UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

) 

 ) 

) 

) 

)

In re:

 

Herba Fructus Natyrore SH.P.K. 

Elbasan, Albania 

 )

 )

 

Administrator’s Decision 

APL-019-22 

This Decision responds to an Appeal (APL-019-22) of a Notice of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Revocation under the National Organic Program (NOP) issued to Herba Fructus 

Natyrore SH.P.K. (HFN) of Elbasan, Albania by EcoCert S.A. (EcoCert), a USDA accredited 

certifying agent. The operation has been deemed not in compliance with the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990 (Act)1

 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic 

regulations.2 

BACKGROUND 

The Act authorizes the Secretary to accredit agents to certify crop, livestock, wild crop, 

and/or handling operations to the USDA organic regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 205). Certifying 

agents also initiate compliance actions to enforce program requirements, as described in section 

205.662, Noncompliance procedure for certified operations. Persons subject to the Act who 

believe they are adversely affected by a noncompliance decision of a certifying agent may appeal 

such decision to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) pursuant to § 205.680 

1

 7 U.S.C. 6501-6522 

2

 7 C.F.R. Part 205 

Page 1 of 11 
Adverse Action Appeals Process – General, and § 205.681, Appeals of the USDA organic 

regulations. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 15, 2019, HFN was certified organic for crops and handling by EcoCert. 

2. On October 29, 2021, EcoCert issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation 

to HFN. 

3. On December 23, 2021, EcoCert denied HFN’s November 21, 2021 request for mediation. 

4. On January 26, 2022, HFN filed an Appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

The USDA organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, Recordkeeping by certified 

operations, state that, “(a) A certified operation must maintain records concerning the 

production, harvesting, and handling of agricultural products that are or that are intended to be 

sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic 

(specified ingredients or food group(s)). (b) Such records must: ... (2) Fully disclose all 

activities and transactions of the certified operation in sufficient detail as to be readily 

understood and audited; ... (4) Be sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Act and the 

regulations in this part.” 

The organic regulations at §205.201, Organic production and handling system plan, state 

that the producer or handler of a certified operation must develop an organic production or 

handling system plan that describes the practices and procedures of the operation, the 

recordkeeping system implemented by the operation, and additional information deemed 

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

Page 2 of 11 
 

 

 

-

-

-

- - -

The organic regulations at §205.400, General requirements for certification, state that, “A 

person seeking to receive or maintain organic certification under the regulations in this part must: 

(a) Comply with the Act and applicable organic production and handling regulations in this part; 

(b) Establish, implement, and update annually an organic production or handling system plan ... 

(d) Maintain all records applicable to the organic operation for not less than 5 years beyond their 

creation ...” Additionally, the organic regulations at §205.406, Continuation of certification, 

state that, “(a) To continue certification, a certified operation must annually pay the certification 

fees and submit the following information, as applicable, to the certifying agent: (1) An updated 

organic production or handling system plan which includes: (i) A summary statement, supported 

by documentation, detailing any deviations from, changes to, modifications to, or other 

amendments made to the previous year’s organic system plan during the previous year; and (ii) 

Any additions or deletions to the previous year’s organic system plan, intended to be undertaken 

in the coming year, detailed pursuant to §205.200; (2) Any additions to or deletions from the 

information required pursuant to §205.401(b); ... (4) Other information as deemed necessary by 

the certifying agent to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part.” 

HFN was certified organic for crops and handling on July 15, 2019, specifically herbal 

and medicinal plants. In mid-December 2020, HFN shipped Cistus Incanus Organic from Batch 

HB-80-112, to its customer as seen on 

HFN’s Packing List and the December 17, 2020 Certificate of Inspection. Packing 

List-Invoice of February 8, 2021 shows that subsequently sent the HFN product to its 

client sampled and tested the product and the GBA laboratory 

(b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4) (b) (4)

report of February 26, 2021, revealed a finding of Glyphosate at 0.49 mg/kg in the BIO (organic) 

Cistus Teekraut (German for tea herb). 

(b) (4)

notified 

(b) (4)

 of the finding, and 

(b) (4)

Page 3 of 11 
 

-

-

- -

- -

sent an additional retained sample for testing. The Eurofins laboratory report of March 12, 2021 

conducted for 

(b) (4)

 directly, revealed a finding of Glyphosate at 0.19 mg/kg in the BIO 

Cistusblatter (German for Cistus leaves). 

(b) (4)

 reported the findings to the Austrian organic control authorities on March 18, 

2021, as seen on the Austria Bio Garantie GmbH report, which identifies the Bio Cistusblatter as 

INT20102209, HFN as the handler, 

(b) (4)

 as the importer, and 

(b) (4)

 as a handler. 

(b) (4)

Packing List-Invoice of February 8, 2021 to 

(b) (4)

shows the product identified as 

INT20102209, originating in Albania. Subsequently, Germany’s Federal Office for Agriculture 

and Food issued alert INEU-173/2021 on March 19, 2021, for the Cistus leaves with 

identification INT20102209 traced to HFN. 

EcoCert investigated Germany’s alert. HFN had previously submitted, to EcoCert, a 

Primoris laboratory report 20/007748 - dated November 3, 2020, for sampled Herba Cistus 

Incanus from Batch HB-80-112, which didn’t show any pesticide residue. However, on 

November 26, 2020, EcoCert wrote HFN stating that the analysis for which the November 3, 

2020 Primoris lab report was issued, wasn’t complete, as testing hadn’t been done for all 

required ‘molecules.’ EcoCert informed HFN of the additional prohibited substances for which 

analysis of the sample was needed, including Glyphosate; and that it couldn’t issue the 

Certificate of Inspection (COI) until the required testing had been done. On November 30, 2020, 

EcoCert reiterated the need for additional analysis of the sample; and that it couldn’t issue the 

COI until it was proven that the Organic Herba Cistus Incancus wasn’t contaminated. EcoCert 

stated to NOP that it has received multiple European Commission OFIS (Organic Farming 

Information System) alerts regarding HFN in the past 2 years, and therefore, has been requesting 

sampling and analysis of each of HFN’s products and lots prior to issuing COIs. 

Page 4 of 11 
On December 11, 2020, HFN submitted to EcoCert a December 10, 2020 Primoris lab 

report 20/008901 - showing that no residues had been detected on the retested Batch HB-80-112. 

Based on receipt of this second Primoris lab report, EcoCert issued the COI on December 17, 

2020. However, after receiving the German Federal Office alert, EcoCert contacted Primoris to 

verify the previously submitted laboratory reports. Primoris informed EcoCert in a September 3, 

2021 email that the laboratory reports nos. 20/007748 and 20/008901 regarding Batch HB-80-

112 were not valid and hadn’t been issued by Primoris. 

EcoCert then attempted to verify other laboratory reports allegedly from Primoris which 

HFN had submitted, and based on which EcoCert had issued other COIs. EcoCert sent Primoris 

a chart of the 17 COIs it had issued to HFN from December 17, 2020 to July 14, 2021, 

identifying the HFN Lots and the Primoris laboratory reports submitted by HFN for each. This 

chart is seen in a July 1, 2022 email to NOP. However, Primoris stated in a September 28, 2021 

email to EcoCert that all the analysis reports identified in the chart as being issued by Primoris, 

and submitted to EcoCert by HFN as support for the 17 COIs, are “not authentical.” In an email 

of October 1, 2021 to EcoCert, Primoris identified additional specific laboratory reports that it 

found were forgeries. EcoCert submitted a chart showing all the lab reports that had been 

forged. 

When EcoCert contacted HFN, it admitted falsifying the Primoris analytical results and 

stated that it had done so due to time constraints and the need to obtain the COI. HFN had stated 

in an email to EcoCert on November 27, 2020, while waiting for the COI for the shipment 

including Batch HB-80-112 of Herba Cistus Incanus, that its “situation is very critical in relation 

to our customers ... several contracts has (sic) been canceled by our customer (sic) ... because of 

the long delay caused by Covid-19 pandemic.” HFN again referenced the urgency of receiving 

Page 5 of 11 
the COI after it was told by EcoCert that the products needed further analysis, stating that, “we 

have to lose again time, and almost all our customers needs (sic) the goods before 10 

December...In this way we risk to lose all the contracts because we need almost 7-10 days for 

the report analysis, and after that we need to wait for several days for your final approval.” HFN 

subsequently submitted the forged December 10, 2020 Primoris lab report, which led to EcoCert 

issuing the December 17, 2020 COI. 

EcoCert states that all the laboratory reports submitted by HFN since October 20, 2020, 

representing 57 lab tests, were forgeries. Given that 17 COIs were issued based on the forged 

documents, EcoCert issued a Notice of Noncompliance and Proposed Revocation to HFN on 

October 29, 2021. EcoCert stated that the noncompliances are willful violations of the USDA 

organic regulations, and therefore, it proposed a revocation of HFN’s crop and handling scopes 

of certification. It is noted that although EcoCert didn’t issue a Notice of Noncompliance prior 

to issuance of the combined notice, the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.662(c) state that 

when correction of a noncompliance isn’t possible, “the notification of noncompliance and the 

proposed suspension or revocation of certification may be combined in one notification.” 

Further, the regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.662(d) state that if the certifying agent “has reason to 

believe that a certified operation has willfully violated the Act or regulations in this part, the 

certifying agent ... shall send the certified operation a notification of proposed suspension or 

revocation of the entire operation or a portion of the operation, as applicable to the 

noncompliance.” HFN’s repeated forgery of laboratory analysis and submission of those forged 

documents to obtain COIs represents a major noncompliance and a willful violation of the 

organic regulations. As such, AMS agrees that EcoCert was justified in issuing the combined 

notice. EcoCert also subsequently rejected HFN’s mediation request on December 23, 2021, 

Page 6 of 11 
-

-

- -

-

-

- -

-

-

stating that HFN didn’t provide any new relevant information to address the noncompliances. 

EcoCert also noted that in the mediation request, HFN stated it had changed its sampling and 

testing procedures without EcoCert’s approval, and again admitted forging the laboratory 

reports. 

HFN stated in its Appeal of January 26, 2022, and additional letter of February 21, 2022 

that Batch HB-80-112 of Herba Cistus Incanus met all requirements at the time it was shipped to 

its client 

(b) (4)

, and that it even conducted additional analysis per a November 26, 2020 

request by EcoCert, discussed above. HFN contends that something happened to the product 

after it was shipped to 

(b) (4)

; and there is no definitive proof that HFN used prohibited 

substances on the Cistus Incanus Herba Organic crop or in its handling. HFN alleges that 

(b) (4)

 changed/manipulated the product, as it/HFN had shipped the 5,000 kg to 

(b) (4)

in 

100 bags of 50 kg each, as seen on HFN’s Packing List of December 16, 2020, and the COI. 

However, 

(b) (4)

returned the rejected product in 625 letter size packets of 8 kg each, under 

identification INT20102209, as seen on 

(b) (4)

November 26, 2021 Packing List. Further, a 

(b) (4)

 Packing List-Invoice of February 8, 2021 to its client 

(b) (4)

references INT20102209 

with 5,000 kg in 8 kg sacks, documenting that 

(b) (4)

repackaged the product shortly after its 

receipt from HFN and weeks before 

(b) (4)

 had it tested. Batch HB-80-112 also 

remained in 

(b) (4)

 possession for almost a year. 

HFN further states it sampled and tested the returned product, as well as the product 

remaining in the original batch, which it still held. HFN submitted Primoris laboratory report 

22/000312, dated January 31, 2022, showing the analysis of original remaining product from 

Batch HB-80-112 didn’t reveal any prohibited substances. However, Primoris laboratory report 

22/000313, dated January 31, 2022, shows the analysis of the returned product identified as 

Page 7 of 11 
-

- -

-

-

-

-- -

-

- -

-

-

- --

-- -

INT20102209 and revealed the presence of Glyphosate at 0.35 mg/kg; and Folpet (Folpet and 

Phtalimide combined) at 0.064 mg/kg. EcoCert told HFN that the 2 lab reports were not 

accepted as they were ‘after the fact.’ AMS also finds that the authenticity of the January 31, 

2022 lab reports from Primoris for the original remaining product from Batch HB-80-112 and the 

returned product, hasn’t been confirmed. HFN submitted these lab reports to substantiate its 

contention that the product became contaminated while in 

(b) (4)

 possession; however, 

EcoCert’s finding of the falsification of numerous lab reports calls into question the authenticity 

of these reports. 

NOP contacted 

(b) (4)

 regarding its repackaging of Batch HB-80-112. 

(b) (4)

isn’t 

certified organic under NOP standards but is certified under the European Commission 

standards. 

(b) (4)

stated that the shipment of Organic Herba Cistus Incanus arrived at their 

facility on December 21, 2020; however, 

(b) (4)

personnel were on an extended break and 

didn’t return to the office until the end of January 2021. 

(b) (4)

stated it repacked the product 

in 8 kg paper bags, because the delivered 50 kg bags were double the size allowed at their 

facility and that of their client 

(b) (4)

. (b) (4)confirmed that it shipped the product to 

(b) (4)

on 

February 8, 2021; that 

(b) (4)

 sampled and tested the product, finding the presence of Glyphosate 

and notifying 

(b) (4)

; and it/

(b) (4)

 tested their retained sample, also found Glyphosate, 

and notified the Austrian authorities. 

(b) (4)

 acknowledges not returning the product to HFN 

until November 2021, stating the delay was due to HFN’s process for refunding 

(b) (4)

, and 

that the product remained at 

(b) (4)

’s facility after its return by 

(b) (4)

. (b) (4)has cancelled 

all future business with HFN. However, as seen above, there is no evidence that the product was 

contaminated with Glyphosate during the repacking process or at any time while in the 

possession of 

(b) (4)

or 

(b) (4)

. Further, 

(b) (4)

 promptly sampled and tested the product, as did 

Page 8 of 11 
 

- - -

(b) (4)

 when informed of 

(b) (4)

findings, and 

(b) (4)

promptly reported the Glyphosate 

findings to the Austrian authorities. Additionally, the Primoris lab reports submitted by HFN to 

EcoCert to obtain the COI containing Batch HB-80-112, were falsified, and therefore, 

contamination of Batch HB-80-112 by HFN can’t be ruled out. 

Additionally, EcoCert’s allegations against HFN go beyond the finding of a prohibited 

substance on Batch HB-80-112. EcoCert’s investigation of the contamination of Batch HB-80-

112 revealed that all 57 Primoris laboratory reports submitted by HFN since October 20, 2020, 

and upon which EcoCert issued 17 COIs, were forgeries and not issued by Primoris; and HFN 

admitted falsifying the lab reports. HFN stated in its Mediation Request and in its Appeal that it 

changed its internal sampling procedure to allow joint samples of different products when 

additional analysis was requested and/or for products with a “very low risk” of contamination. 

HFN then used a “laboratory format as template for the company to communicate the results 

separately for each specific products part of join (sic) samples.” HFN stated it was a “human 

mistake” to use a lab report template in this manner, and shouldn’t be considered fraud, as it 

didn’t intend to hide anything from its certifier. HFN stated it has now conducted individual 

analysis for the products listed under COIs which Eco withdrew, and listed those COIs with 

customer name, products, lot numbers, analysis date, and lab report numbers in its Appeal. HFN 

also stated that it has not received any notice from its clients that any of the products covered by 

the COIs were unacceptable; and it has requested its clients to send their internal control 

procedures to HFN. 

To support its contentions, HFN submitted laboratory reports it received from a client 

regarding a shipment of organic Ruscus Aculeatus radix, for which analysis of samples found 

substances below the limit of quantification. HFN also proposes the corrective actions of 

Page 9 of 11 
engaging an expert to monitor its organic ‘projects,’ conducting internal audits, training for 

employees, changing internal procedures regarding sampling and the use of laboratory report 

formats, and providing a detailed quarterly report to its certifier. However, the re-analyses of 

products; laboratory reports from clients and the internal control procedures of clients, even if 

they were submitted; and HFN’s proposed corrective action, don’t negate the actions of HFN. 

CONCLUSION 

Evidence substantiates that HFN violated the organic regulations at 7 C.F.R. §205.103, 

Recordkeeping by certified operations; 7 C.F.R. §205.201, Organic production and handling 

system plan; 7 C.F.R. §205.400, General requirements for certification; and 7 C.F.R. § 205.406, 

Continuation of certification. HFN falsified approximately 57 laboratory reports which it 

submitted to its certifier to obtain 17 Certificates of Inspection, after which HFN shipped the 

identified products to clients. This constitutes fraud and a willful violation of the organic 

regulations. Possible delays in meeting clients’ needs do not justify or excuse the deviation from 

the requirements of the organic regulations or justify the falsification of laboratory analyses 

reports used to obtain Certificates of Inspection from its certifier. HFN’s actions substantiate a 

failure to comply with or maintain compliance with the organic regulations and therefore, HFN 

can’t remain certified. 

DECISION 

HFN’s January 26, 2022 Appeal of the October 29, 2021 Notice of Noncompliance and 

Proposed Revocation is denied. HFN’s crop and handling certification is to be revoked. 

Pursuant to the organic regulations at 7 CFR §205.662(f), HFN is ineligible to receive 

Page 10 of 11 
y _________________________________ 

certification for a period of 5 years following the date of revocation. Once its certification is 

revoked, HFN may not sell, label, or represent any products as organic, or handle any products 

identified as organic. 

Additionally, attached to this formal Administrator’s Decision denying HFN’s Appeal is 

a Request for Hearing form. HFN has thirty (30) days to request an administrative hearing 

before an Administrative Law Judge. 

Done at Washington, D.C., on this _____ 11th

day of ________________, 2022. August

Digitally signed by BRUCE BRUCE SUMMERS 

Date: 2022.08.11 09:16:59 SUMMERS -04'00'

Bruce Summers 

Administrator 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Page 11 of 11