Aquaponic Task Force in January 2016, the NOP presented 

information about potential gaps and inconsistencies in the past NOSB recommendations, both for 

hydroponics and for greenhouse growing systems in general. The NOP presentation included the following 

statement, "Further analysis and clarification is necessary because regardless of what position the NOSB 

ultimately takes on the issue of hydroponics and aquaponics, the NOP will likely need to undertake 

rulemaking. Rulemaking requires a comprehensive recommendation from the NOSB that addresses grey 

areas left by past recommendations." 

The grey areas and gaps include the following (paraphrased from original):

• A clear explanation of the basis for each recommendation made.

• Acknowledging the continuum of production methods from field/soil to hydroponic and the role of

compost or other biological growing media. Recommendations on each type of production and

reasons for allowing or prohibiting.

• Guidelines are needed on exactly how different production types comply with provisions in

regulations for soil fertility, rotation, and cover cropping.

• Definitions of vague terms including container, hydroponics, soil-less media, "compost-based", and

soil ecology.

• How are OFPA and the NOP rule able to be consistent on other soilless production such as

mushrooms, sprouts, aquatic plants and greenhouse in-ground systems?

• What is the justification for requiring soil (as opposed to cycling of resources, promoting ecological

balance, and conserving biodiversity) but making an exception for cover crops, crop rotation, etc.

when soil is not explicitly required in the regulations, but crop rotation is a MUST?

• Aquaponic systems are not specifically addressed in previous NOSB recommendations.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 75/175
The lengthy report from the Task Force contains much more background information; too extensive to 

cover here. Selected portions are referenced throughout this proposal. 

For clarity, terms used in this proposal, as well as some of the most common definitions taken from the 

NOSB 2010 Recommendation and the Task Force Report are appended in a glossary, amended for this 

discussion. 

1. Consistency with mushrooms, aquatic plants, seedlings, and other "soilless" culture.

The 2010 Subcommittee of the Task Force report points out the following, 

From this subcommittee’s perspective, the recommendation could be bettered, and more easily 

accepted by the NOP, if it explained how each of these exceptions to the premise that crops be 

grown in soil; 1) are linked to soil, or 2) are not naturally living or growing in soil so there is no 

reason for farming them in soil. Furthermore, how each meets the Principles of Organic Production 

and Handling (NOSB, 2001) should be made clear.

They continue by pointing out that sprouts and wild harvest aquatic plants are addressed in the current 

organic regulations, and the Preamble to the final rule specifically states that additional standards would be 

needed for mushrooms and greenhouses. 

The Crops Subcommittee concurs with this analysis. Sprouting seeds is similar to a processing step for an 

organic product. Therefore the ingredient (seeds) must be certified organic. There are no inputs to the 

seeds to make them grow besides water, an exempt handling ingredient. The essential elements otherwise 

needed for plants to complete their lifecycle are not added because all the nutrition they need to the point 

of harvest is provided by the seed.

The 2010 NOSB recommendation Production Standards for Terrestrial Plants in Containers and Enclosures 

(Greenhouses) includes the statement “naturally aquatic plant species and non-vascular plant species such 

as mushrooms come from different (non-soil) ecological niches and would be handled separately. Sprouts 

(the sprouted radicle and hypocotyl of seeds) are produced without soil by design and are not subject to 

this recommendation.”

Wild Aquatic plants are covered under the wild crop section of the rules, and the preamble specifically 

points out that the term "site" was used to replace "from land" in the proposed rule. This clarifies that wild 

aquatic plant certification was intended. However, there is now a large amount of aquatic plant farming 

occurring that would not be considered wild, and this is not covered in the current rules.

Seedlings, or transplants, are also specifically mentioned in the organic rules and must be certified 

organically grown but are considered acceptable if raised in soil-less media. These are future crops that will 

spend most of their time growing in soil, and the time to produce the transplant is short compared to the 

time spent in the ground.

Mushrooms are fungi, not plants, and that justifies that they don't have a direct link to soil. They are more 

similar to yeasts and microorganisms that may be grown on substrate that does not depend on minerals 

from soil. The parameters of their production may eventually need additional rulemaking, but so far many 

mushrooms are able to be certified organic under the existing rules.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 76/175
2. Land Considerations and Natural Resources

Regardless of where the container production is occurring, the land underneath the containers and the 

surrounding environment must be considered. The land underneath an outdoor operation must comply 

with the same provisions of the rule regarding land history and transition as other land. It must also be 

maintained or improved with respect to avoiding contamination. Land that has a building on top of it with 

an impermeable floor must comply with whatever practices are adopted for greenhouse or enclosure 

production.

The 2010 Subcommittee of the Task Force asked the NOSB to consider limiting the use of land where crops 

could be grown in the soil from being converted to container production. It also suggested limiting the 

conversion of non-organic container plants to organic by re-potting them in organic growing media.

Natural resource conservation includes the resources of soil, water, and wildlife. This must be addressed in 

an Organic System plan for a container growing system. This includes maintaining the condition of land 

underneath the container production, fate of any water or nutrient run-off from container production, and 

any positive actions taken to encourage biodiversity, such as installing hedgerows, planting insectary plants 

amongst the containerized crop plants, and other similar techniques.

3. Rotation

The 2010 NOSB recommendation noted that the intent of the rotation and cover cropping clauses in the 

rule could be met by similar practices with the same functions or goals as the crop rotation that are 

applicable to the operation. Such techniques might include mulching, replacing growing media (thus 

replenishing the soil system), planting hedgerows, adding microbial inoculants to stimulate existing 

populations, and recycling and composting used growing media. It was noted by the 2010 Recommendation 

Subcommittee of the Task Force that the crop rotation requirement is already not enforced by some 

certifiers on greenhouse crops grown in soil and on perennial crops with limited water.

Similarly, Canadian standards 7.5.12 states: 

Soil regeneration and recycling procedures shall be practiced. The following alternatives to crop 

rotation are permitted: grafting of plants onto disease-resistant rootstock, freezing the soil in 

winter, regeneration by incorporating biodegradable plant mulch (for example, straw or hay), and 

partial or complete replacement of greenhouse soil or container soil, provided it is re-used outside 

the greenhouse for another crop. 

4. Containers & Growing Media

The 2010 NOSB recommendation on Terrestrial Plants in Containers does partially address production in 

containers. It specifies that the substrate in the container be based on compost and reiterates the previous 

NOSB opinion that compost was equivalent to soil.

The weakness of the 2010 recommendation was that it didn't quantify "compost-based", nor did it specify 

upper or lower limits for the volume of soil or compost in a container to achieve a level of biological activity 

comparable to that found in soil. There was also no consideration of whether non-synthetic, carbon-based 

materials such as coir or peat moss could serve the same functions as soil in a container. 

The statement from OFPA that fertility come "primarily through the management of the organic content of 

the soil" has been interpreted to mean that soluble fertilizers should not be the primary source of nutrients 

but only a supplement to an overall program focused on crop rotations, cover crops, and amending with 

compost or manure. This is reflected consistently throughout NOSB recommendations from the past, from 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 77/175
limitations on sodium nitrate or potassium chloride, to many rejected petitions centered on adding soluble 

forms of nutrients to the National List. 

In order to specify an appropriate size of container or characteristics of the growing media that are 

appropriate for organic production, there needs to be a comparison of the characteristics of container 

system versus the soil system. The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force uses bulk 

density as point of comparison to assess important distinctions between the two systems. Mineral soils 

have a bulk density of about 1.3 grams per cubic centimeter, while non-organic peat or coir-based media 

are only 0.13 gm/cubic cm, one tenth as much. With compost or other high organic matter media, the bulk 

density increases and so will the nutrient-supplying capacity.

A raised bed that has a liner between it and the ground is considered a container, regardless of the depth of 

the growing media. However, containers as referred to in this discussion are limited to those containing a 

solid substrate only25. 

By making the containers large enough, the nutrients in the organic matter fraction will be able to supply 

the majority of the nutrition for the plant. What is large enough, and how can it be explained in a way that 

is appropriate for different plants? The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force cites the 

work of Dr. Martine Dorais of Laval University and the Agassiz Research and Development Centre. At a 

volume of 100 to 180 liters of soil per m2

, she has demonstrated that no liquid feeding is necessary, and 

fertility can be provided by the biological activity of the growing medium in the beds. 

Both Canada and Sweden permit container growing while requiring minimum soil volumes based on 

growing area (although proposed new EU rules would prohibit container growing in the future). Canada 

requires a minimum soil volume of 70 liters26 per m2 of growing area. For staked crops like tomatoes and 

peppers, they require at least 10% compost at the start of production, and containers must be at least 30 

cm (12 inches) high. They state, 7.5.4: 

Soil used in a container system, with the exception of transplants, shall provide nutrients to plants 

continuously. The soil (growth media) shall contain a mineral fraction (sand, silt or clay) and an 

organic fraction; it shall support life and ecosystem diversity.

The Canadian standards do not specify an amount of compost or soil for other crops such as lettuce or 

blueberries. They do not account for breakdown and settling of soil volume. It is unclear how certifiers can 

measure the soil volume, and the term "growing area" is not well defined.

In Sweden, at least 30 liters of soil per m2 are required for annual crops with long seasons and 0.2 liters per 

pot for other plants, such as herbs, lettuce, and strawberries. However, as mentioned above, proposed new 

EU rules would prohibit container growing in Sweden.

The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force report states, "Transplant and container 

growing methods would have more clarity if container growing media had a defined initial and temporal 

water and nutrient holding capacity and biology carrying capacity." It is possible to have a compost- or soil-

 

25 Container troughs in which water is recirculated are considered hydroponic. Similarly, container systems 

with troughs under the pots that collect, filter, and recirculate the water after adding additional liquid 

nutrients are considered hydroponic unless they meet the container standard in the Container Production 

Systems motion below. 26 For reference a 5-gallon pot holds 25 liters and a 10-gallon pot holds 40 liters.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 78/175
based growing media with adequate aeration and water holding capacity that can provide enough fertility 

for production of annual plant crops or a season in the growth of perennial plants. 

The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force proposed that organic growing media must 

have a minimum of 20% compost.

5. Nutrition

The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force Report states, "The key distinction between 

organic fertility management and conventional fertility management is that under organic management the 

source of the bulk of the crop nutrients are from the biological activity of decomposing complex organic 

molecules (compost, manures, seed meals, etc.) and the mineral fractions." Soil is important due to the 

interactions of the physical, chemical, and biological properties together.

While hydroponic systems can be efficient in nutrient recycling and water conservation, they do not have 

the complex interactions found in an organic soil-based system. The backbone of organic production is the 

complex interactions between soils, plants, animals (from tiny insects to large herbivores and carnivores), 

and humans.

It would seem logical to assess the continuum between grown in the ground and fully liquid-based systems 

by determining where the plant nutrition is coming from. If the nutrients are primarily coming from soil or 

compost and solid amendments, then they would be considered equivalent to in-ground production

whereas a container production system that relies primarily on liquid fertilizers would not be within the 

requirement for soil-based systems.

The NOSB recognizes that some soils contain very little inherent fertility and crops are being grown and 

certified organic which rely in large part on liquid fertilizers. While that is an area that the NOSB and NOP 

should examine to see if higher standards should be set to improve the inherent fertility of those soils over 

time, that is outside the scope of this attempt to set standards for crops grown in containers. Container 

producers have more flexibility to create a minimum level of fertility in the container substrate mix before 

beginning production, compared to producers growing in the ground. 

The 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the NOP Hydroponics Task Force proposed to “Limit organic 

certification to what is grown in the ground, with the exceptions of transplants, ornamental, and herbs.” 

That subcommittee further proposed that if organic certification were to include crops grown in containers, 

there should be a “limitation of no more than 50% of the required fertility being added after planting, and 

no more than 20% to be added as a liquid fertilizer after planting. For perennials these limitations should be 

on an annual basis. 

“The British Soil Association specifies that at least 51% of the nutrition for the crop must come from the soil 

at the time of planting” (Task Force Report p. 54). That applies to crops grown in the ground. Other 

standards for greenhouses limit liquid nutrients to 25% of the total nutrients supplied. A recent revision to 

the Canadian standards27 also proposes limits on liquid fertilizers by stating that for small soil volumes, 70% 

of the nitrogen and phosphorus must be supplied by solid organic soil amendments that require an active 

soil ecosystem.

The suggestion of the 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the Task Force that liquid nutrients be 

limited to 20% of the total nutrients supplied is consistent with the current annotation for the use of the 

27 2016 amended draft of Canada Organic Standards, pp 44-45: General Principles and Management 

Standards

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 79/175
highly soluble Chilean nitrate, which is listed at 205.602: “Sodium nitrate (is prohibited)—unless use is 

restricted to no more than 20% of the crop’s total nitrogen requirement.”

The policy on Chilean nitrate sets a precedent for the use of highly soluble inputs. How that policy came 

about is worth exploring here because it illustrates how the principles of organic agriculture influenced that 

policy. 

As mentioned above, in the Preamble to the Final Rule of the NOP of December 21, 2000, the Proposed 

Organic Rule of 1997 had allowed the use of mined substances of high solubility (e.g., Chilean nitrate). The 

Preamble to the Final Rule goes on to say “Many commenters objected to the general allowance for this 

category of substances.” Therefore, the Final Rule included the June 2000 recommendation of the NOSB, 

which is the annotation at §205.602 that sodium nitrate be “restricted to no more than 20% of the crop’s 

total nitrogen requirement.”

In April 2000, the NOSB recommended complete prohibition of sodium nitrate. The NOP has yet to fulfill 

that recommendation but issued a policy memo in September 201128 that states: 

 

Organic producers must meet the requirements of 7 CFR 205.200 which states that production 

practices must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water 

quality. Under 7 CFR 205.203(b), producers must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through 

rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal nutrients. Organic producers who 

use sodium nitrate need to ensure that the use of sodium nitrate is aligned with the requirements 

of 7 CFR 205.203(b). 

The principle of limiting soluble Chilean nitrate to 20% of a crop’s nitrogen requirement in order to remain 

aligned with the soil fertility requirements of the organic standards is consistent with a principle of limiting 

soluble fertility sources to 20% of a crop’s needs in container production systems. 

A requirement that would limit liquid feeding of crops is complicated by the number of essential elements 

needed by crops, and that some micronutrients may need higher percentages of supplemental feeding than 

macronutrients like nitrogen. Nitrogen is generally the most dynamic crop nutrient in the soil/substrate, 

and managing nitrogen in accord with organic principles will likely ensure that all nutrients are managed 

well. Also, limiting the requirement to just one indicator element (nitrogen) makes monitoring for 

compliance much easier. 

Chilean nitrate is generally about 16-0-0 (16% nitrogen). Hydrolyzed soybean meal (which is commonly 

used as a nitrogen source in hydroponic container systems) is also sold as 16-0-0 (16% nitrogen), and like 

Chilean nitrate, is completely water-soluble. Limiting use of soluble nitrogen feeding to 20% of crops’ needs 

will help ensure that container growing is aligned with the requirements of 7 CFR 205.203(b), as outlined in 

the quote from the NOP above.

Hydroponics proponents claim that the mineralization of nutrients into forms that plants can take up can be

performed by microbial digestion in a hydroponics system with carbon-based substrate, and that the 

microbial population and dynamics are equivalent to a "diverse soil ecology". The Crops Subcommittee 

questions those statements because simple, labile nutrient sources are used in container systems, and no 

definitive data has been provided to back up the claim that microbial dynamics are equivalent to a diverse 

soil ecology. Saying that "soil biology" can happen without soil is not substantiated by definition or data.

 

28 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-Notice-12-1-SodiumNitrate.pdf

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 80/175
6. Other issues

The Task Force report included discussion about other issues related to indoor production. In a separate 

discussion document to be presented at the Fall 2017 meeting in Jacksonville, the Crops Subcommittee 

discusses three of those issues: use of artificial light; use of synthetic mulches; and disposal of crops, 

substrates, and containers at the end of the crops’ production cycle. The Crops Subcommittee seeks input 

from the organic community on those issues.

Some have expressed concern that if hydroponic and aquaponic production are prohibited from organic 

certification, it would be a hardship for those hydroponic and aquaponic operations currently certified. 

Certainly, some currently certified operations would lose certification, but the numbers would be quite 

small relative to the total number of operations certified through the NOP. 

At the April 2016 meeting of the NOSB, Deputy Administrator Miles McEvoy, presented the results29 of a 

2016 survey to certifying agents regarding the certification of hydroponic, aquaponic, and container-based 

systems. Of the 80 accredited certifying agents worldwide at the time of the survey, 17 certified 

hydroponic and aquaponic operations. Stated as a percentage, 21% of certified agents are certifying these 

operations. Similarly, of the approximately 31,000 certified organic operations, 30 (or less than 0.1% of all 

certified organic operations) were certified organic hydroponic. There were 22 certified organic aquaponic 

operations, or 0.07% of all certified organic operations. Finally, there were 69 certified organic containerbased operations, or 0.2% of all certified organic operations. As is clear from these figures, certified organic 

hydroponic, aquaponic, and container-based systems constitute an extreme minority of all certified organic 

operations, or less than 0.4% when combined.

Regarding the location within the organic standards where aeroponics, aquaponics, and hydroponics could 

be addressed, if any of the motions below to remove organic certification from a specific method of 

production are passed by the NOSB, the National Organic Program could add those prohibitions to 205.105, 

as well as adding the definitions of the various methods to 205.2 Terms Defined. 

An example would be:

205.105 To be sold or labeled as “100% organic”, “organic”, or “made with organic (specified ingredients 

or food groups)”, the product must be produced and handled without the use of:

(h) aeroponics

(i) aquaponics

(j) hydroponics

Crops Subcommittee Proposed Recommendations:

Aeroponics

Discussion: Aeroponics systems do not require soil or a root-zone medium. The roots are intentionally 

suspended in midair, in part to expose them to more atmospheric oxygen to aid plant growth. The roots are 

regularly sprayed with water that contains water-soluble nutrients. 

The Crops Subcommittee is opposed to allowing aeroponic production systems to be certified organic 

because they do not meet the requirements of OFPA or the Organic Rule.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to prohibit aeroponic production systems from organic certification. 

Motion by: Emily Oakley 

29 https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/McEvoy%20NOSB%20April%202016.pdf

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 81/175
Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 1 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Aquaponics

Discussion: Aquaponic production is a form of hydroponics in which plants get some or all of their nutrients 

delivered in liquid form from fish waste. Aquaponics is defined here as “A recirculating hydroponic system 

in which plants are grown in nutrients originating from aquatic animal waste water, which may include the 

use of bacteria to improve availability of these nutrients to the plants. The plants improve the water quality 

by using the nutrients, and the water is then recirculated back to the aquatic animals.”

The NOP has strict standards for handling animal manure in terrestrial organic production, but no such 

standards exist to ensure the safety of plant foods produced in the fecal waste of aquatic vertebrates. Also, 

the NOP has not yet issued standards for organic aquaculture production, upon which aquaponic plant 

production would be dependent.

The Crops Subcommittee is opposed to allowing aquaponic production systems to be certified organic at 

this time. If aquaculture standards are issued in the future, and concerns about food safety are resolved, 

aquaponics could be reconsidered. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to prohibit aquaponic production systems from organic certification. 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Jesse Buie

Yes: 7 No: 2 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Hydroponics and Container Growing

Discussion: The word “hydroponics” comes from two Greek words: hydro, meaning water; and ponos, 

meaning labor. In popular use of the term, hydroponics means growing plants by providing the plants’ 

nutrition in liquid form. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of hydroponics is “the growing of plants 

in nutrient solutions with or without an inert medium (such as soil) to provide mechanical support.”

Proponents of allowing hydroponic production to qualify as certified organic have created confusion in the 

hydroponics discussion by attempting to redefine some forms of hydroponic production as “container 

growing.” That creates confusion because, in fact, all hydroponic production is done in containers, and as 

noted above, hydroponics has traditionally been defined by the use of nutrient solutions to feed plants, not 

by the particular type of rooting medium used.

In particular, hydroponic producers who want to be certified organic claim that if plants are grown in 

certain rooting media, the growing system is no longer hydroponic, even if all, or virtually all, of the plants’ 

nutrition is provided as a liquid feed. That belies both common usage and dictionary definitions of 

“hydroponics.”

A common rooting medium that is used in hydroponic container production is coconut coir. One of the 

advantages of coir as a growing medium is that coir is resistant to microbial decomposition, so it will 

maintain its structure and water-holding capacity in the container longer than some other rooting 

materials. Hydroponic advocates argue that coir is not inert. However, the NOP, in the May 2014 Organic 

Integrity Quarterly (cited above), included “coconut husk” in a list of examples of an “inert medium.”

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 82/175
In a research paper investigating decomposition rates of coir, Prabhu and Thomas30 point out “Coir pith 

with high C:N ratio (about 100:1), lignin and polyphenol contents is highly resistant to easy 

decomposition...Lignin prevents the easy decomposition and mineralization of coir pith...making it a 

recalcitrant biopolymer.” 

Coir is a good rooting medium for hydroponic production because it has high air- and water-holding 

capacity and because it is recalcitrant. Coir pith also has a cation exchange capacity of 20-30 meq/100g 

(Ravindranath)31. However, “As a nutrient source, coir pith has not much value” (Prabhu and Thomas). The 

nitrogen content of coir pith ranges from 0.26% (Ravindranath) to 0.57% (Bethke)32. Given the C:N ratio of 

100:1 for coir pith, the small amount of nitrogen in coir will not serve as a nitrogen source for growing 

plants, which means that in a hydroponic system using coir as the rooting medium, all of the plants’ 

nitrogen needs will have to be supplied by liquid feeding.

It is interesting to note that the Merriam-Webster definition of hydroponics noted above parenthetically 

equates soil to an inert medium in a system in which plants’ nutrient needs are being fulfilled through liquid 

feeding. Of course, we know that in a soil-based cropping system--in which the plants’ nutrient needs are 

being supplied by the soil--the soil is not inert, but dynamically supplies and cycles nutrients. However, any 

rooting medium—including soil—will not serve as an adequate or long-term source of fertility to grow 

plants unless it is managed to do so.

The majority of the Crops Subcommittee believes that providing most of a plant’s nutritional needs through 

liquid feeding in a container should be defined as hydroponics, regardless of the rooting medium used. The 

Crops Subcommittee further supports the suggestion of the 2010 Recommendation Subcommittee of the 

NOP Hydroponics Task Force, which stated that there should be a “limitation of no more than 50% of the 

required fertility being added after planting, and no more than 20% to be added as a liquid fertilizer after 

planting.” In order to make monitoring simpler, and because nitrogen can serve as an indicator nutrient to 

demonstrate the nutrient-supplying power of a soil/compost system, the Crops Subcommittee proposes 

that this fertility requirement of container systems apply to nitrogen only.

The majority of the Crops Subcommittee believes that this standard is sufficient to ensure that crops grown 

in containers are not merely being fed hydroponically but have an active soil biology and ecology that can 

supply nutrients to the crops. This is in keeping with the 2010 NOSB recommendation, which states: 

"Observing the framework of organic farming based on its foundation of sound management of soil 

biology and ecology, it becomes clear that systems of crop production that eliminate soil from the 

system, such as hydroponics or aeroponics, cannot be considered as examples of acceptable 

organic farming practices. Hydroponics...certainly cannot be classified as certified organic growing 

methods due to their exclusion of the soil-plant ecology intrinsic to organic farming systems and 

USDA/NOP regulations governing them.”

Universities and crop consultants who advise hydroponic growers can provide tables of the nitrogen 

requirement (or nitrogen removal) of crops, which can be used to calculate the 20% and 50% limits on 

liquid feeding of nitrogen. For example, Knotts Handbook for Vegetable Growers indicates that a 30-ton 

30 Prabhu, S.R. and G.V. Thomas, 2002. Biological conversion of coir pith into a value-added organic 

resource and its application in Agri-Horticulture: Current status, prospects and perspective.

31 Ravindranath, Chief editor, Coir Pith Wealth from Waste, a Reference. 2016. Coir Board, Ministry of 

MS&ME, Govt. of India.

32 Bethke, C.L., 2008. Nutritional properties of agrocoir. Horticultural Soils and Nutrition Consulting 77 

Granite Road Williamston, Michigan 48895. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 83/175
tomato yield will require 180 lb/acre of nitrogen.33 The crop consulting firm Yara estimates (online)34 that 

the nitrogen requirement (removal) of tomatoes is 5 to 5.3 lbs of nitrogen per ton of yield. A grower would 

need to use a nitrogen requirement value appropriate for the region, growing conditions, and expected 

yield of the operation. Similar calculations are already commonly used to determine the 20% limit for

Chilean nitrate allowed in organic crop production.

Subcommittee vote, container production: 

Motion that for container production to be certified organic, a limit of 20% of the plants’ nitrogen 

requirement can be supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement can 

be added to the container after the crop has been planted. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit is 

calculated on an annual basis. Transplants, ornamentals, herbs, sprouts, fodder, and aquatic plants are 

exempted from these requirements.

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Steve Ela

Yes: 6 No: 3 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Subcommittee vote, hydroponics: 

Motion that any container production system that does not meet the standard of a limit of 20% of the 

plants’ nitrogen requirement being supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen 

requirement being added to the container after the crop has been planted is defined as hydroponic and 

should not be allowed to be certified organic. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit is calculated on an 

annual basis. Transplants, ornamentals, herbs, sprouts, fodder, and aquatic plants are exempted from these 

requirements.

Motion by: Jesse Buie

Seconded by: Dave Mortensen

Yes: 6 No: 3 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

 

********************************

Glossary of terms 

Aeroponics: A variation of hydroponic plant production in which plant roots are suspended in air and 

misted with nutrient solution. 

Aquaponics: A recirculating hydroponic plant production system in which plants are grown in nutrients 

originating from aquatic animal waste water, which may include the use of bacteria to improve availability 

of these nutrients to the plants. The plants improve the water quality by using the nutrients, and the water 

is then recirculated back to the aquatic animals. 

Recalcitrant: Resistant to microbial attack.

Container: Any vessel and associated equipment used to house growing media and the complete root 

structure of terrestrial plants and to prevent the roots from contacting the soil or surface beneath the 

 

33 Maynard, D.N. and G.J. Hochmuth. Knotts Handbook for Vegetable Growers, 5th ed., 2007. John Wiley 

and Sons Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

34 http://www.yara.us/agriculture/crops/tomato/key-facts/nutritional-summary/

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 84/175
vessel, such as, but not limited to, pots, troughs, plastic bags, floor mats, etc. 

Greenhouse: Permanent enclosed structure that allows for an actively controlled environment used to 

grow crops, annual seedlings or planting stock. 

Growing media: Material which provides sufficient support for the plant root system and enables the plant 

to extract water and nutrients. Used interchangeably with the term "substrate". 

Hydroponics (for the purposes of this proposal): Any container production system that does not meet the 

standard of a limit of 20% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit 

of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement being added to the container after the crop has been planted. 

Nutrient solution: Growing solution used in traditional hydroponic production that is commonly composed 

of immediately plant-available soluble mineral salts in water 

Soil: The unconsolidated mineral or organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves as a 

natural medium for the growth of land plants. (ii) The unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on the 

surface of the earth that has been subjected to and shows effects of genetic and environmental factors of: 

climate (including water and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms, conditioned by relief, 

acting on parent material over a period of time. A product-soil differs from the material from which it is 

derived in many physical, chemical, biological, and morphological properties and characteristics (Soil 

Science Society of America Glossary).

Minority View:

Summary of Pro-Hydroponic Arguments

As is pointed out in the Aquaponics/Hydroponics Subcommittee of the Task Force report and in public 

comments received over the past year, hydroponics has a long history in agriculture from societies that 

worked with limited resources in changing conditions. Hydroponics is an innovative system that results in 

efficient water and nutrient use. This efficient use of water allows for conservation of vital water resources 

which have been scarce recently due to climate change and recent droughts. Due to its controlled 

environment, hydroponic operations—like other greenhouse operations—have been able to lessen the use 

of pesticides, and operators have been able to develop systems that rely on organically approved inputs for 

crop nutrition and health.

Hydroponics can be an appropriate way to address challenges in farming as a whole, such as drought, food 

safety, limited access to arable land and production of food in urban areas or on un-arable land. 

Hydroponics operations are quite diverse and can be stand-alone operations or part of a larger in-ground 

farming operation. Critics contend that hydroponics are reliant on off-site nutrients and while the site 

specific conditions will dictate the level and type of nutrient cycling that occurs, proponents would argue 

the same is true for most organic in-ground farmers as well, including reliance on off farm manure. 

Practitioners have developed systems that are integrated, use only materials on the National List, and 

incorporate microbial action to provide plant health and nutrition. The introduction of fish to create an 

aquaponic system can address production of a protein source and integrate in situ fertilizer production with 

an integrated system.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 85/175
Hydroponic proponents argue that as much bacteria and fungi are found in hydroponics as is found in soilbased systems. They cite studies that look at the microbiology in hydroponics systems and find about 

10,000,000 bacteria per milliliter of nutrient solution35 36. Soil microbiology varies quite a bit, but compost 

consistently comes in at 100,000 to 1,000,000,000 colony forming units - or cfu- a measure of the viable 

bacterial and fungal cells - per milliliter of dry compost37 38 39. These systems are also rich in fungi-- a study 

that looked at both fungi and bacteria in hydroponic systems found 1,000,000 cfu/ml bacteria and 10 to 

1000 fungi cfu/ml in the system40. They supply research that shows suppression of plant disease by root 

flora and other microflora in hydroponics. A review of these studies in 2011 found suppressive flora in 

rockwool, NFT, peat, and other hydroponic methods41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51. It should be noted that 

 

35 Berkelmann, B., W. Wohanka, and G. A. Wolf. 1994. Characterization of the bacterial flora in circulating 

nutrient solutions of a hydroponic system in rockwool. Acta Hortic. 361:372–381. 

36 Waechter-Kristensen, B., S. Caspersen, S. Adalsteinsson, P. Sundin, and P. Jensén. 1999. Organic 

compounds and micro-organisms in closed, hydroponic culture: Occurrence and effects on plant growth 

and mineral nutrition. Acta Hortic. 481:197–204.

37 Bess, V. 2008. Evaluating Microbiology Of Compost 83–85.

38 Chandna, P., L. Nain, S. Singh, and R. C. Kuhad. 2013. Assessment of bacterial diversity during composting 

of agricultural byproducts. BMC Microbiol. 13:99.

39 Hassen, A., K. Belguith, N. Jedidi, A. Cherif, M. Cherif, and A. Boudabous. 2001. Microbial characterization 

during composting of municipal solid waste. Bioresour. Technol. 80:217–225.

40 Berkelmann, B., W. Wohanka, and G. A. Wolf. 1994. Characterization of the bacterial flora in circulating 

nutrient solutions of a hydroponic system in rockwool. Acta Hortic. 361:372–381. 41 . Clematis, F., A. Minuto, M. L. Gullino, and A. Garibaldi. 2009. Suppressiveness to Fusarium oxysporum f. 

sp. radicis lycopersici in re-used perlite and perlite-peat substrates in soilless tomatoes. Biol. Control. 

Elsevier Inc. 48:108–114. 42 Folman, L. B., J. Postma, and J. a. Veen. 2001. Ecophysiological characterization of rhizosphere bacterial 

communities at different root locations and plant developmental stages of cucumber grown on rockwool. 

Microb. Ecol. 42:586–597.

43 Minuto, A., F. Clematis, M. L. Gullino, and A. Garibaldi. Induced suppressiveness toFusarium oxysporum 

f.sp.radicis lycopersici in rockwool substrate used in closed soilless systems. Phytoparasitica 35:77–85. 44 Muslim, A., H. Horinouchi, and M. Hyakumachi. 2003. Control of fusarium crown and root rot of tomato 

with hypovirulent binucleate Rhizodonia in soil and rock wool systems. Plant Dis. 87:739–747. 45 Postma, J., M. J. Willemsen-de Klein, and J. D. van Elsas. 2000. Effect of the Indigenous Microflora on the 

Development of Root and Crown Rot Caused by Pythium aphanidermatum in Cucumber Grown on 

Rockwool. Phytopathology 90:125–33. 

46 Postma, J. 2004. Suppressiveness of root pathogens in closed cultivation systems. Acta Hortic. 644:503–

510. 

47 Postma, J., B. P. J. Geraats, R. Pastoor, and J. D. van Elsas. 2005. Characterization of the Microbial 

Community Involved in the Suppression of Pythium aphanidermatum in Cucumber Grown on Rockwool. 

Phytopathology 95:808–818.

48 Tu, J. C. ., A. P. . Papadopoulos, X. Hao, and J. Zheng. 1999. The relationship of Pythium root rot and 

rhizosphere microorganisms in a closed circulating and an open system in rockwool culture of tomato. Acta 

Hortic. 481:577–583. 

49 Vallance, J., F. Déniel, G. Floch, L. Guérin-Dubrana, D. Blancard, and P. Rey. 2011. Pathogenic and 

beneficial microorganisms in soilless cultures. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 31:191–203.

50 . van Os, E. A., and J. Postma. 2000. Prevention of root diseases in closed soilless growing systems by 

microbial optimisation and slow sand filtration. Acta Hortic. 532:97–102. 51 Zhang, W., and J. C. Tu. 2000. Effect of ultraviolet disinfection of hydroponic solutions on Pythium root 

rot and non-target bacteria. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 106:415–421

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 86/175
compared to soil, there have been many less studies on suppressive flora in hydroponics. The fact that of 

these few studies, so many have found strong evidence of suppressive flora in hydroponics is important.

While there has been ambiguity over the years on the position of the NOSB related to organic hydroponic 

production, the NOP has noted in 2002, 2004, 2009, 2014 and 2016 that organic hydroponic production is 

allowed as long as the producer can demonstrate compliance with the USDA organic regulations However, 

an NOP publication (the Organic Integrity Quarterly of May 2014) did state that there may be additional 

guidance issued in the future for these methods. The allowance of hydroponic certification without organic 

hydroponic production standards has led to inconsistent approval by certifiers.

The hydroponic proponents of the Task Force contended that advantages of hydroponic systems included 

water conservation, food safety, disease suppression, nutrient conservation and retention, and soil 

conservation (because of not using any soil and use of land unsuitable for cultivation). They argued that 

these production systems abide by the definition of organic production: A production system that is 

managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in this part to respond to site-specific conditions by 

integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote 

ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Additionally, proponents contend they comply with 

applicable areas of the rule, including writing and implementing an Organic System Plan, keeping records, 

preserving and cycling natural resources, and using compliant inputs. Precedence for exemptions for nonapplicable areas of the standards has already been set by NOSB recommendations on greenhouse 

production, mushroom production, aquaculture production and others.

Organic production systems

The justifications for how hydroponic systems comply with §205.203 (soil fertility and crop nutrients) and 

§205.205 (crop rotation) have been given as follows (see rule wording above):

• §205.203 (a) – Depends on the site specific conditions but generally, if the system interacts with soil 

these requirements apply as they would to in-ground farms. If production is soil-less then the nonuse of soil maintains the site’s soil. Operations are still responsible for not degrading soil. 

• §205.203 (b), (c) and 205.205 – In lieu of crop rotation and cover cropping, soil regeneration and 

recycling practices are implemented and documented in order to demonstrate that the required 

functions/goals of crop rotation and cover cropping listed in 205.205 (a, b, c, d) have been achieved 

through these alternate practices, as applicable to the operation. Specifically, by maintaining or 

improving organic matter content, providing for pest management in crops, managing deficient or 

excess plant nutrients, and by providing erosion control. Exemptions for crop rotation and cover 

cropping have been recommended by the NOSB in the past for specific types of operations like 

greenhouses. 

Minority Discussion

This minority view is a byproduct of numerous hours of debate, research, and contemplation about the 

diversity of the organic community. The industry is comprised of a variety of producers, processors, 

certifiers, retailers and consumers that all have evolved to define what compliant organic production 

systems look like under current NOP regulation. During many rounds of public comment, the NOSB has 

listened to the community and their opinions on the applicability and legality of hydroponic, aeroponic and 

aquaponic systems under the organic label. As with all complex issues, there are various viewpoints 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 87/175
regarding the meaning and interpretation of the organic regulation. The minority position celebrates this 

diversity and respects all shareholders’ interpretations. 

There are some who believe that proper soil management following principles outlined in the standards are 

foundational to what organic certification should mean. Many founding farmers of the organic movement 

shared this perspective as they pioneered new methods of agricultural production as an alternative to 

conventional production. We agree that soil is historically linked with organic production and should be as 

well in its future – we are pro soil. However, we do not view this as a mutually exclusive decision – being 

pro soil does not mean there is not a home for other production methods that “respond to site-specific 

conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, 

promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.”

Members of the organic community were drawn to organic foods and production for various reasons, 

including but not limited to: Environmental impacts of agriculture, resource conservation, avoidance of 

highly toxic synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, believed health benefits, local agriculture, etc. Some of 

these aspects were included in the law and regulations, while others were left out. Most members of the 

organic community are motivated by these concerns and more, each to varying degrees. Each of these 

concerns have tradeoffs which need to be balanced. Determining where this balance lies has unfortunately 

confounded the NOSB since its inception in 1995. 

The 1995 NOSB recommendation Standards for Greenhouses contains the statement, “Hydroponic 

production in soilless media to be labeled organically produced shall be allowed if all provisions of the OFPA 

have been met.” That statement indicated that an analysis had not been made of whether hydroponics met 

the provisions of OFPA. The brief dialogue at the meeting made it clear that while some board members 

were supportive of hydroponics, others had concerns about soilless production. 

In March 2000, a revised proposed rule for the National Organic Program was published, revising the initial 

proposed rule published in December 1997. In the supplemental information, the following was stated: 

We have amended the term, “system of organic farming and handling,” to “system of organic 

production and handling” and retained the original definition in this proposal. The original 

definition was crafted to be consistent with the requirements of the Act. We have changed 

“farming” to “production” to provide a more encompassing term, which may come to include such 

diverse activities as hydroponics, green house production, and harvesting of aquatic animals. The 

purpose of the original definition was to describe practices and substances consistent with systems 

of organic farming and organic handling as required by the Act and to provide an explicit reference 

point for determining which practices and substances are most consistent with these systems.52

In an 1807 communication from Thomas Jefferson to William H. Cabbell as to statutory interpretation, 

Thomas Jefferson stated, 

"In the construction of a law, even in judiciary cases of meum et tuum, where the opposite parties 

have a right and counter right in the very words of the law, the Judge considers the intention of the 

lawgiver as his true guide, and gives to all the parts and expressions of the law, that meaning which 

will effect, instead of defeating, its intention. But in laws merely executive, where no private right 

stands in the way, and the public object is in the interest of all, a much freer scope of construction, in 

favor of the intention of the law, ought to be taken, and ingenuity ever should be exercised in devising 

constructions which may save to the public the benefit of the law. Its intention is the important thing: 

 

52 Federal Register Volume 65 Number 49. Page 13521. Docket Number: TMD-00-02-PR2, RIN 0581-AA40. 

National Organic Program Proposed Rule. Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. March 13, 2000

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 88/175
the means of attaining it quite subordinate." –Thomas Jefferson to William H. Cabbell, 1807.

The minority view does find some common ground with the majority proposal; however, we find it strays 

too far from the original intent of the previous NOSB recommendations. It is not consistent with previous 

Board decisions, nor its intent when crafting its recommendations. It would be difficult for the NOP to 

implement without additional justification. 

The minority view holds that the 2010 NOSB recommendation entitled Production Standards for Terrestrial 

Plants in Containers and Enclosures (Greenhouses) was generally complete in regards to addressing 

compliant characteristics of organic systems under the NOP regulation. However, as was discussed 

previously in the introduction and background section, the NOP returned to the NOSB following the 2016 

Task Force report, asking for additional clarity regarding the 2010 NOSB hydroponics recommendation 

because the NOP felt the 2010 recommendation left too many aspects of compliant organic production 

systems open for interpretation. As such, the minority position below is an edited and redlined version of 

the 2010 NOSB recommendation intended to provide further clarity requested by the NOP. 

The minority view notes that the 2010 recommendation allowed compost to be utilized in place of soil 

because it deemed it equivalent to soil. The foundation of this equivalency was stated as follows:

The foundational principle of organic farming is the practice of maintaining and nurturing soil 

health so as to foster the proliferation of the proper soil biology with their accompanying ecologies. 

Since all typical soil dwelling organisms, such as earthworms, protozoa, fungi, bacteria, 

actinomycetes, etc. can thrive in a properly designed compost based growing media, producing the 

beneficial symbiotic ecological relationships found in soil, such growing media should be rightfully 

considered soil.

As such, the minority view extends that if production systems, utilizing organically approved production 

techniques on majority carbon based substrate, can foster the proliferation of proper soil biology within 

their accompanying ecologies as evidenced by the presence of typical soil dwelling organisms, such as 

earthworms, protozoa, fungi, bacteria, actinomycetes then they should be eligible for organic certification. 

Therefore, we propose working on a production standard that requires verification of the presence of four 

trophic levels. We understand this concept is new and has not been reviewed or commented on by the 

organic community or industry. We welcome feedback from the community and industry on this concept, 

definition and feasibility. 

The minority view is based upon the beliefs that organic production should enforce responsible 

stewardship practices, address sustainability and conservation of resources (e.g. land, water, on-farm 

inputs, energy, biodiversity), and allow for novel developments in organic food production systems that 

assist in providing greater access of organic food to consumers. 

The minority is not supportive of taking either proposal (major or minority) through to a vote at the Fall 

2017 NOSB meeting. Given the division of the community reflected in the division of the board, all 

stakeholders need to come to terms that a greater compromise will be necessary to make progress on this 

issue. The minority view finds merit in a discussion on hydroponic/soilless production standards and 

mandatory additional labeling with the organic label/claim. This concept has not been fully explored. 

The minority view believes these proposed revisions to the 2010 recommendation require further 

refinement and as noted earlier we request additional feedback from the public on these proposed 

revisions. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 89/175
Proposal – based on 2010 NOSB Recommendation

§ 205.2 Terms Defined

Greenhouse- Permanent enclosed structure that allows for an actively controlled environment used to grow 

organic crops, annual seedlings or planting stock used in organic production.

Hydroponics- The production of normally terrestrial, vascular plants in nutrient rich solutions or in an inert, 

porous, solid matrix bathed in nutrient rich solutions. Sprouts and fodder are considered a processed 

material and are not considered hydroponic.

Aeroponics- A variation of hydroponics in which plant roots are suspended in air and misted with nutrient 

solution.

Containers- Any vessel and associated equipment used to house growing media and the complete root 

structure of terrestrial plants and to prevent the roots from contacting the soil or surface beneath the 

vessel, such as, but not limited to, pots, troughs, plastic bags, floor mats. etc.

Growing media- Material which contains sufficient organic matter capable of supporting the plant root 

system and a natural and diverse soil ecology.

Container Production- The production of normally terrestrial, vascular plants in containers. Can be certified 

organic if production requirements of section of 205.209 are met.

Trophic levels: The hierarchical levels of organisms within an ecosystem; each level consisting of organisms 

that share the same function and food source in the food chain of a defined ecosystem.

§ 205.105 Allowed and prohibited substances, methods, and ingredients in organic production and

handling. To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must be produced and handled without the use of:

(h) Aeroponics and Hydroponics.

§ 205.209 Terrestrial Plants in Containers and Enclosures (Greenhouses)

(a) Container and enclosure (such as a greenhouse) operations must meet all applicable requirements of 

subparts B (205.105) and C (205.200 – 205.206) except that:

(1) The producer operating a container or enclosure operation greenhouse with crops grown in 

containers using a growing media that does not include soil from the production site is exempt from 

requirements of 205.202(b), 205.203(a).

(2) The producer operating with crops grown in containers shall comply with the applicable section of 

205.203(a) based on site specific conditions.

(3) In addition, the growing container based producer is exempt from the crop rotation and cover 

cropping requirements in section 205.203(b) and 205.205. In lieu of crop rotation and cover cropping, 

soil regeneration and recycling practices shall be implemented and documented for the Accredited 

Certification Agent in order to demonstrate that the required functions/goals of crop rotation and 

cover cropping listed in 205.205(a, b, c, d) have been achieved through these alternate practices, as 

applicable to the operation. Specifically:

(i) Maintain or improve soil organic matter content (a)- Examples include, but are not limited to, 

recycling and re-use of growing media, addition of compost and other compostable materials, 

earthworm replenishment, microbial re-inoculation, etc.

(ii) Provide for pest management in crops (b)- Examples include, but are not limited to: Soil borne 

damping-off control through various low temperature heating methods; Soil inoculation using 

disease suppressant bacteria and fungi.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 90/175
(iii) Manage deficient or excess plant nutrients (c)- Examples include, but are not limited to: Recycle 

excess plant nutrients contained in drain water from media containers, avoiding so called drain-towaste systems. Recycled nutrients must be re-used in the greenhouse, or alternatively, on a 

growing crop outside the facility.

(iv) Provide erosion control (d)- Examples include, but are not limited to: Though erosion is not 

generally applicable to greenhouse production, recycling of drain water prevents off-site

movement of nutrients, a common consequence of typical field erosion. 

(4) The Container Organic System Plan must address how meets the requirements to conserve 

biodiversity and maintain or improve natural resources of the site-specific operations. The Organic 

System Plan should include the entire production site (containers and non-containers as applicable) as 

well as the surrounding environment.

(b) Growing media requirements: 

(1) ingredients Inputs shall be verified by Accredited Certifying Agent and shall not include as 

ingredients any prohibited materials.

(2) Growing media shall be comprised of ingredients that allow for recycling and re-use as growing 

media within the operation, or alternatively, as a crop input outside the greenhouse.

(3) Growing media shall not be disposed of as waste, but should be recycled or reused whenever 

possible.

(4) Growing media shall contain sufficient organic matter capable of supporting natural and diverse soil 

ecology as evidenced by supporting four trophic levels. For this reason, hydroponic and aeroponic 

systems are prohibited.Growing media used to produce crop transplants should also be capable of 

supporting a natural and diverse soil ecology.

(5) Growing media shall be a minimum of 50% carbon based material.

(c) Producers may use full-spectrum light sources.

(d) Plants and soil shall not be in direct contact with, or indirect contact with condensates from, wood 

treated with prohibited materials that are used for greenhouse structures or frames of raised beds.

(e) Producers must recycle or reuse containers at end of life.

(f) To comply with the provisions of 205.201(a)(5) to prevent commingling and contamination, organic 

and non-organic crops can be grown within the same structure only if the following conditions are met:

(1) An impermeable wall shall separate organic and non-organic production sites if prohibited materials 

are applied to the non-organic crop to ensure that cross contamination does not occur.

(2) The ventilation systems must ensure that prohibited materials cannot drift, or be otherwise 

conveyed to the organic

(3) Separate watering systems must be established if prohibited fertilizers and/or pesticides are 

injected within the watering system.

(4) Producers must ensure that no contamination occurs to the organic crop through cross-pollination 

with crops produced through genetic engineering

(5) Soil mixing machines and other equipment used for non-organic crop production must be 

thoroughly cleaned prior to use in organic production.

(6) Adequate physical facilities, as determined by the certifying agent, shall separate organic and nonorganic crops and production materials in storage, production or holding areas.

(7) Organic and non-organic crops and production areas must be conspicuously labeled.

Approved by Francis Thicke, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 91/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 92/175
National Organic Standards Board

Crops Subcommittee Discussion Document

Field and Greenhouse Container Production 

August 29, 2017

Introduction

Since 1995, the National Organic Standards Board has discussed the production of crops in greenhouses 

and/or containers, and grown in a variety of substrates. This has resulted in numerous 

recommendations that have not been incorporated into the USDA organic regulations. USDA accredited 

certifiers have been approved to develop standards for hydroponics and containers and certify 

operations to those standards, as long as their organic certification requirements do not conflict with 

current regulations. Many of the unique aspects of operations that are hydroponic in recirculating 

systems or hydroponic in containers, where the crop relies upon soluble nutrients due to the use of inert 

substrates in those containers, are not explicitly addressed in the current USDA organic regulations. 

This discussion document provides background on the issues and why there is a need to address various 

aspects unique to container operations, both hydroponic and soil-based. 

In the equivalency agreements for organic trade between two of our major trading partners, the 

European Union and Canada, hydroponic crops are not allowed to carry the organic label and are an 

exception to the agreement. Other aspects of container and greenhouse growing are also covered by 

our trading partners. Bringing the USDA organic regulations more in line with international organic 

regulations could improve trade and lessen confusion in the marketplace.

Background

In a separate proposal to be voted on at the Fall 2017 NOSB meeting, the Crops Subcommittee has 

proposed the following standard for container production:

For container production to be certified organic, a limit of 20% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement can be 

supplied by liquid feeding, a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen requirement can be added to the 

container after the crop has been planted, and the container substrate must be at least 50% soil and/or 

compost by volume. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit is calculated on an annual basis. 

Transplants, ornamentals, herbs, and aquatic plants are exempted from these requirements. 

In the proposal, hydroponic is defined as 

any container production system that does not meet the standard of a limit of 20% of the plants’ 

nitrogen requirement being supplied by liquid feeding, and a limit of 50% of the plants’ nitrogen 

requirement being added to the container after the crop has been planted is defined as hydroponic, and 

should not allowed to be certified organic. For perennials, the nitrogen feeding limit is calculated on an 

annual basis. Transplants, ornamentals, herbs, sprouts, fodder, and aquatic plants are exempted from 

these requirements. 

Whether or not these items are recommended by the National Organic Standards Board and 

subsequently incorporated into the organic regulations by the National Organic Program, there are 

other aspects associated with these operations that are beyond requirements for nutrient and substrate 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 93/175
sources and percentages. These systems produce crops either in greenhouses or in field situations and 

rely on some practices that are not typical of a field grown operation. 

The lack of standards overseeing these practices leads to inconsistency between hydroponic operations 

and field grown crop production. 

Relevant Areas of the Rule and the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA)

There are numerous areas of the OFPA and the USDA organic regulations that address growing crops 

and would address the need for hydroponic systems of all types to meet those requirements as well.

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA)

§6504. National standards for organic production 

To be sold or labeled as an organically produced agricultural product under this chapter, an agricultural 

product shall— 

(1) Have been produced and handled without the use of synthetic chemicals, except as 

otherwise provided in this chapter; 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and excluding livestock, not be produced on 

land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied 

during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products; and 

(3) Be produced and handled in compliance with an organic plan agreed to by the producer and 

handler of such product and the certifying agent. 

§6512. Other production and handling practices 

If a production or handling practice is not prohibited or otherwise restricted under this chapter, such 

practice shall be permitted unless it is determined that such practice would be inconsistent with the 

applicable organic certification program. 

.... (g) Limitation on content of plan

An organic plan shall not include any production or handling practices that are inconsistent with 

this chapter. 

USDA Organic Regulations

§205.2 Terms defined. 

Organic production. A production system that is managed in accordance with the Act and regulations in 

this part to respond to site-specific conditions by integrating cultural, biological, and mechanical 

practices that foster cycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

§ 205.200 General.

The producer or handler of a production or handling operation intending to sell, label, or 

represent agricultural products as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 94/175
(specified ingredients or food group(s))” must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart. 

Production practices implemented in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural 

resources of the operation, including soil and water quality. 

§ 205.203 Soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard. 

(a) The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve 

the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.

(b) The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the 

application of plant and animal materials.

(c) The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter 

content in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant 

nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.... 

Discussion

This document will address three areas: 

1. Use of artificial light

2. Use of synthetic mulches including, but not limited to, plastic film and woven landscape cloth. 

3. Disposal of crops, substrates, and containers at the end of the crop’s production cycle.

Artificial Light

Artificial light used to grow plants is present in the organic standards of EU certification bodies and 

Canada. The EU Final Report on Greenhouse Production 2013 states the following:

In the Group’s opinion, the provision of artificial light is in line with the objectives and principles 

of organic farming, if the normal daylight is insufficient for the normal growing of crops. It 

should only be allowed on dark, overcast days and for extending the daylight period, and only 

during autumn, winter and early spring. However, the intensity of artificial light used in overcast 

or short days should not exceed the Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) of the country 

during a summer day (21st of June) and the number of hours should not exceed 12 hours of 

daylight including artificial light. 

Artificial light should also be allowed for the production of seedlings and herbs in pots, for the 

forcing of herbs, and for photoperiod induction of flowering. 

Large production units using artificial light can create a dome of light above the production units 

(‘light pollution’), which can lead to the disruption of natural behavior patterns of birds, bats and 

insects. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 95/175
Lighting during night hours should therefore be avoided, and an appropriate dark period 

provided for the plants. Where possible, energy-efficient light bulbs, electricity from renewable 

sources and/or intelligent greenhouse management systems should be used1

. 

In addition, here is an example of one EU certifier’s standard (Ecocert) for the light spectrum of 

the artificial light used to grow organic crops:

The maintenance of the temperature of the culture medium and complementary artificial light 

with lamps adjusted to the light spectrum of the species are authorized over difficult periods 

(winter conditions in temperate zones, restart of strains, etc.) after approval by Ecocert2

. 

The Canadian Organic Standards allow the following: 

7.5.9 Full-spectrum lighting is permitted3

. 

The use of artificial light can mimic the spectral quality of natural light and duration of natural light to

these plants during the growing season. Artificial light is sometimes used to promote faster plant 

growth, or replace natural light altogether. This discussion will seek to determine what types of artificial 

light are compatible with the principles of organic agriculture. 

There is a prohibition for organic livestock in 205.238 (c) (3) to administer hormones for growth 

promotion. The argument could be made that the use of artificial light designed to grow specific crops 

faster than can be performed in a natural setting might also need to be prohibited. The allowance to 

force herbs or induce flowering for the ornamental industry might be considered an exception, since 

these are necessary to the production of the crop. However, lettuce, other vegetables, and fruits would 

not require this artificial stimulant to produce a sellable crop.

Synthetic Mulch

Many container systems rely on the use of synthetic mulches to control weeds under the pots in the 

field, hoophouses or in greenhouses. Some may be impermeable and others are woven to allow some 

air and water infiltration. Typically, this synthetic mulch is not removed at the end of the harvest season 

as required of annual organic crops. Instead, it remains in the field for many years, even beyond a 

decade. For the woven landscape cloth, even though some water and air can infiltrate, it is not porous 

enough to absorb heavy downpours and can result in runoff and erosion beyond the edges of the 

synthetic mulch. In addition, the top few inches of the soil below the synthetic mulch can become 

sterile due to heat buildup beneath the mulch. Hundreds of acres are currently covered using these 

synthetic mulches for numerous years on organic farms. The adverse effects of synthetic mulches on 

the natural resources of the farm, as well as secondary effects on adjoining land, are issues that could be 

addressed.

 

1

https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/sites/orgfarming/files/docs/body/final_report_egtop_on_greenhouse_p

roduction_en.pdf

2 http://www.ecocert.com/sites/default/files/u3/Ecocert-Organic-Standard.pdf

3 http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ongc-cgsb/programme-program/normes-standards/internet/bio-org/pgng-gpmseng.html

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 96/175
A requirement that these synthetic mulches be covered by a biologically based mulch such as straw, 

wood chips, hay etc. would mitigate numerous issues associated with this use. The soil temperature 

underneath a wood chip covered landscape cloth is cooler, and mulch protects the fabric from UV

radiation thereby prolonging the useful life of the synthetic mulch. Woodchips or straw (and other 

naturally derived mulches) are proven tools for reducing the impact of raindrops and thereby enhancing 

infiltration of rainwater and reducing surface water runoff. Snow and ice would be trapped in the 

“organic” mulch and lessen the incidence of runoff issues, since these would slowly melt and infiltrate 

down into the soil.

Another issue to be considered is the percentage of the land covered by the plastic film or cloth. Having 

large numbers of acres covered by synthetic mulches magnifies the issues mentioned above, and

prevents the growth of habitat and food sources for beneficial insects and birds. A percentage of the 

growing area around the edges and pathways, and through the rows of containers sitting on the mulch, 

could be grass, beneficial insect habitat, or otherwise left uncovered by the synthetic mulch so the soil 

can absorb water and provide vegetation that promotes ecological balance and biodiversity.

Disposal of Crops and Containers at the End of the Crop’s Production Cycle

The crops and substrate used in container operations will eventually lose their productive capabilities 

and will need to be disposed of in some manner. Sending dump truck loads of large plastic pots and 

plastic liners with dead annual or perennial crops to a landfill does not meet the definition of organic 

production since it does not recycle the nutrients still present in those containers. The EU is currently 

reviewing a requirement that the substrate and vegetative matter from containers be composted and 

incorporated on-site and eventually spread on fields that are part of the same operation. The plastic 

pots can then be reused or recycled. Whether or not the vegetative material and approved organic 

substrates found in containers is composted and spread on site or at another location, this discussion 

document asks if consideration should be given to what happens to both the plastic residues and 

organic matter generated once the containers have outlived their productive capacity.

Public Comments from Previous Proposal and Discussion Documents

In order to have a robust and transparent interaction, these issues are being brought to the public for 

discussion. While the examples and issues being considered in this document are part of a container 

production system, if the same issues are found in greenhouse or field grown crops, it would be 

assumed that any future proposed regulations would apply to them as well. 

Discussion Questions

1. Should the use of artificial light be limited to a specific number of hours per day? Describe your 

rationale for how many hours should be permitted.

2. Should the spectrum and intensity of artificial light be limited to full spectrum, which is as close 

to natural daylight as possible, or should other types of lighting, such as those that emit the red 

or ultraviolet spectrum of light or modified intensities, be allowed? Describe your rationale for 

the spectrums and intensities of artificial light for use in container operations.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 97/175
3. Should the use of synthetic mulches which remain in place for numerous years, especially in an 

outdoor production setting, address the issues of soil and water quality as well as natural 

resource maintenance and improvement elaborated in this discussion document? Please 

describe the issues you feel are important and how they might be addressed.

4. Should the composting and field spreading of crop residue and substrates from container 

operations, and the recycling of plastic or non-compostable containers, be addressed within the 

NOP organic certification system?

Appendix - Definitions

Container – Any rigid or collapsible vessel and associated equipment used to house growing media and 

the complete root structure of terrestrial plants and to prevent the roots from contacting the soil or 

surface beneath the vessel, such as, but not limited to, pots, troughs, plastic bags, floor mats, etc. 

Greenhouse – Permanent enclosed structure that allows for an actively controlled environment used to 

grow crops, annual seedlings or planting stock. 

Growing media – Material which provides sufficient support for the plant root system and enables the 

plant to extract water and nutrients. Used interchangeably with the term "substrate". 

Inert material- A material that will not chemically react with anything under normal circumstances 

Nutrient solution – Growing solution used in traditional hydroponic production that is commonly 

composed of immediately plant-available soluble mineral salts in water 

Soil – The unconsolidated mineral or organic material on the immediate surface of the earth that serves 

as a natural medium for the growth of land plants. (ii) The unconsolidated mineral or organic matter on 

the surface of the earth that has been subjected to and shows effects of genetic and environmental 

factors of: climate (including water and temperature effects), and macro- and microorganisms, 

conditioned by relief, acting on parent material over a period of time. A product-soil differs from the 

material from which it is derived in many physical, chemical, biological, and morphological properties 

and characteristics (Soil Science Society of America Glossary).

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to accept the discussion document on Field and Greenhouse Container Production

Motion: Francis Thicke

Second: Steve Ela

Yes: 9 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Francis Thicke, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB, August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 98/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Sunset 2019 

Meeting 2 - Review

Livestock Substances §205.603 

November 2017

Note: The materials included in this list are undergoing early sunset review as part of November 18, 

2016 NOSB recommendation on efficient workload re-organization. 

Reference: 7 CFR 205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production 

Chlorhexidine

Chlorine Materials: Calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite

Glucose

Oxytocin

Tolazoline

Copper sulfate

Lidocaine

Procaine

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 99/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Chlorhexidine

Reference: 205.603(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable. (6) 

Chlorhexidine—Allowed for surgical procedures conducted by a veterinarian. Allowed for use as a teat 

dip when alternative germicidal agents and/or physical barriers have lost their effectiveness.

Technical Report: 01/2010 TR; 2015 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1999 NOSB meeting minutes and vote; 11/2005 NOSB sunset 

recommendation; 11/2009 Annotation change/clarification; 04/2010 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 

sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice published 06/06/12 (77 FR 33290); Sunset 

renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Specific Uses of the Substance: 

Used as an antimicrobial during surgery for cleansing wounds, skin, and equipment. Also used as a pre 

and post teat dip to aid in controlling bacteria that cause mastitis. 

There are numerous synthetic disinfectants currently on the National List for organic livestock 

production, including iodine, ethanol, isopropanol, sodium hypochlorite, and hydrogen peroxide. Not all 

are useful both in a surgical environment and as a teat dip, as allowed under the chlorhexidine 

annotation.

Chlorhexidine reportedly kills mastitis-causing pathogens faster than iodine and is more persistent in its 

disinfection activity. Chlorhexidine is gentler on the skin than iodine, which is especially useful in 

northern climates where an irritated udder and teats can be especially problematic for the animals in 

cold winter months.

Approved Legal Uses of the Substance: Used in agriculture for disinfection during livestock surgery, on 

teats pre and post milking and on milking equipment. Also used in food processing as a hard surface 

disinfectant and in human dentistry as a mouth wash and to disinfect equipment.

Discussion: 

In April 2015 the NOSB recommended adding one more teat dip: acidified sodium chlorite—allowed for 

use on organic livestock as a pre and post teat dip treatment.

Questions for the public:

1. Does chlorhexidine provide an essential function that other natural materials or synthetics 

proposed or currently on the National List do not provide?

2. Is chlorhexidine used widely in organic livestock production?

Public comment: 

Numerous certification agencies noted this to be an important material for organic livestock production. 

Chlorhexidine is useful as the active disinfectant in a teat dip in cold temperatures, as compared to 

iodine, which can be problematic in that type of situation. All commenters agreed chlorhexidine’s use in 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 100/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

surgical procedures is essential. One public interest group noted that less toxic alternatives, such as 

vinegar, lavender essential oil, tea tree oil or hydrogen peroxide, might be better alternatives for the 

teat dip use, while another noted there are alternative teat dips to chlorhexidine.

The Subcommittee did not feel alternatives were present for this material, and were in favor of 

retaining it as an approved synthetic as annotated. This material fulfills specific functions and is a 

necessary livestock tool.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove chlorhexidine from §205.603(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Chlorine Materials

Reference: 205.603(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

(7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment. Residual chlorine levels in 

the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

(i) Calcium hypochlorite.

(ii) Chlorine dioxide.

(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

Technical Report: 2006 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 05/2006 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

NOSB recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Specific Uses of the Substance: Sodium and calcium hypochlorite are chlorinated inorganic disinfectants 

used to control bacteria, fungi, and slime-forming algae that can cause diseases in people and animals 

(EPA, 1991, 1992). These disinfectants also are used in cleaning irrigation, drinking water, and other 

water and wastewater systems. Chlorine dioxide is an antimicrobial disinfectant and pesticide used to 

control harmful microorganisms, including bacteria, viruses, and fungi on inanimate objects and 

surfaces, primarily in indoor environments. It is used in cleaning water systems and disinfecting public 

drinking water supplies (ATSDR, 2004a). It also is used as a bleaching agent in paper and textile 

manufacturing, as a food disinfectant (e.g., for fruit, vegetables, meat, and poultry), for disinfecting food 

processing equipment, and treating medical wastes, among other uses (EPA, 2003a). Chlorine materials 

are currently used for disinfection of livestock facilities.

Approved Legal Uses of the Substance:

Regarding organic production, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide are 

currently approved for disinfecting and sanitizing livestock facilities and equipment and as algicides, 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 101/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

disinfectants, and sanitizers (including irrigation system cleaning) in organic crop production. Similarly, 

these chlorine materials are approved for disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces in the 

production of processed products labeled as "organic" or "made with organic." Residual chlorine levels 

from these approved uses may not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (currently 4 mg/L).

Additional information requested by NOSB

1. Are there less toxic disinfecting and sanitizing materials that could be substituted for chlorine 

materials? 

2. Are all three chlorine materials needed for use in livestock production?

Discussion: 

The Livestock Subcommittee has received several comments both supporting and opposing relisting.

Several commenters opposed to the relisting stated:

• There needs to be a comprehensive review of all sanitizers used.

Several commenters in support of relisting stated:

• Sodium hypochlorite is routinely used to sanitize many surfaces to kill pathogenic 

microorganisms. Chlorine dioxide is routinely used to kill pathogenic microorganisms in water 

lines because sodium hypochlorite is corrosive to the pipes. No alternatives currently allowed.

• Chlorine dioxide is very important in controlling the growth of microorganisms in our water 

lines. Sodium hypochlorite is not a suitable substitute in water lines because it is too corrosive.

Previous public comments asked for a comprehensive review of all sanitizers, but the Subcommittee 

feels that a review of that scope is beyond the sunset review process. While there are concerns about 

the relisting of this material, chlorine has been used for many years as a sanitizer and is necessary in the 

organic industry for proper sanitation. 

This material satisfies the OFPA Evaluation criteria and the Livestock Subcommittee supports the 

relisting of chlorine materials.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove chlorine materials from §205.603(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Ashley Swaffar

Seconded by: Sue Baird

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 102/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Glucose

Reference: 205.603(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable

(11) Glucose

Technical Report: 1995 TAP 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background from Subcommittee: Glucose has been on the National List since 1995, with minimal 

public comment, both pro and con at each sunset review. It is used most frequently in organic dairy 

operations to manage ketosis or other situations where an infusion of glucose is needed to restore the 

blood sugar balance in an ill cow. On non-organic dairy operations, propylene glycol, glycerin or 

corticosteroids might also be used. Careful management of feed rations before and immediately after 

birthing is typically used to avoid the occurrence of ketosis. There may be some excipient ingredients in 

glucose used in livestock production.

Additional information requested by NOSB 

1. Is this material essential in organic production and why?

2. Are there nonsynthetic materials or methods that can be used to treat the illnesses associated 

with glucose use?

Public comment: 

Numerous certifiers stated this is a commonly used material on their certified organic dairy operations, 

other said it was not used a lot, but still supported relisting. Its use for managing ketosis was noted as 

essential by farmers, milk buyers, inspectors and the organic trade. Environmental and public interest 

groups stated there were no adverse effects and it is an important material to treat animals. No 

alternative materials or methods, other than feed ration management around birthing, were 

mentioned.

On an organic dairy farm, glucose is an essential animal health tool. It is used typically to treat ketosis, 

and there was universal approval for keeping this material on the National List. Since glucose is an 

ingredient in calcium gluconate used to treat milk fever, retaining glucose on the National List of 

approved synthetics also maintains this important tool for treatment of this ailment as well.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove glucose from §205.603(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Sue Baird

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 103/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Oxytocin

Reference: 205.603(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable

(17) Oxytocin—use in post parturition therapeutic applications

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2005 TR 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background from Subcommittee: Oxytocin is a hormone, naturally produced in the pituitary glands of 

humans, cattle and other mammals. In nonorganic production, it can be used regularly to help 

nonorganic dairy cows relax and “let down their milk”. There are some concerns with overuse of 

oxytocin in nonorganic production systems. In the USDA organic regulations, it is only allowed postbirthing, in a therapeutic way to ease various dam issues that are associated with the birthing of the 

calf, including retained placenta. It has been recommended for use with USDA organic livestock since 

the inception of the USDA organic regulations, with minimal public comment on this material, pro or 

con. Some organic milk marketers require their organic milk suppliers to not use this material. There 

was very little public comment on this material over the years, and it appears to be used rarely in 

organic production. However, it could be considered essential for animal health and welfare in 

emergency situations.

Additional information requested by NOSB for public comment

1. Is oxytocin an essential material for organic production and why?

2. Are there nonsynthetic alternatives, or other methods that can be used to accomplish the same 

results as oxytocin?

Public comment: 

The two largest milk buyers in the U.S., CROPP Cooperative/Organic Valley and White Wave/Horizon did 

not support renewal of this material. Numerous comments stated the current annotation “use in post 

parturition therapeutic applications” is unclear, leading to uses on organic milk animals that do not 

meet the intention of this annotation. Commenters asked for clarity detailing what time frame is 

considered “post parturition”, and which therapeutic applications are allowed. Some certifiers would 

not allow its use for “milk let down”, others would not allow its use for displaced abomasum, while 

other certifiers would. Two different certifiers, Pennsylvania Certified Organic (PCO) and California 

Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), noted a total of 47 operations had used it, others noted it was not 

commonly used. Those in favor of relisting stated this is an important material in the dairy health 

toolkit, to assist animals after giving birth. Those not in favor stated there were preventative measures, 

as well as other activities that could be performed post birthing, that make oxytocin unnecessary in 

organic livestock production.

Commenters also noted the annotation was not clear, and the specific health incidents leading to the 

allowed use of this synthetic hormone were not consistent between certifiers. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 104/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Subcommittee Discussion:

Oxytocin has been on the National List of approved synthetics since the USDA organic regulations were

implemented. However, over time, methods and materials have been developed that make oxytocin

less essential for maintaining animal health and welfare. The expectations and awareness of dairy 

production tools by consumers has changed over time. They now expect organic milk be produced 

without the use of synthetic hormones. The Livestock Subcommittee realizes that some producers may 

need to learn new methods to address post parturition issues, but we believe the knowledge and 

materials are present, so that there will be no interruption in commerce, economic hardship, or 

lessening of animal welfare if this material is removed from the National List of approved synthetics. 

Veterinarians who work with organic dairy farmers, as well as educational organizations that provide 

information to organic dairy producers can provide this information on the methods and materials used 

that make oxytocin no longer essential in an organic dairy system.

 

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove oxytocin from §205.603(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) Section 2118 (7 U.S.C. 6517) National List (b) (1) (A) (ii) and (iii), Section 2119 (7 

U. S. C. 6518 (m) (6) and (7) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) (1): essentiality 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 7 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Tolazoline

Reference: 205.603(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable

(22) Tolazoline (CAS #-59-98-3)—federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the lawful written or oral 

order of a licensed veterinarian, in full compliance with the AMDUCA and 21 CFR part 530 of the Food 

and Drug Administration regulations. Also, for use under 7 CFR part 205, the NOP requires:

(i) Use by or on the lawful written order of a licensed veterinarian;

(ii) Use only to reverse the effects of sedation and analgesia caused by Xylazine; and 

(iii) A meat withdrawal period of at least 8 days after administering to livestock intended for 

slaughter; and a milk discard period of at least 4 days after administering to dairy animals.

Technical Report: 2002 TAP

Petition(s): 2002 Petition 

Past NOSB Actions: 09/2002 NOSB recommendation; 10/2010 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 

sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Tolazoline is used in conjunction with xylazine, which is used as a sedative, analgesic (pain killer) and 

muscle relaxant in veterinary medicine. Tolazoline is used to reverse the effects of xylazine. 

Tolazoline was last reviewed in 2015 at which time the NOSB voted unanimously to renew it. 

Discussion: 

There were three written comments on tolazoline submitted prior to the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting: 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 105/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

• One brief comment indicated that the substance is rarely used.

• The second comment, also brief, stated that the substance should continue to be allowed, since 

its use lessens animal suffering; and 

• The third comment, which was extensive, focused primarily on whether there is a reasonable 

basis for keeping xylazine—with which tolazoline works in conjunction—on the National List, 

since the scientific literature on xylazine indicates that there may be pharmacological sideeffects and other problems associated with its use. 

This material satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria and the Livestock Subcommittee supports the 

relisting of tolazoline. 

The subcommittee noted, however, that were xylazine to be removed from the National List in the 

future, tolazoline would probably no longer be needed for organic production. Thus if xylazine is 

removed, the NOSB should consider removing tolazoline as well.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove tolazoline from §205.603(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Daniel Seitz

Seconded by: Jesse Buie

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Copper Sulfate

Reference: §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable 

(1) Copper sulfate.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2015 TR

Petition(s); N/A 

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Copper Sulfate is used in livestock management specifically as a walk-through footbath to help control 

and prevent hoof-related diseases in dairy cattle and sheep. Some of the specific problems that can 

affect skin adjacent to the claw horn of dairy cattle and sheep include digital dermatitis (DD) (hairy heel 

warts), foot rot lesions (interdigital area and invading the subcutaneous tissue), and heel erosions. 

Depending on the severity of the infection, the impact on managed cattle and/or sheep ranges from 

minor discomfort to severe debilitating lameness, reproductive problems, and, in the dairy industry, a 

reduction of milk production ranging from 20 to 50 percent (Brown, et al., 2000, Losinger, 2006). A five 

to ten percent copper sulfate solution is commonly used as the antimicrobial agent in the footbath and 

is considered effective for 150 to 300 animal passes.

According to the February 2015 technical evaluation report commissioned by the Livestock 

Subcommittee, there are no natural (non-synthetic) products available that can be used as a 

management strategy to treat hoof-related diseases and lameness in dairy cattle and sheep operations. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 106/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

However, there are various management tools available that could help reduce the cost of treatment 

and prevent hoof-related diseases. These include the use of additional dietary supplements (i.e., feeding 

of iodine, feeding of zinc methionine), free stall (cubicle) design, limiting contact with gravel or rocky 

surfaces, and hoof trimming practices (Maas 2009). TR lines 575-580.

The Livestock subcommittee feels that copper sulfate, used after appropriate management practices 

and disposed of properly, provides a valuable tool to livestock producers and recommends this material 

stay on the National List.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove copper sulfate from §205.603(b) as topical treatment, external parasiticide or local 

anesthetic based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 

205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Jessie Buie

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Lidocaine 

Reference: §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable 

(4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to 

livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals

Technical Report: None

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation, 2016 annotation change recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Lidocaine is a local anesthetic which has a rapid onset of action and is short term in duration. It numbs 

only the area to be worked on. For example, lidocaine is used to humanely de-bud horns on calves, and 

for minor surgery on mature animals. 

Lidocaine was last reviewed in 2015 at which time the NOSB voted unanimously to renew it. 

During the 2015 sunset review of lidocaine and procaine the Livestock Subcommittee was unable to find 

any record of the rationale for the much extended withdrawal period of 90 days for these materials 

when used on slaughter stock. Historical NOSB and NOP documents from 1995 to the present were 

reviewed. The December 2007 commentary (72 FR 70479) implies that perhaps the 90 days is a doubling 

of the FDA or FARAD (Food Animal Drug Residue Avoidance) withholding period, but no such 45 day 

withholding was found in FDA or FARAD or other sources.

A proposal—currently outstanding—to amend §205.603 was unanimously approved by the NOSB at the 

April 2016 meeting as follows:

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 107/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

To amend §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

(4) Lidocaine—as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days 8 days after 

administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days 6 days after administering to dairy animals

Discussion: 

For the spring 2017 NOSB meeting, there were five comments submitted in support of the continued 

listing of lidocaine (three from organizations and two from individuals), and there were no comments 

submitted in opposition. Therefore, it appears that there is still broad stakeholder support for 

continuing to list lidocaine. Those commenters who mentioned the shorter withdrawal period in their 

comments stated that they supported it.

This material satisfies the OFPA Evaluation criteria and the Livestock Subcommittee supports the 

relisting of lidocaine.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove lidocaine from §205.603(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Daniel Seitz

Seconded by: Francis Thicke

Yes: 0 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Procaine 

Reference: §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable. 

(7) Procaine—as a local anesthetic, use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days after administering to 

livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days after administering to dairy animals

Technical Report: N/A

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 

sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset recommendation, 2016 annotation change recommendation

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Procaine is a local anesthetic which has a rapid onset of action and is of short term duration. It numbs 

only the area to be worked on and can be used to humanely de-bud horns on calves, and for minor 

surgery on mature animals. 

Procaine was last reviewed in 2015, at which time the NOSB voted to renew it, with 3 “yes” votes to 

remove, 9 “no” votes, and 2 “abstentions.” 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 108/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

During the 2015 Sunset Review of lidocaine and procaine the Livestock subcommittee was unable to 

find any record of the rationale for the much extended withdrawal period of 90 days for these materials 

when used on slaughter stock. Historical NOSB and NOP documents from 1995 to the present were 

reviewed. The December 2007 commentary (72 FR 70479) cited above implies that perhaps the 90 days 

is a doubling of the FDA or FARAD withholding period, but no such 45 day withholding was found in FDA 

or FARAD or other sources

A Proposal—currently outstanding—to amend §205.603 was unanimously approved by the NOSB at the 

April 2016 meeting in DC as follows:

To amend §205.603(b) As topical treatment, external parasiticide or local anesthetic as applicable.

(7) Procaine —as a local anesthetic. Use requires a withdrawal period of 90 days 8 days after 

administering to livestock intended for slaughter and 7 days 6 days after administering to dairy 

animals. 

Additional information requested by NOSB

1. If procaine were removed from the National List and only lidocaine were available for use as a 

local anesthetic in organic livestock production, would lidocaine fully meet all potential 

veterinary needs?

2. Is procaine currently only available for use in combination with an antibiotic?

Discussion: 

There were six written comments on procaine submitted prior to the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting: 

• One brief comment indicated that the substance is rarely used, but did not express an opinion 

on renewal.

• 4 brief comments supported renewal, one of which noted that procaine is not very widely used; 

and 

• One comment, which was more extensive, recommended removal for the following reasons:

o Procaine is used as a local anesthetic, but is not as effective as lidocaine. 

o Procaine is not widely available, except in combination with the antibiotic penicillin, 

which is not allowed for use in organic livestock production.

o There is no benefit to using procaine vs. lidocaine, so having it on the National List likely 

only creates confusion.

Those commenters who mentioned the shorter withdrawal period in their comments stated that they 

supported it.

Given the comments received so far, the Subcommittee is unclear whether procaine is currently being 

used in organic livestock production, and whether it is only available in combination with an antibiotic. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove procaine from §205.603(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: essentiality. 

Motion by: Daniel Seitz

Seconded by: Sue Baird 

Yes: 3 No: 2 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 109/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 110/175
National Organic Standards Board

Livestock Subcommittee Petitioned Material Proposal

Sulfur-elemental

August 1, 2017

Summary of Petition [Petition for Sulfur (PDF)]: 

The petition is for sulfur to be used in livestock production as a livestock parasiticide. Sulfur (elemental) is 

currently allowed for use in the production of organic crops as an insecticide, for plant disease control, and 

as a plant or soil amendment. Sulfur is used as a pesticide (repellent for mites, fleas & ticks) for domestic 

livestock (chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, game birds, pigeons, equine, cattle, swine, sheep, and goats and 

for use on dogs). Sulfur is dusted liberally and rubbed into feathers or hair. Sulfur us also used for treatment 

of listed animals/livestock living quarters to prevent mites, fleas, and ticks. 

Summary of Review:

Category 1: Classification 

1. Substance is for: Livestock

2. For HANDLING and LIVESTOCK use: 

a. Is the substance Agricultural or _X_ Non-Agricultural?

 Describe reasoning for this decision using NOP 5033-2 as a guide: 

Sulfur is not being used as part of the finished product, but is a mineral used in an isolated form to be 

used as a pesticide. 

b. If the substance is Non-agricultural, is the substance Non-synthetic or _X Synthetic? 

Is the substance formulated or manufactured by a process that chemically changes a substance 

extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources? [OFPA §6502(21)] If so, 

describe, using NOP 5033-1 as a guide: 

Yes. Sulfur is an abundant element on the earth. Elemental sulfur is found in volcanic sites and salt 

domes. Sulfur was classically mined using the Frasch process in the U.S. as late as the 1920s. In the 

Frasch process superheated water is pumped into a sulfur deposit to melt the sulfur, which is then 

brought to the surface with compressed air. Sulfur produced by the Frasch process was 99.5% pure 

and required no further purification. In some locations sulfur is found near the earth’s surface in sulfur 

craters. Here sulfur from the deposits is broken up and harvested with various kinds of mining 

equipment ranging from hand carried baskets to modern conveyor systems. 

Sulfur is also found in petroleum, natural gas and fossil products from which it must be removed as a 

legal mandate to avoid the production of sulfur dioxide, a contaminant of the air. Hydrogen sulfide 

from petroleum refining and fossil fuels is converted to pure sulfur by the Claus process. The Claus 

process is used to produce the majority of sulfur available today. In a heating and cooling cycle, 

hydrogen sulfide recovered from fossil products is combusted to form water and elemental sulfur:

8 H2S + 5 O2 → SO2 + 7/2 S2 + 8 H2O 

The addition of an aluminum or titanium catalyst permits the reaction of SO2 formed during 

combustion with additional molecules of H2S to yield sulfur and water:

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 111/175
2 H2S + SO2 → 3 S + 2 H2O 

In 2015, recovered elemental sulfur and its byproduct sulfuric acid were produced at 103 operations 

in 27 States. Total shipments were valued at about $933 million. Elemental sulfur production was 8.7 

million tons; Louisiana and Texas accounted for about 52% of domestic production. Elemental sulfur 

was recovered, in descending order of tonnage, at petroleum refineries, natural-gas-processing 

plants, and coking plants by 39 companies at 96 plants in 26 States. Domestic elemental sulfur 

provided 64% of domestic consumption. About 11 million tons of sulfur were used in the US in 2015 

(USGS, 2016). 

3. For LIVESTOCK: Reference to appropriate OFPA category

Is the substance used in production, and does it contain an active synthetic ingredient in the 

following categories: [§6517(c)(1)(B)(i)]; copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 

bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and minerals; 

livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps and seals, 

insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; or (ii) is used in production and 

contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern?

Sulfur does contain active sulfur compounds §6517(c)(1)(B)(i). Elemental sulfur is a sulfur 

compound. Its use in this petition is a livestock parasiticide. Sulfur is exempt from a residual 

tolerance (40 CFR 180.1236) and listed as a stabilizer for food use in 40 CFR 180.930.

Category 2: Adverse Impacts 

1. What is the potential for the substance to have detrimental chemical interactions with other 

materials used in organic farming systems? [§6518(m)(1)]

Diatomaceous earth, kaolin and lard are natural substances that may be used for organic production. 

They are used with sulfur for dustbathing poultry to prevent lice and mite infestations. For example, 

equal parts lard and sulfur can be used to treat birds for the scaly-leg mite. Another treatment for 

depluming mites uses a combination of 3⁄4 oz. sodium fluoride (not on the National List), 2 oz. sulfur, 1⁄2 

oz. of household soap and 1 gallon of water. For lice, a dust bath containing sulfur and lime is effective 

(Rumball, 1927). In the treatment of the hen house for mites, lice and fleas, it is recommended to not 

only clean and coat surfaces, but to dust with a 3:1 combination of powdered slacked lime and sulfur 

(Herrick, 1915). When sulfur is used to treat honeybee colonies for mites, no changes in the hedonic 

performance of the honey is observed in comparison to a water spray control (Hosamani et al., 2007). 

Sulfur is not toxic to the honey bee (Kuan and Chi, 2007).

Windblown elemental sulfur from storage piles can result in heavy local deposits: 1 to 100 metric 

tons/hectare or more. These soils become completely barren with pH 1 to 2. Reclamation is possible by 

adding large amounts lime, CaCO3 (Nyborg, 1978). 

Sulfur as an element is not particularly flammable. However, combining sulfur with potassium chlorate 

can produce a very unstable, even explosive mixture (Tanner, 1959). Strong oxidizers such as 

perchlorates, peroxides, permanganates, chlorates can react with sulfur spontaneously cause a fire or 

explosion (NJ Health, 2011).

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 112/175
2. What is the toxicity and mode of action of the substance and of its breakdown products or any

contaminants, and their persistence and areas of concentration in the environment? [§6518(m)(2)]

Elemental sulfur is found naturally and combined with iron and base metals and sulfide minerals. In 

petroleum, sulfur occurs in a variety of complex molecules. In natural gas sulfur is present as hydrogen 

sulfide. Sulfur is present in plants, animals and humans in a number of biological molecules. Recovered 

sulfur is the primary source of sulfur used for industrial applications. It is recovered from sulfur ores, 

during the refining of oil, and through the purification of natural gas (Komarnisky et al., 2003). Table 2 

provides the sources of sulfur in the environment.

Fig 2. A simplified diagram of the natural sulfur cycle (Komarniskey et al., 2003)

Sulfur is essential for life in a range of concentrations as a part of or in combinations with other 

molecules. However, sulfur is known to cause polio encephalomalacia in ruminants and may inhibit 

arachidonic acid metabolism and platelet plasma membrane function in rabbits (Komarniskey et al., 

2003). Consumption by ruminants of a high dietary percentage (>0.3%) of sulfur as elemental sulfur or 

sulfate can cause toxic effects. Sulfur bacteria in the rumen produce the poisonous gases, hydrogen 

sulfide and sulfur dioxide that eructate from the rumen and are absorbed through the lungs. Diets rich 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 113/175
in sulfate can depress feeding. In spite of the liver’s capability for detoxifying sulfide in the blood, 

extreme cases of sulfur toxicity can lead to death (Kandylis, 1984).

Elemental sulfur is insoluble in water. However, its solubility in organic solvents, such as methanol, is 

greater. Tests with zebrafish larvae showed sulfur toxicity at concentrations as low as 1%. A sulfur 

concentration that high may be achieved by dilution with methanol (Svenson et al., 1997). 

3. Describe the probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, misuse or 

disposal of such substance? [§6518(m)(3)]

Elemental sulfur is transported from mining, manufacturing and transshipping sites in pipelines and in 

tank cars in molten form. Molten sulfur has the potential to emit hydrogen sulfide gas, which 1) 

presents a safety hazard to those working in the vicinity and 2) an environmental hazard, since H2S is 

very toxic (Sulphur Institute, 2013).

Pollution of the soils can take place where elemental sulfur is stored in the open. Wind eroding fine 

dust from sulfur blocks or grains stored in the open is deposited downwind of the manufacturing or 

storage facility. Over several years surrounding soils can become acidified with pH as low as 1. 

Acidification is the result of soil bacteria converting the sulfur to sulfuric acid. (Nyborg, 1978).

4. Discuss the effect of the substance on human health. [§6517 (c)(1)(A)(i); §6517 (c)(2)(A)(i); 

§6518(m)(4)]. 

Current available U.S. Environmental Protection Agency toxicity studies and literature searches for 

elemental sulfur do not indicate any systemic toxicity associated with elemental sulfur exposure and no 

endpoints of toxicological concern have been identified. The acute toxicity of sulfur is low. Acute oral 

toxicity is a category IV hazard, i.e. fifty percent lethal dose (LD50) is greater than 5000 milligrams (mg) 

per kilogram (kg) of body weight. Only the word caution or no signal word is required on the label for 

elemental sulfur for acute toxicity. Elemental sulfur is considered a category III hazard for dermal 

exposure and inhalation. For dermal exposure, LD50 > 2000 mg/kg ≤ 5000 mg/kg. Only the signal word 

caution is required. For inhalation, LC50 > 0.5 mg/L < 2.0 mg/L and the signal word caution must be on 

the label. Sulfur is an eye and skin irritant (category III, moderate irritation (erythema) at 72 hours), but 

is not a skin sensitizer. The EPA is satisfied that in most cases labels contain sufficient information about 

personal protective equipment and reentry and this information is generally followed by applicators 

(EPA, 2013a). The EPA’s review of incident data indicates that both the relative number of reported 

incidents and the severity of reported health effects are low. 

In livestock production, H2S is a hazard to human health. This colorless toxic gas with a rotten egg odor 

is produced during the degradation of liquid manure stored in anaerobic conditions within agricultural 

livestock operations. In spite of regulatory limits for H2S exposure of 1 ppm, levels as high as 9, 22 and 

97 ppm have been reported for poultry, beef/dairy and swine production, respectively (Guarrasi et al., 

2015). The contribution of elemental sulfur to the H2S livestock production hazard for workers is 

negligible (EPA, 2013a).

5. Discuss any effects the substance may have on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including the 

salt index and solubility of the soil), crops and livestock. [§6518(m)(5)] 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 114/175
Elemental sulfur is generally used for livestock insecticide applications in granular or finely powdered 

form. Liquids and mixtures are also in use. Small amounts of dusting sulfur or liquids find their way into 

soils or water, either as part of the manufacturing process, transport and storage or application to 

animals. None of these applications is recognized as an environmental problem (EPA, 1991b). In soils, 

sulfur is oxidized to sulfuric acid (H2SO4) by soil bacteria mostly of the genus Thiobacillus. Important 

factors for the rate of oxidation include 1) the fineness of the sulfur particles, 2) the resident population 

of Thiobacillus spp., 3) soil temperature and 4) soil moisture content. Powdered sulfur is quickly 

oxidized (Nyborg, 1978). In general there is very little effect on the vegetation, soil or the invertebrate 

population of the soil from small amounts of sulfur dust. Too much sulfur, e.g. from a sulfur storage or 

manufacturing facility will cause the pH of the soil to drop as low as pH 2.5 or lower. Although, H2SO4 in 

the soil can generally diffuse in the soil as a sulfate ion leachate, the introduction of high levels of sulfur 

can cause the loss of vegetative ground cover and affect a number of insect taxa (Carcamo et al., 1998). 

High sulfur contamination and subsequent acidification has a clear negative effect on earthworms, 

snails, and several ground beetle species. Among the beetles, ecological specialists are those most 

vulnerable to acidification, whereas ecological generalists are more resistant (Carcamo and Parkinson, 

2001). Earthworms have an important influence on the sulfur turnover in the soil caused by their 

burrowing, feeding, digestion and egestion (Grethe et al., 1996).

Many species of sulfur reducing bacteria produce and metabolize elemental sulfur in a number of 

chemical transformations, both in soils and water. Quite a few of these have not yet been identified or 

characterized. In some cases, particularly in the absence of sufficient nitrate, hydrogen sulfide is 

produced in the metabolism of elemental sulfur. Hydrogen sulfide is responsible for a serious sulfur 

odor (Liang, 2016). Livestock operations frequently produce significant levels of hydrogen sulfide, 

notwithstanding from general practice rather than prevention or treatment for parasites using

elemental sulfur (Guarrasi et al., 2015).

6. Are there any adverse impacts on biodiversity? (§205.200) 

Sulfur has been used as a pesticide in the United States since the 1920s, and is currently registered for 

use as an insecticide and fungicide on a wide range of field and greenhouse-grown food and feed crops, 

livestock (and livestock quarters), and indoor and outdoor residential sites. Although sulfur has 

insecticidal and fungicidal properties when used as directed, it is also an abundant and ubiquitous 

element in the natural environment (Brown, 1982, EPA, 2013b).

Elemental sulfur is combusted at volcanic sites, and metabolized by sulfur bacteria to produce 

hydrogen sulfide that enters the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere makes clouds more 

reflective producing a cooling effect on the earth. Sulfur in the atmosphere is involved in the 

prevention of global warming (Blake, 2007, Wingenter et al., 2007). Elemental sulfur is required for the 

existence of animal and plant life. Available evidence indicates that elemental sulfur is rapidly and 

extensively incorporated into the natural sulfur cycle via oxidation to sulfate and/or reduction to sulfide 

with subsequent volatilization (Lovelock, 1974; EPA, 2013b). The sulfur cycle can be simplified to four 

basic step: 1) mineralization of organic sulfur (e.g. methionine, cysteine) to an inorganic form (H2S), 2) 

oxidation of sulfide, elemental sulfur and related compounds to sulfate, SO4

2-, 3) reduction of sulfate to 

sulfide, 4) microbial immobilization of sulfur compounds and subsequent incorporation into an organic 

form of sulfur (Shaver, 2014; la Riviere, 1966). A simplified diagram of the natural sulfur cycle is shown 

in Fig 2.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 115/175
Hydrogen sulfide entering the atmosphere reacts with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide. In water, sulfur 

dioxide forms hydrogen sulfite which in excess is responsible for generating acid rain, i.e. fossil fuels 

containing sulfur that are burned in the presence of air form sulfur dioxide that is subsequently 

absorbed into rain water. The pH range for acid rain is 4.2-4.4. Acidification of lakes, rivers and streams 

resulting from acid rain has led to the devastation of ecological communities and has put many on the 

brink of destruction. Industrial nations recognizing the environmental problems caused by acid rain 

have reacted by developing processes to remove sulfur from fossil fuels. Recovered sulfur is usually 

very pure (EPA, 2016).

Table 2 Occurrence of Sulfur in Nature

Sources

Natural

Volcanic deposits Mixed with gypsum and pumice stone

Realgar or ruby sulfur (arsenic sulfide)

Subterranean deposits

Elemental Sulfur Ore 

Metallic Sulfides Acanthite, arsenopyrite, bismuthinite, 

chalcopyrite, cinnabar, cobaltite, copper 

pyrite, digenite, galena, iron, pyrite, 

molybdenite, pentlandite, sphalerite

Non-metallic sulfides Angelite, anglesite, barite or heavy spar, 

celestite, gypsum, thenardite

Hot Springs Sulfurous water

Fossil Fuels Coal, petroleum, natural gas

Dietary

Food Onion, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, oil of 

garlic, mustard, eggs

Vitamins Thiamine, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), biotin

Amino Acids Methionine, keto-methionine, cysteine, 

cystine, homocysteine, cystathionine, 

taurine, cysteic acid

Preservatives Sulfur dioxide

Biological

Biochemicals Proteins, lipoic acid, coenzyme A, 

glutathione, chondroitin sulfate, heparin, 

fibrinogen, ergothionine, estrogens, 

ferredoxin

Microorganisms Aerobic heterotrophic (most fungi and 

aerobic bacteria), Desulfo vibrio and Desulfo 

tomaculum, chemoautotrophic (e.g., 

thiobacillus), photoautotrophic (Chlorobium 

and Chromatium)

Industrial

Fertilizers Phosphates and Ammonium sulfate

Anthropogenic Combustion of fossil 

fuels

SO2, H2S

from Komarnisky et al., 2003

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 116/175
Category 3: Alternatives/Compatibility 

1. Are there alternatives to using the substance? Evaluate alternative practices as well as nonsynthetic and synthetic available materials. [§6518(m)(6)]

In livestock production, control of parasites living on the outside of animals (ectoparasites, e.g. mites) 

and in their housing should focus on excluding vectors such as wild animals and rodents from the 

production system. Pens and housing should be kept clean. In addition, caretakers should ensure that 

they do not transfer mites, ticks or lice from an infected population to a non-infected one. This can 

include placing baits and traps near the production facility for both the ectoparasites and their vectors, 

removing spilled feed, and monitoring rodent and wild bird activity. Buildings should be painted and 

sealed. Wood buildings must be treated to prevent infestation. In addition, livestock should be 

monitored regularly for infestations. Wild animal populations in fields, pastures, activity areas and 

forage should be monitored, and potentially infested animals should be sequestered from un-infested 

herds. Forage and pasture conditions should be monitored, since ectoparasite load is often affected by 

the extent of grass cutting. Livestock lines that are generally resistant to ectoparasite infestation should 

be chosen for breeding (Yakout and Wells, 2013).

Biological control of ectoparasites with pathogens such as nematodes, bacteria, fungi and viruses and 

predators that naturally prey on ectoparasites of livestock are potentially useful in ectoparasite 

management. For example, both parasitic wasps and the common bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis may 

be useful to protect sheep from various infesting flies, where the bacteria is also effective against lice. 

Some pathogenic fungi also selectively attack flies, lice and ticks (Wall, 2007).

2. For Livestock substances, and Non-synthetic substances used in Handling: In balancing the 

responses to the criteria above, is the substance compatible with a system of sustainable 

agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)]

Sulfur is currently used in crop production for pesticides on plants. During discussion, there was a 

question about the process of mining sulfur and whether that was detrimental to the environment. 

Much of the sulfur produced is a by-product of the petroleum, natural gas, and fossil industry. While 

there were few written resources discussing the human health effects of sulfur, current available U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency toxicity studies and literature searches for elemental sulfur do not 

indicate any systemic toxicity associated with elemental sulfur exposure and no endpoints of 

toxicological concern have been identified. The acute toxicity of sulfur is low. In livestock production, 

H2S is a hazard to human health. This colorless toxic gas with a rotten egg odor is produced during the 

degradation of liquid manure stored in anaerobic conditions within agricultural livestock operations.

There are no alternatives except for the prevention of pests in the first place. Prevention methods 

include keeping livestock housing clean and using biological control (natural predators of pests). The 

information provided does not indicate a sulfur is incompatible with sustainable agriculture. 

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to add sulfur as petitioned at §205.603 

Motion by: A-dae Romero-Briones 

Seconded by: Jessie Buie

Yes: 4 No: 0 Abstain: 2 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Ashley Swaffar, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 117/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 118/175
National Organic Standards Board

Livestock Subcommittee

Petitioned Material Proposal

Hypochlorous Acid

August 15, 2017

Summary of Petition for Hypochlorous Acid: 

Hypochlorous acid has been petitioned as a synthetic substance for addition to the National List at 

§205.603, as a topical treatment for pinkeye and wounds in livestock. 

Hypochlorous acid was previously petitioned for use as a sanitizer in crop production, in livestock 

production, and in handling. In April 2016, the NOSB recommended adding hypochlorous acid to the 

National List at § 205.601(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning 

systems; at § 205.603(a)(7) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing facilities and equipment; and 

at §205.605(b) Chlorine materials—disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces. 

The NOSB favored adding hypochlorous acid to the National List as a sanitizer because the technical 

review indicated that although hypochlorous acid is chlorine-based, it is used at a lower concentration 

and is safer for health and the environment than the other chlorine-based sanitizers already on the 

National List: namely, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite, and calcium hypochlorite.

Summary of Review:

The petition to add hypochlorous acid to the National List as a topical treatment for pinkeye and wounds 

in livestock entails different considerations than when hypochlorous acid was under review as a 

sanitizer. Livestock producers already have a number of natural (nonsynthetic) materials available for 

treatment of pinkeye and wounds. 

The July 12, 2017, technical report (TR) of hypochlorous acid for use as a topical treatment for pinkeye 

and wounds in livestock mentions many nonsynthetic materials in use for pinkeye and wounds in 

livestock: calendula, chamomile, garlic, aloe vera, seabuckthorn, kiwi fruit, chickory, St. John’s wort, 

olive, white poplar, rose, elder, navalwort, mullein, veronica, physic nut, bacterial predators, black kelp 

alginates, honey, sugar, pineapple fruit enzymes, omentum, chitosan, platelet gel, pink trumpet tree, 

Brazilian pepper tree, siam weed, echinacea, cochlearia, goldenseal, eyebright, essential oils, breast 

milk, and cod liver oil.

Personal communications with organic dairy farmers by the LS member leading the review of this 

material indicate that many use a commercially available formulation of the nonsynthetic materials aloe, 

garlic, calendula, and chamomile, and find that it works well on wounds and as an eyewash for pinkeye.

In light of the many nonsynthetic materials available and in use by organic livestock producers for 

wounds and pinkeye, the Livestock Subcommittee does not think it necessary to add a chlorine-based 

synthetic material to the National List for the same use.

Category 1: Classification 

1. Substance is for: Livestock

2. For HANDLING and LIVESTOCK use: 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 119/175
a. Is the substance _______ Agricultural or ___x____ Non-Agricultural?

 Describe reasoning for this decision using NOP 5033-2 as a guide: 

b. If the substance is Non-agricultural, is the substance _____ Non-synthetic or __x__ 

Synthetic? 

Is the substance formulated or manufactured by a process that chemically changes a 

substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources? [OFPA 

§6502(21)] If so, describe, using NOP 5033-1 as a guide: 

HOCl is produced by electrolyzing a brine solution made with purified water and sodium chloride

3. For LIVESTOCK: Reference to appropriate OFPA category

Is the substance used in production, and does it contain an active synthetic ingredient in the 

following categories: [§6517(c)(1)(B)(i)]; copper and sulfur compounds; toxins derived from 

bacteria; pheromones, soaps, horticultural oils, fish emulsions, treated seed, vitamins and 

minerals; livestock parasiticides and medicines and production aids including netting, tree wraps 

and seals, insect traps, sticky barriers, row covers, and equipment cleansers; or (ii) is used in 

production and contains synthetic inert ingredients that are not classified by the Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency as inerts of toxicological concern?

Hypochlorous acid is petitioned as a livestock medicine.

Category 2: Adverse Impacts 

1. What is the potential for the substance to have detrimental chemical interactions with other 

materials used in organic farming systems? [§6518(m)(1)]

The 2015 TR (lines 140-153) mentions that there can be a reaction with organic material (humic acid) 

which can lead to some potential concerns. It does go on to state though: It is generally accepted that 

carcinogenic and teratogenic trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids are not formed by the action of 

hypochlorous acid in neutral or near-neutral solutions (Satyawli et al., 2007). However, because only 

small amounts of hypochlorous acid would be used, sprayed directly onto wounds or eyes of animals, 

there would be little chance of interaction with other materials used in organic farming.

2. What is the toxicity and mode of action of the substance and of its breakdown products or any 

contaminants, and their persistence and areas of concentration in the environment? 

[§6518(m)(2)]

“In Huang’s et al., 2008 review of the scientific literature, the authors suggested that hypochlorous acid 

penetrates cell membranes and produces hydroxyl radicals, which exert their antimicrobial activity 

through the oxidation of key metabolic systems” (2015 TR, lines 253-255).

“Diluted aqueous solution of hypochlorous acid decomposes very slowly in the dark but more rapidly in 

the presence of light, particularly rapidly in full sun light, by producing hydrogen chloride and oxygen. 

Some chlorine and chloric acid may also develop. Chlorine released into the environment is distributed 

into water and preferably air.

In water and in atmosphere chlorine/hypochlorite undergoes photolysis with an estimated half-life of 1-

4 hours, depending on the time of the day. In natural water, in the presence of organic or inorganic 

compounds, the free available chlorine immediately reacts forming various chlorinated by-products e.g. 

chloramines and chloromethanes, which are mainly distributed to the hydrosphere, but are also able to 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 120/175
transfer to some extent to the atmosphere depending on their intrinsic properties. A potential for 

bioaccumulation or bioconcentration of active chlorine species can be disregarded, because of their 

water solubility and their high reactivity (2015 TR lines 602-612).

3. Describe the probability of environmental contamination during manufacture, use, misuse or 

disposal of such substance? [§6518(m)(3)]

This substance is formed by the electrolysis of a sodium chloride solution. Any environmental concerns 

would be from a spill during manufacturing or transport of a formulated end product.

4. Discuss the effect of the substance on human health. [§6517 (c)(1)(A)(i); §6517 (c)(2)(A)(i); 

§6518(m)(4)]. 

Chlorine disinfectants have been shown to cause occupational dermatitis or skin irritation (2015 TR, line 

662). However as a wound or pinkeye spray, only a small amount of hypochlorous acid would be 

sprayed directly onto an animal, so threats to human health would be minimal.

5. Discuss any effects the substance may have on biological and chemical interactions in the 

agroecosystem, including the physiological effects of the substance on soil organisms (including 

the salt index and solubility of the soil), crops and livestock. [§6518(m)(5)] 

Because only small amounts of hypochlorous acid would be used, sprayed directly onto wounds or eyes 

of animals, there would be no chemical or biological effect on the agroecosystem, including soil 

organisms.

6. Are there any adverse impacts on biodiversity? (§205.200) 

The TR, (lines 596-612) states that hypochlorous acid in aqueous solutions at pH< 7. Was of minimal 

toxicity to birds, but could be very toxic to fish and freshwater invertebrates. However as a wound or 

pinkeye spray, only a small amount of hypochlorous acid would be sprayed directly onto an animal, so it 

would not contaminate water resources.

Category 3: Alternatives/Compatibility 

1. Are there alternatives to using the substance? Evaluate alternative practices as well as nonsynthetic and synthetic available materials. [§6518(m)(6)]

As noted in the 2017 TR (and above), there are many non-synthetic materials already available and

currently being used by organic livestock producers as medical treatments for livestock wounds and 

pinkeye. There are also management practices that can be used to prevent pinkeye infections, including 

fly control; bolstering animals’ immune system with vitamins, trace minerals, and kelp meal; and use of 

vaccines. 

2. For Livestock substances, and Nonsynthetic substances used in Handling: In balancing the 

responses to the criteria above, is the substance compatible with a system of sustainable 

agriculture? [§6518(m)(7)]

Given the many alternatives currently available, the Livestock Subcommittee does not think 

hypochlorous acid is a necessary material for livestock producers for treating wounds and pinkeye in 

livestock. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 121/175
Subcommittee vote:

Motion to add hypochlorous acid at §205.603 

Motion by: Francis Thicke

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 1 No: 5 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Approved by Ashley Swaffar, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 122/175
National Organic Standards Board

Livestock Subcommittee Proposal

Clarifying “emergency” for use of synthetic parasiticides in organic livestock production

August 29, 2017

I. INTRODUCTION

The use of parasiticides in organic production is strictly confined to emergencies under the current 

regulation. Parasiticides cannot be used routinely, but animals in need of medical attention cannot be 

ignored in favor of retaining organic status. Typically farmers perform preventative practices such as 

introducing clean animals into their herds or flocks, selecting breeds which have high resistance to 

parasites, and managing their land, especially pastures, in a manner that reduces the presence of 

parasites that might infect their animals. If an increased parasite load, for example, is noted in fecal egg 

counts, farmers have a broad array of alternative treatments available. But when all else fails and 

animals are not doing well, a farmer, perhaps working with a veterinarian, may need to use one of the 

synthetic parasiticides on the National List.

A discussion document was circulated in Spring 2017 which sought public comment from a broad cross 

section of stakeholders to determine if any changes should be made to § 205.238, Livestock Healthcare 

Practice Standard, as it pertains to parasite prevention plans, use of approved synthetic parasiticides, 

and if clarification of the term “emergency” was needed 

II. BACKGROUND

In October 2015 the NOSB recommended continued listing of three parasiticides, ivermectin, moxidectin 

and fenbenzadole, as part of its sunset review. In April 2016 the NOSB unanimously approved 

annotations amending the use of fenbenzadole and moxidectin, and in November 2016 the NOSB 

unanimously (with one absence) approved removal of ivermectin from the National List. These 

recommendations are presently pending rulemaking by the USDA. 

During the two years these changes to the annotations for these approved synthetic parasiticides were 

being considered, the NOSB received considerable public comment. In addition to providing factual, 

technical and scientific information in support of the changes, some stakeholders suggested the term 

emergency was not sufficiently well defined and use of synthetic parasiticides may be abused with the 

proposed shorter timeframe between use of the parasiticide and the sale of organic livestock products. 

Some stakeholders supported removal of ivermectin from the National List and the annotation changes 

to the other two parasiticides but urged clarification of what constitutes an “emergency”. 

This proposal addresses the concerns of NOSB members and the organic stakeholder community to 

clarify when approved synthetic parasiticide use is performed as an emergency treatment. This 

proposal describes when the use of the synthetics to treat parasites would be seen as an emergency 

treatment. Included in the proposal is the monitoring of parasite threshold levels and examples of 

various organic production practices that would have been ineffective in controlling the parasite 

problems. Having this clarity on what circumstances constitute an emergency treatment provides 

operators and certifiers a consistent and clear standard. Organic stakeholders including livestock 

producers, certifiers consumers, handlers and others expect use of synthetics are overseen as part of a 

comprehensive organic system plan. The NOSB recommended change to greatly lessen the withdrawal 

time between the use of the parasiticides and sale of organic products, has taken away a strong 

disincentive for the use of these synthetics. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 123/175
III. RELEVANT AREAS OF THE RULE

The language below reflects the recommendations unanimously approved by the NOSB and presently 

in Rulemaking.

§205.238 Livestock health care practice standard.

(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive livestock health care practices, including: 

(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific 

conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites; 

(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including vitamins, 

minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants); 

(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and sanitation practices to 

minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites; 

(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness, a 

producer may administer synthetic medications: Provided, that, such medications are allowed 

under §205.603. Parasiticides allowed under §205.603 may be used on: 

(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation but not during lactation for 

progeny that are to be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced; and 

(2) Dairy animals as allowed under §205.603.

(3) Fiber bearing animals, as allowed under §205.603.

§205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production. 

(a) As disinfectants, sanitizer, and medical treatments as applicable.

(18) Parasiticides—prohibited in slaughter stock. Allowed in emergency treatment for dairy and 

breeder stock, when organic system plan-approved preventive management does not prevent 

infestation. Allowed in fiber bearing animals, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to production 

of fleece or wool that is to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic. In breeder stock, treatment 

cannot occur during the last third of gestation if the progeny will be sold as organic and must not be 

used during the lactation period for breeding stock. 

(i) Fenbendazole (CAS #43210-67-9)— Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be 

labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for: 2 days following treatment of cattle; 36 days 

following treatment of goats, sheep, and other dairy species.

(ii) Ivermectin (CAS #70288-86-7)—Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be 

labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for 90 days following treatment.

(iii) Moxidectin (CAS #113507-06-5)— Milk or milk products from a treated animal cannot be 

labeled as provided for in subpart D of this part for: 2 days following treatment of cattle; 36 days 

following treatment of goats, sheep, and other dairy species. 

IV. Public comment

The NOSB asked the following questions in our discussion document for the April 2017 meeting:

1. Does the term “emergency“ need to be defined? 

2. If so, how should the term “emergency” be defined?

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 124/175
3. Should there be more specific guidelines, such as specific tests for parasite levels as part of the

producer’s parasite prevention plan, before it is determined that emergency treatment with an 

approved parasiticide might be needed?

4. What are the challenges for producers, inspectors and certifiers in verifying the documentation 

and implementation of a parasite management plan in organic operations, and how might these 

be addressed? 

Numerous certifiers and organic stakeholders stated they agreed with the necessity of providing further 

clarification for the term “emergency” when reviewing the use of the synthetic parasiticides present on 

the National List of approved substances. Commenters asked for improved transparency of how these 

synthetics are used, and that use is restricted to times when all other methods have failed and the 

health of the animal is at risk, Some stated that describing expectations of what constitutes an 

“emergency” provides a consistent standard for all producers of organic livestock, as well as what the 

certification agency will review when verifying their operation for compliance to the organic regulation.

Below is a sampling of responses to our questions: 

A livestock emergency is an urgent, non-routine situation in which the organic system plan’s 

preventive measures and veterinary biologics are proven, by laboratory analysis and visual inspection, to 

be inadequate to prevent life-threatening illness or to alleviate pain and suffering. In such cases, a 

producer must administer the emergency treatment (§205.238(c)(7)). Organic certification will be 

retained provided, that, such treatments are allowed under § 205.603 and the organic system plan is 

changed to prevent a similar livestock emergency in individual animals or the whole herd/flock in future

years as required under §205.238(a).

The proposal should include specific methods and practices as well as define “emergency” use to 

ensure consistency among producers and certifiers. “Emergency” should be defined as a situation that 

significantly jeopardizes the well-being of the animal treated and/or threatens to undermine the overall 

preventative practices protecting the rest of the herd or operation. An emergency should be 

demonstrated by a recommendation from a veterinarian, fecal tests, or other specific, measurable

methods to ensure consistent enforcement.

“Emergency” with respect to the use of synthetic parasiticides is defined as a serious parasite 

load that effects the immediate welfare of an individual animal, where the use of parasiticides is the only 

way to protect that animal’s welfare after other documented methods of treatment have failed.

The term “emergency” should mean the animal is infested and sick. If the health of the animal is

compromised, the animal needs to be tested to validate the emergency. If validated, then it should be

prescribed treatment. All of this should be done by a licensed veterinarian. Parasiticides shouldn’t be 

used as a preventative method or as a regular routine to maintain a healthy animal. The veterinarian 

should approve any prescribed parasiticides before the farmer administers any medicine to the animal.

There should also be specific preventative practices implemented to minimize the use of parasiticides.

These include such things as not overgrazing the pastures; placing the feed in troughs instead of on the

ground; and not overstocking the pastures with too many animals. 

A definition of “emergency”- A sudden, irregular or unexpected situation that requires urgent 

attention.” 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 125/175
Clarifying the hierarchy defined at §205.238(a-b), perhaps drawing from the structure of the 

Facility pest management standard at §205.271.

A livestock emergency is an urgent, non-routine situation in which the organic system plan’s 

preventive measures and veterinary biologics are proven, by laboratory analysis and visual inspection, to 

be inadequate to prevent life-threatening illness or to alleviate pain and suffering. In such cases, a 

producer must administer the emergency treatment (§205.238(c)(7)). Organic certification will be 

retained provided that such treatments are allowed under §205.603 and the organic system plan is 

changed to prevent a similar livestock emergency in individual animals or the whole herd/flock in future 

years as required under §205.238(a). For further clarification, the organic system plan’s preventive 

measures should be defined through a hierarchy of management practices first, natural materials 

second, and approved synthetics third.

Further clarification will assist certifiers in enforcing these regulations consistently.

We support a definition of emergency that clarifies the following:

• That the procedure is not routine.

• That preventative measures have failed.

• That identifies testing or procuring the recommendation of a veterinarian to determine

infestation and whether the animal’s life is at risk.

• Steps are taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

This clarification will help certifiers with enforcement by having a specific area of the rule to cite that 

prevents routine use and requires a plan to prevent a similar issue from reoccurring.

Certifiers need to ensure that producers engage in a number of preventive measures, such as 

rotational grazing, providing healthy herd rations, and keeping susceptible animals on clean pastures, to 

manage parasites in their livestock herds.... Certifiers should enforce the use of parasiticides for 

emergency use only and ensure that the organic system plan is changed to prevent further use in future 

years. NODPA asks the NOSB livestock subcommittee to develop an “emergency use” definition as it 

relates to a livestock operation in the final regulation. It is essential for operators and certifiers to have 

clarification of this “emergency” term..... Certifiers interpret the current regulations differently with some 

producers using a more routine use of these materials as a preventative when there is an historical 

problem with parasites. Different cultures and communities have different standards for emergency use 

and as the NOP organic standards are used internationally, definitions within regulation are increasingly 

important. Providing a hierarchy of activities, similar to what is used in crop production when 

approaching pest management, is one way to provide direction, and we believe with input from the 

organic community, the development of this definition need not be an onerous task..... the term 

“emergency use” must be clearly defined through regulation as soon as possible to balance the lowering 

of the withdrawal time, provide clear standards for use internationally and retain the integrity of the 

organic seal.”

The Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices (OLPP) Final Rule (82 FR 7042, December 19, 2017)

addresses in a general way how internal parasite problems should be addressed on an organic livestock 

operation. Public commenters asked the NOSB to consider the OLPP requirements and the NOSB 

livestock subcommittee believes this proposal further enhances the requirements of the OLPP.

Organic livestock operations must have comprehensive plans to minimize internal parasite problems in 

livestock. The plan will include preventive measures such as pasture management, fecal monitoring, and 

emergency measures in the event of a parasite outbreak. Parasite control plans shall be approved by the 

certifying agent.”

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 126/175
V. Discussion 

Public commenters and the NOSB agree that clarification is needed, both for what constitutes an 

emergency, and what should be required of an operator to lessen reliance on routine use of approved 

synthetic parasiticides. The Livestock Subcommittee recommends additional rulemaking at §205.238. 

Both the crops and handling sections of the final rule contain a pest management hierarchy requiring 

methods of control first, use of natural materials second and use of approved synthetics as a last resort. 

This proposal follows a similar hierarchy, offering a clear and verifiable system for both operators and 

certifiers. 

Each age and type of livestock has differing parasite threshold levels that could result in the use of a 

synthetic parasiticide. These scientifically identified threshold levels can be found within University 

Extension publications, or by speaking with a veterinarian and other livestock health professionals. The 

use of monitoring and fecal testing provides both the operator and the certifier tools they can use to 

judge if the situation is approaching an emergency. Based upon monitoring, each operation’s unique 

organic system plan should be modified to improve livestock living conditions as well as other practices 

that might lessen parasite loads before they reach the threshold levels. The use of the synthetic 

parasiticides is a last resort after other activities have been shown to be ineffective in parasite control. 

The short wait time proposed by the NOSB between use of these synthetic parasiticides and the sale of 

organic livestock products, should only be performed when there is a documented need for an 

emergency treatment. This proposal provides a framework to aid operators in understanding what is 

required for parasite management in their organic system plan as well as information that will result in 

consistency between certifiers when implementing this rule.

Examples of practices and monitoring are listed in the proposed rule below. Rather than providing a list 

that states the only methods of parasite monitoring and management, the proposal below provides 

examples which can allow producers and certifiers the flexibility to develop and approve other methods 

that perform the same function.

The proposal below would be sufficient in providing the needed clarification, and would not require a 

further definition of the term “emergency” in §205.200 Terms Defined. Since the word “emergency” is 

used in numerous places throughout the final rule, adding a definition that mostly relates to synthetic 

parasiticide use could result in unintended effects on other areas of the organic regulation. 

This proposal strengthens the language within the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule, and does 

not contradict it.

VI. PROPOSAL

Below is the current standard: 

§205.238 Livestock health care practice standard.

(a) The producer must establish and maintain preventive livestock health care practices, including: 

(1) Selection of species and types of livestock with regard to suitability for site-specific 

conditions and resistance to prevalent diseases and parasites; 

(2) Provision of a feed ration sufficient to meet nutritional requirements, including vitamins, 

minerals, protein and/or amino acids, fatty acids, energy sources, and fiber (ruminants); 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 127/175
(3) Establishment of appropriate housing, pasture conditions, and sanitation practices to 

minimize the occurrence and spread of diseases and parasites; 

(4) Provision of conditions which allow for exercise, freedom of movement, and reduction of 

stress appropriate to the species; 

(5) Performance of physical alterations as needed to promote the animal’s welfare and in a 

manner that minimizes pain and stress; and 

(6) Administration of vaccines and other veterinary biologics. 

(b) When preventive practices and veterinary biologics are inadequate to prevent sickness, a producer 

 may administer synthetic medications: Provided, That, such medications are allowed under 

 §205.603. Parasiticides allowed under §205.603 may be used on: 

(1) Breeder stock, when used prior to the last third of gestation but not during lactation for 

progeny that to be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced; and 

(2) Dairy stock, when used a minimum of 90 days prior to the production of milk or milk 

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

(c) The producer of an organic livestock operation must not: 

(1) Sell, label, or represent as organic any animal or edible product derived from any animal 

treated with antibiotics, any substance that contains a synthetic substance not allowed under 

§205.603, or any substance that contains a nonsynthetic substance prohibited in §205.604. 

(2) Administer any animal drug, other than vaccinations, in the absence of illness; 

(3) Administer hormones for growth promotion; 

(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis

This is the additional language to be added to §205.238(c)(4) [new text in italics]:

(4) Administer synthetic parasiticides on a routine basis. The producer must first use 

management practices to prevent scientifically identified threshold levels of parasites in their 

livestock, and secondly use nonsynthetic products to manage parasites. When these two 

approaches are not effective, this could lead to the emergency treatment and use of National List 

approved synthetic parasiticides. Examples of materials, management activities and goals used 

could include: 

i) Grazing systems and living conditions that prevent livestock parasite infestations by 

keeping livestock out of paddocks or pens until the parasites are no longer viable in that 

area. 

ii) Maintaining forage diversity, height and grazing frequency to lessen transference of 

parasites during grazing.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 128/175
iii) Use of allowed non-synthetic botanicals, biologics and minerals, both internally and 

externally, to maintain parasite levels in the livestock well below the treatment 

threshold. 

iv) Use various monitoring and documentation methods through the season which inform 

the operator of the efficacy of their parasite management practices such as fecal 

sampling and FAMACHA.

v) When the practices provided for in paragraphs (1) through (4) of this section are 

insufficient to prevent or control parasites within the accepted threshold of that parasite, 

and for that age of animal and species of animal, a parasiticide included on the National 

List of synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production may be used 

as an emergency treatment. Provided, That, the conditions for using the substance are 

documented in the organic system plan, and the organic operator documents proposed 

improvements to their organic system plan to lessen the need for these National List 

approved synthetic parasiticides.

(5) Administer synthetic parasiticides to slaughter stock; 

(6) Administer animal drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or 

(7) Withhold medical treatment from a sick animal in an effort to preserve its organic status. All

appropriate medications must be used to restore an animal to health when methods acceptable 

to organic production fail. Livestock treated with a prohibited substance must be clearly 

identified and shall not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced. 

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to approve the proposal on clarifying “emergency” for use of synthetic parasiticides in organic 

livestock production. 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Dan Seitz

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

Approved by Ashley Swaffar, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 129/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 130/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Sunset 2019

Meeting 2 - Review 

Handling Substances §§205.605(a), 205.605(b), 205.606

November 2017

Note: The materials included in this list are undergoing early sunset review as part of November 18, 

2016 NOSB recommendation on efficient workload re-organization. 

As part of the National List sunset review process, the NOSB Handling Subcommittee has evaluated the 

need for the continued allowance for or prohibition of the following substances for use in organic crop 

production.

Reference: 7 CFR 205.605 Nonagricultural (Nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in or on 

processed products labeled as ‘‘organic’’ or ‘‘made with organic (specified ingredients or food 

group(s)).’’

§205.605(a) Nonsynthetics allowed:

Attapulgite

Bentonite

Diatomaceous earth

Nitrogen

Sodium carbonate

§205.605(b) Synthetics allowed:

Acidified sodium chlorite

Carbon dioxide

Chlorine Materials: calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite

Magnesium chloride

Potassium acid tartrate

Sodium phosphates

Reference: 7 CFR §205.606 Nonorganically produced agricultural products allowed as ingredients in or 

on processed products labeled as “organic.”

Casings

Konjac flour

Pectin (non-amidated forms only)

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 131/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Attapulgite

Reference: 205.605(a) – as a processing aid in the handling of plant and animal oils.

Technical Report: 2010 TR 

Petition(s): 2009 Attapulgite

Past NOSB Actions: 04/2011 NOSB recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

The original petition (2009) is a 158 page document with literature review. The petition also included 

information regarding the use of attapulgite in animal feed. In 2011 the NOSB recommended addition of 

attapulgite to §205.605 with the annotation “allowed as a processing aid in the handling of plant and 

animal oils”. 

Attapulgite is characterized as a natural clay most often composed of a complex of magnesium (Mg) 

aluminum (Al) silicates that creates an open-channel structure with a large surface area and cationexchange capacity that is important to its function to absorb, adsorb and filter substances (TR lines 19-

21, 28-30,44-46, 75-83). In bleaching of oils/fats, the clay adsorbs color and other impurities to create the 

finished oils (TR lines 87-89). Common names for the substance include Fullers Earth, Palygorskite and 

Hormite (2009 Petition pg. 2).

Attapulgite (Doc. No. 1943) is found in the Everything Added to Food in the United States (EAFUS) 

inventory, as it is referred to in 21 CFR Part 582—Substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS)—at 

§582.99 when used as an adjuvant with pesticides (TR lines 63-65). The substance is also listed by EPA as 

an inert ingredient in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section 25(b) 

pesticide products applied to food use sites (e.g., food crops, animals used for food) and nonfood use 

sites (e.g., ornamental plants, highway right-of-ways, rodent control). In addition, attapulgite can be 

used, under 40 CFR 180.910 Inert Ingredients, during pre- and post-harvest. It is exempted from the 

requirement of a tolerance. (TR lines 67-71)

Modern extraction is by open-pit mining where clay is removed and sent for processing of drying, milling, 

sieving (TR 143-146, 148-151, 224-227). There is an adverse environmental impact due to mining and 

dust byproduct; environmental and mining regulations are in place to return disturbed earth and control 

dust output, minimizing overall net environmental impact (TR 233-244). Worker safety from dust concern 

is addressed through worker protective equipment and monitored through OSHA (TR 239-244). The 

substance meets OFPA criteria.

This material was reviewed by the Board for Sunset during 2015: 3 Yes to remove, 11 No votes to 

maintain listing.

At the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting there was public support for re-listing due to active use of the material 

by certified operators. A couple comments were made that, overall, the material does not appear to be 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 132/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

in widespread use and may not be necessary for the industry. The Handling Subcommittee supports 

continued listing of attapulgite on the National List.

Additional information requested by NOSB: None requested.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove attapulgite from §205.605(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Joelle Mosso 

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Bentonite

Reference: 205.605(a)

Technical Report: 1995 TAP Kaolin Clay and Bentonite 

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Bentonite/kaolin is a natural clay composed of alumina, silica and water derived from volcanic ash or tuff 

(1995 TAP pg. 1, 2). Clays have functional properties of large surface area with adsorptive properties that 

make them useful for filtering and purification functions with no function in finished food products (1995 

TAP pg. 1, 2).

Bentonite is a mined substance obtained through open pit mining. Environmental impacts are monitored 

and subject to environmental regulations by other agencies to minimize long term impacts.

During sunset review in 2015 the Subcommittee sought public comment to specifically address the 

ongoing need for bentonite/kaolin and received clear indication from a range of stakeholders that it 

continues to be necessary. There was no public comment in opposition. 

At the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting public comment was received in strong support from the organic wine 

industry of relisting bentonite on the National List. A couple comments were made suggesting need to 

review the impact of mining activities in the production of this material; no new information was 

provided regarding that mining concern.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 133/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Bentonite satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria, and the Handling Subcommittee supports continued 

listing of attapulgite on the National List.

Additional information requested by NOSB 

None requested.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove bentonite from §205.605(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Joelle Mosso

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Diatomaceous earth

Reference: 205.605(a) - food filtering aid only 

Technical Report: 1995 TAP

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

The NOSB reviewed diatomaceous earth (DE) in November 2005, April 2010 and October 2015, and 

recommended relisting each time. 

Diatomaceous earth (DE) is comprised of accumulated shells of hydrous silica secreted by diatoms and is 

used as a filter aid in production of syrups, juices, beer, beverages and other products (1995 TAP pg. 4). 

Diatomaceous earth does not exist within the final organic product, and is classified as a processing aid 

and not an ingredient.

Diatomaceous earth is a mined substance and processors must adhere to environmental regulations for 

removal and production purposes. Dust produced during processing can be a human health concern for 

workers and would be subject to OSHA requirements (1995 TAP pg. 5). Waste material can, in some 

states, be considered a hazardous waste requiring special disposal requirements (1995 TAP pg. 5).

The 1995 Technical Advisory Panel was made up of three people. One reviewer expressed concern for 

possible concentrations of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, thallium, and antimony and the need to 

verify “food grade” quality of DE. DE is also used in swimming pool filters, which is not a food grade form. 

At the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting, public comment was received in strong support from numerous 

stakeholders for the relisting of DE on the National List. A couple comments were made suggesting need 

to review the impact of mining activities; no new information was provided regarding the mining concern.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 134/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Diatomaceous earth satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria, and the Handling Subcommittee supports 

continued listing of the substance on the National List.

Additional information requested by NOSB: None requested.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove diatomaceous earth (DE) from §205.605(a) based on the following criteria in the 

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Joelle Mosso

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Nitrogen

Reference: 205.605(a) - oil-free grades.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Use: Nitrogen is used to displace oxygen and thereby reduce oxidation of product during processing, 

storage and packaging. It can be used in the flash freezing of foods. It also functions as a propellant 

when used under pressure and doesn’t have ozone-depleting properties.

Manufacture: Nitrogen is a colorless, odorless gas. Cryogenic distillation, where air is compressed, 

cooled, and then filtered, is the most economic and highest purity method for separating nitrogen from 

air. 

International: The use of nitrogen is permitted in organic processing in Canada, CODEX, EU, IFOAM, and 

Japan. 

Ancillary Substances: None

At the spring 2017 NOSB meeting there were a large number of public comments submitted in support 

of nitrogen remaining on the National List, and none in opposition. 

Nitrogen satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria. 

This material was reviewed by the NOSB during 2015 and the Board voted unanimously to continue its 

listing on the National List. Public commenters supported the continued listing of this material. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: None requested. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 135/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove nitrogen from §205.605(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Lisa de Lima

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Sodium carbonate

Reference: 205.605(a) 

Technical Report: 1995 TAP

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22 

Subcommittee Review: 

Use: Used as a raising (leavening) agent. Sodium carbonate (also referred to as washing soda or soda 

ash) can also be used as an anti-caking agent, as an acidity regulator, or as a stabilizer, as well as a 

neutralizer for butter, cream, fluid milk, and ice cream. Sodium carbonate is the material used to give 

pretzels and lye rolls their brown crust without burning. Sodium carbonate is also used in the processing 

of olives prior to canning, in the making of ramen noodles, and in cocoa products. 

Manufacture: Sodium carbonate is produced in North America from natural deposits of trona ore 

(sodium sesquicarbonate) that is heated and then mixed with water to dissolve the soda ash and 

separate out the impurities. This solution is then concentrated by evaporation to crystallization. This is 

considered to be the most sustainable form of producing sodium carbonate. Also, in California, sodium 

carbonate can be produced from a similar method using natural brine (Searles Lake). 

International: The use of Sodium carbonate is permitted in organic processing in Canada, CODEX, EU, 

IFOAM, and Japan. 

Ancillary Substances: None

Public comment from the spring 2017 NOSB meeting stated sodium carbonate is essential for use as a 

leavening agent, neutralizer in baked goods, frozen desserts, and soy base extraction. It is also used as a 

pH adjuster in organic laundry detergents. One certifier commented that it is used to clean fruit and 

remove mold. Overall public comment was in support of sodium carbonate remaining on the National 

List. There was one commenter that requested a technical report to examine possible hazards during 

mining and manufacturing, need, and alternatives. One commenter requested clarification regarding 

which manufacturing processes are considered non-synthetic and permitted under the current listing. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 136/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

This material was reviewed by the NOSB during 2015 and the Board voted unanimously to continue its 

listing on the National List. Public commenters supported the continued listing of this material. 

Sodium carbonate satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria, and the Handling Subcommittee supports its 

continued listing. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: none

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove sodium carbonate from §205.605(a) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Lisa de Lima 

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

Acidified sodium chlorite

Reference: 205.605(b) - Secondary direct antimicrobial food treatment and indirect food contact surface 

sanitizing. Acidified with citric acid only. 

Technical Report: 2008 TAP, 2013 TR for Livestock 

Petition(s): 2006 Sodium Chlorite, Acidified

Past NOSB Actions: 2009 NOSB recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) solution is used as a processing aid in wash and/or rinse water, in 

accordance with the FDA limitations for using in direct food contact and as an indirect food additive: 

• Direct Food Contact (Secondary Direct Food Additive, 21 CFR 173.325) ─ Poultry carcass, organs 

and parts; red meat carcass, organs and parts, seafood (finfish and crustaceans), and fruits and 

vegetables (raw and further processed); processed, comminuted or formed meat products; and

• Indirect Food Additive (Sanitizing solutions, 21 CFR 178.1010) ─ Food-processing equipment and 

 utensils, and other food-contact articles

Manufacture: 

ASC solutions are made on-site and on-demand by mixing a solution of sodium chlorite with citric acid. 

Sodium chlorite and citric acid solutions are stored separately in bulk on-site. Both solutions are 

pumped by proportional pumps and a water dilution module to make the final use dilution product, 

which typically contains 0.1% sodium chlorite, 0.6% citric acid, and 99.3% water. Sodium chlorite is 

made by the reduction of chlorine dioxide, which is, in turn, from the reduction of sodium chlorate in 

the presence of sulfuric and hydrogen peroxide or sulfuric acid and sodium chloride. The resulting 

solution may be dried to a solid and the sodium chlorite content may be adjusted to about 80% by the 

addition of sodium chloride, sodium sulfate, or sodium carbonate. Sodium chlorite is marketed as a 

solid or an aqueous solution (such as 25% by weight). The annotation on the National List specifies 

that only citric acid may be used to acidify sodium chlorite.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 137/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Discussion: 

At the spring meeting we received comments both supporting and opposing relisting of ASC. 

Comments in support of relisting stated:

• This is an essential tool in the fight against food borne pathogens

Comments opposed to relisting stated:

• NOSB should do a comprehensive review of sanitizers.

Previous public comments asked for a comprehensive review of all sanitizers but the Subcommittee 

feels that a review of that scope is beyond the sunset review process.

Additional information requested by NOSB: 

1. Is the substance essential for organic food production and handling?

 

2. Since the material was last reviewed, have additional commercially available alternatives 

emerged? The Handling Subcommittee encourages current users of acidified sodium chlorite to 

provide detailed comments describing the situations in which it is the most appropriate or 

effective antimicrobial for a given application.

3. Provide detailed comments describing the situations in which it is the most appropriate or 

effective antimicrobial for a given application.

This material satisfies the OFPA Evaluation criteria and the Handling Subcommittee supports the 

relisting of acidified sodium chlorite (ASC).

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in 

the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none

Motion by: Ashley Swaffar

Seconded by: Lisa de Lima

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 138/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Carbon dioxide

Reference: 205.605(b)

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2006 TAP

Petition(s): 2005 Carbon Dioxide

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 2007 NOSB Committee 

recommendation; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset 

review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022 

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Use: Carbon dioxide is used in modified atmospheric packaging, modified atmospheric storage, the 

freezing of foods, beverage carbonation, as an extracting agent, processing aid, and for pest control in 

grain and produce storage. 

Manufacture: It is available in limited supplies from underground wells and as a byproduct of various 

manufacturing processes. All of the processes require purification of the carbon dioxide before being 

used in the food processing and handling. 

International: The use of carbon dioxide is permitted in organic processing in Canada, CODEX, EU, 

IFOAM, and Japan. 

Ancillary Substances: None

 

All public comment received during the spring 2017 NOSB meeting was in favor of retaining carbon 

dioxide on the National List.

Carbon dioxide satisfies the OFPA evaluation criteria. 

This material was reviewed by the NOSB during 2015 and the Board voted unanimously to continue its 

listing on the National List. Public commenters supported the continued listing of this material. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: None requested. 

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove carbon dioxide from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Lisa de Lima

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 139/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Chlorine materials

Reference: 205.605(b) Chlorine materials - disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces, Except, That, 

residual chlorine levels in the water shall not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (Calcium hypochlorite; Chlorine dioxide; and Sodium hypochlorite).

Technical Report: 2006 TR - Handling

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 04/2006 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Sodium and Calcium Hypochlorite

Sodium and calcium hypochlorite are chlorinated inorganic disinfectants used to control bacteria, fungi, 

and slime-forming algae that can cause diseases in people and animals. These disinfectants also are used 

in cleaning irrigation, drinking water, and other water and wastewater systems.

Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is an antimicrobial disinfectant and pesticide used to control harmful microorganisms 

including bacteria, viruses, and fungi on inanimate objects and surfaces primarily in indoor environments. 

It is used in cleaning water systems and disinfecting public drinking water supplies. It also is used as a 

bleaching agent in paper and textile manufacturing, as a food disinfectant (e.g., for fruit, vegetables, 

meat, and poultry), for disinfecting food processing equipment, and treating medical wastes, among 

other uses.

Approved Legal Uses of the Substance:

Regarding organic production, calcium hypochlorite, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine dioxide are 

currently approved for disinfecting and sanitizing livestock facilities and equipment and as algicides, 

disinfectants, and sanitizers (including irrigation system cleaning) in organic crop production. In addition, 

these chlorine materials are approved for disinfecting and sanitizing food contact surfaces in the 

production of processed products labeled as "organic" or "made with organic." Residual chlorine levels 

from these approved uses may not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (currently 4mg/L or 4ppm).

Discussion: The NOSB has received several comments both supporting and opposing relisting. Several 

commenters opposed to the relisting stated: There needs to be a comprehensive review by NOSB of all 

sanitizers used. Several commenters in support of relisting stated: Essential materials required for food 

safety. To the best of our knowledge, our partners in dairy production as well as our member farms 

choose chlorine materials as the preferred sanitizer for food contact surfaces. Disallowing sodium 

hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide would have a profound effect. Please keep 

Chlorine Materials on the National List.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 140/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Chlorine materials are vital sanitizing agents that are used to sanitize food contact surfaces such as 

equipment and utensils. Chlorine is desirable because it is effective and because it evaporates and leaves 

little residue. The majority of our organic manufacturing facilities rely on chlorine to prevent the growth 

of pathogenic microorganisms. We request that chlorine materials remain on the list of substances that 

are allowed in organic handling.

While there are concerns about the relisting of this material, chlorine has been used for many years as a 

sanitizer and is necessary in the organic industry for proper sanitation. There are also specific 

requirements to use chlorine above the 4ppm SDWA limit in several commodity specific industries. For 

example, as stated in 9 CFR 590.516 Sanitizing and drying of shell eggs prior to breaking “Immediately 

prior to breaking, all shell eggs shall be spray rinsed with potable water containing an approved sanitizer 

of not less than 100 ppm nor more than 200 ppm of available chlorine or its equivalent.1” 

Previous public comments asked for a comprehensive review of all sanitizers but the Subcommittee feels 

that a review of that scope is beyond the sunset review process.

Additional information requested by NOSB 

The NOSB in its request for public comment asks: 

1. Is the substance essential for organic food production and handling?

2. Since the material was last reviewed, have additional commercially available alternatives emerged?

The Handling Subcommittee encourages current users of chlorine materials to provide detailed 

comments describing the situations in which they are the most appropriate or effective antimicrobial for 

a given application.

This material satisfies the OFPA Evaluation criteria and the Handling Subcommittee supports the relisting 

of chlorine materials.

Subcommittee vote:

Motion to remove chlorine materials from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Ashley Swaffar

Seconded by: Joelle Mosso 

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Magnesium chloride

Reference: 205.605(b) – derived from sea water.

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2016 TR

Petition(s):N/A

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 10/1999 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 

sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

 

1 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title9-vol2/pdf/CFR-2012-title9-vol2-sec590-516.pdf

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 141/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/22

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Use: Magnesium chloride is used in organic food processing as a processing aid, as a coagulant/ 

firming agent in tofu production, and used in certified organic dietary supplements. It can also be 

used to dress cotton fibers, or as a color retention agent and as a source of essential mineral 

magnesium in infant formula. 

The EPA regulates magnesium chloride as a pesticide on List D, pesticides of less concern (EPA 1998). 

Magnesium chloride has also been used to treat bovine hypomagnesemia (low blood magnesium 

levels.

Magnesium chloride is currently allowed under the USDA organic regulations at 7 CFR 205.605(b) as a 

nonagricultural synthetic substance for use as an ingredient in or on processed products labeled 

“organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” The current annotation 

reads, “derived from sea water”.

During the 2015 sunset review, public comment from tofu producers, trade associations and certifiers 

indicates that this material “makes a specific type of tofu texture that cannot be duplicated with other 

coagulants. Elimination from the National List would be extremely detrimental to all tofu 

manufacturers in the United States”. Similar comments were submitted during the 2017 spring NOSB 

meeting in response to the material’s 2019 sunset review. 

During its previous sunset review in 2015, the Handling Subcommittee asked whether this material 

should be annotated “for use only in tofu production”. Public comment indicated that at least one 

organization recommends an annotation “as a coagulant in making tofu”. Public comment suggests 

that while use of magnesium chloride for making tofu is consistent with organic practices, the use of 

this material for color enhancement may not be consistent with organic. However, public comment 

received during the spring 2017 NOSB meeting pointed out that magnesium chloride is also used in 

certified organic dietary supplements. 

Following the 2015 sunset review this material was recommended for continued listing but issues 

related to classification were raised and a technical report (TR) was requested. The TR, dated 

November 30, 2016, was utilized by the Subcommittee for this review.

Manufacture: Natural commercial sources of magnesium chloride can be classified as: (a) sea water; 

(b) terminal lake brines; (c) subsurface brine deposits; and (d) mineral ore deposits. Magnesium 

chloride produced from each of these natural sources is the product of a brine comprising soluble ions 

of various mineral elements, primarily sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, chloride and sulfate 

(TR 2016, 186-189).

(a) Sea Water

Sea water is processed in solar ponds to produce concentrated brines from which specific minerals 

crystallize and are recovered. These specific minerals, called “evaporites,” crystallize in a sequence 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 142/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

based on the concentrations of anions and cations in the brine and their innate solubility in water (TR 

192-194).

(b) Terminal lake brines

A terminal lake is a lake where water is flowing in but no water flows out, so that the dissolved salts 

concentrate and form brine as the water evaporates. The Great Salt Lake in Utah is a familiar example. 

Great Salt Lake brine is the primary source of magnesium chloride in North America. The Great Salt 

Lake contains sodium-magnesium-chloride-sulfate brine with low alkalinity (Domagalski, Orem, and 

Eugester 1989). Like solarization of seawater, the first evaporite of Great Salt Lake brine to form is 

halite (sodium chloride), followed by schoenite (magnesium-potassium sulfate), kainite (potassium 

chloride-magnesium sulfate double salt), and carnallite (potassium-magnesium chloride), resulting in 

a magnesium chloride brine (Neitzel 1971 ). Evaporating the water in this magnesium chloride brine 

creates crude solid magnesium chloride (TR 2016, 221-234).

(c) Subsurface brine deposits

Brine deposits in Midland, Michigan, have been a source of magnesium chloride since the 1890s. The 

Dow company originally obtained its bromine, chlorine, sodium, calcium and magnesium from the 

brine of ancient seas under Midland (TR 2016, 264-266).

(d) Mined mineral deposits

The two major mined mineral sources of magnesium chloride are bischofite and carnallite, both of 

which were formed during prehistoric solar evaporation of sea water (Butts 2004). Solution mining of 

these ore bodies creates a brine that is processed on the surface. Water is pumped into the ore body 

to dissolve these soluble minerals, forming a brine which is pumped to the surface. Most of the 

patented processes for purification and concentration of these brines rely on water and evaporation, 

without any additional chemicals However, because magnesium chloride is soluble in alcohol while 

potassium chloride is not, several patented processes for separating pure magnesium chloride from 

carnallite employ a low molecular weight alcohol, such as methanol, to recover pure magnesium 

chloride (TR 2016, 291-297).

Synthesis of magnesium chloride by the reaction of a magnesium compound such as the oxide, 

hydroxide, or carbonate with hydrochloric acid is a chemical process, which involves chemical reaction 

of an acid and an alkali to form a salt. (TR 2016, 340-342).

GRAS: Magnesium chloride hexahydrate is affirmed by the FDA as Generally Recognized As Safe 

(GRAS) as a food ingredient (21 CFR 184.1426). It is allowed by the FDA as a flavoring agent, adjuvant, 

nutrient supplement, and may be used in infant formula (TR 2016, 94-96).

Ancillary substances: Magnesium chloride hexahydrate is commercially available as colorless, odorless 

flakes, crystals, granules or lumps. Both JECFA and FCC require that the material assays at 99% to 

105% MgCl2·6H2O. Commercial sources contain no additional or ancillary ingredients (e.g., inert 

ingredients, stabilizers, preservatives, carriers, anti-caking agents or other materials) (TR 2016, 110-

113). 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 143/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

International: International Organic food processing standards allow use of magnesium chloride – see 

TR 2016 for scope of specifications (TR 2016, 156-181). EU standards include use of term nigari. Nigari 

consists of the natural components of sea water including magnesium chloride, magnesium sulfate 

and other elements of sea water that remain after sodium chloride crystallizes from solar brine (TR 

2016, 120-122).

Classification: During initial review in 2015 the subcommittee requested public comment on whether 

or not this material should be re-classified as non-synthetic because it is simply derived from sea 

water by brine drying, with no ancillary substances. Public comment at the time supported that this 

material should be re-classified as non-synthetic and moved from a listing at §205.605(b) to 

§205.605(a). However, information provided in the 2016 TR indicates that this material can be 

produced both synthetically and non-synthetically, and the annotation “derived from seawater” can 

apply to both synthetic and non-synthetic.

Magnesium chloride produced by reacting a magnesium compound or mineral with hydrochloric acid 

is considered synthetic. This is because the substance undergoes a chemical change so that it is 

chemically or structurally different from how it naturally occurs in the source material. (TR 2016, 352-

354)

Natural sources of magnesium chloride can be extracted by various means which may affect the 

classification of the final substance as synthetic or non-synthetic. Evaporation and crystallization are 

physical processes which do not result in chemical change. Magnesium chloride extracted from brine 

by the two-step process involving calcium hydroxide and carbon dioxide is not chemically or 

structurally different from how it naturally occurs in the source material. (TR 2016, 352-361)

This material was reviewed by the NOSB during 2015 and the Board voted to continue its listing on the 

National List. Public comment supported the continued listing of this material.

Additional information requested by NOSB 

1. Are any producers/handlers using synthetic magnesium chloride? If yes, would they be able to 

switch to a non-synthetic version? If not, why? 

2. What impact on producers/handlers would result, if any, if magnesium chloride was removed 

from 205.605 (b) and added to 205.605(a)? 

3. If only non-synthetic magnesium chloride was allowed in organic processing and handling, 

would the supply be sufficient for all users? 

4. Is there any difference in functionality or application between synthetic and non-synthetic

magnesium chloride? 

5. Besides a coagulant in making tofu, are there any other uses of magnesium chloride in organic 

processing/handling? 

This material satisfies the OFPA Evaluation criteria and the Handling Subcommittee supports the 

relisting of magnesium chloride.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 144/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove magnesium chloride from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in the 

Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Lisa de Lima

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

Potassium acid tartrate

Reference: 205.605(b)

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2017 TR

Petition(s): N/A

Past NOSB Actions 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Potassium acid tartrate is a by-product of wine making. It is commonly known as cream of tartar. It is used 

in baked goods, a component of baking powder, and can be used to stabilize egg whites or other food uses. 

No public commenters opposed continued listing of this material during the sunset review in 2015, nor 

during the Spring 2017 review (advanced sunset review).

Potassium acid tartrate is currently allowed under the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations at 7 CFR 

205.605(b) as a “nonagricultural, synthetic substance for use as an ingredient in or on processed products 

labeled “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” The FDA authorizes use 

of potassium acid tartrate in a variety of applications as a direct food substance, including as a leavening 

agent, a pH control agent, and an antimicrobial agent.

History: During its 2015 Sunset review, the NOSB noted a number of inconsistencies in the historical 

documents about this material, confusion with specific names of similar sounding materials, and confusion 

in classification of this material. However, until the NOSB received an updated technical report (TR), it 

recommended continued listing of potassium acid tartrate. A new TR, dated January 11, 2017, was received 

and is utilized for this review. A detailed discussion of the historical documents relevant to potassium acid 

tartrate is provided in the 2017 TR.

Manufacture: During the winemaking process, sediments must be removed to produce a clear wine. “Lees” 

is the name of the sediment consisting of dead yeast cells, grape pulp, seed, and other grape matter that 

accumulates during fermentation. “Argol” and “tartar” are synonyms used to describe the crust that builds 

up in wine vats and casks. Argol is defined as crude potassium hydrogen tartrate, deposited as a crust on 

the sides of wine vats. Tartar is defined as a substance consisting essentially of cream of tartar that is 

derived from the juice of grapes and deposited in wine casks together with yeast and other suspended 

matter as a pale or dark reddish crust or sediment. Tartar consists of about 80% potassium acid tartrate. 

Potassium acid tartrate is only slightly soluble in cold water but highly soluble in hot water (6.1g/100 mL at 

100°C). Extracting wine lees with hot water dissolves the potassium acid tartrate. When the filtered 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 145/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

extraction solution is cooled, potassium acid tartrate precipitates as very pure crystals (>99.5% pure). No 

other reagents or solvents are involved in the extraction. (TR 2017, 58-69).

FDA GRAS: Potassium acid tartrate is Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) (TR 2017, 350).

Ancillary substances: There are no ancillary substances associated with potassium acid tartrate.

International: International guidance and regulations include the use of potassium acid tartrate (INS 336i) in 

organic processing, generally consistent with the limited uses described by FDA at 21 CFR 184.1077(c). The 

European-focused regulations and guidance – CODEX, IFOAM and the EU – additionally include potassium 

tartrate (dipotassium tartrate) (INS 336ii) as an allowed potassium tartrate. (TR 2017, 184-187).

Classification: Potassium acid tartrate is present in grape juice and wine; it is extracted from natural 

sources: press cake, lees, and sediment recovered from winemaking. It is extracted with potable water and 

undergoes no chemical change during extraction or crystallization. Based on the decision tree in Draft 

Guidance NOP 5033-1, this manufacturing process could be considered nonsynthetic, although it is 

currently classified as a synthetic substance at §205.605(b) (TR 2017, 339-343).

The FDA defines “potassium acid tartrate” at 21 CFR 184.1077(a): “Potassium acid tartrate (C4H5KO6, 

CASReg. No. 868-14-4) is the potassium acid salt of L-(+)-tartaric acid and is also called potassium bitartrate 

or cream of tartar. It occurs as colorless or slightly opaque crystals or as a white, crystalline powder. It has a 

pleasant, acid taste. It is obtained as a byproduct of wine manufacture” (TR 2017, 368-371).

No method of manufacture other than as a by-product of wine manufacture is encompassed by this 

regulation. The FDA definition of potassium acid tartrate would appear to require an agricultural source. 

Grapes and wine are agricultural products. The by-products that naturally settle out of grape juice and 

fermenting wine are used to make this food ingredient, with minimal processing (hot water extraction). 

However, the NOP regulation classifies potassium acid tartrate as nonagricultural at 7 CFR 205.605. 

Interestingly, potassium acid tartrate is a precursor to tartaric acid, which is another substance on the 

National List. Tartaric acid, with the annotation “made from grape wine,” is listed at §205.605(a) as an 

allowed non-synthetic, nonagricultural substance. This classification came from a 1995 NOSB vote. Thus, 

tartaric acid from grape wine is classified as non-synthetic, while the precursor, potassium acid tartrate 

from grape wine, is classified as synthetic.

This material appears to meet the OFPA criteria but it may be inaccurately classified as non-agricultural and 

synthetic as opposed to agricultural and non-synthetic. Comments from the Spring 2017 NOSB review 

agreed that this material could be reclassified. The Handling Subcommittee supports continued listing of 

this material. 

Additional information requested by NOSB: none 

 Subcommittee vote: 

 Motion to remove potassium acid tartrate from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 0 No: 6 Abstain: 0 Absent: 2 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 146/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Sodium phosphates 

Reference: 205.605(b) - for use only in dairy foods.

Technical Report: 2001 TAP; 2016 Phosphates

Petition(s): 1995 N/A, 2001 Sodium Phosphate

Past NOSB Actions: 10/1995 NOSB minutes and vote; 10/2001 NOSB minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset 

recommendation; 10/2010 sunset recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

The listing for sodium phosphates was recommended for addition to the National List in 1996 with the 

“dairy use only” annotation. The material is derived from phosphoric acid.

Uses: pH control agents and buffer, acidulant, sequestrant, texturizer, and nutrient. The NOP 

regulations restrict the use of sodium phosphates to organic dairy products only. In milk and cheese, 

they act as stabilizer, and as an emulsifier in cheese. Disodium phosphate can be used as a processing 

agent in heavy whipping cream, where it binds to milk minerals to prevent the milk from coating the 

equipment during processing. Sodium phosphates are used in some organic milk products, such as half 

and half and heavy whipping cream, to stabilize the milk protein and to ensure the products do not 

separate or lose protein prior to consumer use (Technical Report 2016). 

Use in soy processing was not added to the permitted uses for sodium phosphates because the 

reviewers found that the petitioner did not adequately justify its essentiality.

The petition, dated March 21, 2001, was a request from the manufacturer for use of sodium phosphate 

in “Food and Beverage Products formulated with Soymilk and Dry Soymilk Similar to or equivalent to 

Dairy Products.” A Technical Panel Report was requested.

The technical advisory panel (TAP) report, dated September 21, 2001, indicates a lack of consensus of 

the use of these orthophosphates (mono- di- and tri sodium phosphate). One reviewer suggested 

prohibition based on review of all OFPA criteria; one reviewer suggested use only as limited by 21 CFR 

requirements. Another reviewer suggested that it be listed with stringent conditions on all uses of 

sodium orthophosphates, which would allow all FDA permitted uses, but only with a case by case 

determination of need, essentiality, nutritional impact and alternatives.

The TAP Review (2001) notes that “toxicity of sodium phosphates is generally related to sequestration 

of calcium and the subsequent reduction of ionized calcium. It is an irritant, and ingestion may injure 

the mouth throat and gastrointestinal tract, resulting in nausea, vomiting, cramps and diarrhea” (p 5). 

They also noted low calcium reported in susceptible individuals (p 6). 

On the topic of the effect of phosphates on bone health, the 2016 technical report (TR) identified 

studies showing a range of conclusions. For example, one study found that phosphate additives were 

more harmful to bone health than other phosphorus sources (Kemi et al. 2009) (TR lines 615-622). 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 147/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

While another study showed that higher dietary phosphorus does not always lead to the associated 

negative health effects (Rue and Kestenbaum 2009) (TR lines 624-628) This is just one example of the 

contradictory studies presented in the TR. 

The 2001 TAP suggests calcium citrate, potassium citrate, and sodium citrate as possible substitutes in 

certain applications such as dairy cheese processing, as well as calcium citrate as an alternative to 

trisodium phosphate in milk processing. The TAP also listed a number of alternatives such as lecithin, 

agar, alginic acid, pectins and gums, but these were only identified as appropriate for soy processing. 

(TAP lines 404-425) 

International: Sodium phosphates are permitted on the Canadian organic standards’ list for dairy 

products only, but are not listed in the following organic standards: EU, CODEX, IFOAM or JAS (Japan).

Discussion: In 2015 public comment, industry supports the listing of this material, especially as an 

emulsifier in cheese production where its use is considered essential. It is also considered essential in 

making high protein smoothies, stabilizing the texture of the product. Another comment indicates its 

use as a chelating/buffering agent in ultra-pasteurized heavy cream, reducing production time.

Public comment indicated an increased demand for phosphates in production of processed foods but 

that consumers are not necessarily aware of this increase in phosphorus intake because phosphorus 

may not appear on the nutritional panel. Other public comment noted that while phosphorous is not 

listed on the nutritional panel, it would be listed on the ingredient panel when used as an ingredient. 

When used as an indirect food additive or processing aid, sodium phosphates may not appear on the 

ingredient panel as additives in these classes are not always required to be labeled. Other commenters 

recommended removal based on lack of essentiality and incompatibility with organic agriculture.

Public comment also raises new information relating to possible negative human health impacts 

associated with the cumulative effect of phosphates used as food additives. One organization stated 

“recent studies have shown that inorganic forms of phosphate, such as calcium and sodium phosphate, 

cause hormone mediated harm to the cardiovascular system.” Other commenters provided examples 

of peer reviewed research indicating that the cumulative effects of phosphates as a group contributing 

to renal damage and failure, osteoporosis and heart failure. A brief literature review shows clinical 

research from 2010 (Journal of Kidney Disease: April 2010 4(2):89-100), and 2013 (Sim et al, American 

Journal of Medicine, January 2013) suggesting potential serious renal impacts in subjects with normal 

renal function, from cumulative phosphorus, and specifically from cumulative impact of sodium 

phosphate. A daily limit of 70 mg/kg/day was recommended in one study.

Such public commenters recommended either removal from the National List or at least an annotation 

to eliminate uses prohibited by 205.600(b)(4) to ensure the OFPA criteria is met. Clinical studies appear 

to indicate that while the phosphorus content of each processed product may be low, and not in itself 

detrimental to human health, the cumulative effect of consuming many products with added 

phosphates as ingredients may be considerable.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 148/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Public comment from the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting was varied, similar to the public comment received 

during the 2015 meetings. The spectrum included some commenters requesting sodium phosphate be 

removed from the National List due to human health concerns and lack of essentiality, with others 

suggesting an annotation limiting the material to those uses considered essential. One organization 

noted that research on sodium phosphates found negative impacts on bone, kidney, and heart health

and that that phosphate foods additives are more readily absorbed during digestion resulting in a higher 

phosphorus load compared to naturally occurring phosphate. Alternatively, trade groups commented 

that health issues were linked to only a small segment of the population (individuals with chronic kidney 

disease) and that research into overconsumption and wider population impacts was currently 

insufficient to draw conclusions.

Public comment from handlers and processors stated that sodium phosphate is essential in organic 

cheese products, including liquid and powdered forms. Specifically, the material acts as an emulsifier 

and stabilizer for shelf stable cheese products. Handlers also reiterated sodium phosphates were 

essential for high protein dairy beverages for protein stability. An interest group questioned if additives 

for novel products like high protein dairy beverages should be considered essential. 

The subcommittee requested information from public about alternatives used in Europe. A trade 

association noted that due to differences in cultures and consumer preference products found in 

America did not have the same demand in Europe therefore the need for sodium phosphates is 

different by region. 

In Conclusion: There are 4 phosphates on the National List at 205.605(b). No single phosphate food 

additive or ingredient can be implicated as an isolated risk factor. Concerns arise from the increase in 

cumulative use of phosphates and possible health effects on the general population. Given the new 

information and research since last Sunset Review, the Handling Subcommittee requested a new 

Technical Report (TR) which it received in 2016. The TR indicates that small amounts of sodium 

phosphates may not cause human health problems, but long term cumulative impacts are not fully 

understood.

Additional Information requested

1. Given that this material is not allowed in organic foods produced in Europe, what alternatives 

are used? 

The Subcommittee would like to hear from manufactures about whether they have tried alternatives 

such as calcium citrate, potassium citrate, and sodium citrate, and what the results were.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove sodium phosphates from §205.605(b) based on the following criteria in the Organic 

Foods Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

Motion by: Lisa de Lima

Seconded by: Tom Chapman 

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 149/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Casings

Reference: 205.606(a) casings, from processed intestines

Technical Report: N/A

Petition(s): 2006 Petition

Past NOSB Actions: 04/2007 NOSB recommendation; 10/2010 NOSB sunset recommendation; 10/2015 

sunset review 

Recent Regulatory Background: Added to NL effective 06/21/07 (72 FR 35137); Sunset renewal notice 

2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

The intestines of beef, lamb and pork are used to make natural casings for sausage. The alternative 

material for casings is synthetic cellulose or synthetic collagen. Manufacture: Intestines are washed in 

pure water with no chemicals, and salted in NaCl salt and water. No other ingredients or processing aids 

are used. Animal intestines used may be from organic or nonorganic animals. Slaughterhouses do not 

separate certified organic and non-organic offal. Certified organic intestines from certified animals are 

not available commercially.

International Standards: 

A review of international standards showed casings are allowed in the EU. Casings are not listed in the 

Japanese Agricultural Standard for Organic Processed Foods (JAS) standard, not do they appear on the 

indicative list of additives in the Codex guidelines. IFOAM does not allow it, unless by regional variation. 

Canada only allows it for collagen casings. 

Discussion:

Since 2007, all casing sunset reviews have considered limitations on the availability of casings produced 

from organically raised livestock and agreed that 205.606 listing is appropriate. Echoing comments in 

2015 and earlier, comments on casings submitted to the Spring 2017 meeting also raised concerns 

about the imitated availability of organically produced casing material. No new information as to the 

manufacture process or possible availability of certified organic intestines was presented. All comments 

were in favor of retaining use of non-organically produced casings as an option for production of organic 

sausage meat. 

Concerns were raised about the need to incentivize production of organic casings but that was viewed

as a long-term effort. Future NOSB meetings should consider whether a technical report reviewing 

barriers to the availability of organic casings is needed.

This material satisfies all OFPA criteria, and public comment confirmed its current use and need. The 

Handling Subcommittee supports continued listing of casings on the National List.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove casings from §205.606 based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: none 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 150/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Motion by: Lisa de Lima

Seconded by: Tom Chapman

Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Konjac flour 

Reference: 205.606(n) Konjac flour (CAS # 37220-17-0).

Technical Report: None

Petition(s): 2001 Petition

Past NOSB Actions: 05/2002 NOSB minutes (determined to be agricultural); 10/2010 NOSB sunset 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review

Recent Regulatory Background: 2007 Interim Rule (72 FR 35137); Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 

14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

Subcommittee Review: 

Background:

Konjac flour is derived from tubers of the elephant yam, Amorphophallus konjac, and is primarily grown 

in tropical and subtropical regions of Asia. It is also called glucomannan. It is a soluble dietary fiber 

that’s been used in traditional foods in Asia such as shirataki noodles and konjac curd (konnyaku). 

Shirataki noodles are marketed as a zero calorie, zero carbohydrate alternative to pasta and rice. 

Konjac is also used as a binder, gelling agent, thickener and stabilizer. Konjac flour is unique in its ability 

to absorb up to 50 times its weight in water. It is widely used in weight loss supplements because it 

promotes a sense of fullness and pushes more calories through the colon instead of letting them be 

absorbed. It is one of the few fibers that are tolerated by diabetics and helps lower serum cholesterol 

and blood glucose.

Because of konjac’s ability to quickly absorb water, there is some concern regarding the potential for 

capsule supplements or shirataki noodles to block the esophagus. However it appears this is largely 

avoided by consuming capsules with plenty of water and sufficient chewing of the noodles.

An internet search found several commercially available organic konjac products, including alternatives 

to rice and several forms of pasta (spaghetti, fettucine, etc.) made from organic konjac flour. 

History: 

Konjac flour was reviewed at the Fall 2015 NOSB meeting. There was no new information regarding the 

OFPA criteria, and no sources of organic konjac flour were identified in public comment. One trade 

association indicated that it was still important, particularly for use with meat products like sausages 

and in fruit gels. Other starches and gums do not produce the unique combination of functions that 

konjac flour has.

Prior to the Spring 2017 NOSB meeting, the Subcommittee put forth the questions below to determine 

if availability of organic konjac flour warrants its removal from 7 CFR 205.606. Very few public 

comments were received and none answered the questions posed. One food additives trade 

organization and one other public commenter supported relisting. No organic processors commented 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 151/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

in favor of relisting this material. Three certifiers and one trade organization reported they did not 

receive a response from their clients or members, either in support of relisting or removal. 

One commenter in favor of relisting acknowledged the availability of organic konjac flour as noted 

during the 2015 sunset review, however expressed “concerns about these suppliers and whether the 

konjac flour they offer is truly in compliance with organic standards.” The commenter continues, noting 

they have “...not been able to evaluate the specific suppliers noted” in the 2015 review. No data or 

evidence has been provided to show the validity of such statements.

Two commenters supported the removal of konjac flour, citing pesticide use in its conventional 

production. They further cited concern regarding the potential availability of a genetically modified 

variety of konjac flour and that measurers should be taken to avoid its use in organic production.

Additional information requested by NOSB:

There appears to be increased availability of organic konjac sources, particularly for gluten-free 

alternatives to pasta & rice products. With sources seemingly more available, the Subcommittee is 

interested in the following questions:

1. In addition to alternative pasta & rice products, are the sources of this organic konjac sufficient to 

provide manufacturers with the form and function required for organic products such as sausages, 

fruit gels and supplement powder?

2. Do you make an organic product using konjac flour?

The Subcommittee has not received evidence that the organic supply of konjac flour is insufficient to 

meet the demand of organic processors.

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove konjac flour from §205.606 based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) Section 2118 (c)(1)(A)(ii): essentiality. 

Motion by: Scott Rice 

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar 

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Pectin 

Reference: 205.606(s) Pectin (non-amidated forms only).

Technical Report: 1995 TAP; 2009 TR; 2010 supplemental TR; 2015 TR (limited scope)

Petition(s): 2005 Petition – low methoxy pectins

Past NOSB Actions: 04/1995 minutes and vote; 11/2005 sunset recommendation; 10/2010 NOSB 

recommendation; 10/2015 sunset review 

Recent Regulatory Background: Sunset renewal notice 2017 (82 FR 14420)

Sunset Date: 03/15/2022

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 152/175
National Organic Program | Agricultural Marketing Service | U.S. Department of Agriculture

Subcommittee Review: 

Background: 

Use: Pectin is extracted from citrus and pome fruits but so far there is no organic supply of extracted 

pectin. It is used as a gelling agent in jams, preserves, fillings and other products. It is a desirable 

ingredient in organic food because it allows food to gel with less sugar than would be used without it. 

The excess sugar has the potential for more negative human health effects than pectin.

Manufacturing: The most common production of non-amidated pectin is the treatment of pectin 

containing byproducts (pome fruit cores, citrus peels) with acidified water. Insoluble materials are 

filtered and removed and the pectin is precipitated out with alcohol. 

International: A review of international standards showed pectin was compliant with the Canadian 

organic standards (both high and low methoxy allowed), the IFOAM organic standards (unmodified 

forms only), the EU standards (Pectin allowed in all products but meat based products), Japanese 

organic standards (Pectin allowed in all products but meat based products) and Codex (Pectin allowed 

in all products but meat based products, in dairy products pectin must be unmodified).

Ancillary Substances: Ancillary substances used in pectin include sugar and dextrose for standardizing 

products, and trisodium citrate (or other salt buffers described in the 2015 TR). 

Discussion: Public comments submitted by organic manufacturers, trade associations, material 

suppliers and certifiers detailed extensively pectin’s use and necessity in organic production. Once 

comment noted organic pectin was listed in the organic integrity database but also noted these 

products use it as a dietary supplement not as a gelling agent. Comments from a trade association 

representing the pectin industry spoke to constraints in commercializing organic pectin due to 

commingled raw material supplies and the current unavailability of organic pectin. A comment from an 

interest group stated pectin should be limited to high methoxyl pectin (HMP), extracted from citrus 

peel and apple pomace and wanted an evaluation to take into consideration the use of pesticides in the 

production of the non-organic raw materials. Board discussion noted the desire for the development 

of an organic pectin and discussed how this production could be incentivized but also noted the lack of 

commercial availability. 

Pectin meets the OFPA criteria and is not available in sufficient organic supply, and no new substantive 

information was received during this review to contradict this listing. 

Subcommittee vote: 

Motion to remove pectin from §205.606 based on the following criteria in the Organic Foods 

Production Act (OFPA) and/or 7 CFR 205.600(b) if applicable: None

Motion by: Tom Chapman 

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 0 No: 7 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 153/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 154/175
National Organic Standards Board

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Reclassification of Potassium Acid Tartrate

August 14, 2017

Summary of Proposed Action:

The Handling Subcommittee proposes to change the classification of potassium acid tartrate from a 

nonagricultural synthetic substance to an agricultural nonsynthetic substance and move the substance 

from § 205.605(b) to § 205.606 of the National List.

Subcommittee Review:

During its 2015 sunset review the NOSB noted a number of inconsistencies in the historical documents 

about potassium acid tartrate, confusion with specific names of similar sounding materials, and 

confusion in classification of this material. However, owing to lack of an up-to-date technical report (TR) 

the NOSB recommended continued listing of potassium acid tartrate until a new TR could be provided. 

A new TR, dated January 11, 2017, was received and is utilized for this reclassification recommendation.

During the winemaking process, sediments form that must be removed to produce a clear wine. “Lees” 

is the name of the sediment consisting of dead yeast cells, grape pulp, seed, and other grape matter that 

accumulates during fermentation. “Argol” and “tartar” are synonyms used to describe the crust that 

builds up in wine vats and casks. Argol is defined as crude potassium hydrogen tartrate, deposited as a 

crust on the sides of wine vats. Tartar is defined as a substance consisting essentially of cream of tartar 

that is derived from the juice of grapes and deposited in wine casks together with yeast and other 

suspended matter as a pale or dark reddish crust or sediment. Tartar consists of about 80% potassium 

acid tartrate. Potassium acid tartrate is only slightly soluble in cold water but highly soluble in hot water 

(6.1g/100 mL at 100°C). Extracting wine lees with hot water dissolves the potassium acid tartrate. When 

the filtered extraction solution is cooled, potassium acid tartrate precipitates as very pure crystals 

(>99.5% pure). No other reagents or solvents are involved in the extraction (TR 2017, 58-69).

Potassium acid tartrate is present in grape juice and wine; it is extracted from natural sources: press 

cake, lees, and sediment recovered from winemaking. It is extracted with potable water and undergoes 

no chemical change during extraction or crystallization. Based on the decision tree in Guidance NOP

5033-1, this manufacturing process could be considered non-synthetic, although it is currently classified 

as a synthetic substance at §205.605(b) (TR 2017, 339-343).

The FDA defines “potassium acid tartrate” at 21 CFR 184.1077(a): 

Potassium acid tartrate (C4H5KO6, CAS Reg. No. 868-14-4) is the potassium acid salt of L-(+)-

tartaric acid and is also called potassium bitartrate or cream of tartar. It occurs as colorless or 

slightly opaque crystals or as a white, crystalline powder. It has a pleasant, acid taste. It is 

obtained as a byproduct of wine manufacture” (TR 2017, 368-371).

No method of manufacture other than as a by-product of wine manufacture is encompassed by this 

regulation. The FDA definition of potassium acid tartrate would appear to require an agricultural source. 

Grapes and wine are agricultural products. The by-products that naturally settle out of grape juice and 

fermenting wine are used to make this food ingredient, with minimal processing (hot water extraction). 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 155/175
However, the USDA organic regulations currently classify potassium acid tartrate as nonagricultural at 7 

CFR 205.605. 

Interestingly, potassium acid tartrate is a precursor to tartaric acid, which is another substance that is 

listed on the National List. Tartaric acid, with the annotation “made from grape wine,” is listed at 

§205.605(a) as an allowed non-synthetic, nonagricultural (nonorganic) substance. This classification 

came from a 1995 NOSB vote. Thus, tartaric acid from grape wine is classified as non-synthetic, while 

the precursor, potassium acid tartrate from grape wine, is classified as synthetic.

Potassium acid tartrate is derived from a crop (grapes) and there is no change in the chemical structure 

of the material when it is extracted. Using the decision tree for an agricultural vs. non-agricultural 

material in the Classification of Materials guidance (NOP 5033-2), potassium acid tartrate should be

classified as agricultural. Using the decision tree for synthetic vs. non-synthetic (NOP 5033-1), 

potassium acid tartrate is extracted from a natural source, meets all the criteria described in Section 4.6 

of NOP 5033, and has not gone through any chemical changes. That leads to a determination that it is 

non-synthetic.

The Handling Subcommittee proposes that potassium acid tartrate remain on the National List. 

However, the Handling Committee is bringing forward a proposal to change the listing from §205.605(b) 

to §205.606 due to the determination that potassium acid tartrate is agriculturally derived and nonsynthetic under the guidelines of the Classification of Materials document. 

Vote in Subcommittee: 

Motion to reclassify potassium acid tartrate and change its listing from §205.605(b) to §205.606 

Motion by: Steve Ela

Seconded by: Ashley Swaffar

Yes: 8 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Approved by Lisa de Lima, Handling Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 15, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 156/175
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Subcommittee Proposal

Marine Algae Listings on the National List

August 31, 2017

Introduction

In 2016 and 2017, the Handling Subcommittee issued a discussion document and proposal on 

the topic of marine algae listings on the National List. These documents sought consistency in 

the nomenclature used to reference the various marine algae approved for and used in organic 

handling. These documents also sought public comment on the sustainability of marine algae 

sources. These documents are linked below.

April 2017

• Proposal: Marine Algae listings on the National List

November 2016

• Discussion Document: Marine Algae Listings on the National List

Request to Stakeholders for Additional Input

The Handling Subcommittee thanks the organic stakeholder community for the input it has 

provided in response to the previously issued discussion & proposal documents. Because of the 

shorter than usual written comment window in advance of the Spring 2017 meeting, a number 

of stakeholders expressed they did not have the time to substantively comment on the 

proposal put forward by the Subcommittee. Because of this, the Handling Subcommittee 

requests further stakeholder input on this topic via the NOSB open comment 

docket: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS_FRDOC_0001-1600. 

Note that it is not necessary to resubmit comments and suggestions that were previously 

submitted in response to the prior discussion and proposal documents, as the NOSB has 

maintained a complete record of these. Please submit only new comments and suggestions. 

We look forward to receiving your input. 

Approved by Lisa de Lima, Handling Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 157/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 158/175
USDA National Organic Standards Board Research Priorities, 2017

Executive Summary

Overall: The National Organic Standards Board requests that integrated research be undertaken with 

consideration of the whole farm system, recognizing the interplay of agroecology, the surrounding 

environment, and both native and farmed species of plants and animals.

Livestock 

1. Evaluation of methionine in the context of a systems approach in organic poultry production. 

2. Prevention and management of parasites, examining breeds, geographical differences, 

alternative treatments, and pasture species.

3. Organic livestock breeding for animals adapted to outdoor life and living vegetation.

Crops

1. Examination of decomposition rates, the effects of residues on soil biology, and the factors that 

affect the breakdown of biodegradable biobased mulch film.

2. Organic no-till practices for diverse climates, crops, and soil types.

3. Alternatives to antibiotics (tetracycline and streptomycin) for fire blight control in apples and 

pears.

4. Alternatives to copper for plant disease and algae control: development of disease-resistant 

varieties, and particular research on algae control in rice. 

5. Plant disease management through crop rotations, sanitation practices, plant spacing and 

disease-resistant varieties, and biopesticides. 

6. Mitigation measures for pesticide residues in compost, including identification of problematic 

feedstock. 

7. Management and control of spotted wing drosophila in fruits.

Coexistence 

1. Outcome of genetically engineered (GMO/GE) material in organic compost.

2. Evaluation of public germplasm collections of at-risk crops for the presence of GE traits, and 

ways to mitigate small amounts of unwanted genetic material in breeding lines.

3. Techniques for preventing adventitious presence of GE material in organic crops, and evaluation 

of the effectiveness of current prevention strategies. 

Food Handling and Processing

1. Comparison of alternatives to chlorine materials in processing: impact mitigation, best 

management practices, and potential for chlorine absorption by produce.

2. Production of celery for celery powder yielding nitrates sufficient for cured meat applications, 

and investigation of agriculturally derived alternatives.

3. Suitable alternatives to BPA (Bisphenol-A) for linings of cans used for various products.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 159/175
National Organic Standards Board 

Materials Subcommittee Proposal

2017 Research Priorities

August 8, 2017

INTRODUCTION

For the past six years, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), has presented a list of research 

priorities for organic food and agriculture. The priorities are proposed by the NOSB’s Livestock, Crops, 

Handling, and Materials/GMO Subcommittees at its annual fall board meeting, and reflect both written 

and oral public comments received by the Board. The topics listed below by Subcommittee are the 2017

priorities, including some from previous years that the NOSB thinks are still relevant. The older priorities

and their dates of adoption can be found in a list at the end of this proposal. 

BACKGROUND

Research needs are prioritized along the following criteria: 1) persistent and chronic, 2) challenging, 3) 

controversial, 4) nebulous, 5) lacking in primary research, and 6) relevant to assessing the need for 

alternative cultural, biological, and mechanical methods to materials on the National List1

. 

The NOSB encourages collaboration with and between laboratories, federal agencies, universities, 

foundations and organizations, business interests, organic farmers, and the entire organic community to 

seek solutions to pressing issues in organic agriculture and processing/handling.

PROPOSAL: 2017 RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The NOSB encourages integrated, whole farm research into the following areas:

Livestock

1. Evaluation of Methionine in the Context of a System Approach in Organic Poultry Production 

Methionine is an essential amino acid for poultry. Prior to the 1950’s, poultry and pigs were fed a plant 

and meat-based diet without synthetic amino acids such as methionine. One former NOSB member 

stated, in §205.237(5) (b), “We have seemingly made vegetarians out of poultry and pigs”. As the 

organic community moves toward reducing, removing, or providing additional annotations to synthetic 

methionine in the diets of poultry, a heightened need exists for the organic community to rally around 

omnivore producers to assist in marshaling our collective efforts in finding viable alternatives to 

synthetic methionine and to help find approaches for making them more commercially available. 

Continued research on the use of synthetic methionine in the context of a systems approach (nutrition, 

genetic selection, management practices, etc.) is consistent with the NOSB unanimous resolution passed 

at the La Jolla, California, Spring 2015 full board meeting. A systems approach that includes industry and 

 

1 The National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances identifies the synthetic substances 

that may be used and the nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in organic 

crop and livestock production. It also identifies a limited number of non-organic substances 

that may be used in or on processed organic products. The NOSB advises the National Organic 

Program (NOP) on which substances should be allowed or prohibited.

 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 160/175
independent research by USDA/ARS, on farms, and by agricultural land grant universities is needed for 

(1) evaluation of the merits of natural alternative sources of methionine such as herbal methionine, high 

methionine corn, and corn gluten meal in organic poultry production systems, (2) evaluation of poultry 

breeds selection that could be adaptive to existing organic production systems – inclusive of breeds 

being able to adequately perform on less methionine, and (3) assessment of management practices for 

improving existing organic poultry welfare under different conditions. Research findings and 

collaborations under various climates, housing types, geographical regions, and countries should be 

noted and researched, where applicable. Certainly, the fruition of these types of research topics could 

take years to achieve the expressed NOSB resolution; however, an aggressive and/or heightened 

research focus could lead to findings that can positively impact the organic poultry industry and the 

organic brand. The continued focus on methionine with a systems approach is imperative and 

necessary. 

The key research areas should include the efficacy and viability of alternatives such as: herbal 

methionine, corn gluten meal, potato meal, fishmeal, animal by-products, and other non-plant 

materials. Additional research on the more promising alternatives to bring them into commercial 

production is also encouraged. Additionally, management practices impacting the flock’s demand for 

methionine should be included, such as flock management practices, access to pastures, and pasture

management.

2. Prevention and Management of Parasites 

Livestock production places large numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, poultry etc. into relatively close 

contact with each other on fields and in barns. Organic production does not allow antibiotic use and 

requires that livestock be raised in a manner which approximates the animal’s natural behavior. The 

organic farmer can use synthetic parasiticides in an emergency but not prophylactically. Synthetic 

parasiticides have many limitations. Even if prophylactic treatment with parasiticides were possible, it is 

clear that parasite immunity to chemical control will inevitably occur. Thus, prevention of parasites is 

critical. 

The research question on prevention and management of parasites must be systems based. What farm 

systems, animal breeds, herd or flock management systems have shown the best results with parasite 

control over the last 20 years? What regional differences are there in the US in parasite prevention? 

Are there specific herbal, biodynamic, or other alternative treatments that have been proven to work 

over time? What are the parasite-resistant breeds? Are there plant species in pastures and scrublands 

that could be incorporated into the annual grazing system to reduce the spread of parasites or to 

provide prevention through the flora, fauna, and minerals ingested? Which pasture management 

systems appear to be best for parasite prevention in various parts of the country? Are pasture mixes 

being developed that include plants known to prevent parasites in various breeds? 

 

3. Organic Livestock Breeding (new in 2017) 

Organic rules require livestock products originate from animals that are not confined and are adapted to 

outdoor living as well as obtaining feed from living vegetation. A current FAO report states that globally

one third of pigs, half of all egg layers, two thirds of milk animals, and three quarters of meat chickens 

are produced with breeds more suited to confinement or “industrial” production systems than a typical 

organic farm or ranch. Similar to plant breeding, the organic community sees a great need for 

regionally-adapted and publicly available livestock breeds that can thrive in organic systems.

Heritage, native regional breeds, and breeds used in the EU and other areas of the world that are 

typically more adapted to organic systems are still present but in small numbers. Increased research on 

the breeding, production needs, and improvement of these breeds is needed. Traits for good 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 161/175
conversion rates from grazing to milk or meat, meeting consumer expectations for quality, as well as 

having the constitution and temperament to thrive outdoors would increase both the profitability and 

resiliency of organic livestock operations. Animal breeds that may have immunity to a variety of 

diseases and parasites would be useful traits to research and incorporate in a breeding program. 

Crops

1. Biodegradable Biobased Mulch Film 

This type of mulch film was recently approved by the NOSB but did not include a specific percentage of 

biobased components it must contain. In 2015, NOP issued a Policy Memo2 that states that certifiers 

and material organizations should review biodegradable biobased mulch film products to verify that all 

of the polymer feedstocks are biobased. This requirement makes biobased mulches unavailable to 

organic producers, due to the petroleum-based polymers in these mulch films. In order to provide a 

recommendation to the NOP addressing the presence of petroleum-based polymers in these mulches, 

the answers to the following questions would be useful to develop more clarity on mulch films and 

possibly develop an additional annotation to address any concerns:

• How rapidly do these mulches fully decompose, and does the percentage of the polymers in the 

mulch film affect the decomposition rate? Are there metabolites of these mulches that do not 

fully decompose?

• Are there different cropping systems, climate, soil types, or other factors that affect the 

decomposition rate?

• What type of effect does the breakdown of these polymers have on soil and plant life as well as 

livestock that would graze either crop residues or forages grown the subsequent year after this 

mulch film was used?

• Does the use of these synthetic polymers over time affect the balance of soil biology?

• Is there any cumulative effect if this mulch film is used 3-5 years or more in the same location?

• Are the testing regimens available adequate to meet the decomposition standards in our 

definition and to validate the non-GMO status of source materials?

• Even though petroleum-based polymers may be developed so they are consumed completely by 

the microbiological life in the soil, is the balance of various nutrients and/or biological life 

different from the decomposition of biologically-based materials? Is there any comparison 

between decomposing petroleum-based polymers and the effects that petroleum based 

fertilizers and other inputs have on soil biological life in nonorganic agricultural systems?

2. Organic No-Till

Organic no-till practices are quite different from herbicide-based no-till systems. Organic no-till, using a 

terminated cover crop for in-place mulching, can increase soil health and provide for increased 

biodiversity. Organic no-till preserves and builds soil organic matter, conserves soil moisture, reduces 

soil erosion, and requires less fuel and labor than standard organic row crop farming. There can also be 

some challenges from organic no-till using a cover crop, such as occasional insect infestation associated 

with the cover crop. 

Even though this killed-in-place mulch practice has been used for more than a decade, widespread 

adoption has not occurred. This type of production is also attractive to conservation minded nonorganic 

farmers, and more practical information could result in the growth of domestic organic production. 

There are some land grant universities and federal agencies doing research on this type of production, 

but more work needs to be done. Increased research is needed to develop organic no-till systems that 

 

2 Policy Memo 15-1

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 162/175
function for a wide variety of crops in diverse climates and soil types. Annual crops such as commodity 

row crops and specialty crops, as well as perennial crops such as tree fruits, berries, and grapes would all 

benefit from these organic no-till practices. Research areas that could be covered include:

• Development of plant varieties that have specific characteristics, such as early ripening, to aid in 

the effectiveness and practicality of organic no-till.

• Which mulch crops, systems, and timing of practices provide specific weed management 

benefits to support crop growth and yield? 

• Research on various techniques that would provide a variety of options for diverse cropping 

systems including but not limited to: strip tillage within a killed mulch, mowing or other 

organically approved techniques versus rolling to terminate the cover crop, and living mulches in 

standing crops.

• Development of systems that allow for either continuous no-till organic crops or for multiple 

years of organic no-till in the crop rotation.

• How does the lessened soil disturbance of this system contribute to pest, weed, and disease 

management?

• What specific insect problems can be caused or exacerbated by cover crops used as mulches, 

and how can those problems best be managed?

• In perennial cropping systems, such as fruits, what are the benefits or drawbacks of using this 

mulching system on weed, pest and disease management, as well as soil fertility?

• How can the use of this system be managed to improve water infiltration and retention in 

annual and perennial cropping systems? 

• What are the biodiversity benefits to these living and/or killed mulches, and how does this 

contribute to pest, weed, and disease management?

• Does this system affect the nutrient balance of the soil and subsequent fertilization practices, 

including use of outside inputs?

• Based on the improved soil health when there is less soil disturbance and more plant 

decomposition resulting in higher organic matter, how does this system affect soil microbial life 

and nutrient availability, and does this then result in crops that are less susceptible to disease 

and pests?

 

3. Alternatives to Antibiotics (Tetracycline and Streptomycin) for Fire Blight

Prior to October 2014, oxytetracycline and streptomycin were allowed for the control of fire blight in 

apple and pear trees only. Since 2014, neither substance may be used in any organic practice. Organic 

apple and pear growers must now find suitable alternatives to control the deadly fire blight disease. 

Since apples and pears are grown throughout the United States in many regions, these alternatives must 

work in a variety of climates and management systems. The following research issues are important to 

investigate: location; planting density; choice of varieties of cultivar and rootstock; soil improvement 

practices; pruning practices and general sanitation; groundcovers or intercrops; pollinator management; 

dormant copper sprays; bloom thinning/lime sulfur; early, full bloom, and late sprays with approved 

organic materials to prevent fire blight establishment; surveys for fire blight activity; and other cultural 

and preventative techniques. 

4. Alternatives to Copper for Disease and Algae Control

Organic producers have fewer alternatives of synthetic chemicals to control diseases. Copper has been 

used for more than a century to control serious diseases in crops such as late blight in tomatoes and fire 

blight in pears. Because the copper products degrade to elemental copper, continued use over time can 

cause copper to accumulate in soil. If used improperly or to excess, copper can be toxic to aquatic life 

and wildlife. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 163/175
Alternative materials are not yet available to address the many diseases and crops on which copper is 

used. Targeted research is needed to identify management practices and less toxic alternative materials 

for a wide range of crops. More research is needed on many of the crop/disease combinations. 

Some avenues for research: 

• Comprehensive, systems-based approaches for managing individual crops in a way that 

decreases the need for copper-based materials, including researching crop rotations, sanitation 

practices, plant spacing, and other factors that influence disease. 

• Breeding plants that are resistant to the diseases that copper controls. 

• Developing alternative formulations of materials containing copper so that the amount of 

elemental copper is reduced. 

• Developing biological agents that work on the same diseases that copper is now used on. 

• Evaluating plant nutritional strategies to mitigate the impacts of plant diseases. 

• Particular research on scum and algae control in rice and whether sodium carbonate 

peroxyhydrate or other materials are suitable alternatives in an aquatic environment. 

5. Plant Disease Management

There is a need for research into plant disease management practices and alternative materials, 

particularly for the humid areas of the country, that decrease reliance on copper or other substances 

that might have a negative impact on the soil and health of farmworkers. Genera of pathogens include, 

but are not limited to: Alternaria, Erwinia, Pseudomonas, Xanthomonas, Cercospora, Colletotrichum, 

Cladosporium, powdery mildew, downy mildew, Phytophthora, Pythium, Mycosphaerella, Phomopsis, 

Taphrina, Elsinoe, Gnomonia, Fusicladium, Nectria, Phyllosticta, Diplocarpon, Albugo, Guignardia, 

Botrytis, Exobasidium, Entomosporium, Exobasidium, Pestalotia, Phoma, Cristulariella, and Monilinia 

fruticosa. 

Citrus greening, caused by the bacterium Candidatus liberibacter, and spread by a disease-infected Asian 

citrus psyllid, is an emerging problem. Promising avenues of research include disease-resistant varieties, 

predators and parasites and how they interact with approved materials, nutrition (calcium, boron, and 

nitrogen have been identified), and botanical oils. 

In particular, both biological control of plant diseases and bio-pesticides should be a research priority to 

support organic growers. A large body of research has shown that plant diseases caused by bacteria and 

fungi can often be prevented by the application of a non-pathogenic microorganism before infection 

occurs. Although much basic research has been done to identify microbial biological control agents, 

there is still a need for commercial development, field testing, and adoption by growers. Biological 

controls have been researched for late blight of potato and tomato (Phytophthora infestans), several 

diseases caused by Botrytis cinerea, and powdery mildew (several species) controlled by mites, fungi, 

and bacteria. 

Although many biological controls and bio-pesticides have demonstrated effectiveness in research plots, 

they have often not succeeded commercially because they can’t compete with inexpensive synthetic 

chemicals used by non-organic farmers. Biological materials are often more expensive than 

conventional pesticides, and they need be applied before disease is apparent. In the past, there was 

little market for biological controls because the organic acreage was limited. Now that organic acreage 

has increased, the market for alternative plant disease controls has also increased which can spur 

commercialization of natural methods of disease control. The availability of biological controls for plant 

diseases can also make it more feasible for conventional farmers to transition to organic, thus 

benefitting organic consumers. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 164/175
6. Mitigation Measures for Residues in Compost

Residues of pesticides in compost material are a problem that requires research, according to the 

Organic Materials Research Institute (OMRI). Because of the importance of compost to organic 

management systems, research is needed on types of mitigation measure that are efficacious, 

identification of problematic feedstock (e.g. cotton-based materials and yard waste), types of corrective 

action, and if thresholds for allowable residues are established, testing guidelines are required. This is 

more important than ever with events of 2016 regarding contamination in compost.

7. Management and Control of Spotted Wing Drosophila in Fruits (new in 2017)

There is a large pool of research on the control of insects and diseases using organic methods. Many 

controls use a systems approach and are quite effective. The introduction of new invasive species into 

cropping systems threatens these systems approaches, and in several cases the organic control options 

are very limited or nonexistent. Spotted wing drosophila is a relatively recent invasive insect that infests 

soft fruits, such as berries, and many other fruits as well. Infestation renders fruit unusable since insect 

larvae feed inside the fruit and may reach critical levels before fruit is harvested. This insect is 

particularly problematic in that it has the ability to oviposit in green fruit and that it has multiple 

generations throughout the summer, creating an extensive control period. There is only one control 

material available, spinosad, and it is in danger of overuse. The control period may also extend so long 

that maximum label rates are used before the season ends. A second invasive insect is brown 

marmorated stink bug, and at this time there are no organic control measures beyond attempts at mass 

trapping. Research into organic control options for both these invasive pests is critical so that organic 

growers can integrate controls into their organic systems.

Handling

1. Chlorine Materials and Alternatives 

The three chlorine materials currently allowed for use in organic agriculture are widely used in farming 

and handling to clean and disinfect equipment, surfaces, and produce. There have been some concerns 

raised about these materials and their impact on the environment and human health when/or if they 

form trihalomethanes and other toxic compounds. New FDA regulations on food safety (Food Safety 

Modernization Act) and best management practices for cleaning in handling operations both require a 

suitable level of cleanliness and disinfection to prevent pathogens from entering the food supply. 

Producers and handlers are looking for alternatives to chlorine while continuing to provide a safe end 

product to their customers and the consumer. Addressing food safety while adhering to the 

fundamental organic principles involving human health and environmental impact is a concern. 

The organic industry needs better information on how either alternative materials or appropriate 

chlorine materials are best suited for a specific use and control measure. This is especially important in 

determining if the industry can move away from the use of chlorine compounds in the future.

Points of consideration for future research activities:

• Comparison of alternatives to chlorine such as: citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, ethanol, 

isopropanol, peracetic acid, and ozone. How would each compare to the different chlorine 

materials for specific uses? The strengths and weaknesses would need to be considered.

• Potential human health and environmental impacts of each chlorine material versus the possible 

alternative materials listed above. Are there ways that these impacts can be mitigated and still 

allow the material to work as needed?

• Determination of which of the above mentioned alternatives would NOT be a suitable substitute 

for chlorine. What specific uses and/or conditions would this apply to?

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 165/175
• Identification of practices that could be used to help reduce the formation of trihalomethanes in 

those specific situations where chorine is the best material to use.

• Could the rotation of materials for cleaning and disinfecting help lower the risks from chlorine 

materials and still be effective in providing the desired control of pathogens?

• Research on the absorption of chlorine by produce from its quantity and use in wash tanks, 

including information about amount of time of exposure. Would this be a persistent residual 

effect or temporary (if temporary – how long is it a viable residue), and would it be harmful if 

consumed at these levels?

2. Celery Powder

Celery powder is used in a variety of processed meat products (hot dogs, bacon, ham, corned beef, 

pastrami, pepperoni, salami, etc.) to provide “cured” meat attributes without using prohibited nitrites 

(note: products must still be labeled “uncured”). Celery powder is naturally high in nitrates that are 

converted to nitrites during fermentation by a lactic acid culture. It has proven difficult to produce 

celery powder under organic production practices with sufficient levels of nitrates for cured meat 

applications. Are there growing practices or regions that could produce celery under organic conditions 

that would yield a crop with sufficient nitrate content for cured meat applications? Are there 

agriculturally derived substances (other than celery) that could be produced under organic production 

practices that provide nitrate levels sufficient for cured meat product applications of comparable 

quality?

3. Alternatives to Bisphenol A (BPA) 

The Handling Subcommittee is examining the issue of whether to prohibit BPA in packaging materials 

used for organic foods in light of direct evidence that these uses result in human exposures and 

mounting evidence that these exposures may be harmful. There is a need for increased research about 

alternatives for the linings of cans and jars used for organic products that do not result in human 

exposures and health risks.

Materials/GMO

In previous years, the Materials subcommittee has prioritized the Reduction of Genetically Modified 

Content of Breeding Lines (2013) and Seed Purity from GMOs (2014). These issues are currently being 

addressed through a Genetic Integrity of Seeds Ad Hoc Working Group. 

1. Fate of Genetically Engineered Plant Material in Compost

What happens to transgenic DNA in the composting process? Materials such as cornstalks from GMO 

corn or manure from cows receiving rBGH are often composted, yet there is little information on 

whether the genetically engineered material and traits break down in composting process. Do these 

materials affect the microbial ecology of a compost pile? Is there trait expression of Bt (Bacillus 

thuringiensis) after composting that would result in persistence in the environment or plant uptake? 

2. Integrity of Breeding Lines and Ways to Mitigate Small Amounts of Unwanted Genetic Material

Are public germplasm collections that house at-risk crops threatened by transgenic content? Breeding 

lines may have been created through genetic engineering methods such as doubled haploid technology, 

or they may have had inadvertent presence of GMOs from pollen drift. The extent of this problem 

needs to be understood. 

3. Prevention of GMO Crop Contamination: Evaluation of effectiveness

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 166/175
How well are some of the prevention strategies proposed by the NOSB working to keep GMOs out of 

organic crops? For instance, how many rows of buffer are needed for corn? How fast does 

contamination percentage go up or down if there are more or fewer buffer rows? 

Other examples could be whether cleanout of combines and hauling vehicles reduces contamination 

using typical protocols for organic cleaning, whether situating at-risk crop fields upwind from GMO crops 

can reduce contamination, and what the role may be of pollinators in spreading GMO pollen. 

Lastly, research is needed on a mechanism to provide conventional growers incentives to take their own 

prevention measures to prevent pollen drift and its impact on organic and identity-preserved crops. This 

is policy research rather than field research but is equally as important. 

Previous Years’ Research Priorities

For more detailed information about each topic, please see the relevant research priorities 

recommendations. Each topic’s listing year is indicated. 

Whole Farm Systems (2012, 2013) 

Evaluation of Copper Sulfate for Rice (2012)

Evaluation of Genetically Modified Vaccines (GMO) (2012, 2013) 

Organic Aquaculture (2012, 2013) 

Carageenan (2012)

Aquatic Biodiversity (2013)

Pastured Poultry and Salmonella (2013)

Commercial Availability Assessments (2013)

Herd and Flock Health (2013, 2014, 2015)

Risk Reduction from Off-Target Exposure to Non-Permitted Materials (2014)

Seed Purity from GMO (2014)

Mastitis (2014)

Pneumonia (2014)

Plant Extracts (2014)

Soil Building Practices (2014)

Consumer Demand (2013, 2016)

Subcommittee Vote: 

Motion to adopt the proposal on 2017 NOSB Research Priorities

Motion by: Emily Oakley

Seconded by: Dave Mortensen

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 Absent: 0 

Approved by Harriet Behar, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 22, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 167/175
NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 168/175
National Organic Standards Board 

Materials/GMO Subcommittee Proposal 

Additional Excluded Methods to be listed in the

National Organic Program Excluded Methods Guidance Document

August 22, 2017

Introduction and background

On November 18, 2016, the NOSB sent a recommendation to the National Organic Program (NOP), 

recommending the NOP develop a guidance document to improve the definition of excluded methods 

as applied to the use of genetically engineered materials used in agriculture. This recommendation 

provided improved definitions and attempts to address the increased diversity in types of genetic 

manipulations performed on seed, livestock and other inputs used in agriculture. It is understood 

that genetic engineering is a rapidly expanding field in science at this time, and that the NOSB and the 

NOP will need to continually review new technologies to determine if they would or would not be 

acceptable in organic agriculture. In addition to the recommendation passed by the NOSB in 

November 2016, providing a new framework of definitions for determining a genetic manipulation as 

an excluded method, there was also a discussion document that listed numerous technologies that 

needed further review to determine if they were within the definition of prohibited or excluded 

methods.

Goals of this proposal/document

This proposal for the October 2017 NOSB meeting addresses three of the “To Be Determined” 

methods listed in the discussion document voted upon in November 2016. Using the NOSB’s 

proposed improved definitions of GE excluded methods, the NOSB Materials Subcommittee was able 

to determine if certain technologies should be considered an excluded method and therefore the 

products of these type of technologies would not be allowed in NOP organic agricultural production.

Public comment at numerous NOSB meetings over the years, continues to stress the desire that 

technologies used to manipulate the genetic code, in a manner that is outside traditional plant and 

animal breeding, should remain prohibited in organic production. Among all of the organic 

stakeholders, there is a strong belief that genetic engineering is a threat to the integrity of the organic 

label. Both organic producers and consumers reject the inclusion of genetic engineering in organic 

production.

Criteria

The NOSB previously recommended that biotechnology processes will be reviewed to the following 

criteria to determine if they are excluded methods:

1. The genome is respected as an indivisible entity and technical/physical insertion, deletions,

or rearrangements in the genome is refrained from (e.g. through transmission of isolated 

DNA, RNA, or proteins). In vitro nucleic acid techniques are considered to be invasion into 

the plant genome.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 169/175
2. The ability of a variety to reproduce in a species-specific manner has to be maintained and 

genetic use restriction technologies are refrained from (e.g. Terminator technology).

3. Novel proteins and other molecules produced from modern biotechnology must be

prevented from being introduced into the agro-ecosystem and into the organic food 

supply.

4. The exchange of genetic resources is encouraged. In order to ensure farmers have a legal

avenue to save seed and plant breeders have access to germplasm for research and 

developing new varieties, the application of restrictive intellectual property protection 

(e.g., utility patents and licensing agreements that restrict such uses to living organisms,

their metabolites, gene sequences or breeding processes are refrained from.

Definitions

The NOSB previously recommended the use of the following definitions to determine whether or not 

a method should be/is excluded. 

A. Genetic engineering (GE) – A set of techniques from modern biotechnology (such as altered 

and/or recombinant DNA and RNA) by which the genetic material of plants, animals, organisms,

cells and other biological units are altered and recombined. 

B. Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) – A plant, animal, or organism that is from genetic

engineering as defined here. This term will also apply to products and derivatives from genetically

engineered sources. 

C. Modern Biotechnology – (i) in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant DNA and 

direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or (ii) fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic

family, that overcomes natural, physiological reproductive or recombination barriers, and that

are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection. 

D. Synthetic Biology – A further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that

combines science, technology and engineering to facilitate and accelerate the design, redesign,

manufacture and/or modification of genetic materials, living organisms and biological systems.

(Operational Definition developed by the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Synthetic Biology of 

the UN Convention on Biological Diversity

E. Non-GMO – The term used to describe or label a product that was produced without any of the

excluded methods defined in the organic regulations and corresponding NOP policy. The term

"non-GMO" is consistent with process-based standards of the NOP where preventive practices

and procedures are in place to prevent GMO contamination while recognizing the possibility of

inadvertent presence. 

F. Classical/Traditional plant breeding – Classical (also known as traditional) plant breeding relies on

phenotypic selection, field based testing and statistical methods for developing varieties or

identifying superior individuals from a population, rather than on techniques of modern 

biotechnology. The steps to conduct breeding include: generation of genetic variability in plant

populations for traits of interest through controlled crossing (or starting with genetically diverse

populations), phenotypic selection among genetically distinct individuals for traits of interest,

and stabilization of selected individuals to form a unique and recognizable cultivar. Classical plant

breeding does not exclude the use of genetic or genomic information to more accurately assess

phenotypes, however the emphasis must be on whole plant selection.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 170/175
It is this series of definitions and terminology was used to as the basis to determine the status of the 

many of the previously “To Be Determined” materials.

The NOSB voted on the methods listed below during its April 2016 meeting, and determined these to be 

excluded methods.

Terminology Chart

Method and

synonyms

Types Excluded

Methods 

Criteria

Applied

Notes

Targeted genetic

modification (TagMo)

syn. Synthetic

gene technologies

syn. Genome

engineering

syn. Gene editing

syn. Gene

targeting

Sequence-specific

nucleases (SSNs)

Meganucleases

Zinc finger nuclease

(ZFN) Mutagenesis via

oligonucleotides

CRISPR-Cas system*

TALENs**

Oligonucleotide

directed mutagenesis

(ODM) Rapid Trait

Development System

YES 1, 3, 4 Most of these new

techniques are not

regulated by USDA

and are hard to test

for.

Gene Silencing RNA-dependent DNA

methylation (RdDM)

Silencing via RNAi

pathway RNAi pesticides

YES 1, 2, 4

Accelerated plant

breeding techniques

Reverse Breeding

Genome

Elimination

FasTrack

Fast flowering

YES 1, 2, 4 These may pose an

enforcement

problem for

organics because

they are not

detectable in tests.

Synthetic Biology Creating new DNA

sequences Synthetic

chromosomes Engineered 

biological functions and 

YES 1, 3, 4

Cloned animals and

offspring

Somatic nuclear transfer YES 1, 3

Plastid

Transformation

YES 1, 3, 4

* CRISPR-Cas = Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats and associated protein genes.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 171/175
** TALENs = Transcription activator-like effector nucleases.

The following genetic engineering methods were found to be NOT an excluded method, under the 

proposed new definitions.

Method and

synonyms

Types Excluded

Methods

Criteria 

Applied

Notes

Marker Assisted

Selection

NO

Transduction NO

Discussion

The Materials Subcommittee recognizes the topic of genetic engineering and evaluation of excluded 

methods will remain on our work agenda, to determine if new technologies do or do not meet our 

current definitions. We may also need to incorporate additional criteria into our current definitions in 

order to evaluate new and unique technologies.

We also understand that many of the new technologies do not lend themselves to testing. . However, 

we still believe that the technology should be listed as an excluded method. The Materials 

Subcommittee may put forward another discussion document to aid the NOP in determining how to 

enforce this prohibition when there is no means to test and prove an excluded method was used in 

production.

Proposal

The items below have been determined to be considered an excluded method based upon the criteria 

listed above. 

Terminology

Method and synonyms Types Excluded

Methods

Criteria Used Notes

Cisgenesis YES 1, 3, 4 Even though the genetic 

manipulation may be within the 

same species, this method of 

gene insertion can create 

characteristics that are not 

possible within that individual 

with natural processes and can 

have unintended consequences.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 172/175
Intragenesis YES 1, 3, 4 Even though the genetic 

manipulation may be within 

the same species, this method 

of gene rearrangement can 

create characteristics that are 

not possible within that 

individual with natural 

processes and can have 

unintended consequences.

Agro-infiltration YES 1, 3, 4 In vitro nucleic acids are introduced

to plant leaves to be infiltrated into

them. The resulting plants could not 

have been achieved through natural 

processes and are a manipulation of 

the genetic code within the nucleus 

of the organism.

The following methods will continue to be researched.

Terminology

Method and synonyms Types Exclud

ed

Criteria Used Notes

Protoplast Fusion TBD There are many ways to achieve

protoplast fusion and until the

criteria about cell wall integrity

is discussed, these technologies

cannot yet be evaluated.

Transposons TBD Used in animal vaccines. May be

excluded in some situations but

not others.

Cell Fusion within Plant

Family

TBD Subject of an NOP memo in

2013, the issue of detection of

these varieties needs to be

addressed before further

policies can be adopted.

Embryo rescue in plants TBD Many sources including FiBL1

think this is not excluded but

more study of the methods is

TILLING Eco-TILLING TBD Stands for Targeted Induced Local

Lesions In Genomes. It is a type of

mutagenesis combined with a 

new screening procedure.

 

1 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) http://www.fibl.org/en/switzerland/location-ch.html

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 173/175
Doubled Haploid 

Technology

TBD There are several ways to make

double haploids and some do

not involve genetic engineering

but some do. Difficult to 

impossible to find using tests.

Induced Mutagenesis TBD This is a very broad term and

needs to be divided and classified

based on what induces the

mutations, chemicals, radiation,

or other stresses.

Embryo transfer in

animals

Embryo

rescue in 

animals

TBD FiBL distinguishes embryo rescue

in plants from animals.

Subcommittee Vote: 

Motion to accept the two sections of this proposal as stated above. 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Second: Dan Seitz

Yes: 5 No: 0 Absent: 0 Abstain: 0 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Harriet Behar, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 22, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 174/175
National Organic Standards Board 

Materials/GMO Subcommittee 

Discussion Document on Seed Purity 

August 28, 2017

Introduction

In 2012, 2013 and 2016, the Materials/GMO Subcommittee issued discussion documents on the topic of 

“seed purity” (i.e., keeping seed stock used for organic production free from contamination by GMOs). In 

2014, the subcommittee issued a report summarizing the public comments received in in response to the 

2012 and 2013 discussion documents and the subcommittee’s analysis of the situation. The following are 

the links to these four documents:

April 2016

• Discussion Document: Next Steps for Improving Seed Purity (pdf)

April 2014

• Report: Seed Purity from GMOs (pdf)

April 2013

• Discussion document: GMOs and Seed Purity (pdf)

October 2012

• Discussion document: GMOs and seed purity (pdf)

The Materials/GMO Subcommittee thanks the organic stakeholder community for the extensive input it has 

provided in response to the previously issued discussion documents. 

At its meeting on August 22, 2017, the Subcommittee agreed to develop a seed purity proposal for review 

at the spring 2018 NOSB meeting. In order to develop this proposal, the Subcommittee will draw upon 

previously submitted comments and suggestions, as well as any additional comments it receives in 

response to this discussion document.

Request of the Materials/GMO Subcommittee to Stakeholders for Additional Input

The Materials/GMO Subcommittee requests further stakeholder input on the topic of seed purity via the 

NOSB open comment docket: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS_FRDOC_0001-1600. 

Note that it is not necessary to resubmit comments and suggestions that were previously submitted in 

response to the prior discussion documents, as the NOSB has maintained a complete record of these. 

Please submit only new comments and suggestions. We look forward to receiving your input. 

Motion to accept the discussion document on non-GMO organic seed integrity. 

Motion by: Dan Seitz

Seconded by: Harriet Behar

Yes: 5 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recuse: 0

Approved by Harriet Behar, Materials Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 175/175